News reports that the Cabinet would include groups opposed to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in the Gender Equity Education Committee has been a source of a lot of debate and opposition.
Civic groups feel that the Cabinet’s thinking is a violation to the spirit of the Gender Equity Education Act (性別平等教育法) and human rights.
Is the inclusion of anti-gay activists in the Ministry of Education’s committee a display of its respect for diversity?
The Cabinet’s misconception is precisely the kind of issue that should be challenged based on the concept of diversity.
First reported by the Central News Agency on July 19, reporters said the anti-LGBT camp expressed its view that the ministry’s committee is not impartial because it is dominated by the pro-LGBT camp and they were hoping that the ministry would include anti-gay representatives as well.
The Cabinet responded by saying that it understood the anti-gay groups’ concerns and that it therefore agreed to grant their wish to show respect for diversity of opinions in the hope that doing so would improve communication.
The news was a shock to social movements. The Cabinet’s view violates to not only the spirit of the Gender Equity Education Act, but also universal human rights, and it could be a setback to the years of effort and accomplishments of Taiwan’s gender equity education.
I still remember how civil groups and legislators held a news conference in January 2014 to protest the ministry’s appointment of professors who publicly opposed LGBT education as members of the Sixth Gender Equity Education Committee.
At that time, the ministry responded by saying it was impossible to make changes to the committee’s composition, because the members had already been appointed.
It then legitimized this decision — which was a violation of the spirit of the act — by saying that it respected “a diversity of opinions.”
The ministry even argued that the committee should not be dominated by members who recognized gender equity and equality, and that people who did not recognize gender equity should also be invited, so that “a variety of voices” could make themselves heard, allowing the government to take opposing views into account when making policy.
However, in a multicultural society, diversity is never about putting a variety of views together and simply letting them argue it out. Instead, it is about challenging various forms of discrimination; analyzing oppression and power relationships; cultivating knowledge and multiculturalism; and promoting democratic ideals and social justice.
It was proven later that the ministry’s compromises and concessions led to idling and set back the nation’s gender equity education. Apart from the then minister of education’s frequent absence from the regular committee meetings, the committee could hardly focus on the main issues due to the power struggles and tight resources.
The miserable experience of the sixth equity education committee resulted in the ministry releasing a set of instructions for the public recommendation of committee members in June, clearly stating that recommended candidates must possess gender equity awareness and that they must not engage in the types of discriminatory practices defined in the Gender Equity Education Act or disparage and bully others because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
If the Cabinet really wants to invite anti-LGBT activists to participate in the committee, the candidates that it recommends must pass this screening process. The government must not issue a set of regulations and then just ignore it.
Past committees were never short on anti-LGBT members. If the Cabinet insists on appointing anti-gay activists as members, then I would like to make the three following suggestions.
First, the government should publicly identify all anti-gay members and list verifiable publications, speeches and academic background to legitimize their presence.
Second, the ministry should broadcast the regular committee meetings live to allow the public to understand the drawbacks of the effect of anti-gay forces’ influence on Taiwan’s gender equity education.
Third, the Cabinet should issue a formal statement acknowledging that the vision of “diversity, equity and gender friendliness” proposed by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) is mere rhetoric rather than the foundation of government policy.
Would the Presidential Office appoint those who are opposed to human rights to serve as members of its Human Rights Consultative Committee? Would the Cabinet appoint the notorious Ting Hsin (頂新) Group senior executives as members of its food safety joint meeting? Would the ministry appoint drug addicts as anti-drug ambassadors?
Although the Executive Yuan’s Secretary-General Office issued a clarification stating that it is within the ministry’s authority to appoint the committee members, the Cabinet can still influence the ministry’s decision behind the scenes. That being so, the Cabinet should learn from past failures and act with caution.
Wang Li-ching is an associate professor in the department of education at National Pingtung University and a member of the Sixth Gender Equity Education Committee.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US