An article about a graduate from National Tsing Hua University going to work in Australia as a “migrant Taiwanese laborer” or tailao (台勞) has gained a lot of attention recently. Perng Ming-hwei (彭明輝), a retired professor from National Tsing Hua University, recently spoke out for the younger generation and said that he believed that vast amounts of wealth are controlled by those born in the 1950s and 1960s and that today’s youth can only work as slaves. He also wrote about how the younger generation is often described as being weak and incapable of taking on responsibility for the predicament they find themselves in now.
The latest edition of Bloomberg Businessweek featured an article about the cost of higher education in the US. It said that after 30 years of development, the total amount of student loans given out in the US in 2010 had surpassed the total amount of credit card loans and, as of last year, it was even higher than the total amount of car loans.
One young person mentioned in the article said that each month, she has to pay back up to US$1,400 in student loans, which is more than she makes working in a non-governmental organization, and that she cannot see any future for herself.
Taiwan is the same as the US in that both have a serious problem with people from different generations receiving very different treatment. Those who benefit from the current labor retirement system in the US and Taiwan are either those who are already retired or those who are planning to retire.
Taiwan’s current national health insurance system and the one by which it will be replaced when it is eventually restructured benefits the older generation.
As for land development, the government has put economics before the environment and this is something for which future generations will have to pay the price.
Meanwhile, in an attempt to get votes, the government has done everything possible to set up all types of annual pensions and promises for social welfare for which taxpayers will ultimately have to pick up the tab.
When Taiwanese who were born in the 1950s and 1960s were looking for employment, the economy was just starting to take off. On the other hand, Taiwanese born in the 1970s and 1980s and even those born in the 1990s now face a number of extra challenges caused by globalization, an economic recession, as well as a broader, worldwide Chinese community. They also face much higher housing costs and more pressure to consume than previous generations. The aging population is a ticking time bomb, as in the future, the few will be supporting the many.
The accumulation of knowledge and education are where young people gain competitiveness. However, in order to get Taiwanese universities into the list of top 100 universities in the world and to show that those involved in academic administration are doing something, the nation’s higher-education system places emphasis on the publication of academic papers in all kinds of academic journals, while completely ignoring the need to develop young students’ skills and competitiveness.
A few Taiwanese universities do get heavy annual subsidies from the Ministry of Education and claim they are moving up in the annual rankings of universities worldwide; however, now we have some of these graduates going over to Australia to work as butchers. Are we supposed to believe that this was the original intention of the ministry’s “Five-Year, 50 billion” program that was supposed to improve universities and their international ranking?
In my case, I got into the law faculty of my choice with top marks. However, once I started practicing law, I found that the competition brought about by globalization, my poor foreign-language skills and a lack of practical experience meant that I had no way of even setting foot in court or a legal practice. I could not even compose a legal complaint or a legal attestation letter. I had to learn everything from my employers and through self-study.
I felt that the nation’s legal education system was a complete waste of a student’s life and the interests of everyone else involved. With such a low-quality education system, it is little wonder Taiwanese schools cannot charge higher tuition fees.
It is not like Taiwan does not offer employment opportunities at all, nor are Taiwanese limited to only finding work here in Taiwan. The problem is that in a globalized job market, specialization and the ability to study hard are a necessity and Taiwan’s higher education system fails to equip students with these.
Taiwan’s higher education is merely concerned with getting schools on the charts of worldwide rankings and does not show enough regard to the most important people involved in the system — the students.
The employment market for Taiwanese is in fact the entire globe and the competition they face is also global in nature. A higher-education system that fails to focus on students themselves as individuals is the root of the problem behind the inequalities between the different generations of Taiwanese that we are now seeing.
Those of us who were born in the 1970s and 1980s are in a hard position now. However, we also have a greater responsibility to reflect on the high-handed, tyrannical actions and waste shown by the older generation. We need to work hard to establish horizontal and vertical types of distributive justice so as to guarantee that current students and academics, as well as the next generation, will not have to go through the same misfortune. This is the only responsible thing that can be done.
As for those few of the older generation who control vast resources and have vested interests, I don’t see any point in putting our hope in them at all.
Carol Lin is an associate professor at National Chiao Tung University’s Graduate Institute of Technology Law and a former lawyer.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did