On Saturday afternoon, a multicolored assemblage of about 50,000 people from 20 countries gathered in front of the Presidential Office in Taipei to support calls for the government to recognize — and just as importantly, legalize — same-sex unions.
For a relatively conservative Asian society, the turnout for the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Pride parade, which was celebrating its first decade, was more than respectable. The fact that the parade took part in an open-minded, orderly and welcoming atmosphere was just as important.
There were none of the hateful protesters and religious zealots who all too often turn up at similar parades in the US, or in Russia, where non-heterosexuals are often physically assaulted by extremists.
Passers-by looked on with curiosity, ice cream vendors had a field day, petitions were signed and participants, from the scantily clad to the gaudily plumed, had a blast having their pictures taken while supporting an important social cause.
That such progressiveness could take root within a traditional society is testament to the social progress that has occurred in Taiwan. This is an example to other societies, including that across the Taiwan Strait, where difference is treated as a malady rather than something to celebrate.
That is not to say that discrimination does not occur in Taiwan. Despite the openness that characterized Saturday’s event, homosexuals continue to live under the shadow of intolerance, both in society at large and, even more devastatingly, within their own families. This often forces them to live a lie or to clip their wings, as it were.
What is even more unacceptable is that such intolerance toward the “other” often rears its ugly head among ardent supporters of Taiwan, both in Taiwan and in the West. Such individuals occasionally make comments in online forums or at public venues that they fail to realize will hurt people in their midst, who must then retreat deep into the closet and, as a consequence, deny the community of their hard-earned expertise in combating intolerance.
Given Taiwan’s isolation within the international community and its people’s fight for recognition — the absence of which being itself a form of discrimination — the nation should instead tap into the lessons learned by minorities, such as homosexuals, and the strategies they adopt to protect their rights.
Not only should Taiwanese learn to emulate some of those tactics, they must realize how significant it would be for Taiwan’s image abroad if it were to take the lead on the issue of homosexuality by legalizing same-sex marriage. Such a move would not go unnoticed and would send a strong signal that Taiwan is, indeed, a distinct society that continues fearlessly along the path of modernity. Any supporter of Taiwan should realize how helpful support for such a social cause could be to the cause of national self-determination.
The issue also presents an opportunity for an administration that so far has had little to show in terms of successful policies. With his popularity levels in the gutter, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) could certainly use such a win, especially as he portrays himself as well-attuned to human rights issues. For its part, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) could make the issue its own by pushing a policy that would confirm the party’s role as a progressive voice for change and the betterment of the nation. It’s not enough for DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) to say that he supports same-sex marriage; concrete steps must be taken.
There are no better placed people to combat discrimination than those who have been the victims of discrimination for decades.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS