Dual citizenship to be offered to foreign professors at national universities?

A colleague tells me that according to the United Daily News, a MOE spokesman has indicated that soon–like, in the next month or so–foreign professors teaching at national universities will be permitted to apply for ROC citizenship, without having to give up their previous citizenships. This is part of a package of reforms aimed at boosting the competitiveness of Taiwan’s universities, by making them more effective in recruiting foreign professors. Apparently foreign professors at such schools are presently ineligible to receive monthly pensions, so the reform would solve this problem by making them no longer “foreign.”

So, can anyone confirm or correct this? A few months ago, the American Chamber of Commerce newsletter indicated that something like this was under discussion.

And yes, I realize that this would be deeply unfair to other kinds of foreigners who lack these connections.

The pension issue you mentioned has been discussed for some time now and has to date gone nowhere. Any links regarding these (ahem) unusual developments would be much appreciated.

Guy

[quote=“Zla’od”]A colleague tells me that according to the United Daily News, a MOE spokesman has indicated that soon–like, in the next month or so–foreign professors teaching at national universities will be permitted to apply for ROC citizenship, without having to give up their previous citizenships. This is part of a package of reforms aimed at boosting the competitiveness of Taiwan’s universities, by making them more effective in recruiting foreign professors. Apparently foreign professors at such schools are presently ineligible to receive monthly pensions, so the reform would solve this problem by making them no longer “foreign.”

So, can anyone confirm or correct this? A few months ago, the American Chamber of Commerce newsletter indicated that something like this was under discussion.

And yes, I realize that this would be deeply unfair to other kinds of foreigners who lack these connections.[/quote]

Unless there is an amendment to the Nationality Act passed by the Legislative Yuan this is nothing but rumours.
There is no provision in the law to allow that - not even if there is public interest. That African-American basketball player who recently naturalised did not get to keep his US citizenship. And with the Legislative Yuan being in sort of a deadlock I don’t see it coming anyways.

But this is all too typical for the Ministry of Education: making false promises and meddling in things they don’t even have a say. Would not be the first time they do this, they already claimed paid internships of foreign students do not require a work permit. Yet when you ask the CLA and NIA - the agencies responsible - you will hear that work permits are still required.

Rumours rumours rumours !

it would be nice to see the different arms of the government working together. Where is the strong guiding hand of the President now?

Ahah! in the cookie jar again.

[quote=“urodacus”]it would be nice to see the different arms of the government working together. Where is the strong guiding hand of the President now?

Ahah! in the cookie jar again.[/quote]

That’s not even the responsibility of the President, but rather of the Premier to ensure discipline among the different agencies under the Executive Yuan. After all he is the head of the EY.

People should not get fooled by what an unrelated government agency claims. Just because your local district office lets you join their volunteer activities does not mean you are actually permitted under the Immigration Act/ employment Services Act.

It’s all quite tricky for people who think the government is monolithic.

But this idea of different naturalization requirements for professors of national universities is not more than some MoE official trying to get media attention.

While we’re on it, what exactly is the president’s job other than making appointments? I’ve never really been able to pinpoint where presidential power ends and the premier’s power begins.

The ROC constitution names the president as head of state and commander-in-chief. He is also responsible for conducting foreign relations, such as concluding treaties, declaring war, and making peace. The president must promulgate all laws and has no right to veto, he can also grant amnesty, pardon or clemency as well as declare martial law, and confer decorations.

The precedence of the premier and president in diplomatic protocol is easy: President > Premier. Yet internally this not really clear as the EY is the highest executive power under the ROC constitution. Originally CKS did not even want to be the president but preferred being premier.

but as it stands now, the premier is appointed by the president, without the need for a legislature approval. so basically premier does the president’s bidding. Otherwise the president can also replace the premier with someone that will do as told. In essence it is no longer a real Parliamentary system, since the president controls all the executive power.

deadlock situations like disagreements between the president and the premier is a thing of the past (by that I mean before KMT fled to Taiwan.)

Back on the rumors topic: recently I’ve been hearing about several amendments in the alleged works which, if ever approved, would even allow “anchor babies”. That for me is mindboggling, as I do not see them giving out citizenship just on the fact of being born here -instead of just bloodline, as it is now-, which has been a long struggle for locals, let alone furriners. But one cannot help but dream…

The KMT was already in Taiwan before the ROC lost all of its territory except for Taiwan Province and parts of Fujian Province. But in essence you are right - a deadlock between President and EY would greatly destabilise the entire administration and make it impossible to govern the country.

Rumours, rumours, rumours. These kind of bills would not even make it to a first reading. Why would the ROC suddenly revert from jus sanguinis after that had been the established doctrine in the Nationality Act for the past hundred years?

“Before the KMT/ROC government fled to Taiwan.”

Except it did not. Taiwan already was under ROC administration from 1945 onwards. These 4 years when Taiwan was part of the “big” Republic of China are never mentioned by certain people…

Anyways, the best foreigners interested in naturalization can expect are lower income requirements. The ROC will not alter its nationality laws beyond the application of Chinese nationality law in Hong Kong: once naturalised multiple nationalities are tolerated, naturalisation candidates are required to forfeit all prior citizenships. Any further liberalisation would be seen as a move towards independence by Beijing as so far there is only one common Chinese nationality with similar conditions.

You’re joking, right? Honestly it’s sometimes hard to tell if you are serious about this stuff or if you’re just having a good laugh making these things up.

Guy

You’re joking, right? Honestly it’s sometimes hard to tell if you are serious about this stuff or if you’re just having a good laugh making these things up.

Guy[/quote]

No, I am very serious about this.

Beijing views any major change to the Nationality Act or ROC Constitution that leads to Taiwan being less Chinese in a legal context as a step towards independence. Opening the gates and turning Taiwan into a de iure immigrant friendly jurisdiction that formally no longer adheres to a common Chinese nationality will have consequences on the cross straits relations.

I am therefore not surprised that the application of nationality law in Taiwan and Hong Kong does not differ much. It’s the most liberal Taiwan can get without offending Beijing.

You’re joking, right? Honestly it’s sometimes hard to tell if you are serious about this stuff or if you’re just having a good laugh making these things up.

Guy[/quote]

No, I am very serious about this.

Beijing views any major change to the Nationality Act or ROC Constitution that leads to Taiwan being less Chinese in a legal context as a step towards independence. Opening the gates and turning Taiwan into a de iure immigrant friendly jurisdiction that formally no longer adheres to a common Chinese nationality will have consequences on the cross straits relations.

I am therefore not surprised that the application of nationality law in Taiwan and Hong Kong does not differ much. It’s the most liberal Taiwan can get without offending Beijing.[/quote]

tell Beijing to fuck off.

You can still retreat within your own territory. The ROC government retreated many times, eventually ending up here in Taipei.

Taipei, the capital of China. (Ignore that Beijing place they don’t know what they’re talking about.)

You’re joking, right? Honestly it’s sometimes hard to tell if you are serious about this stuff or if you’re just having a good laugh making these things up.

Guy[/quote]

No, I am very serious about this.

Beijing views any major change to the Nationality Act or ROC Constitution that leads to Taiwan being less Chinese in a legal context as a step towards independence. Opening the gates and turning Taiwan into a de iure immigrant friendly jurisdiction that formally no longer adheres to a common Chinese nationality will have consequences on the cross straits relations.

I am therefore not surprised that the application of nationality law in Taiwan and Hong Kong does not differ much. It’s the most liberal Taiwan can get without offending Beijing.[/quote]

tell Beijing to fuck off.[/quote]

The electorate did not do that, they voted KMT. But then again naturalisation requirements are not really their concern.

Except it did not. Taiwan already was under ROC administration from 1945 onwards. These 4 years when Taiwan was part of the “big” Republic of China are never mentioned by certain people…[/quote]

According to UN charter, Taiwan should have been governed by the ROC under UN’s trusteeship, prior to that Taiwan had nothing to do with the ROC. Those 4 years includes illegal taxation and drafting of Taiwanese people and the 228 massacre. I don’t know of any TI supporters that never mentioned this period, but I do know a lot of China centric people who would pretend it never happened or it wasn’t that big of a deal.

[quote=“hsinhai78”]
Anyways, the best foreigners interested in naturalization can expect are lower income requirements. The ROC will not alter its nationality laws beyond the application of Chinese nationality law in Hong Kong: once naturalised multiple nationalities are tolerated, naturalisation candidates are required to forfeit all prior citizenships. Any further liberalisation would be seen as a move towards independence by Beijing as so far there is only one common Chinese nationality with similar conditions.[/quote]

what does the PRC have to do with it?

By Oversize, eh, Overseas Chinese standards, if you are Chinese, you belong to China. The famous line is “KMT agreed to a gentleman’s pact, after a certain time they will come back to be ruled by the Motherland”. So Hsinhai is right that it is assumed that all Chinese will be embraced under the red star flag.

OTOH, I do remember them cancelling residencies and passports from whities when China took over Hong Kong. Of course, hard to trace/prove. They do have the occasional token white face take a PRC nationality now.

I do resent his comment about making it easier by making it “cheaper” to get nationality. It is not a money issue. It is a parity issue, as has been discussed before. We got enough money, we are not scurrying under a barbed fence after crossing the Rio Grande on foot, thank you very much -I actually do admire people who do that, it takes courage and/or desperation. But my point is if locals can make passport collections of two, there and even four -I know, I met them, I seen them, they are my pals- nationalities, making us with furriner passports holders give up ours seems a bit… unfair. So per ROC’s reciprocity rules, if our birth nations allow them to keep theirs, we can keep ours. It’s a small world after all.

This happened to British residents who during the colonial period unlike citizens of other countries could settle in Hong Kong without any special permission or residence purpose. To gain right of abode they needed to stay a few years. Those Britons who had not completed the required residence period before handover in 1997 suddenly saw themselves without a residence purpose as from then on they were treated like any other foreigner. Those Britons who had right of abode before handover continued to have right of abode after handover. Seems fine to me.

The motivations are clear: ethnic Chinese who hold foreign passports are seen as a bridge to other countries and as an influence in other nations’ elections. Obviously it is of no appeal to a xenophobic society to encourage that the other way around.

Who generally naturalises? Foreign brides who could not care less about losing a Vietnamese or Thai passport. These women are more or less invisible as they speak Chinese and live in the role their new Taiwanese family gives them. Their offspring will often never set foot in their mothers’ homeland and the cultural background these children experience is not much different from any other Taiwanese child.

But Westerners holding a foreign as well as a Republic of China passport? That will cause thousands of Westerners to apply for naturalisation. That is not what most Taiwanese want. These whities could suddenly openly demand things and unlike SEA brides they most likely will articulate demands. Whitie can no longer be deported for “disrespecting Taiwan”?

Good luck finding a majority in the Legislative Yuan for any kind of amendment like that.