Naive religious view
Rudolphus Teeuwen criticized my opinion piece, on various points, so I think I should make a few remarks (“Missionary positions in Taiwan,” May 30, Page 8; “Religious provocation,” June 8, page 8).
First, he thinks I am considerably underestimating local students’ academic abilities and learning practices, mentioning his own, quite different experiences as a Dutch professor in Taiwan.
Well, my experience is my experience is my experience. What else do I have? Teeuwen mgiht have a different experience — I have never denied that possibility.
It is evident that teaching at one of the few universities here in Taiwan with a considerably good academic reputation gets you different students.
However, is Teeuwen aware of what is going in “so many classrooms” in “so many minds” at other, non-elite institutions of education in Taiwan? I am talking about them, that is, at a guess, about 90 percent of those institutions (including high schools).
It is this point that Teeuwen is missing.
Besides, most (nearly all) of my students agree with the description of prevailing educational practices as portrayed in that article. Are my Taiwanese students more critical, more realistic than a European professor?
Second, Teeuwen accuses me of criticizing just a naive, literal view of the Bible without taking into account more subtle forms of Christianity.
Such a naive view of the Bible is exactly what most missionaries are teaching (and what more than 40 percent of all US Americans hold to be true) here in Taiwan; they are my target.
One can easily expose their naivete at their own — well, naive — level when simply presenting Biblical counter examples before even considering serious arguments. An opinion piece is not the place to discuss sophisticated religious theories — which I did elsewhere.
I doubt Teeuwen’s statement that the Bible is “a revelation of a sublime God we can never really know” would fall under that category of “sophisticated religious theories.” It reads just like another empty phrase, a personal statement of a hypersensitive soul with no relevance for any truth beyond wishful thinking.
I find it as problematic as I find Teeuwen’s uncorroborated judgement that I do not “think for [my]self” unfair.
Herbert Hanreich
Kaohsiung
Deceptive pollution measures
It is sad to see regulators presenting data that is not directly relevant to an issue as support for new measures (“Scooter owners decry plan to tighten emission limits,” June 12, page 2).
It is sadder still to let the practice go unchallenged.
The percentage or parts per million in the emissions of vehicles is not the most relevant measure of their contribution to pollution. A much more relevant measure would be the amount of emissions per vehicle-kilometer, per vehicle-passenger-kilometer, or per vehicle-ton-kilometer.
Even measures per minute of operation would be preferable, even though these do not take into account differences in fuel consumption due to engine efficiency and vehicle weight.
Further, any difference in the pollution resulting from the construction of the vehicle should also be taken into consideration.
It might well be that any of these alternative measures might still justify the proposed regulation, but if regulators or advocates are allowed to choose less relevant measures without being called upon to defend them we are not likely to improve the situation appreciably.
Emilio Venezian
New Taipei City
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