The Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India, Taiwan’s de facto embassy in that country, signed a memorandum of understanding with its Indian counterpart, the India Taipei Association, on Friday last week to pave the way for Indian migrant workers to seek employment in Taiwan.
The details of the process have yet to be agreed, but the Ministry of Labor has confirmed that, according to the memorandum, Taipei would be able to determine the number of Indian workers and which industries they could be employed in.
That is, the government is not flinging open the nation’s doors to a flood of migrant workers.
The agreement has been a long time coming, with negotiations beginning in 2020, but having to be put on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is certain to bring many benefits to Taiwan, for a variety of reasons, although news of the plan, when announced last year, was met with a certain amount of resistance among the public.
This resistance is due in large part to misunderstandings about the need for the policy and how it is to be implemented.
It is the government’s responsibility to ensure that these misunderstandings are cleared up, and the opposition’s responsibility not to fan the flames of social tensions resulting from these misunderstandings.
It is not news that Taiwan, like so many other countries, is facing a demographic cliff, an aging society that is going to mean a gradual shrinking of the workforce and the need to bring in migrant workers to address this.
Taiwan already allows workers from Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand to seek employment in certain industries, but it has become apparent that these sources of migrant workers alone are not sufficient.
Allowing Indian workers into Taiwan, to help bolster the nation’s requirements in industries such as construction, manufacturing, domestic labor and agriculture, could go some way to remedy this situation.
Germany, Italy, France, Singapore, Malaysia and countries in the Middle East have already signed migrant worker agreements with India, and Japan and South Korea are also looking to go down this route.
There are also sound geopolitical reasons for promoting ties with New Delhi, to promote Taiwan-India relations in an international environment in which Taiwan and India share a distrust of Beijing amid its territorial ambitions.
Immigration and increasing the pool of migrant workers does have the potential to create social tensions if the public is not given access to the objective facts. During the presidential election campaign, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) said that allowing 100,000 workers coming into Taiwan would sow social tensions and take jobs away from Taiwanese.
The figure is inflated and inflammatory. It is no surprise that there was a protest in Taipei against the policy on Dec. 3 last year, during the campaign.
Unfortunately, it is also not a major surprise that this attitude toward the policy and the rhetoric of certain politicians, which Hou’s words would only have encouraged, led to negative — and unfounded — tropes about Indian migrant workers entering the debate about the issue.
Hou was criticizing government policy for political purposes during the campaign. Often, things said during an election campaign stay in the election campaign. Hou can change his tune now that the dust has settled.
The opposition needs to work with the government to refine, not hobble, this much-needed policy to ease the problem of labor shortages, improve the relations with New Delhi and help pave the way for a more prosperous and harmonious future.
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength