Third graders might have difficulty with multiplication and division, but they can cope with addition and subtraction of large figures. They might have difficulty extrapolating economic or climate change trends, but they will not find extrapolation of population size challenging.
The population in 20 years can be predicted from the number of births this year: Those turning 20 now were born 20 years ago. If too few people were born then, this year the nation will experience a shortage of students and workers. There will be no turning the clock back to encourage people to churn out babies for the nation.
Taiwan’s low birth rate has long been a matter of debate. The number of births fell from 247,000 in 2002 to 227,000 in 2003, hung at about the 190,000 to 200,000 mark for a while and dipped to 167,000 in 2009.
The percentage of middle-aged and elderly people increasing relative to other age groups has meant a corresponding increase in the death rate. Unless the birth rate goes up, the number of deaths per year in seven or eight years will exceed the number of births, and Taiwan’s population will start to shrink.
In 2012, I forecast that if the trends of low rates of birth, marriage and raising kids continued, the population would decline, which would hurt the property market. I was accused of propagating alarmist rhetoric.
However, we are already seeing this happening — at an accelerating rate — outside the more desirable neighborhoods.
This year, the number of births is set to be as low as 200,000. The ramifications of this will be felt in 18 years, when only 200,000 people — and presumably less than 100,000 males — will turn 18. These, minus the less able-bodied, will number from 170,000 to 180,000 in total over two years of military service.
The Ministry of National Defense says it needs 175,000 soldiers, meaning that male conscription alone will be insufficient to fill the ranks. How is the shortfall to be made up?
Only 167,000 Taiwanese — and only 83,000 males — were born in 2009. They will reach 18 in 2027. At that point, university recruitment and military conscription will hit a major crisis.
Some have suggested moving from a division of labor along gender lines; for example, from women responsible for childcare while the dangerous jobs are left for men to a kind of “gender equality” in which both men and women do military service, road maintenance, construction work and firefighting. The alternative would be spending money importing manual labor.
The math is something third graders could manage, and yet senior officials are unable or unwilling to work this out. Fully cognizant of the seriousness of the situation, ministers of education have continued to try to boost the number of universities.
Another idea is social — as opposed to military — conscription, recruiting women to look after children. People do not react too well to suggestions that everyone should spend their time and money helping raise the next generation, saying such proposals entail forcing women against their will. Remember that compulsory service has been expected of men for decades.
It is just a case of do not ask me to do anything to help; I am too busy. Or, do not ask for money, I do not have enough for myself. The government, employers and the wealthy will never run out of excuses. After all, it will no longer be their problem in 10 or 20 years.
More universities and buildings can be built, but these are going to become little more than breeding grounds for mosquitoes. People aged 40 or 50 now will live another three or four decades; those aged 20 another six. These are the people that are going to have to deal with today’s failure to address the problem.
Yaung Chih-liang is a former minister of health and welfare.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers