I would like to respond to Stephen Krashen's letter (Letters, Aug. 8, page 8).
He questions my support of so-called "Super High Schools" with English immersion programs that are being set up in Japan. I recommended this approach for Taiwan, with the specific aim of producing competent future teachers of English.
His chief complaint appears to be the expense that such an approach would incur. I cannot see in what way such schools, which should encompass both elementary and secondary levels, would be any more costly to run than regular schools, except for the expense of buying English-language textbooks. Having Taiwanese students undertaking their entire primary and secondary levels of education in an English immersion program and environment, with guidance from competent teachers, would produce students with much higher levels of English-language skills than is possible today.
As every teacher in Taiwan knows, the students who show greater ability in English are inevitably those who have lived abroad. In spite of all the research, the statistics and the experts, the low level of competency exhibited by Taiwan's English teachers is an inescapable and ubiquitous problem. Until it is solved, we will continue to need to import foreigners to do the job, although many of them have also proven to be less than truly competent at teaching.
I do, however, agree fully with Krashen when he promotes more reading of English books. As a professor of English literature, I more than appreciate the power of books to help improve language skills, and also support the idea -- the more reading the better. The issue that he does not address is why this is not the case, after all the research attesting to its validity.
The answer could be found in the facts that; too few hours are devoted to teaching English; classes are over-crowded and many teachers feel uncomfortable with students reading books that they themselves might have difficulty in reading or explaining.
Since the problem of low English language skills is both perennial and seemingly intractable in Taiwan, why not try a whole new approach? Specialized programs in specialized departments have long been the norm in tertiary education. Those who wish to become electrical engineers are trained in specific facilities to produce competent graduates. Why can't we do the same by setting up a series of elementary schools (and eventually secondary schools, as the students progress through the system) geared particularly for future teachers of English?
When these students graduate, they will be ready to serve as future teachers of English in Taiwan who are both Taiwanese natives and truly competent. Competent teachers will help to produce competent students. This is logical and long overdue. Otherwise, we may end up hiring Japanese graduates instead.
Chaim Melamed
Pingtung
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS