The Ministry of Justice has proposed amending Article 1085 of the Civil Code by repealing parents’ right to punish their children. This has caused an uproar among parents and teachers, as it leaves a gap regarding the disciplining of children. Can legal power replace family ties and kinship?
Ever since the Ministry of Education banned corporal punishment in 2006, the dynamic between teachers and students in the educational system has changed. Now when teachers see students misbehaving, they would rather turn a blind eye than stop them, because if students are “traumatized” by any form of discipline, teachers can end up in hot water.
A teacher’s duties go beyond teaching and answering students’ questions; they also involve teaching them correct conduct and behavior. Restricting a teacher’s right to discipline deprives students of the opportunity to learn proper conduct. If parents are also restricted from instilling discipline, would children still have a sense of ethics, morality or responsibility, or carry the right legal and family values?
Discipline is different from domestic violence or child abuse. The latter two involve improper emotional control and mental issues in adults, while discipline is about teaching children the right conduct, manners and behavior. This should be the responsibility of parents, not the justice ministry.
There was an incident in Kaohsiung in which a father, after being informed that his son had skipped more than 100 classes in less than one semester, questioned his son about his behavior. When the son, a high-school student, talked back, the father punched him. Enraged, the son sued his father for domestic violence. The court sentenced the father to three months in prison for breaching the Protection of Children and Youths Welfare and Rights Act (兒童及少年福利與權益保護法). The punishment is not commutable to a fine, but the father has a right to appeal.
Even though the proposed measure has children’s interests at heart to protect them from abuse, I do not think that the law played the role it should have, because it is unlikely that the student in question will stop playing hooky just because his father has been sent to prison.
Shiao Fu-song is a lecturer at National Taitung University.
Translated by Rita Wang
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
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
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS