Recently, numerous sexual harassment and assault incidents have been exposed in Taiwan. The alledged offenders include public figures, elected representatives and school teachers at all levels.
Sexual harassment is different from sexual assault. In 2009, Taiwan enacted the Sexual Harassment Prevention Act (性騷擾防治法).
However, Article 13 of the act only states that a sexual harassment victim “can also propose a complaint against the defendant to the defendant’s organization, troop, school, institution, employer, or to the municipal and county (city) competent authorities where the defendant ... sets his or her domicile.”
In addition, the section on “compulsory indecency” in the Criminal Code overlaps with the Sexual Harassment Prevention Act.
Furthermore, if the victims are underage minors, they are protected by Article 97 of the Protection of Children and Youths Welfare and Rights Act (兒童及少年福利與權益保障法). For these reasons, sexual harassment laws are difficult to enforce.
Therefore, the Legislative Yuan should amend these laws promptly.
First, it should clearly define sexual assault, sexual harassment and indecency.
Second, it should distinguish between adults and minors based on the ages of the victims. If such cases occur on campus, due to student age differences, the legality of the schools’ gender equality committee needs to be reviewed to avoid a situation where the criminal or civil judgement is not in line with the resolution of a school committee.
Besides, if a school’s gender equality committee found a teacher guilty of sexual harassment or sexual bullying, it would terminate the teacher’s employment and prohibit them from being hired as a teacher for life. The resolution is life-changing.
However, if later the teacher, after losing their job, were to be found not guilty in a criminal or civil lawsuit, the school would have to confront long-term legal disputes inimical to its operation.
If the legislature cannot address these problems, extending the statute of limitations for sexual harassment from one year to two years might be an alternative.
Liu Yung-chien is an educator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS