An insightful article (“Taiwan short of over 1,000 substitute teachers with school year starting soon,” Aug. 25, page 1) highlights a problem that has been long overlooked. This issue runs much deeper and can be divided into hard and soft factors.
The remuneration for substitute teachers is so low that even a part-time job at a 7-Eleven can be more attractive. A substitute teacher at a high school earns about NT$550 and NT$620 for a 50-minute class. They teach a class of about 20 to 29 students. Lesson preparation, and grading of homework and exams are not covered.
Teachers rarely have more than four consecutive hours of teaching due to organizational constraints at schools. Thus, for two hours of teaching, a substitute teacher earns about NT$1,100 to NT$1,240, with perhaps 30 minutes of travel time and 30 minutes for preparation and follow-up. During exam periods, additional unpaid grading time is required.
Specialized cram schools with good reputations pay between NT$600 and NT$1,200 for small classes. Although these schools cater primarily to students’ needs, they can more easily organize classes due to their smaller size.
The disparity is even more pronounced at universities, although the remuneration is somewhat higher. Part-time instructors must first input their lesson plans into the university’s system for free, which is time-consuming and a potential opportunity for colleagues to steal ideas.
Depending on the university’s rating, students in lectures might be less motivated. More demanding part-time instructors who work in the private sector might face negative evaluations if they enforce punctuality and homework completion. The preferred university instructor, from the students’ perspective, is often one who is more friendly and accommodating.
At universities, more extensive and challenging assignments must also be graded for free. Additionally, many universities are on the outskirts, adding to travel time. If a part-timer drives, universities are often not hesitant to charge parking fees — unless time-consuming paperwork is filled out.
From a financial perspective, teaching at schools and universities is unprofitable for part-timers.
The soft factors should not be underestimated. Public officials are not necessarily socially adept. Until about two years ago, there were enough teachers, especially at universities. Consequently, part-timers were somewhat looked down on.
As a part-time lecturer at a university, I had established myself and taught several courses. Everything was going well until a new dean arrived and brought his own team. Almost all of my courses were canceled without notice; I only learned about it from students. A bit naively, one student asked me why I was in trouble.
The new dean also immediately revoked my access to the university network and I never received a faculty ID. To log into the system, I had to ask students for their access credentials.
A high school persuaded me to take over a four-week teaching block. At 11pm on the evening before the course started, I was informed that the first classes had been canceled. Again, this was short notice with no apology.
Although it has no financial importance, it was inconvenient, as I had already rescheduled other appointments. The frustration was considerable.
Many part-time teachers experience similar frustrations. As a result, they have established themselves professionally elsewhere.
Financially, teaching is unprofitable, and sympathy for the school system and its representatives alone is unlikely to lead to success in employment. Some universities, often language departments, are now hiring freshly graduated students as teachers due to the shortage of experienced substitutes.
The education system is missing out on the practical experience that part-timers bring from outside the academic bubble, leading to further quality loss, particularly at universities.
Claudius Petzold works at a law firm in Taipei and is a subcontractor for several travel companies. He previously taught law and German as an assistant professor at Taiwanese universities.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS