Foreigners ignored
It is always good to see Taiwanese flocking to the polling stations to exercise their precious political rights in what can justly be hailed as one of the world’s best-functioning democracies.
Though it is less than three decades since Taiwan embraced democracy, its democratic system puts to shame the failings of much older democracies, such as the US, with the skewing effect of its electoral colleges, and the UK, with its widely condemned first-past-the-post voting system.
Having lived in Taiwan since the mid-1980s, I have borne witness to every election here, and have been nothing but impressed by the order, efficiency and essential fairness of the whole process.
The main pity is that, except for a tiny number of octogenarian priests and others who are permitted to naturalize without having to renounce their original citizenship, the vast majority of us foreign residents are effectively and permanently excluded from access to citizenship and enjoyment of the most basic rights of participation in the affairs of the state where we have made our home.
No matter if we have lived here for decades, working diligently in jobs that cannot be filled by local people, always paying our full share or more of taxes, scrupulously abiding by local law and custom, bringing in money from abroad to invest here, marrying Taiwanese and raising our children as Taiwanese, helping build bridges across the world for Taiwan and cheering for it in the international community, we are forever excluded from citizenship by the unconscionable and insupportable unfairness of Article 9 of the Nationality Act (國籍法).
However much pleased and impressed we might be by closely witnessing Taiwan’s democratic election process, as our spouses, children and in-laws head off excitedly to cast their votes, joining in choosing who gets to make policies and laws that will govern our lives and decide how our tax contributions will be spent, we cannot help but feel pained at our exclusion from participation.
It is especially hard to bear when we encounter canvassers during election campaigning, and are either pointedly ignored, as if we did not exist, or else beseeched for votes that cannot be in our possession to bestow.
Nothing makes me feel more excluded and more of an outsider in Taiwan, and I know that many of my fellow foreign residents feel the same.
When Taiwanese reside in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and many other of our home countries, they are accorded a fast and easy route to naturalization without any need for renouncing their Republic of China citizenship. Why does Taiwan baulk at reciprocating by according the same basic right to suitably qualified foreign residents?
As the world observes and applauds another successful outcome to a round of elections in this model East Asian democracy, wouldn’t it be a good time for the newly elected government to correct the injustice of the law that keeps us foreign residents locked out of the fundamental civil and political rights that this country is so proud to have created for its own people?
Peter Whittle
Linkou
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS