An ill-advised proposal
On the morning of July 24, the Office of the Vice President, Human Right Committee, held a lengthy meeting on the subject of the human rights of foreigners in Taiwan. This had resulted from my persistent protests against apparent attempts by the police in March and April to intimidate foreigners who had demonstrated against the US invasion of Iraq. Also present at the meeting were representatives of several groups concerned with foreign workers; these had faced much worse police pressure after a small demonstration demanding better wages. Many present felt that Taiwan's poor treatment of foreign labor was an impediment to its international relations.
Predictably, representatives of the National Police Administration denied that anyone had been mistreated or refused entrance to Taiwan due to their political behavior.
Then Toru Sakai, who works now in foreign affairs at the DPP's headquarters, described how he was blocked from entering the country for several months in early 2001 after having been designated "a threat to national security" by the exit/entrance authorities. He said that there is an obvious gap between presidential direction and the execution of policy; at the bottom. It seems the old regime is still in control.
This was not a pretty picture. However, I thought that the airing of these matters would be an important step in setting Taiwan on the road to becoming "a nation of human rights," a goal proclaimed by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).
Imagine, then, my shock that evening at reading in the Taipei Times that foreigners and Chinese or organizations will be banned from conducting lobbying activities concerning national defense, diplomacy and Chinese affairs if a draft bill approved by the Executive Yuan last Wednesday becomes law ("Cabinet approves draft lobbying law," July 24, page 1).
"Lobby" is defined as an activity meant to sway the formation, approval, change or abrogation of government policies, resolutions or legislations. The activity could be carried out in the form of speaking, writing or e-mail. Therefore, my current efforts to expose the basic violation of human rights in the immigration law, plus its misuse by the police, would be proscribed by the proposed law.
I was relieved to see, the Times has stated some mild reservations about these provisions in its editorial last Friday ("Another stab at political reform," July 25, page 8). But observers should rather be aghast that the Executive Yuan itself did not perceive the obvious contradictions with civil and human rights, as follows.
National defense, diplomacy and Chinese affairs all commonly involve foreigners as commentators, researchers and also as persons affected. The right of foreigners to speak is the right of Taiwanese to know. And both Taiwanese and non-Taiwanese fall within the standards of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
If the proposed law is as described, it is nothing short of a gag order, a squelching of all but the most constricted channels of communication. It is comparable to controls in the martial law period.
There are many reasons why any such law, even in an innocuous form, should not be enacted. The laws, police and courts have not yet fully embraced the concepts and practices of civil and human rights, nor have enough civil groups formed to protect those rights.
Citizenship in this country is extremely vague and contended. Most obviously, the country calls itself the Republic of China, but is recognized as such by less than 3 percent of the world's population, and under the Constitution's definition of national territory all Chinese should be citizens.
In addition, Taiwan has been deeply embedded in the international economy for decades. For the sake of business, travel and personal development, a huge number of Taiwanese and their descendants and spouses hold multiple citizenships, or have taken citizenship in other countries. According to a local non-governmental organization, Parents Society of Overseas Students, the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Defense do not even agree on the criteria for citizenship and military service.
Finally, Taiwan is seeking international recognition and greater contact with other countries, both through formal and informal channels. If the US enforced laws such as are proposed here, the Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Tai-wan's main voice in Washington, would itself be illegal.
Obviously Taiwan needs to draw people of goodwill from other countries to its assistance in formation of policies and directions for integration into international society. With Tai-wan's lack of direct diplomatic channels and long distancing from much of the world due to the Cold War politics of the KMT and limited linguistic resources (few Taiwanese study African, Middle Eastern or Eastern European languages), it is inevitable that knowledge about these countries and diplomacy with them will be transmitted through non-citizens.
It is hard to believe that the authorities would make such a xenophobic proposal in this era of globalization. There is no necessary correlation between nationality and support for the national good. Wei Jing-sheng(魏京生), long jailed in China, for example, urged Taiwanese to stand up against China. Freedom of information provides the best basis for making informed choices. Policy choices must be judged on their own merits, with full public debate; that is part of the maturation of democracy.
The intention of the "sunshine laws" may be to stop under-the-table payments to legislators and prevent China from using its clout to indirectly shape governmental decisions. But measures to block freedom of speech are a step in the wrong direction -- back towards governmental regulation of "national purpose," intrusion into public and private communication and all the martial law machinery of enforcement it would involve.
I hope the Times will give us a more detailed report on this proposed law, how it came about, and how it proceeds.
Linda Gail Arrigo
Green Party Taiwan, International Affairs Officer
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS