20030921

Chinese spouses protest ID issue

AMENDMENT: A legal revision to change the length of time Chinese spouses must wait for identification cards from eight to 11 years has been vehemently opposed

By Melody Chen

STAFF REPORTER

The government will not back down from legal revisions which would extend the length of time Chinese spouses must wait to get Republic of China identification cards from eight to 11 years, despite hundreds of Chinese spouses protesting against the measure yesterday.

About 500 Chinese spouses gathered at the CKS Memorial Hall to demand withdrawal of proposed amendments to the Statute Governing the Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area.

The amendments to the statute are a priority measure for this legislative session.

Last year, the Cross-Strait Marriage Harmony Promotion Association, which organized yesterday's protesters, solicited wide support from lawmakers not to pass the amendment affecting the identification cards issue.

However, a senior official at the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) yesterday said that lawmakers from both the ruling and opposition parties were on the verge of reaching a consensus to pass the amendment.

"The legislature is reviewing the amendment. Let the focus of the issue shift from the Chinese spouses' appeal to the ongoing administrative and lawmaking procedures of the matter," said MAC Vice Chairman Chen Ming-tong.

"The amendment is part of the construction of the country's entire immigration policy," Chen said.

Under the current law, other foreign spouses are eligible to apply for identification cards one year after they obtain right of abode in Taiwan.

In contrast, Chinese spouses, after they get right of abode, have to wait for five years to be qualified to apply for identification cards.

Zhao Meiling, a 40-year-old Chinese woman married to a 60-year-old Taiwanese man, joined yesterday's protest after watching the news on TV. She said the amendment was very unfair.

Zhao has been in Taiwan for four years and still does not have right of abode. As a result, she is not allowed to work in Taiwan. "This has caused a financial burden to my family," she complained.

She also pointed out that, in cross-strait marriages, Chinese spouses have to return to China every six months in the first two years of marriage.

After two years, they do not have to take the compulsory trips but usually have to live without right of abode for another four years. Therefore, it often takes six years for them to obtain right of abode and the right to work, she said.

"It is a tragedy we are married to Taiwanese men. We want our human rights to be respected. If other foreign spouses were treated in the same way we are, we would have nothing to say. But we are apparently treated differently," she said.

Another Chinese woman, who only wanted to be known by her surname Liu, brought her 7-year-old son to the protest. She had been in Taiwan for seven years and her husband died the first year she came here.

Chinese spouses demonstrate at the CKS Memorial Hall yesterday over government plans to extend the period Chinese spouses have to wait before they can receive identity cards from eight to 11 years.

"I want to bring my mother to Taiwan to help look after my son. But the government said applications to bring our relatives here have been suspended since the SARS outbreak. I don't know when the applications will reopen," Liu said.

Liu, now working as a cleaner, said her son was often left alone when she worked. She already has obtained her identification card but still said the amendment was unfair.

Meanwhile, Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) Legislator Chen Chien-ming expressed strong opposition to the MAC's revoking of the yearly quota ceiling for Chinese spouses' applications for right of abode.

Another part of the pending amendments to the statute will revoke the limit allowing only 3,600 Chinese spouses to apply for right of abode. There will be no limit in the future. Chen Chien-ming said the measure will prompt more Chinese people to come to Taiwan.

"As long as the People's Republic of China's 600 missiles are still targeted at Taiwan, the TSU suggests the MAC extend the time Chinese spouses must wait for identification cards to 15 years," Chen Chien-ming said.

After the Taiwan Railway Workers Union Mid-Autumn Festival strike and the union's subsequent decision to have another strike on Lunar New Year's Day, employees of other state-run enterprises, including Chinese Petroleum Corp, Taiwan Power Co, Chunghwa Telecom Co and Taiwan Sugar Corp (Taisugar), also began to band together, declaring their intention to hold follow-up protests in the forms of strikes and rallies in the month of October. Chunghwa Telecom Workers' Union chairman Chang Hsu-chung said that more than 5,000 workers will first be mobilized on Sept. 23 to join forces with the National Teachers' Union to encircle the Legislative Yuan and that the workers' unions of other state-run enterprises will mobilize people to support them as well. Chang went on to say that the move will be merely a "warm up" for labor actions to come. If the government does not respond to the requests of the unions, there will be more large-scale strikes in November, December and right before the presidential election in March of next year, Chang said.

In response to the statements recently made by Chang as well as the chairman of the Taiwan Railway Workers' Union Chen Han-ching, we must solemnly point out that all the problems derived from these labor unions' plots to strike together have gone beyond the control of these union officials.

Any mishandling of the situation may escalate the whole thing into a "class struggle" economically, politically and socially. The result will be much more than mere polarization and conflict between the government and the unions. Rather, all of Taiwan society may fall into lawlessness and chaos. How can something like this be in the interest of everyone?

This begs the question why are the labor unions of state-run enterprises repeatedly seizing opportunities to encourage their members to escalate polarization between themselves and the government in the past few weeks? A glimpse of the answer can be seen from the fact that some politicians played a role in the Taiwan Railway Workers Union strike. They in fact do not even bother to cover up traces of their involvement.

Surely, no one could in all honesty believe that these moves are not related to the upcoming presidential election. In other words, while the grievences of these labor unions probably deserve the ears of the government and serve as a legitimate starting-point for reform, if anyone is seeking to campaign for any specific candidate under the pretense of opposing "privatization" of state-run enterprises and endorsing the right to strike, then we have a problem on our hands.

Therefore, we believe the union officials of the previously-mentioned state-run enterprises who claimed that there will be more joint actions are obliged to explain to the people of this country what is to be accomplished by the strikes and protests?

Frankly, if the demands of the unions are made in a rational manner, then the government has the responsibility to negotiate with union leaders. While the unions should not threaten to go on strike or hold a protest rally any time the government does not roll over, the government should not view all the activities of the union with prejudice. What the government should do is have all the relevant ministries form a cross-ministry task force to carefully examine the demands of the unions and to pragmatically resolve the problems associated with the state-run enterprises.

The government must also unambiguously list its reason for privatizing state-run enterprises, the profits and losses of the state-run enterprises and the upsides and downsides of privatization in terms of competitiveness and market presence. As for how privatization may impact the rights of the employees, the need to release stock for public trading, the success the government has had with privatization efforts thus far, and how to allow employees to participate in company management after privatization. These are all things that must be communicated and explained.

On the one hand, we feel the need to remind the heads of labor unions of state-run enterprises not to overlook the importance of social justice and not just to see things in terms of vested interests. If privatization of state-run enterprises can improve competitiveness, promote the vitality of business enterprises and increase earnings and returns, why oppose it? Do they really think it is right for the government to turn a blind eye to the current manner of management when it brings nothing but financial loss? If so, they are clearly rejecting privatization for their own vested interests and sucking dry the state treasury with their unjustifiably high salaries.

Their opposition to the return of assets of state-run enterprises to the state treasury is even more preposterous. State-run enterprises are themselves assets of the country and every citizen of this country. Returning such assets to the state treasury is entirely reasonable. What right do the employees of state-run enterprises have to monopolize these assets?

On the other hand, the large number of employees of state-run enterprises, around 150,000, makes them a sector of the population that should not be overlooked, and they should not separate themselves from society at large and ask for preferential treatment, forming a special aristocratic social or working class as a result. The truth of the matter is that, in comparison with the remaining 9 million or so workers in Taiwan, these people enjoy significantly better working environment and pay. This is a fact that cannot be denied. Both the government and the labor unions should be honest about this fact.

Let the facts and figures speak for themselves and let the employees of state-run enterprises and their family members know the truth. Otherwise, they may be manipulated by people with ulterior motives.

Finally, we want to once again call on the pan-blue camp's party officials and lawmakers not to aggravate the protests of employees of state-run enterprises against the government. Otherwise, they would be seeking political interests through unethical tactics which may result in anti-government and anti-business hatred by the entire working class. Instead, they should face the whole situation with a solemn attitude.

Even if they are unwilling to help the government, there is no need to take pot shots and make merry. After all, the troubles with the privatization of state-run enterprises were leftovers from the KMT era. If the pan-blue alliance wins the presidential election, these problems will become the cause of many a pan-blue headache just as they are now for the pan-green camp. Government machinery is a continuous process. No one party can stay aloof from the troubles while out of office, because they may stand to inherit them sooner or later.

This is not to mention that after President Chen Shui-bian's inauguration, he was very determined to reform the state-run enterprises and a majority of these enterprises have as a result enjoyed remarkable improvement in performance. For example, the privatization of Taiwan Motor Transport Co is a success story, although, at the beginning, the protests its employees launched were no less bold than those of the Taiwan Railway Workers Union.

However, in the end, it was proven that the decision to privatize Taiwan Motor Transport Co was right. With employees participating in the management of the company, the company grossed more than NT$100 million each year. Other state-run enterprises, such as Taisugar, Chunghwa Telecom, Tang Eng Iron Works Corp and China Shipbuilding Corp and China Steel Corp, have experienced the energy of renewal after restructuring. These are examples that deserve to be publicized by the government. Both the opposition and union leaders should not overlook this.

It was nice to finally see Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou conceding on Friday that the analogy between national referendums in Taiwan and the Cultural Revolution in China was inappropriate. On the other hand, Ma's statement came much too late, giving the DPP more than enough time to redirect public attention to the issue of national referendums, a topic from which the pan-blues have very little chance of winning any brownie points before March's presidential election.

The truth of the matter is the comparison between national referendums and the Cultural Revolution is not only inappropriate but an insult to democracy and the people of Taiwan. The two are in fact diametrically opposed. The former restores power into the hands of the people. The latter was a political campaign waged by a dethroned authoritarian leader -- Mao Zedong -- to regain his reign. The Cultural Revolution resulted in bloodshed, brutality and political oppression. If anyone is guilty of waging a cultural revolution in Taiwan, it is the pan-blues for they have been deliberately inflaming public outrage against the government in the hope of retaking the presidency next year.

Ironically, the blue camp would have been better served had Ma immediately apologized for his slip of the tongue after Cabinet Spokesman Lin Chia-lung brought the Taipei mayor's comments out into the open. After all, the DPP has made the issue of a national referendum central to its presidential campaign for a number of very good reasons, chief among which is the fact that each time the issue comes up the pan-blues are left blowing in the wind while the DPP comes away looking like a defender of democracy.

The pan-blue camp predicament is that its position on the issue has evolved over the past months. At first, it rejected the idea, claiming that holding a national referendum would be interpreted by the Chinese government as a prelude to Taiwanese independence. Realizing that this stance made them not only appear meek but also at odds with the fundamental principals of democracy, they then decided to state open support for it.

However, many are skeptical about whether they truly mean it. The pan-blues can only drag their feet by feebly protesting against the lack of legislative basis for holding a national referendum. However, that invites further skepticism -- if they mean what they said, why didn't they cooperate with the DPP to enact the national referendum law?

Therefore, as far as the DPP is concerned, the more attention focused on the issue, the better. However, over the past few weeks, public attention has been diluted by other issues. At a time like this, Ma really deserves the gratitude of the DPP, not only for his initial slip up, but also for allowing the topic to simmer on the hot plate by jousting with Lin Chia-lung. Under the circumstances, no wonder some DPP members are joking that Lin may have just won himself a nomination in Taipei's next mayoral election.

Thanks to this little fiasco, there is now even greater momentum to push for the enactment of the national-referendum law. It is interesting to observe that the blue camp has never won a frontline engagement with the DPP on the national-referendum issue.

Ma and the blue camp should take action to refute skepticism about their lack of lip service to supporting national referendums and push for speedy enactment of the legislation.

Don't let it be said that a national referendum cannot take place before the presidential election.

The recent track record of the UN has demonstrated its impotence. It has failed and will continue to fail to act when necessary and to protect when there is a moral imperative.

Its latest utter failure is the "voice vote" of the General Committee of the General Assembly not to add an item called "Question of the representation of the Republic of China (Taiwan) in the United Nations" to the General Assembly agenda, thus once again ignoring the plight of 23 million people.

If the organization purportedly dedicated to preserve peace and freedom throughout the world cannot move past the ideologically malignant blackmail of China, how can it ever be expected to fulfill its role as a body for world leadership?

Simply put, it cannot. It is nothing more than a debating society, and a politically manipulated one at that, as, for instance, in the case of Taiwan, where the debate will not even be on the agenda for the 11th year in a row. The UN has become a toothless sycophant at best, instead of using what should be its considerable weight to further human rights, world peace and security.

Some criticize Taiwan for looking to the US as its ally and protector. In the wake of the second Persian Gulf war, some governments criticize what they see as a tendency for the US to supersede what it considers the dysfunctional UN.

China bristles at the notion of the US taking part in defending Taiwan. But all who know the impotence of the UN agree that were Taiwan to rely on the "good offices" of the UN, Taiwan would be China's next semi-autonomous region within weeks (in fact, China's invasion would likely never make it to the agenda).

All that stands between Taiwan and China's heavy heel is China's healthy fear of the US. China has no fear of the UN nor does it have reason to be afraid. It has managed to manipulate that body for at least three decades. Nor does it fear European nations or the EU, for it has bought them with the lure of markets and money.

Taiwan is a bit larger than Belgium, has a population of more than 23 million people and has one of the world's largest economies. It is also a democratic nation with an elected government and lives under the constant threat of invasion from the world's largest dictatorship.

If the UN, the world organization dedicated to and charged with protecting world peace cannot even talk about Taiwan, much less recognize and protect its existence, who will then? The answer is obvious. And Beijing knows that this is the one truth it cannot manipulate like the salivating genuflections it buys worldwide every day, even with its carefully orchestrated dog-on-a leash trick with North Korea. Sorry, we've seen the trick before. Not impressed. Next.