Presidential hopeful and chairperson of the main opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) on Saturday said she would not answer questions raised by one of her predecessors – ex-DPP chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德) – about her sexual orientation.
Tsai, who is widely seen as the frontrunner in a three-way primary for the DPP nomination for the 2012 presidential election, brushed off Shih’s questions saying: “I don't want to answer his question and I most certainly won't do it. If I answer him I will become an accomplice of gender oppression.
"There is nothing wrong with any sexual orientation or marital status, and no one has the right to question others... We need to work harder to defend the human rights of all sexual minority groups," Tsai said in a statement according to the Taipei Times. She is 54 and single.
For the first time, the DPP’s presidential candidate will be determined by a public opinion poll – with no party member vote – at the end of April.
On Thursday, Shih demanded that Tsai declares her sexual orientation. “If Tsai admits she is lesbian like Iceland Prime Minister (Johanna Sigurdardottir) has done, it can boost the morale of closeted gays and make Taiwan a more progressive society.”
He has told the media that he is a supporter of gay rights and was present at the first gay wedding ceremony in Taiwan in 1990, despite his presence being met with great criticism at the time from the DPP. He was quoted as saying in Taiwan's English-language daily The China Post: If someone is not honest about his or her own sexual orientation, how can the public expect him or her to be honest to their country?
Meanwhile, Shih’s remarks have drawn criticism from fellow DPP members as well as gay and women's rights groups.
The Post also quoted former premier Su Tseng-chang and contender vying with Tsai for the DPP's nomination as saying on his Facebook page that he disagreed with Shih's remarks, and stating, “Taiwan should not be like this. Politics should not be like this. I think this is terrible.”
More than a dozen gay rights and women’s groups called a press conference last Friday to slam Shih’s remarks and demanded that he apologise.
Responding to Shih’s insistence that he’s pro-gay-rights, womens rights group Awakening Foundation board director Fan Yun said: “Never force anyone to come out of the closet. If you do, you’re violating their rights.”
Fan and Taiwan Gender Equality Education Association secretary-general Lai Yu-mei further challenged Shih to come up with concrete policy suggestions to promote gay rights if he really cares about the issue, the Taipei Times reported on Saturday.
Other groups taking part in the press conference included the Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association, Gender/Sexuality Rights Association Taiwan, the Taiwan LGBT Pride Community and the Taiwan LGBT Family Rights Advocacy Association.
An editorial in The China Post today titled “The role of sexuality in politics” questioned if the advice of women and gay rights groups urging Tsai to “remain silent” and “ignore” Shih's demands "left something to be desired."
“Privacy aside, is a question on someone's sexuality really so negative and undeserving of a response?” Asked the editorial noting that “there has not been one openly gay politician in Taiwan history.”
读者回应
Others don't need to be so open coz they have their own inner voices and drumbeats to follow...
Now wouldn't Taiwan be more interesting with Shih's streamed exploits on national television? ;(
Hell!
He could have asked whether Taiwan would be well served, as far as viewpoints of difference were concerned, under Communist Party rules? ... or perhaps whether his type of invasive question is best suited to an older China... and an outdated DPP member
Shih, like the true male snake he is, could then smell the scent of a real woman worth electing... sniff long and longer as if his life depended on it... odor de jolie... it should be bottled. ;)
What's surprising is that it still works. Not with everyone of course, but maybe with enough voters so that it still makes it worth using such sophisms in a democratic context where the rule of "majority" is all that counts.
Whether we like it or not, a homosexual person's orientation has innumerable consequences on his/her ability to handle matters, be they professional or personal, NOT because of the orientation per se but because of the way mainstream society reacts to it. That may sound like a strange paradox but homophobia, not homosexuality is what mainly shapes the thoughts, opinions and behaviour of lesbians and gays.
If we lived in a world free of homophobia, your remark would be entirely true, this Fridae article would not have been written and hell, Fridae would most probably not even exist ! But our planet's name is Earth, not Utopia and on Earth homophobia is alive and well, affecting and actually shaping our human societies in countless ways, visible or not ...
If this lady is a lesbian, her whole life cannot but be affected, deeply and significantly. Therefore her actions are ALSO affected and that's nothing to worry about but it's a fact that cannot and should not be denied. All because she was born in a society where it's not exactly ok to be a lesbian. Now if anyone tells me it IS ok to be gay in Taiwan, my answer is well, if it WAS that easy, Mr Shih being a politician would NEVER have bothered to ask the question. He raised THAT PARTICULAR point and not whether she prefers cats or dogs because he knows the dart will hurt somewhere somehow and all to his political gain.
To counter, it's not a person's orientation that has innumerable consequences. Rather, it's our decisions of how we think, speak and act over our orientation and how we react to what we perceive or experience from other's thoughts, speech and actions regarding orientation and gender issues. But then, I think your comment eventually reads this way...
A man I greatly admire was once making a point during a dinner conversation and someone said to him "I'm sorry Henry, I disagree" to which he answered "well, no cause to be sorry, I disagree too... in a way". My point (and his) being that there are so many ways to look at any given issue that we can never be totally in agreement - even with ourselves! that's why it's worth sharing, exploring and trying new perspectives. That's why I'm happy that you "don't always agree with [my] comments".... if you did it would be rather disturbing lol.
I didn't want to complicate things further but yes, my comment does "eventually reads this way". I did point out that it's not our sexual orientation per se which shapes us, it's the homophobic context in which we are born and to which we are forced to react, because it questions our nature in the most radical way.
Now, do we constantly and truly "decide " to act, think, speak in this way or that... what is the actual scope of our "free will"... well that is an entirely other question and a very challenging one, right ?
:-)
And then in turn all of the above (thoughts, behaviour etc) did not have any impact whatsoever on the way you do your job (or anything else for that matter) ?
Come on... no one is saying that Mrs Tsai's (alleged) homosexuality is influencing her political stance and/or actions in a NEGATIVE way - as a matter of fact I believe it's likely to do just the opposite. But to say it doesn't affect it in the least is totally unrealistic and absurd.
I'd like to add that I can't help but cringe when I hear people using the word "job" in politics. Regarding a political FUNCTION as a "job" is a relatively modern way of labelling it which roughly started in the 60s and is very revealing of how low politics and politicians have stooped since the end of the war. Politicians themselves often like to refer to their FUNCTION as a "job" nowadays, probably to make it sound more down-to-earth, nearer-to-the-masses, let's-roll-up-our-sleeves and such demagogical garbage but this seemingly innocent language slip could in the long run harm and deface their status and their task irreversibly.
The substitution partly stems from the fact that they actually have to WORK and that for this work they get PAID, but that doesn't make it a JOB, no more than a soda-pop machine is a salesperson just because it gives you a product in exchange for your money.
Mixing up concepts and placing the wrong label on
everything is a modern plague and this is one disturbing example. I regret to note that the present President of my own country (France) is one of the worst examples of self-serving politicians doing a "job" as he loves to call it, and when asked, as a child, what he wanted to be as an adult he may very well have answered "I want to be famous" because that's undoubtedly what he loves most about "the job". As a result he has consistently made a fool of himself and one can't help but wonder how his FUNCTION will survive in the eyes of the French after this clown's pathetic performance finally comes to an end.
(Sorry guys for the inflammatory digression into French politics) :-))
I believe there is what appears to me to be a generally accepted idea in democratic government that politicians are elected to "serve the public," often including such wording as part of the swearing-in ceremony. The argument about it not being a job was so persuasively presented that I felt I should revise my own post to remove references to '"job description" to better reflect this difference. Since immunity from prosecution during the term of a politician is also something that's not unheard of in Western countries, I wonder, is this also part of caesar2003's understanding of a job?? Yes, yes...persuasive arguments, one and all...
People get off-topic just as I am doing now. I am sure the moderator does a bang-up job moderating so that those commenting won't need too. Thank goodness it's the moderator's...ahem...job.
...and for adding two very relevant arguments to the issue ("serving the public" and the immunity factor).
It seems to me that fridae moderators never remove a comment for being off-topic and it's probably just as well. I have seen heinous/insulting comments chopped off but not always, especially when they're not using "officially rude" words. There again why not, after all this board is for conversation and conversations can get pretty heated up at times. When and if someone insults me I just laugh and take it from where it comes :-)
The comments:
"A person's sexual orientation has nothing whatsoever to do with their ability to do their job",
"A persons sexuality is about as relevant to his/her ability to carry on a job as is whether he/she eats Coco pops or muesli for breakfast",
and "性傾向應該和領導能力沒關係唄" ('Sexual orientation should not be related to leadership')
These comments actually do have some truth in them...
The reason why I say this is because when Tsai Ing-wen is doing her 'job' or 'function' (whatever you want to call it), her sexual orientation makes no difference to the rest of us as citizens. It's her choices and decisions as a human being that either positively or negatively affect us - not that I'm Taiwanese! :P
Yveserwan, I'd like to add to this:
"hello denseaus... seriously ? your gay identity in this not-exactly-gay-friendly world has not in the least influenced your thoughts, behaviour, attitude, opinions, assumptions and life-experiences any more than your breakfast menus ?
And then in turn all of the above (thoughts, behaviour etc) did not have any impact whatsoever on the way you do your job (or anything else for that matter) ?"
Surely this does affect a person, and in this case, it surely affects Tsai Ing-wen too. But Berlusconi's girlfriends affect him, and Sarcozy's love of fame* affects him too.. and whether you eat coco-pops or muesli for breakfast could possibly have its effects on a person too... lol...
To clarify, I don't disagree with anyone else's point of view here, I just wonder whether there actually needs to be a debate on how her sexual orientation effects her or not, because we all have our own shit going on, whether gay, straight, married, single, or whatever, and and if she is a good politician, her gayness (or lack of) should make no difference to the citizens of Taiwan at all..
Just offering a point of view.. :)
I agree with your comment "her gayness (or lack of) should make no difference to the the citizens of Taiwan at all.." and I would go even further to suggest that it WOULD NOT make any differnce to the citizens of Taiwan.
The bottom line is the people of any country (especially in a country like Taiwan that is progressive on human rights) want sincere, uncorrupt politicians that listen to the needs of their citizens and deliver on issues like economy, jobs, taxes, rights, health etc.
After any election the sexuality of a leader is of no consequence compared with issues involved with the job (yes job!) that they have been entrusted to carry out by the people. This can be seen from my country (Australia a country not unlike Taiwan in many ways and with a very large proportion of Asian voters) where we have an openly female gay asian minister in cabinet (Penny Wong, finance minister) and the leader of our third largest political party is an openly gay man.
Their sexuality is rarely even publicly mentioned ( unless ironically from the gay community holding them to account for their performance on gay rights)
The vast majority don't give a rats!
Authenticity is rare in politicians and trolls.
Is total authenticity necessarily a good thing in politicians? If public figures always said what they really thought, where would we be? Look at the effect on international relations by Wikileaks. It just doesn't work for politicians to be entirely honest.
or might i misunderstand? certainly, i'd hate to think that australia practices some sort of role segregation...bottom line, top line, versatile line. i mean, wouldn't it be just so much more fun if we could have a single integrated line. oh! i see. that might turn into a cluster-f*** line. now i see why there might be segregation. ok, so may i ask that in your next posting, you reference the top line or the versatile line? thanks. you're a dear. always good to make everyone feel included :-)
yes, yes. i too have been thinking how alike taiwan and australia are. surrounded by water, barbie and beer weekends, mainland china wanting to own everything, having a very LARGE proportion of asian voters...yes yes yes, so very alike. i guess we should all be happy that australia's progressive immigration policies have been so effective; sounds like asians have become a large proportion of voters.
hmm...very large proportion of voters you say? would you say this is the same as vast majority?? ahh...so you are the ear of the vast majority of voters who just happen to be asian. good good good. how wonderful!
as to sexuality never even being publicly mentioned down under, i wonder as to how you came know that Penny Wong is from isle of lesbos or that the third largest australian political party is helmed (i like this word so much, don't you?) by a spartan (i loved loved loved '300', didn't you?? woof!)?? ah yes, you have the ear of the vast majority. yes yes yes yes...your authoritative voice makes me confident that i need not do a google search of australian news to see if sexuality is ever mentioned in the australian press. i'm sure that's a topic that strictly reserve for barbie-talk.
i must say, it's awfully impressive that you choose to stay so in-tune with the hearts and mind of the vast majority. afterall, they don't give a rats. i feel it must really sting not getting the rats, especially if you always hoped for rats (do you know when you first starting hoping to receive rats? don't worry yourself; i'm sure this is a perfectly normal desire. it probably meshes nicely with bukake.). for sure, you deserve better; i'll do my best to see you get your rats. here in bangkok, we have rather alot and i'm sure the generous folks here would love to share with you. oops! so sorry; i digress yet again. focus focus focus!
truly, your word is that of a scholar...informed, trusted, spreading truth and justice. i bet rupert murdoch pesters you night and day to helm (i just had to work this word in one more time) his hard news empire, you becoming robin to his batman, representing the interests and speaking for the vast majority. i've got your back; once you've hit the big time, i'll do my best to remind people your voice of truth started here on fridae! how fortunate for all of us!! hip-hip hooray!!
'caesar2003', i know this sounds rather trashy of me, but it's hard to view you objectively. afterall, with your facepic being even smaller resolution than the thumbnail and your dickpic being the only clear one on your profile, i can't help but feel you are trying to tell the world something important about yourself.
i'm not looking for your kudos, boys. rather, i just hope to engage in thought-provoking conversation, though sometimes i do lose my objectivity and decide to come down to your level, ass-to-ass, so to speak.
as to the rants of random queen, this might be as close as you come to chatting it up with royalty. so i suggest you use your opp wisely!
BYE! :P
"Hey citizens, I got a mole on my butt and my bank account has $3,216.27! Vote me as president now!" XD
请先登入再使用此功能。