In a letter to the Liberty Times published on Friday last week, the author expressed concern about challenges during a preliminary review in the Legislative Yuan against a draft act to establish a “bilingual national development center.” The author of the letter said that the criticisms raised by opponents of the proposed legislation was a sign of neglect and disrespect for bilingual teachers.
However, the letter’s author misunderstands the criticism.
From a legal standpoint, there is no precedent for the “bilingual nation” concept in any laws, regulations or executive orders in Taiwan. The draft law is the first to use the phrase. Moreover, the bill has 33 articles.
However, the articles — except for articles 1 and 3 — deal with the aspects of creating an executive entity. Other than that, there is nothing special about them.
The crux of the problem concerns the wording of Article 1 — which states that the bilingual development center would cultivate English-language proficiency, and elevate Taiwan’s competitiveness and make it a bilingual nation — and Article 3, which states that the center’s remit would include promoting and conducting business related to English-language proficiency testing in professional fields.
The two articles refer specifically and exclusively to the use of the English language. That being the case, the most controversial aspect of the draft law is that it seeks to provide a legislative basis for the idea that using English equals bilingualism.
English-language instruction in Taiwanese universities is chaotic. To comply with the government’s bilingual education policy, university departments are requiring that prospective faculty members have the ability to teach in English. This trend has indirectly created barriers for applicants who have doctorates from Taiwan or from study abroad in non-English-speaking countries.
These hiring demands are having a devastating effect on academic diversity in higher education.
There are many languages in the world, so it is a fallacy to equate English-language education with bilingual education. Narrowly Anglicized education is a crisis of contemporary education and not an avenue toward internationalization.
Hopefully political leaders will realize that creating a free and diverse environment to learn foreign languages, based on students’ interests and life experiences, is the right way to go.
Lo Cheng-chung is a professor and director of Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology’s Institute of Financial and Economic Law.
Translated by Julian Clegg
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS