I would like to respond to Stephen Krashen's letter (Letters, Aug. 8, page 8).
He questions my support of so-called "Super High Schools" with English immersion programs that are being set up in Japan. I recommended this approach for Taiwan, with the specific aim of producing competent future teachers of English.
His chief complaint appears to be the expense that such an approach would incur. I cannot see in what way such schools, which should encompass both elementary and secondary levels, would be any more costly to run than regular schools, except for the expense of buying English-language textbooks. Having Taiwanese students undertaking their entire primary and secondary levels of education in an English immersion program and environment, with guidance from competent teachers, would produce students with much higher levels of English-language skills than is possible today.
As every teacher in Taiwan knows, the students who show greater ability in English are inevitably those who have lived abroad. In spite of all the research, the statistics and the experts, the low level of competency exhibited by Taiwan's English teachers is an inescapable and ubiquitous problem. Until it is solved, we will continue to need to import foreigners to do the job, although many of them have also proven to be less than truly competent at teaching.
I do, however, agree fully with Krashen when he promotes more reading of English books. As a professor of English literature, I more than appreciate the power of books to help improve language skills, and also support the idea -- the more reading the better. The issue that he does not address is why this is not the case, after all the research attesting to its validity.
The answer could be found in the facts that; too few hours are devoted to teaching English; classes are over-crowded and many teachers feel uncomfortable with students reading books that they themselves might have difficulty in reading or explaining.
Since the problem of low English language skills is both perennial and seemingly intractable in Taiwan, why not try a whole new approach? Specialized programs in specialized departments have long been the norm in tertiary education. Those who wish to become electrical engineers are trained in specific facilities to produce competent graduates. Why can't we do the same by setting up a series of elementary schools (and eventually secondary schools, as the students progress through the system) geared particularly for future teachers of English?
When these students graduate, they will be ready to serve as future teachers of English in Taiwan who are both Taiwanese natives and truly competent. Competent teachers will help to produce competent students. This is logical and long overdue. Otherwise, we may end up hiring Japanese graduates instead.
Chaim Melamed
Pingtung
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the