Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Cheng Yun-peng (鄭運鵬) last week proposed abolishing the classical Chinese-language part of the civil service entrance exam, sparking a vehement backlash from lawmakers of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), who slammed the proposal as ideological and said it was the DPP’s latest move to garner votes from young Taiwanese.
As civil servants need to write and read official documents in Chinese, the exam assesses applicants’ command of the language, with classical Chinese being one of the exam’s focus areas. Classical Chinese had been in use from ancient times to the early 20th century. Chinese-speakers in today’s Taiwan use modern Chinese: speaking classical Chinese today would be like using Shakespearian English.
Classical Chinese would not be used by the applicants after passing the exam, so it is a waste of time and effort to study it, Cheng said, adding that then-minister without portfolio Lin Yu-ti (林玉体) and others proposed a similar motion in 2008.
Lin at the time said: “Abolishing the Chinese exam has nothing to do with Taiwanese independence or politics. Young people should not waste their time studying classical Chinese.”
Cheng’s proposal highlights the complexity of the issue, in terms of practicality and diversity.
As Taiwan’s civil service exams are notoriously difficult, examinees spend a lot of time preparing for them, usually studying classical Chinese with a “chew-pour-pass-forget” mindset, as they do not expect to use it on the job. While many consider classical Chinese an important metric for gauging Chinese proficiency, it is arguable whether civil servants need such a specialized, high-level knowledge of the language to perform their duties. As any concept ancient or modern can be expressed in modern Chinese, why is there a need for classical Chinese?
If an applicant is taking the exam to work in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Council of Indigenous Peoples, they will probably be using more English or indigenous languages on the job than classical Chinese. The Four Books and Five Classics are great works of literature, but studying such texts remains largely an academic endeavor. Even though it is important to preserve history and cultural heritage, civil service exams are no suitable means to that end.
As part of the “108 curriculum” educational reform, the Ministry of Education has reduced the share of classical texts in high-school curricula, aiming to give more room to literature in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), Hakka and indigenous languages. It would contradict the reform’s purpose to continue testing civil service applicants’ knowledge of classical Chinese.
While the KMT regards the “abolishment” of classical Chinese — in education or exams — as a move to de-Sinicize Taiwan and a prelude to dumbing down the Chinese-language ability of Taiwanese, it has failed to take into account the damage the then-KMT government inflicted on languages native to Taiwan, especially indigenous languages, when it retreated to Taiwan from China. By banning non-Chinese languages, Taiwanese were forced to lay aside their mother tongues and assimilate the KMT’s version of Chinese culture.
As educators helped pave the way to cultural diversity, and Taiwanese have changed their perception of national identity, the government should take into account this trend and abolish the anachronistic classical Chinese part of the civil service exam.
Confucius’ (孔子) ruminations about benevolent government might well be beautifully articulated, but not knowing how to repeat his exact phrases would certainly not interfere with a civil servant’s ability to perform their job, and insisting that they have to have this skill might impede Taiwan’s quest for its national identity.
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Victory in conflict requires mastery of two “balances”: First, the balance of power, and second, the balance of error, or making sure that you do not make the most mistakes, thus helping your enemy’s victory. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made a decisive and potentially fatal error by making an enemy of the Jewish Nation, centered today in the State of Israel but historically one of the great civilizations extending back at least 3,000 years. Mind you, no Israeli leader has ever publicly declared that “China is our enemy,” but on October 28, 2025, self-described Chinese People’s Armed Police (PAP) propaganda
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS