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
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Friday used their legislative majority to push their version of a special defense budget bill to fund the purchase of US military equipment, with the combined spending capped at NT$780 billion (US$24.78 billion). The bill, which fell short of the Executive Yuan’s NT$1.25 trillion request, was passed by a 59-0 margin with 48 abstentions in the 113-seat legislature. KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), who reportedly met with TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) for a private meeting before holding a joint post-vote news conference, was said to have mobilized her
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
RSS