In March, the Ministry of Education announced that it would eliminate the difference in tuition fees for first-grade students at public and private senior high schools. Unexpectedly, three months later, the Cabinet now insists on excluding high-income households from the plan, setting off an internal dispute over policymaking. In the political storm triggered by the difference between the ministry’s plan and the Executive Yuan’s decision, one wonders what is wrong with our government, as it is the public who will suffer most.
On March 2, Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) clearly stated during a question-and-answer session at the legislature that he would approve the plan to standardize tuition fees if high-income households were excluded and if the total budget could be kept below NT$1.2 billion (US$370 million). However, the ministry’s announcement that evening stated that its proposal would apply to all first-graders, contradicting Wu’s statement. In response, the Cabinet said this apparent contradiction was not a reflection of any policy conflicts but was probably a result of the ministry not having explained Wu’s stance to the public or resulted from a misunderstanding. Can the government really gloss over a policy change that may affect the rights of hundreds of thousands of students simply by saying it was the result of “not having explained” the change or trying to blame a “misunderstanding?”
As a matter of fact, this case shows that the government’s problem is that it mistakenly thinks something can be changed just because it is a policy or that it can be remedied if not too many people are involved. But how can a government that stresses the unity of policymaking develop a contradictory policy? How could the Cabinet not have noticed the problem when the ministry made the announcement? That raises the question of what the government was doing and how the Cabinet could fail to notice a misunderstanding that it pointed out itself in the intervening three months.
A closer look shows that the ministry’s “open admission” scheme, through which thousands of students were admitted to private schools, was finalized in late March. If the Cabinet found that the ministry plan fell short of its expectations, there was still time for it to explain its policy. To be blunt, neither the Cabinet nor the ministry wanted to be seen as the bad guy, so each did nothing and waited until the last minute in the belief that a change could always be made.
Undeniably, the government must make every effort to narrow the income gap for the sake of social justice and it must also squarely face its fiscal difficulties. There is much room to discuss what measures the government should adopt to these ends. Taiwan’s “soft power” has been crucial to the international competitiveness for a nation that lacks natural resources. This is the foundation that brings legitimacy to the extension of nine-year compulsory education to 12 years, of which the ministry’s attempt to level the difference in tuition fees is a starting point.
From this perspective, there is no absolute right or wrong in terms of the Cabinet’s prioritizing economically disadvantaged groups or the ministry’s push for the 12-year compulsory educational system. Still, from the aspect of long-term policy sustainability and consistency, the ministry’s thinking is more in line with the complementary policies and measures that should be expected from educational expertise. In other words, the Cabinet should respect the ministry’s expert judgment.
The discord between the Cabinet and the ministry has already damaged students’ rights, so the decision-makers should take political responsibility. To be clear, political appointees can direct civil servants to implement policy goals; therefore, they have to take political responsibility. Because political appointees make national policy, and because there are no particular restrictions on their qualifications, they must be held accountable for their decisions.
In this case, the ministry’s misconduct lies in the fact that since Taiwan’s governmental system is a single leadership system, the ministry should not have recklessly announced a policy opposed to the premier’s will. Meanwhile, the Cabinet’s mistake was that it has established various agencies because it relies on their expert judgment. Regardless of whether or not it respects expertise, the Cabinet failed to fulfill its role as a supervisor coordinating and monitoring the unity of policymaking. It cannot avoid responsibility for creating public discontent.
This controversial policy is just the tip of the iceberg. It highlights the blind spots of government communication. It is the public that will suffer most if the government’s division of labor results in everyone doing things their own way.
Hsu Yue-dian is a professor in the Department of Law at National Cheng Kung University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
Ursula K. le Guin in The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas proposed a thought experiment of a utopian city whose existence depended on one child held captive in a dungeon. When taken to extremes, Le Guin suggests, utilitarian logic violates some of our deepest moral intuitions. Even the greatest social goods — peace, harmony and prosperity — are not worth the sacrifice of an innocent person. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), since leaving office, has lived an odyssey that has brought him to lows like Le Guin’s dungeon. From late 2008 to 2015 he was imprisoned, much of this
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and