On April 23, the legislature’s Internal Administration Committee reviewed draft amendments to the Act Governing Relations Between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例). It was preliminarily decided that all Chinese nationals married to Taiwanese should be granted work permits and that a NT$2 million (US$59,000) cap on the inheritance they could receive from their Taiwanese spouses should be scrapped. In addition, the waiting time for Chinese spouses to apply for citizenship is expected to be shortened from eight years to six or four years.
The legislative review marked the first time since the resumption of cross-strait interaction that the government has addressed the issue of the rights of Chinese spouses.
But even if the amendments are passed, they will not be enough to make treatment of spouses from China equal to treatment of spouses from other countries.
The rights of foreign spouses should naturally be protected, particularly with the legislature’s recent passage of the Act Governing Execution of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (公民與政治權利國際公約及經濟社會文化權利國際公約施行法) to implement the two UN covenants. The legislature also long ago signed and ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Policies that discriminate against Chinese spouses and treat them as “second-class immigrants” should not be allowed to continue, yet some legislators and politicians who put political ideology before human rights argue against measures to protect spouses from China. One legislator even said “it would be terrifying if the streets were full of the children of Chinese.”
This stems from misunderstandings. The fundamental problem is that these politicians frequently liken Chinese spouses to “outsiders” or even “enemies.” They fail to realize that these are the spouses and relatives of Taiwanese and as such are residents of Taiwan.
Chinese spouses should be treated as Taiwanese rather than as tourists or students temporarily in Taiwan. Chinese residents and the Taiwanese should stand together through thick and thin. The former have to pay taxes and abide by Taiwanese law like everyone else and should enjoy the same rights. Discrimination against Chinese spouses is also discrimination against the Taiwanese they married.
From a constitutional perspective, there may be some differences in the treatment of “foreigners,” but in principle, immigrants and other foreigners in Taiwan should enjoy the same constitutionally protected human rights as Taiwanese.
It goes without saying that many Chinese spouses have settled in Taiwan and have become Taiwanese. They can vote in presidential elections and are considered to live in “the free area of the Republic of China.” As civil servants, policymakers should be ashamed — they are discriminating against voters, and the electorate is their boss.
Policymakers are also to be criticized for their unfamiliarity with immigration research.
Many studies have shown that to help immigrants become part of a society and avoid isolation, it is necessary for the government to grant them work permits and social welfare, in addition to enforcing laws against discrimination.
In terms of the number of years required before an immigrant should be allowed to apply for citizenship, five years is often considered the longest acceptable waiting period. An excessively long wait can easily have a negative impact on the rights of immigrants.
As cross-strait marriages are a reality, we must treat these “new Taiwanese” equally and remember that they, like most Taiwanese, are immigrants from across the Taiwan Strait and deserve the same living standards and rights as everyone else.
Discrimination against Chinese immigrants will only fuel ethnic tension. Experience in other countries has shown that prohibition and discrimination are never effective. Facing the reality of immigration and protecting the rights of new immigrants to promote a tolerant and culturally diverse society are essential to national stability.
If the government continues to neglect the rights and interests of Chinese spouses and to treat them as second-class immigrants and third-class citizens — inferior both to Taiwanese and spouses from other countries — how will Taiwan be able to praise itself as a free and democratic country founded on human rights?
Bruce Liao is an assistant professor in the Department of Law at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS