Ill-considered advice
John Chislett's letter (Letters, Sept. 3, page 8) clearly misses the point. The problem Su I-wen (蘇以文) alleges is that early English instruction interferes with the development of proficiency in Mandarin, which is a clear and proper goal of educators, and a requirement for high achievement at higher levels ("Learning English too young can hamper children," Aug. 25, page 2).
There is inherent value in maintaining Aboriginal cultures and languages. However, if it is the case that early English instruction interferes with acquiring Mandarin, then it may also be the case that Hakka language instruction raises a similar impediment. If so, special assistance should be offered to Hak-ka students in order to maintain their cultural heritage and assure competent Mandarin skills. Stopping Mandarin instruction is certainly not going to increase proficiency, or the career options of Hakka students.
Even if one concedes Chis-lett's semantic gamesmanship, accepting that Hakka is the "mother tongue" relegates Eng-lish to, at best, a third language, thus making the issue yet more difficult, assuming English acquisition is an eventual goal. The truth, however, is that his Hakka analogy is unsound and only slightly more relevant to Mandarin proficiency in Tai-wan's classrooms than the withering of Gaelic in Scotland.
Chislett's sarcasm reveals an opinion built on form and lacking insight or substance. Chislett advises that he's "a former alumnus" of Taipei American School (TAS). What, then, is a current alumnus? The redundancy might pass in another context, but the topic is language competency. One can only hope Chislett was not responsible for developing curriculum, in present circumstance potentially a culpable offence.
His subsequent claim that some TAS students have become successful is anecdotal and utterly useless in formulating policy. It may be safely assumed that at least some alumni are now unsuccessful. By simply plotting their incomes, or some other measurement of "success," a bell curve is bound to appear, but perhaps he doesn't follow their progress quite so closely.
Chislett closes by wondering where Su did his research. Then, in an unreferenced statement, asserts that two of three Taiwanese are bilingual and managing their schoolwork quite well. One wonders where Chislett did his research, how he managed to assess the quality of the academic work of the majority of Taiwanese students and cross-reference individual academic performance to language ability.
I have not researched the matter and must, therefore, rely on a few years of teaching English to Taiwanese students as a basis for my opinion.
I have been told, albeit very rarely, of young children who speak English very well yet struggle with Mandarin. The reverse, Mandarin proficiency and weak English, is far more common. Whether early English instruction helped or hindered their progress in Mandarin is unclear. It certainly helped their English.
I have taught children who, in addition to their regular nine hours of daily academic torture, receive English, German and Spanish lessons at home, take piano, cello and violin lessons in the evenings, and attend swimming and kung fu lessons on the weekend. The live-in is teaching them Tagalog. They will both be doctors because Daddy said so.
One might ask if the sheer volume of instruction Taiwan-ese students endure each day is not a more substantial obstacle than being exposed to a second (or third) language at an early age. Of course, two doctors in the family is a pretty good outcome -- tough to argue with results like that.
Taiwan's educational system is evolving, consistent with the nation's growth over the past 20 years. The academic progress and social development of children will be dramatically affected by the nature and quality of the instruction provided in this hectic environment. It is important that insightful, experienced people with reasoned opinions are consulted; that informed advice is sought, considered and reasonably implemented.
Chislett's ill-considered, myopic and sarcastic letter prompts me to reply, in closing, by paraphrasing (perhaps even accidentally quoting) Winston Churchill: "Your right to an opinion does not obligate me to take you seriously."
Avrom Medvedovsky
Taichung
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath