"Foreign wolf teachers"

Well, idealism is a tricky concept. But I would be interested in reading these idealistic laws/guidelines of which you speak.

1 Like

Imo, I think it’s fine if Taiwan wants to bar foreign workers with felony convictions in their background (especially those violent and sexual in nature). Perhaps they can distinguish between those and misdemeanors (but maybe that’s giving them too much credit).

The question then is whether or not it’s equivalent to the treatment of a Taiwanese applying for a teaching job. How does a 良民證 work?

Me no Native. :rofl:

El chivo expiatorio or more precisely el pato de la fiesta

1 Like

But you mention that you “contacted (CNA) multiple times through different channels and there has been no response”, which means you’re pedalling a serious accusation from an “unverified source”?

Sometimes the best way to understand things is to personalise the situation. For example:

Imagine, Kman, that a newspaper printed ‘unverified’ allegations of you committing frequent acts of pedophilia.

Would you be content with their refusal to retract on the grounds that ‘we’re just printing what someone said - even though they have produced no evidence and refuse to even take our calls regarding this accusation’?

Pedophilia is a vile crime - but by the same token, publicly accusing someone of that crime, without producing any evidence, is also a despicable act

Kman, it’s a ‘do unto others’ situation. Seems you’ve made your choice - now good luck with the karma


The Chinese version of the new Art. 9 of the Supplementary Education Act is now online.

The relevant paragraph is number 4:


The English version hasn’t been updated yet.

The wording is almost identical to what was in the MOE’s email (no substantive change).

It doesn’t explain what counts as a 良好證明文件 issued by a foreign country, but in theory the document should be equivalent to a local 警察刑事紀錄證明書 (police criminal record certificate).

1 Like

If that’s the case, it shouldn’t be too much of a hassle. I got a local criminal record certificate when I first applied for my JFRV, and it just involved going down to the local police station, paying ten bucks and waiting for five minutes while they printed it up. Of course, a local certificate doesn’t really prove much. I could have sacrificed newborn babies in Satanic rituals in any of thousands of other jurisdictions around the U.S., and my local record would have come up clean.

My guess, though, is that they’re going to require an FBI background check, which is a serious hassle, to say the least.

So my flight is in 3 weeks and now I’m freaking out that I wont be able to apply/get an ARC to teach english in Taiwan. Does anyone know where I can find out what exactly will be required of me? FBI check? local background check? Should I contact the consulate?

Was this actually what was written? This article has been edited now and doesn’t contain any of that quoted text

Not really. You don’t have specific laws drafted towards one population and then another for a different population. What they should do is raise that age of consent for the entire population. What your suggesting is in fact discrimination instead of providing a solution. 16 is too young to make any kind of decision honestly.

So if the subject of an expunged or sealed USA criminal file gets a statement from the State’s Department of Law Enforcement that under the State’s law, the subject has no criminal record, that statement should be sufficient?

Here’s an archived page, from the Internet Archive:

[quote=“wangkesen, post:67, topic:161259, full:true”]
I love that you recommend being on the defense while using “pansy” as terminology for gay folks, when you’ve claimed to have a handful of gay friends in previous postings. Do tell how they love being referred to as pansies.[/quote]

From the context, I’m virtually certain that @Icon meant patsy, with a t, in the second sense in the dictionary entry linked below; that is, “a person upon whom the blame for something falls; scapegoat; fall guy”:


The report on the CNA’s website has not been modified, so it seems we can’t trust Taiwan News to be honest even about its editorial policy. :roll:

I’m not saying they should restore the original version of Mr. Liao’s piece of work, just that the respectable thing to do would be to issue a formal clarification and note that the article was modified after its original publication.


I’m disgusted at this. Seems like Taiwan News is trying to cover their asses on this one and won’t hold one individual accountable. And excuse me what? You reported what Central News Agency reported? Are you a news outlet or a twitter rehash? This is ridiculous. If those statements were made about an individual slander charges would ensue. Also, where did George quote his sources as being the CNA?


If a record is officially blank, it’s officially blank. :idunno:

The WDA should have a comment on this, soonish.

George took the text down because of the discrepancy between the CNA explanation of the new requirements and the MOEs response when questioned about the CNA article.


Then perhaps it should be explained why George is quoting CNA responses instead of actually sourcing the people who maintain and work with lawmakers to create these regulations. It’s my understanding from reading the article that there was no reference to the CNA in the original article correct? Furthermore even if there was, is this a news outlet or a twitter hash tag? You don’t re-report the news released by another news outlet that’s called plagiarism. And rather then actually obtaining statements from the MOE the article by the CNA was citied. Why? Anybody can call up the MOE and ask for clarification on laws or regulations, or look these up on the government site which is open to anyone. At very least this is a clear display of lazy and unprofessional journalism and questionable some sort of bias. But when your running a news story claiming multiple cases of sexual assault on students by foreign professionals when that’s not the case and you are a agent responsible for reporting news and influencing public opinion and then they response was that they would not edit the original post because the CNA website still stated the same thing. Yet someone edited the article as it’s obviously different now. Anyways the only thing that’s clear to me from this is that TaiwanNews is not to be trusted as an accurate or responsible news agency.

I’ll try to contact the Ministry of Education and see if they can provide more information on the new requirements.

“The MOE’s response” when questioned by whom, exactly? Did he trust “an unnamed person on an online forum”?

It looks like we’re doing his homework for him, yet he won’t even admit he changed anything.


Kudos to CNA for sticking to their guns. No backing off on their original content. We didn’t mention “rising” either. The “frequent” is the proper translation of their 過去外籍狼師頻傳