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 gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS