A few days ago, at an occasion inappropriate for making a significant policy announcement, the Ministry of Education (MOE) announced that it will extend the junior-high school Basic Competency Tests to the elementary school level. Both the media and the public have, almost with one voice, objected to the decision over the past few days. I wonder if a backlash would wake up education authorities.
Originally, basic competency tests were designed to provide regular checks on educational policy, in order to monitor its strengths and weaknesses. The primary goal of the tests was to examine whether students possess the most basic academic competency. Unfortunately, when the tests were first adopted in Taiwan years ago, they were taken as the only criterion for senior-high school entry. No wonder people always link the tests to the pressure of the joint-entrance examinations.
Public criticism of education reforms have reflected not only their possible misunderstanding of reform policy but also the flawed manner in which the MOE has introduced these policies. Today's "diversified courses" have forced students with relatively better-off backgrounds to learn more, making it even harder for students with poorer backgrounds to catch up with them. The much criticized Nine-Year Coherent Educational Program and the Diversified Enrollment Scheme are cases in point. Perhaps the problems are a result of insufficient complementary preparation -- in addition to flawed implementation. The MOE seems to respond to such criticism simply by insisting on the validity of its policies without offering solutions to the problems that could result from them. The MOE just made its shock announcement without even offering an explanation. As a result, anxiety has spread over the past few days.
Any efficient administrative organization should try to understand the social impact of each policy before it's made official. No matter how good a policy is, it's still necessary to estimate the degree of acceptance with which society will greet it, as well as possible difficulties and flaws. From the junior-high Basic Competency Tests to the Nine-Year Coherent Educational Program and the Diversified Enrollment Scheme, we can see that the MOE has both insufficiently understood and insufficiently publicized its reforms. It failed to predict the possible consequences of the implementation of its policies. It usually ends up rectifying its mistakes in a reactive manner in the face of widespread criticism.
The Basic Competency Tests for elementary students are complementary to some of today's important education reform measures. Why, then, did the MOE not publicize or explain this when launching the tests for junior highs or the Nine-Year Coherent Educational Program? Why did it fail to give a convincing explanation on the basis of reviews of the existing tests for junior highs?
The MOE should hold a press conference to explain the policy at an appropriate time, explaining the complementarity between the new tests and other reform plans, so that the public gains a better understanding of the policy.
The MOE's cack-handed announcement of the new policy has caused confusion. The big march by local teachers on Sept. 28 was a protest against the MOE's ignorance. No democratic society should launch a major policy with a sudden announcement like this. Have those in charge considered the possible consequences? Have they fully explained the policy or developed backup plans? Let us hope that the MOE will quickly come up with solutions to relieve the current anxiety.
Hung Li-yu is a professor in the department of special education at National Taiwan Normal University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing