Learning to voice opinions
I am worried about the educational system in Taiwan.
I have been teaching English in Taiwan for 10 years now. Until recently I was an assistant professor at a university in Greater Taichung. I am concerned about the way students are learning in Taiwan. Perhaps I should say I am concerned about the way students are not learning in Taiwan.
When I first came to Taiwan I taught in a cram school. I was surprised that students could not express themselves well when they were asked to give their opinion about a movie or about a celebrity they liked. If I asked a student why they liked the movie or why they liked the celebrity, they could not say anything beyond “It was good!” or “He/she is cool!” I asked other teachers in the school why this was and they told me that they would even have trouble expressing themselves in Chinese, because they are not accustomed to having a teacher ask them their opinion.
That was more than nine years ago. More recently, I was teaching university students and I was trying to get students to express their opinions about the recent incident involving a Taiwanese fisherman shot by Philippine Coast Guard personnel. To my surprise, students complained about this topic being introduced in class and I got in trouble with the school for bringing it up.
When I was an elementary-school student in Canada, one of the activities we had was to read the newspaper and tell the class the next day what was happening in the world. It was a variation of “Show and Tell,” in that we were to cut out an article from the newspaper, bring it to class and talk about it. I’ve been told that students in Taiwan do not do these sorts of activities in elementary school and I have found that most students I have taught at the university level still find it difficult to get up in front of a class and express themselves, even in Chinese. Indeed, most students find it difficult to even speak up loudly enough to be heard by the whole class.
For weeks I was questioned by committees at the university regarding my “behavior.” I was eventually told that teachers are not to bring up politics in class. The justification was that the students were only “children.” Yet in Canada students were encouraged to express opinions about current events while they were still in elementary school.
I can understand why high-school students would not have opportunities to express themselves in class: Most of the final year of high school is devoted to preparing for university entrance exams. These exams are multiple choice and do not ask students for their opinions.
However, at the university level students are presumably being prepared for life and work. When students graduate from university they are old enough to vote. How sad is it that they are never encouraged to develop opinions of their own?
Of course, my experience has mostly been with students who graduated from vocational high schools. Students who attended better high schools and went on to study at better universities would obviously be more interested in learning and would not have a problem with teachers who would actually try to teach them.
Even if better universities have different policies that actually allow teachers to teach, there is still the problem of most students in Taiwan, including university graduates, being ill-prepared to participate in Taiwan’s democracy as informed citizens.
Who would benefit from this? I honestly do not know.
Martin Phipps
Greater Taichung
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS