Improve English education in Taiwan with this ONE WEIRD TRICK!

My work in Taiwan is dominated by adult students who ask for help with accent training. They need to do business with Koreans, Japanese, various speakers of Southeast Asian languages, Australians, Latinx people, Indians or various Europeans.

You see, all their teachers have been from an "Inner Circle" country (UK, Ireland, US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand). They are therefore most used to those accents, North American ones in particular. They might meet people with those accents, but for business, there is a real need to better understand other Englishes.

My life in Taiwan is unfortunately punctuated by people bloviating about how racism in the English learning industry is somehow acceptable because of "choice" or "the market" or something (their arguments don't make much sense, because they are constructed mostly to avoid confronting uncomfortable issues rather than as stand-alone opinions).

They might try to say that this is acceptable because of some sort of subjective "clarity" of certain accents, although of course how clear an accent is depends in great part on how exposed you are to it compared to other accents (these people are not exactly experts in second language acquisition).

Some pontificate on how it is preferable to be taught by a "native speaker", usually with a very poor understanding of second language acquisition or what being a "native" or "non-native" speaker might actually mean. There is even less recognition that many people in India, Singapore, Nigeria, the Philippines (and more) are, in fact, native speakers, let alone questioning why they aren't recognized as such.

(The answer is racism, by the way. But that's hard for Johnny McBackpacker to admit when it casts doubt on his strongly-held opinion that "the market" is the Fairest Arbiter Of Them All.)

My life in England is characterized by mostly non-native speaking classmates, all of whom are fluent in English, and all of whom know more about the pedagogy of how to teach English than the average Johnny McBackpacker.

Sure, they have accents. But many of them have the accents that my adult students say they need to better understand for their work. Every last one of them is qualified to teach in Taiwan, but many if not most would struggle to get hired here.

We talk about all sorts of things, not least of which is the idea of English as a lingua franca (ELF) or English as an international language (EIL). Most English learners speak regularly with other non-native speakers, some perhaps almost entirely so, especially if they are using English in business or academia.

Back in Taiwan, the consequences are not surprising - all that learning of English from Canadians, Brits and Americans (the so-called 'preferable' native speakers) has actually put those students who tell me they need help with accents at a disadvantage. They get to work and realize, oh, all that time I spent with Teacher Becky listening to dialogues between Tim and Karen, but I actually have to communicate with people who don't speak like Becky, Tim or Karen. I have to do business with Sandeep and Cheng and Fumiko and Nnedi and Abdurrahman and Lupa. 

Of course, most people making hiring decisions are not educators. Even if they realize that they are actually disadvantaging their learners by not providing the English education many instrumentally-motivated Taiwanese learners are likely to need, they don't care. "It's the market." And the market wants white - even Inner Circle "native speaker" teachers who aren't white struggle to get hired.

And I just can't help but think, if y'all hired fluent English-speaking teachers from around the world, ensuring that most learners through their time studying English were exposed to a variety of Englishes, maybe not so many adult learners would come to me asking for help, which I have trouble giving with my Standard American accent. Maybe if we hired more English teachers whose usage represented the speakers and Englishes our learners would actually be communicating with, we wouldn't have this problem.

I mean, I don't want to say "duh", but...duh?

Mr. Xi's Soft Prong

This sort-of-okay thing that veered into a steaming pile of garbage from the Economist, uh, exists. So that's...there.

Please draw your attention to this paragraph particular line towards the end:

Lin Chong-pin, a Taiwanese scholar and former senior official, calls this Mr Xi’s “soft prong”. 

Ah.

Now we know why Xi Jin-ping is so obsessed with taking Taiwan.

Now, I really hope Lin formulated this thought on purpose, as a big, fat, hard jab at Xi Jin-ping, perhaps hoping we would understand the encoded message in his long, straight, pointed finger.

But even if he didn't, this says a lot. All those powerful cylindrical metal planes circling Taiwan and it's huge rocky mountains, standing tall and erect right there across the strait. He has to take a stab (well, maybe not a stab, more like a flaccid wriggle) at Taiwan to prove to us - and more importantly, to himself - that he's packing heat (well, maybe not heat, more like those squishy hand warmers you can rub. They get warm but they never get stiff). All those big, powerful missiles pointed right at Taiwan, ready to launch.

Because I don't want to linger too long on, uh, Mr. Xi's Soft Prong, let's take a look at the flaming heap of crap that makes up the final two paragraphs of this utter head-scratcher of a piece.

Now I will say, it starts out okay. It could take more time to discuss the perspective of Taiwan, but as it stands it is a pretty clear laying out of China's coercion tactics against Taiwan, which are important for Westerners to know about.

But then....whhaaaaa?

All this is out of the old playbook. Mr Xi’s innovation is to single out young Taiwanese and to pile on the blandishments.

In terms of pay, yes, but if he thinks he's actually going to win them over politically...he's not.

Colleges offer Taiwanese teachers better pay than they could get in Taiwan. Chinese provinces are opening research centres aimed at young Taiwanese. In the southern city of Dongguan, Taiwanese tech entrepreneurs can get free startup-money and subsidised flats.

Yeah, that's the strategy. Want to talk about why it's a problem?

Over 400,000 Taiwanese now work in China. The young in particular are crossing the strait in droves.

I guess not. Well, okay.

You do realize they're not moving to China because they want to, yes? You do realize they are doing it because the economy at home isn't offering them fair wages for fair work, and because they feel it's their best opportunity to make money - but not because they actually want to live in China, yes? Why are you implying that there is anything other than economic rationalization for this? Nobody - literally nobody - thinks China is overall a better country to live in than Taiwan.

Lin Chong-pin, a Taiwanese scholar and former senior official, calls this Mr Xi’s “soft prong”.

Hahahahaha.

In some respects it seems to be reshaping attitudes towards China.

No, it isn't. Identification with China, liking China, thinking China is anything other than a terrifying enemy who must be dealt with for economic reasons, is not actually changing. This is simply factually wrong. 

It does not help Ms Tsai that she has failed to make much progress on her promise to create more opportunities for the young.

Duh, but what does that have to do with China? That's a domestic issue. Her administration is simply not doing a good job with this. 

Taiwan’s economy remains sluggish.

So does the rest of the world's. Want to put what you're saying into perspective a lil' bit maybe?

The young think older generations get the better deal.

This is true but it is not related to China. 

But she gets the blame for tricky cross-strait relations more than Mr Xi does.

Does she? I mean, personally, I think the one thing she is doing right is her cross-strait policy. What's your source on this? 

A recent poll even shows Taiwanese feeling more warmly towards Mr Xi than to Ms Tsai.

Oh, I see, a poll that you don't link to. Hmmm. I'd like to see this poll. How is it worded? What questions are asked? Where is this coming from? Where is your source? Why aren't you comparing Tsai's approval ratings to pro-China Ma Ying-jiu's (man, talk about a soft prong...ahem) to show what it means in a Taiwanese context? 

They do not admire China’s political culture.

No shit. So why don't you say more about this? And if they don't admire China's political culture, why do they admire Xi so much?

But Mr Xi may be nurturing a reluctance among young Taiwanese to bite the hand that feeds them.

They know perfectly well that they are not being fed so much as slowly poisoned. They also know - they're not stupid after all - that slow-acting poison food is better than no food. But if you think for even one second that this is going to change how they feel about China, or Taiwan, or Xi Jin-ping in a way that will get them to accept unification...

...well, then do I have a soft prong for you! 

Young Taiwanese are leaving Taiwan in record numbers, and the reason why WILL SHOCK YOU!

Oh wait, no it won't.

The reason why is they want fair pay and reasonable hours. 

"Why is brain drain such a problem in Taiwan?" these articles always ask.

It's because pay is too low and hours are too long.

"OMG China is benefiting from the brain drain!"

Well yeah, because even though the hours there are long and the work culture generally terrible, at least you're being paid better to bend over and take it. If they could earn a competitive wage in Taiwan they'd probably stay.

"How can we resolve the brain drain problem?"

This article could have been written in four words:

FAIR PAY, REASONABLE HOURS

It's not rocket science, jeez. 

"Maybe we could solve it by attracting more foreigners?"

No.

Fair pay, reasonable hours. We are not your excuse or your get-out-of-jail (I hope literal, actual jail because some of these employers need to go to prison) free card to treat workers like garbage. 

This article seems to think China is 'trying' to woo these talented young Taiwanese. 

Maybe, but it hardly matters. It wouldn't work if Taiwan offered labor a fair shake. Most wouldn't choose to work in China if they could get - you guessed it - fair pay and reasonable hours in Taiwan. Bosses who aren't incompetent morons and a work culture that affords autonomy, a voice and a sense of purpose - maybe even the chance to grow and develop in what you do - wouldn't hurt either.

But most people would probably settle for fair pay and reasonable hours. 

This guy who somehow became a professor (wonders never cease) is not only condescending but also wrong.

The cost of living has been rising yet wages have not, which directly affects purchasing power. The difference in pay in Taiwan doesn't reflect the cost of living accurately, at least not anymore. It has nothing to do with choice of career - a total misdirection - and he doesn't seem to go anywhere with his education data.

Basically, he totally misses that Taiwanese are leaving not only because they want fair pay for the hours they work, but also to work reasonable hours. 

* * *

Nobody - at least nobody that I can find - is reporting on the basic facts:

How do you solve Taiwan's brain drain? 

Fair pay and reasonable hours. It's not rocket science. 

But working overtime helps Taiwanese earn more!

Sure, but that's because they're not earning enough now. Few people who earn enough money wish to work themselves to exhaustion. They're doing it because they need to.

OMG the low birth rate!

Yeah if people earned more they'd have more kids, anyway when they're working all the time there's no time to bone.

Again. Not rocket science. 

But why are they leaving???

LOW PAY AND UNREASONABLE HOURS

So how do we get them to stay??

FAIR PAY AND REASONABLE HOURS. 

Guys. Seriously. Come on. Quit it with your nonsense, spinning webs of words around this very simple problem that literally a monkey could solve.

Most people don't want to leave their home country. Some do - they tend to be the adventurers or those looking for something different. Many return, a few don't. That's OK. Some find the lifestyle abroad suits them better, as I did. But most are happy to stay in the country where they are from if that country is more or less a comfortable/good/safe/friendly place to live. Their friends, family and community are here. They wouldn't leave if they could get good work for fair pay at reasonable hours.

So Jesus Monkey-Juggling Christ, if you want to keep them offer them fair pay and reasonable hours.

I'm not even joking about the monkey. If you devised a test where on one side they had to run on a treadmill for like 12 hours (a typical Taiwanese work day) for ten peanuts, and on the other, they had to run on a treadmill for 8 hours for 20 peanuts, the monkey is smart enough to choose the better option.

Like...seriously. How is this hard? 

In defense of private institute English teaching

Let me make this clear in the beginning: I'm playing devil's advocate here. I have a lot (no really, a lot) of criticisms of the private teaching market, which in Taiwan usually consist of cram schools/buxibans. I wouldn't call working for them a good work situation generally, and if you do so, you lose a lot of the perks of being a teacher. No one-month-salary annual bonuses, no paid summers off, no access to the pension program, few salaried positions available, and very little job security when most of us are on zero-hour contracts. It is possible to get a job as a nobody with no experience, qualification, training or even relevant volunteer experience, and be thrown into work without adequate training.

The work doesn't pay nearly as well as people seem to think it does - better than more traditional teaching in Taiwan (but not necessarily elsewhere) at both public schools and universities, and better than the average twentysomething office worker, but not nearly on par with credentialed mid-career professionals in other fields. Work hours tend to be long and scattered, and you teach a lot because you need to in order to earn enough money. That gives you much less time to put care into planning lessons, let alone doing research, action research, writing, reading, giving or attending workshops or doing all of the other things I associate with a professional teaching career. Everyone encourages their teachers to seek professional development and certification, but nobody is willing to sponsor it.

And, ethically, a lot of the cram schools here, and around the world, treat their teachers like migrant laborers or are just straight-up racist or the worst kind of neoliberal "we can take what we want from you and offer you as little as possible in return" employers.

I can't say I'm "happy" with the way this industry is run nor with what those who work in it get for their efforts.

However, after spending a month among other experienced English teachers from different contexts around the world, I do have a few things I can say in defense of working in a language institute.

One more caveat before I begin: these advantages only seem to accrue to those who have accumulated experience and often credentials, and in Taiwan are often easier to come by if you stay long enough to get permanent residency. They do not necessarily apply to all new teachers.

First of all, it's easier to get uninterrupted vacation time, although that time is almost always unpaid. Many of my classmates had to fly back (I suspect at their own expense) for work-related duties at their schools partway through the program and miss a week of classes - nobody would ever ask me to do that. If I say I need a block of time off, I get it as long as I request it reasonably far enough in advance, with no "but you have to come back for these specific three days to do this specific thing" in the middle of your six weeks off" nonsense. Other than being expected to show up for class, nobody calls me up and says "you must be here for this, this and that" or "you have to do these things". I essentially have no single boss or manager.

It also means I get as much vacation time as I want, which is very useful on a Master's program and was also useful in the aftermath of my mother's illness and passing, and my dad's heart surgery less than a year later. In late 2014 I told my employers and private students that my absence would be indefinite, and that was fine. I had work to return to five months later when my family issues were more stable. When I needed to take off again just a few months later for my dad's surgery, that was fine too. When I finished the Delta, I told them to hold off on all new classes until I was done, and they did. When I decided to do this Master's program, I said I'd need a few months off over the summer and that was fine. I had free reign to choose the dates and arrange things as I pleased. If I had the money and wanted to take a year off to just do whatever, I could, and I'd still have a good chance at having work offered to me when I was ready.

And unlike many teachers, this leave is not limited to school breaks. My mom's situation started getting really serious in late autumn 2014, long before any school break. You can't plan major family upheavals for summer vacation. They happen when they happen.

The fact that this time is unpaid actually works in my favor: when you have paid leave, of course the leave you get is limited. In Taiwan that could be as little as seven days (which I think is cruel, actually), in the US perhaps two weeks, in Europe five weeks. But ultimately, there is a limit. I have no limit, as long as I have the money to finance it.

On the other side, a lot of my classmates have paid leave and don't have to go in - they have months and months of free time with a salary coming in. Some of them are taking off to just hang out in Europe for awhile, which you can do when you're being paid an expat salary in the Middle East but your university is on break (although, again, you don't get to choose when that break is). It would be great to be able to afford that, but I ultimately can't. I could move to the Middle East - there would be work for me and the pay is stupendous - but I put up with the crappy parts of working in Taiwan like the low pay and scattered hours because I want to be in Taiwan.

A second advantage is the lack of administrative hassle. I have no real administrative duties - I don't have to show up for many meetings, I don't have to do reams of paperwork, I don't have to grade heaps of tests (my IELTS classes have tests, but class sizes are kept low so it's not an onerous task). I don't have to sit in on department meetings, nor do I have to spend time doing extra activities like running a drama club or English Corner (which I'd happily do if I were paid for the extra work, but of course we never are, so I won't do them). I may only get paid for the hours I teach - with the expectation that the pay for them covers lesson planning time, though I'm not convinced it does - but I don't have a lot I have to do outside of those hours beyond planning classes.

I also appreciate that, not working in a big institution, I am not pushed into a testing culture I don't support. I don't have to teach to a test - I help prepare some learners for IELTS, but that's not the same thing - and I don't have to teach towards a test that I think has deep validity issues. I don't need to test my private students at all, nor my business students: some form of direct test of the skills we work on (e.g. giving a presentation in a presentation skills class) serves as adequate assessment for final reports. Even my IELTS students' mock tests don't count for anything other than as a way to check their skills against the demands of the test they will ultimately take. It's just not an issue I have to contend with, so I am free to adopt other methods of assessment, and feedback comes not in the form of grades but real feedback in evaluation reports and conferences. It's actually a really lovely advantage to have and a low-stress, high-efficacy way to teach in a more holistic and meaningful way.

Of course, that's my situation - I'm sure at other cram schools there are tests, and the teachers may not care for those tests, trust the results or particularly care to give them.

Although this is not true in all private teaching contexts, I really appreciate that there's no administration breathing down my neck telling me I have to do certain things in class, not all of which I'd be likely to agree are necessary, nor telling me how I must teach. I have a classmate whose administration is insistent that there be no L1 in the classroom, even though current thinking is that limited use of L1 has a place there. This is despite inviting four-star names in the TEFL world to give workshops to teachers there, who reaffirm that L1 can be put to good use in the classroom. It's "not their policy" so teachers are instructed to ignore all of that.

Nobody would dare tell me how I must teach in a similar way. Back when I worked at a chain school in Taiwan they did to some extent, but as I've moved on to take classes at better schools, I am free to implement a teaching style that aligns with my principles as I see fit with nobody looking over my shoulder or breathing down my neck. I even have a good level of freedom over the coursebooks I use, and when they are assigned, total freedom over how I use them.

Another point worth mentioning is that, at least in Taiwan, I do make more money in the private system than I would in the formal education system (unless I were to work at an international school). The gap is not as big as you might imagine, as I don't get any of the perks - annual bonus, paid summers off, a pension program - but the take-home pay for my work is still somewhat higher. People associate cram schools with low pay, but honestly, the public schools and universities, while they offer stable pay, offer less than what I currently earn. The highest figures I've seen outside the international schools are in the NT$70,000/month range, and to be frank, I find that low. And compared to wages in other parts of the world (Japan, Korea, the Middle East) it is quite low indeed. Nobody stays in Taiwan for the great salaries.

And for that better pay, I also seem to always have more free time. I almost certainly teach more in-class hours, but the lack of administrative and other work required of me means that my peers in the formal education system seem to put in longer hours.

Of course, these advantages don't accrue to every teacher in the private language school game, and newer teachers especially are more likely to find themselves in schools that have a set curriculum and way of teaching, with all of the associated tests and administrative duties, and are likely to be trained to teach in that specific way (on the other hand. newer teachers are less likely to have teaching principles formed over a long period of experience and training that they are loathe to set aside).

It is worth noting, though, that not all cram schools are created equal. In Taiwan, not everyone is a third-rate chain school or one-off with a silly name like "Mickey Bear America Funtime English ABC School" or for adults, "Oxbridge Scholar's Engrish Acadamy". The two places I take classes with are both classified for business purposes as "buxibans", but they are run more professionally than one generally , as educational institutions that, while private, are managed by people who actually care about the education they are providing. There really are better places one can work for, it's not all chum.

In short, it's not all bad. People wonder why, after seeking out all of this training and development and being easily qualified to teach in a more formal setting, why I am still teaching for hourly pay. I am not entirely in the cram school system as I take classes where I please and have my own private students, but the structure of what I do isn't all that different.

I do it because of the freedom to teach how I like, the freedom from tests and administrative work, the freedom from limits on my time off, and freedom from a school bureaucracy telling me how to do things.

Perhaps someday I'll move on and work for a university or international school (I can't imagine working with learners younger than high-school age) or more formal educational institution, but if/when I do, along with the advantages (paid summers off! A more 'prestige' job description! Perhaps time to research and publish!), I'll also be acutely aware of what I'm losing.

My real beef with the new labor laws

I've been thinking a lot these days about what it is I don't like about the new labor regulations in Taiwan. I'm not sure why - they don't actually impact me as I don't have a single full-time job: I've been freelance since I got my APRC. Being generally interested in labor issues, however, might be a part of it. As is the fact that the new laws do impact many of my friends.

The most common complaints I hear from sources I care about are that work they want is being taken away from them, and that flexibility they want is being taken away (companies whining that now they have to compensate their employees more generously for the extremely long work hours expected of them do not draw my sympathy, I quite literally DGAF. You've been paying your people too little for crazy hours for awhile now, Taiwanese employers. Suck it.)

I'm not sure at all that these are the root problems that are causing me to view the new law with so much cynicism, though. That said, they're worth exploring.

I have a friend who poured a lot of passion and effort into a particular class, notably in developing a syllabus for that class within a larger curriculum. She had it taken away, because it was (apparently) the only way for her employer to ensure she did not work overtime that she'd have to be paid extra for (because goodness gracious, they couldn't just pay a valuable teacher more, could they? Oh no!). She genuinely wanted that work, and it was snatched from her. I have another friend who didn't necessarily want to work 6 days a week, but appreciated the financial boost she got from the longer hours. That was taken away, because the thought of just paying her more was apparently unconscionable? Or something? I have students who have subordinates who used to arrange their work schedules to work 6-day weeks for much of the month, but then take at least one extended weekend in that month so the hours worked out over a longer period, and they got a longer rest. That is no longer permissible under the new law. I'm not sure why not, but my students assure me it is not. I am not an expert.

I'm sympathetic to all of these complaints - especially the last one - but it seems increasingly obvious to me that they're symptoms of deeper problems the new labor law ignores rather than the root problems themselves.

What's being ignored here, and what the new law does nothing to fix, is the power imbalance between employer and employee. The "Boss Class" doesn't like the new law for obvious reasons: it's not so easy to squeeze their peons for more work for as little compensation as they can get away with giving. Good. But why don't labor activists like it? Because it does nothing to improve employee bargaining power or choice. It does nothing to address the basic truth of modern capitalism: the employee always, always - even in a labor-scarce market - has less power than a company. I could go into why I feel this is, but suffice it to say that labor does not gain sufficient power vis-a-vis employers in a world where shortages do not appear to be creating better remuneration and working conditions for teachers, or one in which jobs are not so interchangeable, and there might not be a similarly good job to jump to if the one you have (or the other one on offer) doesn't offer enough incentives to get you in the door, not because there is a job scarcity but because what you'd be doing would be somewhat unique. I mean, I'm a teacher, just ask me how teacher shortages in the US haven't led to better working conditions for American teachers. Even when the market favored labor in the years before the 2008 crash, lots of job openings didn't mean lots of offers in a world where one job opening would attract hundreds of applicants simply because the Internet made it easier to advertise jobs on massive websites and for applicants to send out heaps of resumes. A person can't necessarily live without a job, but a company can live with a position unfilled, and can get by with less-than-ideal employees until they find the right person, because the company will almost by definition have more resources than an individual.

As a result, I can't even think of a time in my adult life when the market has truly helped working conditions and pay improve. I'm not young anymore, that's actually quite a long time to see - in my observation at least, I don't claim to be an economist - essentially no progress.

In a better system, employer and employee would be on more even footing to negotiate not only pay and benefits, but preferred working hours and conditions. The employer could lay out their needs, and the employee could lay out what they hope to achieve, or get, out of the job. Employees who want to work longer hours and make more money could choose to do so, and those who wanted to work less, or be more flexible, but also potentially earn less, could choose that, too. Solutions might not be perfect, but they'd be workable for all involved because everyone was on a somewhat level playing field (and of course this is most obviously true in positions with hourly pay or clear paid overtime) when negotiating the terms of work. Of course, that's not how it works: your employer tells you if you're going to be working more or less, and how much money you want vis-a-vis free time is not considered. Often, keeping the laws relaxed so working hours can be quite variable don't necessarily lead to the employee getting more say - for every person who chooses longer hours, there are a few who are forced to work them. For every employee who chooses fewer, there are a few who are put on reduced schedules (but still told to be available for hours they will never work, so they can't even seek other employment) because that benefits the company.

So what you have are new laws that still allow the employer, without your input, to decide how much you work - those who want to work more can't if the company doesn't want to pay them the new overtime amounts, and those who want to work less might still be called in when they'd rather be off, or not get to choose when they are off. My friend who had a class she wanted taken from her was not given a choice to keep that class and lose another one. My friend who appreciates the money but not necessarily the exhaustion of a 6-day week wasn't given a choice as to whether she worked one or not - not before when she had to work 6 days, and not after when that was reduced to 5. In both cases her preference mattered little, and with any new job it would be the same. My students' subordinates were not given the choice to have a flexible schedule (it's mere circumstance that my particular students happen to be flexible and generous with their employees; not all employers are.)

It also does little to change the problem of every job essentially being a terrible deal - low pay, long hours, little in the way of additional benefits - in a world where you can't just not choose any job, you likely need to pick one. I have a student with this issue: she doesn't like her job, nor does she like any of the jobs on offer. But she has to take one, she can't just be unemployed. It's not possible to insist you deserve more than $22,000NT per month  (which I think everyone does - you can't live independently on $22k. It does not cover basic cost of living and therefore is inadequate) when there are no jobs offering more. English teachers can't insist on a job where they get paid Lunar New Year (which we ought to get under the law, but don't) if no job offers paid Lunar New Year (you might get compensation after you leave, if you complain, but that means little if what you actually want is a paid holiday without having to quit and threaten to call the government to eventually get that money). You can't change much where you actually work if speaking up means you could get "laid off", and the next job won't be any better.

The new laws really don't do anything to address that basic problem. I'm not sure what could, frankly, in a world where the company will always be bigger, and have more money and resources, than an employee or job seeker, no matter how "good" the market supposedly is.

Why I Freelance

This post is as much for the ELT people as for the Taiwan folks (I'm betting the Taiwan readers, especially the other English teachers, will not need a lengthy blog post about this topic - they'll know immediately where I'm coming from).

I've been asked a few times why I freelance, when ostensibly I am a supporter of labor - not just that, but organized labor, labor that treats its own capital (that is, the work it can provide) the way corporations treat theirs - in an organized way to get the best benefit from it. I strongly support professional development and paid training, paid leave, parental leave benefits, and retirement benefits/pensions for workers as a part of a basic salary package. I also support national health insurance, but don't think that needs to be tied to employment. I am exactly the sort of person who wants the benefits working for an organization - being a formal employee - would bring. I'm the sort who would join a union and be active in it.

While I enjoy the benefits of freelancing - control over my schedule, no real "boss" per se, the confidence that comes with knowing I can create an income on my own without having an organization offer me employee status - I don't automatically gravitate to a lifestyle of billable-hour income and no benefits. A fixed salary and paid leave sure sound nice, especially on an academic calendar.

So why, then, have I chosen not to be employed by anybody? Why don't I pick a full-time job and stick with it? I've said several times on this blog that my two main employers are both pretty good - why not pick one and be their employee, rather than keeping both somewhat at arm's length?

And the reason is simple - my two employers (as in, not private students but organizations that give me group classes) are good, by industry standards. The industry as a whole, however, is not. I won't even qualify that with an "in Taiwan" because it's more of a global problem.

No job exists in Taiwan that is tempting enough for me to want to work it full-time. No job offers adequate pay along with the benefits I'd expect from a full-time employer. Why would I commit myself to one organization full-time when, honestly, here is a list of things I would not receive:

- Paid leave (although this is technically something we are legally entitled to, there is no realistic way to claim it and keep your job) if one is paid an hourly rate

- Additional job security including guaranteed hours

- Any sort of pension or retirement plan or benefit

- Better pay

- In many cases, a salary instead of hourly-rate work

- If salaried, a suitably high salary with reasonable hours. I'm not lazy, I work hard, but I want good money for that sort of commitment, and no amount of money will make me agree to work over 40 hours a week (and no salary I've seen on offer for English teachers adequately compensates 40 hours' worth of work)

- Paid professional development

So what is the benefit to becoming a full-time employee if it means committing myself, and getting nothing in return that I don't already give myself by freelancing?

What this boils down to is a problem of jobs not being good enough, which is an industry problem. I rather like both of my employers - they're the best I've found in the industry, to be frank. I have no complaint with them. They are generally staffed by good people. But, the story is the same: hourly pay, no paid vacation (which, again, is technically illegal in Taiwan but try getting them to give it to you and also keep your job, or good relations at your job), no guarantee of hours, no extra security or other benefits. Perhaps slight preference in hours offered, that's it. The salaried jobs that exist are for desk work, which I got into teaching partly to avoid. These are probably among the best jobs available in Taiwan, but what they offer still doesn't beat freelancing.

Pretty often, I hear "if people are taking the jobs, then that's all the employers need to offer" - okay, so what happens when experienced, qualified teachers stop taking the jobs, because they're unsatisfactory, and go it on their own? At that point, does it become clear that if you can't attract talent, the jobs on offer aren't good enough?

Yes, university work exists (one reason I'm planning to do a Master's program is to explore this option, potentially) but the salaries aren't high for what ends up being a very high workload and poorly-organized classes - e.g. "speaking and conversation" classes with 65 students, which of course is a non-starter. You tend not to get benefits you'd otherwise associate with them, such as good paid CPD or a research budget.

Public school work exists, but is not a great option for those of us who want to teach adults. The pay isn't that high in those jobs, either (it is much higher in international schools but that's not helpful if one wants to focus on adults). There are some salaried government teaching jobs, but salaries for them are subject to the whims of the Ministry of Education (which at one point revised salaries down when they needed to go up) and have their own drawbacks.

None of these options are better than freelancing, either.

And doesn't it say that something is wrong with the job market when taking work with a few people and building up private classes is a better option as an experienced, trained educator than taking a traditional job, however much you might want one?

In theory, this post is about teaching in Taiwan, but I feel like it could be about almost anywhere. In what country do (trained, professional) private language academy teachers earn very good wages (commensurate with their professional status), get paid CPD and job security - guaranteed pay or hours or other benefits? In what country are university ESL/EAP teachers not only well-paid but also have other professional opportunities and room for growth? Outside of Asia pay seems to be ridiculously low, and within Asia no country pays its truly professional English language educators well in the private sector. In universities, pay in Korea and Japan is better, but there doesn't seem to be much room for growth - you get the job you get and you may never be promoted the way a local teacher might.

Is anywhere better? Or am I going to be a freelancer forever?

A sunflower by another name doesn't get any attention...yet

If you read New Bloom, and I hope you do, you might be one of the only people in Taiwan who knew about the workers' hunger strike in front of the Legislative Yuan these past two days. The workers held the strike to protest the DPP government's intent to cut the number of public holidays from 19 to 12 and, for all intents and purposes, legislate away the 2-day weekend that Taiwanese workers fought hard for not that long ago. 

Considering that the DPP rose to power in part on a promise to be more considerate of labor interests rather than blindly sucking corporate dick like the KMT (is it too early to say I miss the unholy triad of gangsters, property developers/big business and politicians that defined pretty much every stretch of KMT rule the country has known? Do the DPP have their own gangster-businessman handjobs to give?), this is basically a slap in the face of workers. I cannot imagine the DPP will be treated kindly at the polls if this legislation passes as-is. It also has me taking seriously the idea that the DPP is a far more conservative government than we'd thought they'd be, mirroring the KMT in ways that society never wanted them to.

What's more, despite the NPP vowing to fight for labor rights, they didn't seem to take much of an interest in the hunger strike either. I have my own issues with the NPP not caring about all labor in Taiwan (they certainly don't care about foreign labor, and no I will not shut up about it as that affects people I know directly and keeps me from fully supporting the NPP), and this is additionally worrying. What are they fighting for if not this?

Well, anyway, the strike ended with nothing achieved. While some labor protests gain social support (see the China Airlines strike just recently), this one lay flaccid and ignored. As New Bloom noted, activists largely did not seem to notice, and those who did seemed supportive but didn't necessarily show up in big enough numbers.

My theory as to why: China Airlines' staff striking meant major inconvenience for travelers and business alike (and not just the airlines' own business). They not only blocked up Nanjing Road, but managed to shut down a fair amount of air traffic. Of course that was going to be more electrifying. Sitting outside the Legislative Yuan, where you affect precisely no one who isn't used to this sort of thing, is simply not going to be as effective. Smarter would be to organize and threaten nationwide strikes on the holidays this new legislation would cut were it to go into effect.

But here's the thing: the government still ignores this at its own peril. The students and associated supporting activists do too. Also, the media. And possibly you.

If you don't remember how the Sunflower movement gained momentum, go ahead and read J. Michael Cole's Black Island: from the Next Media acquisition to anti-nuclear protests to Yuanli to Dapu to Huaguang to Losheng to the Wang residence, the Sunflowers didn't just appear on the scene, suddenly inspired as they never had been before to shut down the legislature. (Note: a lot of what I'm going to say about them is partly from my own experience and partly from re-reading about that time in recent Taiwanese history through that book. Credit where credit is due).

They fought many small, often unnoticed battles and usually lost. The Dapu homes are gone. Huaguang is gone. People didn't pay attention to them as the DPP held opposition rallies that attracted lots of people and achieved nothing, and then one day the momentum everyone had been ignoring on the sidelines (or calling "naive" and "irrational" though it was anything but) exploded in a wildly successful social movement that has quite possibly changed the future of the country.

Side note: notice how I call Taiwan a "country" and aggressively do not call it an "island" although it is one. "Island" is very common in English-language media reporting on Taiwan, but it's a cop-out, a way of being technically correct without having any nuts whatsoever. Taiwan is a country. CALL IT ONE, for chrissakes. Or are my nuts bigger than yours?

This image is "extra large", LIKE MY NUTS.
Anyway, image stolen (sorry, but my nuts need to be seen) from here
Also, I do not recommend you Google "my nuts" to find this image. 

Anyway, those who were surprised were not paying attention. That's on them.

As I see it, it's starting again, but this time with workers. They might lose this fight, and the next one, and the one after that. Their hunger strikes may go unremarked-upon, and the parties that came to power promising to work with them may betray them. But, like the students, they have all of the markers of becoming the next thing that shakes the country.

First, they are right. No question. Fuck the Man. Seize the means of production. All that great stuff. Taiwanese workers are overworked and they are underpaid, and business assholes have been exploiting them for far too long. This has to change.

They are not afraid to strike, and have been inspired recently by the China Airlines strike and the successes it brought. Hopefully, they'll learn from that and conduct more successful strikes in the future.

Worker strikes, if done well, have the potential to really inconvenience a lot of people - rather like occupying the Legislative Yuan but being so peaceful and reasonable that the police don't dare to use force (which they shouldn't). Remember, you need workers to do things. All things. Like literally all of the things. If you like things getting done, you need workers. If workers refuse to work on a large scale, or in very targeted ways at very targeted times, that is going to suck for everyone. This is a good thing. It's actually an advantage the students did not have.

Though this particular protest went unnoticed, like the early student activist protests that predated the Sunflowers, there is a lot of potential there for broad public support, especially against the well-defined demon of Business Assholes. It's true that they have a lot of Business Asshole enemies and some Stockholm Syndrome types (I wonder if my good buddy who is heretofore banned from commenting will pop up and be one of these! You won't see his comments because I won't publish them, but hey buddy! Stay angry. It's fun. Never change) will complain about the inconvenience rather than consider the reasons for such drastic action, but that we know who the enemy is and most Taiwanese suffer under the current worker-business status quo means the potential is there to get the country mobilized behind them (and vote for...who? I don't know. When the KMT and DPP both fail you and the NPP is not doing as well as you'd like, who do you vote for?).

This looks like it's going to be one of those long fights - Business Assholes don't give up easily. What this means is lots and lots of protests that end up training the workers who want better conditions to engage in civil revolt more effectively, much as the activists who became the Sunflowers learned a lot from the protests that helped the movement coalesce. You are going to see workers going after what they want far more effectively - I'd put money on it. If I had a lot of money, which I don't, because teaching English at a professional level in Taiwan does not pay well.  (Again a note: that's not a complaint about my various current employers. It's a complaint about the state of ESL education in Taiwan and the world in general).

Regarding that last point, the workers also have the benefit of coalescing, clarifying their message and engaging in more effective civil disobedience while the rest of the country is mostly ignoring them. Their mistakes won't be particularly public. I noticed that the student leaders were incredibly well-versed in the history of effective nonviolent civil disobedience. Someone for sure has read up on their King and their Gandhi. I can only hope the workers have leaders who are well-read in the history of labor movements and what has worked.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, they are persistent, because they really believe in what they are fighting for, and the conditions they are fighting against are truly untenable and have been going on for far too long. It is reaching a tipping point. Taiwanese actually drop dead from overwork on a startling basis, and almost everyone - even if they pretend otherwise - know that the work is far too grueling hours-wise and far too low-paid to be something Taiwanese give up and settle for. The idea that this is just going to go away is nonsense. It's not, because there is no option to give up. The consolation prize - a continued shitty work life and not even earning good money for it - is not acceptable. So they are not going to stop pushing.

And when you won't stop pushing because losing is not an option, you tend to break through and succeed, jumping over so many proverbial fences and storming so many proverbial legislatures eventually.

I do hope people start to pay attention. The youth movement needs to pay attention, certainly - even those who are still in school are going to be entering the Taiwanese working world soon. Anyway, they care about the future of the country - so not only will these workers be them soon enough, it would be a very unfortunate thing indeed if they missed where the next big movement was coming from and did not contribute their own experience, followers and support to this very important issue.

Business Assholes need to pay attention because otherwise they are going to be shocked when they wake up one day and find they can't grind Taiwanese down to nubs day after day for circus peanut pay.

Foreigners need to pay attention, because we need to fight for better labor rights, protections and immigration rights too. Foreigners not in Taiwan need to pay attention, because all your semiconductors are belong to us. 

Everyday people need to pay attention, because life is eventually going to start to get difficult for them.

And the media needs to pay attention, or they are going to be as caught off-guard as they were by the Sunflowers. Something tells me that this is exactly what is going to happen, though, because the Taiwanese media.

I don't know what they will be called - which flower or berry or something entirely new - perhaps the White Orchids, because as much as you mistreat an orchid it stubbornly blooms? - but they are coming, and you'd best wake up.

Teaching English in Taiwan isn't "well-paid", even compared to local salaries

I have the feeling this is going to be one of those posts I write once, and then link to from here on out every time the topic comes up in some stupid online debate. But I'm sick of writing it, so I'll write it one last time here and then can copy+paste forevermore.

First, a few things to make clear: yes, I acknowledge that the take-home pay of English teachers is considerably higher than that of many locals when you take hours worked into account, especially at the lower end of the qualifications-and-experience pool.  The same is true if you compare a foreign teacher to a local one, especially a local English teacher - which is, of course, unfair and native-speakerist. I'm not denying that.

Second, I'm coming at this as a professional, so that is of course going to color how I see wages in the TEFL field (I've started refusing to call it an "industry" because it is a field of education. Some private English schools do good work, some are parasites, but I won't descend to the lowest common denominator).

Finally, I realize that these factors are vary widely by country and region. I'm coming at this from the standpoint of a professional who expects a salary floor, a fundamental base idea of what pay should be, no matter where I go - just as any professional would.

And, finally, of course, I do realize we are much better off than your average Southeast Asian worker in Taiwan. That goes without saying, and their fight for a better life should not be ignored, either.

All that aside, English teaching in Taiwan really, truly doesn't pay that well, even compared to local salaries, and I'd like to explore the reasons why:


We don't get the benefits Taiwanese workers (often) do, including labor protections or even employers who follow the law

Here are some things I don't get that most Taiwanese workers do (and I'm a professional, I can only imagine it is worse for others):

- Paid Chinese New Year vacation - which is actually a legal requirement, even for hourly workers, but good freakin' luck getting it. Not even my comparatively good employers offer that.

- An annual bonus that is at or near 1-2 months' salary - I do get a bonus from one of my employers and it's appreciated. Truly. But your average Taiwanese can expect an extra month, or two, of salary. I haven't known many English teachers who got that outside of the universities and perhaps the public schools. 

- Paid leave - I'm willing to make this trade-off because I get more leave than your average worker, but still less than your average public school or university teacher. That said, it would be nice to have leave factored into a salary package.

- A stable income - one thing I do want is a fair salary with acceptable working conditions ("we own you" cannot be a prerequisite for mediocre pay). In Taiwan either you can earn more in take-home pay by the hour but get no benefits, or you can earn a crap salary and be your supervisor's butt monkey. Neither is appealing. I realize Taiwanese also have this problem, but compared to most of our home countries, this is a problem.


Plus two more that I do get, but most English teachers don't:

- Labor insurance - I had to fight for this, but I got it. I have heard varying reports on the legality of schools not offering lao bao, from "that's illegal, they MUST offer it" to "the employee can choose not to enroll but the school cannot refuse to enroll them". Either way, you should be getting lao bao, and you probably aren't. 

- The ability to change fields/industries - if they can get hired, a local can switch to another job in another field. Without 2 years' experience in that field or a Master's, a foreigner can't. Either we teach English until we get permanent residence, or we come in with those credentials already, or we teach whether we want to or not unless a loophole can be found. This doesn't seem directly related to pay, but it is: it's hard to find ways to increase your earnings if you are stuck in a field you may not want to be in, which doesn't actually pay all that well.


For professionals, the comparison is jarring

A lot of people who say "but we are paid so much better" are comparing those 22-year-olds above (and ignoring all the benefits their young Taiwanese counterpart enjoys that they don't). That's fine, if you are also someone who in any other circumstance would be earning an entry-level salary.

I, however, am not comparing myself to a twentysomething local who hasn't risen very high at work yet, because I'm not a twentysomething and I have risen. Looking at what I earn in relation to an entry-level Taiwanese worker is not a valid comparison.

I'm comparing myself to the thirty- and forty-something professionals I know in Taiwan - and I know quite a few as I've taught Business English for many years - and I have to say, my salary does not stack up. They can afford to buy apartments and drive nice cars as well as take good vacations. I could perhaps afford one of those (the car would not be my choice, of course). Right now, because foreigners can't easily get mortgages unless they are married to locals, I choose the nice vacations. But compared to the people I actually spend time with, I am not that well paid and have very little salary security. My engineer, finance/fund manager, sales rep, accountant and doctor friends and students do better than I do - not that I've asked my students their salaries, but because it's not that hard to figure out when they tell me about their lives.

Once you make that comparison, things don't look so great. 


Something like 90% of the teaching jobs in Taiwan are a joke

For someone looking to make real money and live a proper thirtysomething life - and I'm no materialist, I just mean you can eat real food and be confident that you can pay your rent without living in a crap-box - only the thinnest sliver of the TEFL pie in Taiwan is worth looking at. I've unsubscribed from most job boards with Taiwan jobs, not only because I'm not looking but also because, in the years I've been on them, I've seen exactly one job I would apply for. Maybe two or three if I were looking and needed to land something decent. Those are not good odds.

Better jobs do exist, but they don't come along frequently and they tend not to advertise much, because they don't have to. ITI-TAITRA (at least before the Ministry of Education lowered their pay scale), CES Taipei and its sister school UKEAS, LADO Management Consultants, Cambridge Taipei (I have heard), British Council and maybe a few other places (not sure about LTTC, for example - anyone?) pay pretty well, all things considered. Then there are the public school, university and (very good) international school jobs if you are qualified. Every once in awhile a more typical buxiban will pay above the standard rate, but they don't seem - from my outside perspective - like great places to work. My former "management consulting" firm, in scare quotes for a reason, also pays above the standard rate but I would never, ever recommend them to anyone with a shred of sense.

At these better jobs you are more likely to start at around $750-$800/hour (but you'll need the qualifications to get the higher rate) and go up from there - $1000 or even $1500 isn't unheard-of. Salaried positions are all over the place in terms of pay, but $70,000/month with perhaps a housing allowance isn't unheard-of either, though it could be lower.

That is a very, very tiny sliver of the market to choose from.

The rest, honestly? My first impulse was to call them "trash" but I'm sure someone will get mad, and I can see why people wouldn't want their job to be called "trash", but honestly...

Not great.


University pay? Also a joke (depending on the hours you are expected to put in)

Sure, you get an annual bonus and paid vacations, but your average university job seems to pay between NT$50-$70,000/month. That's...not good. Back when it was easy to get such jobs for a few hours a week it was a pretty sweet deal, and I think fair considering how much extra prep work one has to put into a good university course. Now that they pay those rates but expect full-time work, including meetings and all manner of extra work like judging those stupid speech contests, it's just not a great option.


There are no local opportunities for good professional development

Want a CELTA? In Taiwan? You're in luck - you get to pay for airfare, accommodation and food, the course itself and miss out on four weeks of pay because it isn't offered in Taiwan (yet). Lucky ducky you!!!!

You get to pay that yourself, because no school, not even the good ones, will sponsor you. Fun times!! Woo!!

Want a Delta? You can either do the same damn thing but for even more money and time, or you can do it online. Good luck finding a tutor for Module 2. I know like 10 people who could do it. Most are busy and one is leaving the country soon. 

Have fun parting with all of your hard-earned cash and then some!

(It's worth it, but still, have fun paying all that money out of pocket on your joke wages)


So much depends on your skin color

A lot of the estimates of teacher pay in Taiwan are based on the idea of a white native speaker teacher. However, I have friends who are Indian, Black or of Asian heritage who are quite clear that they are consistently offered lower salaries and fewer raises. Many are made to feel lucky to have a job at all, and many get completely inappropriate complaints that clearly stem from racism, which hurts their performance reviews and results in lower pay overall. It is important to take this into account and not just estimate the salary for Jimbo McBlueeyes.


Estimates of pay are all over the place, but I'd gather the lower ones are more accurate

I've heard "NT$65-100,000/month", I've had someone tell me they made about $51,000/month and someone say they had trouble cracking $45,000. The starting pay for 22-year-old Jimbo McBlueeyes is usually NT$600/hour, but I've seen lower. (I make more - a lot more - but I'm the exception. If you are good at what you do and get a Delta you too can fight with me for that tiny little sliver of the market. Fun times for all.)

If you make $600/hour and work 20 hours/week, you'll make about $48,000 before taxes depending on the month - remember how many hours you work in a week may not be up to you, and does not include all of the work you actually do. If you work 25 hours a week you'll make about $60,000 before taxes. Get a tiny raise (I've seen 5 and 10 NT raises! I almost quit over one!), make a tiny bit more. Five years later maybe after 5 10 NT raises you're making $650 - whoopty freakin' doo - and you get $52-65,000 before taxes, unless you get some certifications and go after that thin sliver of job market mentioned above, or get lucky with a better offer (it happens - I know someone at American Eagle who makes $750/hour).

All that is to say, it sure seems to me that for the vast majority of teachers, the lower end of the pay estimates are more accurate and you have to fall into some good luck to earn more. Those estimates are, to be frank, not that great. And remember, once you do hit a more professional level, your Taiwanese counterparts are often now making well over $100,000/month depending on the profession. You go from making more than your local peers to making far less.

I'll finish this section up with an anecdote: when I applied for permanent residence, the immigration officer who looked at my paperwork actually commented that I make very good money, and most foreigners' income tax documents she sees show much lower pay. That could be due to the buxibans cheating, but it's probably also in part due to pay being lower than people would generally like to admit. 


I'm not sure estimates of Taiwanese pay are that accurate either

Everyone says the average wage in Taiwan is around NT$30,000/month, and I do know people who are offered that joke of a salary or less. But, if so many people are making that, and logically speaking so many are then making less, how is it that people can buy apartments and cars, take vacations to Japan etc.? I realize part of it is generational wealth, part of it is being able to save everything if you live with your parents. But some of it, at least some, is almost certainly due to the rampant cheating on taxes that most Taiwanese companies do. If your employer cooks the books, your salary is likely reported as lower than it is - or maybe you have your own thing going and you under-report or don't report certain incomes - which makes the national average seem lower than it is.


Cost of Living, Moving and Traveling

The first one affects Taiwanese too: the cost of living has gone up, but pay hasn't in the last decade. I came here a decade ago (almost exactly). The pay then for English teachers was more or less exactly what it is now, but it does cost more to live (don't believe the government line about inflation being stable or even negative - they lumped in a huge decrease in fuel costs along with rises in everything else and called it even. If you are wondering why the official line is that inflation is not a problem when your rent, food, sundry and transport costs have gone up, that's why).

The second is that, honestly, teaching English here especially in the most common jobs pays better, especially compared to cost of living, than waitressing or what have you back home. Sure. But you are still basically spending thousands of dollars to uproot your life, move to a new place, settle in, get an apartment etc. all for what amounts to a wage that isn't that much higher than if you'd just stayed in your own country with your inexperienced self. People say you can make good money - no, if you do it, you do it because you want to go abroad, not for the money. The money, as I've shown, is not great.

Finally, as much as schools would like to crow that your visits home are not their problem - which is to a certain extent true - it would be smart to ruminate on the fact that if you want foreign English teachers, you've really got to understand that they have ties in their home countries and like any normal human being they want to maintain those ties. It would be wise to factor in the idea that people might want to see their parents every couple of years or be able to be there for grandparents in their old age. For older professionals, being their for your parents' old age is also a key factor. Schools are not obligated to consider this, but if they want to attract more talented people, it would be wise to consider it when putting together their salary offers. Visits home cost money, and if you have good reason to visit home every year or every two years, that can eat a huge chunk out of your savings.

It's yet another iteration of the universal truth that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. If you happen to get someone better, they won't stay long because they want more than peanuts. It goes for Taiwanese workers as well as foreign teachers.

Considering these costs in light of what teaching jobs actually pay, from a financial perspective teaching is not actually a great choice. You do it because you want to.

That doesn't mean, however, that you don't deserve to earn a good wage for doing something you want to do.

Brexit Barfing: Both Taiwan and the UK need to stop fearing immigrants

Though I haven't read of anyone quite doing this yet, I imagine in the days to come someone will publish some thinkpiece drawing comparisons between Brexit and Taiwan's fight for de jure sovereignty. Certainly people commented that China watched the Scottish independence vote very closely, so I imagine they will also have watched the Brexit vote not only for economic reasons but political ones, too. Frankly, I'm surprised that China's state media wank-factory hasn't excreted some steaming turd of churlish nonsense that reads, in short, "see, Brits voted for Brexit and look at the turmoil that is causing! Imagine what would happen if we let Taiwan be recognized for what it already is! That can't happen! DOOM! GLOOM! ZOMBIES! Also you can never understand our 5,000,000,000,000,000 years of culture and that hurts the feelings of the Chinese people".

(I'd like to say my narrative above is outdated, but unfortunately, it's not. Or rather, fortunately it’s not - it's so simple to tear apart. China makes my hobby easy).

So, I just want to beat that hypothetical pundit to the punch and say that while there are philosophical relationships between Taiwan and Brexit, they actually have nothing to do with voting to break from a larger political bloc.

First, why they are different:

The people of Taiwan are currently fighting for international recognition of what almost every Taiwanese person already takes as fact: that Taiwan is inalienably sovereign and independent. This question has been so settled in Taiwanese society, to rip off Michael Turton, that the populace has already moved beyond existential questions of national identity and toward making the nation they have a better place. Nobody thinks that the UK isn't sovereign, nobody refuses to recognize it as the nation (or group of nations, whatever) that it is. The EU isn’t a big authoritarian regime across the English channel that openly strategizes how to force the UK to join its fold.

The UK agreed to enter the European Union. Taiwan never agreed to be ruled by China (or any other colonial power, including the ROC). When British people say they "took back Britain" I have to ask - from whom? Nobody invaded you, nobody claimed you as their territory. The EU didn't insist you must be annexed because you have been a part of their territory 'since antiquity' as China ridiculously does. You agreed to something and now you don't, so you voted on it. That's all. "We fought for our sovereignty" - no, you didn't, because you never lost it. In order to have the vote in the first place you had to have had sovereignty. They are simply not the same.

What Taiwan is fighting for is recognition of their entire nation from a horrid dictatorship that has clear, acknowledged designs on annexation. The UK seems to be pissed off about a few regulations, the downsides of which I have not heard articulated well, or at all, and an inchoate fear of “immigrants”.

Not the same. Do not compare them. Don't give in to the false narrative that Britain won back 'sovereignty' that it had never lost.

Instead, compare them in terms of how the people view their national identity, and the lessons that may be learned from putting too much stock in national identity along ethnic lines, and in terms of understanding how foreign workers impact a nation's economy.

All the talk about “we don’t want foreign bodies we didn’t elect setting laws and regulations in our country”...fine, sure. I may wonder what laws they have set or what regulations they have imposed that are so terrible that the UK no longer has faith in its own agreement to join the EU, but I can understand the sentiment at least.

But the talk about immigrants? That’s nonsense, and it has parallels in Taiwan. By the logic of Brexit voters, immigrants are a problem – they are taking away jobs and tanking the economy. They are a threat, somehow, to cohesive British culture.

Nevermind that there is little proof that immigrants – workers or students – hurt economies in deep, far-reaching or permanent ways (there is bound to be a little turmoil but nothing that outweighs the benefits of attracting diverse foreign talent), and plenty of proof that they do not have a net negative impact. All of the “Eastern Europeans” Brexiters are clamoring against are not the reason why their economy is in the tank, just as Latino immigrants are not the reason why the American economy hasn’t truly recovered from 2008.

Of course, the real problems are the wealthy business owners who continue to pay poverty wages and exploit workers, thinking of their own wealth only (which I can understand, but why are they given free reign when they don’t care about contributing to the economy and country that helped them get rich in the first place? What good are they doing that they should be allowed to continue?), and the relentless attacks on social assistance programs that could actually help the unemployed and poor get on their feet – and in Taiwan, a complete disregard for the idea of personal property by developers and politicians who are in their pocket.

As I’ve written before, it was never immigrants – we are fighting for the samecrumbs of one cookie with locals, while corporate interests have taken the restof the batch. Go after them, not us. We are not the problem.

You can see the same sort of anti-foreign-labor sentiment that drove much of the Brexit vote in Taiwan as well. It is apparent in mistreatment and prejudice against foreign workers – both domestic helpers and factory workers but also, at times, of professionals and English teachers.

By the logic of Brexiters who think, among other things, that “immigrants” are the problem, an immigrant like me in Taiwan could contribute nothing positive to this country. According to that train of thought, the best I could hope for would be to not leech too much off of another country, and I could never hope to be a part of it, do something good for it, be an overall advantage rather than disadvantage to have around, or even fully assimilate. Note that a lot of Brexiters say immigrants ‘don’t assimilate’ into British society, but when that is proven wrong with examples that they do in fact assimilate, those same immigrants are the target of harassment and insult. The same can be true in Taiwan – if foreigners don’t assimilate, they are held up as examples of why “IMMIGRANTS BAD, THIS IS OUR CULTURE”. When they do, they may be told they are not and can never be Taiwanese, or simply not treated as locals, ever, despite their best efforts.

It can be seen in the lack of enforcement of labor laws in the English teaching industry, fishing industry, many factories, many households that employ domestic laborers, and the brokers who bring all but the English teachers here.

And lest you retort with “but English teachers have it good here” – no, not really. Many don’t get enrolled in the labor insurance they are legally supposed to have. Most don’t get paid Chinese New Year even though it’s the law, even for hourly workers. Employer control of visas is a real problem, and plenty of complaints to the labor bureau go unresolved. 

It can be seen in the harassment faced by legislators who try to make things better for blue-collar workers, who receive actual death threats for their efforts because it would mean less money for shady labor exploiters brokers.

It can be seen in attempts to amend the law for professional workers (the class English teachers fall under), which would end the requirement that hires in fields other than teaching have 2 years’ experience or a Master’s degree (technically a relevant one but in practice this is often ignored), which then get resistance from groups I otherwise generally support, such as labor groups and the New Power Party with the excuse that it could “hurt local labor”.

Again, there is no evidence that this is, or would be, the case, and plenty of evidence that attracting foreign talent has more net advantages than disadvantages. Remember, most local companies prefer to hire locally because they feel more comfortable culturally and linguistically with other locals. If they want to hire a foreigner they probably have a specific reason for doing so, and should be allowed to.

By that logic, someone like R. (a person I know of tremendous intelligence and potential) who loves Taiwan and wants to stay, and has 1.5 (not 2) years’ media experience and no Master’s, can’t legally get a job outside of English teaching. R. doesn’t want to teach English, but her intelligence and interest in Taiwan could help her contribute a great deal both locally and internationally in the form of soft power. By the “immigrants hurt local workers” logic, someone like R. would be a hindrance, not a help, to Taiwan if she were allowed to do something other than teach – a job she doesn’t really want. If she can’t get something else, she will leave. Is that really good for Taiwan? How does it help in any way to ‘ghetto-ize’ R. and people like her in an industry they don’t want to be in?

If the problem is a fear that companies would hire foreigners at lower rates, rest assured that Taiwanese are among the worst-paid professionals in the developed world and most professionals, even from less-developed countries, want better salaries than are generally on offer here. If you are still worried about exploitation, then deal with salary stagnation and exploitation, don’t cut off foreign talent from potential jobs out of a misguided attempt to “protect” locals.

I know I’ve said it before, and repeated it, but I will keep repeating it until more people listen. For the same reasons Bernie Sanders’ outdated immigration policy is not right, this is not right either. I like the New Power Party, but they got this one way wrong.

Just as the UK seeks to cut itself off from open borders with 27 other countries, and thereby threatens depriving itself of foreign talent all out of fear of “immigrants” who “hurt local labor” (except they don’t) and “threaten our culture” (except they don’t), Taiwan has a real problem with its love-hate relationship with foreign talent. They say they want to attract more, then do everything possible to make it difficult to accomplish. Otherwise good parties like New Power take on straight-up terrible anti-foreigner policies despite calls for social modernization and progressivism.

In short, what we can learn from Brexit as it relates to Taiwan is not the oversimplified story of a country seeking ‘freedom’ or ‘sovereignty’ against a larger power, but that if you fear and push away your foreign talent, it will come back to bite you in the ass. In the UK and in Taiwan, we foreigners can and do contribute positively and we can and do assimilate. 

The China Airlines strike and outdated expat narratives: Confucian values are REALLY not the problem

Something I've learned: I often have thoughts kicking around in my head for awhile, and I try to write blog posts about them, only to find that they come out ponderous, aimless and full of questionable or dull tangents. An important element of focusing my thoughts is to have some sort of catalyst, some it's-happening-now event to bring it all together into what I really want to say.

That bit of navel-gazing aside, for the past month or so a pushback against the conventional expat narrative of Taiwan being bogged down by "Confucian values" has been kicking around in my head - ever since I wrote about how, while bad management is a problem in Taiwan, "Confucian values" aren't what's keeping Taiwanese workers from taking the initiative at work rather than saving their best ideas for their own start-up small businesses. Long work hours and low salaries are because only a fool would share their best ideas with someone who exploits them through overwork and substandard pay. Taiwanese are no more fools than anyone else, so it makes sense that they wouldn't give their best work to bosses who are effectively narcissistic, self-serving nitwits at best and figurative slave masters at worst. (Obviously #notallbosses blah blah blah).

Well, it's taken the China Airlines zeitgeist to prod me into finally posting about it.

If you think "Confucian values" are Taiwan's biggest problem, you haven't been paying attention and your narrative is outdated. The same old story of "Taiwanese workers are passive, they endure long working hours for low pay and don't complain because Confucius or something" simply isn't the case anymore, and if you've been watching the country change, you'd know it hasn't been the case for awhile (if it ever was, though I'd argue the Ma years were notably turgid).

First and foremost, strikes like the China Airlines one in terms of rhetoric and scale don't just pop up out of a society that is passive, supplicant to authority or not actively looking to improve their own and their country's lot. They don't spring fully formed from a "poor exploited Taiwanese who don't even know they're exploited or if they do, they don't fight back" pile of bullshit. They spring from a long-running activist movement that has bracingly modern values at its core (as I have argued), modern enough that we Westerners, who often think we've got the market on progressivism cornered, ought to sit up and pay attention.

This isn't just a big deal because of one strike, this is a big deal because it's been coming for awhile, reveals Taiwanese society to not be some caricature of a cliched 2500-year-old philosophical system, and because it has implications across every industry where laborers are exploited (which is basically every industry, including English teaching. Yes, that too).

By the way, if you read any one thing on the strike, make it the link above.

This has been brewing for awhile - if you stop and talk to any given group of Taiwanese labor, you'll find that they are well aware that they have been exploited for awhile, and society has been collectively, often tacitly, but perceptibly, working on a solution-cum-backlash. You can see it in the increased rhetoric around worker-led (as opposed to "official") unions, in the New Power Party's pro-labor platforms (well, pro-labor for citizens, apparently we foreign workers don't rate and I'm still pissed about that), in the annual demonstrations on Labor Day, in the economic concerns of the student movement, in the very common desire to quit one's exploitative job and strike out on one's own.

Where out-of-touch pontificating expats come up with these tableaux of beaten-down workers who don't know what's best for them, kowtowing to boss, family and religion, I see a country full of people dreaming of something better and knowing full well, in 21st century terms, what that means.

Simply put, people who gather at midnight to announce a pre-meditated strike that almost reminds one of siege warfare (or maybe I've just been watching too much Game of Thrones) and who talk of improving the condition of labor across Taiwan, freeing workers from onerous hours and unacceptably low pay are not only not victims of "Confucian values", they prove that "Confucian values" never were the problem (or never were enough of a problem to put up much of a barrier to the new tide of activism). People who dream of quitting and opening their own businesses, whether they are smaller versions of the businesses they already work for or a total departure down a culinary or artistic road, but are toughing it out for now, are not victims of "Confucian values".

The electorate's increasing willingness to listen to the youth - a concept somewhat (but not entirely) non-Confucian, and the newly-elected political elite's willingness to do the same, even dropping charges against the Executive Yuan occupiers saying that the "values of the Sunflowers have become widely accepted across the country", are further proof. It's such a deep and long-coming sea change that even the newly-minted opposition are trying to co-opt these values in the weirdest, most discordant and least appealing ways. KMT gonna KMT I guess.

The citizenry's increasing willingness to occupy, to demand, to escalate, to take the fight to social media - none of this screams "Confucian values"...the key being that that's not only the case right now, but it proves that it hasn't been the case for awhile, because these sorts of sea changes don't sweep in like tsunamis. They slowly build like earthquake pressure. The only difference is you can't predict earthquakes, but this could be seen coming since the run-up to the Sunflower occupation.

In sort, this is 2016 AD, not 500 BC (and it's kind of insulting to imply that a culture has not sufficiently evolved in those two and a half millenia). The Taiwanese aren't getting their modern values by looking to the West, but by looking within themselves. And they're not chained to a 2500 year-old-philosophy because they are so clearly willing to fight back. I know I'm repeating myself here, but I want to drive that message home.

To go back even further, I'd like to add that if the main problems in Taiwan could really be traced back to "Confucian values", you not only wouldn't have China Airlines workers striking now, the Sunflowers in 2016, and employees who dream of quitting and starting their own companies, you also wouldn't have had several of the pro-democracy and national identity incidents that have defined modern Taiwanese history. There was nothing Confucian about the uprising that led to 228, the Kaohsiung Incident, Nylon Cheng's self-immolation, the dangwai or the White Lilies, either. The willingness to think, talk, plan and finally fight back in spectacular fashion - non-Confucian but wonderfully modern things all - is truly not new to Taiwan.

Because I like to ramble, two more things before I release your eyeballs, if you are still reading.

The first is that if you think Confucianism is all about the big boss beating down the little guy and hierarchical systems of tyranny, whether it's civil or private, you have a cliched and inaccurate view of Confucian thought. I'm no fan of Confucius, I'm more of a "hey guys just chill" Daoist type myself even though I am personally not very chill, but this is absolutely not what Confucius espoused.

He was all about those in power exercising restraint, openmindedness and responsibility. In not just being leaders because they felt entitled to be leaders, but actually leading. Not beating down their underlings because they could, but nurturing them and getting their best work from them. I suspect if he were alive today he'd be a policymaker at best, a self-proclaimed management guru at worst (I strongly dislike management gurus and business cliches).

I mean, take a look at some of his actual "Confucius Says" proverbs. "A tyrannical government is worse than a tiger" (課徵猛於虎) - that could apply not only to an actual government but a figurative management structure. "Bend down thine ear" (Chinese coming when I have access to my hilariously outdated book of Chinese idioms again) - he affirmed the right of leaders to exercise authority, but admonished them to listen to their underlings. His whole philosophy boiled down not to kings beating up subjects or managers beating up workers, but to society moving together in harmony, as if dancing in sync to music (I think he actually said something like that at one point).

I'm still not a fan, but that Confucianism - *actual* Confucianism - is not necessarily a problem in society, if understood and applied correctly. The West doesn't actually have all the answers.

The second is that I just want to say I am blown away by the maturity and adroitness of the activist movement (all of it, from the workers to the students). They remind me not of hippies - though there's a touch of Bob Dylan in them for sure - and not of union strikes or populists but of Gandhi-style nonviolent resistance (and as Gandhi said, there is nothing passive about nonviolent resistance - in that way too they are not held back by "Confucian values" in the more cliched, or even the true, sense. Even in true Confucianism it's on the leaders to do the right thing, there isn't much room for subjects to resist, even nonviolently). Someone has read up on the Indian independence movement, the Civil Rights movement, the LGBT rights movement, the women's suffrage movement, even as the impetus comes from within the strikers and activists themselves.

They are facing their problems with the only route available to them - the only route that has ever actually worked (look at history - it's rare that violence settles things well, though I can think of a few exceptions. Usually, the only way to get something done and build after you tear down the old order is nonviolent resistance). And they know it. I truly admire them for it.

There is absolutely nothing at all Confucian about that.