Sweeping assumptions

PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 05 May, 1993, 12:00am
UPDATED : Wednesday, 05 May, 1993, 12:00am

I REFER to Neil Taylor's vitriolic sarcasm in reply to my letter (South China Morning Post, April 26), regarding the true meaning of slavery.

He seems to have completely ignored the relevance of the analogy, and embarked on yet another tedious tirade on the plight of the maids.

His sweeping assumptions that all expat managers (except himself), earn in the region of $100,000, lack any foundation. Dream on. The minority - yes: the majority - no.

Space prohibited me from elaborating further in my first communication, but I actually had in mind the large number of expats who had been driven from their homeland also, because of deep recession, in an endeavour to find employment. If Mr Taylor is contemptuous enough to presume that I pulled any old figure out of the hat to cite the wages of the Chinese factory worker, he cannot dispute the wage of a ''temp'' expat secretary or bar person. These people can expect between $40 and $50 per hour; based on a 40-hour working week, yields the princely sum of between $1,600 and $2,000. I am not perverse enough to itemise or compare their expenditure as opposed to that of the amahs.

How he can dismiss expat marital problems to ''a bit of overtime'' is incomprehensible. His paranoia about high wage earners is clearly obscuring logic.

Yes sir, Mr Taylor, I know what constitutes real hardship. I feel, smell and breathe it every time I walk through the gates of a Vietnamese Refugee Camp. This dispossessed, displaced race of people, who live on charity, hand-outs, cast-offs and under theauspices of a large band of expat volunteers, endure it every waking moment of their lives. They would sell their souls for just one tiny bite of the Filipina pie.

It is people of your ilk and bigotry, who split hairs over trivia such as proper usage of ''Filipino/Filipina,'' who are more than instrumental in creating racial and cultural disharmony.