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 an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) arrest is a significant development. He could have become president or vice president on a shared TPP-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ticket and could have stood again in 2028. If he is found guilty, there would be little chance of that, but what of his party? What about the third force in Taiwanese politics? What does this mean for the disenfranchised young people who he attracted, and what does it mean for his ambitious and ideologically fickle right-hand man, TPP caucus leader Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌)? Ko and Huang have been appealing to that
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
RSS