In judging a culinary competition a few days ago, Cheng Yen-chi (鄭衍基), a well-known state banquet chef, expressed strong disapproval when he saw contestants throw unused ingredients into garbage bins. He said a good cook must not only be skilled, but also know “food ethics.”
Meanwhile, National Taiwan University (NTU) president Lee Si-chen (李嗣涔), in his commencement speech, said it was a “pity” that some good-looking female NTU graduates had chosen to work in the entertainment industry and urged them to consider the huge educational resources the school had spent on them.
On the surface, these comments do not appear to be connected, but upon closer observation, it’s not difficult to see a common thread behind the two events, which is the need to make the best use of material things or one’s talent.
Cheng knew that only six portions were to be cooked at the culinary competition and there would be left-over ingredients, but does that mean they have to be thrown away? Why not keep the remaining ingredients to be used later? If the ingredients must be fresh, why not cook them all and let the audience have a taste? That really would put everything to good use, which was what Cheng was talking about.
In the same way, Lee understands that there is no absolute relationship between education and occupation and that there are different ways of serving and contributing to society.
Why did he risk stirring up controversy by interfering in students’ choice of career? My guess is that Lee believes students can better contribute to society if they make better use of what they learned at school, instead of entering the entertainment industry, with which they are less familiar. In other words, his criticism comes from a desire to optimize the use of talent and not, as some critics have charged, because he looks down on the entertainment business.
Society will undoubtedly be a better place if things and talented people are all put to their best use. However, apart from considering differences in personal interests, we must also reflect on the objective conditions that determine whether something or someone is not being put to good use.
We often see celebrities on shows or advertisements extolling the virtues of materialism and the media outlets are only too happy to flatter these stars. The more we are exposed to these phenomena, the more they influence us and our value system. It doesn’t help that the government sets an equally bad example by wasting public funds — for instance, there are many vacant or unused buildings in urban areas. Is it so strange, then, the view that everything should be put to its best use seems to be a dying concept?
To a certain extent, Lee’s complaint reflected a problem caused by an imbalance between the supply and demand of talented people. This crisis is closely related to increasingly inappropriate educational policies and a deep-rooted belief in the necessity of diplomas and certificates.
The government has established too many universities, without considering the consequences, to meet a widely held public desire to pursue higher education. This has caused an imbalance in the supply of skills and talent needed in the workplace, resulting in graduates of higher education finding it hard to land a job commensurate with their qualifications. Many graduates from top schools remain unemployed to this day.
What is the difference between a university graduate selling fried chicken at a roadside stall because of difficulty finding another job and one who joins the entertainment industry for the same reason? Perhaps the good-looking female graduates at NTU saw the poor prospects available in the job market and decided to take what was available in the entertainment business.
We must also consider how many university graduates are currently employed in jobs that do not match their educational qualifications, or who were forced to attend university and take a course they didn’t like because of parental or social pressure.
Putting everything and everyone to its best use is a commendable ideal, but who is working to create an environment where these ideals can be realized?
Hsu Yu-fang is associate professor and chairman of Sinophone Literatures, National Dong Hua University. TRANSLATED BY TAIJING WU
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Acting Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) has formally announced his intention to stand for permanent party chairman. He has decided that he is the right person to steer the fledgling third force in Taiwan’s politics through the challenges it would certainly face in the post-Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) era, rather than serve in a caretaker role while the party finds a more suitable candidate. Huang is sure to secure the position. He is almost certainly not the right man for the job. Ko not only founded the party, he forged it into a one-man political force, with himself
RSS