China’s residency permit for people from Taiwan, Macau and Hong Kong came into effect at the beginning of this month. It has already caused a number of complications, the most significant being that, despite Chinese officials claiming registration is voluntary, Beijing has been pressing Taiwanese working and studying in China to apply for the permit through China’s Taiwan Affairs Office.
Beijing is also leaning on a number of leading Taiwanese businesses operating in China and requesting that their owners meet application targets for Taiwanese staff. Fortunately, the majority of businesses approached have politely declined.
It is not difficult to detect what is going on. These permits form part of China’s Taiwan policy, and Beijing wants to ensure that the right number — and quality — of Taiwanese are applying for them.
As for quantity, Beijing has been busily promoting the permits as a tool to make living in China more convenient for Taiwanese. For instance, they can be used to purchase high-speed rail tickets and make hotel reservations ahead of business trips.
As for quality, Beijing is focusing its lobbying on Taiwanese with high social status, putting “soft” pressure on them by implying that having a permit is an unspoken rule for those working and living in China.
However, due to the high risk of holding one of these permits, Beijing has so far only succeeded in twisting the arms of the directors of Taiwanese chambers of commerce in a few locations, such as Shanghai, Fuzhou and Xiamen.
The big players of Taiwanese commerce have not yielded to Beijing’s pressure and have reportedly stated — quite rightly — that requiring staff to apply for the permits would be prohibited under Taiwanese law.
The permits are really just an extension of the residential permit system introduced in 2016. At the time, Beijing’s aim was to ensure that a section of the floating population in China’s cities were able to enjoy the same benefits as household residential permit holders, providing them with access to the local social security system, which granted the so-called “five insurances and one benefit”: insurance for medical treatment, old-age care, unemployment, workplace injury and maternity care, as well as access to housing benefits.
However, the system quickly turned into a hotbed of corruption open to abuse by local government officials, and the central government found it difficult to integrate the system at a national level. A series of related social security fund corruption cases surfaced in cities, including Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Beijing, as well as in Shandong, Sichuan and Chongqing provinces.
In November last year, a report by the Chinese Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security revealed that in 2016, seven provincial-level pension insurance funds paid out more in claims than they received in contributions.
In one example, Heilongjiang Province’s pension insurance fund had accumulated debts of 2.32 billion yuan (US$338,3 million); just the tip of a far larger problem.
In other words, the smokescreen of enhanced convenience is being used to conceal the high degree of uncertainly and unpredictability inherent in becoming a resident in a country run by an authoritarian government. To apply for the new residency permit means having to take the rough with the smooth and accept a high degree of risk.
These comments only touch on systemic matters, but there are also political and economic controls, which cause additional problems that go beyond the scope of this article.
Whether they are fully cognizant of the fact, the situation reflects the predicament in which China-based Taiwanese now find themselves. It also shows that the government must not shirk its responsibility to protect its citizens.
The question is: Will the justification the big-name Taiwanese corporations have so far used — that requiring Taiwanese staff to apply for Chinese residency permits would be illegal under Taiwanese law — be sufficient to keep Beijing at bay?
The wording of the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例) is extremely vague. Perhaps it would be able to withstand a few attacks, but not a full-on assault.
The act therefore urgently needs to be amended using a belt-and-braces approach, and with the utmost haste if Taiwanese are to be protected. If the government fails to do so, how will it have any hope of negotiating better terms with Beijing?
From Beijing’s perspective, it is running against the wind, as export-based companies are gradually leaving China. Given the situation, the direction Taiwanese government policy should take is abundantly clear.
Tzou Jiing-wen is the editor-in-chief of the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper).
Translated by Edward Jones
US President Donald Trump last week told reporters that he had signed about 12 letters to US trading partners, which were set to be sent out yesterday, levying unilateral tariff rates of up to 70 percent from Aug. 1. However, Trump did not say which countries the letters would be sent to, nor did he discuss the specific tariff rates, reports said. The news of the tariff letters came as Washington and Hanoi reached a trade deal earlier last week to cut tariffs on Vietnamese exports to the US to 20 percent from 46 percent, making it the first Asian country
On Monday, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) delivered a welcome speech at the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum, addressing more than 50 international law experts from more than 20 countries. With an aim to refute the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) claim to be the successor to the 1945 Chinese government and its assertion that China acquired sovereignty over Taiwan, Lin articulated three key legal positions in his speech: First, the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration were not legally binding instruments and thus had no legal effect for territorial disposition. All determinations must be based on the San Francisco Peace
As things heated up in the Middle East in early June, some in the Pentagon resisted American involvement in the Israel-Iran war because it would divert American attention and resources from the real challenge: China. This was exactly wrong. Rather, bombing Iran was the best thing that could have happened for America’s Asia policy. When it came to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program, “all options are on the table” had become an American mantra over the past two decades. But the more often US administration officials insisted that military force was in the cards, the less anyone believed it. After
During an impromptu Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) rally on Tuesday last week to protest what the party called the unfairness of the judicial system, a young TPP supporter said that if Taiwan goes to war, he would “surrender to the [Chinese] People’s Liberation Army [PLA] with unyielding determination.” The rally was held after former Taipei deputy mayor Pong Cheng-sheng’s (彭振聲) wife took her life prior to Pong’s appearance in court to testify in the Core Pacific corruption case involving former Taipei mayor and TPP chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). The TPP supporter said President William Lai (賴清德) was leading them to die on
RSS