Chinese dissident Chen Siming (陳思明) arrived in Canada on Oct. 5 after being granted asylum. For Chen, it could be considered a satisfactory conclusion after being stuck at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport for about two weeks after he refused to fly to China. For Taiwan, the incident shows the need to accelerate asylum law legislation.
Chen regularly commemorated the Tiananmen Square Massacre of June 4, 1989. He has been repeatedly arrested around the anniversary and imprisoned.
Chen, who arrived at the airport on Sept. 22 after passing through Thailand and Laos, refused to board his flight to China and sought assistance to resettle in a third country. He stayed in the airport’s transit area and immigration office.
There was a similar case in 2018, when two Chinese dissidents spent four months at the airport before flying to Singapore to obtain short-term humanitarian visas. In 2019, two other dissidents stayed at the airport and in custody for nine months before obtaining asylum in Canada. Chen is lucky to have been granted political asylum in Canada after only two weeks. He has shown gratitude for help from rights groups, as well as the governments of Taiwan and Canada, for handling his case quickly and in the spirit of humanitarian care.
However, his situation has returned focus on concern that Taiwan, which is considered one of the most progressive and democratic countries in Asia, has no asylum law or a formal refugee pathway. A draft asylum law was proposed by the Ministry of the Interior in 2005, but has never been implemented, mainly because the China factor makes it a politically sensitive and complicated issue. Espionage and constitutional issues over whether Chinese should be considered foreigners or nationals are among the concerns.
People from China, including Hong Kong and Macau, have their cases reviewed individually as stipulated by 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), and the Laws and Regulations Regarding Hong Kong and Macau Affairs (香港澳門關係條例). As for refugees or asylum seekers from other countries, there no legislation for proper or prompt management.
The government was limited to “special assistance” when a Ugandan was stuck in immigration limbo for seven years after escaping mistreatment for being gay. The government has also been criticized for offering only 30-day visa extensions for Ukrainian applicants and their relatives fleeing war. The world is turbulent with a worsening ecosystem and military conflict. China’s National Security Law has also prompted rights advocates to flee, with Taiwan a prime destination.
The nation should advance asylum legislation with a focus on promulgating it next year, following the timeline of its human rights action plan. Political hurdles can be solved by adopting a dual system for Chinese and asylum seekers from elsewhere, while there are ways to prevent espionage.
Given the success of the “Taiwan can help” campaign during the COVID-19 pandemic, more could be done to bring the country’s legal systems in line with international human rights norms and humanitarian principles.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS