Young People Must Be More than Youth Policy Cheerleaders

Young People Must Be More than Youth Policy Cheerleaders
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
December 8, 2015 

Executive Summary: Youth policy and educational policy are long-term goals. Eric Chu and Tsai Ing-wen each have good insights and blind spots. Tsai Ing-wen's proposals are more idealistic. Eric Chu's proposals are more pragmatic. But since both candidates' educational policies are "very similar", whoever takes office should make use of the other candidate's policies when appropriate, and listen to different opinions. Do not allow the younger generation to feel they have no future. Do not force society to endure greater pain.

Full Text Below: 

Tsai Ing-wen recently announced her education policy. The Eric Chu campaign says her educational policy is “quite similar” to his own. Younger voters and first time voters are critical to the upcoming blue-green showdown. Both camps offer policies designed to appeal to young people. Younger voters must closely scrutinize the political parties' words and deeds. They must not be content to be cheerleaders on the sidelines, blindly marching to another's drumbeat.

Yesterday 40 universities, including National Taiwan University, National Chengchi University, and National Tsing Hua University, organized a dialogue between their students and the presidential candidates. Tsai Ing-wen was the only no-show. This is deeply regrettable. Tsai Ing-wen swore up and down that her itinerary was already been planned, therefore she could not get away. But closer scrutiny reveals that she considers the youth vote a sure thing, therefore she need not waste time talking to them. Also, as the unchallenged front-runner, she considers it beneath her to appear on the same stage alongside the other candidates. Therefore she sent her vice presidential running mate Chen Chien-jen to pinch hit. Regardless of her reasons, Tsai Ing-wen has revealed her arrogance and her contempt for democracy. Her refusal to take part in this dialogue, along with her insistence that she would participate in a presidential debate only if it was hosted by Sanli TV, has people worried. Once she assumes power, will her arrogance of power lead to arbitrary conduct? 

University students took the initiative to organize a dialogue between themselves and the presidential candidates. The younger generation's interest in politics is commendable. Most importantly, the sponsors of the dialogue must understand the younger generation's view of the world and the issues that concern them. They must not let politicians lead them around by the nose, as usually happens on such occasions. Only then will they remain in charge. In particular, participants must grill the political candidates ruthlessly. They must compare and contrast them to determine who is better qualified. During the debate some students waved protest banners within the venue. This is freedom of expression. But if one's only motive purpose is to support a particular candidate, one has reduced oneself to a standard-bearer. Other students loudly applauded their favored candidate's speeches. They too revealed that they were too easy to lead around by the nose.

The youth and educational policies advanced by Tsai Ing-wen and Eric Chu differ in several respects. The first difference concerns youth housing. Tsai Ing-wen wants to build 200,000 units of public housing in eight years. She proposes to address the problem of housing shortages for young people by providing a surfeit of housing units. Eric Chu and James Soong consider this pie in the sky thinking. Neither land nor funding are sufficient, rendering it impossible. Chen Chien-jen mocked Ma Ying-jeou's "six three three" economic policy, which came to naught. But Tsai Ing-wen's check for 200,000 public housing units is the one most likely to bounce. In fact, we need not wait eight years. We need only see how many units she has completed in four years, and we will have our answer.

The second difference concerns early childhood education. The younger generation is either getting married later, not marrying at all, or is fearful about raising children. Eric Chu proposes extending tuition-free preschool to three year olds. He appears trapped in "handing out money" thinking. Childcare and early childhood education now include two year-olds. Chu has inadvertently left out children between two and three years old. Tsai proposes funding pre-schools to address the problem of inadequate public childcare. But she has included newborns and two year olds in the "Child Care Selection" system. This appears generous, but if infant care is merged into pre-school and child care policy, the care will be too limited and the funding will be inadequate.

The third difference concerns 12 year compulsory education. On this Tsai Ing-wen and Eric Chu differ only slightly. For beleaguered parents and students, Eric Chu's "Children sleeping soundly close by is best" concept is simple and persuasive. New Taipei City student enrollment increased from 40 percent to over 70 percent, making his policy highly persuasive. Tsai Ing-wen proposes eliminating large school districts by turning residential districts into school districts, and by eliminating entrance exams. Her proposal obviously mimics “educational reform”. Talking about “reducing pressure” is easy. But if the result is "ersatz excellence", the problem has not really been solved. Coerced entry into nearby schools will only provoke a backlash and lead to increased competition among school districts.

The fourth difference concerns higher education. Tsai Ing-wen and Eric Chu talk about enhancing university competitiveness. But neither mentions the problem of unemployed university graduates. This is actually the more pressing issue. Both issues must be addressed. Taiwan has far too many universities. Eric Chu proposes special legislation. Tsai Ing-wen proposes a 10 billion NT fund to deal with the bloody aftermath, and ensure that teachers and students survive. But while subbing for Tsai Ing-wen, Chen Chien-jen suddenly changed his tune. He vowed that the DPP "would not lightly retreat". He said he would help schools regroup based on their unique expertise. Chen Chien-jen is Tsai Ing-wen's running mate. Yet he changed or distorted Tsai Ing-wen's proposals, leaving listeners bewildered. Taiwan has a surfeit of universities. Encouraging them to regroup is election rhetoric. It ducks the problems, and does nothing to solve them.

Youth policy and educational policy are long-term goals. Eric Chu and Tsai Ing-wen each have good insights and blind spots. Tsai Ing-wen's proposals are more idealistic. Eric Chu's proposals are more pragmatic. But since both candidates' educational policies are "very similar", whoever takes office should make use of the other candidate's policies when appropriate, and listen to different opinions. Do not allow the younger generation to feel they have no future. Do not force society to endure greater pain.

評比青年政策，新世代別只當啦啦隊
2015-12-08 聯合報

蔡英文近日發表教育政策，朱立倫團隊宣稱，這和朱的教育理念「頗多雷同」。新世代及首投族是這次藍綠決勝負的關鍵，各陣營皆祭出迎合年輕人的政策，以爭取青年選票。對此，年輕世代自應認真檢視不同政黨的政見和言行，不能只滿足於做個場邊啦啦隊，盲目跟著別人搖旗吶喊。

由台、政、清大等四十個學生會舉辦的總統候選人與青年對談日昨登場，獨獨蔡英文缺席，令人遺憾。儘管蔡英文聲稱行程早已排定，無法分身；但細究其實，一方面可能是她自認多數青年選票已是她的囊中物，因此無需再浪費時間對談；另一方面，則是她自覺選情領先，不屑與其他候選人同台辯論，因此僅派出副手陳建仁代打應戰。無論其原因為何，都暴露了蔡英文在戰略上或心態上的傲慢，也缺乏基本的民主與平等精神。這點，包括她堅持只接受三立電視主辦的總統辯論，都讓人擔心她執政後可能恃權而驕、獨斷獨行。

大學生主動籌辦與候選人的對談，顯示了新世代政治參與的積極性，值得讚賞。重要的是，主辦者必須掌握關注青年願景及社會議題的主軸，不能像一般造勢場合一樣被政治人物牽著走，才有主體性可言。尤其，對於候選人提出的政見，參與者要有質疑、比較和批判的能力，才能識別不同候選人的高下。這次，有人在會場高舉布條抗議，這是言論自由；但其目的若是為了幫某候選人造勢或唱和，則徒使自己淪為旗手。又如現場有些年輕觀眾，不時跟著候選人的煽情言論鼓掌叫好，也顯得太容易隨之起舞。

比較蔡英文和朱立倫提出的青年及教育政策，可以由幾個方面觀察。第一，在青年住宅方面，蔡英文提出要在八年內興建廿萬戶社會住宅的構想，旨在透過住宅的大量供應，解決新世代的居住正義。然而，朱立倫和宋楚瑜皆認為此一構想太過天馬行空，並不可行，因為不論在土地或資金取得都顯無可能。正如陳建仁譏諷馬英九的「六三三」經濟政見落得一場空，蔡英文廿萬戶社宅的大話也是她最容易跳票的一張支票，其實不需要等八年，只要看她四年內能完成幾戶，便可分曉。

第二，在幼兒教育方面，這是解決新世代晚婚、不婚及畏懼生養問題的一環。朱立倫主張幼教免學費向下延伸至三歲，似未脫離「給錢」思維；且幼托整合後的幼兒教育已涵括二歲幼兒，朱似無意間排除了二至三歲的幼兒，這是不足之處。蔡英文則主張學前教育要解決托幼公共化不足的問題，她卻又把「保母遴選」制度與降低零到二歲托嬰費用盡皆囊括；表面上看似慷慨，但托育問題若只納入學前教育與照護政策，觀照未免過於窄化，而經費的膨脹則難以想像。

第三，在十二年國教問題上，蔡英文和朱立倫的主張確實差異不大。對於受夠折騰的家長和學生來說，朱立倫「孩子睡飽、就近最好」的想法，簡單而打動人心。新北在地學子入學率從四成提高到逾七成的成功經驗，使其訴求更具說服力。蔡英文則主張揚棄大學區，改以「社區化學區」為基礎，盡快全面免試、就近入學。她的主張明顯承襲了教改的理想，問題在，談「減壓」容易，但若現實上「假均優」的現象不解決，勉強要求就近入學，只會引起更多反彈及更嚴重的競遷學區現象。

第四，在高等教育方面，蔡、朱兩人均未談到如何提升大學競爭力的問題，也未提到如何解決大學畢業生失業的問題；這點，其實是台灣社會更迫切的問題，有待雙方補強。至於大學過剩的退場問題，朱立倫主張要制訂特別法來處理，蔡英文則主張成立百億元基金來善後，以確保師生的權益不受損傷。但令人意外的是，陳建仁在代替蔡英文出席青年對談時卻突然改變口徑，聲稱民進黨「不輕言退場」，而希望按照各校的特色與專長協助它們進行整併。作為副手，陳建仁擅自修正或扭曲蔡英文的主張，令人困惑；而且，以大學供過於求之嚴重，所謂用鼓勵整併方式解決，恐怕終究是避重就輕的選舉語言，無濟於事。

青年政策與教育政策是國家百年大計上，朱立倫與蔡英文各有亮點與盲點；蔡英文的主張較具理想性，朱立倫的政策則更顯務實。兩人的教育政見既然「頗多雷同」，期望未來的執政者能截長補短，廣納雅言，別讓新世代感到前途茫然，更別讓社會在教育的擺盪中飽受折騰。