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.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold