Clarity on sex education
Representatives of parents’ associations early this month urged the National Academy for Education Research to impose more rigorous standards to review textbooks prior to their publication (“Parents’ alliances demand say on sex education methods,” June 9, page 3).
I strongly believe that the authority concerned should give a clear explanation on the so-called inappropriate content brought up by parents.
As they had not received a satisfactory explanation for materials in some sex education textbooks, anxious parents restated their doubts about some problematic content like “sexual spectrum.” This scale, proposed by Alfred Kinsey, describes people’s sexual orientation as a continuum ranging from “exclusively heterosexual” to “equally heterosexual and homosexual” to “exclusively homosexual.”
However, parents are worried whether guiding students to identify their sexuality on the scale is helpful or will encourage them to identify themselves as homosexual before they are mature enough.
A study by researchers at Washington State University states that there are indeed complex individual differences within homosexual and heterosexual groups, but unlike a continuous spectrum, “there are fairly clean dividing lines between adults who are straight and those who aren’t.”
If the authorities concerned can instill the correct concept to society and request publishers to modify the content, the anxiety can be relieved more easily.
The Constitution states that parents have the right to raise their children before they reach the age of maturity. One of the main objectives of sex education is to take the responsibility to teach what is important, and what parents might feel embarrassed to teach, and if there is no trust in education authorities, students will be confused and parents will worry.
Parents’ concern about their children’s sex education should be respected. The government should make its points clear as soon as possible.
Getting ‘dual recognition’
I cannot help but think that Minister of Foreign Affairs David Lee’s (李大維) last man standing battle cry against Beijing is a ruse to camouflage a covert diplomatic operation aiming for nonexclusive recognition (“Diplomats to battle Beijing ‘head-on,’” June 18, page 1).
Why else would President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) of the Democratic Progressive Party retain a foreign minister who cut his teeth during the decades under the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)? Why on earth should she compete with China as the successor to the Qing Empire, rather than govern as the elected leader of a medium-sized democratic state?
Despite what Lee announced, Tsai must have secretly ordered her diplomatic corps to get Taiwan recognized by countries that also recognize China at the same time — or in outdated parlance, “dual recognition.” This should be achievable by a nimble diplomatic service receiving clear orders — as Finnish diplomats performed the feat of organizing the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (1975) during the Cold War.
The Holy See can set a good example, as Jerome Keating pointed out (“Unique relations with the Holy See,” April 18, page 8). How about the US next?
I wish Taiwan’s diplomats every success and hope I have not jinxed their plan.
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new