In judging a culinary competition a few days ago, Cheng Yen-chi (鄭衍基), a well-known state banquet chef, expressed strong disapproval when he saw contestants throw unused ingredients into garbage bins. He said a good cook must not only be skilled, but also know “food ethics.”
Meanwhile, National Taiwan University (NTU) president Lee Si-chen (李嗣涔), in his commencement speech, said it was a “pity” that some good-looking female NTU graduates had chosen to work in the entertainment industry and urged them to consider the huge educational resources the school had spent on them.
On the surface, these comments do not appear to be connected, but upon closer observation, it’s not difficult to see a common thread behind the two events, which is the need to make the best use of material things or one’s talent.
Cheng knew that only six portions were to be cooked at the culinary competition and there would be left-over ingredients, but does that mean they have to be thrown away? Why not keep the remaining ingredients to be used later? If the ingredients must be fresh, why not cook them all and let the audience have a taste? That really would put everything to good use, which was what Cheng was talking about.
In the same way, Lee understands that there is no absolute relationship between education and occupation and that there are different ways of serving and contributing to society.
Why did he risk stirring up controversy by interfering in students’ choice of career? My guess is that Lee believes students can better contribute to society if they make better use of what they learned at school, instead of entering the entertainment industry, with which they are less familiar. In other words, his criticism comes from a desire to optimize the use of talent and not, as some critics have charged, because he looks down on the entertainment business.
Society will undoubtedly be a better place if things and talented people are all put to their best use. However, apart from considering differences in personal interests, we must also reflect on the objective conditions that determine whether something or someone is not being put to good use.
We often see celebrities on shows or advertisements extolling the virtues of materialism and the media outlets are only too happy to flatter these stars. The more we are exposed to these phenomena, the more they influence us and our value system. It doesn’t help that the government sets an equally bad example by wasting public funds — for instance, there are many vacant or unused buildings in urban areas. Is it so strange, then, the view that everything should be put to its best use seems to be a dying concept?
To a certain extent, Lee’s complaint reflected a problem caused by an imbalance between the supply and demand of talented people. This crisis is closely related to increasingly inappropriate educational policies and a deep-rooted belief in the necessity of diplomas and certificates.
The government has established too many universities, without considering the consequences, to meet a widely held public desire to pursue higher education. This has caused an imbalance in the supply of skills and talent needed in the workplace, resulting in graduates of higher education finding it hard to land a job commensurate with their qualifications. Many graduates from top schools remain unemployed to this day.
What is the difference between a university graduate selling fried chicken at a roadside stall because of difficulty finding another job and one who joins the entertainment industry for the same reason? Perhaps the good-looking female graduates at NTU saw the poor prospects available in the job market and decided to take what was available in the entertainment business.
We must also consider how many university graduates are currently employed in jobs that do not match their educational qualifications, or who were forced to attend university and take a course they didn’t like because of parental or social pressure.
Putting everything and everyone to its best use is a commendable ideal, but who is working to create an environment where these ideals can be realized?
Hsu Yu-fang is associate professor and chairman of Sinophone Literatures, National Dong Hua University. TRANSLATED BY TAIJING WU
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