I write in response to Geoffrey Cartridge's letter ("Clear English in short supply," June 19, page 8). First, I have a question for the author. Where can I go to get "neutrally-accented" English certification? I have heard this nonsense from various people, though the supposed "neutral accent" always mysteriously adheres closely to the speaker's native accent (quite a coincidence there).
I agree with the author that "it is necessary to practise conversational and grammatically correct English frequently to develop a proficiency in the language." However, in schools where this is not being done, it has much more to do with the methodology used in the classroom and the training (or lack thereof) in the teachers rather than where the teacher comes from.
A simple fact is that the majority of teachers in Taiwan don't know a gerund from an infinitive, much less how to teach proper grammatical usage. Because of this, various teaching methods emphasize "using the language rather than talking about it" (i.e., don't bother teaching the rules because the teachers don't know them anyway).
None of this has anything to do with accents -- the author's rather jaundiced perceptions notwithstanding. Ironically, the vast majority of teachers in Taiwan aren't even from the US, but rather Canada, South Africa, and Australia.
I have known and worked with effective teachers from these and other countries. I have also known and worked with complete frauds from many different countries. Accents can cause initial difficulties, but can usually be overcome as long as the teacher is an effective educator.
I find one of the author's comments particularly amusing and ironic: "English can be a strongly accented language, and even I, a `neutrally accented' Australian with many years of teaching experience, have difficulty understanding not only US English, but also South African, Indian, Scot and Irish-accented English." I have heard these very words often spoken about the accents of Australians.
Greg Hurst
Tainan
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
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS