Ministry's criteria is racist
I am appalled to have learned from your newspaper that the Ministry of Education has expressed objections to the recruitment of English-language teachers from countries such as India and the Philippines ("Ministry cool to teachers from India, Philippines," Jan. 21, page 1). I believe that this is a plain case of racial discrimination disguised by technical issues such as accents.
Imagine how it would make us feel if Chinese-language departments at foreign educational institutions clearly stated a "No Taiwanese" policy -- on the grounds that most Taiwan-ese teachers do not speak with a "pure" Mandarin accent. Wouldn't it make us feel dis-couraged, or even victimized by some kind of prejudice? Wouldn't it make us feel insulted, as if we were second-rate speakers of our own language?
The argument that teachers from India or the Philippines do not speak English as a native language is rather weak. It reflects a serious lack of understanding of world history and affairs.
India, under its legacy of British colonialism, in 1947 designated English its national language, ie, the standard language to be taught at schools and used on public occasions. As they often look up to the culture of their former parent country, most middle-class Indians could speak English with a traditional, upper-class English accent, the kind now rarely heard in the UK outside the small royal circle and which is often mocked by the public in England.
I believe that the attempt to exclude teachers from these countries has little to do with accents.
Rather, it has more to do with our narrow-minded calculation that these darker-skinned people (who would, presumably, be rather worse-off than most of us) don't deserve the high salaries that the ministry proposes to pay. White native-speakers of English, on the other hand, are believed to be worth more than our own Taiwanese teachers.
This is the most pathetic case of racism. On the one hand we subject ourselves to the old white-supremacist racial ranking and deem ourselves inferior, and on the other hand -- and equally, if not more, unacceptably -- we pass on the attitude in our treatment of the economically worse-off. This is certainly bad enough in any situation -- for it to happen in the field of national education is doubly unacceptable.
Besides, in English-teaching we should not be too concerned with accents. In fact a "pure native accent" is a myth. There is no such a thing as a "pure native accent" -- almost every native speaker of English has an accent, which is often an indicator of regional, class or cultural background. But so long as one speaks the language with accurate grammar and makes oneself understood, the accent really doesn't matter.
In other words, an accent can be a positive thing in all cultural exchanges, because it's a precious indicator of cultural identity in the age of Americanization. Just as there is no need for us to feel embarrassed about our "Taiwanese-Mandarin," there is no need to feel ashamed of Taiwanese-accented English.
If the ministry is determined to recruit English-language teachers from overseas, it should establish a clear and strict set of criteria, and whoever meets those criteria should be invited to join our teachers, regardless of gender, race or nationality. It is wrong to judge one's suitability on the basis of pre-determined conditions.
If we are so eager to participate in the global village (as indicated in our desperate attempts to universalize English-speaking), we should at least also learn rule number one of modern international society -- give racism a red card.
Liu Yen-yu
London, England
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS