Singling out some teachers
So, let us get this straight. The government has amended its laws targeting a specific group of foreign teachers in Taiwan, citing a reaction to a particular event: “The recent amendments to the laws regulating cram schools and their teachers were precipitated by the widely publicized suicide of the 26-year-old Taiwanese writer Lin Yi-han (林奕含), who in April of this year committed suicide, a decade after allegedly being sexually assaulted by her Taiwanese cram school teacher.” [Taiwan News, July 5, 2017]
Specifically, all cram-school teachers are required to provide criminal background checks. The new amendment does not include teachers in international private schools or public schools, or other foreign or domestic workers, only those working in “cram schools,” as they are termed in Taiwan.
The question is why all foreigners seeking employment should not be required to provide a criminal background check prior to arriving in Taiwan? At the very least, anyone seeking to work with children in Taiwan should be checked.
I am quite certain that no one would disagree with such a policy.
One must consider that it might have been a more effective precautionary measure to prevent this crime from occurring in the first place.
Why, because of one tragic event, is a single group being targeted, as if to ensure they are not deviants similar to the perpetrator in this case?
When a deranged Chinese man, Li Weiguang (李偉光), who immigrated to Canada in 2001, murdered and beheaded a Canadian citizen on a Greyhound bus in 2008 because he heard voices in his head, the response of the Canadian government was not to decree a new law mandating Chinese immigrants specifically to have mental health checks.
Such a reaction would be deemed unconstitutional and undemocratic.
While foreign teachers and workers in Taiwan are somewhat accustomed to being legally singled out in contrast to Taiwanese nationals, the subdividing and targeting of this specific group based upon one crime ostensibly paints the cram-school teaching community with the same brush.
If that is how the government defines the word “democracy,” then perhaps a different meaning should be taught for that word.
George Baker
Kaohsiung
Imagining community
Even though the Taipei Summer Universiade ended last Wednesday, the excitement here still lingers.
This is the first time I have seen an international event in Taiwan unanimously connect millions of hearts in a “Taiwanese imagined community” — one beyond party divides, beyond ideological differences.
Even the pro-China, or at least the pro-KMT, media such as CTITV livestreamed the “Taiwan’s Heroes Parade” in the wake of this effervescent global sports event.
After the riot of the pension reform protesters, most netizens, both pan-blue and green, had a strong aversion to the protests, blaming the protesters’ unabashed manner for the unsuccessful opening ceremony.
The protesters’ excuses became all the more absurd as they received no support, physical or emotional — no matter how grand the appeal of their claim.
However, the riot serves as an emotional summons to the national pride of the Taiwanese imagined community, as the nation’s pride suffers an “enemy” intrusion.
Criticism of the riot came not only from political media outlets but also from social media such as Facebook groups on Chinese calligraphy and translation. For the first time, I saw Facebook comments set aside Taiwan’s ideological divides.
Sarcastic comments about the success of the Taipei Universiade were generally made by Chinese netizens, making apparent the emotional gap between Taiwanese and Chinese netizens — this gap distinguishes Taiwanese from the Chinese.
The term “Taiwanese imagined community” includes not only the pan-green and blue Taiwanese netizens, but also foreigners without Taiwanese citizenship. Foreigners — including Canadians, French, and Germans — clicked “Like” on Facebook as the Taiwanese athletes’ wins were posted.
As I watch advertisements for Chinese propaganda movies, such as Wolf Warriors 2, I always feel indifferent toward the underlying political symbols.
In Europe, people call me “Chinese.” I strongly dislike this term. It stands for the enormous divide between Taiwanese and Chinese, and remains a symbol of what distinguishes us from each other.
The Taipei Universiade successfully boosted the national pride of Team Taiwan, collectively strengthening and solidifying the Taiwanese imagined community, both at home and abroad.
After this successful event, I sincerely hope that the gap between pan-green and blue can be repaired a little. Hand in hand, heart by heart, let us work together for Team Taiwan and for our future.
Chuang Shih-hung
Kaohsiung
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