Civic organizations on Tuesday called for legal amendments to lower the legal age of adulthood from 20 to 18. They pointed out that people aged 18 to 20 are not allowed to open bank accounts or sign up for mobile phone services, despite being subject to full criminal liability and military service.
The question of adulthood has also been raised in Japan, where the voting age for general elections was lowered to 18 in 2016, and the age for referendums last year. In Taiwan, the voting age for referendums was lowered to 18 in 2017, but not so for elections.
This raises the question of what defines adulthood and why certain adult privileges are allowed by law before others are.
An article posted to the Web site The Conversation in July last year said that age alone cannot be used to effectively determine adulthood, as the rates of biological, cognitive and emotional development vary in each individual.
However, those who perceive themselves to be adults tend to score better in certain benchmarks often used to determine adulthood, it said. Unfortunately, such a subjective definition is not usable from a legal perspective.
An article published on Jan. 5 on The Atlantic’s Web site quoted psychology professor Laurence Steinberg as saying: “Chronological age is not a particularly good indicator [of maturity], but it’s something we need to do for practical purposes.”
The human brain stops developing at about age 22 or 23, but learning can continue afterward, and the logical and reasoning components of the brain mature as early as age 16, the article said.
The biggest difference between a 16-year-old and someone much older is the ability to control impulsive behavior, but from a reasoning point of view the 16-year-old is equally capable, it added.
In many countries, including Taiwan, 16 is the age of consent. One might question the logic behind allowing a 16-year-old to engage in sexual intercourse — which could result in parenthood — but not allowing them to vote, purchase cigarettes or alcohol or even open a bank account.
The article stated that parenthood is often given as an answer as to what others consider to be a marker of adulthood.
“It’s not that you can’t be an adult unless you have kids, but for people who do, it often seems to be that flip-the-switch moment,” it said.
However, the way adulthood is defined has real consequences, so lawmakers should aim for consistency in how they define it. Either the age of consent should be raised, or the age of adulthood should be lowered.
Furthermore, if there is to be conscription, then people who are expected to be ready to die for their nation should be at least able to vote for their president.
While every individual physically and emotionally matures at a different rate, most would argue that engaging in sex, voting, driving, taking out bank loans, buying alcohol and entering military service are all actions that adults engage in. It makes little sense to allow or require one to engage in a select few of these things while disallowing them from engaging in the others.
An article posted to the Web site of US broadcaster PBS in April last year asked whether 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote. Council of the District of Columbia Representative Charles Allen in 2015 tried, unsuccessfully, to pass a bill to that effect, but the issue has come up again as more teens are engaging in protests and petitioning US lawmakers on issues such as gun violence, it said.
While the idea of letting 16-year-olds vote would likely face opposition in Taiwan at this time, if people are to define individuals as adults in one context, they should treat them as adults in all contexts.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with