Sex ed plan is wrong
I have lived in Taiwan for several years and love this country and her people. Recently, I have been following with concern the proposal to incorporate teaching about homosexuality in the public school system here. As a mother and educator, I oppose this plan for several reasons.
First, as an American, I am aware that in many of our school districts, such teaching has begun at the kindergarten level. Although the current proposal stipulates that it should begin at the fifth-grade level in Taiwan, the door would be open to lowering the age of the children subjected to a homosexual agenda.
Second, I believe we should differentiate between respect for others (whether they are of different races, religions, or sexual orientation, to name a few differences found among members of the human family) and total acceptance of behaviors that most people find morally wrong. To teach children to condone behavior that leads to enormous problems in any society is inappropriate to say the least.
I am totally opposed to name-calling, alienation or any cruel behavior by any individual to any other person for any reason. This includes people whose sexual orientation differs from the norm. Children can be cruel to each other for many different reasons and need to be taught respectful behavior to one another as well as to adults. However, I think that within the educational system, the less emphasis on the entire subject of sexuality, the better, at least until students reach high school.
Furthermore, emphasis on sexual diversity issues is not the business of public education. Parents are children’s most important teachers; they should be the ones to deal with their own children when questions naturally arise during childhood.
Children often struggle with their feelings and go through normal developmental stages of attraction to members of their own sex. To teach too early about homosexuality or to confirm a homosexual orientation in what for most children is merely a short phase in their development is to cause great emotional stress for young students. Life is hard enough for children without adding sexuality issues when they are too young to have to deal with them.
I hope Taiwan’s education leaders will sort through the issues carefully and teach respect, not sexuality, to our children.
CAROL NICHOLS
Jhongli
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS