The current issue of the State Report does not include guidance on marital sexual behavior, personal sexual life, and guidance of sexual behavior prior to marriage, etc. for the people with disabilities.
According to Article 50 (5) of the “People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act”, the state should provide personal support service on “marriage and maternity guidance.” The legal principle has to treat persons with disabilities as having the right for marriage, sex and maternity. The evaluation tools for people with disabilities in our country also include assessments on whether people with disabilities need support services to meet their demands for intimate relationships and sexual behavior. However, there are currently only legal processes to demand evaluation without related policy planning and service resources to support the accessibility to their emotional and sexual lives by people with disabilities.
Our suggestion is that the state examines problems of current practice, and provides related policy planning and service support.
In 2012, the Legislative Yuan adopted on first reading of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MOIA)’ Nationality Act amendments. In 2014, during discussion of Article 3 of the “Nationality Act” at the Internal Affairs Committee meeting in the Legislative Yuan, the MOIA insisted on using the abstract phrase “moral rectitude” as one of the qualifications of naturalization for foreign spouses. The Minister added a new article on the draft, indicating that it has the final say on whether or not a person has moral rectitude. This is an unlimited expansion to the administrative right to decide whether or not a civilian should obtain her or his nationality. Moreover, Article 4 of the current Nationality Act provides no special treatment for foreign spouses undergoing domestic violence or those widowed, and they have to meet the financial requirements for naturalization as any foreigner. In the amendment draft, Article 4 will consider those who have become divorcees because of domestic violence or widowed as “foreign spouses” with a lower financial requirement. However, in order to be eligible for this clause, they need to prove that they financially “support” the parents of the deceased spouse. Because there is no specific definition of supporting, foreign spouses become vulnerable in the process of naturalization to the judgement and opinion of spouse’ parents, who might not be satisfied with the way they are supported. In particular, if the state does not approve of the manner in which theses divorced or widowed foreign spouses maintain their parents-in-law, they may lose their right to special naturalization as foreign spouses. This affects their rights and benefits as well as those of their children. In addition, Article 1115 of the Civil Code ranks parents-in-law as 6th in priority for claims on support obligations. The duty of widowed and divorced foreign spouses to support their children should come before the duty to their parents-in-law.
Under Articles 3 and 4 of the draft “Nationality Act” by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, family will be the key determinant on foreign spouses obtaining nationality. However, the state has established various obstacles for the naturalization of foreign spouses, which will prevent the active protection for family and children mentioned on Articles 23 and 24 of the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).” These challenges, at the same time, indirectly violate paragraph 6 of general opinion No. 21, and Articles 2 and 5 of CEDAW. They also violate Article 9 of the “Convention on the Rights of the Children (CRC)” on no separation between children and parents.
We urge the MOIA to modify the definition of “moral rectitude” on Article 3 of the “Nationality Act” immediately, and restrict its own unlimited administrative rights on nationality for civilians. The ministry should also eliminate sentences requiring foreign spouses to “foster their spouse’ parents” to ensure protection of the immigration status of foreign spouses. This can, in turn, help foreign spouses stabilize their own livelihoods in Taiwan.
The issue of family reunion exists not only when foreign juvenile children apply for residency in Taiwan. The state should also handle the issue regarding foreign parents of Taiwanese juvenile children who are unable to apply residency in Taiwan. According to Article 31 of the “Immigration Act,” the right of residency of divorced foreign spouses is determined by custody of their juvenile children. If a foreign spouse does not meet the financial requirement for naturalizes, this foreign spouse can only legally reside in Taiwan until her or his children reach the age of 20. Moreover, under Article 23 of the “Immigration Act” and Article 13 of the “Enforcement Rules for the Issuance of ROC Visas to Foreign-Passport Holders,” they will not be eligible to apply for “dependent residence” from embassies and missions abroad for entrance into Taiwan because they are neither “the spouse of a Taiwanese citizen” nor “juvenile descendent of a Taiwanese national.”
All the aforementioned articles not only violate Articles17 and 23 of the ICCPR, they also violate the spirits in Articles 3, 9, 12, 18 of the CRC.
Defeating human trafficking and improving the right of family reunion for all families are not in conflict. So, the “Enforcement Rules for the Issuance of ROC Visas to Foreign-Passport Holders” should be revised as soon as possible, expanding to include applicable parties for “residence permit” or “identity transition from visitor to resident.” In addition, the Ministry of Internal Affairs should also broaden the residency rules and regulations mentioned in Articles 23 and 31, so that foreigners who truly “foster juvenile children with Taiwan nationality” may apply residency in Taiwan or extend their residency in order to take care and foster their children. This way, the state would be able to ensure the rights of family reunion of immigrant families, and avoid situations where the immigration status of marriage immigrants is uncertain.