"Employment discrimination in Taiwan? Record your calls
When I was back in Australia doing my research on working as an English teacher in Taiwan, I read quite a few accounts of people who look Asian being discriminated against in the workplace.
Upon arriving here, I’ve pretty much confirmed what I read – albeit it’s a lot less out in the open and rarely discussed.
Personally I don’t look Asian so discrimination against my looks is not something I’ve had to deal with. That said, I’ve had a few conversations with some Africans in bars who’ve had some shocker experiences to share.
Sure they don’t look Asian but arguably being black in Taiwan they’ve got it even worse.
The only time I’ve seen the actual discrimination against Asians thing in action though was when one of my former bosses mentioned that she’d knocked back a particular applicant from Canada.
Despite being born and bred there, meeting all of the employment criteria and being perfectly suitable for employment, if memory serves this guy’s family was from China.
That meant he was unemployable to her.
Naturally I queried this as I though the whole situation was a load of bollocks. Turns out, rather than foster an inherent bias against Asian looking teachers, my former boss had tried it once before – and after numerous complaints from parents had to let the teacher go.
Now keep in mind this is second hand personal experience from myself and may or may not be reflective of Taiwan’s employment sector as a whole (at least as far as teaching English goes), but apparently it’s widespread enough of a problem that one particular Chinese-American (or American born Chinese (ABC) as they get referred to here), recently got fed up with being discriminated against and took a kindergarten to court…
…and won.
There seems to be some general confusion about whether foreigners can teach in kindergartens in Taiwan but the general idea is that if you want to legally teach in a kindergarten, you need to ‘have permanent residency in Taiwan, marriage to a Taiwanese spouse, having lineal relatives with a registered residence or refugee status‘.
That said there are hundreds if not thousands of English teachers teaching at either large chain schools who get away with hiring them, or smaller more underground schools, who employ foreign teachers at their own risk.
Of course nobody will officially admit this is how things work but from my observations it’s exactly how English kindergartens are run in Taiwan, despite the laws.
Getting back to this particular case, this Chinese American teacher had ‘lineal relatives living in the country‘ and as such met the legal criteria for teaching in a kindergarten.
After calling the kindergarten, the teacher
was asked to come in for an interview, but when the school learned he was ethnic Chinese and not white, he was immediately turned down.
Normally this would be the end of it and our Chinese American teacher would simply have to continue searching till he found a school either desperate for an English teacher (usually happens when a teacher does a runner) or one that simply didn’t care he looked Asian.
The latter situation is quite rare here I believe, as evidenced by the typical experience of this particular Chinese American teacher.
It was not the first time he had experienced such discrimination, even though he is a native English speaker and a certified teacher.
Not happy with being discriminated against because of racism, the teacher lodged ‘a complaint with the Labor Affairs Department‘. Armed with a telephone call recording (which I assume happened after the teacher was rejected at the interview in which he got the boss to admit the discrimination),
The New Taipei City Employment Discrimination Committee investigated his case and found that the employer had acted with bias. The school was fined NT$300,000, the minimum penalty for violating labor laws against discrimination.
On one hand I appreciate the position that bosses are in. They might not have anything against native English speakers who look Asian but they know if they hire them, some parents might pull their kids only to enrol them down the road because they have a blonde and blue-eyed teacher (who might be really crap at teaching, but that doesn’t matter).
So naturally they knock back undesirable teachers which then leaves legitimate English teachers running around Taiwan with the impression that the entire employment sector here is vehemently prejudiced.
Be that as it may, who do you blame – the schools or society?
Either way it seems the Taiwanese government aren’t keen to tackle the problem as this particular kindergarten was merely ordered to pay the minimum penalty for employment discrimination (the maximum fine is 1.5 million TWD).
Meanwhile on the local front, New Taipei City alone received 51 complaints of employment discrimination in the first half of 2011, but only 8 of those were found to be valid and the sum total of fines dished out was a mere $1.3 million TWD – which is less than the maximum penalty able to be handed out for any one particular case.
With 37 of the 51 complaints being filed by women though… it’s not surprising the issue of employment discrimination appears to be routinely swept under the carpet.
Sucks to be a local female or an overseas born Asian if you’re looking for a job in Taiwan.
August 29th, 2011 at 1:55 pm todd(Quote)
I don’t understand, aren’t they also Asians? how can they discriminate among themselves?
August 29th, 2011 at 2:35 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Some Taiwanese parnets don’t want Asian looking people teaching English to their kids.
There’s enough of these type of people in Taiwan such that the general employment prospects of Asian looking teachers is quite low.
As for discriminating among themselves. There’s a whole underground heirarchy that exists between the different Asian cultures here. Look down on some Asians and worship others – that’s the way it goes and it all comes down to where you were born or what your heritage is.
August 29th, 2011 at 4:32 pm mike(Quote)
“Discrimination” is choice.
When the government criminalizes “discrimination”, they are criminalizing choice, i.e. the very basis of the market economy.
That the choice is made on the basis of how somebody looks does not alter the fact that it is choice.
If you choose to hit on a good looking girl rather than an ugly one, nobody screams “discrimination” at you, yet that is precisely what it is: choice.
Discrimination is choice and choice is good and necessary.
I know ABCs with this problem, and however much I might sympathize, they have no ethical right to demand that they be employed. To support the legalization of this right amounts to the tacit confession that you think other people aren’t fit to make their own choices and run their own lives.
August 29th, 2011 at 8:06 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
So in other words, you openly support racism.
Cool.
August 29th, 2011 at 11:59 pm mike(Quote)
No. I think it’s despicable. I just disagree that the threat of State violence via legislating what choices people can and cannot make is the correct way to oppose racism.
August 30th, 2011 at 1:22 am Herman(Quote)
@mike
Seriously? You’re saying that apartheid and Jim Crow laws ought not to have been banned???
August 30th, 2011 at 1:36 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
@mike
Well, who said anything about ‘state violence’?
I think discrimination on the basis of etnicity or race in terms of employment is definitely something that should be discouraged. For most businesses that means hefty financial penalties, otherwise you have the psuedo penalty crap that exists in Taiwan.
Businesses naturally don’t give a crap when most discrimination cases are found to be not worth chasing up and when they are, routinely the minimum penalty is handed down.
Remember it has to be clearly proven, it’s not like you can just cry racial discrimination and get a pay out.
August 30th, 2011 at 2:08 am blobOfNeurons(Quote)
Discriminating employer in Taiwan? Don’t admit anything.
August 30th, 2011 at 2:49 am mike(Quote)
Herman,
Apartheid and Jim Crow laws were also examples of what I am against – the use of the State to force people’s choices against their will (they are just examples from the other side of the spectrum in this particular instance).
I think things like racist discrimination are better eradicated through anti-racist discrimination on the market and in civil society.
“Combating” racism by raining down threats of legalized violence on people is probably counter-productive, and in any case, is likely to engender other, perhaps more serious social problems.
Oz,
“Well, who said anything about ‘state violence’?”
The threat of overwhelming violence is what ultimately backs up all legislation. Without the threat of State violence, legislation is meaningless.
“I think discrimination on the basis of etnicity [sic] or rape [sic] in terms of employment is definitely something that should be discouraged. For most businesses that means hefty financial penalties…”
Of course it should be discouraged, but through social pressure, not crude threats of legalized violence.
Your “hefty financial penalties” could be achieved by voluntary means on the market, with a given firm losing customers (and suppliers) because it was perceived as racist.
The prerequisite is simply that people agree with you that this kind of discrimination against ABCs is bad. At the moment, a lot of Taiwanese people don’t agree with you. But that is partly what criticism is for – changing people’s minds.
August 30th, 2011 at 3:07 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
@mike
There’s only violence if you refuse to suffer the consequences of breaking the law with aggression. Otherwise there’s nothing violent about the police rocking up and carting you off to jail because you refused to pay the fine for being a racist discriminatory employer.
And what better social pressure than the enacted laws of a democratically elected government?
Otherwise, got any other suggestions? What alternative social pressure would you apply to the 20+ million Taiwanese living outside of Taipei City?
With no outlet or platform to voice their opinion other than the legal system (and even that is largely off limits for non-Chinese speakers), how else are these matters going to come to light in Taiwanese society?
In this particular instance, that means they’re blatantly racist. That in itself I don’t mind so long as they accept and deal with the ramifications of being a nation of racist hicks on the global stage.
August 30th, 2011 at 3:25 am mike(Quote)
“There’s only violence if you refuse to suffer the consequences of breaking the law with aggression. Otherwise there’s nothing violent about the police rocking up and carting you off to jail because you refused to pay the fine for being a racist discriminatory employer.”
Refusing to pay a fine or to obey a law is not aggression. Imposing such fines or laws under the threat of carting you away against your will is aggression (i.e. the initiation of violence). Your concept of aggression is Orwellian and one which would condemn you to see the non-violent campaigns of both Martin Luther King and Ghandi as violent and aggressive since both men broke the law repeatedly. That’s just a polite measure of how wrong you are.
“And what better social pressure than the enacted laws of a democratically elected government?”
Those of the market and civil society. As I have already pointed out to you.
“With no outlet or platform to voice their opinion other than the legal system…”
That condition doesn’t apply. The fact that we are having this discussion, and that millions of Taiwanese discuss whatever they like over social network sites every day ought to be taken as sufficient refutation.
“In this particular instance, that means they’re blatantly racist. That in itself I don’t mind so long as they accept and deal with the ramifications of being a nation of racist hicks on the global stage.”
Oh? Then withdraw your support for legislation and let them get on with being “hicks on the global stage”.
Other people who do actually care about ABCs on the other hand, might want to think about attempting to change people’s attitudes through persuasion and social pressure.
August 30th, 2011 at 4:18 am Andy(Quote)
You want to here about discrimination and hypocrisy go check out insurance policies in Taiwan.
I have a residency card here in Taiwan,am married to a local and have 1 child. If I want to buy life insurance,travel insurance or health insurance my policies are different from what locals buy. WTF??
Locals are allowed to get US passports without having to give up their local passports and the US gives them passports without making them give up their Taiwan passports so why on earth do we have to give up our passports if we apply for one of their passports?
If locals can buy travel insurance for 20 or 30 million NT for say 5,000 NT for the year then why are we not allowed to buy this same insurance policy?
Are we worth less or is there such a thing that the foreigner on the plane has a higher risk/chance of dying than a local were the plane to crash (God forbid)??
If you are just now seeing discrimination in Taiwan you are in for quite a few lessons.
August 30th, 2011 at 10:48 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
@mike
So long as you accept the known consequences of your actions, then yes.
Sure, but it’s not violence.
Agression != violence.
No. They both accepted the consequences of their actions.
A society full of racists is hardly civil. And the market has nothing to do with racism. Even if it fails, you’ve still got a society full of racists.
It does in Taiwan. Beyond this blog I know I certainly don’t feel like a have a voice in Taiwanese society. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one.
The Taiwanese are different, they can speak Chinese and aren’t ignored.
I said I don’t mind upon a condition. That condition is not met as Taiwan continues to project itself as a nation of tolerance (at least on a tourism level).
The day somebody can ask the President of Taiwan if foreigners are welcome to Taiwan and he answers ‘no’ with nobody in Taiwan batting an eyelid, is the day I’ll give up and accept the nation is the way it is.
Until then, here I am.
August 30th, 2011 at 10:53 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
@andy
Yeah I can imagine there’s quite a lot more to come as life gets more settled in here. All in good time.
August 30th, 2011 at 1:31 pm mike(Quote)
Oz…
“Sure, but it’s not violence.”
Yes it is. If I break the law, refuse to move when ordered to, then the police will lay hands on me and cart me off against my will. This is violence, i.e. the violation of the will I exercise over myself.
Aggression is simply the initiation of violence.
“They both accepted the consequences of their actions.”
No they didn’t. They challenged them morally. What you mean is that they didn’t offer violence in return. But I still have you down as someone who thinks that refusing to obey a law is inherently an act of aggression to which the State must retaliate. Is that what your opinion or not?
“A society full of racists is hardly civil.”
Niether is a society governed at every level by legalized threats of violence from the most significant (e.g. currency monopoly) to the most trivial (e.g. smoking).
“And the market has nothing to do with racism. Even if it fails, you’ve still got a society full of racists.”
The market is potentially the most powerful means of eradicating racism, and in any case, the only ethically legitimate means of doing so. Whereas a democratic State may fine you or give you some other slap on the wrist for racist discrimination, the market can potentially ruin you.
And even if it fails… then it means you’ve failed to convince enough people to agree with you or to consider it important enough when judged against other costs. In this respect, the market is the institution of direct democracy par excellence. At any rate, even if it fails you can constantly work to change it at little or no risk to your personal freedom (unlike the State, which may jail you as a troublemaker).
“It does in Taiwan. Beyond this blog I know I certainly don’t feel like a have a voice in Taiwanese society.”
See it’s difficult to have a discussion when you revert to bullshit rainbow-and-daisy terms like “having a voice”. You do have a “voice” and express it on your blog and elsewhere. If what you mean is power, then say so openly without the rainbows-and-daisies phrasal disguise – yes, you do not have political power, and nor should you.
“The Taiwanese are different, they can speak Chinese and aren’t ignored.”
Then either learn to speak Chinese or find some way of talking to them by which they cannot ignore you.
“That condition is not met as Taiwan continues to project itself as a nation of tolerance (at least on a tourism level).”
By and large it is a nation of tolerance, and I think for you to impute otherwise is an undeserving insult to the people of Taiwan. Choosing not to employ an ABC as an English teacher in a kindergarten because of his ethnicity is not the same as intolerance. To tolerate others means to not aggress (i.e. initiate violence) against them. Taiwanese people are by and large very tolerant in my experience – were they intolerant, then it would be a dangerous place for foreigners and ABCs to live (i.e. you’d be at daily risk of being assaulted, robbed or murdered merely on account of your different ethnicity).
Andy…
All the points you raise (and more besides those, e.g. bank lending policies) are familiar to me too. They are mostly the result of government laws and regulations which, yes, discriminate against foreigners.
August 30th, 2011 at 1:55 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
And there’s the aggression.
And in doing so, wholly accepted the consequences of their actions.
Refusing to obey a law is not an act of aggression, refusing to accept the consequences of doing so on the other hand is.
What is it with you and wanting to pidgeon hole everybody and everything into a specific category. Is it so you can much easier brush off other people’s opinions by claiming ‘ah, you’re just one of those people?’
It certainly is starting to sound like it. I think this is the third time now we’ve gone down the ‘oz, you’re this type of person rah rah rah’ discussions. Does it even matter? I really don’t care what I’m labelled as, my opinions stand on their own.
I find nothing trivial about inhaling someone’s poison smoke…and again, we’re back to the violence thing. Disobey the law, fine. Accept those consequences or it is you who is acting as the agressor.
Whatever happens after that is irrelevant, you knew what you were doing and what the consequences were/are at any given time (laws change).
How?
Racism existed long before your seemingly all powerful market did.
And little to no effectivenes either. And what about people who don’t even have access to the market? What happens to them.
Ah, but my voice is power.
And why the fuck not? I pay taxes that keep Taiwan running just like anybody else.
I’m working on it, but until then I’m making the most of what is available to me, which in Taiwan isn’t much.
That entirely depends on context. In the context of employment of English teachers in Taiwan, it’s most definitely not tolerant. By discriminating against ABC’s, Africans or anyone else who isn’t white the employment sector is being intolerant of all other races and ethnicities.
On the other hand everything is just about violence and the state with you. I’m tempted just to bow out as I’m not one for arguing technicalities, pidgeon holing people’s opinions and character or defining, redefining terminology. It detracts from the discussion and ruins the flow, but it seems to be your style no matter what we discuss.
I don’t mind discussing things on here but you’re seriously turning it into a chore and I’m not really getting anything of value out of it. I don’t know if that’s a relfection on yours, mine or possibly both our personalities.
You need to work on the presentation of your ideas and how you express yourself. It’s like discussing something with a textbook sometimes (as a habit I discuss nothing with academics for this reason) and in all honesty is boring.
August 30th, 2011 at 2:33 pm Herman(Quote)
I, for one, am glad that the market forces that allowed the African slave trade to thrive were banned by acts of law.
Call it the threat of state aggression or whatever libertarian fighting words you want, but we as a global society are better off with those laws on the books.
August 30th, 2011 at 2:34 pm Herman(Quote)
By the way, Oz, I enjoy the blog!
August 30th, 2011 at 3:17 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Cheers Herman, glad to hear it!
August 30th, 2011 at 3:33 pm mike(Quote)
“And there’s the aggression.”
Then both Ghandi and King were aggressors then, since they both employed just such tactics of passive, non-violent resistance in which they refused to obey orders to move. I’ll say it again: your notion of aggression is Orwellian and would have you condemn both Ghandi and King as aggressors against the State.
“Refusing to obey a law is not an act of aggression, refusing to accept the consequences of doing so on the other hand is.”
For what value of “accept”? Both Ghandi and King refused to accept those consequences, both in the sense of a refusal to physically move (they had to be carted off) and also in the sense of refusing to accept defeat.
In any case, where those consequences involve the application of violence, then a “refusal to accept” (assuming such would involve violence) would be retaliatory, not initiatory and therefore not aggressive violence, but retaliatory violence. It is the State that aggresses by definition, not those who refuse to obey its’ diktats. Now you might have some sort of story as to why you think that’s justified, but you can only deny the fact of the State as aggressor by Orwellian means.
“What is it with you and wanting to pidgeon hole everybody and everything into a specific category.”
It’s called “understanding”.
“I really don’t care what I’m labelled as, my opinions stand on their own.”
Can’t you afford some chairs for them to sit down on and think from time to time?
“I find nothing trivial about inhaling someone’s poison smoke…”
By and large you’re not forced to do so, although personally I believe the health risks of occassional passive smoking are trivial.
“Accept those consequences or it is you who is acting as the agressor.”
Refusing to do what the State tells you to is no different in principle from refusing to obey the law. If refusing to obey the law is not an act of aggression, then refusing to obey the orders of a policeman is not an act of aggression either.
“How?”
The refusal to either buy from or sell to a business or individual perceived as racist (or anything else attracting sufficient approbation), when multiplied through the market can be so powerful as to make a change in attitude, and explicit demonstration of this, quite literally a matter of survival. Given the widespread social approbrium still attached to Nazism for instance, how much business do you think a known and open Nazi sympathizer would take? Little or none – because he probably wouldn’t be able to set up in the first place.
“Racism existed long before your seemingly all powerful market did.”
That might actually be an interesting anthropological question, but as a throw-away statement it’s just bullshit. No? Back it up with evidence, then.
“And little to no effectivenes either.”
You merely assume that. Effectiveness may depend on a lot things, including time.
“And what about people who don’t even have access to the market…”
I use the term “the market” in the abstract sense as the sum of voluntary exchanges (understood this way it subsumes civil society) – which is something to which everybody has more or less “access”. People with “less access” are often those people whose freedoms are restricted by the State – as Andy’s examples above show. The answer is to cut back the State.
“Ah, but my voice is power.”
Then don’t go round spouting rainbow-bullshit about how you “don’t have a voice”.
“And why the fuck not? I pay taxes that keep Taiwan running just like anybody else.”
Your taxes don’t “keep Taiwan running”, because (a) Taiwan is not the same as its government to whom you pay your taxes, and (b) what keeps Taiwan – i.e. Taiwanese society – running is the market.
“In the context of employment of English teachers in Taiwan, it’s most definitely not tolerant.”
Not, it’s just not accepting – which is different from tolerant. You tolerate my comments here on your blog without accepting them. Same thing here, Taiwanese people tolerate the presence of ABCs without necessarily accepting them in one particular form of employment.
“By discriminating against ABC’s, Africans or anyone else who isn’t white the employment sector is being intolerant of all other races and ethnicities.”
The “employment sector” (ha!) also discriminates both for and against stupid people, intelligent people, ugly people, beautiful people and so on ad infinitum. Is it also both tolerant and intolerant of these people at the same time? Your statement is ridiculous because you utter it through a collectivist premise (the “employment sector”*) and because you misapply the concept of tolerance. You can only be intolerant of specific people and their actions – to be “intolerant” of an entire ethnicity is to be a Hitler, i.e. to harbour genocidal intentions.
And don’t bother with the “Godwin” crap, I see the argument four steps ahead.
“On the other hand everything is just about violence and the state with you.”
No. I’m quite happy to talk about dogs for instance. In any case, the rule of violence or the rule of reason is a very basic choice – the ramifications of which are vast in both extent and significance. Of course I am interested in it.
“You need to work on the presentation of your ideas and how you express yourself.”
Agreed. Suggestions?
“It’s like discussing something with a textbook sometimes (as a habit I discuss nothing with academics for this reason) and in all honesty is boring.”
I generally don’t like academics either (not being one myself), but I thought I’d pulled a few colourful moves on you already. How would you make my arguments in a less boring, more entertaining way?
*Cheers, I’ve never seen that phrase before, that’s fucking hilarious!
August 30th, 2011 at 5:23 pm mike(Quote)
“I, for one, am glad that the market forces that allowed the African slave trade to thrive were banned by acts of law.”
“Market forces”… typical comic-book, dark-magic mumbo-jumbo phrasing of the Left.
Look: what allowed the slave trade to thrive were the opinions of men. What enabled the slave trade to be banned were the opinions of men – expressed through State legislation. It didn’t have to be done that way. It could have been done not only through market approbation and boycott, but even through retaliatory violence by abolitionists on behalf of the slaves themselves.
“Call it the threat of state aggression or whatever libertarian fighting words you want…”
I call it that because that’s what it bloody well is, you daft berk.
“…but we as a global society are better off with those laws on the books.”
Are we? That’s just a presumption. But in any case, to the extent that we are better off since the legislation established by the abolitionist and civil rights movements, it is because of the social pressure and moral shaming that had to be done prior to that legislation. That was what was important, and my point is merely that they ought to have chosen loci of action other than the State.
August 30th, 2011 at 8:23 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
@mike
You’ve never heard cheers before? We use it all the time in Australia!
And once again I’ll say they completely accepted the consequences of their actions in doing so. They knew what those consequences were and they accepted them.
Resistance isn’t aggression, not accepting the consequences of resistance is.
As you say, they were carted off… but they didn’t oppose violently and nor did the state react violently. Remember, you brought these two up within the context of violence. I maintain there was none.
So long as you accept the consequences of those actions, sure.
Really… you need me to provide evidence that humans have discriminated against eachother on the basis of race throughout history and long before established markets were set up…?
Just because my voice is power doesn’t mean it actually yields it. I have a voice online sure, but for the most part it’s powerless in terms of Taiwanese society.
People only tend to pay attention to the Taiwanese news here, which is sadly a mish mash of celebrity gossip, superficial politics, caputred CCTV absurdities and youtube videos.
Sure it is. Without the Taiwanese government Taiwan wouldn’t exist. We’d be living in China.
You’re not going to suggest that without the diplomatic framework the Taiwanese government provides Taiwan would have a hope in hell against Chinese occupation now are you?
As Ma likes to keep pushing, the market is just a tool to merge the two countries if anything through the strengthening of economic ties.
I think the word you’re looking for is disagree. If I accepted them we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
This is one of the things I was talking about in how you communicate. You understand the idea behind the choice of words, but here we are instead arguing the semantics and appropriateness of words used which, ultimately has little to no bearing on the overall discussion.
These little pedantic characteristics are quite tiresome to respond to and deal with. Whether we use tolerate or accept – does it really alter what is being said or the idea being put forth?
By all means challenge the idea, but doing so on semantics of the terms used is something an academic would do.
What’s so ‘ha!’ about the employment sector? There’s a whole industry based around the employment of foreign teachers here, what would you call it then?
August 30th, 2011 at 10:53 pm mike(Quote)
OK I’m going to put this at the top of my comment to make it easier for you to bear (and I won’t refute your entire comment)…
“This is one of the things I was talking about in how you communicate. You understand the idea behind the choice of words, but here we are instead arguing the semantics and appropriateness of words used which, ultimately has little to no bearing on the overall discussion.”
I might understand what you mean, but I suspect that you don’t because in using one term instead of another, you’re mixing up distinct concepts apparently without even realizing it. It’s like trying to point your girlfriend to an orange sweater by telling her to look for the red one. You literally don’t know what you’re talking about – and that’s why I’m putting you right.
At the end of the day, words are the only symbols we have for denoting concepts. Different concepts require different words. Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance – just as “indifference” is not the same thing as “welcoming”, or “aggression” is not the same thing as “retaliation”. Or “red” is not the same thing as “orange”. Words mean things.
I’m interested in the things, not the words. The objections are substantive, not formal and that’s why it isn’t semantic pedantry to correct you on your use of words.
Right, now here’s where my comment would have otherwise began…
“You’ve never heard cheers before? We use it all the time in Australia!”
You’re having a nightmare here Oz! For a start, I’m British so of course I know “cheers” – that wasn’t what I was on about. I was referring to your use of “employment sector” as indicated by the asterisk. Why? Because every bloody “sector” of the economy is necessarily an “employment sector” in as much as people are employed there.
The clothing and textiles “sector”? Employs people. The food and agricultural “sector”? Employs people. Etc. The phrase made me laugh through my sneezing and wheezing because of its conceptual redundancy.
“Resistance isn’t aggression, not accepting the consequences of resistance is.
You mean violent struggle against the police? It’s retaliation, not aggression. That’s a different point from whether it is justified or not, but it is still an elementary fact.
Were the people adopting paramilitary means in Tripoli to rid themselves of Quadaffi aggressing or retaliating? Oh wait… that wasn’t in Australia so it doesn’t count. Silly me.
“As you say, they were carted off… but they didn’t oppose violently and nor did the state react violently.”
Carting someone off against their will is not violence?
“Remember, you brought these two up within the context of violence. I maintain there was none.”
Would you maintain that for cases of kidnapping too?
“Really… you need me to provide evidence that humans have discriminated against eachother on the basis of race throughout history and long before established markets were set up…?”
Erm, yes. Market activity – i.e. voluntary exchange – is as old as man himself. I suspect established markets probably predate ethnic conflict, though I think answering the question conclusively might be beyond what anthropology and archaeology can currently do.
“I have a voice online sure, but for the most part it’s powerless in terms of Taiwanese society.”
Either your voice is power, or it is powerless. You can’t have it both ways in the same context.
“Without the Taiwanese government Taiwan wouldn’t exist. We’d be living in China.”
We’re living in the Republic of China actually – according to that nation-state premise. Anyway, in the event of a PRC annexation of Taiwan, you’d still be paying taxes to a government in Taipei (assuming you’d still be here and weren’t killed or jailed).
Taiwan however, i.e. the rest of Taiwanese society, would go on functioning through the market, even if their sense of collective identity were suppressed.
“You’re not going to suggest that without the diplomatic framework the Taiwanese government provides Taiwan would have a hope in hell against Chinese occupation now are you?”
Right. Let’s hope the U.S. allows Lockheed to sell us some more of that “diplomatic framework” gear – have you seen the youtube vids of diplomatic framework low-pass flybys? A friend of mine reckons the twin-engined diplomatic frameworks would be better value for money, but I’m not so sure…
August 31st, 2011 at 1:51 am blobOfNeurons(Quote)
Surely something must be said about what law or have you both assumed all laws to be equivalent? Shouldn’t something be said about “just” or “unjust” laws and their existence or non-existence, and whether existence would affect the argument?
August 31st, 2011 at 2:05 am mike(Quote)
Blob: bear in mind the context of the discussion – employment and discrimination.
An example that would appear to contradict my earlier statement you quote would be murder. If Oz murders someone, and thereby “refuses to obey” the law against murder, he has committed aggression – but what is morally important is that the aggression was against the now dead victim rather than against the State, and its mere declaration that murder is prohibited.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:44 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
@mike
Again, this is what I’m talking about.
I really don’t get the big deal over ‘employment sector’. In an article published about an English teacher in Taiwan in the ‘teaching English’ category, do you really need clarification that ‘employment sector’ is referring English teaching?
Like I said, there’s a whole industry (recruitment agencies, sole recruiters, school recruitment programs, forums, inhouse commission programs set up by schools etc) set up around the employment of foreign teachers to teach in English in Taiwan.
Now we could debate this for another 30-40 replies between us but I’m kind of over it. Semantics is not my thing, I don’t find it interesting to flesh out the definitions of words ad nauseum and whether or not other words would have been more appropriate to use in their place (which is what I feel like we’re doing 95% of the time I enter into a discussion with you).
You’ll have to carry on the state agression discussions without me.
August 31st, 2011 at 12:12 pm mike(Quote)
“I really don’t get the big deal over ‘employment sector’.”
Stunning.
August 31st, 2011 at 2:28 pm blobOfNeurons(Quote)
Yes, but this discrepancy could ignored for the moment by making the simplifying assumption that we only enact laws such that they coincide with moral laws.
Therefore, all infractions of statutory law imply an infraction of some moral law. (This is also assuming that there exist cases where a edict backed up by overwhelming force is appropriate, such as with murder, and that the appropriateness of the edict is in proportion to the strength of the moral law.)
Naturally, these assumptions should be questioned (The first assumption is just plain wrong.) but that is for another time. Regarding the context of this thread, I think they are reasonable, are they not?
Thus: “Is discrimination against a potential employee by race morally wrong?” and “If so, is it (wrong) enough to justify a law?”
August 31st, 2011 at 5:11 pm mike(Quote)
“Naturally, these assumptions should be questioned (The first assumption is just plain wrong.) but that is for another time.”
Lay the questions out now if you like – I’ll run with you on them.
“Thus: “Is discrimination against a potential employee by race morally wrong?” and “If so, is it (wrong) enough to justify a law?””
No and no.
As much as I personally despise discrimination based on ethnicity, I don’t think it is morally wrong since it does not entail an act of aggression.
A lesser example would be smokers – I think smoking is an idiocy, but it is not an act of aggression against me (the passive smoking scare was always bullshit on stilts) and so I don’t consider it an ethical infraction.
Ethics is the system of precepts we use to govern our interaction with one another, and the non-aggression principle take pride of place in that system.
An additional objection to this sort of law, aside from the stand against aggression, is the externalities likely to accrue. So let’s say they pass a law such that ABCs cannot be turned down to work in Kindergartens (unless it be for some other substantive reason) – then what happens?
Two things: first, some K-schools try to wriggle their way around the law by finding other spurious reasons to turn down ABCs, or to hire them only to fire them shortly afterward; second, schools that don’t do this and do hire ABCs suffer in the market to whatever extent reflects market demand that children be taught by an ethnic non-Asian – they may even close were the market demand sufficiently strong (although I doubt it is).
These sorts of things are likely to provide the basis for further legislative intervention, which is all too easy given the way a democratic State incentivizes the expansion of its’ own powers.
August 31st, 2011 at 8:25 pm lunchboxthermos(Quote)
i didn’t bother reading any of the posts after the 3rd or 4th one, so sorry if this is no longer on topic…
as an ABC myself, i can say that i, too, ran into this same situation. i graduated from one of the best universities in the US with a degree in elementary education and an additional degree in early childhood development. and yet the moment i walked into one of the kindergartens here, i could just tell it wasn’t going to happen.
and the employers at multiple schools all said the same thing, “the parents like their kids to have foreign teachers.” when i replied with, “i’m a foreigner,” all i got was a chuckle and a “but you have black hair, brown eyes and yellow skin…just like everyone else here.” so…i gave up my job search in the buxiban sector.
…which turned out to be the best road for me anyway because i later realized that by becoming a private tutor, the taiwanese parents were willing to shell out double the salary with my degree AND they liked the fact that i could communicate with the parents clearly about their childrens’ progress.
so i guess there is an upside to everything
keep up your blog, ozsoapbox! 
August 31st, 2011 at 8:28 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
@lunchboxthermos
Do you have family here though? If not, how do you deal with the visa situation of private tutoring?
I envy you Americans with your generous landing visas. Australian’s only get 30 days
.
No worries, will do cheers!
August 31st, 2011 at 11:04 pm blobOfNeurons(Quote)
Interesting psychological paradox is it not? Since you despise it, it seems like you detect something wrong with it, yet it is not morally wrong. Wherefore is employment discrimination by race wrong?
Could it simply be because it is … stupid? But that’s not right either since this discrimination happens because the employers are thinking strategically about what their customers want. I hypothesize that it is despicable because it deliberately fails to do moral right, and not so much because it is morally wrong.
oz, I think you would agree, would you not?
August 31st, 2011 at 11:38 pm mike(Quote)
“Wherefore is employment discrimination by race wrong?”
I don’t think it is wrong per se (i.e. contrary to a non-aggressive ethics), but I do think it is bad (but see below). However I have to insist on distinguishing the employer’s decision from the attitudes that may be informing market demand.
The employer is charged with running a business. Choosing not to hire an otherwise qualified candidate due to ethnicity is necessary to the extent that the market demands it (i.e. that parents consider ethnicity a necessary qualifier). So having the State penalize the employer is not only an act of aggression and therefore morally wrong, it is also stupid.
The parents who express a preference for an ethnic non-Asian over an ABC however, are possibly* making an epistemologically nonsense judgement, i.e. they are making the judgement based on the superficial category error that race subsumes linguistic competence: it obviously does not. It is to the extent that they are doing this that I find the discrimination against ABCs despicable.
*I say “possibly” because the parents may be making a different kind of decision unrelated to teaching ability. They may want a non-Asian teacher over an ABC simply because small kids tend to be fascinated by the different appearance of caucasian people (e.g. extensive forearm hair, blue eyes etc…).
September 1st, 2011 at 12:00 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
Lol I just caught my rape typo, been burning the candle at both ends apologies.
If you insist. Again, I’m not so much on debating the terminology and linguistic semantics as the idea itself.
September 1st, 2011 at 12:59 am mike(Quote)
“I’m not so much on debating the terminology and linguistic semantics as the idea itself.”
Nor is anyone else. Ideas can only be transmitted and received through language and therefore expressing ideas accurately demands a certain degree of linguistic competence.
And attention to detail.
September 1st, 2011 at 1:01 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
Yet you’ve readily admitted you understood my ideas and opinions.
Go figure.
Too much hot air elicits this response;
It’s ultimately meaningless and boring to read.
September 1st, 2011 at 1:18 am mike(Quote)
“Yet you’ve readily admitted you understood my ideas and opinions.”
I said “I might understand” (i.e. I’m reduced to guessing).
And by the way, you’ve got some f-ing nerve having directly accused me of “openly supporting racism”. What was that if not deliberate hot air?
“Too much hot air elicits this response…”
I don’t care. He went to “one of the best universities in the US”, so naturally attention-span is going to be a problem for him.
September 1st, 2011 at 1:27 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
Again, terminology and semantics… it’s all about terminology and semantics.
When someone says they don’t have problems with employers discriminating on the basis of race, that’s what is sounds like.
Nobody cares about the long winded explanations, theasaurus type discussions of what words should and shouldn’t be used, what we meant to say when we didn’t or how we could have said something better.
Well, so long as you’re enjoying yourself…
Even now this discussion is shitting me to tears. I’m going to bed.
September 1st, 2011 at 1:57 am blobOfNeurons(Quote)
I’m not insisting on anything! I’m just trying to facilitate this debate by defining some common ground. I guess it didn’t work.
But let me try something else then.
Screw the middleman, suppose I want to hire a tutor for little blobby. lunchboxthermos shows up and after the world’s shortest interview I say “Nope. You’re Asian. I thought you were going to be this guy.” holds up a picture of ozsoapbox (Betcha didn’t think that existed, eh?)
Do you think lunchboxthermos should be able to ask the government to punish me? If so, explain why. If not, explain why this case differs from fining the English kindergarten.
September 1st, 2011 at 2:37 am ausGeoff(Quote)
Oh boy it’s so easy to shoot down your arguments—even from the get-go…
I told myself that I wasn’t going to respond to anymore of your rantings, but I couldn’t let this one slip through to the keeper. Silly me.
“Discrimination” and “choice” are by NO means the same thing, in the context of this discussion. Unless you’re being totally disingenuous, then you’re missing the blatantly obvious negative connotations and intent of the word “discrimination” as it’s been used here by Oz. “Choice” of course simply implies the opportunity to choose, and would generally be considered in a positive light.
Inevitably it’s your pedantry that weakens all your arguments. You’re so focused on big-noting yourself in the syntactical and semantics game that you lose sight of the target repeatedly.
And you like to think you can tie people up in mind games, with endlessly shifting waffle about who did what to whom, and where and why. I’d say that more than half of the stuff you write here is utter drivel, but then it’s my choice to assert that, because, according to you, choice is a good and necessary thing. And we need words to convey ideas: Again, according to you.
I do apologise however for starting two sentences with the conjunction “and”.
September 1st, 2011 at 4:04 am mike(Quote)
““Discrimination” and “choice” are by NO means the same thing, in the context of this discussion.”
Oh yes they are. They are exactly the same. In this context, “discrimination” means nothing more than a choice of which the State – plus a few daft Aussies – disapproves.
“…you’re missing the blatantly obvious negative connotations and intent of the word “discrimination”…”
I was acutely aware of the connotations.
That the meaning of the term “discrimination” has been eclipsed by its negative connotation in popular use long after the civil rights movement is not incidental to why I made my initial challenge.
Most (?) people do not realize that discrimination is something they do all the time e.g. when shopping. They think it is something far removed from their everyday activity and solely a characteristic of bad people. They are thus blinded to the incremental danger…
During Martin Luther King’s time (and of course before that) the kind of “discrimination” he was referring to was a systemic, irrational and culturally embedded denial of the principles of the American Revolution. King demonstrated brilliantly that that was exactly what it was.
Subsequent to the shame King cast over America, the negative connotation still hanging from the word was used constantly by the Left as one among many other points of leverage to push the State further and further into interfering with the market order of a free society. The Right has generally been either too stupid or scared to resist this.
“Inevitably it’s your pedantry that weakens all your arguments.”
It only looks like pedantry to you because you have a limited capacity for handling abstract concepts. As you know.
“You’re so focused on big-noting yourself in the syntactical and semantics game that you lose sight of the target repeatedly.
What like my comment at 11.38pm?
“And you like to think you can tie people up in mind games, with endlessly shifting waffle about who did what to whom, and where and why.”
I tied you up with one hand behind my back! But it’s not “mind games” I’m really interested in, and I don’t waffle – I try to keep everything I say crystal clear and to the point. You and Oz are the ones guilty of waffle (vague use of language).
My points are only “endlessly shifting” to the extent that I have so much bullshit from you lot to deal with. And in your case, there’s nothing “endlessly shifting” at all, I keep banging on the same point: you have difficulty handling abstract concepts.
“I’d say that more than half of the stuff you write here is utter drivel, but then it’s my choice to assert that, because, according to you, choice is a good and necessary thing.”
Sure, but what you think doesn’t matter.
“And we need words to convey ideas: Again, according to you.”
See what I mean?
September 1st, 2011 at 8:57 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
@mike
That’s the impression I get discussing anything with you. I imagine I’m not alone.
Thus I’ve concluded the excercise is pointless.
@blobofneurons
If it’s not formal employment then no. By formal I mean with a contract, salary and taxes to be paid.
You’d have a hard time approaching the government claiming discrimination if it was an illegal cash in hand job wouldn’t you?
September 1st, 2011 at 11:20 am Andy(Quote)
Because of this visa thing you will also notice that Taiwan also gets all the cheapskates and white trash from the US. Not always the case but you will notice that the majority of Americans in Taipei are usually the poor backpackers (unfortunately this is). When there is only English teaching jobs that is all this island can draw.
September 1st, 2011 at 11:47 am blobOfNeurons(Quote)
Why should it matter if it’s formal? To be more specific, why should one be able to demand employment just because the employer is a “formal” employer?
Perhaps if this was about termination of employment due to discrimination, the argument would be more convincing (as you said contracts and whatnot.) But you haven’t been convincing as to why initiation of employment should be something you can approach the government about.
September 1st, 2011 at 11:53 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
Because you pretty much forfeit any protection the government offers if you choose to work illegally. Not just in Taiwan but in any country.
You shouldn’t, and can’t. I believe there’s it’s an inherent right to not be discriminated against when looking for employment because of your race though.
Like the instance in the article, no doubt the teacher got them to admit racial discrimination was why he didn’t get the job over the phone.
Obviously the reality is that they could just as easily come up with some other stupid reason to not employ him, but at least the notion that not hiring people because of their race isn’t acceptable is implanted.
September 1st, 2011 at 1:52 pm mike(Quote)
“…but at least the notion that not hiring people because of their race isn’t acceptable is implanted.”
Right… because other people’s minds are no better than dirt for a bunch of self-appointed social-engineers to go round “planting seeds” in by dishing out legalized threat of violence.
You believe other people – other Taiwanese people – aren’t fit to make their own choices and run their own lives. Admit it.
September 1st, 2011 at 1:57 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Well that’s a bit of a jump from opposing racial discrimination. Nobody is forcing anyone to hire people of a certain race, just that they can’t discriminate against them based on race. If someone isn’t a suitable candidate on the basis of anything but their race, then they’re an unsuitable candidate.
That won’t change.
Just for once, take someone’s opinion without superimposing your tiresome anti-government rhetoric on top of it.
You can attempt to explode and exaggerate it however you want, I’m not going to bother getting drawn into silly games.
September 1st, 2011 at 3:19 pm mike(Quote)
Discrimination is choice. The crux of the matter is that either the State gets to dictate what choices people can and cannot make or it does not.
Just for once, try thinking about the implications of what I am telling you without dismissing it as “rhetoric” or “semantics” just to excuse yourself from the moral and intellectual task of looking at the world through the lens of principle.
It was the same on the Hicks thread – you think you’re entitled to opinions you can’t even defend and so make spurious excuses to avoid having to do so.
That’s it, I’m hungry and I can’t be bothered with you dickheads anymore.
September 1st, 2011 at 8:49 pm blobOfNeurons(Quote)
So there should be a law because …?
… because you want the law to change the way people think?
September 1st, 2011 at 11:07 pm ausGeoff(Quote)
Does this—at last—mean we’re rid of this pompous, self-opinionated, and plain old-fashioned rude individual?
I for one live in hope LOL.
It’s also interesting that when these sorts of grandiloquent types are backed into a corner, they inevitably report to insulting their opponents (you dickheads, what you think doesn’t matter, you have a limited capacity for handling abstract concepts, you daft berk, spouting rainbow-bullshit, etc).
And yes; these phrases are all quoted from this individual’s posts along the way. What a charming way he has with the language. He must—in real life—win friends with the greatest of ease hehe.
He’s said he’s hungry; let’s hope he eats some brain food! Could I suggest maybe some fresh salmon, or beans, or blueberries? I’m just sorry he probably won’t be reading this—although a lot of these types can’t resist trying to get the final word in. We’ll see I guess.
September 1st, 2011 at 11:14 pm ausGeoff(Quote)
Well said Oz…
You’re never gonna win any argument with these sorts of respondents. They’re so intractably set in their own glorified opinions that you’re banging your head against a brick wall. Better to preserve your cranial bones hehe.
September 2nd, 2011 at 11:13 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
@bloblofNeurons
Because there’s a difference between demanding employment and being racially discriminated against.
If that’s what it takes… there are no positives to racial discrimination and I find the fact we need to debate the merit against legislating specifically against it a sad reflection of some people’s mindset.
I kind of miss Australia in that context, we have a lot of bullshit legislation but at least we protect people from this kind of rubbish.
@ausgeoff
Within the online and rather small English speaking community in Taiwan, Fagan has developed somewhat of a status as being banned or pinned as not worth wasting time on. He’s banned from at least one blog (The View from Taiwan) and submitting letters to at least one newspaper (The Taipei Times).
The pattern seems to be rock up, bore the shit out of everyone with completely anal arguments, gloat about it on his blog and then be all smug about it once people have had enough and he’s banned.
Of course the problem isn’t Michael Fagan himself, but rather it’s the universal chorus of everyone else who can’t stand to discuss anything with him.
This appears to have been going on for a few years now. Not sure what’s behind it but there’s definitely something there. Nobody puts that much effort into ‘achieving Pariah status‘ for no particular reason.
There’s only so many hours in the day and I’ve got a publishing schedule, aside from the monotonous boredom his discussions invariably invoke, I simply don’t have time to play his silly games. I don’t see it as my problem if the way someone chooses to express themselves in a discussion bores me to tears. Rather, that’s a failure in themselves they need to address.
Or of course you can just keep on believing it’s the world’s problem nobody wants to discuss anything with you and not the way you engage people. That seems to be working out real swell.
(cue the ‘nuh-uh you don’t know me, dickheads…‘ response).
September 2nd, 2011 at 11:31 am blobOfNeurons(Quote)
True; I suppose if you could somehow make the employer become racially impartial it would follow naturally that Asians would get the job, since it is assumed they are qualified in every other way.
But you basically skipped over why it was important that it be formal employment. You’ve agreed that if I’m hiring a tutor, I can discriminate as much as want and it would not be appropriate for the government to interfere?
This is only relevant talking about Taiwan due to the idiosyncratic (read:bullshit) nature of some of the laws.
We could create an equivalent reversed situation (Caucasian wanting to teach Chinese in Australia but being discriminated against for not being Asian) and the explanation you’ve given wouldn’t make any sense.
September 2nd, 2011 at 11:37 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
Legally yes, because there’s no legal employment. If you choose to work illegally then I don’t believe you’re entitled to the relevant legal protection legal work entails.
There aren’t too many caucasian Mandarin speaking people in Australia, but if they want to work we have laws in place to make sure they aren’t racially discriminated against.
You have to remember there’s not much of a market for learning Chinese in Australia, and that if someone is caucasian and can speak fluent Mandarin there’d be far more money to be made working as a translator in the private sector (Australia does a lot of trade with China).
September 2nd, 2011 at 1:11 pm blobOfNeurons(Quote)
I need some clarification here. Is it illegal to teach privately for everyone or just non-R.O.C. citizens?
September 2nd, 2011 at 1:35 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
I’m not sure. I would imagine so as there’d be a tax issue. But then with all the small little vendors over here I’m pretty sure a lot of them wouldn’t be paying tax either (?).
Unless you’re self registered as a business there’s no way for them to keep track of your income year to year so it should be the same for locals too.
September 2nd, 2011 at 8:32 pm ausGeoff(Quote)
Thanks for the Links to Fagan’s blog Oz. It’s let me knowing more about where the guy’s coming from…
I took the time to look through his blog, and I—begrudgingly—have to admit that I found a lot of his stuff very interesting. He’s got a lot great HD photo images of the local environment and the city, and townsites and people and stuff going about their daily business. His literary style is generally easy to read (when he’s not on a personal vendetta) but too much grates on his blog to make it a regular “must read”. There’s too much use of inconsequential sidestream commentary.
He obviously spends a lot of time and effort (too much?) putting it all together, but… I couldn’t help noticing the lack of respondents to issues he raises in his blog. Often, a month’s worth of blogging draws less than a dozen responses. In fact most of his blog entries receive zero response! Which must, at some level, be disappointing for the effort he puts in.
Fagin’s major issue is that he’s too single-minded and bombastic with his opinions—about everything. His written critiques are all too often “theatrical” and overly-declamatory. In a lot of cases, he sees himself as the (imagined) victim of a society, or a press or even individuals who are “out to get him”! Possibly there’s an element of paranoid personality disorder hidden away there?
I can now understand why he’s flooded your blogs here Oz with all his anally retentive responses. Dare I say (considering I’ve never met the guy personally of course) that I’m also maybe seeing an obsessive–compulsive personality—which is a disorder characterized by a pervasive preoccupation with perfectionism, orderliness, and interpersonal control at the expense of flexibility, openness, and efficiency. Dunno.
I do appreciate the time (all) you guys take to publish your blogs (I’m far too slack LOL) and I apologise for this off-topic ramble.
September 2nd, 2011 at 8:38 pm blobOfNeurons(Quote)
Well, then let’s assume lunchboxthermos is a R.O.C. citizen* and registered as a business, and that he can legally work as a English tutor. So now, if I turn him down (and outright admit that it’s because he’s Asian), should lunchboxthermos get to ask the government for help?
*I am currently under the impression that the whole illegal English tutor situation has to do with the way work permits in Taiwan work but it would be nice if more light were shed on the subject.
September 3rd, 2011 at 10:31 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
No worries. I appreciate the input and contributions. As you note, without reader contributions a blog is a pretty dead place.
September 3rd, 2011 at 10:38 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
@blob
If it’s a legal offer of employment with a contract etc.
Cash in hand jobs are still illegal I think (tax issue).
September 15th, 2011 at 1:48 am lunchboxthermos(Quote)
mm, i no longer have family living here, but as a rule, if one of my parents is still registered here, then us kids can apply for a taiwan passport as well. but i have to stay in the country for a year without leaving in order to gain citizenship. haha ABCs are quite lucky in that aspect. but many ABCs don’t actually know that there’s this option since most ABCs parents no longer have registration here anyway(most of them discontinued their citizenship after moving to the US/CAN/OZ).
October 29th, 2011 at 4:21 am filipino maid(Quote)
sounds like destabilisation agents such as yourself are succeeding in turning taiwanese into self hating Chinese
October 29th, 2011 at 10:07 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
Yes, destabilisation agents lol… because that’s what holding a government accountable for it’s embarassingly woeful actions is. Someone has their English language dictionary out today.
And the Taiwanese aren’t Chinese… but you already knew that.