No matter what it does, the Ministry of Education can't seem to escape censure these days. The proposal to make Taiwanese history the focus of one of four textbooks for senior-high school students has been criticized, as has the proposal to reduce the proportion of classical Chinese taught. Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng (杜正勝) has been labeled many things as a result of these proposals, but the least appropriate of the labels is that of an agent of "desinicization."
The history syllabus will be covered by four books, one each for Taiwanese and Chinese history, with the other two for world history. Chinese history has not been removed, nor is its quantity any less than that of Taiwanese history, so this is hardly desinicization. The charge that reducing the proportion of classical studies is an act of desinicization is equally absurd.
The vernacular is a practical tool that we use every day. Classical Chinese is the language of the ancients, and for people today it is largely dead wood. Classical Chinese presently accounts for two-thirds of the high-school language curriculum, but much of what is learned is left behind when students graduate. In daily life, the vernacular is much more useful, as the reformer and liberal scholar Hu Shih (胡適) made very clear 86 years ago. It has been proposed that the proportion of vernacular Chinese should increase to 50 or 60 percent of the total. This is a long overdue adjustment. And in any case, both classical and vernacular Chinese are part of the Chinese language. This is hardly desinicization.
Those throwing accusations at Tu are overreacting to Taiwan's search for a national identity after years of "de-Taiwanification." They are disturbed by the diverse creative energy that has been released by democratization and a search for a new identity. They wish to stop the juggernaut of change by putting derogatory and irrelevant labels on practical reforms and what is becoming a mainstream ideology.
Such forces, which go against the interests of this land and its people, are a residue of a foreign political power. Manifestations of its presence are everywhere, and this is why Taiwan is yet to become a normal country. Over the last 20 years of democratization, Taiwan has had to escape the fetters of martial law and struggle against other forms of authoritarian control which have tricked the people and limited their rights and freedoms, preventing the normal development of society. Even now, with direct presidential elections and the development of democracy entering a new phase, our political environment is still full of aberrant phenomena.
On the international front, US Secretary of State Colin Powell has denied that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country, while domestically, the national emblem and anthem are still the same as that of a Leninist political party. The "soft coup d'etat" after the presidential election in March indicated that there are still those who believe the military is under the control of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which, despite its problems with cash flow, remains the richest political party in the world. Most importantly, Taiwan still does not have a constitution that is tailored to its needs.
On the path to normality, Taiwan must rid itself of the
residue of the martial law era, whether it be expressed in history, culture, politics, economics or other parts of society. In
correcting these abnormalities, some over-compensation cannot be avoided, especially in the face of foreign political forces at home and across the Taiwan Strait. But reforms in line with common values and justice are a duty that cannot be neglected. History always stands on the side of the righteous.
Lu Shih-hsiang is chief executive officer of the Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then