VI. Conclusion and Recommendations A. Conclusion The distinction in eligibility for tuition subsidies between Taiwanese citizens and permanent residents and their children constitutes discrimination and does not comply with international human rights covenants. The petitioner, in this case, resides in Taiwan, holds permanent residency, and fulfills tax obligations like a citizen. Their child has received basic education in Taiwan from birth, following the national curriculum. Even though the child may not yet voluntarily naturalize, their family and upbringing are closely tied to Taiwan, making them effectively the next generation of our country. However, she was denied tuition subsidies solely because she failed to possess R.O.C. citizenship, which lacks sufficient justification. Using nationality as a criterion to determine eligibility for tuition subsidies does not comply with Article 13 of the ICESCR, Article 28 of the CRC, and General Recommendation No. 30 of the ICERD. B. Recommendations i. Tuition subsidies for secondary education should be the same for non-citizens with permanent residency and taxpayers as for citizens. Given that non-citizens who have obtained permanent residency and their children have been in Taiwan for an extended period, they have developed close ties to Taiwan in both their living and learning environments, effectively making them quasi-citizens. Therefore, in terms of fundamental rights such as life, health, and education, they should be treated as de facto citizens. The MOE argues that tuition subsidies do not apply to those with permanent residency because the funding comes from taxes paid by citizens, and this distinction is made to prevent the dilution of educational resources for Taiwanese students. However, since non-citizens earning income in Taiwan are subject to the same tax obligations as citizens, and considering the aforementioned analysis that 25