Pro-independence groups last Sunday called on the government to step up efforts to increase localization of the education system and curricula.
Critics of localization have argued that changes to curricula — such as reducing the emphasis on Chinese history and classical Chinese language and literature — will steer Taiwanese away from their “Chinese roots.”
This mentality is precisely why the education system must be reformed.
Commonwealth nations like Canada and Australia were established by western European explorers, but their populations are much more diverse than that. Today, their educators recognize the importance of including the histories of native people in their pedagogies, as well as recognizing the plurality of their populations due to centuries of immigration.
In January, protesters rallied against using the Hanyu pinyin romanization system — which is used in China — for station names along the Taoyuan International Airport MRT Line.
However, such protests miss the point of localization, which is meant to emphasize the plurality of languages in Taiwan rather than reimagine the way the colonial language is represented.
Using the Taiwan-developed Tongyong pinyin romanization system would not make a difference for those unfamiliar with Mandarin, while it is simply confusing for those who have learned Mandarin using Hanyu pinyin, which has become the world standard for writing Chinese using English letters.
A better approach would be the one taken by Singapore, where Hanyu pinyin is used, but also Malay, English and Tamil, which can be seen in that country’s station names.
Localization efforts in Taiwan could focus on a better use of Hoklo (also known as Taiwanese), which 74 percent of the population speaks, Hakka or Aboriginal languages in place names, as well as emphasizing in the education system the histories of the communities the languages represent.
These languages and histories could be taught alongside those of China in a manner that pays heed to every heritage, while being relevant to students’ lives today.
Canadian students, for example, learn the history of western Europe and about the histories of African-Canadian and Asian-Canadian people, but educators there are also discussing how to better incorporate the histories of the country’s First Nations.
Taiwan could be a pioneer in East Asia by enacting similar policies.
What should the aims of the localization of the education system be and how can they be achieved?
Schools would best serve their students by exploring the nation’s development over the past few decades: discussing the achievements of Taiwanese who are outstanding in their fields, examining the works of Taiwan’s writers and artists, and helping young people contribute to the nation’s development.
A 2002 UNESCO white paper cited a lack of competent staff, a lack of funding, resistance from teachers and the constraints of university entrance exams as key factors contributing to failures in implementing localization policies in education systems worldwide.
The Ministry of Education must ensure that principals are committed to the ministry’s aims for education reform and that their schools are staffed with teachers who are equally committed to the aims, as well as competent in teaching new curricula.
This is made even more critical by the fact that China has been influencing secondary-school educators as part of its “united front” tactics, inviting them to China and encouraging them to take a pro-China, pro-unification stance in classrooms.
Therefore, localization is not just an important step toward Taiwanese independence, but also toward helping young people build a strong national identity.
Taiwanese share a commonly “imagined community,” to borrow the words of Benedict Anderson. An inclusive education system — one that is not mired in colonialism or unrealistic dreams of a nationalist-led greater China — will manifest in social harmony and effective governance.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
The war between Israel and Iran offers far-reaching strategic lessons, not only for the Middle East, but also for East Asia, particularly Taiwan. As tensions rise across both regions, the behavior of global powers, especially the US under the US President Donald Trump, signals how alliances, deterrence and rapid military mobilization could shape the outcomes of future conflicts. For Taiwan, facing increasing pressure and aggression from China, these lessons are both urgent and actionable. One of the most notable features of the Israel-Iran war was the prompt and decisive intervention of the US. Although the Trump administration is often portrayed as
RSS