An innocent life was cut short in Taichung County last week when a toddler was beaten to death by his paternal aunt. Social workers were labeled "accomplices" in the death for incorrectly responding to the mother's requests for help.
Meanwhile in Taoyuan, an entire family threatened suicide in an attempt to claim more welfare benefits. Luckily no one came to any harm -- otherwise the social welfare department might have been accused of murder.
In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in cases of child abuse in Taiwan. Last year there were 12,000 reported cases, more than 10 of which ended in the death of a child.
The number of registered low-income households has also doubled in eight years to 90,000, affecting more than 220,000 people.
Local governments' social welfare departments have varying numbers of social workers and have established domestic violence centers.
The national government has also created a national "1-1-3" 24-hour help hotline and initiated its "Big Warmth" welfare package.
Despite these efforts, in the eyes of most people, it seems that all government agencies can do is prevent abuse from recurring by offering guidance, aid and shelter to victims only after incidents have taken place.
Although each case is different, there are some common patterns. An analysis of child abusers reveals that aside from mothers and fathers, the main offenders are step-parents, people cohabitating with the parents and caretakers.
If the government can use information gained through inspections by social workers to compile a "high-risk data bank" of potential risk cases and decide on the timing for intervention and how services would be rendered, this could partially serve as a preventive measure.
But no matter how tight the protective net, there is no guarantee it can put an end to "abuse." If there is a case that falls through the cracks, social workers must still be investigated and the government agencies in charge should shoulder the responsibility.
But there is no need for society to invidiously attack social workers. That kind of pressure can overwhelm the young people at social services, who are sincere and take their work to heart.
The quality of social services would unlikely improve under such circumstances.
If we look at child abuse cases from a different angle, we can gain a better understanding of the root causes. Sometimes, biological parents use their child to vent their anger; sometimes children are abused by husbands and boyfriends of divorced mothers and sometimes they are entrusted to bad nannies. Most of these cases seem to be related to the phenomena of broken families, failure at parental duties, poverty and unemployment.
Members of the impoverished class are the direct victims of an economic environment that isn't performing as well as it used to.
In capitalist societies, public assistance acts as an equalizer. It cannot devote too much energy to pandering to people's endless wants, but must structure itself into a sustainable safety net. Social workers serve as protectors of modern families, but they are not a substitute for the family.
In many instances of family crisis, concern and reports from neighbors and friends can more effectively solve the problem than intervention by social workers. Only if poor families can actively work to pull themselves up can welfare measures help them succeed in leaving poverty.
Unless the economy revives and the structural problems preventing such measures are addressed, shifting limited resources from one area to another will not lead to a net gain.
Social workers, who may have just graduated from university, work in a society in which functioning families are on the wane. Faced with evermore complex family crises, they are often uncertain how far to intervene, or are conflicted over whether or not to separate family members.
New laws or curricula cannot provide an answer to all these problems. Oftentimes, only in hindsight can we tell whether the actions that were taken were right or wrong.
The quality of social workers is a mixed bag and government resources are limited. But the workers cannot remain idle, because family crises brew quietly and can be set off at the slightest touch.
People should show concern for social workers, who quietly do their utmost to help those in need. In calmer times, their efforts are hard to perceive. But they are the ones who bear the most responsibility when something bad happens, as everything they have done is called into question.
James Hsueh is a professor in the department of sociology at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Marc Langer.
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