Taiwan’s low birthrate is no longer an abstract statistical concern, but an unfolding structural crisis. Demographic dividends — economic growth driven by a large working population — are fast evaporating. With compounding effects, the trend is set to exert long-term and potentially irreversible pressure on state governance, industrial competitiveness, social security and intergenerational support systems.
The issue has also drawn international attention, with technology leaders repeatedly warning of the fundamental threat that declining birthrates pose to a nation’s future.
Neither the government nor society can afford to sit back or avoid the issue amid such urgency. Much like national defense, there are many policy decisions to be made that, if delayed, would only come at a higher cost further down the road.
To address low fertility seriously, policy thinking must simultaneously focus on reducing the costs associated with having children and substantially increasing access to reproductive health services. The former involves lowering the economic, caregiving and career burdens borne by individuals during childrearing.
However, this article focuses on the latter — an issue that has long been neglected.
In reality, there are many who are willing to become parents and capable of raising children responsibly, yet are unable to conceive through traditional means. “Traditional” here refers to natural conception through sexual intercourse within a heterosexual marriage. Surrogacy legislation is designed precisely to respond to these genuine yet institutionally marginalized reproductive needs. Any form of reproduction that departs from traditional family models is often scrutinized, and questioned on matters of ethics and social consensus. This raises a fundamental question: Should something that is different, uncommon or new be automatically subjected to moral judgement?
History shows that many rights and institutions now taken for granted were once labeled “unnatural” or “ethically problematic” when they first emerged. It is the responsibility of law and public policy not to conform to entrenched prejudices, but to respond mindfully to legitimate human needs and design well-regulated and transparent systems to serve them. Choosing inaction simply because something feels unfamiliar is not a sign of mature governance.
From a constitutional perspective, reproductive freedom, human dignity and fundamental rights are deserving of robust protection. As long as there are no violations of the rights of others or public order, the state should not impose a single “normal” family model to restrict people’s ability to become parents. Allowing people to have children through means such as surrogacy does not negate traditional families; rather, it acknowledges the legitimacy of diverse life choices.
Opponents to surrogacy programs frequently invoke the “best interests of the child.”
However, a simple truth must be acknowledged: Children raised within traditional family structures are not inherently healthier or happier, nor are children raised in nontraditional families necessarily disadvantaged. What is important is that a child receives stable care, love and commitment — the gender composition of their parents or the method of conception are secondary. Holding up one single family structure as the ideal standard is baseless and ignores the diversity of real-world society.
The international reality is that many countries recognized for their commitment to human rights and the rule of law have long permitted surrogacy under a closely regulated system. This is a response to individual needs and also part of an emerging recognition of surrogacy as a necessary component of the population policy toolkit.
If the government is sincere about addressing low fertility, continuing to postpone surrogacy legislation indefinitely is no longer tenable. Instead, it should be brought under rational public debate, institutional planning and democratic supervision.
Hopefully, single adult men and women will, in the near future, be able to realize their aspirations of parenthood through surrogacy within a sound legal framework and human rights protections. Unless a particular reproductive method clearly violates human rights or public morals, the state and society should approach it with cautious recognition rather than instinctive rejection. Only by doing so can Taiwan build a truly healthy and sustainable future.
Tsai Yu-te is a cross-border governance consultant and founder of Governance Edge.
Translated by Gilda Knox Streader
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS