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
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
RSS