System breeds mistreatment
The article about the President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration’s huffing and puffing over the arrest of its official by the FBI and disrespect for Taiwanese sovereignty and diplomatic immunity says a lot of what is wrong with Taiwan (“Light shed on Taiwanese official’s arrest,” Nov. 13, page 3).
Though only accusations for now, it is clear that here in Taiwan people care more about saving face and the “poor” official, and much less about what the official did or how it reflects on Taiwan.
Her behavior is all too common. A domestic helper is hired and then treated as property or an object, abused, mistreated, overworked and underpaid. The same pattern can be seen almost daily here in Taiwan as well. Domestic helpers or caregivers are treated as slaves who should be grateful for the chance they are given by their employers. Not all employers are bad or abuse the system, but from personal experience I know more of them verge on the negative side than those who follow their contract.
Domestic helpers who are hardly paid anything because their employers deduct money from their pay for food and even lodging; employers refusing to pay health insurance; caregivers that get only a few hours a month off, if that. These are not isolated cases. Domestic helpers are easy targets because they live and work mostly alone in the home of their employer. I know more than a dozen Vietnamese and Indonesian women who are living this hell right now. When I bring these cases to the attention of the Council of Labor Affairs, they are in no hurry to investigate.
The main problem here is that a foreign blue-collar worker has very limited scope for recourse. In Hong Kong, an employer would think twice before underpaying a maid or not giving her her allotted days off, because there is an official place where she can air her grievances and get a fair hearing. In Taiwan, chances are that if the domestic helper complains, the system will turn against her and she’ll end up losing her job, be detained or deported with no way to pay back the money she owes the broker in her home country.
It is time Taiwan showed it is an almost-developed country and treats everyone the same no matter what their position is. The government cannot control individual behavior of its citizens, but at least it could remove the official prejudice against foreign blue-collar workers. Taiwan needs them as much as they need Taiwan to build a better life for themselves and their families in their home country.
As for Jacqueline Liu (劉姍姍): Sorry, but from my personal experiences in Taiwan and what I have read, you are guilty as charged.
Geert Anthonis
Kaohsiung
Who informed Kane?
In the days following the “sell out Taiwan” op-ed in the New York Times on Nov. 10, there has been broad criticism of the logic of Paul Kane, a former international security fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School. The moral and impractical aspects of Kane’s op-ed have been well documented. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that China’s reaction to such a proposal would be “Taiwan is already ours and the US still owes us US$1.14 trillion.”
It is curious how little the US media has delved into the reasoning behind such a ludicrous piece of writing. Nat Bellocchi questioned the thought process behind this op-ed on the part of both the New York Times and Kane (“Selling out Taiwan not an option for the US,” Nov. 20, page 8). While I certainly agree with Bellocchi’s outrage at the thought of selling out a free country for a defined amount of money, I would take his line of questioning up another level.
Who on the New York Times editorial board made the decision that such a flawed piece of work should be printed? It is one thing to have thought-provoking ideas, but the Kane op-ed is somewhere between a poorly conceived pick-up line destined for instant ridicule and a devious telemarketing scam that deserves a quick hang-up.
As for Kane’s motivation, I find it difficult to believe that someone of his background could write something of such questionable quality. My guess is that he is a shill for some agenda and simply wrote his name to take the flak for this trial balloon. An unsophisticated attempt to influence by a naive pro-China interest group? A devious attempt by US President Barack Obama’s administration to gauge public support for another source of spending? Penned and approved in a vacuum? I doubt it.
Carl Chiang
Richmond, California
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
Taiwan no longer wants to merely manufacture the chips that power artificial intelligence (AI). It aims to build the software, platforms and services that run on them. Ten major AI infrastructure projects, a national cloud computing center in Tainan, the sovereign language model Trustworthy AI Dialogue Engine, five targeted industry verticals — from precision medicine to smart agriculture — and the goal of ranking among the world’s top five in computing power by 2040: The roadmap from “Silicon Island” to “Smart Island” is drawn. The question is whether the western plains, where population, industry and farmland are concentrated, have the water and
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
RSS