Executive Yuan issues draft of Anti-Discrimination Act

It’s the same everywhere. They’ll just put you on PIP and let you go legally ASAP if you cause problem. It’s just that it’s easier to be seen as problematic in Taiwan.

Every little thing helps. FSC for example is technically powerless, I don’t think they ever actually helped anyone here, but it’s a headache banks want to avoid like the plague so it’s been super useful to us.

1 Like

Well, given that Taiwan has been a democracy for less than 30 years, it’s a legitimate concern for some.


It ain’t powerless, they decided to interpret their role as powerless… If you read the organic act about the establishment of the FSC, it can conversely also been interpreted in a very “powerful” way. The director-general is just very conservative and narrow in his view of what the agency should do.


Yes and no, the gov should provide a strong legal framework upon which the civil society can act if need be to protect its interests and rights without fear or repercussion, bias, discrimination and unjust persecution.


And again, for some reason people nowadays think that 40 years is a long time, enough time to forget the lessons on the past.

I think it’s good that there are folks who see every new law as an arbitrary excuse for further subjugation by the nanny (or worse)state— particularly a state like Taiwan, which teeters between political realities, somewhat like Finland did with Russia, the USSR and the czarist empires which preceded them.

Buckle up much? :wink:

1 Like

That’s understandable.
But there are also countries without freedom of speech with stronger anti-discrimination laws that are more democratic.

Balance is key.

1 Like

Care to name one or two?

Australia. Australia doesn’t have freedom of speech. The closest we have is freedom of political expression.

And it’s an interesting contrast because public insult isn’t a crime in Australia… yet discrimination is.


Still holding back to the good ol’ colonial times! Haha, go WHITE AUSTRALIA! (I can say this since I’m in TW and there is free speech and discrimination is like whatever).

That’s some responsible government

1 Like

Given Australia’s very racist and discriminatory past, there seemed to be a need. :man_shrugging:

Anyway look over there, that dot is the topic.

Are we living in the past?

I’m toying with the idea of applying to speak at one of the hearings … is that a good idea? what should someone in that position say?


well, by using Ur privileged position as a naturalised western looking citizen you can make compelling arguments on discrimination based on race (your current case) and nationality (your previous case and current for many of us) especially with service providers. Art. 62 of the immigration act is a joke


What exactly though? We obviously can’t force them to provide exact same services as locals to everyone regardless of nationality. Some countries have ridiculous laws and that will increase the cost burden on service providers to abide by all those rules.

I know things should change but if he’s going to speak it should be a compelling and reasonable talk not just rambling about discrimination.

Maybe they could choose specific essential services and make them available to everyone by law or something like that but it can’t be all services for everyone.

Edit: I am so out of my depth here. I have no idea how any of those work or should work. Just sharing my layman’s perspective.

It needs to be addressed sooner or later. Taiwan is going to have more immigrants in the future. There’s already work shortage and there’s not enough younger people to replace the baby boomers. They’re already having to let foreigners drive buses.

But we all know it will be regulations that aren’t followed anyways.

Why not?

1 Like

The laws and regulations for financial services and.other services in general never mention citizenship being a requirement. The newer financial regulation talk about residents or financial consumers in general (whom can even be non residents).

Nationality can’t be a criterion to service consumers. That’s discrimination.


Banks are private companies with their own criteria as far as risk for loan goes.

I’m not sure forcing banks to loan to unqualified people is a good idea. That caused the 2008 crisis.

Christ jumping on crutches, where did I talk about credit criteria? I am just talking about nationality.

Refusing to even look at Ur applications just coz u r a foreigner is wrong and technically already illegal.

Functional illiteracy is really a thing