Response to interpellation 2023/24:591 on the designation of Taiwan in the Swedish population register
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the Swedish Tax Agency's designation of Taiwan in the population register. M does not intend to take general measures as the Swedish Tax Agency follows international standards 1 2. M emphasizes that the government uses the designation Taiwan on its website and that the agency itself decides on names in the population register 2 3. S argues that the name change may have occurred due to pressure from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and that the current designation is political and offensive to Swedish-Taiwanese 4 5. S wants the correct designation to be used 6. SD considers the designation incorrect and a scandal that may be due to pressure 7. SD wants the government to address the information regarding pressure 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Mathias Tegnér has asked me if I intend to take any general measures in view of the Swedish Tax Agency's current designation of Taiwan.
Skatteverket's registration of data in the population register follows the Swedish name standard. Skatteverket applies the standard ISO 3166 regarding codes and names in Swedish.
How the names of countries and regions are stated in the population register is something that Skatteverket decides in its application. I do not intend to take any general measures.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Finance, for the answer! About six years ago, the Swedish Tax Agency announced that they had chosen to change the designation of the Republic of China, i.e., Taiwan, in the population register. The change meant that the name was changed to Taiwan, province of China.
I have, just as the Minister for Finance accounted for, posed a question regarding this. The background to why I have posed the question is that there has been a discussion in the media regarding that this change was initiated by a push from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, which perhaps indicates that the Swedish Tax Agency's decision was not as independent as the Minister for Finance just described it in his answer.
The reason this is of interest is that China appears to be working internationally to ensure that names and definitions worldwide align with China's one-China principle. According to a report from the National Knowledge Centre on China, NKK, which is a separate center at the Institute of Foreign Policy, China's principle can be defined as that there is only one China, and Taiwan is part of it.
This differs from the understanding of the issue in the USA, the EU, and Sweden. We describe our approach as a one-China policy. This policy is admittedly similar to China's principle in that it is based on an understanding that there is one China, but the decisive difference is that the one-China policy does not express that Taiwan is a part of or should be reunited with China.
For example, former Foreign Minister Ann Linde stated that the contradictions between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan must be resolved in a peaceful manner and in a way that corresponds with the will of the people of Taiwan.
There is a report from the Institute of Foreign Affairs from 2022. There, in connection with the one-China policy and the naming issue, it is written: ". offers no clear guidance regarding the designation of Taiwan. The Government writes on its website that 'Different designations of Taiwan occur in different international contexts. The Government uses the designation Taiwan.'"
The text continues and the quote likewise: "At the same time, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs has stated that 'how independent Swedish authorities choose to refer to Taiwan is up to them themselves.'"
According to UI's report, it is therefore up to the individual actor to determine which designation of Taiwan is best suited for the context. Several agencies, including Skatteverket, have now chosen the designation Taiwan, province of China. This is therefore a term that China prefers but which many Swedish-Taiwanese detest. In this context, the naming issue can be considered political. Even though I, just like the Minister for Finance, believe that naming issues should not be political, this question becomes relevant because Skatteverket changed the name and, according to reports in the media, did so due to pressure from an official at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
Fundamentally, I believe it is important that Sweden has a unified and consistent China and Taiwan policy. It is a foreign policy discussion, and I realize that we should not have it linked to this interpellation. But given how the Finance Minister's party friends and today's government base campaigned on issues linked to Taiwan during the last parliamentary term, it becomes important to review this issue when there are indications that the process actually has not gone correctly. It becomes extra important when it appears that the definition being used is not functional, given how Swedish-Taiwanese react when they see it.
Markus Wiechel (SD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the interpellor for raising this important issue, but also the Minister for the answer to the interpellation.
China's actions around the world are worrying. It is not just about espionage and the acquisition of critical infrastructure, which we have all read about, but also about various forms of pressure.
It is also, or should be, pressures that have caused a Swedish authority to now use an incorrect designation for Taiwan. There is simply no other logical explanation than that it must be pressures. This is in itself a scandal. It is a scandal not least because it is almost insulting towards Taiwanese. Furthermore, it does not even correspond with reality. And it causes confusion, because of an authority that has the task of facilitating and trying to help both Swedish-Taiwanese and others in various matters concerning Taiwan.
As Mathias Tegnér recently mentioned, there is strong support for a developed cooperation with Taiwan - not least in this government and in the government base among the Sverigedemokraterna. We have seen this support particularly in the Moderate parliamentary group and among government representatives. We have seen it through Tobias Billström and Ulf Kristersson - both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister - who have several times mentioned Taiwan in various contexts in a way that has actually shown a groundbreaking trend in Sweden. It is something that I and many with me have been pleased about.
Against this background, I still have respect for the fact that the government does not want to micro-manage an agency. The government should not micro-manage an agency. But there is a problem when we see an agency that is not doing its job, and I firmly mean that the Swedish Tax Agency in this case is not doing it.
