At a campaign rally for Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislative candidate Chang Szu-kang (張斯綱) on Thursday last week, Yaung Chih-liang (楊志良) — a former health minister, no less — made some predictably horrid comments about Chang’s female opponent. Somehow blaming the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for the low birthrate, Yaung called DPP Legislator Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) “useless” for being unable to bear children at nearly 50 years of age. He even turned to a KMT city councilor sitting near him and told her to “go home to make love” with her husband when she told him she had no children. The next day he refused to apologize, saying he was “just stating facts.”
Wu rightfully blamed her opponent for inviting Yaung to speak at the rally. The former minister was still given a microphone, despite months earlier causing an uproar when he blamed domestic violence on the public being unable to beat up President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). Wu and her fellow DPP members were also quick to turn the situation around, saying that such remarks represent the “mainstream view” within the KMT.
Although it goes too far to insinuate that most KMT politicians would agree with Yaung’s remarks, the incident points to systemic issues that remain unaddressed. That the KMT still stands behind someone like Yaung, who is also a key figure in the party’s think tank, indicates a fundamental disregard for women’s issues. Especially after this past hallmark year for Taiwan’s #MeToo movement, it is damning that the party feels as if it does not need to loudly and publicly denounce the man behind such comments.
Other parties are not off the hook either. A questionnaire on gender-related policies released last week produced “disappointing” results, the 28 civic groups who initiated the survey said. The DPP mostly proposed continuing its existing policies, while the KMT and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) proposals were “lackluster, unambitious and uninterested in advancing gender equality,” they said. All three gave nonspecific responses to most of the items, offering vague ideas such as “more flexible” parental leave or promising to continue discussions on issues. They might not be openly hostile like Yaung, but that the parties chose to answer with unclear platitudes shows that women’s issues are not a priority.
Do not forget the many sexist comments that have come from TPP Chairman and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) over the years. He seems to have reined it in somewhat since his “suitable for sitting at reception” and obstetricians “only deal with one hole” comments 10 years ago, but there is no evidence to show that his attitude has changed. If he and his party were unable to see how inviting scantily clad dancers dressed as flight attendants to perform at the inauguration of his women’s campaign support group in August last year was offensive, they likely cannot be trusted to listen to women when drafting policies.
Voters should also remember how the parties handled the cascade of #MeToo allegations last year, especially accusations of sweeping sexual harassment complaints under the rug. All three main parties were implicated, and all three require some serious introspection, but the opposition seemed more preoccupied with attacking the DPP than looking inward. That they would use people’s worst experiences as political fodder is pretty damning.
Gender issues are far and away not the only thing these candidates must address during this packed campaign season, but they are still important. A politician’s or party’s treatment of women shows how they consider perspectives different from their own, providing a rare peek behind the curtain of what these candidates are really like behind the bluster. Voters would do well to pay attention.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS