The Ministry of Education decided on Wednesday to discontinue the tri-city high school entrance exam, rejecting a major education policy of Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin’s (郝龍斌) administration. The move came shortly after the exam sparked dispute over its problematic admissions threshold.
The ministry’s announcement was a slap in the face for Hau, who introduced the exam as part of his “single-version textbook” policy in 2008 to oppose the then-Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government’s multiple-textbook policy, which promoted diverse learning. The rights of students in the three participating municipalities — Taipei, New Taipei City (新北市) and Keelung — were sacrificed in the name of politics as the problematic policy was introduced and poorly implemented.
Political confrontation overrode educational considerations in these cities’ policy-making processes. Because of Hau’s collaboration with New Taipei City and Keelung in adopting the policy, students were forced to use different textbooks than their peers in other cities and counties, while they had to take entrance exams that were held on the same day as the national entrance exam.
Mounting opposition from parents and students because of miscalculations of reference scores and complicated admissions procedures finally forced the ministry to put an end to the exam. However, a sense of uncertainty remains for more than 200,000 junior-high school students who used the city-designated textbooks.
Education is a key foundation to the nation’s development, and education policies should be shaped through comprehensive considerations. It is regrettable that the mayor of Taipei set a bad example by allowing political ideology to interfere with education policies.
Hau’s failure to take full responsibility for his erronous policy is especially notable when compared with the recent resignation of the mayor of Seoul after a referendum on his school lunch policy.
Oh See-hoon stepped down on Friday after Seoul residents voted against his policy that free school lunches should only be available for children from poor families.
Oh, 50, was considered a possible presidential candidate for the ruling conservatives. He put his job on the line to stop what he called destructive welfare, and when he lost the referendum, he kept his promise to quit.
In sharp contrast, of all the officials involving in formulating the tri-city policy, including Hau and Minister of Education Wu Ching-chi (吳清基), who helped outline the policy as a former Education Department commissioner in Taipei City, the only one to take responsibility for its failure was former Education Department commissioner Kang Tzong-hu (康宗虎), who stepped down earlier this month.
Hau promised to present a post-exam report on the problematic reference scores and admissions threshold and finalize a list of officials to be penalized, but has not lived up to his promise.
When asked about his responsibility for the policy, Hau simply apologized for the termination of the tri-city entrance exam and said his team would communicate with parents and students while discussing -follow-up measures with schools, revealing his evasive attitude during the biggest storm of his political career.
Some critics said the ministry’s abrupt announcement that it would discontinue the exam aimed to eliminate the negative impact of the policy and pave the way for the 12-year compulsory education policy, a major education reform under President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration.
The 12-year policy, which will extend compulsory education from nine years to 12 years by 2014, lacks substantial guidelines and detailed plans. If the central government fails to learn from the example of the tri-city high school exam debacle and launches a major education reform policy in haste, our children’s rights to a proper education will once again be sacrificed.
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