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
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under