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
Chinese actor Alan Yu (于朦朧) died after allegedly falling from a building in Beijing on Sept. 11. The actor’s mysterious death was tightly censored on Chinese social media, with discussions and doubts about the incident quickly erased. Even Hong Kong artist Daniel Chan’s (陳曉東) post questioning the truth about the case was automatically deleted, sparking concern among overseas Chinese-speaking communities about the dark culture and severe censorship in China’s entertainment industry. Yu had been under house arrest for days, and forced to drink with the rich and powerful before he died, reports said. He lost his life in this vicious
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
In South Korea, the medical cosmetic industry is fiercely competitive and prices are low, attracting beauty enthusiasts from Taiwan. However, basic medical risks are often overlooked. While sharing a meal with friends recently, I heard one mention that his daughter would be going to South Korea for a cosmetic skincare procedure. I felt a twinge of unease at the time, but seeing as it was just a casual conversation among friends, I simply reminded him to prioritize safety. I never thought that, not long after, I would actually encounter a patient in my clinic with a similar situation. She had
RSS