In a Sept. 24 interview with the Chinese-language Apple Daily, Mark Lee (李天柱), who won Best Actor at the 2006 and 2016 Golden Bell Awards, repeated anti-LGBT comments that he made after the 2016 awards ceremony.
He also had a comment about gender-equality education, saying: “If it means legislating to put that element into children’s heads, then sorry, I have to say that it would be poison. It would be a Trojan horse.”
This is a rather awkward time for Lee to start singing his old tune again, since it is during the publicity period for the play The Long Goodbye (小兒子), in which Lee plays a leading role.
Besides, the playwright is Luo Yi-jun (駱以軍), who at the end of August wrote an article in support of proposed referendums for equal rights. It is as if Luo wrote the article as a preemptive response to Lee’s absurd statements.
“I find it very puzzling. It is like a basic adjustment to a clock mechanism,” Luo wrote. “There is a lack of concern for equality and non-discrimination. It is you who have deprived other people of their freedoms and rights for hundreds and thousands of years. The purpose is clear and straightforward — to give those rights back to them — so why do we now have two armies facing one another over the issue?”
This is precisely why there have been calls to boycott any performances of The Long Goodbye with Lee.
Lee used the pan-moralist term “poison” to describe gender-equality education, which includes a topic on homosexuality.
His choice of words pinpoints the basic reason why a generational divide has appeared over this issue.
People who are against homosexuality do not believe they are prejudiced. Rather, they think they are correcting a moral error.
They think that homosexual behavior is intrinsically bad, so to include gay and lesbian couples in the institution of marriage would be legalizing a bad thing.
Seen in this context, it is understandable why people who oppose gender-equality education also call for reinforcing character education. They are two sides of the same coin.
While some people are promoting same-sex marriage and gender-equality education, their opponents feel compelled to correct this “moral degeneracy.”
However, they have precisely the wrong idea. The point of including homosexuality in gender-equality education is not to eliminate morality.
On the contrary, it is to establish an ethical system that fits the real world.
Older people in Taiwan lived under martial law, which lasted for decades. The morality to which they are accustomed is dogmatic and prohibitive.
This morality says: “You should not do anything that is not allowed,” but this point of view is too rigid to cope with real-life situations. It leads people to reject outright anything to which they are not accustomed, which results in immorality.
In contrast, the post-martial law generation has received a formative education that is closer to liberalism. Under this value system, ethics depends above all on whether it harms others. If it does not, there is no reason to restrict it.
This kind of morality says: “You can do anything that does not need to be restricted.”
Under such a framework, gender-equality education — like other issues dealing with communities and class that have long since been written into school curricula — are not radical at all. On the contrary, they are quite conservative. They are meant to establish a new set of moral values.
If people who oppose homosexuality did some field research on the teaching materials on the students themselves, they would discover that the students reflexively associate the ideas of respect and equality with gender-equality education.
The curriculum has to do with morality; there is no emphasis on factual or technical content like sex positions, as LGBT-unfriendly people might imagine.
Lee and others like him might not be aware why the problem is so serious.
Lee calls LGBT people “poison,” but educational reforms aim to establish a system of morality that can eradicate a kind of “poison.”
This “poison” is precisely the kind of discriminatory thinking to which people like Lee cling.
To discriminate against LGBT people is not just an outdated way of thinking, it is more than that: It is a sinister ideology.
Chu Yu-hsun is an author.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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.