“In tones as smooth as butter on bread, Ssu-chi (思琪) said to her mother: ‘We have learned all sorts of things in this family — the only thing missing is sex education.’ With a look of surprise, her mother replied: ‘What sex education? Sex education is for people who need sex. Isn’t that what education is all about?’ At that moment, Ssu-chi understood that her parents would always be absent from this story. They had skipped class without even knowing that classes had begun.”
This passage from Lin Yi-han’s (林奕含) novel The Playground of Fang Ssu-chi’s First Love (房思琪的初戀樂園) makes for sad reading in the context of its author’s suicide and begs the question: Is sex education really only for people who need sex?
Recently, the media pointed an accusing finger at judges in a sexual assault case involving a seven-year-old girl.
Commentators were surprised that the judges gave the perpetrator a light sentence after determining that the sexual acts had been “consensual.”
However, the judges’ decision was based on a resolution passed at the seventh conference of the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division in 2010.
The resolution states that intercourse with a person less than seven years old should be considered aggravated sexual intercourse — a serious offense punishable by at least seven years in prison.
However, if the victim is aged between seven and 14, the court should investigate if the act was consensual and only if it is determined to have been non-consensual should it be ruled aggravated sexual intercourse.
If it is determined to have been consensual, it is to be handled according to Article 227, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code, which states: “A person who has sexual intercourse with a male or female under the age of 14 shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than three years, but not more than 10 years.”
This is why whether sex was consensual becomes a key point of contention in cases of sexual assault involving people who are more than seven years old. However, the idea that sex under such circumstances can be defined as consensual is ridiculous.
Is a seven-year-old capable of expressing his or her will regarding sexual acts? If seven-year old children do not know what sex is, then when it is happening, the child is incapable of knowing what it is. In that case the child is not capable of expressing his or her desires.
One of the main purposes of sex education is for children to familiarize themselves with their bodies, to be able to distinguish between other people’s bodies and their own, and to learn respect for the autonomy and privacy they have over their own bodies and other people’s.
However, society is embarrassed about sex and treats it as a taboo. This can lead to an ostrich-like attitude to sex education that creates a hotbed for seduction of minors.
According to the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s statistics on reported sexual assaults last year, out of a total of 8,141 assault victims, 5,214, or 64 percent, were under the age of 18.
Among the “Fang Ssu-chis” I have encountered in the course of my work as a prosecutor and only counting cases in which substantial evidence could be found, the youngest victim of sexual assault was four years old.
Many “Fang Ssu-chis” have told me things like “uncle said he was playing a game with me” or “at the time I didn’t know what daddy was doing to me.” In such situations, the sexual behavior likely happened without resistance, so no one can say the person went “against the victim’s will.”
There are also “Fang Ssu-chis” who are not clear about where various parts of their bodies are and so cannot correctly identify which parts of their bodies have been sexually assaulted.
For many “Fang Ssu-chis,” it is not until they grow a bit older that they figure out what happened to them, but if several years have gone by they will have missed the chance to seek help from teachers or the judiciary, which could have prevented the molestation from continuing.
Some parents think that sex education is being taught too early and are fearful of giving children “sexual knowledge.” On May 2, Taipei Department of Education Commissioner Tseng Tsan-chin (曾燦金) said that sex education materials containing “inappropriate” content about gender equality would be withdrawn from schools, but what does “inappropriate” mean?
Media reports do not give a clear answer to this question. For example, if teaching materials say “sexual orientation does not necessarily correspond to biological gender,” this is a statement of fact. In that case, how can it be inappropriate? This issue calls for further discussion.
What will happen if we do not offer children correct sex education? If our sex education is just for those who need sex, there will be a huge gap of knowledge and power between those people and their naive and ignorant victims.
Those who have the knowledge and power would then find it easy not only to perpetrate abuses, but to cover their tracks and get away with it.
Wang Ching-yi is a public prosecutor at the Taoyuan District Prosecutors’ Office.
Translated by Julian Clegg
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS