Teaching English in Taiwan: some ethical issues

I'm sitting here in my dorm near the graduate campus of the University of Exeter, listening to birdsong and trees rustling in the wind out my open window. It's July but I'm wearing my new Exeter hoodie, because England apparently does not have any season which can be properly called 'warm'. This is quite different from Taiwan where I'd be wearing as little as possible and still sweating, possibly even with the air conditioning on, and outside my door would be a cacophony of human sounds that would be welcoming in the way that they ward off isolation.

We've just had a seminar exploring two topics: varying perceptions towards native and non-native speaker teachers first, followed by CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning, in which a subject course is taught in a foreign language, with the primary goal of subject learning with the hoped-for added benefit of improvement in foreign language proficiency).

A common theme developed in my mind as the discussions of both of these issues rolled on.

When one thinks of teaching English from an ethical standpoint, if they think about it at all, the two most common issues they tend to come up with are some form of "linguistic imperialism" - the idea that by teaching English we are somehow 'ruining' or forcing 'Westernization' on a local culture - and racism in hiring practices as well as pay. I'll explore these first, although I have to admit that the issues I discuss later are the ones I find meatier, or simply of greater interest.

These are of interest to me, and I'll explore them below. However, they feel a bit warmed-over, and I'm more keen to talk about the issues I explore later on. Not because these two aren't important, but because they feel so done.

That said, I'd like to say a few things about each before moving on.

There's little merit to the first opinion - while teaching a language does require some transmission of cultural knowledge (regardless of what some governments may mandate), simply being an access point to one of the cultures of the English-speaking world is not itself enough to destroy a culture any more so than Americans learning a foreign language, or living alongside speakers of languages other than English, are doing harm to American culture, regardless of what some less thoughtful people might believe. If anything, we are a resource for the non-privileged to learn the language of the comparatively well-off English speaking world, and therefore offer them the possibility of entry into it. You can't create equality by denying the less privileged access to the cultural touchstones of the more privileged.

The second, however, does make a fair point. I'm a white native English speaking American. The privilege inherent in this is striking when I hear about how my Black friends who teach in Taiwan are treated, not to mention the lower pay and sub-par working conditions offered to Taiwanese teachers. My classmate is Taiwanese and going for the exact same degree I am, and yet you can be sure that I will probably end up earning more over the course of my career. This is absolutely not fair. I am not 'better' because I'm a 'native speaker', that's ridiculous.

The ethical question is, of course, is it acceptable for me to continue teaching in a context where I know I have at least some of the opportunities I do because of my race and native language, rather than my actual teaching ability? Is doing so a form of perpetuating the system? Would it even be possible to find a teaching context where this is not the case? Is it too much to ask of me to give up a job I am committed to and find meaning in, in a country I love, because I am a part of a flawed system? Would doing so fix anything?

The answers to the above, to me, are:

No, it is not really acceptable (yet I do it anyway).
Yes, it is a form of perpetuating the system.
However, no, it is likely not possible for me to find a better context - almost every ELT context has these flaws. Those that don't are not generally available to Americans (e.g. in Europe) or would not pay enough for me to cover my basic expenses, including student loans (e.g. in the US, given that I want to work with adults and don't yet have a Master's).
And finally, no, I don't think it would make a difference if I left, nor do I think it is fair to expect me to do so.

The best I can do is fight day-to-day for a better industry, although that strikes me as unsatisfactory. I'd love to see local teacher pay be on par with foreign teacher pay (with them getting a raise, not us getting a pay cut). I'd like to strike the law limiting who can be hired as a foreign teacher based, ludicrously, on passport. I'm not sure that advocacy will have much effect at all, though. It doesn't seem to have so far.

I wish I had a better answer. This has been the go-to answer for the Defensive White English Teacher for decades, and it doesn't seem to have done much good.

There is so much more to explore, though.

As I mentioned above, I don't think much of the idea of cultural imperialism through language teaching. However, there is a sort of domestic cultural and economic imperialism at play in Taiwan (and elsewhere in the world, surely) that makes my skin crawl.

Taiwan has been a place where, over the centuries, various colonial regimes and invading forces have tried to assert their dominance over the island, and their primacy in the cultural hierarchy, through the enforcement of foreign-language medium education in schools. Most notably, the Japanese did it by making the education system in Taiwan Japanese-medium, and the ROC did it later by forcing all students to learn in Mandarin, to the point where today many foreigners and some Taiwanese do not realize that, although it can be debated what the historical 'native languages' of Taiwan are, Mandarin is certainly not one.

Now, it seems that English is one of the tools used to bolster dominance in Taiwan's social hierarchy. The 'cultural imperialism' isn't coming from us whiteys this time, it's coming from Taiwanese who have a privileged socioeconomic position in their own culture. It raises their profile, and the profiles of the adult children they've raised, to speak English well and have connections to the Western world. While not essential for political or business success (I'm fairly sure Chen Shui-bian doesn't speak much English at all), it certainly helps (every other elected president in Taiwanese democratic history has been educated, to some extent, in the West).

It costs money to raise children who have this cultural cachet of speaking English well, unless you have a particularly bright child. Cram schools - the good kind - are pricey. Local bilingual education is even more expensive. International schools are yet more expensive, and not open to those who don't have a path to foreign citizenship. Studying abroad is the most expensive route possible, and in some cases not available if you aren't able to put in the money to get your princeling to a certain level of English ability first.

The rich keep control, to some small extent, because they can afford to learn English well. It affords more respect, more connections and more opportunities.

These are the people whose princelings find themselves in our classes much of the time, although I appreciate that buxibans that offer more affordable classes to families that don't have such means do exist. As adults, they find themselves in my classes, either bankrolled for expensive IELTS preparation or successful businesspeople who have access to a high-quality teacher who charges accordingly.

It's easy to stereotype these children of privilege as the same KMT diaspora 'Chinese elite' who seem to hoover up all the money, privilege and power in Taiwan in every other way. Many of them are - do you think Sean Lien got to Columbia on his own merits? Or that Hau Lung-pin would have earned a PhD from UMass-Amherst on talent alone? Maybe, but I doubt it. Many, however, are not. It's a problem pervading all segments of wealthy Taiwanese society.

The problem, then, is not that I'm here teaching English. It's that I'm earning good-enough money teaching it, and you don't come by good-enough money without being expensive by local standards. Therefore, those who can afford my services are already privileged, and I'm helping to broaden and extend that privilege as they widen the gulf between what they have access to and what others of more modest means do.

It is, in effect, a domestic sort of cultural imperialism, which is not at all one unique to Taiwan. I'm not afraid of the Big Bad West here, I'm afraid of wealthy locals who do the same thing to their fellow countrymen!

I'm not sure what to do about this, either. I've considered volunteering, and likely will once the burden of tuition fees is lifted. That's really the problem - people talk about missionaries in Taiwan as though they are so generous and giving, sacrificing their own gain to help others. There is surely some truth in that, for some missionaries. But the other truth remains: most people have bills to pay, and it's not possible to offer one's services for free if one has bills to pay as well, and does not have a large religious organization making sure that issue is taken care of.

I don't charge so much because I'm greedy, I don't think. I do it because I have family to consider in the US as well as US-based bills to pay.

I'd work for less so that more could afford access, and often do give steep discounts to real friends who need help (I'll even work for free if I believe it will make a real difference, in fact, I prefer offering help as a favor rather than charging a nominal fee). However, again, I can't really pay my own bills if I do that as a part of my regular work. I offer it in my freelance capacity because I generally know the situation and the person, but if I did so as a teacher employed by a school, I would most likely end up being taken advantage of as the school continued to charge high rates and simply keeping the difference. In fact, this is exactly what my former employer did in a few circumstances.

Frankly, if accepting less were a feature of my regular work, I wouldn't be here at Exeter bettering myself professionally so I can offer ever-better teaching to my learners. Period.

I'd like to get to a point where I have the resources - as in, I can afford to do something like this - to try and bring high-quality English teaching to those who could benefit from it but can not generally afford it. That's a long way from here, though. That's something the Exeter graduate does, not generally something the tuition-paying Exeter student does.

Another issue is whether it is ethical to work in a system where so little attention is paid to qualifications. By agreeing to work in a system where you don't need any basic qualification to teach - where, in fact, teaching English is looked down upon because it is simply assumed that it is a job anyone can do, which requires little or no training (yes, the link is relevant because in his book Cole does exactly that) - am I not conferring some level of legitimacy on that system?

This is a conundrum for my context, at least, where I mostly work freelance but do take classes with a few places that are technically 'cram schools' (in the legal sense as it relates to their business registration, though they do not embody many of the negative connotations of the term). It takes a level of qualification far lower than my own to work in either school, although I will say both offer high-quality English classes. Some 'schools', if you can call them that, require even less.

Despite being generally good, neither school offers paid lunar new year leave (despite this being a legal requirement) or paid annual, sick or typhoon leave. Both treat teachers well, though there is no greater contractual job security than in any other cram school. Neither has many career-furthering opportunities for those who want to teach (as opposed to being an account or business manager). Neither offers nor sponsors training. One offers a small bonus (and I am grateful for it), but neither offers the 1-to-2 months' salary bonuses on offer from more traditional employers.

I do like the two employers who provide me with group classes. I recommend them as both employers to teacher friends and as schools to local friends who might be prospective students. I want to make clear that I have no bone to pick with either, and the downsides are tempered with a lot of advantages: all the (unpaid) leave I want without complaint, and higher-than-average pay. However, by continuing to work at these places, I do wonder if I'm legitimizing the downsides.

The issue can be expanded, however. If I worked at a school that didn't require at least a basic minimum of training such as a CELTA, I'd wonder if I'd be legitimizing the lack of qualifications necessary to "teach". If I worked at a public school or university, I wonder if I'd be legitimizing the sub-par working conditions that many institutions take as a norm, such as useless reams of administrative work, high student-teacher ratios (up to 65 students in a conversation class in some places!), over-reliance on testing, a poorly-constructed curriculum and generally lower pay.

I want to end by circling back to one of the issues I explored above: racism in hiring practices here. I've covered issues of pay, treatment and opportunities, but another issue I find disconcerting is how many people - locals and foreigners alike - try to justify native speakerism. I've written about this before (linked above already but here it is again) but now feel I have something more to say on the topic.

It is impossible to ignore - and I'll write more about this later when I really sit down and write about the experience of doing a Master's as a part-time student, splitting my time between Exeter and Taipei - the fact that I have learned so much from my professors and classmates here at Exeter. Most of my classmates are not native English speakers, and many professors are similar. I've been hanging out mostly with female classmates because we happen to get along so well, and out of 7 women, only two of us are native speakers. My Delta local tutor is not considered a native speaker by many. Although as a native speaker who has sought to upgrade her qualifications, I cannot say that native speaker teachers generally are less motivated to attain a level of professionalism in their work as such a generalization would exclude me, it is quite clear that generally speaking that level of qualification, and the important conversations that go along with it, seems to be populated by the non-native English speaking teachers.

I can surely imagine leaving my soft academic cocoon for the sharp idiocy of Facebook commentary, finding myself on one of the many groups for English teachers in Taiwan, and feeling my face fall as all of the nuanced points and brilliant ideas of my Exeter cohort are not reflected in the general Taiwan English teacher commentariat. It hasn't happened yet, but that's mostly because I've abandoned many such groups in dismay, not because the screamery isn't there.

What I mean is, it seems as though the general sentiment of the foreign English teacher population - although I do realize this is by no means a stereotype I can apply to all of them - is that native speakers are best (perhaps because they themselves are native speakers and they are scared of losing their privilege?), this is because that's what 'clients' want, qualifications aren't necessary because most employers in Taiwan - the not-great ones - don't care about them and won't pay more for them and being a better teacher isn't a good enough reason to pursue them (and yet pay is low because unqualified teachers don't deserve more), and many other beliefs I will charitably call 'ignorant'. At times it feels as though trying to address some of these beliefs - e.g. "it's fine to discriminate by only hiring women for certain jobs" or "non-native speakers are never as good at English and therefore deserve to earn less!" - with any level of nuance is an exercise in futility.

I do wonder if continuing to work in an industry where - at least in Asia - that 'ignorant' attitude prevails to some extent legitimizes it. Again, however, I'm not sure where else an American can get a job that pays sufficiently well where the industry has not only more professional working environments, but also more professional teachers with more nuanced and thoughtful attitudes.

Basically, although I find great meaning and pleasure in my work as a teacher and have a great love of Taiwan, I have serious qualms with working in the educational field here, not only in terms of employment but also in terms of the problematic attitudes other privileged teachers hold, while talented and thoughtful educators are held back.

And yet, basic economics would dictate that the way to push for something better is to not accept something sub-par. If good, qualified professional educators would not work in Taiwan, the industry as a whole would have to improve in order to attract them. Yet here I am, agreeing to work for what is on offer now, although I find it lacking. I don't mean in terms of pay - I'm talking about general working conditions and attitudes in the industry that lead to socioeconomic inequality, poor treatment of non-white and non-native-speaker teachers, a lack of adherence even to the benefits accorded us by law, and the overall attitude toward teaching not only of those on the outside looking in, but also of other teachers here.

How can we force things to improve if we accept what's on offer now, as unsatisfactory as it is? And yet, what else can we do if this is the work we want to do, and Taiwan is where we want to be, and it wouldn't be much better anywhere else?

I don't know.

The other day I was thinking about how one trains a teacher to be successful in a flawed context. Much teacher training focuses on training the teacher but assuming a generally good context, or at least one with flaws that can be overcome with yet more training. I was thinking about it in a Saudi Arabian or, to some extent, Chinese context where certain discussions or topics might be forbidden, and where many institutions unrealistically expect qualified teachers to teach English with no controversial cultural content. The assumption is that you can read up on cross-cultural communication and overcome these issues, but I'm not entirely sure that's true; I doubt that any amount of training can fix such a problem when the issue is not with the teacher.

This is why I work neither Saudi Arabia nor China.

However, it's also true in Taiwan. The system is perhaps less flawed, but I wonder what kind of training would help me to more efficiently navigate the ethical issues I do face here. Is the Taiwanese educational system, from public schools to universities to buxibans, so flawed that it presents an ethical issue to even work in it?

I used to think, putting on my well-worn Defensive White English Teacher hat, that the answer was no. At least, I thought, I would eventually end up at a university where things might be better. I'm coming to realize there isn't necessarily any improvement even as one 'moves up'.

Now, I'm not so sure. I don't intend to leave Taiwan simply because I love the country, even though I don't have much praise for its TEFL opportunities. However, I can't ignore the real ethical questions that working in such a problematic system has raised.

Updated post: why are there so few expat women in Asia?

With the publication of an article on Western women dating Asian men that included a large contribution from my friend Jocelyn Eikenburg came a very good point from another friend: one reason why there are fewer Western Woman-Asian man couples is that there are fewer Western women in Asia.

Why is that, I asked to no one in particular.

I returned to my original post from years ago about why there are so few expat women in Asia (I could just as easily said 'Western women' - what working-class foreign women, mostly from China and Southeast Asia,  in countries like Taiwan face is an entirely different topic that I will cover once I feel qualified to do so).

I felt that the piece could use some updating, so I've updated it to add a few more thoughts and clarify or expand some of the original points.

I am not at all sure that everyone will like what I have to say, but since when has that mattered to me?

What would really improve the piece would be more firsthand experiences from a variety of women on why they chose to stay or leave - in fact, after I finish off a few other blogging projects I'm working on as well as get through the first in-person component of my Master's program, I intend to seek those voices out. For now, your comments are welcome.

The bulk of the changes - though not every change - to the original article are as follows:

As for the reasons why [dating prospects aren't great for Western women in Asia], it's hard for me to say, and I'll have to stick to heterosexual couples for now. Someone more qualified than me can write about gay dating in Asia.

My college crush moved to Taiwan, we started dating, and now we're married. I don't really have firsthand experience with this issue to share. It seems to me, though, that the issue is not what most people assume: that Western women don't want to date Asian men, so they stay single. Only a small minority of Western women I've met in Asia feel that way - most are quite open to it, or have dated (or married) Asian men. However, I do think it's likely harder. The culture barrier to dating doesn't work in our favor, as Asian men are often less likely to be clear about their feelings and ask for concrete dates, or don't show interest in the ways we've come to expect. It's easier to be a very clear Western man asking a local woman out than it is for a Western woman to figure out if an Asian man likes her.

Of course, I'm the sort of woman who once asked men out. It doesn't shock me - I think more women should do it! Again, however, that's a contentious topic in the West, though I'm not sure why. In Asia it's even more rare and is more likely to put men off. Take that even further, and it means there are fewer local men who possess the feminist chops many Western women deem a dealbreaker: I wouldn't date a man who would be put off by my asking him out.

After that, the culture barrier vis-a-vis traditional families also tends not to work in Western women's favor. If you are dating the son of Asian parents, while it's not certain that they'll expect him to run his family the way they tell him to, live nearby or use your shared financial resources to support his parents, it is certainly more likely than in the West. The expectations of male and female roles in marriage are also more likely to be traditional (though, again, this is far from universal: feminist Asian men do exist. I count some among my friends). Some Western women might see this as a difficult adjustment. Others, like me, view it as a dealbreaker.

This is not meant to be a blanket statement on the state of Western woman-Asian man dating in Asia, of course. Differing stories and successful and happy couples abound. It's just an issue worth considering. However, if the obstacles to that sort of partnership are greater, fewer women are likely to meet, date, marry and set up a home with a local man. This means fewer have that particular pull to stay (though, again, there are many success stories).

And, of course, there aren't that many Western men to date and the ones that are here might - see below - be oddly hostile to Western women. 

Does it really keep Western women away from life abroad, though, or is the correlation entirely spurious?

A little of both. For women who want to travel, the dating issue (which has no easy answer) is not likely to keep them away, though it may cause them to choose shorter-term trips: a one-year stint as a student or one year abroad teaching instead of staying long-term, for example.

* * * 

It is tiring to work for a sexist boss, have to address sexist beliefs even among friends, go out and meet people only to find that you are again being judged through the lens of gender, asked yet again about marriage and family, having children, having your appearance commented on and treated as the most important part of who you are. Always wondering if you are being paid less, and if so, because you happen to have a vagina. Always wondering if you are offered the fluffier classes (e.g. "Baking in English!") and work teaching children rather than the more challenging work (e.g. "Presenting in English") because you are female. Always questioning why, exactly, most of your colleagues are male, especially if you teach corporate English, IELTS or other adult classes.

Sexism is also a problem in the West - the hate and vitriol I see from some American men is astounding - but coming up against older-school forms of it in Asia is tiring. 

* * * 

I want to add a few more points here to expand this piece. I focused mainly on expats like me above: women who came here on their own as students or independently in search of work. However, there is a whole class of expat that I don't interact with much - nothing personal, we just inhabit different worlds - the corporate expat here on a fancy package. In Taiwan this means the ones who have luxury apartments rented for them, drivers and live-in help, who send their children to international schools we couldn't hope to afford. That sort of money would be nice, though I'm not sure I'd like the life very much. In any case, corporate sexism is a huge issue, and as a result most of the employees being offered these stellar packages are male. They might bring their wives, but they are the ones drawing the salaries. When women are offered something like this, they may find they're in a tiny minority and that when they arrive, the non-Western corporate world is even more hostile and sexist than what they left behind. Professional Taiwanese women have more advantages than almost all of their counterparts in the rest of Asia, but corporate sexism here is no better, and likely worse, than what you'll find in the West.

And, finally, I'm going to add something that may anger a few people, but here we go. It is my personal opinion from observation that women tend to be less tolerant of mediocrity. What I mean by that is, those of us who don't come as students or well-paid, cosseted expatriates often start out teaching English. Few of us are qualified, and we are given a title ("teacher") that we don't exactly deserve. I don't exempt myself from this: I was once this sort of so-called "teacher". Most "English teachers" in Taiwan know this (though some don't seem to have figured it out). Some, like me, decide the work is meaningful and fulfilling and eventually become professional educators. Most don't. Some leave after awhile, others decide that teaching without any real qualification is good enough and stay. Guess which group I have noticed is more likely to not be content being an unqualified "teacher"? If you guessed women, then you get where I'm going. And guess which group I've noticed is more likely to decide that what they're doing is fine?

My real beef with the new labor laws

I've been thinking a lot these days about what it is I don't like about the new labor regulations in Taiwan. I'm not sure why - they don't actually impact me as I don't have a single full-time job: I've been freelance since I got my APRC. Being generally interested in labor issues, however, might be a part of it. As is the fact that the new laws do impact many of my friends.

The most common complaints I hear from sources I care about are that work they want is being taken away from them, and that flexibility they want is being taken away (companies whining that now they have to compensate their employees more generously for the extremely long work hours expected of them do not draw my sympathy, I quite literally DGAF. You've been paying your people too little for crazy hours for awhile now, Taiwanese employers. Suck it.)

I'm not sure at all that these are the root problems that are causing me to view the new law with so much cynicism, though. That said, they're worth exploring.

I have a friend who poured a lot of passion and effort into a particular class, notably in developing a syllabus for that class within a larger curriculum. She had it taken away, because it was (apparently) the only way for her employer to ensure she did not work overtime that she'd have to be paid extra for (because goodness gracious, they couldn't just pay a valuable teacher more, could they? Oh no!). She genuinely wanted that work, and it was snatched from her. I have another friend who didn't necessarily want to work 6 days a week, but appreciated the financial boost she got from the longer hours. That was taken away, because the thought of just paying her more was apparently unconscionable? Or something? I have students who have subordinates who used to arrange their work schedules to work 6-day weeks for much of the month, but then take at least one extended weekend in that month so the hours worked out over a longer period, and they got a longer rest. That is no longer permissible under the new law. I'm not sure why not, but my students assure me it is not. I am not an expert.

I'm sympathetic to all of these complaints - especially the last one - but it seems increasingly obvious to me that they're symptoms of deeper problems the new labor law ignores rather than the root problems themselves.

What's being ignored here, and what the new law does nothing to fix, is the power imbalance between employer and employee. The "Boss Class" doesn't like the new law for obvious reasons: it's not so easy to squeeze their peons for more work for as little compensation as they can get away with giving. Good. But why don't labor activists like it? Because it does nothing to improve employee bargaining power or choice. It does nothing to address the basic truth of modern capitalism: the employee always, always - even in a labor-scarce market - has less power than a company. I could go into why I feel this is, but suffice it to say that labor does not gain sufficient power vis-a-vis employers in a world where shortages do not appear to be creating better remuneration and working conditions for teachers, or one in which jobs are not so interchangeable, and there might not be a similarly good job to jump to if the one you have (or the other one on offer) doesn't offer enough incentives to get you in the door, not because there is a job scarcity but because what you'd be doing would be somewhat unique. I mean, I'm a teacher, just ask me how teacher shortages in the US haven't led to better working conditions for American teachers. Even when the market favored labor in the years before the 2008 crash, lots of job openings didn't mean lots of offers in a world where one job opening would attract hundreds of applicants simply because the Internet made it easier to advertise jobs on massive websites and for applicants to send out heaps of resumes. A person can't necessarily live without a job, but a company can live with a position unfilled, and can get by with less-than-ideal employees until they find the right person, because the company will almost by definition have more resources than an individual.

As a result, I can't even think of a time in my adult life when the market has truly helped working conditions and pay improve. I'm not young anymore, that's actually quite a long time to see - in my observation at least, I don't claim to be an economist - essentially no progress.

In a better system, employer and employee would be on more even footing to negotiate not only pay and benefits, but preferred working hours and conditions. The employer could lay out their needs, and the employee could lay out what they hope to achieve, or get, out of the job. Employees who want to work longer hours and make more money could choose to do so, and those who wanted to work less, or be more flexible, but also potentially earn less, could choose that, too. Solutions might not be perfect, but they'd be workable for all involved because everyone was on a somewhat level playing field (and of course this is most obviously true in positions with hourly pay or clear paid overtime) when negotiating the terms of work. Of course, that's not how it works: your employer tells you if you're going to be working more or less, and how much money you want vis-a-vis free time is not considered. Often, keeping the laws relaxed so working hours can be quite variable don't necessarily lead to the employee getting more say - for every person who chooses longer hours, there are a few who are forced to work them. For every employee who chooses fewer, there are a few who are put on reduced schedules (but still told to be available for hours they will never work, so they can't even seek other employment) because that benefits the company.

So what you have are new laws that still allow the employer, without your input, to decide how much you work - those who want to work more can't if the company doesn't want to pay them the new overtime amounts, and those who want to work less might still be called in when they'd rather be off, or not get to choose when they are off. My friend who had a class she wanted taken from her was not given a choice to keep that class and lose another one. My friend who appreciates the money but not necessarily the exhaustion of a 6-day week wasn't given a choice as to whether she worked one or not - not before when she had to work 6 days, and not after when that was reduced to 5. In both cases her preference mattered little, and with any new job it would be the same. My students' subordinates were not given the choice to have a flexible schedule (it's mere circumstance that my particular students happen to be flexible and generous with their employees; not all employers are.)

It also does little to change the problem of every job essentially being a terrible deal - low pay, long hours, little in the way of additional benefits - in a world where you can't just not choose any job, you likely need to pick one. I have a student with this issue: she doesn't like her job, nor does she like any of the jobs on offer. But she has to take one, she can't just be unemployed. It's not possible to insist you deserve more than $22,000NT per month  (which I think everyone does - you can't live independently on $22k. It does not cover basic cost of living and therefore is inadequate) when there are no jobs offering more. English teachers can't insist on a job where they get paid Lunar New Year (which we ought to get under the law, but don't) if no job offers paid Lunar New Year (you might get compensation after you leave, if you complain, but that means little if what you actually want is a paid holiday without having to quit and threaten to call the government to eventually get that money). You can't change much where you actually work if speaking up means you could get "laid off", and the next job won't be any better.

The new laws really don't do anything to address that basic problem. I'm not sure what could, frankly, in a world where the company will always be bigger, and have more money and resources, than an employee or job seeker, no matter how "good" the market supposedly is.

On sacrifice, history and what we are 'owed'

I've received a fair amount of feedback, most of it positive, regarding the case I made recently for allowing dual nationality to all foreigners. But, there are a few points I'd like to clarify here, which I think merit further discussion.

On selfishness and sacrifice

The first is this idea that, impossible or not, to decline to renounce one's original citizenship is somehow inherently selfish - to want the best of both, or to be unwilling to make any sacrifices.

I understand this as an instinctive first reaction - it's one of those "makes sense on its face" arguments - but with even a bit of dissection falls apart.

First, I reject on its face the notion that a person should have to make massive sacrifices to be a part of the society of the country they call home. That's not the argument I want to make, but I want to put that core idea out there. Some people take this further, and try to justify giving missionaries dual nationality on the basis of their "sacrifices" for the good of the communities they live in, but that the rest of us don't because we live more comfortable lives.

First, let's be clear: missionaries are not selfless. The good works they do - and they do some good things, I admit, and I don't think they're bad people - are done with their own goals in mind: converting members of the community to their faith, which is a benefit to the churches that often fund their missions. I still think they deserve a path to citizenship despite fundamentally disagreeing with the notion of evangelizing, because I think anyone who has decided to make Taiwan their permanent home and contributes to it in some way deserves that path. However, this argument is then extended and ends up somewhere around "you have a nice apartment and a job and therefore you don't deserve citizenship", which I quite literally do not understand as a logical conclusion. Do we really judge who gets to be a member of society based on whether they have wood floors or not? "You live well so you don't deserve political representation"? Really?

I get it, I really do - the idea is that we already have good lives, so we shouldn't want more. However, wanting political representation and to live a normal life as a member of society is not the same at all as having a couch that is not from IKEA (though honestly, if we hadn't inherited the couch we do have from the former tenant, our couch would absolutely be an IKEA model). The logical conclusion of this is that you should not agitate politically if you are comfortable economically, but economics and politics are separate things. I don't want more money - I want to be a member of society.

That said, I really don't want to make it my main argument - I want to point out the ridiculousness of it and move on.

Here's the thing about assuming that renouncing one's original citizenship is a 'sacrifice' and to not want to do so is 'selfish'.

To take the only path to citizenship currently available to me, I would have to quite literally renounce my core values. As much as I complain about the US and insist on my own self-sufficiency and freedom, fundamentally I believe in caring for one's family when they need it. I have already written about why I must retain American citizenship if the need to care for my father arises, and won't repeat myself.

I will, however, point out that the selfish act here would be to abandon my family for my own desires vis-a-vis my life in Taiwan. It is, if anything, a sacrifice that I do not pursue this route, because family, should they need me, trumps what I want in this regard. I would also point out that this means that asking me to renounce American citizenship is tantamount to asking me to put my desires over the needs of said family, and to essentially change who I am as a person - to be willing to be the sort of cold-hearted individual who would choose her immediate satisfaction over possible future family caretaking.

I mean it - I will give Taiwan what they want in any other regard. They want money? I'll pay it. They want me to get my PhD and become a professor, even though I'm happier (and I think a more effective teacher and contributor to the field) outside the academic bureaucracy and would normally stop at a Master's? I'll do it. Mandate that 36-year-old women must also do military service? I'll do it. Pound of flesh? That can be arranged. Start a charity and work at it as my main cause? Already considering it, though kind of hard to do if I'm going to go the academic route until I'm finished shuttling back and forth between Taiwan and the UK for my degree(s).

But I will not abandon my family.

For a culture that places so much emphasis on being filial, you would think the Taiwanese government would understand this.

All that aside, I fundamentally find the idea that wanting to be closer to - rather than maintaining and enforced distance from - the society of the country one calls home is inherently selfish in some way. That wanting to participate civically is selfish - I thought civic duty was meant to be an act of giving? I truly don't understand the logic here, that it is somehow a problem or indicative of bad character that I'd want these things.


On history

I also got a very interesting comment on my assertion that "Taiwanese history is not my history". The point that was made was that if we expect the descendants of the 1945-1949 KMT diaspora, as well as those who took part in it who are still alive, to consider their history to be intertwined with "Taiwanese" history rather than Chinese history, how can we decline to do the same?

However, I'm not saying I won't do the same. I gladly will.

In fact, the ten years of Taiwanese history that have occurred while I've lived here are my history - I live here too. If we stay permanently and do get citizenship, when I am old I will look back on my life and perhaps then think of myself as Taiwanese, and Taiwanese history being my history.

What I meant by that comment was, the agonies and successes of Taiwanese history that happened to the ancestors of the Taiwanese alive today did not happen to my ancestors. I don't want to appropriate or seem like I am appropriating that legacy. The sum of history and cultural legacy that made me who I am, compared to that of my Taiwanese friends, is different, and I feel it's OK to admit that while still hoping to assimilate more. The idea is to avoid "you owe me your history, culture and legacy!" and instead aim for "I would like to be a part of your society if you'll have me, and as I do want it badly, I would like to make a case for that."


On being "owed" something

There is a popular meme going around that shows a blank piece of paper with a title along the lines of "a comprehensive list of everything you are entitled to and the world owes you".

It's cute, and I get the instinctive reaction to agree. However, I actually don't fully believe that - if you live in the forest as hermit who doesn't pay taxes or contribute to a society in any way, the world owes you nothing, that's true. But if you are expected to pay taxes, obey laws, support yourself, contribute to the economy and civic life of a society, in fact, I do believe that society owes you something in return. This is the basic argument for why societies that can do so owe their citizens a social safety net, and I happen to agree with it. Like dedication to family, it is a core value.

That, again, is not the argument I want to make however. I just want to point out that that line of thinking is inherently flawed.

What I want to say is this: I didn't come to Taiwan already knowing citizenship was almost impossible to obtain, and thinking I'd just complain about it whenever I decided I happened to want it. It was a much more organic process. I came here thinking I'd stay for two or three years, but Taiwan, being like Hotel California (as someone once put it to me), has made it so I can check out any time I like, but it seems I can never (don't want to) leave. Only then did I decide to advocate for the chance to participate more fully - after I'd already been here for a decade, contributed in the same way citizens who were born here have done, and tried to be a net benefit to this country rather than a drain on it. I was already here contributing when my thoughts on this topic became defined, not standing on the outside banging on the door.

Do I think, for all of this, that I am "owed" citizenship? Well, no, not in the sense that every country gets to decide for itself what foreigners can and cannot have. I think I've earned it, but I don't think I'm 'owed' it, at least not in the world we live in.

Taiwan, however, is a country that has increasingly insisted it is based on shared cultural values rather than ethnocentric nationalism. They themselves insist that one does not need to be from a particular ethnicity, culture or group to be 'Taiwanese'. Their history museum in Tainan even has a plaque saying so!

If they truly believe this, and this is the kind of country they want to build, it is hypocritical to then make it difficult for those who lack blood ties to Taiwan who are not the lords and ladies of the 1% (or missionaries) to be a part of that society. If they really believe it, they need to stop setting up impossible barriers (and, as I've explained, the need to renounce is an impossible barrier for many of us) and allowing double standards for naturalized vs. born citizens. If they want to keep up that rhetoric, they do owe the people they're talking about a shot at actually being 'Taiwanese'. Forcing us to be perpetual outsiders who can't even have a mortgage or vote for the leaders whose governance affects us is the opposite of this sentiment. It's having your cake and eating it too.


On radical social change

I've also heard the argument that changing the law so completely cannot be done quickly because Taiwan progresses slowly, and to do otherwise would constitute 'radical social change' that would somehow cause problems for society.

This is wrong.

Just as marriage equality is not 'radical social change' but rather a logical expansion of human rights and recognizing what, for many couples, is already true, allowing immigrants in Taiwan to naturalize as dual citizens is not radical. We're already here and already contributing - not much will change as a result. All it is doing is expanding the scope of the rights of people who live in Taiwan, and acknowledging what is already true about our lives here.

Most Taiwanese, when made aware of the double standards that currently exist, voice support for creating a more possible and reasonable path to citizenship for foreign residents. They too are done with ethnocentrism, whether it's Hoklo or Han chauvinism. It is not scandalous or radical to then make the necessary political changes reflecting this.

I don't believe a change like this would result in an influx of people hoping to get citizenship - at least not among white collar workers (I don't believe in dividing who can have dual nationality and who can't based on social class, I'm just pointing out a reality.) Most would come, and eventually leave. Those who stay long enough - seems like it would have to be about ten years to get an APRC and then citizenship - would have demonstrated enough of a commitment to Taiwan to merit naturalization. Most importantly, they'd already be here. It would be a mere formalization of the status they already possess.

Pass the sausage: a crazy theory about why there aren't many female Taiwan experts

First, let's take a moment to acknowledge Freedom of Speech day in Taiwan, although it is not an official holiday (but should be). Today was the day 28 years ago when activist and writer Nylon Deng self-immolated before his imminent arrest by police after a period of barricading himself in his office.  Nylon s best remembered by the activist community in Taiwan for insisting on "100% freedom of speech", and for openly supporting Taiwan independence when it was not quite safe to do so. Today also happens to be the day that Reporters Without Borders announced that they'd open their Asia bureau in Taipei rather than Hong Kong, and I am choosing to believe that this is not a coincidence, even though it probably is.

As it is around the world, activism and feminism tend to go hand-in-hand, although through history many liberals have been supportive of liberal causes yet dismissive of feminist ones, or of women's equality. I remember, when watching the tear-jerking documentary on Nylon in the museum dedicated to him on the site of his self-immolation, an offhand comment that he was "cruel" to his wife and daughter. The moment went by quickly and I haven't re-watched the film, though I will soon as I do own it, but it caused me to reflect on that point.

But that was the 1980s and this is 2017, a time when being a liberal, progressive or activist but not being feminist will cause one serious problems. I do think, then, it is worthwhile to reflect on the presence of women in Taiwan Studies and advocacy around the world, as tenuous as that link may be.

This generally excellent piece came out recently on the Trump-Xi meeting (which I am not commenting on much because I don't have much to say), and it was pointed out that nine Taiwan experts were included, and not one of them was female. "Yup, bit of a sausage fest", it was acknowledged (and I do appreciate the acknowledgement). Of course, that's not to say there aren't any Taiwan experts. Some of my favorite books on Taiwan were written by women (reading this now and loving it), and of course there's the well-known Shelley Rigger (though I have to say I'm not a huge fan of her work for the reasons Michael Turton outlined here). Edit: a few more names I have in fact come across have been pointed out: Bonnie Glaser and Gwyneth Wang, to name a few. In any case, pickings sure do seem to remain slim. 

But if you could ask me to name other prominent female Taiwan experts or advocates, I don't think I could. I know the community, so I'm not shooting in the dark here, yet, it really does seem to be something of a sausage fest.

Why is that?

Of course I have a theory.

Keep in mind it's just a theory, concocted within the confines of my own weird brain, as far as I know really only explains the dearth of notable female Taiwan supporters in the US, and is quite open to constructive feedback. It's not meant to be a definitive statement on the matter.

Yet, as far as the US is concerned, I can't help but notice that most Taiwan experts also happen to be Taiwan advocates. It's quite common, even the norm, to be both an expert and a part of the Taiwan independence movement. In the US, who are the 'friends of Taiwan' in the government that Taiwan independence supporters tend to turn to, or at least receive the greatest support from?

Republicans. And in some cases, some of the worst Republicans in office. In every other sense, beyond their support of Taiwan (which usually seems to stem from a hatred of China rather than a genuine caring for Taiwan), just really terrible people. People like Marco Rubio, who supports both Hong Kong's localist movement and Taiwan, but who is a total shitlord when it comes to women's issues. People like Tom Cotton, who also supports both Taiwan and Hong Kong, who is also a total douchestick on women's issues. Even Bob Dole, that ol' 90s throwback who honestly was more moderate than these other losers on women's issues for his day (emphasis: for his day), isn't great.

No, I'm not going to be nicer about that because they're friends of Taiwan. They're also turdburglars and they deserve the criticism.

And to be fair, not every friend of Taiwan is like this. I don't have any particular criticisms of unelected supporters of Taiwan in government (think Bolton, Yates), but they tend to be Republicans, and Republicans are at this moment in history actively working against women's rights.

I'm not even going to talk about Trump because he doesn't have a clear Taiwan policy (the one thing that is clear is that he cares about nobody but himself, his family and sweet sweet money, and possibly power as well, and he'll sacrifice anything and everything for those things). But Taiwan's association with Trump, I can tell you honestly, has hurt Taiwan's standing among liberal voters, if they cared about Taiwan to begin with, which most don't. I'll stop there, because "liberal voters" are not the same as "Taiwan experts" or "Taiwan advocates", and I'm talking about the latter. The former is a different issue that I may or may not tackle at a later time.

It is also important to differentiate between advocates for Taiwan, and the people they lobby and talk to. Advocates for Taiwan outside of government tend to be very good people. I am friends with many of them (and yes, they are almost entirely male). The people they talk to are the problem. There are also some powerful female voices for Taiwan in other areas, such as Linda Arrigo and Shawna Yang Ryan, but I'm trying to be specific in terms of Taiwan experts who also advocate (and in many cases actively lobby) for Taiwan in Washington.

Of the women who are a part of this community, it is notable that of the 9 (9? Someone mentioned 9, I counted 8) people asked to comment for the article above, not one of them was female. How is it that they found 9 experts, all male, and ignored all of the women who do good work or are strong voices in this field? Is there perhaps a connection between being asked to comment on a piece like this and how often one is seen around government folks? Is there a connection between not doing that, and being female? If so, could that connection be in part because most of the people you would be talking to not only are not known generally for having much respect for women, but are actively working against women's rights?

I happen to think so, yes.

Or, perhaps they are overlooked because women simply tend to be overlooked in many fields.

I mean, to be a Taiwan expert - at least an American one - means making peace with the fact that the country you are most interested in and are likely to advocate for finds its greatest support among some of the worst people in Washington. On some level this is praiseworthy: it means setting aside differences to work on a common goal. I can see the value in that. I can see the value in not always giving in to identity politics, as well.

However, this is really easy to do if the people you are talking to and working with aren't actively trying to take away your rights, or subjugate your gender. It's much easier to "set differences aside" when the other side's differences aren't actual, literal and active attempts to make your life worse. It's easy when it's not aimed at you.

It is far more difficult to do when you can't even fathom being in the same room with some of them. I cannot imagine I would do anything to Marco Rubio other than spit in his stupid asshat face if I had to look at him, let alone talk to him. Perhaps I am more tempestuous, temperamental or I just care more about these things than others, but I know I'm not the only woman who would rather punch some of these Republican twatwads in the mouth than talk to them.

So how could someone like me - a woman, a lover of Taiwan, a supporter of Taiwan, someone who makes it her business and passion to keep up with Taiwan affairs despite not officially being any sort of expert - actually be an expert? When expertise tends to overlap so much with advocacy, and advocacy overlaps so much with talking to people I cannot bear to dignify with even basic manners, because they cannot bear to dignify my gender with basic rights, how is this even a possibility?

In fact, this is one of the direct causes behind why I went into education as a professional rather than Taiwan Studies. Perhaps 5 years ago - I don't remember exactly - I was in Hong Kong, sitting on the upstairs deck at the Fringe Club talking to friends there. We were discussing my next move, and I said I had three key interests: TEFL, the Chinese language and Taiwan Studies. I didn't know which I'd pursue, I said, but it would be one of those three, I would be going back to school at some point, and soon enough it would be come clear which I'd choose.

I chose education, because I actually kind of hated Chinese class though I love learning Chinese, and because Taiwan Studies to me is inextricably bound up in Taiwan advocacy, and that would mean lobbying or talking to all sorts of odious socially conservative Republican types, the sort who are actively trying to roll back my basic human rights. Even then, I knew I couldn't do it.

This is, as a side note, why I am eager to jump on any alternative at all. It sucks to love Taiwan but hate the friends of Taiwan in the US government. It sucks to know you might be able to go to school for Taiwan Studies, but you wouldn't be able to advocate with a straight face, nor would you be able to work with Taiwan supporters in the US government, because when their rollback of basic rights and dignity is aimed at your gender, it is impossible to "set differences aside" or look the other way. If someone presents even the most unlikely alternative model for advocating for Taiwan, it's like a flame for my inner moth.

I know I can't do it, and I don't think it's fair to ask any woman to do it. That's absolutely not to say that I think the men who do do it - who bite their lips and talk to assholes for Taiwan's sake - don't care about women's issues. I'm sure it's not easy talking to someone you disagree with on nearly every other thing (and most of the ones I know are good people, solid liberals, and women's rights supporters). Yet they do it - they do what I can't, and I won't pretend that gender is not one of the reasons why. It's simply easier when it's not your basic human rights on the chopping block, even if you have the best of intentions.

So that's my crazy theory. At least as far as Americans are concerned, there are not many female Taiwan experts because, while they might have common cause with some of the worst people in government over Taiwan, these same people are enemies of their gender. That's just too much to ask - and frankly, shouldn't have to be asked. It is 100% stone cold not okay, especially as Taiwan independence is, fundamentally, a liberal cause. 

There are surely other reasons - Taiwan is a harder place to live long-term for foreign women being one of them and many foreign experts on Taiwan have spent significant time here. (As a side note, this is why most foreign commentators on Taiwan skew male - there are simply more male expats, and I do explore the reasons for that in the link above. Another reason might be that a lot of currently known Taiwan experts got into the field decades ago, when this sort of field was male dominated. When I was in school my International Affairs cohort was not particularly male, but several decades before that it likely would have been. Yet another may be "because the women are choosing China where the action is". Perhaps. I may explore these other possibilities in future posts.

I do hope for change going forward, and it would be interesting to see what the younger, perhaps less recognized cohort of Taiwan experts looks like gender-wise. However, I can say that when I was younger and looking at that path, the sorts of horrible people I'd have to talk to were a clear reason why I steered away from it, and made Taiwan affairs a hobby rather than a profession. I cannot imagine I am the only woman to have been put off. It does cause women to turn away, and I know that because it turned me away.

Constructive feedback is welcome. Hateful or misogynist comments will be deleted without being fully read.

For love of a forbidden nation: why, exactly, I want dual citizenship

Sign at the National Museum of History in Tainan. So I can't be a citizen because...?

Since writing my last post on the not-great new regulations on dual nationality for foreigners in Taiwan, I've engaged in quite a few discussions of the matter. I've been asked quite a few questions on why I want to be a citizen, why permanent residency is not enough, how I can still support the "Hoklo nationalists" who don't want foreigners in their country (which - huh? In 2017 you think that, really?), and why I can't give up my US citizenship.

So, I thought I'd offer some answers.

I've also noticed that much of the narrative on those seeking to naturalize in Taiwan comes from those married to locals, giving them family ties here, or who have children here (whether the children have a Taiwanese parent or not), or grown children who were born here. I have sympathy for all such people and support their fight, but some may be wondering why a foreigner, married to another foreigner with no children born here, would want to naturalize. Seems odd, doesn't it? But here I am.

Below are a few of the things I've heard on this matter (some condensed or re-written for clarity) followed by an explanation of why I, and many foreigners, feel the way we do about dual nationality in Taiwan. This is in part deeply personal but also, I think, speaks to the experiences and issues of many who call Taiwan home, and I hope lays bare some central issues that might not be otherwise considered.

But you can be a Taiwanese citizen! Why aren't you willing to give up your original citizenship? This shows you aren't really loyal to Taiwan!

First, and quickly, Taiwanese do not have to give up their citizenship to obtain nationality elsewhere if the second country doesn't require it, and most nations that Taiwanese seek dual citizenship from don't. It's an unfair and ridiculous double standard pure and simple - some countries only allow you to have their own citizenship and no other, others allow multiple, but none that I know of has a similar double standard for born vs. naturalized citizens.

Consider as well people with foreign citizenship who are of Taiwanese heritage, who seek, and obtain, Taiwanese citizenship without giving up their original passport.

Are they not "loyal" to Taiwan? Do they have good reasons for not giving up their Taiwanese citizenship? What do you think those reasons are? For Taiwanese who live abroad permanently or were born abroad, it probably has to do with family ties and potentially needing to return to one's country of birth for related reasons.

Well, those are my reasons too, and other foreigners here share similar stories. As I wrote in this op-ed, I have family in the US and they are aging. Most notably, my father, especially after my mother's passing, may well need my care or help at some point in the future. When my mother passed, I spent nearly half a year in the US setting everything in order and taking care of my dad when he needed me most. I needed to do that; I do not know exactly how my family might have imploded if I hadn't, but it might well have done. I am not rich and wasn't sure how long I'd be away - although my husband could send me some money, I needed to work while I was there, he was in charge of maintaining our life materially and financially while I was away and while we do well enough, we aren't rolling in money.  In fact, I left before my mother's death and, had she not passed soon after my arrival, I might have been in the US for a year or more. Just a few months later, I needed to return for several weeks to take care of my father after quintuple bypass surgery. The next time I'm needed, who knows how long I'll need to go and whether I'll need to work to make ends meet.

If I gave up my American citizenship, I would not be able to care for my family in the US in ways that might be necessary, perhaps on very short notice. I would not be able to stay for indefinite periods nor be able to work. In Trump's America, I'm not sure a former citizen who renounced their US nationality would be so easily allowed in, even though Taiwanese have visa-free entry, though I hope this is will cease to be a valid concern in short order. In any case, it is simply not a viable option while I have family members who may eventually need me, either for long-term issues or emergency care, to give up my American citizenship. If I were wealthy, perhaps, but I'm not. I actually need those work and residency rights, as was evidenced just a few short years ago.

A second reason, though one I like to dwell on less and place less importance on, is that even if I naturalize, I will never be considered fully Taiwanese, which I explore considering more local issues below. From an international perspective, however, there is a double standard most people don't think about: the possibility of Chinese invasion and what will happen to naturalized Taiwanese citizens if it happens. I don't necessarily think it will, but the possibility cannot be dismissed.

When China took over Hong Kong, it did not give citizenship to Hong Kongers not of Chinese descent (some later applied, but it is not clear how often such applications are accepted. In any case, considering how many non-Chinese native people there are in territories ruled by China - namely Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang though others exist - I find it hilarious and ironic that China would insist on being of "Chinese descent" to be a Chinese citizen, because what the hell does that even mean?) In any case, non-"Chinese" Hong Kongers who had other citizenships kept them, and were given permanent residence in Hong Kong. Not all non-"Chinese" in Hong Kong, however, had a foreign citizenship. They became British National Overseas citizens (this sounds weird, but it is a class of nationality). Those who did not apply would have been rendered stateless.

If China invades Taiwan and wins, Taiwanese citizens will end up being Chinese citizens. The vast majority do not want this, of course, but it would at the very least mean not being stateless. That's a low bar to pass, but I would not even pass that. Which nation would give me nationality if I became solely a Taiwanese citizen, but Taiwan's current government ceased to exist, subsumed by a government that would never transfer my citizenship? (To be clear, they would never give it to me - one look at my political views and you can forget it. Nor do I think I should have to be secretive about my political views for some possible future occurrence.) The US would certainly not give it back - unlike some countries, they do not look kindly on former citizens who renounce but then want back in.

That's not to say I want to be Chinese - I want to be a Taiwanese citizen, not a Chinese one, but being Chinese is better than being stateless. Barely.

Regardless, as horrible as it would be to be under the oppressive rule of the Chinese government, being stateless is not a worry shared by the Taiwanese. This hard, uncomfortable truth means, as much as there shouldn't be, there is a difference. I don't think any person could reasonably expect a foreigner to take that risk - not even "ethnically Chinese" foreigners who get dual nationality here have that worry.

Rest assured, however, that my reluctance to give up my American passport has nothing to do with this. I love Taiwan, and want (well, need to) keep my American citizenship for practical purposes. I care about the US insofar as I don't want to see the country of my birth locked in the death spiral that seems to have been exacerbated by Donald Trump. But Taiwan is my home - it's where I've chosen to live.

Renouncing is simply not possible. The Taiwanese government is surely aware that the pound of flesh they are asking for is too much, and yet they ask it anyway.

Allowing some foreigners to have dual nationality is a small step but it's a step in the right direction.

Yeah, maaaaaaybe. These "small steps" do seem to be how the government here often works. A friend pointed out that they revised the permanent residency system in a similar way.

If this were a question of breaking down societal resistance one baby step at a time, with a fairly quick succession of changes, I'd agree. However, I'm not sure at all that this is the case and it has not been put to me convincingly.

Mainly, I don't know what societal resistance there is, or rather, how strong it is. Surely there are some folks who do not want Taiwan to be a multicultural society - they like Taiwan as a place of "Taiwanese culture" (though I would argue Taiwanese culture has always been diverse and, in fact, 'multicultural') and don't really want lots of foreigners also claiming it. Multicultural harmony within a nation is, in fact, a difficult undertaking.

However, I have not met many people who feel this way. I just assume they exist because it's a very common attitude around the world. Literally every single person I have talked to about this issue either fully supports amending the citizenship law, or was unaware that a double standard exists. Some believe that foreign spouses can have dual nationality, but this is not the case. Some believe children born here can have it - also not the case. When their awareness on this issue is raised, they always - always, no exceptions - are sincerely supportive.

