In the past five years, Taiwanese have heard the word “poverty” come into increasing use and have begun to take more notice of it as a society. In 2006, we started hearing of the “M-shaped society,” a description of the phenomenon of extremes of rich and poor where the middle class has been assimilated into either side. In 2007, people were talking about the “new poor” and in 2008, the “working poor” — people who have jobs, but are nevertheless subsisting on or below the poverty line. Then, in 2009 the talk was of the “NEETs,” an acronym for “not in employment, education or training.”
More recently, we have been discussing the “young poor,” to refer to the younger generation who are now living on less in real terms than the previous generation at their age. We are using all kinds of words to describe the phenomenon of poverty. And it’s not just a case of “there, but for the grace of God go I”: Its reverberations are political, too.
In response, the government likes quoting all sorts of statistics to show the public that there is, contrary to appearances, economic growth, that incomes are demonstrably on the increase and that people have nothing to fear. How is it that we have come to this point, in which one so clearly contradicts the other, and in which the two sides of the argument seem irreconcilable?
The answer, it seems, is that for the majority of Taiwanese, the poverty issue is not so much a material issue and more an emotive one. That is to say, the thing that troubles more people than poverty in material terms is what we might call the “poverty of hope.”
So what does it mean when one talks of the poverty of hope? Consider people of any social class, who are powerless to change the situation in which they find themselves. They are likely to think to themselves: “You know, no matter what I do, things will never get better.” Such feelings of hopelessness are not restricted to the unemployed or the poor, they can also strike temporary workers, the self-employed, blue-collar workers dissatisfied with their circumstances and people who have tried to move into another field, but were ultimately frustrated in their attempts.
As some may have already surmised, the aforementioned groups are larger, as a percentage of the population, in Taiwan than in other, more developed countries, which is another major consideration for the public. The psychological state that this induces in some people makes it increasingly difficult for them to engage meaningfully in society. If society has no need of them, they feel that they have no need of society. This phenomenon is known as social exclusion and it can become a positive feedback loop in which the situation only deteriorates over time.
In other words, people become increasingly devoid of hope. In Japan, social scientists have been talking of a “hope gap society” in which even feelings of hope have become polarized and unequally distributed in society.
This is to be felt even more keenly among the group of people who will be voting for the first time in the upcoming election, as they have little recourse but to extend their time in education, whiling away what should otherwise be the productive years of their youth in university campuses. The situation has created a new generation of people whose reality is informed by inertia, indifference and despondency, in what is undoubtedly a form of social exclusion, for without a sense of belonging one naturally also feels a poverty of hope.
Once we have got this far, it is quite clear that young people need more than financial assistance in starting a family, finding a job and getting a place to live. Government subsidies are meant as an emergency measure to get people out of a tight spot, but they do little to set people on the path to financial security.
The other side of this is to give people somewhere to work, so society can benefit from all that latent productivity. If people are fit to work, give them the means to do so — it will give them a sense of achievement, and with a sense of achievement comes hope. This will help them embark on a virtuous circle.
Few people would suggest that we are not materially better off now than we were back in the 1980s. Why, then, do things appear to be so difficult and why are we so fearful? The point is that the majority of people are not so much preoccupied with material poverty as they are with the poverty of hope. This is tied up with the inertia, indifference and despondency we talked of before, and uncertainty about the true status of the country in which one lives.
The formation of a healthy society can only occur when we are sure of the direction the country is taking so that the young can find their feet. Then hope will be able to grow. In this presidential election, neither side can afford to neglect first-time voters. The thing is, do first-time voters know what it is they need?
Shao Hsuan-lei is an adjunct professor of political science at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations