System breeds mistreatment
The article about the President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration’s huffing and puffing over the arrest of its official by the FBI and disrespect for Taiwanese sovereignty and diplomatic immunity says a lot of what is wrong with Taiwan (“Light shed on Taiwanese official’s arrest,” Nov. 13, page 3).
Though only accusations for now, it is clear that here in Taiwan people care more about saving face and the “poor” official, and much less about what the official did or how it reflects on Taiwan.
Her behavior is all too common. A domestic helper is hired and then treated as property or an object, abused, mistreated, overworked and underpaid. The same pattern can be seen almost daily here in Taiwan as well. Domestic helpers or caregivers are treated as slaves who should be grateful for the chance they are given by their employers. Not all employers are bad or abuse the system, but from personal experience I know more of them verge on the negative side than those who follow their contract.
Domestic helpers who are hardly paid anything because their employers deduct money from their pay for food and even lodging; employers refusing to pay health insurance; caregivers that get only a few hours a month off, if that. These are not isolated cases. Domestic helpers are easy targets because they live and work mostly alone in the home of their employer. I know more than a dozen Vietnamese and Indonesian women who are living this hell right now. When I bring these cases to the attention of the Council of Labor Affairs, they are in no hurry to investigate.
The main problem here is that a foreign blue-collar worker has very limited scope for recourse. In Hong Kong, an employer would think twice before underpaying a maid or not giving her her allotted days off, because there is an official place where she can air her grievances and get a fair hearing. In Taiwan, chances are that if the domestic helper complains, the system will turn against her and she’ll end up losing her job, be detained or deported with no way to pay back the money she owes the broker in her home country.
It is time Taiwan showed it is an almost-developed country and treats everyone the same no matter what their position is. The government cannot control individual behavior of its citizens, but at least it could remove the official prejudice against foreign blue-collar workers. Taiwan needs them as much as they need Taiwan to build a better life for themselves and their families in their home country.
As for Jacqueline Liu (劉姍姍): Sorry, but from my personal experiences in Taiwan and what I have read, you are guilty as charged.
Geert Anthonis
Kaohsiung
Who informed Kane?
In the days following the “sell out Taiwan” op-ed in the New York Times on Nov. 10, there has been broad criticism of the logic of Paul Kane, a former international security fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School. The moral and impractical aspects of Kane’s op-ed have been well documented. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that China’s reaction to such a proposal would be “Taiwan is already ours and the US still owes us US$1.14 trillion.”
It is curious how little the US media has delved into the reasoning behind such a ludicrous piece of writing. Nat Bellocchi questioned the thought process behind this op-ed on the part of both the New York Times and Kane (“Selling out Taiwan not an option for the US,” Nov. 20, page 8). While I certainly agree with Bellocchi’s outrage at the thought of selling out a free country for a defined amount of money, I would take his line of questioning up another level.
Who on the New York Times editorial board made the decision that such a flawed piece of work should be printed? It is one thing to have thought-provoking ideas, but the Kane op-ed is somewhere between a poorly conceived pick-up line destined for instant ridicule and a devious telemarketing scam that deserves a quick hang-up.
As for Kane’s motivation, I find it difficult to believe that someone of his background could write something of such questionable quality. My guess is that he is a shill for some agenda and simply wrote his name to take the flak for this trial balloon. An unsophisticated attempt to influence by a naive pro-China interest group? A devious attempt by US President Barack Obama’s administration to gauge public support for another source of spending? Penned and approved in a vacuum? I doubt it.
Carl Chiang
Richmond, California
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 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
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
RSS