Down to basics
Simplicity and a strong focus on the fundamental issues are keys to greater insights. Focusing on the simple truth in the current debate regarding an economic agreement between China and Taiwan will help us all to grasp the consequences of an accord.
The simple truth is that China has set the “one China” principle as a precondition for an agreement. China has been consistent about this simple truth. The truth is that China wants Taiwan to be a part of the People’s Republic of China.
This simple truth is valid no matter the name of the agreement. In addition, it is valid even if Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) recently apparently tried to change the name of the “one China” principle to a “one China political framework,” which no one has heard of.
It does not help the heated debate in Taiwan to change titles and talk about a “one China political framework” that does not exist. It will only add confusion.
The simple truth is that Taiwanese have to answer one simple question about an economic agreement with China: Does Taiwan want to be a part of the People’s Republic of China? If yes, then accept China’s “one China” condition. But if the answer is negative, Taiwan has to avoid the “one China” condition. If the debate is focused on this fundamental question first, it is much easier to understand the consequences and discuss the remaining economic topics.
MICHAEL DANIELSEN
Chairman, Taiwan Corner
Copenhagen
More English reading
It is interesting that some educators are eager to provide explanations for a phenomenon that may not exist. The Taipei Times reported that there was a sharp increase in the number of students who scored zero in English composition in their college entrance exams, although the writing exam contained “a more complicated and difficult writing topic” (“Teachers lament poor scores in English,” March 15, page 2).
Whether or not writing ability in English really is deteriorating, those interested in improving students’ written English might consult the research, which says consistently that writers acquire the conventions of the written language largely by reading. This is true in first and second-language development, and much of the research has been done in Taiwan.
Improvement in student writing therefore requires access to a large amount of interesting and comprehensible reading material in English, which is sadly not available to many students.
STEPHEN KRASHEN
Los Angeles, California
I believe that the article on poor English scores misses an important point: Reading significant amounts of understandable English throughout the learning process is more important than writing classes.
I work with ESL/EFL students from all continents. The best writers are the readers — always. When I complimented a recent TOEFL tutoring student from Spain on his superb writing, I asked him how he learned to write so well. Without hesitation he replied: “Reading essays from the New York Times.”
Virtually all English instruction focuses on memorizing rules and vocabulary, while most fluency comes from understandable input — reading and listening to high-interest English that the student can understand. Time to read and listen, accompanied by more reading and listening resources, is the key.
WARREN EDIGER
La Habra, California
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