There's more to pro-life view
I appreciate the arguments in Geoff Merrill's letter (Letters, Feb. 7, page 8), especially since they steer clear of the "blob of tissue" approach made laughable by scientific discovery regarding the complexity of life. To call "bizarre" the notion that abortion is akin to murder, however, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the pro-life position.
Pro-lifers believe in choice -- they believe that both parties, mother and baby, must be given that choice. When the choice must be made between one's convenience and another's right-to-live, that choice should clearly favor life.
For the sake of argument, many pro-lifers will grant cases of incest, rape, or life of the mother. These cases are miniscule in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed yearly on women who are attempting to combat the natural results of a previously made poor choice, or who want to avoid the inconvenience of a baby at this point in their careers.
For this reason, pro-lifers seek to help women make right choices prior to getting pregnant by heavily emphasizing abstinence and contraceptive education. Incidentally, pro-lifers are also in the forefront of counseling women who are suffering the negative physical and mental effects of abortion.
Finally, pro-lifers would hold that an opinion poll is not a defining factor in determining whether a child should have a choice to live.
Merrill strays from a fair-minded discussion of the abortion issue when he concludes his letter by inferring that US President George W. Bush chooses not to focus on those who commit crimes in the name of pro-life. The FBI recently brought to justice one such criminal, and to include him in the pro-life camp does not fairly represent those who seek only to broaden the notion of "choice" to include the least protected.
Dan Long
Taipei
Teacher's face tells us little
I laughed myself silly reading that the Ministry of Education doesn't think Indians and Filipinos have "native" accents ("Ministry cool to teachers from India, Philippines," Jan. 21, page one). Why can't the government say what they mean: we want people with white faces and long noses to teach English. Those with darker color skin need not apply.
I am not sure this is so much a government policy as it is bowing to market pressures. I teach at a kindergarten. At the school I teach at, there was an ethnic Chinese from Singapore whose English was as good as mine, with no audible accent. But her face was Chinese, and the parents told the principal to get a white face or they would pull out their children. What a pity!
She was an early elementary teacher. I am not. I had three hours of training before being thrown to the "lions." I have fun, but someone else who has been trained in early childhood education would be a superior teacher for the sake of the children.
What really needs to happen is for someone to start an association dedicated to educating Taiwanese parents.
If the environment is not going to change, (and by that, I mean a ready access to English print and visual media on the street, nationwide) the best teachers for the children would be someone who can help them understand. Some Taiwanese English-language teachers I have met have a very adequate and sometimes superior command of English. Songs, stories, fake conversations are all good in their place. But if the parents don't speak English at home, the kids won't either. Some parents can't.
And that's OK. But the ones who can, limit their English to "What's this?," "What's that?" and "What's your name?" If this is the only English the kids hear outside of class, they won't speak whatever English they have learned in the classroom at home.
Just like affirmative action in the US came along to try to erase some of the prejudices in American minds and practices, some version of this needs to happen here. An auxiliary American to help with pronunciation would be a good thing, but only as an auxiliary. If the classroom English teacher is an American, he or she should at least be conversational in Mandarin.
The students, in kindergarten, elementary school, junior and high school should be taught to use their English in daily life. Part of their homework, as corny as it may sound, should be to watch English-language TV programs. One cannot learn English only in the classroom one hour a week, or a day. More time listening to English is needed. Even if one relies on the subtitles, the sound track would be in English and it would benefit the students to listen.
I sincerely hope that parents can be educated away from prejudices, and that the best teachers can be obtained for the children of Taiwan. Whether they are Chinese or American, or green men from Mars, they should be the teachers who can best help the children understand, and not just someone with a white face.
Shervin Marsh
Ilan County
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with