On July 20, many academics jointly proposed a 10,000-word "Education Reconstruction Declaration," demanding that the government end the chaos of education reform. They also believe that if we examine reform measures one by one, we may focus on trivialities and therefore take one thing into consideration to the detriment of others. Therefore, a better strategy is to focus on the fundamental ideal of reform.
Now, let us review the fundamental ideal of the nation's education reforms from the experience gained from our industrial development.
Reformists believe that our traditional education method is a "cramming-style" method, which makes students adopt rigid learning methods without learning creativity.
It's true that our traditional education method is a "cramming-style" education. But will this kind of education really make students rigid and uncreative? Although this claim appears to be reasonable on the surface, it's clearly denied by the experience gained from Taiwan's industrial development.
First, in the global industrial competition theater, Taiwan's businesses are often praised as flexible, with great capability in dealing with emergencies. Most foreigners who have had contact with Taiwanese people will never think that we are rigid.
Next, more surprisingly, Taiwanese people's creativity is outstanding. This is clearly illustrated by the large number of patents issued in the name of Taiwanese citizens in the US. From 1996 to 1999, Taiwan ranked No. 5 in terms of the number of patents obtained in the US, after the US, Japan, Germany and France. Moreover, the nation ranked No. 4 in that respect from 2000 to last year, after only the US, Japan and Germany.
In terms of the number of times Taiwan's patents were used in the US every year (the frequency of being used can be taken to measure the significance of a patent), Taiwan ranked No. 4 in 1999, after the US, Japan and Germany. Later, it ranked No. 3 from 2000 to last year, second only to the US and Japan.
Theoretically, perhaps we can explain from the following aspect why Taiwanese people still have excellent creativity after receiving the "cramming-style" education. The creativity of an economy, in fact, lies in an environment that allows people -- especially young people -- to live according to their ideals and bravely realize what they really believe.
It's generally acknowledged that starting a new business in Taiwan is easy. Under these circumstances, if someone believes in his sense of judgment, which may not be accepted by his supervisors, he may choose to leave the company and start a new business.
Hence, the following scenario is often seen here: a young employee chooses to leave his company due to a difference of opinion. When he leaves, he creates a new company, or even founds a more successful enterprise compared to the previous one. Barry Lam (
This theory can also explain why the overall creativity of Europe is relatively low -- in spite of its "inspirational-style" education. It's difficult for young people in Europe to leave their companies and start their own businesses. They can only be obsequious, or even curry favor with their supervisors.
The above analysis shows us that the division of labor between education and society is indeed necessary. The purpose of education is to initiate students; the duty of society is to provide a suitable environment for them to realize their potential. For the former, "cramming-style" education has an advantage -- it's able to pass on basic human knowledge to students in a systematic way at lower costs.
We can say that one of the biggest mistakes of education reform is the lack of all-round and in-depth comprehension of our own characteristics. We are especially not confident of many of our own systems. As a result, we blindly strive to learn from advanced countries.
In fact, this problem occurs not only in our education reforms but also in many other areas -- for example, the Labor Standards Law (勞基法), the skill-certification and social welfare systems that Taiwan copied from the West.
Chang Ming-chung is a professor of economics at National Central University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS