Opening a newspaper a few days ago, I saw a horribly shocking photograph of a pair of sneakers standing next to a puddle of blood. Yet another high school student had jumped off a building because of pressure at school and psychological distress. The parents were crying and the school president was kneeling down.
Every time such a tragedy occurs it is followed by meetings at the school where county and city education officials show their concern and urge the school to strengthen its day to day counseling services. These services include contacting and communicating with parents, paying attention to student behavior, telling students that school is not everything in life and improving social networking through organized activities and skill development.
The school of the student who committed suicide had already made an appointment for a counseling meeting later that week with the student's parents. Unfortunately, it was too late. These meetings are only effective with some students and their parents and cannot really remove heavy school pressures and psychological stress.
So what causes these suicides? It is simply the competition for acceptance into higher education.
There is a serious shortage of outstanding public high schools and universities. Some towns don't even have a decent public high school. This means that neither the multiple entrance system or a system with multiple texts and diversified knowledge are capable of resolving the pressure experienced by students to get in to a good high school or university. Instead, these approaches add to the pain and the burden.
Many academics and civic leaders often repeat that admission competition is a process necessary for social progress. Admitting students who are not suited to higher education to public senior high schools or universities is both a waste of public funds and an abuse of sorts of those students.
The right to education today is a fundamental civic right, and at the tender age of 14 or 15, students are graded and forced to participate in the cruel competition for admission to the right school: missing the cut by one or two points means vocational school.
This system deprives students of their right to choose their own educational path, and from a competitive perspective, it is also extremely unfair to students with few educational resources or students from economically disadvantaged families. This is a particular irony in a developed country like Taiwan, where GDP per capita has exceeded US$14,000 and which actively works to deepen democracy, human rights, fairness and justice, and claims to stress education.
Thirteen years ago, the 410 Education Reform Association proposed four major policies, and a seven-year, NT$350 billion special education budget. Prior to the presidential election, both major parties gladly promised to implement the budget, but after the elections, the buck was passed.
It is infuriating to see that rather than spending this money on education issues that would improve the educational level of everyone, they would rather spend it on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant despite a lack of consensus for its construction, the high speed rail build-operate-transfer project which shouldn't require any public funds, and paying off hundreds of billions of Taiwan dollars in bad loans resulting from embezzlement in large corporations.
If the president and the Cabinet had implemented the budget suggested by the 410 Education Reform Association as promised, today's junior high school students would not have to fret over their senior high school entrance exams but would instead study in high quality combined high schools in their local communities.
In addition to basic civic studies, they would be able to choose philosophy, psychology and technical arts. Through observation, thought and discussion students could learn to understand their own disposition, interests, and potential as well as the rights and responsibilities of modern citizens.
After graduating from high school, they would be able to choose to study in outstanding public universities or schools for the technical arts, try to be accepted at national comprehensive or research-oriented universities or seek employment. Students would be happier at school and there would be less suicide.
A capitalist country that is only concerned with economic development and neglects the education of its people will surely have an unfair, undemocratic and environmentally unfriendly economy. Taiwan is a good example of this.
On this foundation, it is futile to talk about liberty, democracy, rule of law, human rights, environmental rights, social stability, ethnic conciliation and cultural innovation and hope to gain the respect of the international community.
The strange thing is that despite the importance of this issue, I still haven't heard any of the presidential or legislative candidates make any concrete policy suggestions on education.
Why do the presidential and legislative candidates of the major parties, who always talk about public welfare, keep quiet when they clearly see how the younger generation are suffering, with some of them even taking their own lives? This really makes me worry about Taiwan's democracy and wonder whether "justice" really will be the core value of the future of Taiwan.
Chang Tse-chou is the head of Banciao Community University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
On Oct. 10, 1911, gunfire in Wuchang (武昌) shattered the stillness of late-Qing China. What began as a regional uprising quickly ignited a chain reaction across the empire, toppling a dynastic order that had endured for more than two millennia and ushering in one of Asia’s first republics — the Republic of China (ROC). From that moment, the 10th day of the 10th month became a date of epochal significance, not merely in Chinese history, but in the broader arc of Asia’s encounter with modernity. Yet today, as Taiwan marks Double Ten National Day, the holiday’s meaning has undergone a transformation
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
RSS