There has been a lot of criticism over educational reforms recently. After restraining their anger for many years, a group of experts and scholars from National Taiwan Normal University -- the nation's leading teachers' school -- released a petition on Sept. 6, eager to set the agenda and regain their dominance in education. In view of the struggles over the years, reformists have come to view the teachers' college establishment as monsters and freaks, causing us to sigh in desperation over the rise and fall of the system of educating the nation's teachers.
It's unfair to blame the failure of education reforms on any individual, political party or school system. The reforms were a product of society's collective longing for freedom and happiness in the 1990s. Such reforms, promoted by some intellectuals, were strongly supported by the media and easily received government funding, bringing much hope to the Taiwanese.
At that time, some social elite broke away from the constraints of more traditional teaching materials and knowledge, and were often opposed to the conservative education system -- because they had become used to a liberal living style and took it for granted. They therefore became social reformists.
These reformists were disappointed from the beginning and felt excluded by today's education system, because many of them had a hard time getting through school. But they ignore the fact that education cannot be separated from politics. They are under the mistaken belief that education is independent.
The main reason for the failure of reforms is that many have simplified the complex educational phenomena.
Education is never an independent entity. It involves politics (political ideologies and power operations), economics, society (opportunity structure, fairness and justice), culture (values and attitudes) and other concerns -- or even philosophical thinking (the meaning of life and trends of thought).
Therefore, it's better for the nation not to implement reforms in a radical "Cultural Revolution" style.
Unfortunately, during the process of education reforms, we have witnessed that whoever is in a position to speak in society is a winner. As a result, we have seen that different camps compete with one another for the loudest and most pleasant voices, but have often ignored those who were silent, or those who were unable to express their own opinions.
Here, what we have to think about is: during the change of mainstream opinions, as well as the process of education reformists being reformed, why are some people voicing their opinions rather than others? Who are giving orders during the discussion? Who have the power to express themselves and who are qualified to do so? And in what positions are they expressing themselves?
In order to avoid the vicious circle of power struggles, we should learn from the "postmodernity" during the process of education reforms. Postmodern philosophers emphasize the limitation, uncertainty and incompleteness of knowledge. The value of postmodern knowledge lies in the awareness and tolerance of social differences, ambiguities and conflicts. Respect for differences, tolerance and acceptance are necessary virtues for a diverse society like this.
Hence, those who have the right to speak should never consider themselves as God's only mouthpieces. They should listen to those who are being restrained, so that education will not be affected by an electoral "pendulum effect." Let the value pluralism truly be carried out in our education system.
Chiou Tian-juh is an associate professor of social psychology at Shih Hsin 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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry