As a relative newcomer from Vietnam, who obtained my permanent residence in Taiwan this year, I feel that what we new residents really need is not protection, but rather help to become valued talent in business, government and academia, and to be channeled into the employment and corporate markets.
The government should not shorten the length of residency required to apply for naturalization, if it applied to certain nationalities only, because that would be very unfair. Nationality is a benefit bestowed by the country concerned and it is also a sacred thing, so it should not be relaxed for a particular group, but rather for foreign nationals who have contributed to Taiwanese society and to the nation’s industries, defense and economy.
The government’s vision and strategic orientation need to be relaxed. New residents are people, just like ordinary Taiwanese, especially those who come from Southeast Asian countries. We are not less intelligent, capable or educated than anyone else. Rather than protection, the question is whether we can apply our unique strengths to contribute to Taiwan.
If enacted, the “new residents’ protection law” drafted by the Ministry of the Interior would just be a bonus measure, just like mother-tongue education. It would not be particularly helpful to the real economy and the national orientation, and it treats new residents as a disadvantaged group. The focus should be on policies that encourage new residents to learn their mother tongues, and to learn enough of them to help them find employment and develop their skills.
For example, if one of a child’s parents is Vietnamese and if the child can speak Vietnamese, could the government give them a scholarship to study in certain departments? If the child joins the military, be it in compulsory or voluntary service, could they be selected to study in intelligence units such as the Ministry of National Defense’s Military Intelligence Bureau or Political Warfare Bureau, the National Security Bureau, the Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau or the Coast Guard Administration, where they could undergo intelligence and combat training, and learn military and intelligence-related to the Vietnamese language? Could such young people study at the Military Academy or other schools for commissioned or noncommissioned officers? Could they be classified as special talents, so that their social status can be elevated and they can be considered an honorable and practical talent? The vulnerable need protection, but we do not really need it.
Eight years ago, when many Taiwanese businesspeople moved their operations from China to Southeast Asia, they complained about the shortage of Taiwanese managers who knew anything about Southeast Asian countries.
However, the government failed to solve this problem. Although the number of Taiwanese entrepreneurs investing in Southeast Asia overtook the number investing in China in 2002, the vast majority of those Taiwanese investors remained attached to China.
This was because China already had control of ethnic Chinese entrepreneurs’ networks in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. Taiwanese entrepreneurs’ lack of knowledge about Southeast Asian countries makes them depend on guidance from those Chinese entrepreneurs.
Given this situation, dealing with the lack of a Southeast Asian talent pool would be much more beneficial to new residents than the planned “new residents’ protection law.”
Nguyen Thi Thanh Ngan is the founder of Study Vietnamese Every Day.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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