The Sichuan earthquake has allowed the Taiwanese public to fully exercise their compassion. Suddenly, animosity and opposition across the Taiwan Strait have melted away.
The earlier cyclone in Myanmar, however, which also caused a serious humanitarian crisis, did not seem to attract the concern of the Taiwanese media and public. From this perspective, the compassion of the Taiwanese seems highly selective, being more easily bestowed upon Chinese people, who are of the same culture and ethnicity.
However, from the perspective of Taiwanese law, the criterion of being more friendly to the Chinese than to other foreigners does not seem to stand. For instance, Taiwanese law treats Chinese spouses much more poorly than other foreign spouses.
For example, Chinese spouses are not permitted to work within the first four years of arriving in Taiwan, the penalty being deportation. Other foreign spouses, however, may start working in as little as 15 days once they obtain residency status.
Chinese spouses are not even permitted to join organizations, whereas other foreign spouses can legally form groups to protect their rights.
An inheritance received by Chinese spouses from their Taiwanese partners or other relatives has an upper limit of NT$2 million (US$65,800). There is no limit for other foreign spouses.
Even if Chinese spouses become Taiwanese citizens, they are still not allowed to be employed by the government within the first 10 years of obtaining citizenship. However, other foreign spouses obtaining citizenship can be employed by most government agencies.
There is a large number of other examples of this prejudice. Some Chinese spouses therefore express support for Taiwan and China being separate states so that they would not be classified as “ROC citizens from the mainland area,” and at least enjoy the same treatment as other foreign spouses.
Why are we so legally unfriendly toward the Chinese, who share our ethnicity and culture?
If they are citizens of an enemy state, then why are we so much more enthusiastic with our compassion toward China than Myanmar, a foreign state?
The key point is that we have the compassion to give to those in need — however, we are not necessarily ready to grant them equivalent sovereign rights. Compassion and charity does not impinge on one’s own elevated position.
However, if those on the receiving end of our charity begin to demand rights, then the Taiwanese public is often unable to accept that “they” are demanding to be equal to “us.”
Thus, with charitable donations, we are more inclined to be generous toward China, based on compassion built upon ethnic and cultural kinship. However, when the Chinese truly enter our lives to share and compete for resources, we will attempt to use the law to maintain our elevated position.
Compassion is a truly valuable human asset. However, it cannot only be bestowed under the precondition of superiority. Do the Taiwanese possess a highly selective, premodern form of compassion? Or is it a respect for equal rights that befits a modern citizenry?
Now that the anti-China Democratic Progressive Party government is stepping down, and as earthquake relief efforts diminish cross-strait animosity, our willingness to transform our prejudice against Chinese immigrants will be an important benchmark.
But if, while giving aid to the Chinese, we maintain our domestic prejudices, then our position will remain immoral.
Bruce Liao is an assistant professor of law at Soochow University.
TRANSLATED BY ANGELA HONG
Would China attack Taiwan during the American lame duck period? For months, there have been worries that Beijing would seek to take advantage of an American president slowed by age and a potentially chaotic transition to make a move on Taiwan. In the wake of an American election that ended without drama, that far-fetched scenario will likely prove purely hypothetical. But there is a crisis brewing elsewhere in Asia — one with which US president-elect Donald Trump may have to deal during his first days in office. Tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea have been at
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hypersonic missile carried a simple message to the West over Ukraine: Back off, and if you do not, Russia reserves the right to hit US and British military facilities. Russia fired a new intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missile known as “Oreshnik,” or Hazel Tree, at Ukraine on Thursday in what Putin said was a direct response to strikes on Russia by Ukrainian forces with US and British missiles. In a special statement from the Kremlin just after 8pm in Moscow that day, the Russian president said the war was escalating toward a global conflict, although he avoided any nuclear
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
RSS