In a speech on Jan. 23, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida stressed the importance of addressing the nation’s low fertility rate, saying that Japan was now “on the brink” of social dysfunction. Kishida told lawmakers he wanted to change this demographic trend with an “unprecedented” set of measures. He has yet to reveal details about the nature of these measures.
Japan’s fertility rate has been falling since the mid-1970s. Last year, it was about 1.3 percent. A rate of 2.1 is considered to be the level at which the population is still growing.
Taiwan’s fall in fertility started later, in the mid-1980s, but has been more precipitous. The nation’s fertility rate is now among the lowest in the world. Last year, it was below 1.
The problem is by no means limited to Japan and Taiwan. In East Asia alone, South Korea has the world’s lowest fertility rate — at 0.79 — and China’s population fell for the first time last year. Taiwan was ahead of China by two years, declining for the first time in 2020. The National Development Council in August last year said that Taiwan is set to become a super-aged society by 2025.
Some experts have said that measures to boost the birthrate should include incentives to have people retire later or return to employment in their later years, as well as discouraging companies from turning away potential employees due to their age.
While this would mitigate the problem and address the issue of the undue burden on the working population, it does not get to the core of the demographic issue, which is a fertility rate consistently below the replacement level of 2.1.
Like other East Asian countries, the reason for the low rate is a combination of economic uncertainty, the high cost of raising children, high property prices, couples getting married later than before or delaying having children, which can make conception more difficult. Some are reluctant to get married at all, and this is significant in a culture based on Confucian values like Taiwan.
The government has implemented various measures to combat the decline, including subsidizing preschool and daycare, housing and IVF treatment, as well as expanding paid parental leave and maternity bonuses.
A 2020 report by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), which looked at fertility rates in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and France, found that the various subsidies and financial incentives had a limited effect, and that the success story in France, where the fertility rate had dropped to about 1.7 in the 1990s, but recovered in the 2000s to 2, is largely attributable to cultural factors and social norms.
Only 8 percent of Taiwanese fathers chose to use parental leave, compared with 70 percent of mothers, largely due to the social stigma of taking time off work and the traditional idea that women are responsible for raising children, the report said.
In France, about 50 percent of fathers take their paternity leave, it said.
In a traditional Confucian society, having a child out of wedlock or as a single parent is still frowned upon; in France, 57 percent of births in 2012 were non-marital.
Given the traditional views on having children out of wedlock, the EIU report recommended exploring ways to encourage more people to marry. The government should also consider measures to promote gender equality and reduce the stigma over traditional parenting roles and work/family balance.
It needs to communicate the seriousness of the issue to the public, just as Kishida did in his speech last month.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS