I went to the post office today to collect the response to my administrative appeal against the Ministry of the Interior regarding my Richart/Taishin/JKO discrimination complaint. It was just a single sheet of A4 paper with a black and white printout of a photograph of somebody’s middle finger.
I’m only joking of course! It was something of a middle finger to foreigners living here, in my opinion and figuratively speaking, but in words instead. Six pages of them, justifying why it’s okay for businesses to discriminate against foreigners. So a middle finger with some lube, so to say. After 7 days of what I’m sure was very thorough and careful consideration, my appeal was rejected. On the plus side, they spelled my name right this time.
OCR’d version of the response follows:
內政部訴願答辯書
訴願人因入出國及移民法事件,不服本部112年12月11日台內密昌移字第112********號函(證物一),提起訴願,依法答辯如下:
事實
一、訴願人因無法參與台新國際商業銀行股份有限公司(下稱台新銀行)與街口電子支付股份有限公司(下稱街口支付)合作推出之「街利存」優惠活動,及無法使用台新銀行推出之「Richart數位銀行帳戶」應用程式(APP)等服務,於112年10月12日向本部提起居住臺灣地區之人民受歧視申訴事件(證物二),案經本部依居住臺灣地區之人民受歧視申訴辦法(下稱申訴辦法)第7條、第11條、第12條規定(證物三),函請被申訴人台新銀行及街口支付答辯(證物四),被申訴人函復答辯後(證物五),本部移民署於112年11月1日電詢台新銀行承辦人相關問題(證物六),嗣於112年11月24日召開「居住臺灣地區之人民受歧視申訴審議小組第30次會議」審議本申訴事件(證物七),出席委員認本案台新銀行係因受限於開發量能等因素,故僅開放訴願人使用部分功能之數位銀行服務,並非拒絕提供服務,且相關優惠方案係屬商業行為及促銷活動,本得基於商業考量設定客群,尚難謂台新銀行及街口支付有歧視行為而致訴願人權利受不法侵害,爰共同作成不成立之決定,並於同年12月11日以台內密昌移字第112********號函,函知訴願人審議結果。
二、上開函文於112年12月15日送達(證物八),訴願人不服,於113年1月9日提起訴願。
理由
一、法令依據:
(一)入出國及移民法(下稱移民法)第62條第1項規定,任何人不得以國籍、種族、膚色、階級、出生地等因素,對居住臺灣地區之人民為歧視之行為;同法條第2項規定,因前項歧視致權利受不法侵害者,除其他法律另有規定者外,得依其受侵害情況,向主管機關申訴。
(二)申訴辦法第3條規定,申訴之提起,應自知悉受歧視致權利受不法侵害之次日起2個月內以書面為之;同辦法第7條規定,主管機關受理申訴事件後,應通知被申訴人答辯:同辦法第11條及第12條規定,申訴之決定,應自主管機關收受申訴書之次日起3個月內為之,並應將申訴決定通知申訴人及被申訴人。
二、本件訴願理由略謂:
(一)訴願人表示,受歧視申訴所描述的問題遠超出合約自由和銀行等企業處理業務、選擇目標客戶的權利,台新銀行和街口支付是否可以在所提供的服務中歧視合法居住臺灣的外國公民?
(二)訴願人另表示,中華民國作為發展完善之民主國家,對於將臺灣視為家的外國公民,由銀行及其他服務提供商進行經常性之歧視是可以接受的?在臺居住之86萬5,000名外國公民是否受中華民國政府保障?企業可任意排除外國公民而不提供產品或服務是可以接受的?
(三)內政部在110年引進新式外來人口統一證號(居留證號)時,聲稱目的是讓外國公民更容易使用在線服務,然而允許台新銀行及街口支付等服務提供商仍可因統一證號中有8、9(新式證號8開頭為男性、9開頭為女性)而任意排除外籍人士。
(四)訴願人稱臺灣目前其他數位銀行亦排除外國公民(如LINE bank、KOKO bank、Bankee、NEXT bank、NewNew bank、OMNI-U),發展完善之民主國家,這卻被視為可接受之行為。台新銀行及街口支付之政策損害作為臺灣合法居民之權益,亦損害其他合法居民權益。
(五)訴願人稱若臺灣公民於英國居住時面臨相同問題,其同樣會認為那是錯誤的,因台新銀行及街口支付之歧視政策已損害其在臺合法居留權益,若不執行移民法第62條,則外籍人士權益將繼續受損。
三、本部答辯理由如下:
(一)卷查台新銀行答辯函及台新銀行客服信件回復內容(證物二,第10頁),台新銀行表示旗下之「Richart數位銀行帳戶」為全臺提供外籍人士線上開立數位存款帳戶之先例,目前受限開發量能尚無法提供外籍人士使用Richart APP,特定客群經營專案之「街利存」優惠活動同樣經評估受限開發量能,僅提供年滿18歲之本國自然人參加。台新銀行表示「街利存」優惠活動之設定為「特定客群經營專案」,以銀行作為營利機構而言,成本效益、目標客群為營利考量重點,推出針對特定客群之活動亦屬合理;按私法自治關係中,個人權利取得及義務負擔,純由個人之自由意志,法律不宜任意干涉,基於自由意志締結任何契約,除違反強制、禁止規定或公序良俗外,無論其內容、方式為何,法律概須予以保護。由此觀之,基於私法自治及契約自由原則,台新銀行及街口支付自得選擇締約之對象,推出「特定客群經營專案」之優惠活動或申辦數位銀行帳戶等服務,由於未有「強制締約」例外性規定之適用,渠等契約自由應受保護。
(二)本部移民署自110年1月推行新式外來人口統一證號(居留證號),將統一證號比照國民身分證字號編碼原則,採1碼英文與9碼數字,目的在於方便外籍人士使用各大服務提供業者之現行網路服務,避免證號格式不被系統接受之情形。另本部移民署建置有「居留證查詢網」供外界查詢居留證真偽(證物九),輸入居留證統一證號、核發日期、居留期限及條碼編號等欄位後,若資料相符即可查看持證人申請時之原始相片,若輸入資料不正確或無效證件,查詢結果則顯示「資料不符」,業者得於線上確認資料正確性。
(三)台新銀行及街口支付做為營利企業,客戶不分國籍,無任何事證顯示渠等因歧視外籍人士而不與之締約,退萬步言,台新銀行若歧視或排除外籍人士,又何須開發數位銀行服務予外籍人士使用?又何來「112年Q3-Q4 Richart新臺幣活期儲蓄存款專案」(證物十)提供國人與外籍人士相同優惠之可能?況台新銀行及街口支付基於營利企業之特性,開發服務或提供優惠專案本會考量成本效益及公司量能,且基於上述契約自由原則,實難謂有歧視之行為。又台新銀行提供外籍人士諸多實體及數位服務,街口支付亦准予外籍人士申辦電子支付,且誠如訴願人所述,諸多數位銀行尚未允許外籍人士開戶,反觀台新銀行,如其自述確為首家准予外籍人士開立數位帳戶之銀行,縱因故未能提供部分優惠方案或數位服務,皆難謂係基於歧視動機對訴願人造成不利益之效果,甚或致其基本權利受不法侵害。訴願人既知悉台新銀行為首家提供外籍人士數位帳戶服務之銀行,理應理解其對外籍人士抱持開放態度及善意,由訴願人與台新銀行往來之電子郵件(證物二,第10頁)亦可見,訴願人對於台新銀行因系統建置初期尚未完善所有功能一情有所瞭解。
四、綜上所述,本件訴願為無理由,爰依訴願法第58條第3項之規定檢附原卷乙宗,敬請察核予以駁回。又本件訴願答辯書副本已逕送訴願人。
Machine translated and lightly edited/formatted:
Ministry of the Interior’s Appeal Defense Document
The appellant, dissatisfied with the Ministry’s letter dated December 11, 2023, with reference number 112******** (Exhibit 1) regarding entry and exit immigration law matters, has filed an appeal. The defense in accordance with the law is as follows:
Facts
(1) The appellant filed a complaint with the Ministry on October 12, 2023, alleging discrimination against residents of Taiwan for being unable to participate in the “JiaLiCun” promotion launched by Taishin International Bank (hereinafter referred to as “Taishin Bank”) in cooperation with Jkopay Electronic Payment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Jkopay”), and for being unable to use the “Richart Digital Banking Account” application (APP) launched by Taishin Bank, among other services (Exhibit 2). The case was handled by the Ministry’s Immigration Office in accordance with Articles 7, 11, and 12 of the Regulations on Complaints of Discrimination against Residents of Taiwan (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”) (Exhibit 3). Taishin Bank and Jkopay were requested to respond (Exhibit 4), and after their responses (Exhibit 5), the Ministry’s Immigration Office queried Taishin Bank’s responsible person regarding related issues on November 1, 2023 (Exhibit 6). Subsequently, the “30th Meeting of the Review Panel on Complaints of Discrimination against Residents of Taiwan” was convened on November 24, 2023, to review this complaint (Exhibit 7). The attending committee members recognized that Taishin Bank only partially opened its digital banking services to the appellant due to constraints such as development capacity, rather than outright refusal to provide services. They also noted that the related promotional schemes were commercial activities, and based on business considerations, Taishin Bank and Jkopay could reasonably set target customer groups, thus it was difficult to conclude that Taishin Bank and Jkopay engaged in discriminatory behavior that unlawfully infringed upon the appellant’s rights. Therefore, a joint decision was made that the complaint was not substantiated, and the appellant was informed of the review outcome by letter No. 112******** dated December 11, 2023 (Exhibit 1).
(2) The aforementioned letter was delivered on December 15, 2023 (Exhibit 8). The appellant was dissatisfied and lodged an appeal on January 9, 2024.
Reasons
(1) Legal Basis:
(a) Article 62, Paragraph 1 of the Immigration Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Immigration Act”) stipulates that no person shall discriminate against residents of Taiwan based on nationality, race, color, class, birthplace, or any other factor. Paragraph 2 of the same article provides that individuals whose rights have been unlawfully infringed due to discrimination as mentioned in the preceding paragraph may, unless otherwise provided by law, file a complaint with the competent authority according to the extent of the infringement.(b) Article 3 of the Regulations stipulates that a complaint shall be made in writing within two months from the day following the knowledge of the discrimination leading to the unlawful infringement of rights. Article 7 of the same Regulations states that after the competent authority accepts a complaint, the respondent shall be notified to make a defense. Articles 11 and 12 of the same Regulations further specify that a decision on the complaint shall be made within three months from the day following the receipt of the complaint by the competent authority, and the complainant and respondent shall be notified of the decision.
(2) Brief Reasons for the Appeal in this Case:
(a) The appellant contends that the issues described in the discrimination complaint go far beyond the freedom of contract and the right of businesses such as banks to handle their operations and select target customers. Can Taishin Bank and Jkopay legally discriminate against foreign citizens residing lawfully in Taiwan in the services they provide?(b) The appellant further asserts that in a developed and democratic nation like the Republic of China (Taiwan), is it acceptable for banks and other service providers to engage in routine discrimination against foreign citizens who consider Taiwan their home? Are the 865,000 foreign citizens residing in Taiwan guaranteed protection by the government of the Republic of China? Is it acceptable for companies to arbitrarily exclude foreign citizens and not provide products or services to them?
(c) The Ministry of the Interior claimed that the introduction of the new unified identification number for foreign residents (residence permit number) in 2021 was intended to make it easier for foreign citizens to use online services. However, service providers such as Taishin Bank and Jkopay are still allowed to arbitrarily exclude foreigners because the unified identification number starts with 8 or 9 (8 indicating male and 9 indicating female).
(d) The appellant states that other digital banks in Taiwan also exclude foreign citizens (such as LINE Bank, KOKO Bank, Bankee, NEXT Bank, New New Bank, OMNI-U), and in a developed and democratic country, this is considered acceptable behavior. The policies of Taishin Bank and Jkopay damage the rights of lawful residents in Taiwan and also harm the rights of other lawful residents.
(e) The appellant argues that if Taiwanese citizens faced the same issues while residing in the United Kingdom, they would also consider it wrong. Since the discriminatory policies of Taishin Bank and Jkopay have harmed their lawful residence rights in Taiwan, failure to enforce Article 62 of the Immigration Act will continue to harm the rights of foreign nationals.
(3) The Ministry’s Defense Reasons are as follows:
(a) Upon reviewing the response letter from Taishin Bank and the customer service email replies from Taishin Bank (Exhibit 2, page 10), Taishin Bank stated that their “Richart Digital Banking Account” sets a precedent for opening digital deposit accounts online for foreigners nationwide. Currently, due to limited development capacity, Taishin Bank cannot provide access to the Richart APP for foreigners. The “JiaLiCun” promotional activity, targeting specific customer groups, is similarly constrained by limited development capacity and is only open to Taiwanese nationals aged 18 and above. Taishin Bank clarified that the “JiaLiCun” promotion is categorized as a “project for managing specific customer groups.” From a profit-oriented perspective as a bank, cost-effectiveness and target customer groups are key considerations. Therefore, launching activities targeting specific customer groups is reasonable. Under principles of private law autonomy, personal rights and obligations are determined solely by individual will, and the law should not arbitrarily interfere. Any contract entered into based on free will should be protected by law, unless it violates mandatory provisions or public order and morals. Therefore, based on principles of private law autonomy and contractual freedom, Taishin Bank and Jkopay are entitled to select contracting parties and introduce promotional activities targeting specific customer groups or digital banking account services. Since there are no exceptional provisions regarding “mandatory contracting,” the freedom to contract should be protected.(b) Since January 2021, the Ministry’s Immigration Office has implemented the new unified identification number for foreign residents (residence permit number), following the coding principles of national identity card numbers, using one letter and nine digits. The purpose is to facilitate the use of existing online services by foreign nationals by avoiding situations where the format of the identification number is not accepted by the system. Furthermore, the Ministry’s Immigration Office has established an “Residence Permit Inquiry Website” for external inquiries into the authenticity of residence permits (Exhibit 9). By entering the unified residence permit number, issuance date, residence period, and barcode number, users can verify the authenticity of the permit. If the entered data is incorrect or an invalid document is provided, the inquiry result will display “Data does not match,” allowing service providers to confirm the accuracy of the data online.
(c) As profit-oriented enterprises, Taishin Bank and Jkopay do not discriminate against foreigners in terms of customers, and there is no evidence to suggest that they refuse to contract with foreigners. Assuming the worst-case scenario, if Taishin Bank discriminates against or excludes foreigners, why would they develop digital banking services for foreigners’ use? Moreover, why would they offer the possibility of the “Richart New Taiwan Dollar Current Savings Deposit Project” (Exhibit 10), providing the same benefits to both citizens and foreigners? Additionally, considering the profit-oriented nature of Taishin Bank and Jkopay, the development of services or provision of promotional projects entails considering cost-effectiveness and company capacity. Moreover, based on the principle of contractual freedom mentioned above, it is difficult to argue that there is any discriminatory behavior. Taishin Bank provides various physical and digital services to foreigners, and Jkopay also allows foreigners to apply for electronic payments. As the appellant mentioned, many digital banks in Taiwan have not yet allowed foreigners to open accounts. In contrast, Taishin Bank claims to be the first bank to allow foreigners to open digital accounts. Even though they may not be able to provide certain promotional schemes or digital services due to technical reasons, it cannot be said that this has had a detrimental effect on the appellant or unlawfully infringed upon their basic rights. The appellant should understand Taishin Bank’s open attitude and goodwill towards foreigners, as evidenced by the email correspondence between the appellant and Taishin Bank (Exhibit 2, page 10). The appellant should also understand that Taishin Bank’s systems are still in the early stages of development and not all functions are fully operational.
(4) In conclusion, this appeal is unfounded. Therefore, in accordance with Article 58, Paragraph 3 of the Appeal Law, the original case file is attached for your review and rejection. Additionally, a copy of this appeal defense document has been directly sent to the appellant.