Citizenship for all
The government is finally going to talk about some of the situations facing foreigners (“Special act to address foreigners’ concerns,” Nov. 6, page 3).
The article says that the issue gained attention after Ralph Jensen, a white male according to his Facebook page, wrote a letter about his concerns to the Taipei Times. This appears to be another example of white male privilege.
There are many Philippine, Indonesian and other women of color also living and working in Taiwan. They have been sexually assaulted, not allowed to leave their dormitories at night and their passports have been confiscated by the third parties who brokered their jobs.
This is illegal and a violation of their basic human rights, but if these women of color raise these issues, then they face losing their job and being deported. It seems that the government is only concerned about white male foreigners.
The solution is citizenship now for all who live and want to live in Taiwan. White males who teach English, Philippine women who work in semiconductor factories, Indonesian women who care for the elderly, everyone should have citizenship now. We live here. This is our home.
Taiwan is already a good place to live. Low crime. Low poverty.
Yet these good conditions are not causing a flood of immigrants. Foreigners are only 3 percent of the population. Therefore handing out citizenship would not result in a flood of immigrants.
In the movie 1776, John Adams says that the Declaration of Independence deals with freedom for all Americans.
President of South Carolina John Rutledge, who owned slaves, then asks: “Oh, really? Mr Adams is now calling our black slaves Americans, are they not?”
Adams, who became the second president of the US and was one of the minority of the founding fathers who never owned a slave, replies: “Yes, they are. They are people and they’re here. If there is any other requirement, I’ve never heard of it.”
We foreigners are people and we are here. Citizenship now. Democracy now.
Andres Chang
Taipei
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath