standards mentioned earlier. When the law uses nationality as a criterion for differentiating rights and obligations, it must comply with the principle of proportionality under Article 23 of the Constitution. In this case, the tuition subsidies for private vocational high schools do not concern the survival of disadvantaged individuals or deprive individuals of the right to receive basic education. Therefore, a more relaxed standard of review may be required. However, even considering national finances with a lenient review, the MOE must clearly state the purpose of excluding long-term resident school-aged individuals from these benefits and demonstrate that the means used are reasonably related to the intended purpose. Although tuition policies for secondary education vary across countries—some may differentiate based on public versus private institutions, household financial status, or criteria such as curriculum and language of instruction (e.g., non-national curriculum or foreign language instruction)—these policies should align with the overall educational goals of the country. Given that Taiwan’s tuition subsidies for 12-year basic education directly exclude non-citizen school-aged individuals, the MOE should explain how this exclusion is relevant to the implementation of Taiwan’s educational policy. The Ministry must provide objective evidence and data to prove that offering tuition subsidies to long-term resident foreign school-aged individuals would hinder or conflict with the execution of Taiwan’s basic national education policy. 11 ii. The MOE’s Justification for Differential Treatment Lacks Reasonable Relevance The reliance on immigration is critical for a country facing declining birth rates. Taiwan is currently experiencing a significant decrease in natural population growth, 11 Ibid. 23