In Taiwan, we leave youth behind when we turn 18. At that age, we must take full legal responsibility for any criminal actions we commit. When we turn 20, we become adults, and must take full legal responsibility for our civil actions, and can, for example, enter into contracts.
As a result of this two-year difference, it has been proposed that the law be amended to lower the age of adulthood from 20 to 18. This might be in line with the global trend, but it would have far-reaching effects.
At the end of March, there were approximately 550,000 people in Taiwan aged 18 to 20, and 52 percent of them were male. Although fewer people will join this age group for every coming year, their rights and benefits still require careful planning.
From a legal perspective, much thought has gone into the many different age-related restrictions, such as 16 for the age of consent and 40 as the minimum age for presidential candidates.
There is quite a difference between civil and criminal responsibility, and perhaps the reason for the inconsistency is this: People are expected to fully recognize criminal behavior at an earlier age, but are given two more years to comprehend more complex civil responsibilities, such as contracts and exchanges. Still, this is as much a restriction as it is an opportunity to learn.
Because the actions of minors are restricted, contracts they enter into are only be binding if they are recognized by the their legal guardian — normally their parents — unless it is a straightforward matter of profit or meeting daily needs.
As an example, I have on many occasions had to help first and second-year university students dissolve controversial contracts when they are unable to pay the monthly installments after purchasing teaching materials for tens of thousands of New Taiwan dollars. If the age of adulthood is lowered, that would no longer be possible.
These restrictions on the binding force of contracts are said to be there for protection, but it also causes problems for those who want to open a bank account, or apply for an ID document or student loan, as they need the approval of their parents. This problem becomes particularly obvious when their parents have divorced, as this often makes it difficult to obtain the approval of both.
In 2018, 68,619 minors came from divorced families and the parents of 14,801 of those — about 22 percent — had shared custody. This is something policymakers should keep in mind.
The Civil Code stipulates that parents have the right and the obligation to protect and raise their children. In most child-support related lawsuits, alimony is to be paid monthly until the children turn 20.
The net school enrollment rate for 20-year-old Taiwanese is 73 percent, the highest in the world. This is compared with 51.8 percent in the US and 26.3 percent in Germany.
If parents are no longer responsible for their children after they turn 18, that would have a significant impact on students.
The Civil Code also stipulates that if a minor infringes on the rights of another, their parents in principle share the responsibility for compensation, as is vividly depicted in the family drama A Sun (陽光普照). Legislators should therefore also consider whether an amendment to the law would have an impact on the protection of victims.
Furthermore, a search using the keyword “adult” turns up 359 related laws, from minor issues such as applying for a household registration document to major issues such as organ transplants. All these issues would have to be reviewed to ascertain the overall feasibility of any proposed amendment.
As a reference, there is a four-year transitional period when entering adulthood in Japan. Adulthood also involves accumulating social experience, but the elementary and secondary stages of our 12-year education system focus mainly on written tests, which means that students for many years have little contact with society at large.
This is probably the most important complementary measure that should be considered in connection to any amendment to the law.
Chen Jwu-shang is a professor at National Kaohsiung Normal University’s General Education Center.
Translated by Perry Svensson
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS