The Cabinet approved a plan last week to provide tuition fee subsidies to public and private high school, vocational high school and junior college students from families with an annual household income of less than NT$900,000 — up from the NT$600,000 originally proposed by the Ministry of Education.
Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) and Minister of Education Wu Ching-chi (吳清基) both apologized to parents and members of the public who were upset over the higher threshold.
The uproar over the proposal, which is intended to equalize the costs of attending public and private schools, has subsided for the time being. However, the controversy has raised the question of how such a major educational policy could be proposed and then changed at the whim of the education minister alone?
On the surface, the incident appears to be a case of wishful thinking in which the minister mistakenly thought he could adjust tuition fees as he saw fit. However, it is symptomatic of the ministry’s habitual mode of decision-making.
A consultative report on education reform published in 1994 suggested Taiwan should set up a national education research institute. This body would do ongoing research on proposed education policies before they are implemented. Unfortunately, after education reform got under way, powerful members of the “education reform faction” put this proposition on the back burner. Proceeding according to romantic notions about “advanced Western” education, they treated students as laboratory mice, subjecting them to one reform after another.
Aside from throwing students and parents into a state of confusion, these reforms have wasted a lot of Taiwan’s education resources. As a result, the quality of Taiwan’s education looks a lot better than it really is.
Following the return to power of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), one would think the government would conduct a thorough review of these education reforms and their effects.
Regrettably, the proposed national education research institute remains to this day a provisional office. Taking a “positivist” scientific approach, those responsible for planning the institute think “education research” means using all kinds of tests to collect assessment data on elementary and high-school students. In respect to today’s most important education issues, they either ignore them or avoid talking about them, so as not to incur unwanted trouble.
When it encounters pressing education policy issues, the ministry sticks to its habit of handing the matter over to some friendly professors who then outsource it to someone else to collect “empirical data.” Data collected in this way lacks cohesion and does not always meet the ministry’s needs. Often it is of no use for resolving real problems.
Policy decisions made by ministry officials based on this way of doing things often seem arbitrary. Frequently they have to be changed over and over again. No wonder education mandarins are often criticized as “romantic.”
The only sound basis for government officials, whatever their department, to decide what policies to promote is rationality, not romanticism. Although the latest fracas over the plan to equalize high-school tuition fees has subsided for the time being, now that Wu Ching-chi is out of the line of fire, he should learn from this experience and give careful thought to how to make the education ministry’s policy decisions more rational.
Hwang Kwang-kuo is a professor of psychology at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS