Taiwan-Canada relations
It was shocking to read Canadian International Minister of Trade Mary Ng quoted in Saturday’s Taipei Times article “Trade office disappointed over ‘delay’ in CPTPP [Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership] bid” saying that Canada’s “one China” policy had not changed.
It appears that this “policy” — if it ever existed — has been superseded by the Nov. 6 motion in the Canadian House of Commons that carried unanimously (which even government Liberal MPs voted in favor of) that UN Resolution 2758 did not establish People’s Republic of China (PRC) sovereignty over Taiwan, as reported in the Taipei Times article “Canada House passes motion on UN Resolution 2758” on Nov. 7.
Moreover, when Canada first recognized the PRC, it never agreed to recognize its “one China” claim that Taiwan was part of it, simply stating that it “takes note of the PRC ‘one China’ position.”
Despite assumptions in Ottawa of a “one China” policy, this simply is not the case, and such rumors should not impede Canada from vigorously supporting Taiwan’s entry into the CPTPP.
Please also note that this illusion of Canada’s “one China” policy has been used to block a Taiwan-Canada social security agreement (SSA).
The lack of a SSA has greatly harmed the livelihood of thousands of senior Canadians living in Taiwan and senior Taiwanese-Canadians in Canada who fall short of qualifying for the Canadian Old Age Security (OAS).
The SSA is an agreement that would enable Canadian expats to count local residence as “Canada time.”
That is important since expat Canadians need 20 years of “Canadian residence past 18 years of age” to qualify for the OAS. That allows Canadians in 90-plus nations to top up their lack of “Canada time” with local residence time.
Furthermore, senior Taiwanese-Canadians who immigrated with their families to Canada and reside there only require 10 years of Canadian residence, like all citizens, to qualify for the OAS. However, due to a lack of agreement between Taiwan and Canada, they cannot count their Taiwan residence as “Canada time” and often live their final years in poverty.
Ng should study the facts and use a bit of humanity instead of obeying the Chinese Communist Party’s party line.
Curtis Smith
Taipei
Chinese Taipei
The debate over the “Chinese Taipei” name has resurfaced because of recent international competitions. While many people are unhappy with this name, I believe we should focus on supporting the athletes’ choices, rather than letting political goals decide their performance.
Athletes have a short window of opportunity to shine, especially athletes like badminton players Chou Tien-chen (周天成) and Tai Tzu-ying (戴資穎), who chose to continue competing under Chinese Taipei during the Olympic referendum to ensure they can compete internationally. Future stars or not, they should not have their careers be hindered by politics.
These Taiwanese athletes, although they compete under the name Chinese Taipei, are internationally recognized as representing Taiwan. Their outstanding performances have brought more attention to Taiwan on the global stage.
However, if Taiwanese overly emphasize political name changes, it could lead to the nation being banned or excluded from international competitions. Thus, Taiwan would not only be unable to showcase its strength in these events, but might also lose the opportunity to have it seen by the world.
Is this not a case of putting the cart before the horse? Are we unknowingly missing the valuable chance to promote Taiwan?
The nation should give athletes more opportunities to excel internationally, not lose them because of a name issue.
Chang Chia-yen
Hsinchu City
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS