The death of Jacques Picoux, a retired French language and literature university lecturer and long-term Taipei resident who fell from his 10th-floor apartment on Sunday, has rekindled the online debate over the administration’s promise on same-sex marriage.
While the administration is still finding its way, it should start to take steps, however small, to implement its pledges for gender and sexual orientation equality.
President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) pre-election support for the legalization of same-sex marriage was remembered after the 67-year-old Picoux’s death.
Online speculation has been rife that his death was a suicide, linking the date to the first anniversary of the death of his long-term partner, Tseng Ching-chao (曾敬超), from cancer in October last year.
Picoux and Tseng had lived with for 35 years without legal recognition. However, the need for same-sex marriage was palpably felt when Picoux could not intervene in the decisions of Tseng’s family about medical treatment for Tseng or their home, which was in Tseng’s name, said former legislative candidate Lee Yen-jong (李晏榕), a former student of Picoux.
Author Chu Hsin-yi (瞿欣怡), who recently published a book about her daily life with her partner of 15 years, Grow Old Together,” criticized Taiwan for “calling itself gay-friendly, but only paying lip-service to supporting gay people while being unwilling to let loose, even a bit, regulations affecting gay rights.”
“It’s simply hypocrisy,” she said, condemning those politicians who have refused to back same-sex marriage due to “considerations of social perception.”
It is hard not to agree with Chu that many politicians are merely paying lip service to gay rights. True, several local governments have allowed same-sex couples to register their partnerships in their household registration, but such moves are purely symbolic, because they have little legal status compared with the fundamental legal protection provided to married heterosexual couples.
However, if the right to marriage equality is what Tsai supports, she must make moves to live up to her promises, be it a non-legally-binding mark on household registration documents or a “same-sex-partners” bill that the Ministry of Justice is mulling, even though it has been criticized as “segregation.”
The Democratic Progressive Party registered a group to walk in the Taiwan LGBT Pride parade on Saturday next week. The party is probably cringing now at the idea of walking with people and groups that doubt its commitment to Tsai’s promises. However, it would be worse if it had not registered at all.
It is what the DPP, now in control of the executive and the legislative branches of government, must squarely face. The government might consider it difficult pass a same-sex marriage bill, which would require an amendment to the Civil Code, but policy campaigning, advocating and education should not wait, especially when it believes that the “social perception” is a determining factor in whether sex and gender equality can be achieved.
One promising sign are Tsai’s nominees to the Council of Grand Justices and heads of the Judicial Yuan. According to a civil group’s review and the recent review hearings at the Legislative Yuan, six of the seven nominees voiced either passive or active support for same-sex marriage.
Former grand justice Hsu Tzong-li (許宗力), the nominee for Judicial Yuan president, said that if homosexuals are proved to be a natural minority who have been misunderstood as abnormal, he would consider laws stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman to be unconstitutional.
While some criticized his stance as vague, others said he has given a clear support for same-sex marriage as there is no proof that homosexuality is abnormal, and he has not denied gays and lesbians the constitutional right to marriage.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS