Banishing homophobia
Carol Nichols is patently forthright in her opposition to the teaching of sexual education in Taiwan’s schools (Letter, May 15, page 8). In fact, she feels that “within the educational school system, the less emphasis on the entire subject of sexuality, the better, at least until students reach high school.” Moreover, in this regard, Nichols maintains that “emphasis on sexual diversity issues is not the business of public education.”
Nichols is correct in asserting that homosexuality “differs from the norm.”
It is true that in all human societies, homosexuality is not the statistical norm. However, this does not mean that homosexuality is — in any sense of the word — “abnormal.” For example, in the US, there are some people with red hair and green eyes — two traits that are outside of the statistical norm. And yet I have never heard of red-haired, green-eyed people being referred to as “abnormal.” These two traits (along with homosexuality) are but two examples of the wonderful and marvelous diversity found in nature.
With her very careful writing style, Nichols does a very good job at covering up her homophobia.
However, her words belie this when she writes: “Although the current proposal stipulates that it [teaching about homosexuality] should begin at the fifth-grade level in Taiwan, the door would be open to lowering the age of the children subjected to a homosexual agenda” (the italics are mine).
First, by using the metaphor that “door would be open to lowering the age of the children subjected to a homosexual agenda,” Nichols is utilizing what, in rhetoric, is termed the “slippery slope” fallacy. Nichols has absolutely no grounds whatsoever for insinuating that beginning to teach children at the fifth-grade level about diversity in sexual orientation would somehow lead inevitably to progressively younger and younger kids being “subjected to a homosexual agenda.”
This last phrase is not only especially hateful (and hate-filled) and repugnant, it is also groundless and unbecoming of someone who claims to be either a proper parent or a legitimate teacher.
Nichols had better be able to provide documented evidence of this so-called secret “homosexual agenda,” or else she should refrain from pronouncing slurs against a societal minority that has already been unfairly persecuted and victimized.
Michael Scanlon
East Hartford, Connecticut
Editorial standards
It would be nice if your editorial team would pay more attention to the quality and accuracy of your writing. I have been reading your paper on and off for 10 years and although there have been a variety of errors, this is the first time you have actually had an error in a headline on the front page: “Kevin Rudd calls for making Beijing more a part of internation [sic] institutions” (May 05, page 1). Please make more of an effort — it is hard to take a newspaper seriously that cannot find the wherewithal to proof read its front page!
While you are at it, could you please ask your staff writers to check their writing for internal logic? An excerpt from Thursday’s edition serves as an example. In a short piece, “Taiwan up to sixth in competitiveness rankings, IMD says” (May 19, page 1), the reporter, Amy Su, writes that the change in rankings marks “the nation’s best performance for the second consecutive year.” Shortly followed by: “Last year, IMD raised the nation’s ranking by 15 notches to eighth from 23rd in 2009.” This does not make sense. It is illogical to claim a best performance for a consecutive year unless the performance was identical in both years and of course the performance in both years was the best of all time as well.
Call me picky, but if your paper cannot report simple numbers accurately, how can it be relied on at all?
It is a shame that your newspaper routinely suffers these basic problems.
However, if it is any consolation, your competitors are worse, and so I will keep reading yours in the hope of seeing some improvement.
BEN ADAMS
New Taipei City
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS