Labor participation gap
Currently, Taiwan’s unemployment hovers at about 4 percent. That is amazingly low from a European perspective. However, the figure stands in somewhat strange contrast to the nation’s labor-force participation rate.
The latter statistic is rarely quoted: People tend to look at this figure only when there is something misleading about the unemployment number.
France’s participation rate was just 56 percent in 2012. This means, in effect, that the social consequences of unemployment in France are much worse than people might assume from the unemployment statistics alone.
As is common throughout Europe today, many people are not working who do not count as “unemployed” — including students over the age of 15 and retirees, but also people who are jobless for various reasons who are not counted as unemployed in its technical definition.
Meanwhile, in Asia, there are some contrasting examples of very high participation rates: Thailand was at 72 percent, Lao at 78 percent and Cambodia 83 percent in 2012.
Those are countries where, really, anyone who is able-bodied can find work, even amid widespread poverty and political instability.
However, Taiwan, with its 4 percent unemployment rate, had a 58.52 percent labor-force participation rate as of January, scarcely better than France.
Although the nation has large numbers of retirees and university students, these categories cannot entirely explain the gap between the 4 percent unemployment rate and the under-59 percent participation rate.
Evidently, many people here are jobless, but are not counted as unemployed.
Eisel Mazard
Taitung
Marine merger misguided
The government’s announcement that it would merge the marine corps into the army has sparked enormous debate and controversy online and on TV news, as well as in current affairs shows. The issue has drawn much attention and been extensively discussed by experts, veterans and TV hosts.
While neighboring countries are reinforcing and increasing the budget for their marine forces, what is our government doing?
The marines are not asking for any privileges: We are only asking for an equal opportunity to contribute and devote ourselves to the defense and security of our nation.
We are “loyal forever” (Semper Fidelis) to our country, but how hardhearted is our mother country that it even thinks of abandoning us?
To the majority of marine veterans, the merger with the army is equal to the dissolution of the marines. Why? Some specialties of the marine corps cannot simply be replaced or substituted by the army.
It is not that the total combat capacities of the marines are superior to the army’s, but the missions we carry out, as well as our way of training, are almost completely different from each other. Amphibious tanks, like the AAVP-7, have no counterpart or even similar sector in the army. Veteran marines cannot help but keep wondering what will happen to these precious and costly national assets.
In particular, the heritage and morale of marine traditions are invisible weapons. They just cannot be replaced or substituted by anything or anyone else.
As a marine veteran, I sincerely request our government to reconsider and reassess the decision to merge the marine corps with the army.
Mark Tsai
Ashfield, Australia
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS