According to the results of a survey released by the Educational Testing Service recently, 95.9 percent of Taiwan’s top 1,000 companies say that their employees need to use English in their jobs. However, only 27.9 percent of the companies ask to see a score for the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) — a popular English proficiency test — when recruiting employees, while 83.4 percent of Japan’s companies and 100 percent of South Korea’s companies demand a TOEIC score.
Moreover, top companies in Taiwan merely require an average of 550 points on the TOEIC, which is much lower than the 700 points required by South Korea’s companies in the 990-point test. No wonder only 2.4 percent of Taiwanese companies are satisfied with employees’ English communication skills.
As a matter of fact, if we examine TOEIC scores, the average of 542 points in Taiwan is slightly higher than the average of 510 points in Japan, but much lower than South Korea’s average of 626 points. This gives South Korean companies a clear advantage in today’s increasingly globalized world.
To keep up with South Korea, perhaps we can start from several aspects. First, top Taiwanese companies should gradually lift their recruitment threshold to 600 or 650 points. An even higher standard should be adopted for managers or employees responsible for negotiations. By doing so, companies can show their determination to recruit talent with good English skills, while encouraging applicants to constantly improve these skills. Internal training sessions and an English-speaking environment are also helpful.
Some leading Japanese and South Korean companies hold internal meetings in English and require employees to write e-mails only in English. Taiwanese companies can learn from them to prepare employees for possible business situations.
Next, schools should take a more pragmatic approach to providing English courses. Currently, many universities only offer English courses to freshmen and sometimes sophomore students. Also, Taiwan’s private universities of science and technology tend not to pay attention to students’ English proficiency, so their average of 434 points is significantly lower than regular public university students’ average of 638 points and regular private university students’ average of 567 points. To improve this, it is necessary to increase class hours. More importantly, schools should improve curricula by adding useful business-related materials.
Students must be aware of the reality of the workplace and approach it in a serious and pro-active way. Have the Taiwanese youth complaining that their average salaries are inferior to those of their South Korean counterparts taken a good look at what they are doing and resolved to put more effort into their studies?
Last, the government should set an example by attaching great importance to English to promote Taiwan’s internationalization. It should encourage civil servants to take language courses and proficiency tests by providing incentives, and create a friendlier environment for foreigners. One problem that needs to be addressed promptly is the poor quality of the English Web sites of many government agencies.
Take the Ministry of Education for example: The “news” section on its English Web site was last updated more than three months ago. Some government agencies even spell their English names incorrectly or update their English Web sites only once or twice a year.
Only when these measures are put into place may we have a chance to improve employees’ English and prepare them for the global business world.
Chang Sheng-en is an assistant professor in the English Department at Shih Hsin University.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS