On Feb. 7, the New York Times ran a column by Nicholas Kristof (“What if the valedictorians were America’s cool kids?”) that blindly and lavishly praised education in Taiwan and in Asia more broadly.
We are used to this kind of Orientalist admiration for what is, at the end of the day, paradoxically very Anglo-centered. They could have praised Europeans for valuing education, too, but one rarely sees an American praising Europe, right?
It immediately made me think of something I have observed. If Taiwanese education looks so wonderful through the eyes of the archetypal expat, gazing from an ivory tower, how is it that every Taiwanese parent I meet utterly loathes it?
I speak regularly with Taiwanese who are parents or approaching the age of having children and have strong opinions about how the next generation should be raised. All of them are vocally critical of what they perceive as a monstrously antiquated, inefficient, counterproductive and borderline abusive education system, without exception. They blame it for destroying their children’s self-confidence, preventing them from becoming creative or innovative, and failing to prepare them for a changing world. They see it as blocking their growth and shaping them into cannon fodder for large corporations.
Most wish their children could be educated abroad, not for language acquisition or prestige, but because they believe that elsewhere, children are not raised as if they were preparing for an imperial civil service examination from ancient China. They are not entirely right, but there is truth in that perception.
Their opposition to Taiwan’s education system is not always visible at first, because they comply with it, but this is largely because they believe they have no choice. Once they finish venting their frustrations, they almost always add that they feel powerless to change the system and that there is no viable alternative, unless their children are to have no future.
The final note of these conversations is always the same. They end with: “I am the only one who thinks this” — even when they are the third person in a month to share exactly the same criticism with me.
What does this mean?
I have often reported on activism in Taiwan and on many grassroots movements that seek to take full advantage of the freedoms afforded by the country’s democracy. This, in itself, challenges another false cliche: That of Taiwanese being shy and meek, when they are active and upfront when needed. I have seen Taiwanese organize around causes large and small, and I have seen them succeed on many occasions.
For that reason, I believe the only thing standing between Taiwan’s education system and meaningful reform is the lack of awareness among frustrated parents that they are not alone. It is entirely possible that, at some point, the desire for reform would become widely recognized. The moment disgruntled parents realize they are far from isolated and that there are enough of them to shake the system, education in Taiwan would have to change.
That might disappoint those who prefer Taiwan to conform to their fantasies of a neat, obedient Confucian culture populated by clean-cut, robotic students, but it would be nothing short of a revolution for this country.
Julien Oeuillet is an independent reporter in Kaohsiung and hosts the weekly program Taiwan vs the World on Radio Taiwan International.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS