Former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德) recently asked the DPP presidential hopeful Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) to make her sexual orientation public. Shih showed no care whatsoever for the fact that sexual orientation is a matter of privacy that has nothing to do with public interest. Shih said he supports the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) community, but that is nothing but a cover for his discrimination and political manipulation.
However, what we need to ask is why the topic of sex and sexual orientation can be used so successfully to manipulate political elections time and time again. The sensitive nature of one’s sexual preferences can be seen from how it has affected both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and, more recently, the DPP.
I believe the fundamental reason behind this is that Taiwanese society has always avoided publicly discussing issues related to sex and we are now increasingly moving in the direction of a “desexualized” society. Sex has become a taboo: Naked bodies cannot be viewed, gays and lesbians should stay at home and not go marching in the streets, and TV news about sex education must be blocked out with a mosaic.
However, people still talk about it, digging for sexual dirt as if they are the paparazzi. We all know the more something is forbidden, the more alluring it becomes and the more gossip it attracts. To solve this strange situation where sex and sexual orientation are politically manipulated, we have to seriously think about why sex cannot be openly discussed in Taiwan.
The famous Italian author and semiotician Umberto Eco in his commentary on WikiLeaks, “Not such wicked leaks,” asked: “How can a power hold up if it can’t even keep its own secrets anymore? ... It is also true that anything known about [Italian Prime Minister Silvio] Berlusconi or [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel’s character is essentially an empty secret, a secret without a secret, because it’s public domain. But to actually reveal, as WikiLeaks has done, that [US Secretary of State] Hillary [Rodham] Clinton’s secrets were empty secrets amounts to taking away all her power. WikiLeaks didn’t do any harm to [French President Nicolas] Sarkozy or Merkel, but did irreparable damage to Clinton and [US President Barack] Obama.”
What Eco meant is that when things have been exposed to sunlight, nothing is secret and no one can gain power from secrets. Those politicians who control their power and manipulate the public through secrets are no longer powerful when that secret is exposed.
I am not saying that Tsai should respond to Shih’s request. What I mean is that supposing one day sex is no longer a secret nor a taboo in Taiwanese society and discussion is open and natural, then nobody would be interested in exposing or gossiping about other people’s sex lives, sexual orientation or gender identity — who would want to know such everyday things? No one.
Like Eco said by quoting Georg Simmel in his commentary: “A real secret is an empty secret.”
If one day, sex or sexual orientation are no longer a secret and there is no bias or discrimination against sexuality and sexual orientation in Taiwan, it would be impossible to use people as tools in political struggles or for politicians to manipulate them anymore. However, before that day comes, no one has the right to force others out of the closet, because that not only violates privacy, it is also a matter of structural discrimination against sex and gender rights.
Ashley Wu is director of international affairs at Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers