Sun, Jan 10, 2010 page8

• [LETTERS]

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Missiles — for and against

  I was pleased to read that the US defense department has finally allowed Lockheed Martin to sell Patriot missiles to Taiwan (“Washington clears Patriot missile sale,” Jan. 8, page 1).

  Although I do not dispense with my ethical objection to purchases made with stolen money, I would be happy to make a voluntary contribution to the costs of appropriate military assets for the defense of this island from the hive of lawmakers in Beijing.

  Within Taiwan’s tripartite military structure of air force, navy and army, however, I hope — in vain, perhaps — for the abolition and disbanding of the Republic of China army and all of its assets, including real estate, which are an inappropriate, unnecessary and immoral waste of resources for a small island.

  MICHAEL FAGAN

  Tainan

  The purchase of the Patriot missile system is militarily misguided. Patriot missiles rely on radar, which China is more than capable of disabling. What’s more, a sizeable, sustained missile attack against a key installation — such as the naval base at Zuoying (左營), Kaohsiung City — would overwhelm any Patriot system assigned there for protection.

  As these systems are very expensive, and Taiwan could never buy enough to counter every single Chinese missile, the money could have been better used for measures to withstand a prolonged missile barrage than to shoot them down.

  However, if the Chinese are upset at the prospect of Taiwan arming itself with such a defensive capability, and given that cross-strait relations are — we are told — much improved, the solution would seem to be for China to dismantle its 1,500 missiles aimed at Taiwan, at a stroke making redundant the need for the Patriot system and showing good faith toward a people it claims are its compatriots.

  PAUL DEACON

  Kaohsiung

  An absent plan

  I understand the argument that the US should not sell Taiwan weapons for fear of them falling into China’s hands, but I would also ask why it was that the US failed Taiwan during the presidential terms of Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).

  These administrations were clear about the need to defend a sovereign and independent Taiwan and were clear on who their allies were, yet the US did not stand by them with 100 percent commitment.

  Washington put the brakes on those administrations as they tried to cement Taiwanese democracy and solidify Taiwan’s position as a sovereign independent country. US pressure on Chen not to hold a referendum on national defense is one example.

  Delaying the sale of weapons to Taiwan and laying the blame on Taipei was also irresponsible.

  Washington’s failure to provide an open and full commitment to Taiwan in defense of its democracy and its refusal to express any misgivings over leaning toward China are part of the same problem.

  Changing this approach would allow the Taiwanese public to see that the US is committed to a free and independent Taiwan while reducing pressure from China.

  Before anyone recommends that the US stop selling equipment to Taiwan, the US should draw up a plan that keeps Taiwan out of China’s orbit. This has been absent throughout the US’ so-called China policy.

  KELLVAN CHENG

  Dallas, Texas

  Warm hearts UP

  The recent media brouhaha over the words “Taiwan UP” on the side of the Taipei 101 skyscraper on New Year’s Eve was much ado about nothing — more of a tempest in a few professors’ teapots than anything else.

  Japan is the master of using English in novel and decorative ways, and for years Japanese have used the expression “image up” to mean “an improvement of one’s image.”

  It’s not proper Queen’s English, for sure, but every nation is allowed to borrow English words and put them together in new and imaginative ways, and if Japan can do it, Taiwan can do it, too.

  “Taiwan UP” doesn’t bother this traveling Frenchwoman at all. In fact, I rather like it.

  When I saw the words on Taipei 101 on New Year’s Eve, I loved it. It’s a good way to say “Bravo Taiwan” or “Gambatte Taiwan” or “Taiwan jiayou.”

  English does not belong only to the British or their American cousins. It has traveled well around the world, and “Taiwan UP” suits Taiwan just fine. Those professors who complain about this new phrase should lighten up and appreciate the building’s slogan for what it was: a warm-hearted way to usher in the new year.

  CELIA BERTIN

  Taipei

  No more ‘adoah’?

  Readers may remember an article that appeared in this newspaper last summer about the use of the Hoklo term adoah for Westerners (“‘Adoah’: A demonstration of familiarity or an insult?”, May 19, 2009, page 4).

  After the article was published, a poll was taken by the Taipei-based marketing firm TNS Taiwan, and while the results are not conclusive, they are very interesting.

  The online poll was conducted from May 22 to May 24, with about 25,000 people participating.

  When asked, “Do you use the term adoah to refer to Caucasians?”, 45 percent of respondents said they did and 55 percent said they did not.

  When asked, “If you learned that the term adoah was considered offensive by some Westerners living in Taiwan, would you stop using it?”, 93 percent said they would stop using the word, while 7 percent said they would not.

  DAN BLOOM

  Chiayi

  Civil servant woes

  In the article “Blame the system, not the servants” (Jan. 6, page 8) Professor Hsu Yu-fang (許又芳) attempted — but abysmally failed — to rebut remarks by Control Yuan President Wang Chien-shien (王建煊) that civil servants are “idiots.” Considering his position and frequency of contact with civil servants, Wang’s evaluation should carry considerable weight. As he had nothing to gain, why would he rock the boat unless he was convinced of the accuracy of his evaluation?

  This viewpoint is shared by a large number of Taiwanese, as well as foreigners. Having lived in Taiwan for 13 years, I am convinced that Wang is perfectly correct, and I wonder why Hsu opposes majority opinion. Has he been living under a rock?

  One egregious error that Hsu makes is separating “senior managers” from civil servants generally. Are not the senior managers whom Hsu blames also civil servants? Didn’t they also rise through the system?

  Hsu naively states: “They are very intelligent people. If they weren’t, how would they be able to pass the stringent civil service examinations?”

  This is illogical. Didn’t incompetent senior managers also pass the tests? Does passing tests signify intelligence?

  Let’s begin with some examples of the idiocy of civil servants relating to immigration. Two years ago my wife and son attempted to go to France on holiday. The immigration officer did not understand that a Canadian passport is proof of citizenship and refused to let my son leave. I showed him the lines in the passport explaining that the holder of the passport was a Canadian citizen. My wife and I tried to reason with him to no avail. He turned his back and walked away. They lost the chance to leave, missed out on their vacation and we lost more than NT$80,000.

  When I contacted the Department of Immigration and explained what happened, I was told: “We will try to train our personnel better.”

  I was stunned with such incompetence and idiocy.

  When my daughter came to visit Taiwan she was stopped at the airport. It seemed she only had a few months left until her passport would expire.

  My daughter explained she was only visiting for two weeks and presented her ticket as proof. This was unacceptable and we had to pay a fee (about US$80) so that she could be released. I kept asking for an explanation for this regulation and was met with deafening silence; no one knew.

  Needless to say, my daughter told everybody she knew to never come to Taiwan. Endless idiotic regulations — written by idiots.

  Ask all the foreign teachers whom Taiwan claims it needs for its drive toward globalization, running every year or two to get their papers in order, again and again and again, with many having to go to Hong Kong to reapply, and every one of them threatened with penalties should they remain one day beyond the prescribed limits.

  Shall we look at the Ministry of Education? Taiwanese parents want their children to learn English well, and want them to begin at a very early age. The ministry disagreed; English instruction must begin in Grade 6. People opened private kindergartens and gave parents what they wanted: early instruction in English in cram schools. The ministry reluctantly and gradually lowered the age. That’s real leadership.

  Because of the many failures of the education system, thousands of cram schools opened where foreigners could teach English as they were not allowed to do in the public school system. The public had to circumvent the government’s idiotic policies, and at great cost. Their taxes supported the public system and their dollars supported the cram schools. The owners got rich and the government collected its share.

  The final result of this fiasco: Parents are still paying twice as much and their children still can’t communicate in English.

  Over the last few decades, the ministry allowed the establishment of so many colleges and universities that every secondary student could enter. Goodbye standards!

  This fiasco led to insufficient enrollments. And what is the brilliant solution for these errors of judgment?

  Bring in students from China who have been brainwashed against Taiwan’s desire for democracy and independence.

  Recently, an official in charge of civil servant evaluations wrote that virtually every civil servant received an excellent rating, though he did admit that the public would not necessarily be supportive of this.

  Evidently, this gentleman felt that he was working for the civil servants of Taiwan, not the public, and preferred not to rock the boat by upsetting incompetent government employees. Too bad there was nobody to evaluate his competence.

  So, Professor Hsu, it seems that instead of defending civil servants, you inadvertently validated Wang’s assessment. For these reasons, I tell everybody who asks (friends, academics, teachers) not to come to Taiwan.

  CHAIM MELAMED

  Pingtung
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Taipei to join Japan, US response to rare earth ban

  • 2

    Calls for reform after drunk woman publicly assaulted in Taipei station

  • 3

    Aging population reshaping Taiwan’s housing market, real-estate brokers say

  • 4

    EVA investigating death of flight crew who fell ill on duty

  • 5

    Flight attendants’ union to protest EVA marathon