Rapid urbanization and the breakdown of traditional extended families is forcing parents, schools, civic organizations, and the government to rethink their responsibilities for child welfare.
The concepts of child welfare and children’s rights are relatively new to Taiwan. The island’s Child Welfare Law, the earliest social welfare legislation that dealt specifically with children, was passed by the Legislative Yuan in January 1973. Modeled on Japan’s child welfare law, Taiwan’s law was more idealistic than pragmatic, a well-intentioned response to international trends. According to Pai Hsiu-hsiung (白秀雄), social affairs director at the Taipei city government, “From its inception in the 1960s, the Child Welfare Law was nothing more than a declaration of the government’s concern. It was a plea for public involvement.” Actually, when the law was passed, children’s welfare meant little more than providing financial relief for disadvantaged children.
A little financial assistance was thought to be enough to handle most social problems. After all, Taiwan’s society was founded on a sound system of family-centered ethics. Everybody loved their children and wanted the best for them; nobody mistreated their children, with perhaps the exception of a cruel stepmother. Such a simple vision of society was actually held by many people – until recently. But these quaint, sustaining illusions were rudely shattered in the mid-1980s. In1986, the news of several sensational child abuse cases and kidnappings rocked the island, and people were scandalized. For the first time, they were shocked into an uncomfortable awareness that all was not well with society. Certainly people were enjoying the fruits of a previously unrivalled prosperity, but suddenly it seemed that the moral core of society had gone bad.
Doubled pain – a child suffers severe burns and family’s savings are drained because office insurance programs rarely cover employees’ children.
It did not end with a few isolated incidents. Similar cases continued to be reported by the media. A mentally-ill mother drowned her five kids before attempting to commit suicide; a jealous wife abused her daughter to spite her philandering husband; and then there was the couple who sold their daughter to a brothel for several thousand dollars. Between January 1989 and December 1991, over nine hundred cases of child abuse were reported in Taipei city alone. Outraged and bewildered, people began a process of soul-searching. They wanted to know how such things could happen in a society based on Confucian ethics and who was ultimately responsible for protecting children.
It was only a matter of time before the island’s child welfare law came under scrutiny. It was found wanting. On many of the day’s most pressing child welfare issues, the legislation was vague and ill-defined. As a result, the law has been in effective and impossible to enforce, thus affording very little real protection for children. A movement to revise the law began to grow in the late 1980s. After the concerted efforts of legislators and public interest groups such as the Child Welfare League Foundation, which is composed of more than forty different child welfare organizations, success seems immanent: late in 1991, a draft revision to the law passed a first reading, and a final reading and promulgation are expected by late this year.
On his own– with more parents working, latchkey kids are quite common.
The proposed revisions are primarily concerned with putting teeth into the existing law. They were designed to facilitate enforcement, provide more financial and medical assistance, and help set standards for child welfare workers. The revisions will go a long way toward rectifying the present inadequate child welfare system. The present system functions as well as it does largely because of the efforts of private organizations engaged in child protection and medical assistance. But the question remains as to why people were suddenly conscious of the fact that children have rights, and that those rights were in need of protection.
Professor Hsieh Yu-wen (謝友文), who teaches child welfare at several local colleges, blames changing social values for the plight of children. “Everyone is so money-minded these days,” he says. “They’ll stoop to kidnapping, and buying and selling kids. Our values have changed and the kids are the victims.” A legislative system is usually reactive, responding to changes and demands from society. But society has changed so rapidly in recent years that the legislation has lagged behind. In the nineteen years since the law was enacted, the economy and society have in many ways changed beyond recognition. Urbanization has brought about a decline in traditional values and relationships and has torn apart close-knit agricultural communities.
How do you draw a chicken? A teacher shows how it’s done at a Taipei Fine Arts Museum workshop especially for kids.
The extended family used to handle many of the social functions now in the hands of social workers. It mediated family problems and conflicts, and outsiders, including police and public officials, were rarely if ever brought in. If a severe dispute arose between father and son, for instance, relatives or perhaps neighbors and friends would intervene to smooth things over. But the extended family is being supplanted by the nuclear family. Moreover the notions of rights and responsibilities within the family unit have changed. Cut off from their roots, people in urban areas live in relative isolation. The disappearance of the extended family means that the social safety net once provided by relatives and friends is gone.
The situation is further complicated because both parents usually work outside the home and have less time to supervise and discipline their kids. Parents are often not at home enough to be good role models. With more working mothers, a new phenomenon has appeared: latchkey children are now quite common. Left to their own devices, it should come as no surprise that children get into trouble. Juvenile delinquency has nearly doubled over the last eight years. The revised law would forbid any child under six from being left alone at home. Currently, there is no age limitation.
Life in agricultural society was hard, and the hours long. If children were not in school, they were working. Yu Ching-mei (尤清梅), an officer at the Taipei County Family Helper, a private child welfare organization, says: “Before I came to Taipei County, I worked at the Family Helper in Ilan county in northeastern Taiwan for more than nineteen years. In rural areas, children live a poor and simple life. You don’t see the same delinquency as in urban areas.”
The nuclear family seems to be less effective in the socialization process of youngsters. The erosion of traditional social support structures such as the extended family, combined with a lack of awareness about the law, has led to a great deal of social confusion. Opinion is shifting about what is normal, desirable, and possible. People want to hang onto traditional values for the sense of security they provide, but the social and economic milieu which produced those values is disappearing. Today people exist insecurely between a vanishing tradition and an uncertain future.
This is nowhere more apparent than in ideas concerning child discipline. In traditional society, familial authority was ranged vertically, with power wielded autocratically from above. Children did not question their elders; they simply obeyed. Discipline was strict and sometimes quite harsh, but there was rarely any doubt that a child’s best interests were at heart. Corporal punishment was common and widely considered a reasonable and effective form of discipline for unruly children. In the old days, parents strongly believed that sparing the rod would spoil the child. So it was not unusual for children to receive a sound whipping when examination scores were not up to snuff or when their conduct was less than sterling. In the past, parents encouraged and gave teachers a free hand to administer corporal punishment when necessary.
This is no longer the case at schools like Penglai Elementary School in Taipei. Principal Huang Ching-yi (黃清一), who is also a committee member of the Children’s Association for Human Rights, is especially concerned about respecting and insuring the rights of children in every way. He has strictly forbidden teachers at the school to use corporal punishment when disciplining students. Huang feels that such punishment is actually no more than abuse. He feels other forms of punishment are just as cruel and outmoded. Says Huang: “Ignoring or holding a child up for ridicule in front of class is not allowed either. I consider that mental abuse.”
Wang Chiung-huang (王瓊璜), with twenty years experience teaching primary school, thinks differently. She insists that limited physical punishment is necessary for keeping the children in line. “Experience tells us that students simply ignore verbal warnings, no matter how full of love the warnings are,” says Wang. “It wouldn’t be easy to maintain order without corporal punishment. Of course we should tell the students why they are being punished. We were discouraged recently when a teacher was taken to court after inflicting physical punishment.”
Despite the government’s ban on corporal punishment in the classroom, the rap of a straightedge on the knuckles, or a student being made to stand, kneel, or stand in a half squat position are still fairly common sights. Compared with the more sensational cases of child abuse, such a debate might seem insignificant. However, it does serve to show how sensitized people have become to the issue of children’s rights and how old values are changing. The notion of appropriate discipline is no longer as clear-cut as it was thirty years ago.
While the revisions to the law attempt to provide better definitions, changing the law is not enough. The public also needs to be educated. Last year, in an effort to raise public awareness, the Taipei County Family Helper, with the support of Vitalon, a local beverage company, produced a public service advertisement campaign on child abuse. Intended to shock, the graphic television ads contained actual photos of abused children. Some people found the strong visual images disturbing and repugnant. This has led to the production of a second ad starring a popular singer. Though lacking the shock-value of the first, it nonetheless keeps the issue in the public mind.
People may be more aware of children’s rights, but because of tradition there continues to be a reluctance to report abuse. To make it easier for the public, the government, in conjunction with the Chinese Children’s Fund, set up a child abuse hot line. Director Pai says: “In 1989 the city government stepped in by opening a special hot line for people to call and report instances of child abuse. By late 1991, the number of cases reported through the line reached nearly nine hundred. The numbers keep going up.” Pai thinks this sad situation has existed for quite some time. It’s just that in the past people refused to admit there was a problem. “We were told not to bother about other people’s business, especially family problems,” Pai says. “Dealing with child abuse is not limited to one governmental department. The medical profession, teachers, police, and even the public need to cooperate closely.”
But this reluctance to get involved is also visible in the various professions which most often encounter cases of child abuse. Under the original law, jurisdiction and authority in such cases, as well as procedure, were not clearly defined. Social workers, teachers, health care workers, and even the police were not sure about their responsibilities. But revisions to the law will require all professionals to immediately report child abuse.
Another reason professionals often do not report cases is because they are afraid of trouble. Yu Ching-mei of the Taipei County Family Helper recalls a case when a girl was placed in the protective custody of a foster home. The child’s father responded by coming to the office and breaking all the windows. “I’ve even received death threats,” says Yu. Director Pai hopes to get more professionals to come forward. “We are negotiating with the court to see whether written statements could replace the presence of witnesses,” he says. “This is to guarantee their safety and to encourage more professionals to report child abuse cases.”
Traditionally, the government was rarely approached to intercede in and settle family matters. This attitudes till tends to influence public and expert opinion. Though there is a great deal of active cooperation among private organizations and the government, most private groups think the government should be called in only as a last resort. Social workers prefer to work directly with the family to solve problems such as child abuse. Private organizations offer intensive counseling for offenders. Their ultimate goal is to reconcile the family rather than seek its dissolution in the court system. Legal proceedings are to be avoided at all costs. Says Pai: “Our work starts with the family, which is traditionally the fundamental structure of society. If it functions well, a family is more crucial than any law in contributing to a child’s healthy growth.”
But the fact remains that the nuclear family often fails. When this happens, Pai thinks it is necessary to do more than just talk about child welfare. In his view, when it does break down, it is then the government’s responsibility to step in and provide help. For instance, it can provide supportive welfare by supplying needy families with financial and practical assistance. Supplementary assistance can be provided when a family temporarily encounters hard times. Among the available services are nursing and tutoring. Substantive assistance can also be provided when the parents of a child die. The government can place a child in a foster home or a nursery.
One of the biggest obstacles to fuller and more efficient government involvement is not a shortage of funds: in 1991 US$32 million was allocated for child welfare by the central government. Rather, the lack of manpower and qualified personnel remains a key problem. At present, there are slightly more than five hundred social workers employed at the various levels of government. They are responsible for all types of social welfare problems.
According to Pai, this problem has its origin in the original law. “A system for employing social workers was not stipulated in the original version of the Child Welfare Law,” he says. “I think this is one of its biggest shortcomings. We need people to enforce the law. But quality personnel are essential. How could they be left out of the government employment system? Another problem is that no system of benefits exists. Therefore, most of those working in the field of social administration are there until they can get a more secure job elsewhere. This attitude is also detrimental to the child welfare system.”
Private organizations have attempted to fill the gap. But they face similar problems: over-worked staff, under qualified personnel, and a shortage of funds. There are eighty-five foundations and associations specializing in different aspects of children’s welfare. Among them, twenty-two are Family Helpers sponsored largely by the Chinese Children’s Fund, a group that has been around for more than forty years. Except for a US$15,000 subsidy from the Taipei county government, operating funds for the Taipei County Family Helper all come from private sources. There are now twelve social workers and four administrative personnel working at the branch. Yu says: “We are always short of manpower. But budget limitations prevent us from hiring more staff.”
Yu Ching-mei and her staff currently handle over a thousand cases involving children who live in poverty. In addition to this workload, they must also take care of a large number of child protection cases. Volunteers help out part-time, but it is not always enough. Says Yu: “In the United States, each child protection worker is in charge of about twenty cases, while here each of us has to take care of a minimum of seventy-five.”
The same shortage of qualified personnel also has had an impact on the island’s 1,200 private and 2,800 public child-care centers. To remedy this situation, the Department of Social Affairs of the Taiwan Provincial Government set up a training center in Nantou to train day-care workers (including private baby sitters). The forty-hour classes are attended by about 120 students at a time. In conjunction with the Chinese Children’s Fund, the training center will offer a class for child protection workers in August. Since 1987, the Taipei City Family Helper has been conducting training courses for child-care workers. Similar courses are now being held in seven other counties and cities. About 4,000 child-care workers have completed the sixty-four hours of class work. Yet the graduates of these training courses cannot meet present demand, which is estimated to be as high as 20,000.
Professional standards in child welfare remain a big problem because the original law failed to outline any. The proposed revisions are still vague in this regard. Professor Hsieh feels that the present training is inadequate. In his opinion three hundred to four hundred hours of training would be more appropriate. Since the revisions are unclear, he is concerned about who will establish and monitor professional child-care workers. Legislator J.J. Lin (林志嘉), one of the formulators of the revisions, says the Examination Yuan will be in charge of setting and maintaining standards.
Though perhaps less visible than child abuse cases, but no less urgent, is the problem of healthcare for children. Until recently, this basic right has not been considered a government responsibility. Dr. H.C. Lue (呂鴻基), a pediatrician at National Taiwan University Hospital and director of the Chinese Taipei Pediatric Association, feels strongly that infants must have the chance to survive before other areas of child welfare can be discussed. “Survival and health are actually the two most basic elements in child welfare,” he says. According to Lue, the infant mortality rate is an important health index of pediatric care. About thirty years ago, the death rate of infants in Taiwan was thirty to forty in one thousand. This ratio has been reduced to fourteen in one thousand. Lue says: “Improvements have been made, but they are inadequate. The infant mortality rate in developed countries like the Netherlands and Sweden is only five in one thousand. In other words, though we claim to be a developed country, in reality we still lag behind most developed nations in this regard.”
For over forty years, children have been excluded from the labor and government employee insurance programs. According to statistics compiled by Lue, involving fifty hospitals, between 1984 and 1987 an estimated 5,400 seriously-ill children were unable to receive medical treatment because their parents could not afford it. The revisions to the Child Welfare Law will authorize the county and city governments to implement a system for subsidizing the medical costs of seriously-ill children and premature babies. Lue sees this as an essential first step. “This action is badly needed,” he says. “Even a government employee would find the medical expenses for treating a child with heart disease difficult to afford. Fees could run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
In the absence of insurance for children, private organizations have tried to take up the slack. This is especially true for children with serious medical conditions. Among the numerous private child welfare organizations handling children’s medical needs are the Cardiac Children’s Foundation, Childhood Cancer Association, and the Childhood Burn Foundation. The Cardiac Children’s Foundation, for instance, works with eleven contracted hospitals in diagnosing and treating children who suffer from heart disease. Preventative medicine, counseling, and rehabilitation are also carried out by the foundation. Lue, its secretary-general, says: “We pass cases to the social welfare departments of our contract hospitals. The departments will offer some financial help. Our foundation offers US$3,000 for each child. But we also ask that all surgery costs be absorbed by the hospital. If additional help is needed, the foundation will offer another US$3,000. In this way, most of the children we treat for heart disease are saved.”
Child welfare begins at home. Parents have primary responsibility for the needs of their children. But the efforts of private foundations and organizations have become no less crucial. In spite of weak legislation, they have contributed substantially to the establishment of a more complete child welfare system. In these changing times, they help articulate the demands of the public and the needs of children. As Professor Hsieh says: “Every nation must go through its own process of development in terms of child welfare. The pace will be adjusted according to the social situation and needs. Presently, we are going through a period of transition. It takes time and we can’t afford to rush. A complete child welfare system must be established and operated as a net work. It is the responsibility of all of society to care for and protect children.”