A religious context
Bret Hinsch tried to defend marriage equality by interpreting the opponent’s slogan “traditional family” as referring to traditional “Chinese” family, which is inappropriate (“Traditional values may surprise,” page 8, Dec. 6).
I would like to point out the trap in the term “traditional” here. While Taiwan is culturally very Chinese, the use of the word “traditional” here is actually religious, I would say particularly evangelical.
Celebrities Ho Jong (何戎) and Amber Kuo (郭采潔), who were major figures in inciting anti-marriage equality sentiment in the recent events, are members of the New Life Church, whose founder Abraham Ku (顧其芸) is a graduate of the China Evangelical Seminary.
The spokesperson at the demonstration on Nov. 30, Chang Chuan-feng (張全鋒), is a member of the Unification Church.
When these Christians talk about marital values, they mean traditional Judeo-Christian marriages, and the evangelical interpretation of that kind of marriage would essentially come back to the Adam-and-Eve argument; that marriage is a celebration of God’s will embodied in the union of Adam and Eve, or some such narrative.
How could one miss it? The traditional idea of marriage being heterosexual is a very popular argument made often by conservative US Christians, and of course it means marriages sanctioned by the church, such as in old Europe even before there was a US.
We must never lose sight of the religious objectives of these organizations — in this case, imposing conservative or “tradional” Christian values on Taiwanese law. Their objectives are often in conflict with secularism.
By not interpreting the slogan in its proper context, Hinsch has helped steer the debate away from an important point of contention, and saved the Christian right from having to face charges of offending Taiwan’s secular legal system.
Americans in Taiwan should be experiencing a sense of deja vu, as the same arguments employed in the battles against homosexuals in the US, appear in Taiwan now.
Deliberate conflation, to direct the discussion away from secular issues, is a necessary and therefore familiar maneuver by conservative US Christians. We should expect to see more of these kind of moves.
Norman Fung
Xizhi, New Taipei City
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with