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
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS