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
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