The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has again proposed allowing Chinese spouses to obtain Taiwanese citizenship in four years instead of six. Following the proposal, inequity between Chinese and non-Chinese spouses in the naturalization processes is being discussed. The difference needs to be clarified and the process should be reformed.
KMT lawmakers said that disparity in the naturalization process signifies discrimination against Chinese spouses, who have to wait six years to obtain Taiwanese citizenship under the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例), while spouses of other nationalities need only four years, according to the Nationality Act (國籍法).
The KMT made a hasty generalization over the differences of the naturalization processes of Chinese spouses and other foreign spouses. However, while other foreign spouses in most cases need to renounce their existing nationality to obtain Taiwanese citizenship, Chinese spouses only need to renounce their household registration in China, as Beijing does not allow dual nationality. Chinese spouses face difficulties in giving up nationality, as the authoritarian country sees Taiwan as its subordinate, not an equal.
Other foreign spouses are required to take a naturalization test to prove their language fluency and knowledge of civil rights and responsibilities, which Chinese spouses are exempt from.
Including to renounce their original nationality and to take the test, it takes six to eight years on average for other foreign spouses to obtain Taiwanese citizenship, according to the Ministry of the Interior — a period longer than average time for Chinese spouses.
More ironically, it would take at least 11 years for a Chinese spouse to apply for Macau citizenship and seven years for Hong Kong citizenship, although the two are “special administrations” of China. The spouses from other provinces in China need 10 years to get household registration in Beijing or Shanghai.
An online petition, which has collected more than 60,000 signatures in three days, demanding a halt to the KMT proposal said that Chinese spouses’ relatives could apply for multiple-entry visas for longer than six months, and parents older than 70 and children younger than 12 could reside in Taiwan and be included in the National Health Insurance system, while other foreign spouses’ first-degree relatives are limited to three to six-month visits.
Do not ignore the elephant in the room that some KMT lawmakers seem to be missing: China, which is persistently hostile toward Taiwan and has ambitions to take over the nation, implemented a National Intelligence Law in 2018 making it an obligation for all of its citizens to cooperate with its intelligence services — an obligation that applies to Chinese spouses based in Taiwan.
Democratic Progress Party Legislator Huang Jie (黃捷) on Monday last week introduced a draft amendment that would require Chinese spouses to swear an oath of loyalty to Taiwan and to take a test of civic knowledge.
There are more than 384,000 Chinese spouses in Taiwan, including 275,000 who were naturalized or got permanent residency, January’s immigration data showed.
Chinese spouses account for 66 percent of foreign spouses in Taiwan, they showed.
Naturalization regulations should be reformed to avoid discrimination for all foreign spouses, not just for Chinese ones. Although an oath could not necessarily guarantee loyalty to a nation, Huang’s proposal or similar mechanisms should be included. They could be a reminder that all Taiwanese have a responsibility to safeguard the nation’s sovereignty and security.
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