It’s often hard to feel sorry for politicians because one day’s victim can turn around and be equally offensive to someone else the next. However, it has to be acknowledged that female politicians the world over have a tougher time than their male counterparts.
If they are not married, their sexual preferences are queried or they are ridiculed for not being able to find a partner. Married or not — and with or without children — their maternal instincts are mocked, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, among others, can attest. Either way, they are challenged as men rarely are for putting their career over or before a partner and family.
The recent smear campaign — that is the only way to describe it — launched by one-time democracy activist and darling of the international human rights world turned publicity hound Shih Ming-teh (施明德) against Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential hopeful Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) shows that even a man who spent more than 25 years in prison for his political beliefs can be just as misogynistic as the average male chauvinist.
On April 14, while making a plug for Hsu Hsin-liang (許信良), one of Tsai’s rivals for the DPP presidential nomination process, Shih said Tsai should “clarify” her sexual orientation because voters “deserved a clear answer” before deciding on a candidate.
Earlier in the day he had attacked the third DPP hopeful, Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), not by questioning his sexual preferences, but over his democratic credentials. Neither Su nor Tsai had played a key role in Taiwan’s democracy movement in the 1970s and 1980s, Shih said, adding that not a “single one” of the key democratic trailblazers like himself had gone on to high-level government roles.
If a trailblazer is defined, as Shih appeared to be doing, as someone who was imprisoned for his or her political activism, then once again his misogyny was shining through by ignoring former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) or Greater Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu (陳菊) — his co-defendants in the Kaohsiung Incident trial.
Lu and Chen have certainly blazed trails — and they have battled critics questioning their unmarried state along the way.
Lu was frequently mocked during her years as a legislator over her marital status, not to mention the nationwide snickering that ensued in December 2001 when another publicity hound, Tung Nien-tai (董念台), dressed in a flashy tuxedo and armed with a huge bouquet of roses, attempted to lead a 24-car motorcade to the Presidential Office to propose to then-vice president Lu. Stopped by police, Tung first accused Lu of not having the decency to refuse him to his face, then said she was “not good enough” to marry him. Two months later, another alleged suitor spent a fortune to erect a large billboard along a Changhua County highway declaring his love for Lu.
Far too many people thought it was okay for these two men to try and humiliate Lu because she was in her late 50s and not married. Was she supposed to be gratified that any man thought of marrying her?
Misogyny is no laughing matter, and neither is Shih’s attempt to smear Tsai. It seems unlikely Shih would really want to see his suggestion carried out equally — to say that any man running for office must “clarify” his sexuality or that married politicians must “clarify” if they have mistresses or lovers or if they beat their wives/husbands/partners or children.
However, this is not really a question of sexual identity or gay rights as much as it is yet another attempt to denigrate and sideline a female politician with a sexually based offensive. And it is disheartening to be reminded that someone who once fought so hard for democracy remains so anachronistic in his thinking.
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent