“Taipei, CN” - Please make your opinions heard!

#1

China has launched a massive campaign to wipe out anything that gives Taiwan the connotation of being independent, such that airlines and clothing brands are not even free from this economic blackmail. We may not be able to compete against China’s economic might but we can at least win the moral war - and it is so important to let the world know OUR side of the story.

Air Canada, Malaysia Airlines, British Airways, Lufthansa, Etihad now all list Taiwanese destinations as being in China. “Taipei, TW” has now become “Taipei, CN” even though this is absolute BS and we all know who is to blame for this.

Please stand up for Taiwan and leave a message on the Facebook pages of these airlines. Think it’s not worth the time? Remember the Man Booker Prize incident where supporters of Taiwan flooded the Facebook page of Man Booker International to force them to change the nationality of the Taiwanese author from “China” back to “Taiwan”. If you choose to be silent then the international community will simply assume that we are willing to be a forgotten province of China. Is that what you want?

Air Canada - https://www.facebook.com/aircanada/
Lufthansa - https://www.facebook.com/Lufthansa/
BA - facebook (dot) com/britishairways/
Malaysia Air - facebook (dot) com/global.malaysiaairlines

2 Likes
China ignores and threatens Taiwan's autonomy: what can we do?
#2

There is also a change.org petition requested Air Canada to stop listing Taipei as “Taipei, China.” If you agree this is both inaccurate and unhelpful, you can sign here:

Guy

1 Like
#3

OUR side? I disagree with you and you do not speak for me.

I want Taiwan to be a part of China - which is also in line with the laws of this island. 原PO妳應該是台灣人。所以我想問妳,台灣的國號為中華民國、按照《憲法》國家之領土包括大陸地區,此外按照《臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例》台灣地區與大陸地區日後要統一,妳不覺得本國政府需要先改法以及改國號?妳有什麼理由來這裡要求外國人幫忙呢?許多台灣企業也會寫“Taiwan China”或者“Chinese Taipei”。問題是台灣人,問題並不是外商企業!

#4

Congratulations on expressing your opinion. Please feel free to go start your own thread.

Guy

4 Likes
#5

I disagree with OP’s attitude - she (?) claims to speak for Taiwan collectively. Which is not the case. She has absolutely no democratic mandate and I disagree with her, which invalidates her claims of “OUR story”. It is absolutely ridiculous to recruit foreign residents to engage in anti-Chinese propaganda activities, when even Taiwanese could not bother to change their own laws or national designation.

#6

I think the point is “her and anyone who agrees with her”. It makes total sense

4 Likes
#7

I think here are many taiwanese. Some of them may not read Mandarin, but they are still taiwanese. So, OP’s post is not absolutely ridiculous.

#8

If you’re not interested, just don’t fucking participate. No one’s holding a gun against your head.

Democratic mandate my ass. She’s not running for president.

5 Likes
#9

No you are so wrong here. Everyone - especialy random foreign nationals - should complain about the designation Taipei China on Air Canadas, website. But no one - no one - should mention the designation “Republic of China (Taiwan)” on the passports of the people booking the tickets. It is verplict to forget that this country does infact refer to itself as China. And of course to presume that all of the citizens of this country identify exclusively as ‘not Chinese’. So you need to go start your own thrread buddy! People with opinions that are different to mine should not be allowed to speak! and particularly - as a random outsider - I get to define the identity of this isalnd that I am living in. So yea, take that!

1 Like
#10

《臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例》只是一個處理兩個地區之間人民與人民交流的低階法案,完全沒有政治含義。此法既無指所謂大陸地區為國土的一部分,也無任何文字影射兩地區必須統一。大陸地區不論現在與外來出現什麼樣的武裝政權、幾個武裝政權,出現幾個國家,無論大陸地區的地理範圍如何變化,訂立此法案的台灣都不會也不需要與那個地區的哪個政權進行所謂的統一。你得多加強你的閱讀能力與邏輯。

你把一個管理兩個地區人民與人民交流的條例,用來解釋為台灣自己承認自己是中國的一部分,那是癡心妄想。這個條例沒有能力約束台灣的政府與政體。這個條例是台灣人自己訂的,你還妄想中國人能夠拿台灣人的法律限制台灣。太可笑了。

Whether there exists one, two, or three regimes in the “mainland area”, whether that area splits into three states, and irrespective of the nature of those regimes, the Cross-Strait Relations Act is not concerned with the political or official relations between governments/regimes. The Cross-Strait Relations Act is only concerned with people-to-people interactions between the people in one region and that in the other. It is false for hsinhai78 to interpret that, by merely referencing two regions, the law thus defines both two regions as soverign territories of the same country. Also, it is easy to see that the Act does not and cannot specify with which regime Taiwan ought to “unite”. As far as Taiwan and this Act is concerned, Taiwan can unite with Korea or Singapore and the Act would still remain consistent.

#11

Singaporean Constitution stipulates that “No surrender of sovereignty or relinquishment of control over the Police Force or the Armed Forces except by referendum.”

Following hsinhai78’s false logic, Singapore’s own constitution requires Singapore to surrender.

#12

The text of ROC Constitution as it is actually provides zero chance and zero room for the ROC to be merged or absorbed into another political institution. The ROC Constitution provides only loopholes such as

  1. citizenship naturalization, and
  2. territorial incorporation (that includes both expansion and reduction) by ¾ resolution of the legislative brand.
    Even if the People’s Republic of China dissolves itself, the ROC Constitution as it is still provides no basis for ROC to “unite” with what’s on the Asian continent. This is because the ROC Constitution itself does not and cannot define territory. The ROC Constitution does not stipulate what territories or what provinces and states come together to constitute a country. The ROC Constitution is only concerned with how it ought to administer territories. A higher authority - currently it is the Taiwanese - decides what territory is administered by the ROC. The Taiwanese can claim Luzon or Singapore for example, and place these islands under ROC administration, and still be consistent with ROC constitution without change a word in the text. They just won’t be ROC territory without a ¾ majority resolution

The absolute way to judge whether Taiwan is a part of China is to consider this test case: In the case that China is at war with US or Japan are Taiwanese enemy nationals, and is Taiwan enemy territory from US and Japan’s point of view? The answer is clearly no.

#13

Why do they think Taiwan is in Connecticut?

2 Likes
#14

Sofun, to me the question is not whether Taiwan and Mainland China are actually part of the same country or who has sovereignty over Taiwan.

Rather, I apply a different standard. To me the question is, whether under the domestic laws applied in Taiwan and regularly amended by the legislature democratically elected by Taiwanese people, Taiwan is in fact part of China - in this case the Republic of China legally encompassing both Taiwan and Mainland China.

If that is the case, then I wonder why foreigners should act on a campaign started by Taiwanese and oppose the designation of Taiwan as Chinese territory. As nowadays laws in Taiwan are drafted, passed, and amended through democratic processes, it is for Taiwanese to change the name of their country and make the necessary amendments to domestic law. It would be ridiculous to complain of being regarded as part of China, when Taiwanese law states exactly that Taiwan is part of China and even the nationality on passports is stated as “Republic of China”.

Why should foreigners fight Taiwan’s war when Taiwanese are not even willing to change their own laws to reflect that Taiwan is an independent country that has nothing to do with China?

A low-level law? That’s interesting! According to art. 2 and art. 4 of the Central Regulation Standard Act, a 條例 is passed by the Legislative Yuan and signed by the President. We are not talking about some mere administrative regulation here.

What’s ridiculous is that Taiwanese restrict themselves to be part of China in their own law yet expect foreigners to complain to China.

Yes, you are correct. I never said the act was about the relationship between two different regimes or governments. However, the act and other laws position Taiwan in the Republic of China framework that includes all of China.

Article 1 of the act states:

國家統一前,為確保臺灣地區安全與民眾福祉,規範臺灣地區與大陸地區
人民之往來,並處理衍生之法律事件,特制定本條例。本條例未規定者,
適用其他有關法令之規定。
This Act is specially enacted for the purposes of ensuring the security and public welfare in the Taiwan Area, regulating dealings between the peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, and handling legal matters arising therefrom before national unification. With regard to matters not provided for in this Act, the provisions of other relevant laws and regulations shall apply.

It is easy to deduct that 國家 in 國家統一前 refers to the Republic of China in its existing national borders as set out in the ROC Constitution. The national territory of the ROC has not been changed by a resolution of the National Assembly, as mandated in article 4 of the Constitution. Whether or not Taiwan is really under the sovereignty of the ROC is a question irrelevant to domestic ROC law, as quite obviously the ROC does apply its laws to Taiwan and treats Taiwan as its sovereign territory.

The Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area is not the only example of domestic law speaking of national unification. The preamble of the Additional Articles to the Constitution states:

為因應國家統一前之需要,依照憲法第二十七條第一項第三款及第一百七
十四條第一款之規定,增修本憲法條文如左:
To meet the requisites of the nation prior to national unification, the following articles of the ROC Constitution are added or amended to the ROC Constitution in accordance with Article 27, Paragraph 1, Item 3; and Article 174, Item 1:

Not even to mention the inclusion of Mainland Chinese in the ROC Nationality Act. That is, Mainland Chinese do not naturalize as ROC nationals, as they are already ROC nationals. Instead, they establish household registration. A foreigner would first need to naturalize as a ROC national and then subsequently establish household registration.

#15

I dunno, seems perfectly sane to me. Many of us are heavily invested in this island’s future and as such there is no way in the world we would welcome occupation by the PRC. The KMT was bad enough.

1 Like
#16

You deliberately omitted the second part of that sentence. The bold part is the key!

#17

I generally associate the phrase “could not bother,” in the quotation above, with negligence or laziness. I think most people who have been following the strained relations between China and Taiwan know that the cause for Taiwan’s refraining from “chang[ing] its own laws or national designation” has nothing to do with laziness or negligence, but can be easily seen in the language of China’s Anti-Secession Law. A translation of the pertinent part is given below:

(boldface added by me)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4347555.stm

Earlier evidence of China’s intentions could be observed after Lee Teng-hui “bothered” to visit his alma mater in the U. S., after Taiwan “bothered” to have free elections, and can be seen more recently, when Taiwan “bothered” to continue existing separately from China.

1 Like
#18

???
You win the moral war?
What makes you think you have the moral high ground here?

1 Like
#19

It baffles me how people don’t appreciate what they have until it is taken away. Until China has a democracy, free press, and basic civil rights like the right to protest, I can’t see Taiwan reunifying with China. For those that think being part of China would be a good thing, I propose a program for one-way tickets to China. I frequently buy from factories in China and have good friends there, but they have 3rd world problems. This is why I live in Taiwan.

5 Likes
#20

Who said independence was free? This in no way invalidates my point though. Why should foreigners, foreign companies, or foreign governments seek quarrel with China when Taiwanese rather not have conflict with China? This is Taiwanese independence, hence Taiwanese should take the initiative. Unless of course Taiwanese do not really care that much for independence and rather keep things ambiguous. Gladly bend over for China to do business, and at the same tell Westerners a sob story about being bullied by China.