Constitutional Interpretation No. 666 by the Council of Grand Justices has declared unconstitutional the first clause of Article 80 of the Social Order Maintenance Act (社會秩序維護法), under which sex workers, but not their customers, are fined. The council also declared that the clause would be voided in two years’ time.
We heartily agree with this decision. Following a campaign by Taipei’s licensed prostitutes in 1997, countless grassroots sex workers have sacrificed their lives, blood and tears. Thanks to the hard work of prostitution rights activists and supporting organizations, the call for decriminalizing the industry is finally gaining wider public support.
Even the few organizations that used to oppose the effort now agree that prostitutes should not be penalized. This shows that people have gradually freed themselves from moralistic and restrictive prejudices about sex. The latest ruling is a new milestone on this path, and it sets a positive example for Asia and for ethnic Chinese everywhere.
In our view, neither sex workers nor consumers should be punished for involvement in consensual sex transactions. However, where the business of sex affects the public interest, such as problems with public health, location of sex transactions, labor protection and prevention of associated criminal activity, the state should take appropriate measures to deal with these problems.
We suggest that the Cabinet and the legislature catch up with this gradually forming social consensus by recognizing that neither prostitutes nor their clients should be penalized.
They should then draft a law on the management of sex transactions between adults, along with complementary measures, and scrap Article 80 of the Act. A statement by the Ministry of the Interior in June that sex transactions conducted outside specified zones would continue to be regulated by the Act indicates that the direction of legislative amendment remains unclear.
Besides, as the grand justices stated: “No matter what policies political bodies choose to control sexual transactions in the future, they must bear in mind that the present interpretation has been made in consideration of the hardship suffered by grassroots sex workers compelled by a combination of many kinds of disadvantage.”
The ministry once promised to listen to sex workers in the process of amending the law, but it has not invited a single sex worker to take part in the policy formulation process.
As “Meizi,” a sex worker active on the streets, said: “Academics have never done sex work themselves, so how can they know what kind of arrangement is suitable for our needs?”
On the question of where sex-related businesses should be located, there should be appropriate restrictions that reflect local circumstances. Such areas could be delimited positively or negatively, and designating zones for sex transactions could be an option.
However, we cannot see how the draft proposed by the ministry in June would provide a guarantee of employment for middle-aged, elderly and underprivileged sex workers. The government should give such sex workers a chance to survive in a self-employed, self-managed capacity. At the same time, the authorities should actively propose better welfare and employment policies for grassroots sex workers so that those lacking resources have a wider variety of options.
Finally, as legal amendments are discussed over the two-year transitional period, we ask that city mayors and county commissioners implement the National Police Agency’s directive that police officers not receive merits for arresting sex workers. Local officials should not follow the example of Kaohsiung, Taipei and Taichung, which, when hosting the World Games, Deaflympics and National Games, harassed street vendors and sex workers because they wanted to give their cities a facelift.
We hope law enforcement agencies investigating sex work-related cases will take up a suggestion by Judicial Yuan Secretary-General Hsieh Wen-ting (謝文定) and respect the spirit of compassion and tolerance embodied elsewhere in the Social Order Maintenance Act by imposing light penalties — or no penalty at all.
Chung Chun-chu and Chang Jung-che are, respectively, the chief executive officer and policy director of the Collective of Sex Workers and Supporters (COSWAS).
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
China’s recent aggressive military posture around Taiwan simply reflects the truth that China is a millennium behind, as Kobe City Councilor Norihiro Uehata has commented. While democratic countries work for peace, prosperity and progress, authoritarian countries such as Russia and China only care about territorial expansion, superpower status and world dominance, while their people suffer. Two millennia ago, the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) would have advised Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that “people are the most important, state is lesser, and the ruler is the least important.” In fact, the reverse order is causing the great depression in China right now,
This should be the year in which the democracies, especially those in East Asia, lose their fear of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one China principle” plus its nuclear “Cognitive Warfare” coercion strategies, all designed to achieve hegemony without fighting. For 2025, stoking regional and global fear was a major goal for the CCP and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), following on Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Little Red Book admonition, “We must be ruthless to our enemies; we must overpower and annihilate them.” But on Dec. 17, 2025, the Trump Administration demonstrated direct defiance of CCP terror with its record US$11.1 billion arms
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
RSS