Looking at the Taiwanese version of the Occupy Wall Street movement and going back a bit further to policies concerning social housing, luxury taxes, huge cuts in tax reductions or exemptions for certain industries and the introduction of a minimum tax system — all of these issues are just different expressions of the wealth gap and wealth distribution issues. All related discussions circle around two frequently contradictory goals: economic development and fair distribution, and the tense relationship between the two.
Educational reform and the liberalization movement that began in Taiwan about 15 years ago have gradually changed the public nature that traditionally characterized the education system, which instead has become more heavily affected by capitalism, unfair distribution and class differentiation. The increasing proportion of privileged students attending public or top-ranking schools, the -multiple-entrance program that led to capital determining education and the surplus of low-quality master’s and doctorate students resulting from the establishment of too many universities are all obvious problems that have appeared in recent years. The question is whether they stem from problems with the liberalization of the education system or whether their cause is of a more fundamental nature.
We can basically group the education-related issues of recent years into a few types. The first includes issues such as the education system not teaching the skills society needs, the high costs and the number of graduates not matching the demand. The second type is related to the inequalities stemming from an increasingly stratified education system. After carefully observing the situation, it becomes apparent that the first group of issues is to a large extent the result of education administrators’ overly restrictive policies toward talented students and educational methods. Another main cause is that educators and schools do not pay enough attention to the choices available to students in the job market. From this perspective, further liberalizing school tuition and curriculums is unavoidable.
Interestingly, the second group of issues requires a different answer altogether. Given the increasingly stratified education system, increasing liberalization has not brought the expected innovations. Instead, it is causing social divisions. In the past, there was a “fair” examination system that gave relatively less importance to the wealth of a family — the joint-entrance examination that was abolished in 2002 — which decided who would go to the top schools and enjoy the best educational resources. Now, we see more children from families with a privileged political and economic background, directed by parents with higher educational backgrounds, taking and expanding their lead in terms of experience, performance and confidence. This differentiation, which was first observed at universities, has been quite appalling.
It is intriguing to see how the education authorities are trying to please everyone when dealing with these two types of problems. If things appear to be going well, they liberalize the system a bit, but if the public begins expressing any opposition, they suddenly provide financial aid to graduate students or restrict students from attending schools in other districts in an attempt to seem fair or as if they are taking care of the disadvantaged.
The authorities should deal with these issues by allowing alternative curriculums or education systems in addition to the traditional one, so that success does not necessarily mean one has to climb the undergraduate-master’s-doctorate ladder.
The authorities must understand that in addition to self--realization, education is also meant to supply society with skilled and efficient workers. They should therefore establish a parallel and self-adjusting higher-education system based on further studies into the needs of society and avoid concentrating educational resources in one place.
By doing so, they would diversify students’ choices when applying for university because students would better understand what industry and society need and be able to adjust their study preferences accordingly. That would not only help students obtain higher salaries, but in the long run it might also prove crucial to creating more balanced economic and social development.
Simply granting or regulating research costs, restricting the number of doctoral students admitted or trying to weed out schools that do not manage to enroll enough students might alleviate the symptoms, but it will not cure the disease. This approach has never provided any real solutions in the past and instead we keep missing opportunities to fix these problems, spending too much time struggling with the dichotomy of liberalization versus socialization as if this were the only problem.
Looking at things from this viewpoint, perhaps young Taiwanese are not merely protesting those simple issues, such as not being able to buy a house or not being able to pay their tuition — issues that are directly related to the wealth gap — but actually complaining about our overly monolithic educational values, which are binding them in shackles and leading them astray.
Lin Chien-chung is an assistant professor in the Institute of Technology Law at National Chiao Tung University.
Translated by Kyle Jeffcoat
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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.