Two incidents involving alleged inappropriate contact that took place in the Legislative Yuan last week reveal the misguided attitudes toward sexual harassment and contrasting gender standards in Taiwan.
First, it is embarrassing enough that the nation’s lawmakers keep resorting to physical conflict to resolve their differences. While this is nothing new, not only do they not reflect on their actions, but some seem to take pride in it.
For example, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Sandy Yeh (葉毓蘭) said it was her first fight and that her antics had garnered 2,000 Facebook likes within two days. She said that she was just defending herself and “reacting to violence with violence.” Just what kind of example does this set for young people, who are taught not to use violence to resolve matters?
Back to the sexual harassment issue — the first incident took place on Tuesday last week during a scuffle in the Legislative Yuan, when KMT Legislator Chen Hsueh-sheng (陳雪生) allegedly pressed his belly against DPP Legislator Fan Yun (范雲) several times.
Physical contact is inevitable during a fight, and the facts can be subjective and open to interpretation. However, Chen’s reaction to the accusations showed a grave lack of awareness regarding what constitutes sexual harassment. He claimed innocence, saying that “it is impossible to become pregnant from a belly.” That is immensely ignorant. An action forced on someone that results in pregnancy is called rape or sexual assault, not harassment.
Then he made things worse by insinuating that he has no feelings for Fan, while Wang Kuang-yu (王冠予), head of Chen’s legislative office, wrote on Facebook that Fan “should look at herself in the mirror.” These statements are misogynistic and further highlight Taiwanese society’s unhealthy interest in a person’s attractiveness, especially women’s.
As if the violence itself did not set a bad enough example, this debacle makes light of a serious issue that is very prevalent. This trivialization definitely contributes to why more than 50 percent of women responding to a 2018 survey said that they would “laugh it off and take no action” if confronted with sexual harassment in the workplace.
On the other end of the spectrum, KMT Legislator Chen Yu-chen (陳玉珍) allegedly reached into independent Legislator Freddy Lim’s (林昶佐) pocket to steal his ballot on Friday. It was joked about by the media and politicians, and much of the discussion revolved around Lim’s attractiveness and whether Chen was “trying to touch something else.”
For example, DPP Legislator Chuang Jui-hsiung (莊瑞雄) joked during a televised conversation with Chen that she “always targets the most handsome ones.” Even some of Lim’s fans expressed a similar sentiment while fawning over his abs.
Although Lim said that Chen’s hand was in his pocket for quite a while, and it made him uncomfortable, he has not mentioned sexual harassment. While women are more likely to be sexually harassed than men, a few months ago the issue of men being sexually assaulted and raped became a hot topic, with experts urging people to take it seriously. How would the public react if a male legislator stuck his hand in a woman’s pocket?
Maybe Lim did not feel sexually violated, but for the media and politicians to joke about the incident this way perpetuates the double standard that further trivializes the experience of men who are sexually harassed or assaulted.
The reactions in both cases set a bad example, and despite the nation’s progress in gender equality, there is obviously still a lot of work to do.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the