The right to a nationality
The people of Taiwan have the right to choose their nationality. This is the case even if Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) would, through his economic policy, make Taiwan a province of China.
In the Treaty of Shimonoseki, signed in 1895 at the end of the First Sino-Japanese War, China and Japan gave each inhabitant of Taiwan the right to choose his or her nationality after China ceded the island to Japan.
Another precedent is the 1898 Treaty of Paris that concluded the Spanish-American War, under which the US and Spain gave every resident of the Philippines the right to choose his or her nationality.
The Taiwan Relations Act, which defines the relationship between Taiwan and the US, covers the whole population.
The Shanghai Communique’s “one China” policy, regardless of the different interpretations in China and the US, referred only to the “Chinese” people on both sides of the Strait. On Taiwan’s side, the Mainlanders are a minority. What about the majority?
This right to have a nationality is guaranteed by Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
If Ma were to bring Taiwan under Chinese administration against the will of the majority, every citizen could oppose him based on this universal right.
The only way to solve the Taiwan problem without violating the UDHR is to give those people in Taiwan who wish to become Chinese citizens the right to leave Taiwan and become Chinese. Many of them have already moved their financial resources and their family members to China. Besides, most of the people in this group came to Taiwan for temporary refuge after 1949 and were Chinese in the first place.
Those who do not wish to become Chinese citizens — even if the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Chinese Communist Party governments sign any secret pacts — should remain citizens of Taiwan.
For Taiwanese, the right to their nationality as guaranteed by the UDHR has been ignored for too long and needs urgent international attention.
ALISON HSIEH
Athens, Greece
Improving higher education
It is great news that National Taiwan University (NTU) was ranked 95th in the world in the 2009 World University Rankings released by the Times of London.
With NTU on the list of the world’s top 100 universities, the Ministry of Education has formulated its next goal to help other institutions of higher learning reach the top 100 in various academic fields (“Ministry to help universities make top 100,” Oct. 13, page 2).
Responding to NTU’s accomplishment, the ministry will continue to provide its annual NT$10 billion funding, which was initiated in 2005. It is encouraging that Minister of Education Wu Ching-chi (吳清基) has committed to the second stage of the university-boosting project, which will begin in the 2011 academic year.
From the perspective of “human capacity building” or “human resources development,” promoted globally by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, APEC, UNESCO, the World Bank and other international organizations, it is enlightening to see our government injecting significant funding into higher education.
However, there are concerns about the quality of our higher education. Evidence such as Taiwan’s declining competitiveness in higher education and its slumping performance in English as manifested in scores on TOEFL, TOEIC and IELTS deserve serious consideration.
While sufficient funding is essential, promoting quality teaching, research and student advising should be the priority for advancing our higher education.
Our government should pursue innovative and pragmatic educational policies to empower university students to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
In the meantime, higher education policies and strategies for recruiting international students and celebrated academics must be considered.
CLAIRE WU
Yonghe, Taipei County
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS