Freedom to demonstrate and support like-minded people is a fundamental right among democratic nations. It is therefore surprising that this right is not fully extended to foreign visitors to Taiwan. Most foreigners seem unaware that they can run into trouble if they participate in legal and peaceful demonstrations during their visit.
The Immigration Act (出入國及移民法) says that foreigners are not allowed to participate in an activity that is different from the purpose of the visit or residence of the person in question. However, there is no up-to-date list of permissible activities. Consequently, foreigners are forced to make their own — perhaps erroneous — judgments of what is allowed. Is a tourist allowed to participate in a parade with a sign advocating gay marriage? Perhaps the case could be made that this would violate the purpose of the visit, unless the parade is not considered to be a protest.
The law restricting foreigner involvement is unexpected because this is a democratic country, but more so because the law appears to violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights that Taiwan has ratified and which took effect on Dec. 10, 2009. The covenant stipulates that foreigners within the jurisdiction of a state enjoy the same rights as nationals, with only limited exceptions. The right to assembly is not among these exceptions.
The law should therefore be changed to line up with the covenant so that foreigners have their rights protected. Still this would have exceptions; they would not have the right to vote. Every lawful activity should be open to all, unless it is specially excluded to protect national interests. However, under the current rules, foreigners are better off staying away from protests and politics because there are no clear guidelines for what they can and cannot do.
It is discouraging to see that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government appears reluctant to do the right thing. This adds to the widely held view that the nation’s democratic development is on the wrong path.
The opposition Democratic Progressive Party is currently pushing the KMT to allow foreigners on short stays to join demonstrations. However, the KMT appears reluctant. It will only consider a relaxation for nonpolitical assemblies and will not allow participation during election periods.
The KMT prefers to open up an array of arbitrary policies and to provoke a debate over the definition of nonpolitical assemblies. Would participation in a homosexual pride parade be considered a nonpolitical activity? Would it depend on how a person acts in the parade?
A change in the law is warranted. Recently, a young European was banned from entering Taiwan for three years because authorities claimed that he participated in an activity that was different from the purpose of his residence. They claimed that he participated in a peaceful antinuclear demonstration on June 11, 2011, in Greater Tainan. He said that he did not participate. After a long struggle with the help of lawyers, the Ministry of the Interior finally admitted that it treated him unjustly when it denied him an entry visa.
He has now been cleared of any wrongdoing.
One could argue that the legal system is working, but his case highlights the democratic problem with the act’s general prohibition of participation in “activities different from the purposes of their visits or residence.”
Of course national affairs are first and foremost the affairs of Taiwanese. However, it should be permissible for democratically-minded people to show their support for like-minded people, regardless of nationality.
Taiwan has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Consequently, Taiwan has an obligation to change its laws accordingly.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of Taiwan Corner.
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
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
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”
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with
RSS