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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS