Lawmakers from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) last week announced a proposed referendum on introducing corporal punishment for certain “major crimes.”
Perhaps they have an eye on stirring up populist sentiment ahead of local elections at the end of this year.
While there are some Taiwanese who believe that corporal punishment would be beneficial for law and order, in reality it would be entirely ineffectual and only cause further harm.
Taiwan was ranked as the world’s fourth safest nation in Numbeo’s Safety Index this year. Of the world’s 17 countries or territories that practice corporal punishment, only the United Arab Emirates (UAE) came out ahead of Taiwan in the safety index, while Singapore lagged behind. The crime rates for rape — one of the offenses raised in the proposed referendum — are far higher in the UAE and Singapore than in Taiwan, at 1.5 and 6.6 cases per 100,000 people respectively, compared to Taiwan’s 0.27.
The UAE’s reportage rate is also likely substantially lower than in Taiwan. Corporal punishment itself would by no means improve law and order or make Taiwan a safer place to live.
Research has continually shown that corporal punishment against children has no behavioral benefit, instead teaching them that violence is the way to deal with those weaker than themselves. More often than not, it creates intergenerational cycles of family violence.
Likewise, corporal punishment would not lead perpetrators of violent crimes to turn over a new leaf, but only to further ostracization and resentment — and perhaps more harmful violence once out of the line of sight of authorities.
Corporal punishment for offenders of child abuse is also on the table. As seen in the Line conversation from the case of the Liu (劉) sisters — two nannies who were sentenced for torturing a one-year-old boy to death last year — children’s behavior is often used by perpetrators of abuse as an excuse for their actions.
In reality, it is a product of their own anger or cruelty. Corporal punishment is another example of spreading violence in the name of righting a wrong.
When punishment is needed, a simple “time-out” for children is comparable to the state’s use of imprisonment, which is the only form of legitimate punishment recognized by developed countries. It also lessens the “brutalization effect,” a theory suggesting that devaluing human life through state-sanctioned violence can increase homicide rates rather than deter them.
Furthermore, corporal punishment is in direct contravention of the UN Convention Against Torture, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Taiwan incorporated into domestic law in 2009.
Without UN membership status like Singapore, Taiwan’s potential adoption of corporal punishment would not only be a stain on its image, but could also make it more difficult to participate in international organizations. It might also put existing privileges, such as visa-free entry to the EU, at risk.
Perhaps these knock-on effects do not concern KMT legislators. However, they are well worth the Taiwanese public’s careful consideration. Rather than corporal punishment, more effective routes are already being advocated by local and civil society organizations, including legal reforms — such as starting the statute of limitations for child sexual assault cases only when the victim becomes an adult — and improved support for social workers in preventing child abuse. These efforts would truly improve child and youth welfare.
Chen Jun-kuang is a physician.
Translated by Gilda Knox Streader
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS