What better time to talk about reproduction than in the Year of the Rabbit?
In a report delivered last week to the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) Central Standing Committee, Minister without Portfolio James Hsueh (薛承泰) reiterated what is already common knowledge: Taiwan’s birthrate is one of the lowest in the world and continues to drop, from 8.29 births per 1,000 people in 2009, to 7.21 last year.
Indeed the rate of decline has itself accelerated so much that officials have had to revise the projection for when the population will actually start to shrink. In 2008, it was estimated that Taiwan would reach zero growth in 2026; now it is 2022.
The consequences of such trends are entirely negative. For one, a declining birthrate ages the population, increasing the percentage of elderly that must be supported by those still working. Currently 10.74 percent of Taiwan’s 23 million people are over 65, well above the 7 percent at which a society is defined as “ageing” by the WHO.
Just as important as the ratio of workers to non-workers is the quality of the workforce itself. Young workers tend to be better educated and more proficient with new technology. They are also more ambitious, innovative and willing to take risks. So even an aging population that remains healthy and productive will not compensate for a decline in new blood entering the system.
Last month, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called the dwindling birthrate a national security issue and ordered his administration to begin making plans. However, what these have amounted to so far is less than impressive. Among Hsueh’s proposals was that the government should give out honeymoon vouchers and promote having children through popular TV programs such as soap operas.
Instead of criticizing such a lackluster response, Ma applauded the suggestions and added that committee members should themselves have more children. He also said that all programs should be fast tracked because next year is the Year of the Dragon, an auspicious year in the Chinese zodiac for having babies.
Such solutions to population decline verge on idiotic. Indeed, the sheer ineptitude of the government’s response increases the problem by heightening one of its main causes, which is that people anxious about the future are less likely to make the kind of long-term commitment of time, money and energy that child rearing represents. What does it say for Taiwan’s future when the president looks to soap operas and the zodiac to resolve national security issues?
More substantial measures have been proposed, most involving cash incentives for having children. However, these are either too meager or too short-term to have a serious effect. All are band-aid responses to a problem that calls for broad-based, even visionary solutions. They are also incentives aimed at the lowest income levels of society, leaving out a middle class that increasingly bears the burden of rising costs, stagnating salaries and declining job prospects.
Could it be that deep down, Ma believes that Taiwan’s birthrate is just one more problem that will be resolved through closer ties with China? Unfortunately, thanks to a combination of Beijing’s one-child policy and a preference for boys, China’s demographic outlook is even worse than Taiwan’s.
If Taiwan is going to avoid demographic disaster, it must develop policies that are generous and long term. These policies must also address the problem in terms that are more than purely economic — and more than reproductive. In addition to consulting the zodiac, Ma may wish to look at countries like Australia, Canada and the US, which have managed their demographics more successfully through a combination of social support for families, immigration and planning to keep their aging citizens healthy and productive.
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength