Before then-Taipei mayor Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) put an end to legal prostitution in the capital, the city was the only place in Taiwan where it was allowed. Twelve years later, however, the wisdom of his decision is hotly debated. Now, legalizing prostitution is again on the table, with the Ministry of the Interior last week proposing to set up red-light districts.
The glaring reality is that forcing sex workers into the shadows has done nothing to put an end to the business — nor to the scourges of human trafficking and exploitation that often accompany the practice. Many observers and sex workers are concerned that outlawing the trade has exacerbated these problems and left some of society’s most vulnerable women with fewer options than ever to pursue a better life for themselves and their families.
Faced with this, the government has returned to the question of whether selling sex should be legal. Red-light districts would allow the authorities to monitor an industry that is notoriously abusive toward its workers. But the proposal ignores another option with potential for greater and more equitable results: Shifting criminal responsibility for prostitution away from sex workers and onto their customers.
Article 80 of the Social Order and Maintenance Act (社會秩序維護法) is a deplorable example of the chauvinist forces that linger in this society. As it stands, sex workers face prison terms and fines, while their customers have nothing to fear. The law effectively suggests sex workers are “temptresses” to blame for “social ills,” while patrons can be forgiven — even though it is their wallets that sustain the industry and its related abuses. This is incomprehensible unless one considers that the system that created the legislation was probably replete with people who themselves feared a run-in with the law.
The article is also completely ineffective and ignores the fact that the vast majority of sex workers did not enter the industry willingly — and are hoping for a way out. For prostitutes already working in wretched conditions, the threat of criminal prosecution could hardly be a better deterrent than other hardships faced on a daily basis. Threats are pointless if doors remain closed.
In April, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) proposed amending the law, but, like the Ministry of the Interior, suggested full legalization of the sex industry.
Legalized prostitution, however, has not stopped human trafficking and rampant physical abuse (including sexual assault) of sex workers in, say, Amsterdam.
The Collective of Sex Workers and Supporters has decried the criminalization of prostitution in Taiwan, warning that it has led to deteriorating work conditions and has allowed gangsters to strengthen their hold on the industry. But legalizing the sex industry is unlikely to cure these ills.
This is why the Swedish model is often cited by rights advocates who want to see an end to the prosecution of prostitutes without condoning the industry’s systematic abuses. Sweden has reported steady progress in reducing prostitution by punishing customers rather than sex workers.
In its annual human rights reports, the US State Department continues to cite human trafficking and violence against women as key concerns in Taiwan. Law enforcement efforts to crack down on the perpetrators of these acts must be redoubled.
At the same time, Taiwan needs to overhaul the law to end the counterproductive persecution of a marginalized and exploited segment of society. If the best our politicians can do is oscillate between legalizing and outlawing prostitution, decades may pass with no hope of improvement.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
After 37 US lawmakers wrote to express concern over legislators’ stalling of critical budgets, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) pledged to make the Executive Yuan’s proposed NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.7 billion) special defense budget a top priority for legislative review. On Tuesday, it was finally listed on the legislator’s plenary agenda for Friday next week. The special defense budget was proposed by President William Lai’s (賴清德) administration in November last year to enhance the nation’s defense capabilities against external threats from China. However, the legislature, dominated by the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), repeatedly blocked its review. The
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
RSS