Until 2018, as is well known, a more correct designation for Taiwan was used, namely Republic of China, Taiwan, which is the official name. A long line of other countries around the world have, similar to the Swedish Tax Agency, previously used that designation. The Swedish Tax Agency follows the same international standard as they do, ISO 3166, which in fact does not in any way force the Swedish Tax Agency to use an incorrect designation. The countries that use the correct designation also follow a so-called one-China policy. In other words, it actually would not change our one-China policy if one simply returned to how it was until 2018.
Against that background, Madam Speaker, I would like a somewhat clearer answer from the Minister as to whether it is, for example, believed that it is pressure that has been the basis for this change.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! One must be allowed to keep what this is about separate. I am responsible for the Swedish Tax Agency as an authority, but I do not, as I have said, intend to interfere with how the agency designates different countries. On that point, I hold the same position as previous Finance Ministers have held.
With that said, the government is very clear that we have long used the designation Taiwan on the government's website. I want to clarify that we inform everyone who asks questions to UD and others of this. The EU also consistently uses the designation Taiwan, while the Swedish Tax Agency applies a standard that many others also use, which I mentioned in the answer.
Madam Speaker! How the names of countries and regions are stated in the population register is something that Skatteverket decides in its application. I can understand that people have views and thoughts about it, but I will not, as the responsible minister for the agency, point out which names Skatteverket should use for different countries. There are also international standards for this.
One can, of course and with full right, have a foreign policy debate and discussion about Taiwan. It is important. We often have that in this chamber, and it is the Minister for Foreign Affairs who has that area as his main responsibility. I also know, if there haven't been any changes in today's agenda, that Tobias Billström will come here for a similar issue in a little while.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Finance, for the answer!
At the core, I naturally share the Minister for Finance's view that authorities that are independent can handle naming issues. What prompted me to write this interpellation was the public discussion, admittedly across different types of media, where it was reasoned in terms of that there had actually been an influence that no one really wanted to be held accountable for. In that case, the question of the name change becomes somewhat special, and that is the background to why I am raising the issue.
If it is indeed the case that an authority, according to the report I am referring to, shall use the designation that best fits the context, and we know that many of the people who receive different types of mailings from the Swedish Tax Agency's population register personally think it is a very poor definition, it puts the question in a new light and is well worth a discussion.
In summary, I would argue that these types of questions are not insignificant, especially not in the geopolitical situation we find ourselves in. When there are questions about influence, one possibility could be to return to the old designation, which in itself does not imply any change to the Swedish one-China policy.
Again: The ambition with this interpellation is therefore not to conduct any form of opposition politics regarding the Swedish Tax Agency's definitions of different countries. I still think perhaps that the naming issue should be addressed. I do not even know if it is true that there is a hidden agenda linked to the process, but many Swedish-Taiwanese perceive that the designation is not relevant.
Therefore, I naturally regret the Finance Minister's statement that she does not intend to look further into the issue. I do not know – perhaps it is the case that the Finance Minister is fully occupied with lowering taxes for Sweden's richest.
Markus Wiechel (SD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to once again thank the Minister for Finance for the answer to this question. As I mentioned in my previous speech, I have great respect for the fact that the government does not want to intervene and micro-manage an agency. The government should, of course, not do that.
However, I see problems when there are indications that it may have been pressure that caused this to be changed. If that is the case, I hope that the government addresses it. Furthermore, there is really no logical explanation for why it was changed here, which actually occurred when the Social Democrats were in power and held this position.
Against this background, I hope that one at least takes seriously the information that pressure may have caused this.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! I appreciate that the question is raised. The question of Taiwan is important, and as I mentioned in my previous contribution, the government is clear on how we refer to Taiwan, namely just as such.
As the responsible minister for the Swedish Tax Agency, it would not be appropriate for me to step in and decide how the Swedish Tax Agency, in this case, designates Taiwan. That being said, I know that there will be a debate here in a little while on approximately the same subject.
Just for the sake of saying it: I do not think we should bring tax policy into this. It really has nothing to do with it. But it doesn't matter – sometimes a social democrat cannot help himself.
I thank you for the debate, and so we shall see if the members continue the debate with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in a little while.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Finance is, of course, right that we should not involve tax policy in this. We must view it as a small lapse on my part.
I had, as I said, no ambition to make this a matter of party politics, but I noted that Member Wiechel, who has entered the debate, nevertheless wanted a certain amount of party political debate.
It is true that this happened during a Social Democratic government. My view is not that what has happened is anything political, i.e., that any government has had any opinion regarding this. Possibly it seems that some kind of influence has occurred.
The Sweden Democrats' interest in this issue has grown since the war in Ukraine began, that is to say, at the same time as it became possible to be critical of Russia for the first time. I, who have sat in the Riksdag since 2014, remember how SD used to be significantly more pro-Russia, and at that time it was probably difficult to stand behind Taiwan.
We will take the foreign policy debate at another time. But I still want to be clear that I perceive this naming issue linked to Skatteverket as completely non-political. On the other hand, it is important that we use the correct designation.
TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN
The Minister has now announced that she will refrain from giving her closing remarks in this interpellation debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.