Ministry policy misguided
I was dismayed to read that a Ministry of Education official said that since "English is not a native language of the Philip-pines and India, Filipinos and Indians speak English with non-native accents" ("Ministry cool to teachers from India, Philip-pines," Jan. 21, page 1). The inference is that these countries were not suitable places from which to hire English-language teachers.
One could very well say the same thing about learning Mandarin Chinese in Taiwan, but to do so would be a big mistake. Taiwan remains one of the favored destinations for learning Mandarin, and I had excellent teachers at National Taiwan University.
Taiwan is such a good place to study Mandarin precisely because Mandarin is not the "native" language, and so it was necessary for the government to invest heavily in training teachers. These are the same type of policies implemented by the colonial governments of England and the US in both India and the Philippines.
Today, many of the most celebrated writers in the Eng-lish language are Indians. Phone banks in both India and the Philippines handle customer service and telemarketing for US corporations (using American accents). The educated elite in both countries speak English as their first language and are often unable to communicate in local languages -- just as many Taiwanese can no longer speak the languages spoken by their grandparents' generation.
It would be easy for the ministry to hire people based on their linguistic fluency without basing this on country of origin. In fact, country of origin is not even a guarantee that a job candidate will have a good accent. Not only are there more than a few Americans whose English is far from standard -- proper training in the field of English-language education is as important, if not more so, than mere fluency.
If the ministry is determined to bring in native-speakers to teach English, they need to have hiring practices that will enable them to pick the most qualified candidates regardless of their country of origin. Otherwise they will be no better than the many cram schools who continue to turn down qualified Asian- and African-Americans because they only want a white face in front of the classroom.
P. Kerim Friedman
New York City
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS