A few days ago, I read two news reports related to the rights of the public. The first was about how the current freeway toll collection system will be replaced in 2013. The second was about how the nine-year compulsory education system will be extended to 12 years in 2014.
The Ministry of Transportation and Communications said the implementation of the first issue required a public consensus and then a legal amendment.
The switch to a fully automated toll collection system is not a very frightening issue, but the ministry still said a consensus was required and that the law would have to be amended before the change would be implemented.
However, the 12-year compulsory education system is a very different matter. It is crucial to the next generation’s rights and quality of education, and is something everyone should be concerned about. Still, the Ministry of Education is taking direct action without consulting anyone. Isn’t that strange?
If the 12-year program adopts a system with large school districts, some students might be sent to remote schools. For example, someone living in Greater Taichung could be sent to a school in far away Puli Township (埔里), Nantou County. Is this acceptable to parents?
It seems that under the 12-year program, many students would be assigned to schools by drawing lots. This would be a massive undertaking and it would not be satisfactory, since all lots cannot be drawn at the same time.
It is easy to see that students would have to wait in line to draw their lot one by one, but what about the order of drawing and who has the right to decide that order? So then authorities would need to hold another drawing of lots just to decide the order of this drawing. These are certain to trigger protests from students and parents.
More importantly, will the 12-year program be beneficial or detrimental to the quality of local education?
This is what educational authorities should pay the greatest attention to. Will junior-high they knew their future school is determined solely by the luck of the draw? That is one question the ministry has to provide an answer to.
And will the pressure on those students who now have a better chance of entering top senior high schools be decreased under the 12-year program? The number of top schools is limited. When high-performing students realize there will be fewer top schools, they will have to study even harder.
Moreover, can the 12-year program reduce the number of private cram schools in the country?
None of the government’s past educational reforms have reduced the number of cram schools, but have instead had the opposite effect.
The controversy over the tri-city senior high school entrance examination policy of Taipei, New Taipei City (新北市) and Keelung should be a warning to the central government, showing that one technical flaw could cause widespread public discontent.
The 12-year program will foreseeably have a much greater impact than the tri-city entrance exam. The government should not only pay attention to the public’s rights, but also to whether the new program will result in a drastic drop in student proficiency. This is a big issue and it should not be unilaterally implemented based on rash idealism.
Not even the revision of the toll collection system can be implemented without amending the law based on consensus. How can the mandatory 12-year school program be directly implemented after a mere announcement by the education ministry?
The future of both our students and the nation is shaped by education. The government must act cautiously — a single mistake would cause the country losses beyond imagination.
Our legislators should really pay more attention to this issue.
Lee Chia-tung is an honorary professor at National Tsing Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with