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It appears that this “policy” — if it ever existed — has been superseded by the Nov. 6 motion in the Canadian House of Commons that carried unanimously (which even government Liberal MPs voted in favor of) that UN Resolution 2758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
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