I read your article on domestic workers missing holidays ("No holiday for many domestics," Feb. 4, page 2) with anger and shame. I was reminded of the novels of Charles Dickens who described the horrible working conditions in Victorian England, which so shocked the public that new laws were enacted to control greedy, heartless people who employed children in dangerous jobs and offered people a life of endless work and little sleep for paltry wages.
The stories you provided are a shameful litany of Taiwanese greed, exploitation and inhumanity. For your readers who missed the article, you described the case of Mary who had to work from 6am to 11pm daily for NT$500, or less than NT$30 per hour. Talk about slave wages. If she dared to take a day off, she was docked even this pitiful amount. Hired to care for an elderly person, she was also saddled with duties like housework and shopping.
This is not unusual treatment of domestic helpers. Tina was hired to care for a bedridden patient. Her unrelenting work involved turning over a stroke victim and doing a medical check every 90 minutes, so that she was deprived of a decent night's sleep for three years.
Another girl who cared for a sick elderly person for three years received a bonus of NT$300.
What is the reason for such naked exploitation and sickening behavior? The answer is quite simple: These foreign workers are not covered by the Labor Standards Law (
These foreign workers face all kinds of disadvantages. They do the work that Taiwanese citizens find most distasteful, primarily caring for the old, the infirm, the sick and the dying.
These workers face corrupt middlemen from their home countries who extract exorbitant fees for the privilege of working like coolies for pennies. Then they have to deal with the corrupt agents in Taiwan who also greedily take their share of money. Finally, they have to contend with employers who treat them as indentured slaves, denying them decent work conditions, days off, honest wages and even sufficient sleep.
Since these people have invested a great deal for the "privilege" of being exploited in Taiwan, since the conditions in their home countries are often hopeless, since they usually don't speak the language upon arrival and sometimes even have their passports seized by their employers, since they have little legal protection and since they are terrified of being shipped home, they, in great desperation, accept their treatment with a stoicism that is both admirable and pitiful.
Because so many employers treat these people in an inhuman manner, and since there is no legal recourse, there are only a few possible solutions.
The first is to organize a national strike by all foreign domestic employees and caregivers to highlight their plight to the people of Taiwan and to remind their employers that such naked exploitation will not be tolerated. The government would find it difficult and immensely embarrassing to repatriate 160,000 people for being ill-treated. Besides, who would take care of the old and the sick in the meantime?
The other solution is to organize an international boycott by the countries most affected (like the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand) to stop sending workers for a trial period of three to six months and see if the resulting chaos in Taiwan could finally prod the government into doing the right thing and protecting those who are most vulnerable.
The third and easiest solution is to provide detailed descriptions and names of these unscrupulous employers in newspapers (including the Taipei Times), with pictures when possible, so that public humiliation and shame might keep some of these people from repeating their dismal treatment. This is a dark page in Taiwan's social progress.
Chaim Melamed
Pingtung
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesman Wu Qian (吳謙) announced at a news conference that General Miao Hua (苗華) — director of the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission — has been suspended from his duties pending an investigation of serious disciplinary breaches. Miao’s role within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) affects not only its loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but also ideological control. This reflects the PLA’s complex internal power struggles, as well as its long-existing structural problems. Since its establishment, the PLA has emphasized that “the party commands the gun,” and that the military is
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in