As a visiting lecturer at National Chengchi University’s Graduate Institute of Taiwan History, I have learned a few things about the kinds of courses available at history departments and research institutes in Taiwan. One thing I find astonishing is that, among courses offered for either undergraduates or graduate students, one can hardly find any with titles like “History of the People’s Republic of China [PRC]” or “China since 1949.”
Chengchi’s Institute of International Relations used to do research on the “bandits,” as the Chinese Communist Party and government were called in those days, but this research was limited by the prevailing ideology of the time, and there is no such department anymore.
Even Taiwan’s top research establishment, Academia Sinica, has no department devoted to PRC research.
Chinese history since the 1949 revolution comes under the Institute of Modern History, and as far as I know there aren’t many people researching it. Among universities and institutes that have China research departments, few offer complete courses on PRC history.
I have three reasons for calling this situation astonishing.
First, I studied in the US for 10 years, and also did some research in the UK, so I know that almost every university in Western countries has courses and research on East Asia, or courses on Chinese history that extend beyond 1949.
Now, with the PRC’s “non-peaceful” rise, countries around the world are paying ever-greater attention to understanding China, and modern Chinese history is a popular course to take.
Taiwan’s educational and academic institutions have always taken Europe and the US as their models, so why do they make an exception by overlooking this trend?
Second, following Taiwan’s second transfer of power, cross-strait relations are moving toward concrete and close exchanges. China’s influence over Taiwan is strengthening.
Looking to the future, no matter whether power again changes hands and no matter how greatly the views of Taiwanese on cross-strait relations diverge, China is a presence that cannot be ignored.
When dealing with such a powerful rival, Taiwan cannot afford to be ignorant of its history. As they say, know your opponent as you know yourself.
Of all countries, Taiwan in particular needs to have a deep understanding of the course China has followed over the past 60 years. The need is there, but the education system has not caught up, and that’s a pity.
Third, while there is actually plenty of information about China available in Taiwan these days, especially in the media, I have noticed a trend among some news outlets to tread carefully in their reporting in deference to China’s might.
The picture of China presented by Taiwanese media is rather incomplete. China’s history since 1949 is rarely touched upon. As a result, young people in Taiwan hardly understand anything about China.
Many students in my classes have told me that they chose my course because they want to know more about Chinese history since 1949, so such a demand does exist among students.
If we want to get a real understanding of China, we cannot allow the media, pressured as they are by their practical interests, to mislead the public. It is important to give our students a thorough and carefully analyzed foundation in the PRC’s history.
Wang Dan is a visiting associate professor at National Chengchi University’s Graduate Institute of Taiwan History and a prominent figure in China’s democracy movement.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS