Indonesian Workers Forced to Eat Pork, Mainland Students Not Allowed to Marry

Indonesian Workers Forced to Eat Pork, Mainland Students Not Allowed to Marry
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 17, 2010

A Taiwanese employer who forced Indonesian workers of the Islamic faith to eat pork, has been condemned by the international media. Indonesian labor organizations also denounced him, saying that forcing Indonesian workers to eat eat pork is forcing them to violate their religious consciences, and therefore tantamount to a crime. Yesterday a group of Indonesian workers took to the streets, protesting the brutal and ignorant attitude of Taiwanese employers toward other cultures.

Taiwan has been dependent upon foreign labor for over twenty years. Yet incidents of employers withholding foreign workers' pay, denying them holiday leave, and restricting their movements have not diminished. Many employers see foreign workers as domestic slaves. They see foreign workers as second-class workers. They exploit their bodies, then leave them isolated and without support. They force them to perform endless labor, then ignore their physical and mental fatigue, and demonstrate even less concern for their beliefs and their culture. The reason this incident broke out, was mainly because the employer withheld too much of the foreign workers' wages. In fact, during their training period, many Indonesian workers have been forced to sign consent forms stating, "I am willing to eat pork." Clearly Indonesian workers being forced to eat pork is widespread on Taiwan. It is definitely not limited to this one case.

Taiwan has long taken pride in its prosperity and democracy compared to its Asian neighbors. But as an economy dependent upon foreign workers, discrimination against foreign workers is rash, out of touch with the times, and underscores our shallowness. When discussing foreign workers, many employers think only in terms of "management" and "overhead." But were it not for the abundance of cheap labor from Southeast Asia, twenty years of economic development on Taiwan would probably have a very different face. Therefore, shouldn't we grant these foreign workers, who contributed to Taiwan's development, a little more respect?

Discrimination is a psychological paradox. Often it is a mixture of arrogance, ignorance, and fear. The employer who withheld wages and forced workers to eat pork is a typical example of arrogance and ignorance. Meanwhile, recent DPP attempts to impose layer upon layer of controls on mainland students studying on Taiwan, are the product of another kind of arrogance and fear.

The Democratic Progressive Party initially opposed allowing mainland students to study on Taiwan. The reason they gave was that mainland students would deprive local students of educational resources. But when major universities welcomed mainland students, the Democratic Progressive Party knew that argument would not hold water. Soon they demand a whole new set of barriers, the so-called "Three Limitations and Six Prohibitions." These barriers include limiting the schools mainland students may attend, limiting their numbers, limiting the regions in which they may attend. These barriers include no norm-referenced testing, no reductions in existing enrollment, no scholarships, no moonlighting, no occupational licensure, and no employment allowed. And finally, should a mainland student and a local student happen to fall in love and want to marry, the mainland student will be repatriated.

Consider the matter from an equal rights perspective. Taiwan has established a complicated and onerous threshold for mainland students studying on Taiwan almost as strict as those during martial law. The Democratic Progressive Party is rationalizing its flagrant discrimination with such mantras as "Defending the nation! Defending the people!" The KMT, bafflingly, is dancing to the DPP's tune. At a time when global educational exchanges are increasingly free and open, Taiwan sees mainland students separated by a few miles of water as implacable enemies. It sees mainland students as insidious infiltrators. It sees educational opportunities as deadly threats. Is this not laughable beyond belief?

The Democratic Progressive Party has long boasted of its goal of "founding a nation on human rights." Yet it does everything in its power to treat mainland students and mainland spouses with enmity. The discriminatory restrictions the DPP imposed upon them are utterly devoid of human feeling. They run counter to the concept of universal human rights. The DPP rose to prominence by holding high the banner of democracy and progress, and by safeguarding the interests of the disadvantaged. But somewhere along the way, its ideals of democracy and progress were buried by its "nativist" consciousness. The DPP is able to express its "anti-China" hatred only by demagoguing such low level issues as mainland students studying on Taiwan. One might say that the Green Camp's prejudices against mainland students and mainland spouses reflect a serious step backward for the DPP. Meanwhile the ruling KMT, which is far too eager to compromise, seems to have forgotten that selective discrimination against mainland students is fueling the flames of discrimination on Taiwan.

The general public's oppression of foreign workers, and its contempt for foreign workers has economic and cultural roots. But the Green Camp's antipathy toward [mainland] China and mainland students is politically motivated. Regardless, the targets of both forms of discrimination are part of the Asian community that Taiwan ought to be befriending. This is what we most need to be vigilant about. The Republic of China's diplomatic situation is precarious. Many of our foreign relations depend upon private diplomacy to establish friendship and trust. The visitors ordinary members of the public are most likely to come in contact with are foreign workers, foreign spouses, mainland tourists and mainland students. If the public on Taiwan cannot view others without hostility and prejudice, it may well breed misunderstanding of Taiwan amongst our neighbors, and we may well wind up even more isolated in the Asian community.

強迫印勞吃豬肉與不准陸生結婚
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.05.17 01:38 am

一位台灣雇主逼迫信仰伊斯蘭的印尼勞工吃豬肉，遭到國際媒體譴責；印尼勞工組織更痛斥，強迫吃豬肉是強迫印勞違背自己的信仰，已是一樁「犯罪行為」。昨天一群印勞更走上街頭，抗議台灣雇主對異文化的粗暴和無知。

我國引進外勞至今已超過廿年，但雇主對外勞動輒剋扣薪資、剝奪假日、限制行動等問題，卻始終未見減少。許多雇主視外傭如家奴，視外勞如同次等勞工，利用他們隻身在外、孤立無援，支使其從事無盡的勞務，罔顧他們身心的疲累，更遑論尊重其信仰和文化。這次事件之所以爆發，主因在雇主對外勞剋扣無度；事實上，許多印勞在接受訓練時，即被迫簽下「我願意吃豬肉」的同意書。足見，印勞被迫吃豬肉的情形在台灣普遍存在，絕非一宗個案而已。

比起一些亞洲鄰邦，台灣向來頗以自己的繁榮和民主自豪。但作為一個倚賴外勞的國家，我們對於外勞的歧視與輕率卻未曾與時俱進，這也凸顯了社會見識淺薄的問題。談到外勞，許多雇主心裡盤算的恐怕只有「管理」和「成本」；但試想，若非有這麼多廉價的東南亞勞工支撐，台灣近廿年的經濟發展恐怕將是另一番面貌。那麼，為何我們不能給這些參與台灣發展的外勞，多一點人道的尊重？

歧視是一種弔詭的心理，經常是自大、無知與恐懼的混合物。雇主剋扣薪資及強迫外勞吃豬肉，這是一種自大與無知的典型；而最近在野黨對陸生來台設下層層管制，則是另外一種傲慢加恐懼的產物。

民進黨最初反對陸生來台，是說他們將搶走本地學生的教育資源；但在各大學院校對陸生表示歡迎之後，民進黨知道情勢抵擋不住，旋即又咬定「三限六不」的重重機關，從限校、限量、限域，到不加分、不佔招生名額、不提供獎學金、不准打工、不可考照、不准就業等。更有甚者，萬一陸生與台生發生戀情進而要結婚，將遭到遣返。

從平權的角度看，台灣專為陸生量身打造一套特殊尺寸的就學門檻，其繁瑣與嚴苛，已直逼戒嚴時代的水準。如此公然的歧視，民進黨竟能把台詞說得像「保國衛民」大戲一樣動聽，而國民黨卻也隨之起舞，令人不解。尤其，當全球的教育交流都在走向自由開放，台灣卻視一水之隔的陸生如同大敵，把陸生想像成社會滲透，把教育機會看成社會威脅，豈不可笑之至？

民進黨自詡「人權立國」，卻千方百計敵視大陸學生和大陸配偶，對他們分級設限歧視，這除了違背社會人情，也已完全悖離人權的普世價值。民進黨當年高舉民主進步的大旗起家，追求維護弱勢者的權益；曾幾何時，民主進步的理想被「本土」思維完全埋葬，民進黨也只能在陸生這類低層次的議題上進行「反中」宣示。可以說，綠營對陸生乃至陸配的歧視，恰好反映了它民主理想的嚴重倒退。而急於妥協的執政黨似乎也忘了，對陸生選擇性的五花大綁，是在助長台灣歧視的火苗。

一般民眾對外勞的壓迫或蔑視，具有經濟及文化的根源；而綠營鼓吹的反中反陸生，則是出自政治性的動機。不論何者，兩種歧視的對象，都是台灣應該友善交好的亞洲社群，這才是最值得警惕之處。台灣的外交處境不易，許多對外關係要靠國民外交所建立的友誼和信任來維繫；至於一般民眾最容易接觸的異鄉客，就是這些來台外勞、外配、陸客及陸生。若台灣民眾不能收起自己的武裝和歧視之眼，一旦這些鄰邦民眾對台灣滋生誤解，我們在亞洲社區的處境恐怕將更形孤立。