Taiwan's national college entrance examination this week was embroiled in controversy over accusations that the questions showed "China bias." In the Chinese-language section, classical Chinese questions comprised 74 percent of the score. Forty-two percent of the history section was Chinese history, 40 percent was world history and a mere 18 percent covered Taiwanese history. There were even claims that the China-oriented theme permeated into the math and engineering tests.
While it's commendable that students are expected to have a broad view of world history, weighting Chinese history equally against the rest of world history while marginalizing the Taiwanese history section is obviously unacceptable.
Not surprisingly, the issue has become political. There have been accusations that the emphasis on classical Chinese and Chinese history was meant as a slap in the face to pro-localization Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng (
Take classical Chinese, for example. The problem with teaching it is not so much that it is Chinese, but that the ability to understand arcane texts and grammar is not a suitable standard for selecting the best and brightest among Taiwan's future leaders. Classical Chinese has a rich tradition that deserves to be studied. However, it serves little purpose as a broad standard to test students' modern language ability.
The College Entrance Examination Center's reasons for choosing the test materials are beside the point. The bigger problem is that the emphasis in the exam is at odds with the trends in Taiwanese education. The ministry has worked to promote a more Taiwan-centric curriculum for students, with greater emphasis on Taiwanese history and modern Chinese language.
Not only is it unfair that students should have to show up for one of the most important exams of their lives and learn that they've been concentrating on the wrong material, but it also allows the center to have inordinate influence over the education system. Test creators should tailor their exams to what is being taught in class. However, as the exercises its power as an independent organization to choose whatever questions it likes, that relationship is reversed.
Students will naturally demand to be taught whatever materials will help them get into the best colleges, and their teachers will oblige. The ministry can pass whatever education policies it wants, but students will study what is going to be in the exam.
Tu said on Tuesday that as much as the ministry would like to shape the tests, it cannot interfere with what the center decides. As long as this arrangement continues, the center will be the tail wagging the dog.
Normally in government, separation of powers is a good thing. But in the case of education -- especially Taiwan's heavily exam-based system -- it's best not to have educators and testers pulling in opposite directions. If the center tries to act as a "check" on the ministry, it will only lead to more needless confusion among students. The ministry needs to have increased influence over the examination materials to ensure that education and examinations are in tune with each other.
Until that happens, test creators should remember that their responsibility is to students, not politics.
Taiwan might just give up. That’s the argument Simon Shuster made in The Atlantic’s October issue. The US is unreliable, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leadership is aligned with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and Taiwan does not have the military capability to defend itself in a prolonged war without help. What hope does Taiwan have? Quite a bit more, in fact, than Shuster lets on. Shuster points to genuine problems. The first Donald Trump administration had a mostly positive record on Taiwan policy. It regularized the arms sales process, enhanced the military-to-military relationship, and treated Taiwan more like a normal
A Facebook post by Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) earlier this month achieved record levels of engagement — although perhaps inadvertently. In it, he attacked Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator and Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen (沈伯洋) for an op-ed published in 2014 discussing drug harm reduction policies. In attempting to stir up fear with talk of community centers, drugs and needles, Chiang’s comment section exploded. More than 100,000 comments poured in within the first two hours; more than 330,000 after the first 12; and more than 400,000 by noon the following day. Rather embarrassingly, many commenters made a point
Last year, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) turned the Double Ten National Day ceremony into a platform for grievances against the government. Yesterday, standing before the president and foreign dignitaries, he warned against Taiwan becoming a “false democracy, in reality a dictatorship.” Then he called for unity. Democratic leaders must tolerate criticism, even on ceremonial occasions, but Han misused his position and a national celebration to insinuate that Taiwan’s elected president was steering the country toward dictatorship and cast himself as a statesman offering reconciliation. Han asked how Taiwan’s security should be examined, using a medical analogy. If he insists on playing
Southeast Asian food delivery platform Grab Holdings Ltd in March applied to acquire Delivery Hero SE’s Foodpanda operations in Taiwan, with the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) scheduled to announce its decision on Oct. 27. On the surface, the deal is a business merger — but in substance, it involves personal data, national geospatial information and digital sovereignty. It cannot be assessed solely in terms of market share and price competition. Grab has extensive and long-standing connections to Chinese capital. In 2015, Chinese ride-hailing firm Didi Chuxing and China Investment Corp, a sovereign wealth fund, invested in Grab. Grab invested in Chinese autonomous-driving
RSS