It was refreshing to hear expert commentary yesterday on a part of the immigration debate normally blocked out by bickering over the ideal number of brides that should come from China: the tendency for governments to treat children of "mixed" marriages -- normally a Taiwanese husband and a Chinese or Southeast Asian wife -- as an administrative problem rather than an opportunity.
Issues of migration are complex and never easily resolved, nor are they reducible to black-and-white categories of right and wrong. In Taiwan's case, there has been a relatively smooth process of adjustment to hundreds of thousands of new residents as Taiwanese men marry women from markedly poorer, non-Chinese-speaking countries.
The numbers are impressive: Three out of every seven children are now being born to a foreign mother; by 2010, these children will amount to one-tenth of the school-age population.
Those inclined to define Taiwan in ethnic terms will be intimidated by these numbers. But there is no reason to feel that way -- as long as the government and a well-meaning population are willing to adapt, and as long as migrants are willing to learn how to integrate themselves and their "mixed" children into Taiwanese society.
Happily, this is an issue on which legislators of substance from both sides of the political divide can unite to develop constructive policies.
The demand for foreign brides is a function of the increasing wealth and urbanization of a society that raises the standard of living -- and increases life choices. Universal education inculcates in all children the principle of opportunity based on merit rather than geography or ethnic group, and from this comes a natural migration of women from rural areas into wealthier cities in search of better opportunities.
For such a system to function properly, migrant women who fill this demographic gap in rural Taiwan cannot be allowed to descend into an underclass.
Basic economics and good governance provide a powerful incentive for the nation to ensure that the productivity of their children as they become adults is no less substantial than that of any other group.
But there is a distance to travel in providing a migrant-friendly environment. Governments and legislatures are all too willing to speak to foreign spouses in a patronizing tone, and this is not helped by labor policies that treat migrant laborers -- the spouses' compatriots -- like second-class citizens.
It is also hoped that reports of husbands refusing foreign spouses permission to attend government-funded skills seminars will decrease. But for this to happen, the government must assume and proclaim that both parties have rights and responsibilities.
There is a strong argument that any mandatory training for migrant women should be accompanied by mandatory training for their husbands, who in some cases do not understand or respect -- and even obstruct -- their wives' legal and human rights.
Other considerations are ideological. If migrants are to integrate properly, it is important that the residue of race-flavored ideology in street signs, company names, government agencies and so on is removed.
We can only hope that mindless praise for "Hua" (
Until this happens, children of mixed marriages will inevitably experience a degree of discomfort as they come to terms with their differences as minorities. The challenge for elected officials, public servants and people of good conscience is to eliminate gratuitous obstacles containing racist terminology and practices and ensure that people are judged on their merits and not their DNA.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS