Does a presidential candidate have to reveal their sexual orientation to the public?
The question has suddenly become a hot topic in Taiwan. Although women’s groups and gay and lesbian groups were quick to respond after former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德) questioned DPP presidential primary contender Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) sexuality, the media’s interest in the subject has not yet been sated. On Friday morning, UFO Radio (飛碟電台) host Tang Hsiang-lung (唐湘龍) devoted 30 minutes of his program to listeners’ calls on the topic of whether Tsai should come out of the closet or else clarify that she is not in fact a lesbian.
Should politicians have to declare their sexual orientation, just as they have to declare their assets? Shih seems to think so, but we really ought to consider what influence or harm someone’s sexual orientation or how faithful they are in their love life might have on how they go about making policy. Although experience tells us that politics is dominated by heterosexual men and that they have a tendency to make public policy decisions that infringe on the rights of minorities, the democratic consensus in most countries, including the US, is that the private lives of public figures should not be a focus of examination and discussion by the public at large.
The questions now being raised about Tsai’s private life are not an isolated phenomenon. In Taiwan, curiosity about public figures’ private lives tends to focus on women.
Female politicians whose lives have been put under a microscope include former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮), former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) former interpreter Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴), former Hsinchu City Bureau of Cultural Affairs director Chu Mei-feng (璩美鳳) and independent legislator May Chin (高金素梅). These and many other examples illustrate how the private lives of women politicians, especially unmarried ones, are so often picked over by the media and public.
Even when the woman in question refuses to be drawn by rumors, incessant reporting and discussion in the media detract from her right to freely participate in politics. In addition to still being a minority in the world of politics, the professional image and hard work of these women are overlooked, putting them on an unequal footing with male colleagues.
Taiwanese society has not yet grasped the proper standards and limits of public discussion, and the media have yet to learn where to draw the line between what is public and what should remain private. Think about it. If someone in your workplace asked questions about your sexual orientation in front of everyone, no matter whether you are gay or straight and whether or not you admit to whatever that person implies, your career prospects and indeed your space for social interaction may well suffer as a result, given that our society is still full of prejudice against homosexuality in both language and culture.
If that is true in the workplace, then it is even more so in the heat of elections, when the power to govern the country is at stake.
An enlightened society needs to continue learning and evolving its standards of conduct. Any media outlet that aspires to be considered of good quality should desist from reporting speculation about politicians’ private lives, and all worthy citizens should refrain from spreading stories about other people’s love lives and private affairs, except when the people concerned divulge the information of their own accord.
Fan Yun is a board member of the Awakening Foundation and an associate professor of sociology at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS