Is bigger better?
A recent editorial (Editorial, Feb. 14, page 8) criticized certain methods the government is adopting in an effort to increase the birthrate in response to the supposed threat of a declining population and an aging society.
It is astonishing that few have bothered to question the premise on which this change has been made, namely that society needs more people, especially in Taiwan, a country with the world’s second-highest population density.
Furthermore, neither the editorial, the government nor the pundits mention anything but the hypothetical negative consequences of a declining population and aging demographic structure. What about the positive effects of reducing pressure on the environment and smaller class sizes in schools, to name only two, or the numerous and serious negatives that come hand in hand with an increased birthrate?
While the current government policies of honeymoon vouchers, encouraging soap operas, slogan contests and so on are faintly ridiculous, they also miss an excellent opportunity to address serious flaws in the governments premise: quantity over quality.
By increasing the birthrate to cater for an aging population, there is a need to increase the birthrate again to cater for that aging generation and then again for the next, as people live longer and longer.
Raising the birthrate is a “Band-Aid solution,” which the editorial criticized. Does it make sense to devote all the additional resources needed for education, housing and social services for these babies when those same resources could much more efficiently be applied directly to caring for our elders?
Regarding the proposal for “generous and long-term” financial incentives to increase the birthrate, it is useful to take a look at Japan and South Korea’s recent efforts on this front.
Financial incentives were not convincing enough when couples and individuals lacked sufficient money for themselves in an increasingly expensive world, nevermind bringing up a child.
Furthermore, women now marry later, giving priority to career opportunities and social mobility over reproduction and raising children.
A simple review of the literature on academic research into Taiwan’s declining birthrate supports these assertions, yet the editorial and government policy seem intent on ignoring such considerations, preferring instead to take the expedient course of appearing to be “doing something,” but basically wasting taxpayer’s money.
In summary, before we truly accept the assertion that we need more young people to support an aging and decreasing population in order to avoid economic catastrophe, let’s first look at whether the “catastrophe” is simply hyperbole.
For such an important issue, the government should reach out with an open mind and seek input from the public as well as the experiences of other countries to see whether there might be more sustainable and long-term ways to support the non-working population. For starters, we could look at ways to encourage an increase in savings rates, a rethinking of public spending and careful planning for a better social security system.
EMILY WHEWELL
Taipei
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations