On Saturday’s protest
The civil groups’ grand parade on Saturday unabashedly revealed the banality of greediness in the name of being good public servants.
For one thing, appeals such as rejecting defilement and demanding respect are fairly vague and empty gestures; for another, it totally misses out on the value of intergenerational justice and the institutional problems of the current pension system.
Dignity played an insignificant role in the parade. During the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) early reign of Taiwan, public jobs were granted high rewards because they were unwanted. However, with the economic recession, being a public servant now means to remain protected and possibly lead a better life in retirement.
In this sense, public servants nowadays have a higher reputation than before, which is easy to see from the high enrollment rate for the national examinations.
The struggle among public employees and other jobs has long existed in Taiwan. Yet what keeps the civic groups silent is the government manages to maintain their huge benefits package. Not until recently have these groups been stung by the call for reform.
Dignity merely serves as an excuse to cover indignation about individual interests.
When the society arrives at the point where there is a huge deficit in the pension system, what we see from Saturday’s rally is that public employee groups refuse to admit that they have made themselves a target for revolution.
They pride themselves for being “public” servants, but they are not willing to undertake the responsibility of improving social justice. They do not even consider that maintaining their preferences would mean depriving the interests of the younger generation.
It is one thing to fight for one’s own rights, but it is another thing to claim one’s rights legitimately. If one’s rights are based on overriding others, the inequality and the divide will only continue to deepen.
As a young teacher, I strongly advocate for the reform of the pension system. How can we teach our next generation the virtue of integrity without setting ourselves as an example?
Annie Chuang
Taipei
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath