There have been many reports of child abuse recently. Among these incidents, there was one in which the two children of a 17-year-old mother had been abused. Both the public and media criticized the girl for being “irresponsible,” but the question is: Did the other people that should have taken responsibility in such a situation shoulder their responsibility to stop the situation from worsening?
First, did the school fulfill its responsibilities?
When the girl became pregnant the first time, she was still in junior-high school, which begs the question: Did the school do what it is legally required to do? According to Article 14-1 of the Gender Equity Education Act (性別平等教育法): “The school shall proactively protect the right to education of pregnant students and provide needed assistance.” “Needed assistance” includes learning how to care and take responsibility for a child.
Educators that have helped adolescent mothers say that when a student becomes pregnant, they might not be able to learn subjects like Chinese literature or English, as the more urgent issues at hand are the demands and needs of anyone who is about to become a new parent, and schools should therefore take the initiative to provide parenting information and instruction. Did the 17-year-old’s school provide relevant resources and include her family in a service and educational network?
Second, did the social system fulfill its responsibilities?
The reports said that this young mother was unhappy that her boyfriend was out enjoying himself, so she did the same.
Taiwan’s child daycare situation puts parents under enormous pressure. Judging from this family’s situation, it should have been possible to place the children in a public daycare center so that comprehensive care could be given to the children’s developmental and nutritional needs and allow the mother to continue her studies.
Had the situation become untenable, the children could have been put in a foster home. However, it is obvious that no one told the young parents that there were other choices or that they could ask for help.
Third, did the social affairs bureau and the case worker for the family fulfill their responsibilities?
Judging from the two children’s home situation, it is clear that it was a high-risk environment. The children were clearly behind the developmental curve, raising the question of whether anyone noticed this during vaccination health checks. Did social welfare or child protection authorities report the situation or get directly involved?
Fourth, did sexual education live up to its responsibilities?
No one should be surprised that Taiwan’s sexual education situation has produced results like this case. The film Shall We Swim (青春水漾) — made to promote sex education — was discredited and quickly removed from curricula, and teachers worry that parents will complain if they teach sexual education in school.
Studies long ago proved that sexual education focused on abstinence results in an increase in the number of unplanned pregnancies, high birth rates, high abortion rates and HIV/AIDS. Despite this, schools still invite religious organizations to teach abstinence and fail to mention safe sex practices and the intricacies of intimate relations. That is why incidents like the one involving the 17-year-old mother of two continue to occur.
Should there be a consensus that unplanned pregnancies and adolescent parents are consuming an inordinate amount of social resources, sexual education should be handled properly and introduced at a young age — the earlier the better.
There is no reason to think that sexual education for elementary-school students is shocking, offensive or “going too far,” or that it promotes sexual liberation and teaches children to do “something bad.” The 17-year-old had her first child when she was 15 and in junior-high school; based on a 40-week pregnancy, she had sex when she was 14 years old.
Sexual education can be taught at any age, but requires different methods for different ages. Parents and teachers who avoid sexual education are being irresponsible and they have no right to criticize the young mother.
Children in heterosexual families are not necessarily happy, and heterosexual families that do not raise their children properly might end up without children. Had the two children in this family instead been adopted by two gay partners, perhaps they would have led happier lives and would not have been exposed to a life-threatening situation.
These are urgent issues that those who claim to be protecting “traditional family values” should give some serious thought to. They should focus their efforts on helping dysfunctional heterosexual families in order to ensure they have a good life.
Chuang Shu-ching is deputy chair of the Taiwan Gender Equity Education Association.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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