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
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS