The #MeToo movement in Taiwan has triggered a “chain reaction.” It seems that many people have been afraid to press charges of sexual harassment because they are worried about putting themselves in the firing line. This leads to the question: Does the criminal justice system in Taiwan protect victims?
Important legal distinctions exist. Crimes of sexual assault — such as forced sexual intercourse or aggravated forced sexual intercourse — are prosecuted according to the Criminal Code, while sexual harassment cases are dealt with by an administrative penalty, such as a fine. The distinction seems clear, but there are complicated distinctions.
Article 20 of the Sexual Harassment Prevention Act (性騷擾防治法) says that “a person who sexually harasses another person shall be fined not less than NT$10,000, but not more than NT$100,000 by the municipal and county (city) competent authorities where the person sets his or her domicile.”
A person has a year to report a harassment case, although Article 7 says: “The organizations, troops, schools, institutions or employers should prevent incidents of sexual harassment as well as immediately take effective corrective measures when becoming aware of the occurrence of sexual harassment.”
However, Article 25 stipulates that “when a person kisses, hugs or touches the bottom, breast or other physical private parts of the other person when the latter one cannot quickly respond or resist: this person shall be imprisoned for a definite term of less than two years, do forced labor service under detention, or separately or jointly be fined.”
A criminal act of sexual harassment requires intent. Often, an offender might claim that their actions were just a joke or a display of friendship.
Moreover, there is often an unequal power relationship between the offender and the victim, so the victim is unlikely to report the case immediately.
Criminal prosecutions are based on the principle of “no trial without a complaint” and there is a six-month limit on reporting incidents, which might have expired when the person affected has the courage to report it.
Article 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) says that “in a case chargeable only upon a complaint, the complaint must be filed within six months from the day a person entitled to complain was aware of the identity of the offender.”
However, as there is no provision for the six-month limit to be extended in a sexual harassment case, there is little doubt that their rights are being infringed.
Although a focus exists on handling sexual harassment cases, the possibility of a case of “compulsory indecency” arising cannot be ignored.
Article 224 of the Criminal Code says that “a person who commits an obscene act against a male or female against their will through the use of violence, threats, intimidation, or hypnosis shall be sentenced to imprisonment of not less than six months, but not more than five years.”
Such a crime is not based on the principle of “no trial without complaint,” and the limitation of prosecution is 20 years.
In a case of compulsory indecency, the victim faces a stricter set of procedures, althought the Code of Criminal Procedure has improved procedural protections in the past few years.
Still, as Constitutional Interpretation No. 789 emphasizes, to maintain a fair trial, defendants should not be convicted solely on the basis of a statement to police — there must be additional evidence.
Striking a balance between finding the truth, protecting the rights of defendants and protecting the victim will always be a thorny issue in criminal justice.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor at Aletheia University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
RSS