ROC business people may lose ROC citizenship

Politics Taiwan Politics
1

[quote]http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2005/12/10/2003283789

Taiwanese people who hold residency permits issued by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) will lose their rights as citizens of the Republic of China (ROC), government officials warned yesterday, in response to a media report that Beijing is contemplating such a scheme.[/quote]

1 million ROC citizens may lose their right to vote. Disenfranchising 5% of ROC population, not to mention these are the people that support pan-Blue cause of lessening tension between the Strait.

The DPP have shown once agian that they are hardly the champion of “democracy” that they claim to be.

2

From the article:

“According to yesterday’s Hong Kong-based Takungpao newspaper, Beijing has been considering whether to begin issuing Taiwanese people residency status, with which they would be entitled to enjoy the same rights as citizens of the PRC. The report added that the move is part of China’s plan to achieve gradual unification with Taiwan.”

So, a Hong Kong newspaper sees the PRC’s tactic as being aimed at unification. Do any Taiwanese have the same foresight?

Isn’t the ROC government merely following and upholding the sacred ROC constitution?

“The regulation is stipulated in Article No. 9 of ‘Act Governing Relations Between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area’ (兩岸人民關係條例), Huang said. ‘According to the article, ROC citizens are not allowed to register in the PRC or hold PRC passports. Except for certain circumstances that may deserve special consideration, the government has the right to nullify the household registration of people violating the regulation,’ he said. ‘Consequently, people will lose their civil rights such as the right to vote, the right to serve as a public official or military official among others, but their responsibilities and duties as citizens of the ROC would remain the same,’ Huang said.”

So, they would not lose their ROC citizenship, just certain rights. Since they seem to value profits above rights anyway, I doubt they would reject the CCP’s residency permits to maintain their right to vote.

Yes, to be totally democratic, shouldn’t the ROC government allow all of its citizens to vote? Isn’t “Mainland China” part of the ROC? By not allowing Chinese in China to vote in Taiwan’s elections, the DPP truly is undemocratic. :loco:

3

Anything China does in terms of cross-strait affairs is, ultimately, a tactic for reunification. That is the clear, indisputed, and oft-repeated goal for the Chinese nation. I don’t think there’s any reason to hide from the fact.

So?

Only those who a priori have decided reunification is unacceptable have reason to fear these “tactics”. That represents about 20% of the Taiwanese public. Everyone else still undecided on the issue should enjoy these policies while they ponder the question, which will not be answered for decades, of whether reunification is something they will support.

The DPP’s response is to prevent this other 80% of the population from enjoying the benefits of these policies. Be it Taiwanese businessmen, fruit farmers, students, or in this case… frequent visitors to the mainland… the DPP will do everything it can to prevent them from considering reunification as an attractive possibility.

The right of these Taiwanese citizens to vote “in a democracy” is a secondary concern to the activists in the DPP party. But I think we’ve seen time and time again that the Taiwanese people embrace the principals of democracy over any particular political solution, and these DPP tactics will eventually fail.

4

Because of ROC special situation many ROC citizens hold de facto dual citizenship when they gain residency status in other countries, (very difficult to give up citizenship of a State the host State doesn’t even recognize fully), but you don’t see the ROC automatically renouncing their citizenship.

Heck in 2004 presidential election special conditions were enacted just so oversea ROC citizens could go back and vote.

To once again target ROC citizens that have to interact with PRC as 2nd class citizens is just unbelievable; whether it be a PRC spouse, attending a PRC school, or getting a taibaozhen to make visiting and conducting business in the PRC easier.

I hope if the DPP really pushes this legislation the Taiwanese public punish them once again at the ballots. Maybe this time around when their approval rating hovers in the single digits they will realize the folly of their policy.

5

You might be interested in reading this article.

The Successor Government Theory and the One China Policy
taiwanadvice.com/fapa/1China_WWII.pdf

6

Richard,

I’ve read much of your writing. That’s not to claim I’m by any means an expert on the topic, but only that I’m familiar with your general body of work.

I personally find your work interesting, and I appreciate your attempt to pursue the legal angle with an objective voice… but at the end of day, I don’t think it has much practical value. International law will only serve as convenient political camoflauge for the “final solution” to Taiwan, whatever that may be. But I have little doubt that international law will have little weight in actually determining this settlement.

It’s not difficult to even imagine a PLA invasion that’d ultimately lead to a legal reunification for Taiwan. Invade, overthrow/silence dissenting voices, setup an effective civillian government with local security force. This government doesn’t need to be democratic, it only needs to have effective control over the region + population. Nominally withdraw all PLA forces + state arms. The newly formed Taiwanese government, after some suitable time (a few months? a year?) signs a treaty for unification on behalf of the Taiwanese people.

Done.

Will that happen? I hope not. I don’t want to see that kind action, primarily because I understand it’ll inflict tremendous pain and damage on the Chinese on both sides of the strait. I’d like to see a peaceful solution that everyone on both sides support wholeheartedly, not an act of naked military aggression. But, I guess I have to acknowledge… at least such an act wouldn’t leave behind any international legal doubts.

7

More Taipei Times gobbledegook. They are confusing household registration with residency. Deliberately obviously, unless no one at the TT can read Chinese, which is unlikely. Red herring. As you were.

8

[quote=“cctang”]
Only those who a priori have decided reunification is unacceptable have reason to fear these “tactics”. That represents about 20% of the Taiwanese public.

The DPP’s response is to prevent this other 80% of the population from enjoying the benefits of these policies. [/quote]

Anyone unfamiliar with taiwan reading this forum would think you got it flip flopped, more like 80% of the people find reunification unacceptable. :noway:

9

Couple of questions:

When was Article 9 enacted?

If it is felt that this is a bad law, then surely the Legislative Yuan can change it- or should the Executive ignore laws it doesn’t like?

10

The MAC has collected a decade’s worth of surveys on this point. And they imply exactly what I’ve just said. I can only imagine you’ve never looked at them, and that you aren’t aware of your ignorance. :unamused:

Using a recent survey as snapshot: 20% of Taiwanese aspire to independence, 15% of Taiwanese aspire to unification. In other words, 80% of the Taiwanese don’t aspire to independence, and 85% of the Taiwanese don’t aspire to unification.

Got that? In other words, 80% of Taiwanese won’t cut off their nose just to spite their unification-leaning face.

11

[quote=“Master Kang”]From the article:

“According to yesterday’s Hong Kong-based Takungpao newspaper, Beijing has been considering whether to begin issuing Taiwanese people residency status, with which they would be entitled to enjoy the same rights as citizens of the PRC. The report added that the move is part of China’s plan to achieve gradual unification with Taiwan.”

So, a Hong Kong newspaper sees the PRC’s tactic as being aimed at unification. Do any Taiwanese have the same foresight?

Isn’t the ROC government merely following and upholding the sacred ROC constitution?

“The regulation is stipulated in Article No. 9 of ‘Act Governing Relations Between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area’ (兩岸人民關係條例), Huang said. ‘According to the article, ROC citizens are not allowed to register in the PRC or hold PRC passports. Except for certain circumstances that may deserve special consideration, the government has the right to nullify the household registration of people violating the regulation,’ he said. ‘Consequently, people will lose their civil rights such as the right to vote, the right to serve as a public official or military official among others, but their responsibilities and duties as citizens of the ROC would remain the same,’ Huang said.”

So, they would not lose their ROC citizenship, just certain rights. Since they seem to value profits above rights anyway, I doubt they would reject the CCP’s residency permits to maintain their right to vote.

Yes, to be totally democratic, shouldn’t the ROC government allow all of its citizens to vote? Isn’t “Mainland China” part of the ROC? By not allowing Chinese in China to vote in Taiwan’s elections, the DPP truly is undemocratic. :loco:[/quote]

As long as you work in China for a Taiwanese factory or business, can pay off the necessary officials and pay the ‘required’ expenditures, it is not at all hard to work in China, live in China, without turning in some ways into a PRC national.

This news has been twisted, much of the 1 million Taiwanese living in China don’t seek PRC passports etc, they don’t need it.

12

Here is some KMT propaganda in Taiwanese cinema:

city.yamagata.yamagata.jp/yi … oa114.html

13

There needs to be a discussion here of what a Taibao Zheng allows (have I missed it?)

Clearly if you set up a Household Register (Hukou) in China you fall within the Statute Governing Relations Etc. This New Thing would appear to be an attempt by the CCP to allow Taiwanese in China equal treatment with PRC citizens without having to make the interested Taiwanese choose between increased flexibility in doing business in China, and losing their rights as ROC citizens. They may simply be testing the water to see how many Taiwanese bite.

As usual I don’t get the TT’s point as the PRC regards Taiwanese as PRC citizens and the whole Taibao Zheng thing is merely administrative. The only possibly new thing here is finding out how many Taiwanese in China want to take their status in China a little bit further. But without knowing what a Taibao Zheng allows you to do in China it’s guesswork.

What exactly would this give Taiwanese in China they haven’t already got?

14

I don’t understand why anyone would “give up” ROC or any other nationality documents for PRC citizenship.

Other than passing through customs quicker there isn’t a strong motivation for PRC docs. You can just get a 1 or 2 year multiple entry visa if its such a problem. It sure as hell saves a lot time and headache.

15

Some people ask the same questions of me giving up Australian citizenship for ROC nationality, or Cooling Tower for giving up his US nationaltiy fior ROC. Each to his own :noway: :noway: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

16

[quote=“phibert”]I don’t understand why anyone would “give up” ROC or any other nationality documents for PRC citizenship.

Other than passing through customs quicker there isn’t a strong motivation for PRC docs. You can just get a 1 or 2 year multiple entry visa if its such a problem. It sure as hell saves a lot time and headache.[/quote]

With PRC citizenship you can join the government, where the real money is. However, joking aside, I have been actively looking, and I can’t see any advantage. By “advantage” I mean, “money”, of course.

17

There’s at least one important “advantage” (money, of course) to being a PRC national. As a “domestic person” (a phrase which also applies to domestic companies), you have the right to establish domestic-capital corporations. Overseas Chinese/Taiwanese/HK/Macau go through a different set of regulations monitoring their investment.

Traditionally, overseas investment actually had an advantage. Better tax credits, import/export rights, etc.

But in my case, as a Chinese national, I could setup a domestic company with a lower threshold of registered capital, and with a broader range of allowed business. There are also sources of funding available only to domestic-capital companies as opposed to foreign-capital companies. Some of these advantages really seem theoretical rather than practical right now, but as policies change to no longer beg after international investment (for example: as tax advantages are eliminated)… domestic incorporation has its advantages.

And I guess I’ve seen other “advantages” of PRC citizenship being mentioned, including pensions (which I don’t get to enjoy quite yet), lower cost of health/education, etc. Oh, and up until a couple of years ago, visiting Tibet required a special authorization from public security (even for those from TW/HK)… but I believe that policy was recently repealed.

18

Some people ask the same questions of me giving up Australian citizenship for ROC nationality, or Cooling Tower for giving up his US nationaltiy fior ROC. Each to his own :noway: :noway: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:[/quote]

Wait… you see… US and ROC are both DEMOCRACIES. What is the PRC? Not a democracy. I site the example of Dongzhou… a couple of farmers complained about unfair requisition of land, and they get killed?! Then the Xinhua News Agency emphasizes their posession of “dynamite”.

The only advantage to having PRC citizenship is NOT having a North Korean one!!!

19

Cheers cctang. Interesting. I wonder if this new registration plan will provide an ID card without falling foul of the Statue Governing Wheeler-Dealing Across the Straits?

Shawn, hate to nitpick, but the USA is a republic not a democracy as such in the traditional sense. The ROC is supposed to be a republic too. This stuff matters when it comes to referenda and discussing “the will of the people” and so on. The USA was never intended to be a mobocracy. I have no idea what Sun Yat-sen’s intentions for the ROC were…