On May 9, 2024, the Education and Culture Committee of the Legislative Yuan in Taiwan held a public hearing on the draft of the “Youth Basic Law,” inviting representatives from the Ministry of Education, the Executive Yuan, as well as scholars and experts to participate in discussions. There are differing opinions regarding the age range definition for youth, with the Ministry of Education suggesting 18 to 35 years old. However, an assistant professor from the General Education Center at National Tsing Hua University proposed starting from the age of 15, while an assistant professor from the Department of Education at National Taipei University believed that defining age ranges may intensify opposition.
In the past, the Legislative Yuan had submitted drafts such as the “Youth Development Basic Law” and the “Youth Basic Law” between the 9th and 10th sessions, but no progress was made. Internationally, countries like Finland established the “Youth Law” as early as 1972, with the most recent amendment in 2016. Similarly, South Korea passed the “Youth Basic Law” in 2020, which was then implemented the same year.
Regarding the age range definition for youth, Lin Ming-yu, the Deputy Minister of Education, suggested defining youth as aged 18 to 35, with reference to the flexibility in adjustment based on different issues as stipulated in the South Korean “Youth Basic Law.”
Assistant professor Ho Chih-yung from National Tsing Hua University’s General Education Center suggested initiating the age range from 15 years old, considering the career planning that high school students face. Meanwhile, Zhou Jia-wei, the Co-founder and COO of Good Friends Social Ventures, emphasized that age is an objective condition, and individuals may have different life experiences or growth backgrounds even at the same age.
Furthermore, Assistant Professor Lu Li-xiang from the Department of Education Management at National Taipei University expressed reservations about setting a basic law, suggesting that defining age ranges may exacerbate intergenerational conflicts and may not be able to address the actual needs of specific sectors or cases. For instance, if the draft stipulates that the head of a specialized unit must be a youth, would the position automatically be vacated once the individual reaches 35 years old?
Some have advocated against dispersing youth affairs across various government departments. Lin Si-kai, Vice Chairman of the Taiwan Youth Democratic Association, Fang Chen-an, a student at the Career Development Institute of Tatung University, Lin Yue-chin, a Democratic Progressive Party legislator, and Wu Si-yao all suggested having a specific unit to integrate and oversee youth affairs. The Ministry of Education stated that they are considering strengthening the coordination mechanism for cross-departmental affairs at the central level while respecting the emphasis on planning by local governments based on their specific duties.
Kuomintang legislator Yeh Yuan-zhi cautioned that setting up a dedicated agency should consider whether it might affect existing policies. He cited an example where the lack of relevant resources hindered the implementation of youth entrepreneurship activities within the New Taipei City Government, despite the Economic Development Bureau, which was originally responsible for the task, having ample resources for it.
Regarding the “Youth Policy White Paper,” Huang Ting-wei, Vice Secretary-General of the Taiwan Student Union, along with several experts, scholars, students, and legislators, reached a consensus that it should be published every four years. In terms of safeguarding rights, DPP legislator Lin Chu-yin called for enhancing young people’s ability to resist financial risks and developing financial literacy. KMT legislator Chen Jing-hui emphasized the importance of youth mental health, while DPP legislator Chen Pei-yu reminded the need to address urban-rural disparities.
In terms of the position of the basic law, DPP legislator Lin Yi-jin and KMT legislator Ke Chih-en both emphasized that the basic law serves as a guiding principle, and once passed, the subsequent laws and implementation details would be developed to guide the implementation by various government departments or local governments.