Parents’ right to supervise
Recently, the Ministry of Education’s examination and review of the 30 percent of universities that mail student transcripts out to parents has drawn public attention.
For parents, it raises an important question. The ministry emphasizes that college students are adults, and that their rights and autonomy must be respected.
However, as key members of family education and often the primary economic providers for the students, who respects the parents?
Starting on Jan. 1 last year, an amendment to Taiwan’s civil code went into effect granting full citizenship rights to those over the age of 18.
Since then, government departments have told these newly empowered 18-year-olds that they could legally rent their own apartments, sign contracts to purchase cellphones and vehicles, and enter into other legal agreements normally reserved for adults.
They have also reminded these young adults that although they no longer have to be under parental supervision, they must take on related responsibilities.
However, the government has failed to encourage them to consider that if their parents are funding their expenses, such as rental deposits, car purchases, or tuition fees, what then happens to their parents’ right to supervise?
In Western countries, parents teach their children that once they turn 18, they should start working to earn money for their tuition and leave the family home to live independently.
In Eastern countries, however, most 18-year-olds still — either actively or passively — accept their parents’ resources. Parents often support their children until graduation, or even until they start their own families.
Different cultures should possess different laws and regulations.
If legislation could be passed stipulating that 18-year-old that are funded by their parents, siblings, or other relatives should remain under their parents’ legal guardianship until they are able to independently cover their own expenses, would that not be a more suitable and comprehensive approach to the matter?
Rights and responsibilities are on opposite sides of the legal scale.
How is it that parents could pay for their children’s tuition without being informed of their academic performance?
Similarly, when a child signs a contract and their parents foot the bill, how could the parents not have the right to know the contract’s contents?
If a breach of that contract were to occur, would the parents bear joint responsibility?
Such legislative oversights and errors in policy promotion do not benefit the public and do even less to serve the best legal interests of 18-year-olds.
This is a matter worthy of serious reflection. The officials involved should consider it carefully.
Hsu Yu-min
Taipei
There appears to be a growing view among leaders and leading thinkers in Taiwan that their words and actions have no influence over how China approaches cross-Strait relations. According to this logic, China’s actions toward Taiwan are guided by China’s unwavering ambition to assert control over Taiwan. Many also believe Beijing’s approach is influenced by China’s domestic politics. As the thinking goes, former President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) made a good faith effort to demonstrate her moderation on cross-Strait issues throughout her tenure. During her 2016 inaugural address, Tsai sent several constructive signals, including by acknowledging the historical fact of interactions and
HSBC Holdings successfully fought off a breakup campaign by disgruntled Asian investors in recent years. Now, it has announced a restructuring along almost the same east-west lines. The obvious question is why? It says it is designed to create a simpler, more efficient and dynamic company. However, it looks a lot like the bank is also facing up to the political reality of the growing schism between the US and China. A new structure would not dissolve HSBC’s geopolitical challenges, but it could give the bank better options to respond quickly if things worsen. HSBC spent 2022 battling to convince shareholders of
China’s “Joint Sword-2024B” military exercises around Taiwan last week have sparked concerns in Taipei and allied capitals that Beijing’s risk tolerance is increasing, and rather than prioritizing efforts toward “peaceful unification,” it is ramping up efforts to bring about unification by force, whether that be a military quarantine, blockade or full-scale invasion. Catherine Lila Chou (周怡齡) and Mark Harrison are right in their recent book Revolutionary Taiwan: Making Nationhood in a Changing World Order that the nature of Beijing’s one-party political system, in which the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is always right, means Taiwanese identity is explained away as being the
A return to power for former US president Donald Trump would pose grave risks to Taiwan’s security, autonomy and the broader stability of the Indo-Pacific region. The stakes have never been higher as China aggressively escalates its pressure on Taiwan, deploying economic, military and psychological tactics aimed at subjugating the nation under Beijing’s control. The US has long acted as Taiwan’s foremost security partner, a bulwark against Chinese expansionism in the region. However, a second Trump presidency could upend decades of US commitments, introducing unpredictability that could embolden Beijing and severely compromise Taiwan’s position. While president, Trump’s foreign policy reflected a transactional
RSS