Representatives of religious groups and Taipei City councilors have attacked plans by the Taipei City Government's Department of Civil Affairs to fund this year's parade by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) Civil Rights Movement.
Some have stated in public that tolerating homosexual behavior would cause "sanitary problems" and make Taipei a "breeding ground" for HIV/AIDS. They even consider homosexuality a sin that violates good morals and needs to be "corrected."
This blatant and openly homophobic discourse highlights the gravity of discrimination in Taiwan and how urgent it is that this discrimination is dealt with. The most pressing task for civil rights groups, civic organizations and all levels of government right now is to promote an anti-discrimination law to combat mainstream social prejudice and ensure basic civil rights for disadvantaged and non-mainstream groups.
The criticism leveled by religious groups is based on several rational and scientific fallacies. Homosexual orientation is not something that can be "corrected," homosexuality is not the primary source of HIV/AIDS, nor will legalizing same-sex marriage lead to the extinction of the entire human race, since same-sex marriage will not "correct" the sexual orientation of heterosexuals and turn them into homosexuals. The deeper issue is the relationship between values and power.
Regardless of whether homosexuality or any other non-mainstream sexual orientation is genetically determined or voluntarily chosen, why should the state or society try to "correct" these orientations? Even if same-sex marriage were to be legalized in Taiwan, would this inconvenience heterosexuals in any direct way?
In a secular, pluralistic society in which church and state are separated, sexual orientation is a matter of individual choice and practice.
As long as it doesn't interfere with the lives of other people, being either homosexual or heterosexual is part of our fundamental freedoms.
Unfortunately, the protectors of heterosexual dominance cannot tolerate the appearance of new and diverse social values, and they use public resources to suppress and discriminate against those who differ from them.
This merging of superior power with mainstream values and the rejection of the other is the essence of discrimination.
Taiwan has not experienced the frenzied student and civil rights movements that occurred in western Europe and the US during the 1960s. This is one reason why Taiwanese lack a sense of awareness and the ability to reflect on the issue of discrimination -- they seem to think that it is the natural order of things to bully the weak and let the majority steam-roller all over the minority.
In addition to the hateful anti-gay rhetoric of religious leaders and politicians, other examples of how Taiwanese society believes in the law of the jungle and that might makes right include the selective approach police officers apply to home parties organized by homosexuals, politicians' contemptuous comments about female immigrants from Southeast Asia and China, and the hostile attitudes in residential communities toward people with HIV/AIDS or those with physical or mental problems moving into their community.
In dealing with the problem of discrimination, the government should not organize activities or offer benefits out of pity or as if it were acting out of charity. Rather, it should actively work to correct such malign social prejudice and prevent discrimination and prejudice from festering in public life.
Although the city government, for example, has sponsored activities which have achieved good results and international visibility, it has no concrete and effective anti-discrimination regulations to guarantee that marginalized groups -- including homosexuals -- do not suffer discrimination and oppression.
The Taipei City Government's current draft self-governance ordinance for the protection of human rights (
This conciliatory way of "placating the weak, but not correcting the mainstream" is still very far from respect for human rights.
Taipei being the capital city of Taiwan, the government should immediately take the following steps:
First, the government should clearly declare a firm stance in this "cultural war." It should not be allowed to vilify a homosexual orientation and lifestyle, and the government should continue to support similar activities based on the spirit of preserving cultural diversity.
Second, it should formally respond to religious groups. Any government agency canceling or withdrawing sponsorship for LGBT activities for religious reasons may be in violation of the principle of separating church and state, which is ensured by the Constitution.
Third, as the basic law on human rights (
Bruce Liao is an assistant professor of law at Soochow University and an adviser to the Taipei City Government's Human Rights Protection Committee.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for