Taiwan’s birth rate is dropping like a stone, and is now the lowest in the world. If nothing is done, the population will age and the long-term consequences would cause drastic national problems. The Ministry of the Interior has announced a competition to come up with a slogan that will encourage people to have children. It has caused quite a stir, but most people are joking about it rather than making serious suggestions.
Many of the slogans suggested by Internet users are ridiculing the idea of slogan-induced birth rates. Anyone who believes a NT$1 million (US$31,500) reward will produce a slogan that will make people want to have children just by hearing it, and that a single slogan can reverse a major social trend, is being a bit too simplistic.
Government agencies have already come up with innumerable policies — birth subsidies, educational allowances and pregnancy and maternity leave — to encourage people to have children, but Taiwanese birth rates still remain the world’s lowest. These policies have been ineffective because the government has not always implemented them, while industry has not given its full support and the general public has not fully accepted them.
If we look at the government’s implementation of the maternity leave policy as an example, business has not cooperated even though the government issued a legal order. Pregnant workers do not trust that they can return to their jobs after going on maternity leave. The result is that the law looked good, but is rarely applied. When even policy and legal decisions are useless, what good will a slogan do?
The population issue is a serious problem, but the ministry’s slogan concept will remain a quaint news report. The focus should instead be on the fact that low birth rates are a general trend in the post-industrial world. European countries, for example, have many policies to promote childbirth, but birth rates remain low. The results of Taiwan’s family planning may have surpassed those of other countries in the past, but given that the problem of low birthrates has been developing for years, it should have been easy to foresee that subsidies would be necessary to promote population growth.
The problem is not one of slogans, and the results of preferential policies have been limited. Falling population numbers have already become an unstoppable trend, and so it becomes necessary to find the real causes behind it. This is more important than any slogan.
In modern society both husband and wife must work, bringing in two salaries to pay the cost of bringing up children, educating them and paying for the family’s medical bills, often across at least three generations. The childcare system is insufficient at best and nonexistent or unrealistically expensive at worst. Many companies do not accept maternity leave. The economy is sluggish. Unemployment figures, housing prices and divorce rates are high. The natural environment is deteriorating at an alarming rate with no indication that anything will be done about it. The public has no enthusiasm for the country’s future. With so many problems in need of a solution, it is only natural that people think twice before having children.
The ministry’s approach to the low birth rate issue is a direct copy of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) rule by propaganda and slogan.
The authorities are avoiding the real issues and hope to divert the focus with slick advertising and cute slogans. They are doing nothing to facilitate a real solution, while the public once again sees through it all to the government’s “impotence.”
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something