Ermintrude, Thank you for your response. The scope of this charter is limited to Taiwan only and precisely.
If a person is born in Taiwan, but neither parent is a Taiwanese, then this person is excluded from signing this proposed Charter. You’re correct to say so.
This is NOT the UN Charter of human rights and freedom. (It concerns human rights but is NOT JUST ABOUT such things. The moderator moved my OP from Taiwan Politics sub-forum to this sub-forum, which I think is okay for now. But this charter is not about reinventing the wheel of UN Charters)
Incidentally Taiwan is not a part of UN, therefore this proposed charter will (and will so designed to )guarantee the same rights and freedom of say, an Vietnamese born person in Taiwan. To this end there must be a Charter like this, in Taiwan, with the People of Taiwan and its existing society providing a foundation and safety net, which has been more or less true, albeit without strong and robust legal* guarantee. I really understand your concern. However, it is not true that such Vietnamese or American born person is born in an unknown and unmanned land “X”. We’re not talking about 16th century settlement on virgin lands anymore. Those scenarios are gone and not applicable.
*assuming the legal status of Taiwan is currently questionable and controverisal.
So why ask foreigners to write it, if you don’t even consider all Taiwanese people covered by this? Just write what you want and get it translated.
I guess Taiwanese people see emigration as less permanent because the govern permits them to hold Taiwanese citizenship when they become economic migrants to the US and other countries. You know that the government does not allow immigrants to retain their original citizenship, so these people often have far more commitment that Taiwanese emigrants?
Do you consider the millions of Taiwanese born Americans to be exempt from constitutional protection?
Anyway, can’t see you having much look crowd sourcing your translation with this nonsense in its current form. If that is your actual purpose in posting this.
So Fun, I think you wrote Fomosa instead of Formosa somewhere in your charter.
In my opinion, Taiwan is what it is. It’s currently a country of fact, but it never was much of a country during the last thousand of years. But I’m not an expert in history, of course.
I liked the part where you say that many foreigners will be “making babies” with Taiwanese woman…
ARTICLE 4. Judicial independence and due process of trial shall be held absolute paramount in Taiwan, in order to gaurantee and protect the integrity of this Charter and the freedom and rights of all in Taiwan provisioned hereby, and as such, there shall be one judiciary formed solely by, and its power vested solely in the People of Taiwan, to interpret and apply the the present Charter.
[quote=“jesus80”]So Fun, I think you wrote Fomosa instead of Formosa somewhere in your charter.
In my opinion, Taiwan is what it is. It’s currently a country of fact, but it never was much of a country during the last thousand of years. But I’m not an expert in history, of course.
I liked the part where you say that many foreigners will be “making babies” with Taiwanese woman…[/quote]
Yes.
Quoting my own writing, the “already united as one distinct people and established one permanent and uniform country over the entirety of the Islands of Formosa and Pescadores,” , I did not say Taiwan was a country in the year 1000AD or 1500AD. etc. I was being very careful. But by the time 2014, or 2015, this statement is already true.
[quote=“sofun”][quote=“jesus80”]So Fun, I think you wrote Fomosa instead of Formosa somewhere in your charter.
In my opinion, Taiwan is what it is. It’s currently a country of fact, but it never was much of a country during the last thousand of years. But I’m not an expert in history, of course.
I liked the part where you say that many foreigners will be “making babies” with Taiwanese woman…[/quote]
Yes.
Quoting my own writing, the “already united as one distinct people and established one permanent and uniform country over the entirety of the Islands of Formosa and Pescadores,” , I did not say Taiwan was a country in the year 1000AD or 1500AD. etc. I was being very careful. But by the time 2014, or 2015, this statement is already true.[/quote]
Well, I meant that perhaps it is what it is thanks to having being invaded by the Japanese and more importantly, by the ROC
[quote=“jesus80”][quote=“sofun”][quote=“jesus80”]So Fun, I think you wrote Fomosa instead of Formosa somewhere in your charter.
In my opinion, Taiwan is what it is. It’s currently a country of fact, but it never was much of a country during the last thousand of years. But I’m not an expert in history, of course.
I liked the part where you say that many foreigners will be “making babies” with Taiwanese woman…[/quote]
Yes.
Quoting my own writing, the “already united as one distinct people and established one permanent and uniform country over the entirety of the Islands of Formosa and Pescadores,” , I did not say Taiwan was a country in the year 1000AD or 1500AD. etc. I was being very careful. But by the time 2014, or 2015, this statement is already true.[/quote]
Well, I meant that perhaps it is what it is thanks to having being invaded by the Japanese and more importantly, by the ROC [/quote]
sure, it’s up to different interpretations.
But that part of the preamble implies that, one way or another, it is a country now, whether anybody likes it or not.
This forum is an English one, yes? Besides, I did not specify only “foreigners” to help, in my OP.
Quoting my own draft of preamble again, “Whereas we unanimously recognize oursevles as the descendants, inheritors and individual constituents of this people”, Taiwanese Americans are welcome to sign this Charter. The Charter should be made specific about the the scope of its application.
That’s okay. In its current form, it is on Forumosa for hacking, writing and editing. Hell, I’m not gonna write everything and do all the work myself!
You misunderstand. Taiwanese-born Americans are legally Americans. American-born Taiwanese are not Taiwanese, according to ythis document. The ethnocentrism is not unattractive to many expats. No, it’s not an ‘English’ forum.
Do it in Chinese and get it professionally translated. As it stands, the ‘legalese’ is full of errors. It also sounds odd in English because it’s a culturally-bound document, like when China or north Korea issues dictats in English about the feelings of the x people.
Anyway, I have a feeling you don’t want advice, just free English editing. It might be more forthcoming if you were less opaque regarding your intentions.
Certainly all those who are the People of Taiwan are encouraged to sign.
Furthermore, those who are not but are currently living in Taiwan will be better protected by this Charter (once it comes into force) than any current legal framework.
Taiwanese born Americans are encouraged to sign this Charter. Whether they have US or Malaysian citizenship is really beyond the scope of this Charter. This charter should not depend on any government’s law or regulations. Quoting myself again “Whereas we unanimously recognize oursevles as the descendants, inheritors and individual constituents of this people”
Yes. It has to be. Otherwise why should it in its current form be posted on Forumosa for hacking and editing?
[quote=“Ermintrude”]You misunderstand. Taiwanese-born Americans are legally Americans. American-born Taiwanese are not Taiwanese, according to ythis document. The ethnocentrism is not unattractive to many expats. No, it’s not an ‘English’ forum.
The following is what I wrote in the opening post.
ARTICLE 5. The People of Taiwan by democractic principles form as the sole and highest authority a Government of Taiwan, which owes its sole allegiance and sole accountability to the People and the country of Taiwan, and which defends itself and Taiwan against any incoporation, annexation, union and subjugation by another government, state, regime, authority, power, or administration that is not of Taiwan’s origin, pursuant to Article 6 of the present Charter.
You have effectively limited the choices of the Taiwanese people over their own future irrespective of popular support. (Assuming the charter had any legal effect) what would happen if 99% of the population actually wanted unification with China? This charter prevents it.
And that’s fine. It doesn’t have to be a democracy. But if you are making choices about Taiwan’s future on behalf of everyone else, and telling them that certain options are off the table no matter what, you should not use the term “democratic principles.”
[quote=“Hokwongwei”]Here’s the thing – this charter isn’t democratic.
You have effectively limited the choices of the Taiwanese people over their own future irrespective of popular support. (Assuming the charter had any legal effect) what would happen if 99% of the population actually wanted unification with China? This charter prevents it.
And that’s fine. It doesn’t have to be a democracy. But if you are making choices about Taiwan’s future on behalf of everyone else, and telling them that certain options are off the table no matter what, you should not use the term “democratic principles.”[/quote]
Hokwongwei, thank you for taking the time to read this Charter, in its current messy and incomplete form.
This charter should be an instrument designed to be capable of securing the rule of law and democracy (both foundation of a free society ) in Taiwan forever. To this end, it should be equipted with a fail-safe mechanism. For example, it will prevent self-invalidation of itself by malicious intent. But, it will not prevent additional enhancement to itself by benign intent.
After making itself safe, and safe to apply, it is then able to protect Taiwan against any future chance of reverting back to a non-free society.
Coming into force by democratic principles is one of many components that make this instrument realizes the design intent.
This is the START button. If we left out this term in the preamble, we should add the START button back, somewhere near the very end of the charter. It will still be a requirement, but maybe instead of a button, it is a switch, or a flip, or something else.
ARTICLE 7. There shall be One Parliament for Taiwan to make laws for the Peace and Good Government of Taiwan; it is hereby declared the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Taiwan.
