I applaud those who wish to outlaw corporal punishment in Taiwanese schools.
In the your article ("Corporal punishment in schools a divisive issue," Oct. 7, page 2) Shih Ying (
Hitting students provides a short-term solution, but can lead to long-term problems. Many children are hit because they do not perform well on tests. For some children, and even some entire classes, being hit is a regular occurrence. Eventually students become numb to the effects and no amount of hitting will motivate them. They may be left with no reason at all to study.
An alternative approach is to guide students by positively inspiring them.
This can be done through rewards for achievements, not punishments for failures. The best rewards for students are their teachers' attention and friendship. Students who have teachers that genuinely care about them want to please their teachers. They study hard and are rewarded with better grades and better relationships with their teachers. Teachers are also rewarded with the satisfaction of seeing their students make real progress.
Eventually, students who graduate under the dread of punishment feel only relief and have little desire to continue studying. Students who were positively inspired by their teachers look back fondly at their school years and look forward to continuing their education in school and in life.
I was never hit as a student, and I do not hit my students. I still enjoy learning and like to think I inspire my students to do the same. Banning corporal punishment will only make schools better places.
Nathan Lindberg
Changhua
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers