Wednesday, September 07, 2005

The Lawyer Examination Case

Taiwan News and other services reported on the Examination Yuan's defense of the strange questions on the Taiwan Bar Exams this year. I've been waiting for the government to speak on this, as the previous articles seem to have been based entirely on claims from the KMT and its supporters (an odd crowd to be crying about exam politicization, as politicization of exams has been part and parcel of KMT policy since day 1). Nevertheless, the complaints seem valid and the exam indeed tainted with some absurd politics this time around (but not the last four times, for the first time since the ROC colonized Taiwan in 1945). In other words, this appears to be an isolated incident, not policy. Perhaps some good will come of this stupidity:

Yao indicated that the controversy could actually expedite the Examination Yuan's reform of the professional accreditation process for lawyers. Examiners are now likely to expedite a move under consideration to abolish the Chinese essay portion of the test and replace it with a section testing the prospective lawyers on writing legal briefs and other legal documents.

Imagine -- testing lawyers on their ability to write legal briefs. What a wild and revolutionary concept! The controversy highlights the way the exam has "politics'" built into it -- the idea of a serious essay on the law having no political implications is strange, and the temptation will always exist for the party in power to twist the test to its own agenda. It may well be best to do away with that section as a vestige of the old authoritarian regime, where lawyers were vetted for ideological and political safety.....

6 comments:

Unknown said...

that section as a vestige of the old authoritarian regime, where lawyers were vetted for ideological and political safety.....

Amazing! Bravo! I love the part where you take the foul-up of the supposedly democracy-loving DPP and turn that into an oppourtintiy to remind us all of authoritarianism - for the 200 billionth time.

A few points of disagreement:

What other (English) services? This issue was buried in the English press. There were NO articles other than an AP article in Taiwan News as of Sunday.

Chen Shui Bian gave a speech on this on Sunday morning - where is the supposed KMT spin? The information was there in Chinese, but the pro-green Taipei Times and Taiwan News kept their mouths shut because the DPP kept its mouth shut - it had been caught red handed. Go democracy go!

I posted on this on Sunday. Strangely, there were no comments, a first for my blog. Is that the silence of guilt I hear?

http://taiwansotherside.blogspot.com/2005/08/toss-first-sort-of-scoop.html

Unknown said...

Sorry, messed up the link:

T.O.S.'s First (sort of) Scoop!

Tim Maddog said...

TOS, a few points of disagreement back at you:

1) Michael didn't say "English" services. Putting (parenthetical) words in his mouth doesn't help your argument any.

2) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even if your conclusions are correct, your reasoning is not.

3) I considered commenting on your post, but I didn't want to do so without further knowledge of the facts. That is always a good policy. Your argument about lack of comments, however, is both a red herring and a straw man. Lack of response to valid criticism doesn't equal "silence of guilt." Even if you're right, don't hold your breath waiting for all pan-green supporters to roll over and surrender to your ideas of a better Taiwan.

4) A fuck-up which is set right isn't the same thing as 5 decades of unrestrained policy -- even if it is pointed out by the opposition.

Add #4 to Michael's reminders for a total of 200,000,000,001. [hyperbole] ;-)

"Touché!" "¡Olé!" even.

Michael Turton said...

What other (English) services? This issue was buried in the English press. There were NO articles other than an AP article in Taiwan News as of Sunday.

Yes, other than an international news service article that appeared in Taiwan News in English, there were no articles.[roll eyes]

Wait...an international news article...appearing in a local English paper.

TOS has conveniently forgotten that on the 29th the Taipei Times had a huge spread on the far more critical case of the Kaohsiung Worker Riot -- which is why quite a lot of stuff was crowded off its pages. TOS also forgets that the pro-KMT China Post didn't report on this story. Why?

I'll let the reader figure out which is more important: a key case of worker violence that highlights an ongoing set of problems, or an isolated case of stupidity on a test. The reason the local English press, pro- and anti- authoritarian both, failed to pick up this story is because (1) it had already been picked up by an international news service and reported in the local English and Chinese press and (2) there were much bigger stories going on.

Hey, none of us blogged on the massive crime investigation in Tainan that brought in indictments against 50 politicians down there, 2 KMT and a host of independents. I guess we all love independents and the KMT...logic like silence = support is really smart. No wonder TOS supports the KMT.

Michael

Anonymous said...

TOS also forgets that the pro-KMT China Post didn't report on this story. Why?

Because there's a vast disconnect between what's reported in the English-language media and the Chinese-language media?

/haven't touched a Taipei Times or China Post in months.

Tim Maddog said...

(crickets chirping)

(considers own statement about "absence of evidence" and checks TOS' blog)

Oh, I see. TOS is busy throwing logic out the window and doing cut-ups to reply.

Check out those multiple references (by TOS) to Chen Chu (陳菊) as "the girl." Good stuff... NOT!

Q: How many different ways can TOS spell "Chen Shui-bian" (within 24 hours!)?
A: 200 billion (give or take a few billion)

Only 8 posts under his belt, and TOS is already getting rather careless. Tsk, tsk!

And Wayne... But the China Post usually protests anything having to do with Chen Shui-bian! Why not this time? I'm truly curious about the reason(s). (Disclaimer: The China Post's own search function wasn't working when I was digging for the info, but a search of Google News also failed to show any relevant results from that publication.)