Hello folks on the flob!
Going to have a deep dive discussion with the Better Living Committee of the ECCT to propose new changes in the next white paper to the government to make, as the name of the committee says, our lives better. Below the points I already made, feel free to add here some more you think make sense:
- Most of the issues affecting even APRC holders here in TW is that APRC is not really that permanent. Yes, it has no expiration date and allows the holder to freely work and stay here, but depending on the APRC type (another plague of regulations, too many different APRC types, which are not all created equal) if you stay even just one year away it is revoked, some comes already with open work permit, some don’t. As you can see, this is a jungle! Hence, I do believe TW should learn a lesson from the neighbors in HK (notwithstanding all of their issues) and make the below changes:
- Creating a concept of right of abode (which loosely translates to domicile 住所 and 戶所）even for foreigners holding APRC, like PRs in HK. So foreigners attaining APRC status can truly integrate and enjoy basically all rights of citizens minus the franchise and the draft (which requires citizenship), and also might even be allowed to apply for APEC cards like in HK. Basically taking nationality out for the picture for nearly all of administrative and life’s action and basing everything on residency (which to be fair would also help to “fend off” against a certain category of ROC nationals (read Chinese) which technically are not foreigners by the law, let’s remember that!). This is a difficult process, requiring an almost complete remodeling of the Household registration system to allow foreigners to enroll too. Hence, legislative actions at LY and then all sorts of administrative amendments at the EY concerning mostly the Ministry of the Interior departments of Household Affairs and the NIA. This would even potentially allow foreigners on APRC to have the ID number assimilated to the citizens one (so shifting from the 8-9 second digits on the APRC to 1-2 like citizens based on sex) and circumvent completely all the silly issues with providers not accepting foreigners A(P)RC numbers. To be honest, the most sensible solution would be to get rid altogether of this distinction and just issue (like in HK) ID numbers which are valid for life and undiscerned between citizens and foreign residents, just based on the registration place and sex, then all sort of restrictions can be found on the ID/A(P)RC (like in HK, the system works wonders)
- Getting rid of most APRC types and standardize it as much as possible with 3 potential routes to attain PR, all of the below categories should then be the same as for rights, no more differences, APRC is APRC:
- Spouse (5 years residency while married to a citizen or another A(P)RC holder sounds sensible)
- Work (5 years residency still sensible, still lower than HK (7 years) and many other Western countries)
- Special professionals (Gold Card or graduates from TW universities, 3 years residency is a very good incentive)
- Once the above is done, basically 90% or more of the issues currently affecting foreigners living here would be gone, as the system here in TW all revolves around the Household registration to confer rights, however, as said, that exercise will take a massive amount of effort and time, and it might be a tough sell to LY as new laws/amendments of laws have to be passed first, it’s not a mere administrative change. Hence some more easily attainable change which would already improve the situation can be taken via administrative actions of the EY:
- Prohibition of telco providers to ask for a guarantor or security deposit to A(P)RC holders, this would just be an effective enforcement and application of consumer protection laws which are already enacted, but not enforced. Not difficult at all to implement, but the NCC and other watchdogs have to be “persuaded” that this is actually their duty. Right now they don’t think so.
- Allow even ARC holder to use the ARC to sign up for telecommunication contracts (right now all ARC holders are forced to use the passport and the ARC is not recognized as an ID document at all by them, had a lengthy mediation process with Taipei City Gov about this against Taiwan Mobile). Not difficult at all to implement, but the NCC and other watchdogs have to be “persuaded” that this is actually their duty. Right now they don’t think so.
- Prohibition for any service provider to discriminate against A(P)RC vs National ID numbers on their online/mobile apps portals to allow foreign residents to access freely to online applications and services without any extra effort than a citizen (again, mere application of consumer protection laws, not writing anything new, just never enforced as they can’t be bothered). Also here not that diffucult to implement
- Forcing NIA to implement an A(P)RC API verification system like the Dept of Household affairs has to verify online all national ID details. Currently all service providers to verify the authenticity of an A(P)RC have to manually go to a website run by NIA and enter all the details and then print-out the report generated to validate the certificates. Absolutely bonkers. This is the main reason why providers do not allow foreigners to sign-up online to anything, since they need this manual intervention and don’t have the manpower to do so (or the will). This would open up any online application for services to us. NIA has already all the details also of our passports, so they can check against to total set of docs. This requires some development work from NIA, but no administrative changes and no legislative action, they will need to issue new directives probably to give the new SOPs to the providers and other regulators which would use this service (FSC, NCC, Central Bank)
- Standardise and make more comprehensive the Senior Foreign Professional Exemption for naturalizations. Ok, we would probably never convince the LY to pass an amendment to the Nationality Act to get rid of this unfair and insulting provision, but there are administrative ways to basically make this requirement almost moot. I.e. standardize and lower the requirements to get this exemption so to allow most of foreign professionals to naturalize without renouncing. There wouldn’t be any legislative change, just a revision of the instructions and directives on how to interpret who is a senior foreign professional. There are just so many Nobel Laureates, and I reckon not many want to come to Taiwan to naturalize.
