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
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS