Before then-Taipei mayor Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) put an end to legal prostitution in the capital, the city was the only place in Taiwan where it was allowed. Twelve years later, however, the wisdom of his decision is hotly debated. Now, legalizing prostitution is again on the table, with the Ministry of the Interior last week proposing to set up red-light districts.
The glaring reality is that forcing sex workers into the shadows has done nothing to put an end to the business — nor to the scourges of human trafficking and exploitation that often accompany the practice. Many observers and sex workers are concerned that outlawing the trade has exacerbated these problems and left some of society’s most vulnerable women with fewer options than ever to pursue a better life for themselves and their families.
Faced with this, the government has returned to the question of whether selling sex should be legal. Red-light districts would allow the authorities to monitor an industry that is notoriously abusive toward its workers. But the proposal ignores another option with potential for greater and more equitable results: Shifting criminal responsibility for prostitution away from sex workers and onto their customers.
Article 80 of the Social Order and Maintenance Act (社會秩序維護法) is a deplorable example of the chauvinist forces that linger in this society. As it stands, sex workers face prison terms and fines, while their customers have nothing to fear. The law effectively suggests sex workers are “temptresses” to blame for “social ills,” while patrons can be forgiven — even though it is their wallets that sustain the industry and its related abuses. This is incomprehensible unless one considers that the system that created the legislation was probably replete with people who themselves feared a run-in with the law.
The article is also completely ineffective and ignores the fact that the vast majority of sex workers did not enter the industry willingly — and are hoping for a way out. For prostitutes already working in wretched conditions, the threat of criminal prosecution could hardly be a better deterrent than other hardships faced on a daily basis. Threats are pointless if doors remain closed.
In April, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) proposed amending the law, but, like the Ministry of the Interior, suggested full legalization of the sex industry.
Legalized prostitution, however, has not stopped human trafficking and rampant physical abuse (including sexual assault) of sex workers in, say, Amsterdam.
The Collective of Sex Workers and Supporters has decried the criminalization of prostitution in Taiwan, warning that it has led to deteriorating work conditions and has allowed gangsters to strengthen their hold on the industry. But legalizing the sex industry is unlikely to cure these ills.
This is why the Swedish model is often cited by rights advocates who want to see an end to the prosecution of prostitutes without condoning the industry’s systematic abuses. Sweden has reported steady progress in reducing prostitution by punishing customers rather than sex workers.
In its annual human rights reports, the US State Department continues to cite human trafficking and violence against women as key concerns in Taiwan. Law enforcement efforts to crack down on the perpetrators of these acts must be redoubled.
At the same time, Taiwan needs to overhaul the law to end the counterproductive persecution of a marginalized and exploited segment of society. If the best our politicians can do is oscillate between legalizing and outlawing prostitution, decades may pass with no hope of improvement.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS