Why no parade on Oct. 10?
A national parade — especially a military one — is supposed to boost morale and assert national will and sovereignty. There is a long tradition of such parades in both Eastern and Western cultures. Although reviewing troops now has negative connotations, parades are still an effective way to express the will of the people participating in it.
After Typhoon Morakot, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said there would be no national festivities to mark this year’s Double Ten National Day. Although the government may have meant well, will this really send the right signal to the public?
A celebratory parade with marching troops, bands, concerts and ticker tape costs a lot of money, but at the same time, that money is supporting the economy. Taxpayers’ money would in this way be returned to the public.
The relatively small funds for this would not harm the reconstruction efforts following Morakot.
After the devastating Sept. 11 attacks in the US, the US government held memorials, but also celebrated the country’s independence to show that the nation was not afraid and stood united. So why aren’t we doing the same?
Seeing the People’s Republic of China celebrate the 60th anniversary of its founding with a military parade last Thursday, I was in awe.
China has suffered an economic downturn and a devastating earthquake, but it still puts time and money into this. I was motivated by the troops shouting: “Serve the people!” That’s the true power of a parade.
Regardless of what you think of China’s intentions and need to show off its weapons, you have to ask yourself: “Why aren’t we showing off our pride?”
Why aren’t we telling the world that we are the people of Taiwan? We are the citizens of the Republic of China and we are proud of it. Why isn’t our government telling us that we are strong and that the best is yet to come?
If I met our esteemed president, I would ask him why we aren’t celebrating at the places hardest hit by Morakot. It would symbolize persistence in the face of adversity.
Instead, the signal being sent is: “Don’t incur the wrath of our big brother.”
JEN-CHIEH WU
Hsinchu
Rethink the cram school plan
Cram schools are controversial. Many academics assert that cram schools impede the natural development of children and strangle their creativity and capacity for independent thought. Yet closing cram schools would not solve everything.
If overreliance on tests and overemphasis on high scores is deep-rooted in our culture, then the methods used at cram schools will not disappear.
The Ministry of Education has proposed amending the Supplementary and Continuing Education Act (補習及進修教育法) to ban schools from accepting children younger than six (“Teachers’ group backs proposal on cram school limit,” Sept. 29, page 2). This is an inappropriate proposal because most parents work so much that they have little time to care for their children and help with their schoolwork. Furthermore, not all parents have the skills necessary to teach their kids.
If the proposal passes, it will adversely affect children younger than six. Their parents are too busy and leaving young children alone at home is not an option. This proposal would also deprive them of learning opportunities.
The proposal seems reasonable but is too idealistic. On the one hand, the core problem of education that is overly reliant on exams will continue. On the other hand, parents need to know their kids are safe while they are at work, while their kids deserve learning opportunities.
DEBBIE HOU
Taipei
It is shocking that the Ministry of Education plans to amend its Supplementary and Continuing Education Act to ban cram schools from accepting students younger than six.
I wonder whether the majority of teachers support this amendment? Some teachers and parents oppose this proposal because no one can be deprived of the right to learn.
No one should ban children from learning.
There is a case to be made for children under the age of six starting to learn a foreign language. Children are influenced by their environment and educational psychologists say young children are just like parrots — learning and naturally repeating what adults say. Children should be sent to a good environment to learn.
To solve the controversy over the amendment in terms of English classes, the ministry should enforce its policy of teaching English starting in the first grade. Qualified and certified English teachers should be provided.
MELODY WU
Jhonghe, Taipei County
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
China’s partnership with Pakistan has long served as a key instrument in Beijing’s efforts to unsettle India. While official narratives frame the two nations’ alliance as one of economic cooperation and regional stability, the underlying strategy suggests a deliberate attempt to check India’s rise through military, economic and diplomatic maneuvering. China’s growing influence in Pakistan is deeply intertwined with its own global ambitions. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project of the Belt and Road Initiative, offers China direct access to the Arabian Sea, bypassing potentially vulnerable trade routes. For Pakistan, these investments provide critical infrastructure, yet they also
RSS