Taiwan has emphasized the importance of English education for years — notably, in the “Bilingual 2030” policy, which has been in place since 2017. This ambitious initiative aims to make English one of Taiwan’s official languages by 2030. As a member of Gen Z, I question the necessity of this policy: Is English education not already sufficient, and will making English an official language truly benefit Taiwanese society?
Taiwan’s English education system is more than adequate. English courses typically begin in the third grade and continue through high school, providing at least 10 years of instruction. Many children even start learning English in kindergarten. A 2018 Central News Agency report showed that nearly 70 percent of parents send their children to English cram schools. My own experience reflects this trend. I began learning English in kindergarten, and my elementary school offered English courses from the first grade, taught by local and native speakers.
If the quantity of English education is sufficient, why is there a push for the “Bilingual 2030” policy? In my view, the issue lies not in the amount of instruction, but in the methods used. Taiwan’s English education focuses heavily on grammar and writing, with insufficient emphasis on speaking. Additionally, Taiwan’s linguistic isolation makes it difficult for people to naturally use English in daily life.
While the “Bilingual 2030” policy aims to address these issues, I am afraid it might inadvertently increase social inequalities. Parents might feel pressured to enroll their children in additional courses, which could exacerbate social class disparities. Increased funding for English education could disproportionately benefit urban areas, widening the urban-rural gap.
Many students struggle with English despite extensive education. For instance, one of my relatives attended a bilingual kindergarten, but resisted learning English due to frustration. A classmate, overwhelmed by additional courses, showed no improvement. Another classmate, relying solely on school lessons, developed a dislike for English. These examples demonstrate how inappropriate education methods can lead to disinterest and frustration. The prevalence of cram schools also creates varying proficiency levels, complicating teachers’ efforts to provide uniform instruction.
Despite the challenges, the “Bilingual 2030” policy does bring potential benefits.
Improved public infrastructure — such as bilingual road signs, public transport announcements and official communications — fosters a more English-friendly environment. This not only aids local residents in practicing English naturally, but also makes Taiwan more welcoming to some international visitors and expatriates.
Nevertheless, to make English more prevalent, we should focus on refining our education methods. Rather than simply making English an official language, a balanced and inclusive education system that offers effective instruction and equal access to resources would better enhance English proficiency across all social groups.
While the “Bilingual 2030” policy promises valuable changes, its success hinges on tackling the core issue: the quality and accessibility of English-language education. Teaching methods must be refined to emphasize practical language use and ensure all students, regardless of background, have equal access to quality resources. Only then can Taiwan genuinely elevate its English proficiency without deepening social inequalities. Prioritizing these improvements over merely designating English as an official language would create a more linguistically capable and inclusive society.
Chen Ting-hsi is a student in the Department of International Affairs at Wenzao Ursuline University of Languages.
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has