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
In 1976, the Gang of Four was ousted. The Gang of Four was a leftist political group comprising Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members: Jiang Qing (江青), its leading figure and Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) last wife; Zhang Chunqiao (張春橋); Yao Wenyuan (姚文元); and Wang Hongwen (王洪文). The four wielded supreme power during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), but when Mao died, they were overthrown and charged with crimes against China in what was in essence a political coup of the right against the left. The same type of thing might be happening again as the CCP has expelled nine top generals. Rather than a
The US Senate’s passage of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which urges Taiwan’s inclusion in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise and allocates US$1 billion in military aid, marks yet another milestone in Washington’s growing support for Taipei. On paper, it reflects the steadiness of US commitment, but beneath this show of solidarity lies contradiction. While the US Congress builds a stable, bipartisan architecture of deterrence, US President Donald Trump repeatedly undercuts it through erratic decisions and transactional diplomacy. This dissonance not only weakens the US’ credibility abroad — it also fractures public trust within Taiwan. For decades,
Former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmaker Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) on Saturday won the party’s chairperson election with 65,122 votes, or 50.15 percent of the votes, becoming the second woman in the seat and the first to have switched allegiance from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to the KMT. Cheng, running for the top KMT position for the first time, had been termed a “dark horse,” while the biggest contender was former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), considered by many to represent the party’s establishment elite. Hau also has substantial experience in government and in the KMT. Cheng joined the Wild Lily Student
Taipei stands as one of the safest capital cities the world. Taiwan has exceptionally low crime rates — lower than many European nations — and is one of Asia’s leading democracies, respected for its rule of law and commitment to human rights. It is among the few Asian countries to have given legal effect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant of Social Economic and Cultural Rights. Yet Taiwan continues to uphold the death penalty. This year, the government has taken a number of regressive steps: Executions have resumed, proposals for harsher prison sentences
RSS