Today, June 16th, is the International Day of Family Remittances. Of all the days on the UN calendar dedicated to raising awareness on a variety of issues, this day is not the most famous.
The Day of Family Remittances does not enjoy wide recognition as do International Human Rights Day (Dec. 10), World Oceans Day (June 8) or most of the 100-plus days dedicated to causes deemed worthy of attention. When was the last time anyone heard about family remittances on the news?
However, the obscurity of the International Day of Family Remittances does not mean it is not important. Quite the opposite.
Remittances, hard-earned by migrant workers abroad, can become the engine of domestic economic growth. In many countries, remittances outpace the inflow of official development assistance.
According to the UN, remittance flows to low and middle-income countries reached US$466 billion in 2017.
That is more than three times the amount of official development assistance that reached those countries in the same year.
Remittances have the power to change the lives of people back home. In individual households, remittances provide the consistent income flow that allows family members to plan ahead. Many can think about starting a small business, or invest in education for themselves or their children. These possibilities mean social mobility, the fulfilment of many parents’ dreams that their children’s lives will be better than their own.
It is for all these reasons that family remittances are seen as a vehicle to help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 “one family at a time.”
The SDGs set out a global blueprint for a more sustainable and inclusive future. Amid this agenda is Target 10.c calling for the transaction costs of migrant remittances to be brought down to less than 3 percent as a proportion of the total amount remitted.
It also calls to eliminate situations where the cost of remittances is above 5 percent. We are not there yet. Global figures show remittance costs to be between 6 percent for post offices and money transfer operators and 11 percent for commercial banks.
The case for lowering remittance costs is simple math. High transaction costs lower the total amount that reaches recipients, which enables them to invest in their food security, shelter, health, education and livelihoods. Savings take longer. Simply put, the ability of remittances to change lives and achieve the SDGs is reduced and delayed by high transaction costs.
For the more than 700,000 regular migrant workers in Taiwan, remittance is a regular event. For many, it justifies their prolonged separations from their families.
Yet the logistics of money transfers is not straightforward. Many migrant workers do not use banks due to language barriers and costly fees of NT$400 to NT$1,100. This is simply too high for the majority of migrant workers, whose remittances tend to be small amounts sent at regular intervals. Others use underground vendors who might offer convenience and lower costs than banks, but this might come at an increased risk of financial loss for the sender and money laundering for regulatory authorities.
In January last year, the Financial Supervisory Commission approved two financial technology apps to facilitate cross-border family remittances. The two apps lower charges to between NT$150 to NT$300 per transaction.
In approving these two apps, the commission said that it understands regular banking services are hard for migrant workers to access, and it hopes that advancements in fintech will provide a convenient and affordable solution for migrant remittances.
While this is a positive sign that the government is improving the situation of migrant workers in Taiwan, it cannot be the only step. Reducing transaction costs for migrant remittances to under 3 percent is only one of the many SDG targets that have a migration dimension. There is much to do beyond the singular issue of remittances.
The SDGs call for “leaving no one behind” and feature migrant workers in their global agenda, with six out of the 17 goals having migration-specific indicators.
They call for better protection of migrant workers under three broad themes: Ensuring that they have access to basic public services, such as healthcare and education; reducing inequalities experienced by migrants; and eliminating violence and discrimination against migrant workers.
Looking seriously at the costs of cross-border remittances, as the commission has done, is surely a positive step toward improving the situation of migrant workers in Taiwan.
The government must continue to do more to protect the rights of migrant workers in line with international standards of human and labor rights. Only then can migrant workers be integral to achieving the broad vision of human development as embodied by the SDGs.
Bonny Ling is an independent academic and expert on international human rights, development and migration.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
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
RSS