On March 10 every year, Tibetans around the world and their supporters come together to commemorate Tibetan Uprising Day. This year marks the 55th anniversary of the uprising.
For Tibetans, neither Dharamsala, India, or free and democratic Taiwan is their homeland. Tibet is their home. In 1959, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invaded Tibet, forcing the 14th Dalai Lama to flee, which triggered an exodus of Tibetans across the Himalayas into India, away from ruthless persecutions and killings. This was done to save Tibetan culture and Tibetan lives, in the hope that they would some day be able to return to their peaceful homeland.
There are 376 Tibetans in exile in Taiwan, but just a minority have obtained Republic of China citizenship, while most of the others are stateless. Taiwan still has not passed a refugee act and the government does not recognize the “Green Book” issued by Tibet’s government-in-exile as a passport. Unless Tibetans here obtain an overseas Chinese temporary registration certificate, they are unable to access the same basic human rights, such as employment and medical care, held by any Republic of China (ROC) national.
The government has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and included them in the domestic legal system. The government must therefore view the issue of human rights for Tibetans based on international human rights standards.
These two covenants promise to respect, protect and improve basic human rights for everyone, without limiting rights to just those who hold citizenship. In this spirit, the government cannot view Tibetans in exile in Taiwan as being stateless. The government should pay Tibetans in exile the attention they deserve and fulfill Taiwan’s legal obligation to abide by the two covenants.
If President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government is serious about putting the two covenants into practice and bringing Taiwan in line with international practice, there are two options available.
The first would treat basic human rights and nationality as separate issues and recognize the rights of every resident of Taiwan.
The second option would be to recognize the official documents issued by the Tibetan government-in-exile and view Tibetans as having a nationality.
Taiwan’s government has long been diplomatically oppressed and militarily threatened by China and it should therefore be able to understand what the Tibetans in exile are going through. The government should also announce that it will protect the rights of Tibetans in Taiwan based on basic principles of human rights.
The Ma administration may not agree with Tibet’s struggle for independence, but this has nothing to do with protecting the basic human rights of Tibetans. Furthermore, pro-Beijing people should give more consideration to the real reasons why Tibetans protest.
If the Chinese government respects Tibetans, as it claims, why do Tibetans continue to protest? Why are so many Tibetans protesting through self-immolation? Why has the Tibetan Youth Congress not abandoned its quest for Tibetan independence? Why are Tibetans in exile around the globe still looking for a way to return home?
These are issues that every Taiwanese concerned about their own future should think carefully about.
Huang Song-lih is convener of Covenants Watch. Shih Yi-hsiang is executive secretary of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights.
Translated by Drew Cameron
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
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS