According to documents released by the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office, a two-year-old boy starved to death due to the negligence of his mother, who is mentally challenged. The boy’s biological father had abandoned him, his mother’s cohabitant was indifferent to him and he was physically abused by his uncle.
It is beyond imagination that such a tragedy would occur in Taiwan, a nation known for its people’s warmth and where life is pretty good.
The Criminal Code should provide protection for powerless and vulnerable children: Article 271 addresses homicide, Article 276 addresses negligent homicide and Article 294 addresses abandonment.
To convict a person of these offenses requires an objective element, which involves a child’s death or their life being placed in danger, and a subjective element, which requires that the perpetrator is proved to have intentionally caused the death or danger. This threshold is far too high for ensuring the proper protection of children, who rely completely on adults for their care and nurturing.
Even Article 286, which addresses mistreating a minor, only prohibits actions that impair a child’s mental or physical health or development, but does not include abandonment, which would put a child’s basic life needs in danger.
By contrast, Section 170 of the German penal code, which addresses the breach of maintenance obligation, stipulates: “Whoever evades a statutory maintenance obligation so that the necessities of life of the person entitled to maintenance are endangered or would be endangered without the assistance of others incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine.”
Under German law, a parent may be punished for endangering a child’s life necessities long before they reach the point where they would have placed the child’s life in danger, let alone causing a child’s death.
In practice, due to the lack of clear legislation, Taiwanese courts have long misused abandonment, which essentially aims to protect the life of “helpless people,” to punish actors who fail to exercise their caregiving obligation.
While this might be jurisprudentially inappropriate, it sheds light on the fact that there is a high degree of agreement in society that people who fail to fulfill the obligation to support, raise or protect should be penalized.
However, to comply with the proportionality principle, courts should refrain from using the Criminal Code to convict people whose failure to meet that obligation is not severe enough to jeopardize the basic daily needs of people who are entitled to care.
Lawmakers should learn from Germany and clearly define breaches of the obligation to support, raise or protect, and emphasize the hazardous consequences. That would clearly distinguish breaches of the obligation to support, raise or protect from abandonment, and allow both offenses to exercise their proper functions.
It would also prevent courts from casually citing abandonment and giving disproportionate punishment to someone who fails to meet the obligation to support, raise or protect, but does not cause injury.
The German civil code also targets biological fathers unwilling to accept the responsibilities of marriage and fatherhood. Section 1615-l2 stipulates that the father must within a certain period take responsibility for supporting the mother by paying her child support, so that she will not find herself in dire straits due to pregnancy, delivery or raising a child alone, which could further jeopardize the child’s interests.
Instead of functioning as a morality clause prohibiting men from being unfaithful, the law must protect innocent children. In combination with the law against breaches of the obligation to support, raise or protect, a father evading that obligation and bringing further harm to the mother’s basic needs for living will be punishable by the Criminal Code.
The Civil Code and the Criminal Code lack counterparts to the German civil code. It is worth questioning whether the absence of relevant laws has led many pregnant women, worried that they cannot afford to raise a child, to resort to an abortion or to abandon their children in parks.
A state bears a fundamental obligation to protect every child still in the womb or born to the world. Before the protection mechanism is perfected, the government should establish care centers that receive and care for abandoned children to prevent helpless mothers in distress from undertaking abortions or abandoning newborns.
Hsu Tze-tien is a law professor at National Cheng Kung University.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
On March 22, 2023, at the close of their meeting in Moscow, media microphones were allowed to record Chinese Communist Party (CCP) dictator Xi Jinping (習近平) telling Russia’s dictator Vladimir Putin, “Right now there are changes — the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years — and we are the ones driving these changes together.” Widely read as Xi’s oath to create a China-Russia-dominated world order, it can be considered a high point for the China-Russia-Iran-North Korea (CRINK) informal alliance, which also included the dictatorships of Venezuela and Cuba. China enables and assists Russia’s war against Ukraine and North Korea’s
After thousands of Taiwanese fans poured into the Tokyo Dome to cheer for Taiwan’s national team in the World Baseball Classic’s (WBC) Pool C games, an image of food and drink waste left at the stadium said to have been left by Taiwanese fans began spreading on social media. The image sparked wide debate, only later to be revealed as an artificially generated image. The image caption claimed that “Taiwanese left trash everywhere after watching the game in Tokyo Dome,” and said that one of the “three bad habits” of Taiwanese is littering. However, a reporter from a Japanese media outlet
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
RSS