Cossa's reasoning flawed
Ralph Cossa misses the mark in his article ("Taiwan on a slippery slope toward independence?," May 20, page 18), which is fraught with sloppy reasoning.
First, he makes it appear as if the "one China" policy is synonymous with "not declaring independence." This is false. As a scholar, Cossa should have emphasized that the policy simply states that there is only one government of China and that is the Beijing government. This policy came into existence in the early 1970s when there was also the Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) regime, which claimed to be the government of "China."
Cossa should have emphasized that UN Resolution 2758 (which admitted China into the UN) doesn't say anything about Taiwan. It merely settled the question of which regime was the legitimate representative of China. Taiwan's status is thus unaffected, and needs to be resolved on the basis of the principle of self-determination, as was decided at the San Francisco Peace Conference of 1951-52. Instead of kowtowing to China on the issue of a referendum in Taiwan, Cossa should have emphasized the principles of freedom and democracy, and should have argued that a decision on Taiwan's future is to be made by the people of Taiwan, without outside interference, threats or intimidation by China. That is democracy.
Anyone who has any understanding of Taiwan knows that, but for China's threats, Taiwan would have been a full and equal member of the international community a long time ago. From the US we expect the clear and unambiguous "whatever it takes" pronounced by President George W. Bush, and not the wishy-washy squirming to which Cossa subjects us.
The proudest moment in US history was the 1776 Declaration of Independence against overwhelming odds: at the time, Britain was a world power and ruled the waves. The courage and persistence of the US' founding fathers is the stuff from which history is made. Let us hope that Taiwan can show similar courage and persistence.
Gerrit van der Wees
Editor, Taiwan Communique
The Hague
Improving English education
I have been following the discussion on school reform, especially the state of English language education. The need for educational reform has been recognized by people in Taiwan for years. The constant parade of young students being sent to British and US schools, and the recent controversy involving so-called institutes of technology bear witness to this.
The argument surrounding testing, however, is a bit disingenuous. Sure, students are over-tested here. This goes hand in hand with the other regressive aspects of Taiwan's language education -- large classes, mixed levels, over-reliance on audio-lingualism. The hue and cry against standardized testing, however, is a red herring. Most administrators who oppose it do so because they know that a disturbingly high percentage of students won't pass this type of exam.
An alternative could be a year-long, focused program in English. The program would have no tests though it would provide feedback. Also, there would be no formal grading. Students could focus on their language studies without fear of face-losing tests or grades. At the end of the academic year, however, they would have to demonstrate their competence in a standard diagnostic test -- such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) -- that is not passed or failed but simply indicates a student's current level of ability.
RSS