Other than some stodgy old legislators, perhaps, where is the societal resistance?

The other issue is one of time. I'm not in my twenties. My reasons for wanting dual nationality are practical: I can't even get a mortgage, for example, in the country I call home. I'm not even a second-class citizen: I'm not a citizen at all. I have no political representation in my home, and diminished rights. I can wait on the rights as generally we enjoy a good, even privileged, existence here. But having no access to certain financial tools as well as being unable to do certain things citizens can do with ease means that foreigner life in Taiwan is one of, in some ways, extended adolescence. I would like to function as a full adult here, and we can actually afford a mortgage if someone would just give us one.

If it's going to take five years, that's fine. It will be three before I finish my Master's, and I may well do a PhD (oh hell, if the only way I can get citizenship here is to get my PhD and become an "assistant professor", damn it I will, just watch me.) I don't see us buying an apartment before then.

However, I fear it won't be "a few years", I fear it'll be decades. Now that the government has done something, they're likely to sit back and congratulate themselves, and pretend nothing more needs to be done for awhile. I could be nearing retirement before this gets fully fixed in a way that includes people like me! That's truly not acceptable, but entirely possible. It is not convincing to say it might not take that long - it very well may.

In fact, I think it's likely. The KMT has shown no interest in changing the nationality law which they themselves wrote - well, the ROC did, same difference really - in the 1920s. The NPP has introduced a bill allowing dual nationality, but with only 5 representatives, one must be realistic. The DPP is going to be the one to do this - and I explore why in more detail below. They've done something, but it's not enough, and I don't think they are likely to act again this term or even during Tsai's tenure as president. Given that Taiwan seems to switch fairly regularly between parties every 8 years, it could be 7 years of Tsai, 8 years of President Whoever, and then the next DPP president might do something about it.

Frankly, that is too long to wait.

Finally, it's not a step in the right direction because rather than creating a policy based on greater equality, it legitimizes creating further divisions in the expat community where none need to exist. Ethically speaking I am, in principle, against creating more divisions. Therefore it is a step, but in the wrong direction. Even if I qualified under the new regulations, I would still find it unfair and wrong.


Isn't permanent residency enough?

No.

It's fine for long-term life here, but it actually doesn't work for permanent life here, which is something I've begun to consider now that any immediate question of leaving is off the table.

Practically speaking, permanent residents still can't do anything that requires entering a national ID number, which includes a surprising number of online services (including some car rentals), and even some mortgage applications. Non-citizens here are still routinely denied credit cards, although that is slowly changing - I hear that E Sun Bank will offer them, and you can get them through Costco. Mortgages are just not a thing that happens unless you have a powerful backer (international schools and other institutions, if you are employed through them, may be of assistance) or are married to a local who can sign the mortgage papers. I had to fight with a bank teller to allow me a debit card option that works online for a debit card I already had, simply because I was not a citizen!

If I do go into the formal education system and work at a university, there are also issues with the pension system to contend with, but that is not my main concern right now - though it may be eventually. 

Idealistically speaking, I live in Taiwan in part because I do not think I could live happily, long-term, in anything other than a vibrant democracy. Many places expats enjoy in Asia, including Vietnam, Singapore, Hong Kong, China for some reason and more, are not (or not truly) democracies, and therefore I don't want to live in those places long-term. Yet if I believe so strongly in democratic ideals, doesn't it make sense that it would be important to me to be allowed to participate democratically in the affairs of the country that is my home? I have the freedom of assembly and speech - though as a foreigner, if someone wanted me out they could find a way to accomplish that regardless - but not the right to vote. It may seem a small thing, but this is important.

It seems straight-up odd to me that I can vote in a country I haven't lived in for a decade, have no real loyalty to, don't intend to live in again and whose election outcomes affect me only indirectly - but I cannot participate in the civil society of the country I do live in, call home and intend to stay in, whose policies and governance do affect me.

I live here, yet I have no political representation. My ability to participate politically is limited. Immigrants from around the world seek citizenship to gain political representation. I am no different.

And, of course, I just want to be a full and recognized member of the society I actually live in. That's not a crazy wish. 

There are other ways to achieve your goals in Taiwan

Not really, no. Let's take credit tools for example. International mortgages are a thing, yes, but since realizing that I had no credit history in the US (that doesn't mean I had bad history, it means I've been in Taiwan so long that my previous history no longer exists, so I had none other than my student loans) and working to fix that, I've come to realize I'm not a good bet for anyone offering such a tool. In Taiwan, I would be, because I have a history here.

I do want a mortgage - I don't want to always wonder if we're going to be asked to move from our current perfect space, and I would like to be able to remodel and renovate as I like. Some have suggested that I buy a cheaper space for cash out in Xinbei somewhere and rent it out so I can at least say I own property, but the point is to live in the space we own, so that's not really a solution.

There is no solution to the pension issue other than to be a citizen, as well, nor to the problem of participation and political representation.

And, yet again, it doesn't solve any of the concerns of feeling like I'm living a half-life in a country that is home, without full rights or representation. There is no solution to that other than naturalization.

Ugh, privileged foreigners thinking everyone should kowtow to you. You're not special!

Oh trust me, I know I'm not special. If I didn't know, there are maybe a billion people on the Internet waiting to tell me so. I'm quite aware, thank you.

It's just that being allowed to naturalize in the place you call home shouldn't be based on how special you are - the point, again, is to make the process more egalitarian, not less.

I don't want to be kowtowed to. I just don't want to be told that my contributions are not worthy, and I'm about as useful to Taiwan as a plastic bag that washed up on the beach in Yilan, simply because my contributions and background are not just like some other guy who is apparently a better person for some reason. I just want the laws that apply to Taiwanese who gain a second nationality to cover me similarly. I want to end the double standard. That's not asking to be kowtowed to - what I want is entirely reasonable. 

Taking me out of the equation, the new regulations are also unfair to children born here to non-citizens. This doesn't seem to fix their major issues at all. If anything, they deserve priority - not missionaries or tech workers. 

Why do you care so much about being a citizen? 

There are the practical reasons above, but here I'd like to speak from the heart. Simply put, I love this country. I'm not even sure I can fully explain why, and I am not a naturally patriotic person. I would not call this feeling 'patriotism', really, or 'nationalism'. Patriotism is jingoistic in a way that has never appealed to me - I love places, not governments. Nationalism? Well, I wouldn't say I am nationalistic about the Republic of China. I'd be happy to see it cease to exist in favor of the Republic of Taiwan. I keep saying 'Taiwanese citizen' because Taiwan is what I love, not the ROC. It's not unintentional.

As for why...oh, where to begin. Perhaps I'd feel differently if I were born here, but I was born into a country that uses its hegemonic position in the world to assert continued dominance and prop up its own prosperity. I don't know what to say about how to change that, only that I don't find it appealing in terms of national character. But Taiwan is different - yes, its history has had its own agonies and internal power struggles, but from an international perspective, especially in the modern era, what I see is a nation that quietly insists on its continued existence, even as few recognize its right to same. A nation of people who wake up every morning and go about their day, trying to build a better country and land for themselves, knowing in the back of their minds that 1300 or so missiles are pointed right at them at all times. A land prone to rebellion and protest, which is anything but submissive or supplicant, that has had a unique, non-monolithic culture that persists despite what the various colonial regimes that have controlled the land have forced upon it - from the Dutch to the Chinese to the Japanese to the Chinese again. It's a nation of people who don't give up and whose predilection for civic engagement has deep historical roots. Even when they can't fight back directly, and even as they try to preserve peace, they are always fighting. Through every agony, they persist.

That's the character of the place I call home. I suppose it is also the best, or most direct, explanation, of why I care so much. Of course I want to be a fully-fledged member of a society such as this. 

There's no point. You will never be Taiwanese and you will never be fully accepted. 

Yeah, I know, and I've accepted this.

It's not even necessarily a bad thing - Taiwanese history is not my history, and I would not seek to appropriate it. It belongs to the people whose ancestors lived it and I respect that.

But pushing for social and 'everyday' acceptance is a different battle from pushing for legal/governmental acceptance. I don't see how we can truly ask for the former if the latter is denied us. So there is a point, and it doesn't require every person in the country suddenly welcoming people who don't look like them as exactly the same as them (to be honest, culturally we are not exactly the same and it is okay to acknowledge that).

This is true, and this is the point, even before we get into questions of what it means to be Taiwanese (which I will not get into here). 

Why should Taiwan give you citizenship? They're doing this based on what they have decided is beneficial to them, and clearly what you provide isn't valuable enough. 

Gee, thanks, if you think this, it's nice to know you think I'm garbage too.

Anyway, think what you want. I am neither Super Foreigner bringing succor to everyone around me nor Leech Foreigner, sucking the teat of the Taiwanese economy for my own benefit. I work hard, I do good work, I pay my taxes, I donate to some local charities, I engage where I can in civic activism, I slowly build credentials and professionalism. I contribute to the local economy just like any citizen. I am trying to raise the standard of my profession across the nation, or at least be a part of that change. 

You can't even order a cake on the Internet in Taiwan if you're not a citizen

I'm not quite a typical English teacher in that I'm going for a Master's in the subject, and have already published in a notable journal. I have a Delta - you may sneeze at it, but I can only name maybe 10 other people in the country who have one, and there may not be more than 20 total (I have no way of verifying this, but this-is-my-career professional English teachers in Taiwan are a small community so I'd put money on my guess being more or less accurate). I'm not as replaceable as an average twentysomething. Point is, I do contribute. I'm not a leech.

Who's to say that this makes me more or less valuable than a tech worker (there are lots of those)? Or a missionary who might do some good work but often enjoys an institutional advantage in doing so, seeks to make a return on that good work in terms of converts, and may (note the hedging here - not all missionaries are the same) well spread ideologies I, and many if not most Taiwanese, find outdated and repulsive? Why should the argument even be about who is a 'better' foreigner? How is this a better argument than making it about blood and ancestry?

So, that's not the argument I want to make, because it creates divisions rather than promoting egalitarianism. An uncertified nobody English teacher working for Hess, if they are otherwise an economic contributor, deserves citizenship as much as I do, and as much as any PhD, tech worker or missionary. Someone born here to non-Taiwanese parents deserves it even more.

Truth be told, it is simply hurtful. To basically be told by the government - and some horrid Internet commenters - that your contributions are meaningless and you deserve to be ignored - is a slap in the face after trying for a decade to be a good, engaged, law-abiding and contributing citizen even though I am not a citizen at all. To literally be told I'm second-rate and don't "make the cut". I do not think the government set out to be hurtful, nor that they realized that by telling some foreigners that they are 'high-level' foreigners, that they were essentially telling others they are low-level, but that is the effect. 

It's those xenophobic Hoklo chauvinist DPP troublemakers again !!!!exclamationpoint!!!

No, it isn't. Note how the biggest breakthrough in amending citizenship laws came under the new DPP administration. The DPP of the 90s may have been somewhat Hoklo nationalist, but the DPP of today has figured out that this wasn't a good path for them to continue on (and I say that as someone who isn't a DPP supporter, though admittedly I despise the KMT far more). 

The old laws, the one that prevent people of non-Chinese ancestry (again, whatever that means) from gaining citizenship - but allow at least some foreign-born Chinese to have it - were written in the 1920s by the ROC and upheld by the KMT through a tumultuous century. Although they were at times amended, the ROC/KMT showed no interest in allowing foreign naturalization with dual nationality at any of those times. It took President Tsai taking office for even a small step to be made in that direction.

In short, this isn't a "Hoklo nationalist" issue at all. It's a Republic of China issue. I love Taiwan, not the Republic of China, but for legal purposes that doesn't matter. In any case, don't blame one group for it just because you are searching for things to criticize. 

You don't deserve citizenship because you would never fight for Taiwan. If, say, China actually invaded, you'd just run back to where you came from. That's probably why you don't want to give up your original nationality.

Ah, you've got that backwards. I wouldn't stay and fight for Taiwan now because I am not a citizen. Why would I fight for a country that won't fight for me? I've already invested in a country that won't invest in me, that's already saying a lot. If I were granted citizenship, I would not turn and flee so quickly. I love Taiwan, and I would, in fact, fight for her. I won't even say that about the country I was born in!

This is not at all why I don't want to give up my original nationality. I would view returning to the US as a step backward, not forward.


You just want Taiwan to give, give, give. You have a privileged existence in Taiwan already, be happy with that! 

In fact, I don't just want Taiwan to "give". I've spent ten years of my life doing what I can to be a net benefit or contributor to Taiwan (although I cannot work for free because, unlike a missionary, I don't have an institution funding me, I do try to contribute). Only recently, after all that, have I come to want equal opportunity to naturalize and hold dual nationality under the law rather than be subject to an unfair double standard. I would not, however, be asking for this if I didn't feel I had in fact given more than I'd taken.

It is true that white Western foreigners enjoy a lot of privileges in Taiwan. I don't like this, and don't want the privilege, but the nature of privilege is of course that you don't get to choose it and it doesn't matter if you identify with it: you have it or you don't all the same.

However, by making things equal for all foreigners and equal under the law for naturalized and born citizens regarding dual nationality, I'm arguing in fact to be treated more like a Taiwanese, not less. I want political representation, just as any immigrant would.

I don't think this is a crazy, privileged, selfish or irrational request. 

Greetings from a low-level, non-outstanding foreigner!

Many in the foreign community are celebrating new regulations allowing certain "high-level" foreigners to retain their original citizenship when applying for Taiwanese nationality - basically, doing away with the requirement, for them, to give up their original nationality in order to become a Taiwanese citizen. This comes after months of advocating for change, including a period of public comment on the regulations in question.

I guess you could see this as a tiny step forward. Many people do. It's something, that's for sure - but I'm not celebrating.

What this does is allow the government to rest on its laurels, thinking they've 'done something' about the problem of very long-term foreigners, foreigners who are barely 'foreign' anymore, who see Taiwan as their home (in many cases, who were born and raised here). It gives them an out to, honestly, not do anything more for quite some time. In the meantime, the rest of us are left out in the cold. As far as I can tell, this includes Taiwanese with non-Taiwanese parents, that is, anyone who was born and raised in Taiwan and is for all intents and purposes Taiwanese, but are treated as 'foreigners' simply because they have the wrong kind of face.

It also creates more divisions in the expat community where there needn't be any. There are already unfair and unnecessary divisions between laborers, mainly from Southeast Asia, and "professionals", mainly from Western nations. If you think that has nothing to do with racism, you're kidding yourself.

In any case, what differentiates a 'high-level' foreigner from a scrub, in that gray area where people like me reside?

I can't help but take it a little bit personally. Certainly, people might read this and think "she's just mad because she didn't meet the requirements!" but, in fact, I'd be mad even if I did, because the requirements are fundamentally unfair.

Seriously, though, it does make me feel as though my many years of busting my ass to actually be a professional in a field that is not always looked upon as professional means nothing, and that I do not even deserve what every Taiwanese - and some special foreigners - is able to obtain. That ten years of further busting my already busted ass to gain credentials and experience including, but not limited to, pieces of paper, and to be an active force for raising the standard of English language education in Taiwan across the board (I am a part of a group of people trying to bring better teacher training programs to Taiwan, for example) is still insufficient: that I am still trash, as far as Taiwan is concerned, not worthy of consideration, having made no contribution to the country at all.

And, because they passed this fistful of garbage, it is likely to be some time, if ever, before that changes.

Or I could get my PhD (I was thinking about it anyway), take a job at some third-rate university teaching college students in "conversational English" classes of 65+ who don't want to be there, pressured to pass them all anyway, and obtain dual nationality because that is somehow better than what I'm doing now, working with small groups of adults and achieving real results with real-life ramifications, for some fucking reason.

So yeah, needless to say I am not exactly overjoyed that the Taiwanese government decided to tell foreigners that some of you are kind of OK, but the rest of you? Don't let the door hit you on the way out, we don't need or want you enough to give you equal rights (but then complaining that, say, standards of English proficiency in Taiwan are too low). I'm not jumping for joy that a system of divisions and double-and-triple standards is being implemented where no such divisions need to exist. I'm not excited about being labeled a scrub because my pieces of paper are not as good as some other pieces of paper. I'm not happy that the government has decided that my ten years of being devoted to Taiwan and attempting to contribute positively to Taiwan are worthless.

I am also not exactly happy that, up until recently, the government has snubbed people who were actually born and raised here in favor of bestowing a unicorn-like waiver allowing dual nationality to some missionary (as a friend-of-a-friend pointed out, always a white Christian missionary). While I do not deny that missionaries do some good work, the side dish of evangelizing that comes with it is not good for Taiwan. The institutional advantage they enjoy because they have a big religious organization funding their work (which they use to preach their religion, which often comes with preaching the intolerance and bigotry that Christianity is unfortunately known for), which the rest of us can't possibly compete with because we can't afford to work for free, earns little sympathy from me. I await your hate mail for this opinion, but there it is.

In short, I am not dancing in the street over this. It is simply not good enough.

Anyway, enjoy your dual nationality, Some Foreigners.

I'll be over here grumbling in my trash can, where the Taiwanese government apparently thinks I originated and where I belong.