With cases of obsessed lovers or stalkers turning violent a common item in news reports, it is flabbergasting that Taiwan still does not have anti-stalking legislation.
The Domestic Violence Prevention Act (家庭暴力防治法) and the Criminal Code treat stalking as an “incident” rather than repetitive and continuous behavior, punishable only by small fines. Restraining orders are only allowed when the victim has some kind of family or romantic relationship with the stalker, denying the option to victims of anonymous stalkers.
This issue has been brought up many times in the past, especially after a survey last year by the Ministry of Health and Welfare that showed that 5.2 percent of women between the ages of 18 and 74 have been stalked or harassed, but nothing has been done.
Tragedy struck again two weeks ago when a male university student surnamed Chen (陳) allegedly stabbed a female student he had been stalking for five years, reigniting the call for such laws to be enacted.
The need to enact anti-harassment and anti-stalking legislation is obvious, but it took another near-fatal incident to bring the issue to the public’s attention.
Deputy Minister of the Interior Hua Ching-chun (花敬群) has promised that a draft bill would be finalized in two months — and this time the public should watch closely to see if the government delivers.
Before the law is changed, other safeguards should be put in place to prevent similar cases getting out of hand. Reports show that the victim’s family had long been aware of Chen’s behavior, but why was nothing done about it for five years? Even after the victim reported the stalking to the police (he even stalked her into the police station), she and her family did not want to press charges, because they did not want Chen to have a police record.
Nothing presumably happened to Chen after that incident, as the police simply notified his parents to take him home. It seems there were many opportunities to do something, but nobody took the situation seriously.
Could the victim’s family have told the school or intervened earlier? Could Chen’s parents have sent him to counseling after learning of his disturbing behavior? What happened had little to do with whether Chen’s stalking was legal or not, especially since the victim declined to press charges.
Having proper laws to protect stalking victims is absolutely necessary, but providing or encouraging victims to seek early intervention before things get out of hand is just as important. Parents or school officials should be less dismissive when students seek help and not wait until tragedy strikes.
Legality aside, perhaps the way movies, television dramas and even pop songs portray “love” should be reviewed. Too often, obsessive, unrequited love is portrayed as “romantic,” and these shows often conclude with the “stalker” being rewarded. This gives the wrong message that persistence will work in any situation, regardless of how many times the victim says “no.”
Educating young people about boundaries and consent is increasingly important, especially considering recent events in Hollywood, and schools should take the opportunity to address the issue.
Although relationships are complicated and it is difficult to come up with an absolute doctrine to ensure proper behavior in all situations, a good start is making it clear that stalking is not acceptable and victims should seek help as soon as possible.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS