No no that happens at the end of the year. Where I question why they should be given the privilege of another year to manage my accounts when their performance was lack luster. That’s when you want to make them squirm and get some free bagels or something… 
The model which I believe has taken effect on Taiwan in the past couple of years is that money and jobs are being moved to the PRC, through direct or indirect transfer. Mostly affecting the higher skilled labor market. So the government policy on the matter doesn’t affect this segment too much, because unless they outright banned movement and transfer out of Taiwan, these individuals can tap the PRC market.
What I’m referring to is the lower segment of the labor market. Who have neither the skills, training nor resources to tap the PRC market, let alone be competitive in it. Government policy can have a direct positive influence on people in the hospitality, food service, transportation, and tourism market just by reducing the barriers to allow PRC tourist coming to Taiwan.
Since neither you nor I believe in Reagan trickle down theory, which in this case mean rich ROC citizen generating wealth in the PRC are not coming home to spend their fortunes, the government should have some responsibility in facilitating the growth of these markets, even if it mean that the tourist are not Japanese or Westerners as they originally planned, but PRC nationals.
But it was universal suffrage that created the society. When the first slaves or indenture servant arrived in the New World, it was at the consent of the society that at that time.
I forward that even though women could not vote at the time. They still consented to importing cheap labor to do their house work. I don’t believe a white wife would have voted against black slavery nor indenture servants 200 years ago.
The counter argument for point (a) is the fact free speech can be used to motivate the masses into racist action. Just like free speach in the USA of the low skill white laborers cause the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act to prevent lower cost labor of the new immigrant group. Just like free speach in democratic Germany allow for the demonization of Jews. And on Taiwan free speach is used to stoke the fire of recrimination and retribution.
Point (b) is not entirely correct because it is a Republic that defends minority rights. A Democracy defends majority rights. In a democracy 51% of the population will always lord over the other 49%. The only balance in the democracy is that each individual must be highly educated in a broad number of subjects, to make and educated and civic minded decision. In a Republic the masses give up their right to govern to a “highly” trained individual to take on that responsibility. These leaders are suppose to counter the natural urge of the masses to scapegoat the most vunerable in society.
However, as I have pointed out in my posting in Taiwan these counter-balances in society are failing. Education in Taiwan is falling behind, even as the MOE debates the “true” Taiwan history. And the leaders are no longer interested in protecting the sub-ethnic minorities on Taiwan. Instead leaders are pandering to the least common denominator of the poorly educated masses on Taiwan.
I’m basically point to the break down of a Republic when the leader no longer feels necessary to be the leader of all within the State. But only to be the leader of his constituents exclusively.
I won’t comment about what that might mean in relation to some recent postings about your heroic live life.