While efforts to amend the law governing the property rights of married couples may be well-intentioned, they are unlikely to live up to expectations. In fact, it may create a whole new set of problems.
The most controversial aspect of the amendment is the provision entitling one spouse to receive from the other a fund for the recipient's unrestricted disposal. The intention is to promote respect for the spouse, usually the wife, who stays at home to take care of the family rather than joining the work force. Another purpose supposedly served by the provision is to give these women some measure of economic freedom.
But respect is a feeling that must arise naturally in one's heart. It is something that cannot be forced, not even by the law. The lack of respect for housewives has much to do with the misconception that their work is miniscule and unimportant, readily available upon the hiring of maids.
In fact, such a fund is already generally perceived as nothing but "compensation for housework," further belittling the status of housewives by financially quantifying the value of their contributions to their families. What an insult to all the housewives who have dedicated their lives to their families. Moreover, the mere sight of wives standing in front of their husbands with their hands out for money immediately relegate these wives to an inferior position.
Besides, what happens when the husband refuses outright to make such a fund available to the wife, or when couples simply can't agree on the proper sum? If no court intervention is available, the new provision will become unenforceable. Yet, if court intervention is available, such intervention will probably prematurely break up many marriages.
The law can only do so much to define the rights and obligations of married couples. The institution of marriage is built primarily on mutual love, respect and commitment, among other things. It is by no means simply a business arrangement under which a meal ticket is received in exchange for housekeeping, childbearing and sexual services.
Efforts must be made to ensure that the law does not unnecessarily invade into the private sphere of families. The rights of married couples to work out the details of their own household arrangements should be respected. Otherwise, the law would soon begin to mandate, who, among husband and wife, should walk the dog, change the diapers and so on.
The Ministry of Justice has a point in arguing the redundancy of this new provision. Another provision being added already requires that each partner in a marriage contributes to "family living expenses," and that the amount of this contribution be determined based on factors such as his or her respective earnings and share of housework. According to the ministry, "family living expenses" can include a sum of money at the free and personal disposal of the spouse staying at home.
Of course, not all provisions of the new amendment are so questionable. Under the existing law, the husband has the right to manage and use all of the property under the name of the wife, including that which she acquired before the marriage, unless the couple has agreed otherwise. The underlying patriarchal assumption is, of course, that the husband is better able to manage the wife's property. The new law would give each partner in a marriage the right to manage and use their own property.
Taiwan still has a long way to go in terms of respect for sexual equality. Teaching respect for the opposite sex would probably go a lot further than the current amendment.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS