Clarity on sex education
Representatives of parents’ associations early this month urged the National Academy for Education Research to impose more rigorous standards to review textbooks prior to their publication (“Parents’ alliances demand say on sex education methods,” June 9, page 3).
I strongly believe that the authority concerned should give a clear explanation on the so-called inappropriate content brought up by parents.
As they had not received a satisfactory explanation for materials in some sex education textbooks, anxious parents restated their doubts about some problematic content like “sexual spectrum.” This scale, proposed by Alfred Kinsey, describes people’s sexual orientation as a continuum ranging from “exclusively heterosexual” to “equally heterosexual and homosexual” to “exclusively homosexual.”
However, parents are worried whether guiding students to identify their sexuality on the scale is helpful or will encourage them to identify themselves as homosexual before they are mature enough.
A study by researchers at Washington State University states that there are indeed complex individual differences within homosexual and heterosexual groups, but unlike a continuous spectrum, “there are fairly clean dividing lines between adults who are straight and those who aren’t.”
If the authorities concerned can instill the correct concept to society and request publishers to modify the content, the anxiety can be relieved more easily.
The Constitution states that parents have the right to raise their children before they reach the age of maturity. One of the main objectives of sex education is to take the responsibility to teach what is important, and what parents might feel embarrassed to teach, and if there is no trust in education authorities, students will be confused and parents will worry.
Parents’ concern about their children’s sex education should be respected. The government should make its points clear as soon as possible.
Tsai I-chien
Taipei
Getting ‘dual recognition’
I cannot help but think that Minister of Foreign Affairs David Lee’s (李大維) last man standing battle cry against Beijing is a ruse to camouflage a covert diplomatic operation aiming for nonexclusive recognition (“Diplomats to battle Beijing ‘head-on,’” June 18, page 1).
Why else would President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) of the Democratic Progressive Party retain a foreign minister who cut his teeth during the decades under the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)? Why on earth should she compete with China as the successor to the Qing Empire, rather than govern as the elected leader of a medium-sized democratic state?
Despite what Lee announced, Tsai must have secretly ordered her diplomatic corps to get Taiwan recognized by countries that also recognize China at the same time — or in outdated parlance, “dual recognition.” This should be achievable by a nimble diplomatic service receiving clear orders — as Finnish diplomats performed the feat of organizing the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (1975) during the Cold War.
The Holy See can set a good example, as Jerome Keating pointed out (“Unique relations with the Holy See,” April 18, page 8). How about the US next?
I wish Taiwan’s diplomats every success and hope I have not jinxed their plan.
Te Khai-su
Helsingfors, Finland
Former US president Jimmy Carter’s legacy regarding Taiwan is a complex tapestry woven with decisions that, while controversial, were instrumental in shaping the nation’s path and its enduring relationship with the US. As the world reflects on Carter’s life and his recent passing at the age of 100, his presidency marked a transformative era in Taiwan-US-China relations, particularly through the landmark decision in 1978 to formally recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal government of China, effectively derecognizing the Republic of China (ROC) based in Taiwan. That decision continues to influence geopolitical dynamics and Taiwan’s unique
Having enjoyed contributing regular essays to the Liberty Times and Taipei Times now for several years, I feel it is time to pull back. As some of my readers know, I have enjoyed a decades-long relationship with Taiwan. My most recent visit was just a few months ago, when I was invited to deliver a keynote speech at a major conference in Taipei. Unfortunately, my trip intersected with Double Ten celebrations, so I missed the opportunity to call on friends in government, as well as colleagues in the new AIT building, that replaced the old Xin-yi Road complex. I have
On New Year’s Day, it is customary to reflect on what the coming year might bring and how the past has brought about the current juncture. Just as Taiwan is preparing itself for what US president-elect Donald Trump’s second term would mean for its economy, national security and the cross-strait “status quo” this year, the passing of former US president Jimmy Carter on Monday at the age of 100 brought back painful memories of his 1978 decision to stop recognizing the Republic of China as the seat of China in favor of the People’s Republic of China. It is an
After forcing through a slew of controversial amendments, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Tuesday last week rejected all seven Constiutional Court candidates nominated by President William Lai (賴清德), an event that triggered public concerns that it could lead to an unprecedented constitutional crisis and jeopardize Taiwan’s democracy. The opposition parties on Dec. 20 forced through three controversial amendments to the Public Officials Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法), the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) and the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法). The amendment to tighten the recall process has been
RSS