This is but one of the many pieces of commentary I expect you'll be reading about the VCD that allegedly depicts a sexual encounter between a female public figure and her married lover.
Many of the opinions so far have been predictable: the video of two adults engaging in consensual sex violates their right to privacy; the media, though they have the right to publish freely what they feel is newsworthy, should exercise self-restraint; the sex life of the public official in question and the video itself hardly merit public scrutiny.
All are valid points.
But a deeper, more fundamental observation about the latest sex scandal to capture our attention can probably be made.
In short, the public's interest in the 40-minute video shot with a pinhole camera confirms what many in the media have long known. The public, on the whole, are a bunch of gawkers. They're voyeurs, easy titillated, and the media pander to them.
Scoop Weekly, (獨家報導) which distributed the VCD free with its latest edition, was sold out shortly after hitting the newsstands on Monday.
Before then, the video was burning up the hard drives of Web surfers around the nation as it made the rounds on the Internet -- that medium which is synonymous with sex.
There has been widespread interest in the video, but not because the public is concerned about the alleged promiscuous behavior of a public figure -- as Scoop Weekly would have you believe. Nor are they wringing their hands about invasions of privacy.
They're curious, because the purported star of this story is an attractive 36-year-old female politician, Chu Mei-feng (
A female friend who has seen the video commented: "I like his technique. He's really good." She was referring to the male in the video, who spends a good deal of time lavishing his partner with kisses.
Yes, issues of privacy and press freedom are important questions to consider -- but somehow I suspect the public is just plain infatuated. My friend's other comments were to note the attractiveness of the man in the video and his model-good looks.
This latest brouhaha about the media and sex brings to mind a famous affair that took place in the US.
Few people remember that America's most notorious scandal was about whether a US president had lied under oath, which gave the media their justification for reporting the private lives of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky in breathless detail.
What they remember are the details: the president using his intern as a humidor, the evidence of a liaison left behind on her blue Gap dress, etc.
Again, the public are voyeurs, easy titillated.
But what's truly tragic about this most recent episode is the government's response.
Prosecutors say distribution of the video may violate Article 235 of the Criminal Code, which makes the distribution, sale or public display of indecent materials illegal. Simply put, government officials have labeled the video as "pornographic."
Should the government prevail in this line of thinking, I can't help but think that we would all be worse off.
This was a simple act of lovemaking -- common to any bedroom in Taiwan -- albeit one caught on camera. How can an act that condom-maker Durex says the average person in Taiwan engages in 65 times per year be called "pornographic?"
While Scoop Weekly may have taken a step backward with its pursuit of this non-story, the government risks doing the same for society with its equation that lovemaking is dirty.
Michael Logan is a Taipei-based journalist.
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS