In a letter to the Liberty Times published on Friday last week, the author expressed concern about challenges during a preliminary review in the Legislative Yuan against a draft act to establish a “bilingual national development center.” The author of the letter said that the criticisms raised by opponents of the proposed legislation was a sign of neglect and disrespect for bilingual teachers.
However, the letter’s author misunderstands the criticism.
From a legal standpoint, there is no precedent for the “bilingual nation” concept in any laws, regulations or executive orders in Taiwan. The draft law is the first to use the phrase. Moreover, the bill has 33 articles.
However, the articles — except for articles 1 and 3 — deal with the aspects of creating an executive entity. Other than that, there is nothing special about them.
The crux of the problem concerns the wording of Article 1 — which states that the bilingual development center would cultivate English-language proficiency, and elevate Taiwan’s competitiveness and make it a bilingual nation — and Article 3, which states that the center’s remit would include promoting and conducting business related to English-language proficiency testing in professional fields.
The two articles refer specifically and exclusively to the use of the English language. That being the case, the most controversial aspect of the draft law is that it seeks to provide a legislative basis for the idea that using English equals bilingualism.
English-language instruction in Taiwanese universities is chaotic. To comply with the government’s bilingual education policy, university departments are requiring that prospective faculty members have the ability to teach in English. This trend has indirectly created barriers for applicants who have doctorates from Taiwan or from study abroad in non-English-speaking countries.
These hiring demands are having a devastating effect on academic diversity in higher education.
There are many languages in the world, so it is a fallacy to equate English-language education with bilingual education. Narrowly Anglicized education is a crisis of contemporary education and not an avenue toward internationalization.
Hopefully political leaders will realize that creating a free and diverse environment to learn foreign languages, based on students’ interests and life experiences, is the right way to go.
Lo Cheng-chung is a professor and director of Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology’s Institute of Financial and Economic Law.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS