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 cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taiwan and India are important partners, yet this reality is increasingly being overshadowed in current debates. At a time when Taiwan-India relations are at a crossroads, with clear potential for deeper engagement and cooperation, the labor agreement signed in February 2024 has become a source of friction. The proposal to bring in 1,000 migrant workers from India is already facing significant resistance, with a petition calling for its “indefinite suspension” garnering more than 40,000 signatures. What should have been a straightforward and practical step forward has instead become controversial. The agreement had the potential to serve as a milestone in
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS