Workers’ group protests against ‘runaway’ report

ABUSE OF THE SYSTEM:The Taiwan International Workers’ Association said a firm abused its legal rights by claiming a worker had absconded after he sued it

By Wang Ting-chuan, Chen Yi-yun and Jake Chung  /  Staff reporters, with staff writer

Activists from the Taiwan International Workers’ Association protest outside the New Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office on Wednesday against the arrest of a Filipino migrant worker accused by his employer of running away.

Photo: Wang Ting-chuan, Taipei Times

The Employment Service Act (就業服務法) gives companies too much power over their foreign employees, the Taiwan International Workers’ Association said on Wednesday as its members protested outside the New Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office in support of a Filipino migrant worker accused of absconding from his job.

The protest came after the man, whom the association referred to only as “F,” was detained on Tuesday night by police in Yonghe District (永和) after his employer reported that he had run away on Sept 22.

However, F, who suffered severe burns to one hand at work in February, had not run away; he was living in the company’s dormitory, the association said.

Article 56 of the act stipulates that if a foreign worker has been unjustifiably absent from their work and not in contact for three consecutive days, the employer should “notify in writing” the local competent authority, immigration officials and the police within three days.

According to the association, F began working in Taiwan in late December last year, and in February, as a result of inadequate factory safety measures, suffered a severe burn.

Since being injured, F had continued to live in the employee dormitory as he recuperated, with his employer paying him just NT$6,002 (US$190) per month.

F has sought the association’s help in filing a lawsuit against his employer for underpaying him, it said.

He was supposed to appear for the second hearing in his court case on Wednesday, but was detained by police on Tuesday night, the association said.

Association director Wu Ching-ju (吳靜如) said the company was fully aware that F was staying in its dormitory, but reported to police that he had run away.

F’s case reflects the amount of power the law gives employers, but such power is often abused by employers threatening workers to make them compliant, Wu said.

Migrant workers who have been listed as absconding are put at a great disadvantage in finding other work, as well as having limitations placed on their personal freedom, and it is very difficult to correct such records, compared with how easy it is for employers to make such accusations, Wu said.

The only ways such a “mark” can be expunged is if the former employer is willing to recant the accusation, or if the government investigates and determines that the foreign worker did not abscond, Wu said.

The association said it is now acting as F’s guarantor and on Thursday was able to move him into a temporary residence.

The Ministry of Labor said that if companies file a false report about a migrant worker, they could be fined between NT$300,000 and NT$1.5 million, and face a two-year restriction on hiring other foreign workers.

In such cases, the “runaway” label would be removed from a migrant worker’s records.

For a foreign worker to be considered a “runaway,” their employer must be unable to contact them for three consecutive days, the ministry said.

Even if a report of a “runaway” is filed with a police station or precinct, the police are only responsible for finding the missing person and will then release the worker into the employer’s care.

Additional reporting by CNA

Exit rules lifted for blue-collar workers

‘BAD APPLES’:The amendment would allow ‘runaway’ foreign workers to remain in Taiwan indefinitely and the government’s hands would be tied, opponents said

By Abraham Gerber  /  Staff reporter, with CNA

Employers, labor agency representatives and labor organization members protest outside the Legislative Yuan in Taipei yesterday against amendments to the Employment Service Act. They also called on Minister of Labor Kuo Fong-yu to resign.

Photo: Peter Lo, Taipei Times

• 1
 
• 2

Foreign blue-collar workers will no longer be required to leave the nation every three years, according to an amendment to the Employment Service Act (就業服務法) passed by the Legislative Yuan yesterday.

The amendment, sponsored by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Wu Yu-chin (吳玉琴), removed a clause from the act that required foreign blue-collar workers to exit the nation for a least one day following the expiration of their three-year work permits.

Two opposing protests — organized by labor agencies and labor rights groups — were held outside Legislative Yuan gates as the amendment was being considered, with labor agency representatives expressing concern over a lack of “complementary measures” to ease the effects of the amendment.

Foreign white-collar workers, who fall under separate regulations, are already exempt from exit requirements, which has drawn criticism for forcing blue-collar workers to repeatedly shoulder expensive labor agency fees, even when continuing to work for the same employer.

“Foreign workers have had to pay agency fees of between NT$70,000 and NT$180,000 every three years upon their return after leaving the country. That is permitting exploitation by foreign brokers,” Wu said yesterday.

Depending upon their profession, blue-collar foreign workers earn monthly salaries of between NT$17,000 and NT$20,008, according to government regulations.

As of the end of July, 603,109 foreigners were employed as manual laborers, construction workers, factory workers or domestic helpers, Ministry of Labor data showed.

The ministry has estimated that about 14,000 foreign workers had to leave the nation annually because of the provisions, with individual workers subject to agency fees in their country of origin.

The amendment was also touted for allowing Taiwanese families relying on foreign caregivers to avoid “open window” periods when caregivers are forced to return to their home countries with their permits subject to renewal.

“This is a conspiracy by the Ministry of Labor,” Taoyuan City Employment Service Institute Association executive director Jack Huang (黃杲傑) said as protesters called for the resignation of Minister of Labor Kuo Fong-yu (郭芳煜).

He said it was unclear what kind of “direct hiring” system the ministry plans to implement, particularly whether foreign workers would still be required to pay domestic labor agencies monthly service fees after their employers renew their contracts.

Foreign workers rehired under “direct hiring” mechanisms are exempt from the fees, but most employers rely on agencies, he said.

“The direct hiring system implemented by the ministry was not sincere, because most employers cannot work their way through all the paperwork on their own,” he said.

“Now the government wants to take over the procedure through a direct hiring center, but does it have the resources to hire 30,000 people?” he said, citing an estimate of the number of people that labor agencies employ.

He said that the removal of the provision might allow “runaway” foreign workers to extend their stays, making it more difficult for agencies to manage their clients.

“The exit requirement provision is the only mechanism in place that allows us to sift through foreign workers. There is no government agency that has the ability to determine which workers are bad apples,” he said.

Meanwhile, members of the Taiwan International Workers’ Association (TIWA) said that the government should put “people before profits” and held mock human skins hanging from poles symbolizing their claim that agencies have used exit provisions to “skin” and exploit foreign workers.

“Migrant workers have no labor guarantees in areas such as overtime pay. If the agencies had done their job to resolve these issues, why are there so many foreign workers making appeals to the Ministry of Labor,” TIWA member Chuang Shu-ching (莊舒晴) said. “Agencies know that many families let foreign caregivers work beyond their permits, but what have the agencies done about it? All they do is brand anyone who appeals to the government a ‘bad apple’ who has to be sifted out by the exit provision system.”

Removing the mandatory exit clause would not affect employers’ ability to fire workers, because employers could still choose to refuse to renew their three-year contracts, TIWA member Chen Hsiu-lian (陳秀蓮) said.

Premier Lin Chuan (林全) lauded the passage of the amendment, saying: “The workers would benefit from the alleviated burden of debt” accrued from brokerage fees, and therefore the relationship between the employers and the workers would stabilize, as fewer disputes would occur over their their limited period of stay.

Lin said that supporting measures planned by the ministry include holidays, when migrant workers can visit their home nations, and not placing a financial burden on their employers.

“A win-win situation for employers and workers is an outcome we most welcome and hope for,” he said.

Pingpu recognized under Act for Indigenous Peoples

SUPERFICIAL TITLE:Pingpu campaigners said that a new classification was not what they had fought for, and that they fear the CIP might stall on Aboriginal rights issues

By Jason Pan  /  Staff reporter

Tainan Mayor William Lai, left, takes part in Kabua-Sua Village’s Siraya Night Festival in Tainan on Tuesday, during which he said that the Pingpu Siraya are an indigenous community.

Photo courtesy of the Tainan City Government

The government yesterday approved a proposal to recognize Pingpu Aborigines as indigenous peoples, by amending the Status Act For Indigenous Peoples (原住民身分法) to restore their identity, and linguistic and cultural rights, in accordance with a policy of transitional justice advanced by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文).

The decision to create a new community, known as Pingpu Indigenous People, was announced yesterday by the Executive Yuan following a meeting on policies and status laws regarding Pingpu communities, with deliberations by government officials, academics and representatives of Pingpu communities.

Some Pingpu leaders welcomed the news, hailing it as a “historic decision” for the government to finally recognize Pingpu communities as Taiwanese indigenous peoples, adding that it would open a new era for justice and equality for all the major ethnic and cultural groups in Taiwan.

“We are very happy that the Executive Yuan pushed forward on this policy. It is time for Pingpu communities to regain their indigenous status, which they had possessed in the past. On behalf of the Pingpu Siraya community in Tainan City, I want to thank the central government for respecting the right to self-identity and for the recognition of their indigenous status,” Tainan Mayor William Lai (賴清德) said. “This is the first time we have had a positive response from the government on this issue, after decades of struggling and campaigning.”

“However, there is more work to do to promote the cultural identities and traditions of Pingpu communities to restore and protect their rights the same as those of other recognized indigenous peoples,” he added.

Other Pingpu campaigners said that there are still protracted negotiations and hard bargaining to be done with the Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP) in the years to come, as the proposal requires an itemized examination of the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act (原住民族基本法) on affected rights and applications of Pingpu communities, after the process of amending the Status Act For Indigenous Peoples (原住民身分法).

There has been opposition to the recognition of some Pingpu communities as indigenous peoples to limit their privileges and rights, and government subsidies given to 16 of the recognized Aboriginal groups, activists said.

Pingpu Papora youth campaigner Aidu Mali from central Taiwan said her youth organization has been deliberately excluded from meetings between the Executive Yuan and the CIP over the past year.

“The proposal to create another category as ‘Pingpu Indigenous People’ was not what we fought for. It only gives us a superficial title and we fear that the CIP will work hard to stall on granting any indigenous rights. In the end, we could be denied our rights and excluded from the system again,” she said.

Ketagalan community Pingpu rights campaigner Chen Kimman (陳金萬) said that although he welcomed the development, he also warned that CIP officials, in their own self-interest, had chosen not to grant indigenous status to Pingpu communities, but had deliberately drawn out the process with legal amendments and protracted negotiations, which could drag on for many years and could be impeded by politicians and special-interest groups.

Earliest colonizers of Vanuatu, Tonga came from Taiwan

AFP, WELLINGTON

An undated handout photograph from Australian National University shows a skeleton in Vanuatu’s oldest cemetery outside the capital, Port Vila.

Photo: AFP / Australian National University

Ancient DNA has revealed the first inhabitants of Vanuatu and Tonga came from Asia, not other Oceanic populations as has long been assumed, a study published yesterday found.

The study sheds light on the last great human migration into unpopulated lands, when a people called the Lapita fanned out into the South Pacific about 3,000 years ago.

Little is known of the mysterious culture beyond their distinctive dotted pottery and the human remains they left behind.

Scientists had speculated that they were an offshoot of Australo-Papuan populations of Australia, New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, who arrived in the region 40,000 to 50,000 years ago.

However, analysis of three skeletons from Vanuatu’s oldest cemetery found they came from Asia, with no trace of DNA from their Pacific neighbors.

“Their original base population is Asian. They were straight out of Taiwan and perhaps the northern Philippines,” said Matthew Spriggs, a professor at the Australian National University and one of the researchers involved in the study.

“They traveled past places where people were already living, but when they got to Vanuatu there was nobody there. These are the first people,” he said.

Spriggs said another DNA sample from a Lapita skeleton in Tonga returned similar results.

“We know this because testing conducted by two different laboratories in the United States and Germany confirm that the samples are of the same people,” he said.

He added that it now appeared the Asiatic Lapita first colonized the South Pacific, then intermingled with a second wave of Australo-Papuan settlers to create the region’s modern genetic mix.

Ron Pinhasi, a professor at University College Dublin, said the study, published in Nature, was made possible by improved methods of extracting material from skeletal remains.

“The unexpected results about Oceanian history highlight the power of ancient DNA to overthrow established models of the human past,” he said.

Passage of spouse naturalization reforms urged

By Abraham Gerber  /  Staff reporter

Controversy over the naturalization of Chinese spouses should not hold up progress on legal amendments covering other foreign spouses, reform advocates said yesterday as they questioned the resolve of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to push for changes after party lawmakers boycotted cross-caucus negotiations.

The Taiwan TransAsia Sisters Association, Labor Rights Association, Taipei Women’s Rescue Foundation and other groups held a news conference at the Legislative Yuan, during which they shouted slogans critical of the DPP and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) for politicking over proposed amendments to the Nationality Act (國籍法) and the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例).

After DPP members of the legislature’s Internal Administration Committee proposed amendments to the Nationality Act to ease the naturalization process for foreign spouses, their KMT counterparts proposed reducing the number of years it takes for Chinese spouses to become naturalized Republic of China (ROC) citizens, which the committee’s KMT co-convener attempted to push through the committee in a surprise evening session.

In the wake of the controversy over the KMT’s action, both amendments have languished in “cross-caucus negotiations,” the advocates said yesterday, adding that the DPP boycotted a second round of talks last week.

National Chengchi University law professor Bruce Liao (廖元豪) said he was worried that the DPP’s actions show that it does not intend to pass the legislation, given that the KMT minority on the committee is unable to force a “coupling” or block passage of the proposals.

“The two sets of amendments do not have to be tied — they could be decoupled and move forward at different rates,” Liao said.

“What we are concerned about is that they [the DPP] do not care whether any legislation passes,” he said.

“Because the DPP is the majority, it can push legislation through, but it appears to be willing to take advantage of this opportunity to make a political point,” he said.

Liao also criticized KMT legislators for now promoting a reduction in residency requirements, which the KMT had not been willing to pass in the years that it held the legislative majority.

“The advantage the KMT gets from this controversy is that it can accuse the DPP of hypocrisy in its concern for human rights, but why did it not pass this when it was in the majority?” he said.

Labor Rights Association executive director Wang Chuan-ping (王娟萍) said that there are disadvantageous provisions in both parties’ amendments, citing a proposal to require Chinese spouses provide financial statements and take a civics test.

Taiwan TransAsia Sisters Association executive secretary Hung Man-chi (洪滿枝) criticized one proposed provision that would indefinitely extend the length of time during which a foreign spouse’s ROC citizenship could be revoked.

“Spouses already undergo extensive review before they are granted national ID cards,” Hung said.

A lack of limits on official discretion would make it easy to rule that a marriage was “falsified” — allowing citizenship to be revoked — in the event of a divorce, even if the couple were married for a decade, Hung said.

Taiwan’s Aboriginal past, identity

By Jerome Keating

On Aug. 1, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) is to make a formal apology to Taiwan’s Aborigines for the past mistreatment, loss of land and lack of transitional justice they have suffered in Taiwan. This apology is a long time coming and it is well and good that it be done.

Certainly, it is not the first time Taiwanese have witnessed an apology made by a president. Back on Feb. 28, 1995, then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) apologized for the tragedy inflicted on the nation by the 228 Massacre and its aftermath of White Terror, and it is from that apology that guiding lessons can be learned.

First is that while an apology is needed, it is only the first step. Actions will have to follow. That two decades after Lee’s apology, the nation is still working on full transparency, full disclosure and full transitional justice from the 228 Massacre and the White Terror period shows that words are not enough.

Next in importance is the context and wording of this apology and how it should express a national consciousness. The wording must bring together both historical accuracy and identification with Taiwan’s present-day nation and people.

The apology must be done on behalf of Taiwanese, but what does that mean? Certainly, all Taiwanese must be included in the address, since the injustice still remains. And further, Tsai’s apology needs to show that, as president, she is apologizing on behalf of Taiwanese; she is not placing this in the context that is Chinese. There is an important difference here both in history and ethnicity.

Tsai would be saying: “We Taiwanese apologize,” and not “we Chinese,” although some, especially those who try to subvert Taiwan’s national identity, might mistakenly want to imply this. Clearly, as regards Taiwan’s democracy, it was Taiwanese who achieved that democracy as they overcame Taiwan’s most recent Chinese diaspora. So the apology must also involve all Taiwanese, and this means delving into the consciousness of how Taiwan’s varied colonial history and multiple past genetic contributions have made it what it is.

The variety of Taiwan’s past is a litany that Taiwanese need to regularly and constantly recite with the changes and many contributions that make it up. Depending on any one historical period, Taiwanese might be tempted to say: “We Dutch,” “we Spanish,” “we fleeing Ming,” “we Manchus,” “we Japanese” and even “we losers of China’s Civil War who came as diaspora.”

However, for Tsai, the only correct answer here is “we Taiwanese;” that is, the “we” who fought for and won Taiwan’s democracy. They are the ones who can understand the complexity of the role of the Aborigines as part of Taiwan’s past. And only they can understand how they must be part of the Taiwan minzu.

In Taiwan, it has been traditional for candidates of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to say: “We Taiwanese “when an election is coming up, but they quickly switch their discourse to “we Chinese” when elections are finished or they have to talk to those on the other side of the Taiwan Strait. It is those same people who dredge up and promote a Zhonghua minzu (“Chinese ethnic group,” 中華民族) concept in Taiwan in their efforts to mute Taiwan’s own unique identity and its democracy.

Hong Kongers have been through and understand the manipulation used in the term Zhonghua minzu. They understand false and broken promises and how the “one country, two systems” slogan is just a facade for “do what we tell you and don’t ask questions.” Hong Kongers stopped saying: “We Chinese” some time ago despite a predominance of Chinese roots.

In a similar vein, Americans recognize and understand that they have British roots from the British colonies, but they know the difference between understanding one’s roots and understanding their present identity. Their democracy helped them to see this difference. Even now the suggestion of the predominance of a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant cultural background has taken on a derogatory sense. This is a US democracy, and not “the first British democracy.”

Taiwan’s own history of seeking home rule and democracy dates back to the Japanese colonial era and true Taiwanese understand that. It involves the question of recognizing this as part of the unique history and ancestry of their island nation.

Taiwanese can easily spot the “unificationists” and China trolls who wish to subjugate Taiwan’s democracy under the mantle of ethnicity. For unlike Chinese, Taiwanese do not have a problem with Japan, because Taiwan’s history is different from that of China.

Moreover, there is another stark aspect of its history that separates Taiwan from other colonial experiences. This is found in how things happened. In the early 1600s, 98 percent of the people in Taiwan were indigenous and 2 percent were outsiders. Now about 400 years later, it is the opposite, 2 percent are indigenous, and 98 percent are from the outside. With this, the loss of Aboriginal customs is understandable. Yet, despite that loss, a separate additional factor must still be noted.

As new immigrants came, particularly from China, the majority were males and this created the well-known saying that Taiwanese have a Chinese grandfather and a Taiwanese — indigenous — grandmother. Studies support this in saying that 85 percent of Taiwanese have a shared indigenous blood and DNA. The indigenous are “family” in Taiwan.

In contrast, in the US for example, there was always some intermarriage between colonials and the indigenous people, but there was never the volume that is found in Taiwan. One could not claim that 85 percent of Americans have indigenous blood and DNA. This 85 percent remains an unrecognized part of the Taiwan minzu. Issues with it are found in current problems the law has in recognizing the Pingpu Aborigines; the Pingpus’ assimilation has unfortunately made their contributions disappear. And further, because their history is often oral and not written down, most of it has been lost. Nonetheless, the fact that 85 percent of Taiwanese share Aboriginal DNA remains treated like a dark secret; the majority of those that do not are the recent diaspora.

All this must be part of the apology by Tsai. The apology is the right move and it is long in coming, but in it, Taiwanese must also see how their Aboriginal past is part of their identity, an identity that has often been lost in subsequent Nipponization and Sinicization.

In the international community, Taiwan has experienced a feeling of isolation as China uses the power of money to force other states to treat Taiwan like a pariah or poor cousin without status. Taiwan must use the back door to gain entry.

Aborigines in Taiwan often experience non-recognition of their past, as well as their present, even though 85 percent of the nation share their ancestry. For this reason, just as Taiwan works to come in from out of the cold in the world community, so too must Taiwan’s Aborigines be brought in out of Taiwan’s past cold to be given full recognition. These are the challenges that must accompany the apology.

Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei

Taiwan in Time: ‘Governing the savages’

The Japanese led a massive campaign against the Truku tribe in 1914, effectively stamping out the last impediment toward total control of the colony

By Han Cheung  /  Staff reporter

The red line shows the extent of Japanese control in this 1901 map. Beyond was Aboriginal territory, which the Japanese did not effectively control until around 1915.

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

• 1
 
• 2

Taiwan in Time: July 25 to July 31

In late July of 1914, a fierce, two-month battle was nearing its end in the mountains of present-day Hualien County (花蓮).

Sakuma Samata, then-governor general of Taiwan who personally participated in the battle, had fallen off a cliff a month earlier and was in critical condition — but the outcome was already decided, as the main resistance had surrendered and given up their weapons a few weeks earlier.

Soon, the Japanese would finally effectively control Taiwan in its entirety, the process taking more than two decades as it spent the first decade dealing with armed Han uprisings.

With more than 10,000 men on the Japanese side, this would be the largest and final battle of Sakuma’s Aboriginal pacification campaign.

The Japanese took over Taiwan in 1895, but up until 1910, they still were not able to entirely control the mountainous Aboriginal areas. The government mostly isolated the Aborigines in the mountains with “guard lines,” which consisted of wooden or electric fences (and sometimes landmines) with guard stations. These lines were originally defensive in nature, but eventually they became a means of cutting off and encircling the tribes as they were built deeper and deeper into Aboriginal territory.

The Truku had caused the colonial government trouble as early as 1896 and was reportedly one of the fiercest tribes to resist Japanese rule. The last major incident took place just four months after Sakuma took office in August 1906, when about 30 Japanese were killed, including the governor of Karenko Subprefecture (the eastern part of today’s Hualien County).

Sakuma had dealt with the Aborigines as early as 1874 during the Mudan Incident, when Japan sent a punitive expedition to punish Paiwan tribesmen who had killed 54 shipwrecked Ryukuan sailors. He reportedly earned the epithet “Demon Sakuma” due to his fierceness during this battle and was the one who killed the Mudan Village chief.

In 1907, Sakuma announced his first five-year plan to “govern the savages.” For the Aborigines in the Truku area, this entailed setting up new guard lines in the mountains to further isolate the tribes, and then finally subjugating them through military action if necessary. He also had ships patrol the coast to cut them off from the other side.

Some Aborigines surrendered and allowed the enclosures, either intimidated by force or enticed by governmental promises — but others decided to fight, leading to several bloody incidents. Sakuma decided that a new direction was needed.

In 1910, he received massive funding from the Japanese government for a new five-year plan, taking on a more aggressive, militaristic approach with armed police, especially in the northern part of Taiwan. They continued to push the guard lines forward, with a major goal of confiscating the weapons of the Aborigines, leaving them with no means to resist. Most estimates show that more than 20,000 guns were collected during this time.

There were several groups that were classified as “vicious savages,” and therefore, Sakuma required military expeditions. After campaigns against other tribes in 1910, 1911 and 1913, Sakuma saved the Truku for last.

Starting from 1913, Sakuma sent scouts to survey the Truku terrain, and also trained Truku language translators. In late May of 1914, the 69-year-old personally led more than 10,000 police, soldiers and other personnel toward Truku territory. Most records show that the Truku had at most 3,000 fighting men.

This was not a straight-up extermination campaign, as the troops promised the Aborigines they wouldn’t be harmed if they handed over all their guns and ammunition — and many did so. After two months of battle, the fighting gradually resided and the official surrender ceremony was held on Aug. 13.

At the end of the war, the Japanese had only lost about 150 men, of which 76 were killed in battle, according to official numbers from the Governor-General’s Office. There are no numbers on how many Aborigines were killed.

Afterward, the Japanese sent personnel in to the mountains to build roads and bridges, set up telephone wires as well as round up the remaining ammunition and people who went into hiding. They also built police and patrol facilities and stationed troops in the area.

Sakuma recovered from his injuries and headed back to Japan in September to report to the emperor the completion of his mission. He remained as governor-general until April 1915.

Taiwan in Time, a column about Taiwan’s history that is published every Sunday, spotlights important or interesting events around the nation that have anniversaries this week.

Activists pour ink on Koxinga statue

By Wang Chieh and Jonathan Chin  /  Staff reporter, with staff writer

A statue of Koxinga in Tainan’s North District is surrounded by police officers yesterday after Aboriginal rights activists poured red ink on its pedestal.

Photo: CNA

Aboriginal rights activists yesterday poured red ink on a statue of Koxinga (鄭成功) in Tainan’s North District (北區) to demand justice and autonomy for Aborigines, saying that the public should not revere a historical figure who massacred Aborigines and calling on President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) to prioritize Aboriginal justice issues.

The activists, carrying banners, gathered by the statute near Tainan Station and poured red ink on the the statute’s feet and pedestal, to symbolize that Koxinga had “trampled on the blood of Aborigines.”

Police arrived at the scene to stop the demonstrators, resulting in an argument.

The protesters said they are instructors at universities such as the National Cheng Kung University and Chang Jung Christian University (CJCU), adding that they are members of the Justice for Aborigines Alliance.

Lo Yung-ching (羅永清), an assistant professor of Taiwan Studies at CJCU, told reporters that Koxinga was “responsible for massacres and persecution of Aborigines,” adding that the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) draft bill to promote transitional justice “does not give due consideration to the Aboriginal historical perspective.”

Lo called on the Tsai administration and DPP lawmakers to draft a transitional justice bill to specifically to address Aboriginal groups, establish a committee for Aboriginal justice and work toward state reparations, self-governance and a restoration of “dignity and sovereignty” for Aborigines.

Although Tsai’s campaign platform included many of the alliance’s demands, including granting Aborigines substantive autonomy, Lo said it is time for Tsai to fulfill those promises.

“President Siao Ing should not think that an oral apology is enough to put the matter to rest,” Lo said, using Tsai’s nickname.

Tsai has promised to officially apologize to Aborigines in her capacity as president on Monday, Aborigines Day.

FEATURE: New hope for Aborigines amid threats to their culture

By Michelle Yun  /  AFP, TAITUNG

For Tama Talum of the Bunun community, hunting is a way of life, integral to his tribal customs — but after his arrest for illegally killing a deer and goat on land near his village, he fears those traditions will soon die out.

It is just one of many cases reflecting the wrangling between the government and Aborigines, with critics saying laws discriminate against Aboriginal cultures and that society as a whole has little understanding of them.

President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) — the first Taiwanese leader with Aboriginal blood — will attempt to ease those tensions when she delivers the first ever apology to the nation’s Aborigines on Monday for injustices they have suffered over the centuries.

“An apology isn’t going to solve all the problems, but symbolically it shows Tsai is willing to face this issue,” said Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Kolas Yotaka, who is from the Amis people.

“It gives us hope,” she added.

However, for Tama Talum, the damage is done.

The 57-year-old is a free man while he awaits the result of an appeal to the Supreme Court after an uproar in the Aboriginal community over his three-and-a-half-year sentence for possessing an illegal weapon and hunting a protected species.

Aboriginal hunters are legally allowed to use only homemade firearms — which they say can be dangerous and have led to injuries — and to hunt on festival days, restrictions to which many object.

Tama Talum’s arrest has already stopped younger members of his community from wanting to hunt, he said.

“Some of them are scared after seeing me being dragged away. They don’t want to learn. I was an optimistic man, but it is hard to be upbeat,” he said.

Anthropologists say Taiwan’s Aborigines have linguistic and genetic ties with Austronesians in Malaysia and Indonesia. They make up about 2 percent of the nation’s population.

Their sense of injustice revolves mainly around the loss of ancestral land rights, which first came under threat when immigrants from China arrived 400 years ago.

Much of that land is now designated as national parks, leading to clashes over hunting, fishing and foraging in areas where permits are needed.

“There are so many restrictions, telling us what we cannot do,” Tama Talum said at his home, nestled among mountains in Taitung County.

Corn and rice fields surround the village of Tastas — “waterfall” in the Bunun language — where about 250 people live in simple corrugated-metal roofed houses.

“We are not stealing or robbing anyone, and it is not that we are hunting everyday,” he said.

Tama Talum moved to a city in search of work, but eventually returned to take care of his mother.

Aboriginal unemployment is higher than the rest of the workforce and their wages average about 40 percent less than the national average, according to the Council of Indigenous Peoples.

A lack of autonomy to manage and live off their land also exacerbates social issues, such as alcohol abuse, according to Scott Simon, a professor at the University of Ottawa, who researches Taiwanese indigenous rights.

“The alcohol problem is a major public health issue that is not being adequately addressed. These issues are related,” he said.

Despite the challenges, some young Aborigines are trying to reconnect with their roots.

“What we want is simple: Give us back what was originally ours,” said Kelun Katadrepan, who works for an Aboriginal TV station.

The 30-year-old from the Puyuma community has started a campaign to gather young professionals to advocate Aboriginal involvement in politics.

In addition to restoring dispossessed land, Kelun Katadrepan wants an overhaul of the education system to prevent further loss of tribal languages — five have been designated as “severely endangered” by UNESCO.

His parents did not want to teach him their language while growing up, believing he needed to master Chinese to secure a better future.

“We are not Chinese, but we are forced to learn Chinese since we are little. That is not our culture,” Kelun Katadrepan said.

However, there have been gradual efforts to change that.

While teaching is usually in Chinese, some schools offer options to take Aboriginal language classes. There are also community colleges where traditional customs and skills are taught.

With the DPP in power, Kolas Yotaka hopes government regulations will be brought in line with the Aboriginal Basic Act (原住民族基本法), adopted in 2005 to protect Aboriginal rights.

That would correct current contradictions, including hunting being illegal apart from during major festivals — even though the act protects Aboriginal rights to kill wild animals for self-consumption.

Tama Talum said he has not risked hunting since his conviction, except for a sanctioned foray during a spring festival, where young Bunun men demonstrate their hunting skills and pray for a good millet harvest.

He still clings onto hope that his son, who was raised in the city and is now in his 30s, will eventually learn the old ways.

“After a while, when the time comes, he will think of going to the mountains with his father,” he said.

Have no fear of ‘unification’: Hung

By Shih Hsiao-kuang and Alison Hsiao  /  Staff Reporters

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu speaks at the party’s “consensus camp” for young people in Taipei yesterday.

Photo: Liu Hsin-de, Taipei Times

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) said at a “consensus camp” held by the party for young people yesterday in Taipei that critics did not properly understand the so-called “1992 consensus,” and that terms such as “unification” should not spark fear.

She also defined the China-Taiwan relationship as being “between two regions,” saying that as the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution still exists and the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例) has not been abolished, the cross-strait relationship is one between two regions.

Before people criticize the “1992 consensus,” they should first have a good understanding of the historical background of this term and give it an unbiased evaluation, she said.

The “1992 consensus” — a term former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) admitted making up in 2000 — refers to a tacit understanding between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese government that both sides acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.

Hung said that the nation’s identity is in crisis and many Taiwanese fear talk of “unification” or any mention of “zhong guo “(China,中國).

“We cannot unify others but are afraid of being unified by the Chinese Communist Party,” she said. “Taiwan simply does not have the needed materials to obtain independence, because that would mean waging a war. Do people really have the guts to throw their heads away and spill hot blood to establish a Taiwan republic?”

She said the KMT is endeavoring to help Taiwan find a way out, as there is no guarantee for how long Taiwan can maintain the “status quo,” but lamented that the KMT in doing so has often been labeled “red.”

“However, I’m not afraid of being labeled. Because politicians need to speak truthfully, rather than talk nonsense for the votes,” she said, adding that people would not support the KMT if it simply copies the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

Hung said that people have forgotten that the KMT kept Taiwan safe and helped it to develop and prosper after it came to Taiwan, and remember only the 228 Incident and the White Terror era.

“Has the KMT done nothing else?” she said, adding that learning from history is the way to prevent repeating it.

“It is tragic for Taiwan that some politicians always pour salt into the wound and manufacture hatred, opposition and polarization,” she said.

Hung also commented on the recent change of rules made by Academia Historica on reading files stored in the institution that would restrict people from China, Hong Kong and Macao from accessing the files, which the institution said is “returning to what the law demands.”

“The DPP in the name of transitional justice wants the KMT to open its files concerning the party’s history to the public, but at the same time discriminates against people from certain regions when it comes to accessing the nation’s history, which is a move that is clearly of questionable intent and inappropriate,” she said.