Teachers should be able to cultivate critical thinking in students not by expressing sympathy toward a particular political party or leader, but by offering objective observations.
Just before the presidential election, I asked my adult students if they would vote in the referendum. They said that a famous media celebrity advocated not casting referendum ballots and that they would follow what she had said, seem-ingly without understanding the reasons why.
Students seem to be so uncritical and easily influenced by how they are brought up, or simply because they believe authoritarian voices with whom they identify.
I was stunned when a 20-year-old student, who had just voted for the first time, asked me if I, in my mid-30s, had experienced the February 28 Incident.
Other older students did not know when this incident happened either. Ignorance of our own history and current events still appears to be prevalent among today's youngsters.
Looking back to my school days, I experienced a time when martial law was still in force, preventing us from publicly articulating our opinions or political inclinations.
For a long time, "political issues" were considered taboo topics for discussion in the classroom. Our exam-driven curriculum and its emphasis on rote memorization prevented us from thinking critically.
Paulo Freire, an advocate of pedagogy for the oppressed, insisted on promoting rationality in the teaching process via critical thinking and problem-solving to develop personal awareness in thinking.
This may sound radical to Taiwanese teachers, but the classroom is a place where we should cultivate independent thought. We teachers and students have been silenced because of our culture and old rhetorical systems.
To develop the ability to think critically in the classroom, I adopt doubt, belief and two-way dialogue as advocated by Peter Elbow. I distinguish between verified facts and rumors or media speculation to demonstrate how this dialectical dialogue can encourage students to think from different perspectives.
For example, from March 19 on, rumors quickly spread among the public that the pan-green camp staged the shooting of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) in order to deliver more votes and win the election.
Given the sarcastic tone of the public figures who hinted the shooting was faked, we should be skeptical of their demands that Chen acquit himself with evidence of his innocence, and instead judge the appropriateness of their statements. We should then provide counterarguments to their claims.
The pan-blue camp's line of reasoning was not based on "reasonable doubt," but instead on questioning everything that Chen did.
The reasons for this "reasonable doubt" needed to be verified, but instead, without any evidence, half of the general public became skeptical about the circumstances of the shooting.
The more often politicians expressed suspicion over the shooting, the more likely the general public was to believe them. After the blue camp requested that a prominent forensics expert, Henry Lee (李昌鈺), come to Taiwan to assist the investigation, the bullets were determined to be real and the shooting verified. Our society therefore wasted a huge amount of resources verifying the shooting's authenticity.
We tend to watch news without critically analyzing the information we receive, simply believing instead whatever public figures claim.
Media representations offer a powerful tool to affect the way the public perceives and judges. If teachers cannot encourage students to think critically from a dialectical perspective, it is inevitable that the truth as they understand it will be distorted by blind trust in the media.
If we love Taiwan, we must teach our next generation well and provide them with a more democratic environment.
The ability to think critically must not be neglected. Political issues are not taboo issues, but prime material for training children to acquire this ability.
Florence Chiu
Pingtung
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS