Bilingual 2030: Why? How?
- Ondy Ho
- May 19, 2022
- 3 min read
How good is good English? Though this may not be the first question English students have but it is probably the only question they have left after hitting the bottom.
We're back on the 2030 bilingual policy in Taiwan and this time we're focusing on the English language. To begin with, here are some questions.
Why should we become a bilingual nation?
How many language groups are in the R.O.C.?
Is our language in any connection with/relation to English?
Were we colonized by English-speaking countries?
Is our government bilingual?
Motivation is essential before any action. Therefore, why indeed? According to National Department Council, it says in the third paragraph that
The Bilingual 2030 policy will be guided by a twofold vision, namely, “helping Taiwan’s workforce connect with the world” and “attracting international enterprises to Taiwan; enabling Taiwanese industries to connect to global markets and create high-quality jobs”.
While it is true that English could potentially achieve those goals, it is always the methods that matter. In this country, we have Taiwanese, Chinese, Japanese(mostly for the elderly), Hakka, Hokkien, indigenous languages...etc. Would the bilingual policy bring more difficulty in preserving these languages and their culture? Is it the best idea to, in a way, give up what we have and set off for a language that is mostly for business benefits? When all the answers are "yes, we're going to do it", how can the policymakers themselves fail to do so?
As we can all see, a questionable motive of a plan brings countless more questions. But we're putting a pause over here and getting back to our main topic here, English. The government or people of Taiwan, in general, seem to think negatively about our English levels, mostly due to constant comparing with the world. Thinking is irrational. Let's be more scientific for a second.
How is one's ability of English measured? Unsurprisingly, we get tested. In every stage of learning, from elementary school students to college graduates, there is a standardized level in which the students should reach. If not, your level is considered below average. Putting aside how raw this method is, it does serve a purpose. It's fast and convenient, good for the mass as numbers. However, should we still be using this "cheat" in our higher education where students should have been focusing on searching for fulfillment instead reaching benchmarks?
Should a nation use the testing system as a measurement of English ability, who takes the test would dictate the quality of the result. The reason is simple. If we want to project ourselves as a country with good language skills, using numbers as a reference, we simply choose who could take the test. For the people who are bad at English and for those who won't pass the basic requirement, just don't let them be part of the math. That is if we only want to look good.
The overgeneralization of the testing, meaning that we quantify all aspects of knowledge through tests, will not benefit learners. On the flip side, it broadens the gap between the more able and the disadvantaged. Single test methods such as only written, are often biased. If the game isn't fair, no one should play it. Moreover, those who really become the winners are private language institutes. They have always gained from the weakness of learners. What's different from before is that this time they are backed by the government, although not exclusively, how necessary they are. The market for language learning is now literally limitless.
Criticizing the 2030 Bilingual Nation policy isn't our intention at all. In fact, this is an excellent stepping stone to something better. Being bilingual is more than just knowing two languages. It helps the training of communication which requires understanding on both sides. When people understand one another, trade begins. It's not just business; ideas, culture, and logic alike are all part of the exchange. Creativity, the one thing that makes us stand out among other animals, may well be the most beneficial part of the 10-year plan.
2030 won't be the end; it's the beginning. We can boldly say that by that time, we still wouldn't be bilingual because 3 years have passed since the announcement in 2019 and there has been more chaos than progress. Nonetheless, on the road to betterment, we cannot ask for perfection but we need the momentum to improve. Unfortunately, we always need something bad in order to see what's something good.
Before our policy becomes "multilingual but English friendly", how are you going to handle bilingual? Again, how good is good English?
Also, check out...
Comments