The Ministry of Education (MOE) should waive its right to appeal the Taipei High Administrative Court ruling on Thursday last week, after the ruling threw into doubt the legitimacy of the ministry’s revisions to the high-school curriculum for Chinese language and social science. The ministry should drop its plan for new textbooks to be introduced in August and go back to the drawing board.
The Taiwan Association of Human Rights filed suit a year ago to demand that the ministry observe Article 9 of the Freedom of Government Information Act (政府資訊公開法) and make public all information about the meetings in which the new curriculum guidelines were decided upon.
The association, along with many other groups, said the new China-centered and Han-centered historical perspective of the guidelines was an attempt to stifle the development of Taiwanese identity.
The ministry has tried to downplay the seriousness of the ruling. In its initial response, it said that the ruling “held no bearing” on its schedule that the textbooks for this year’s summer semester should conform to the new curriculum guidelines. It insisted that the information about the meeting discussions, which it said was “for internal use or preparatory work prior to decisionmaking,” should be restricted from the public — one of the exceptions to Article 9 allowed under Article 18 of the act.
The ministry’s stance was nothing but sophistry. Although the lawsuit ruling was not directly about the actual adjustments made to the guidelines, but about the procedure by which the revisions were made, without due process as their basis, the legitimacy of the new curriculum guidelines is untenable.
The nature of the information can in no way justify the ministry’s opaque review process.
There have been leaks that revealed that last year’s review had been conducted in an unorthodox manner, with the curriculum proposals coming from an ad hoc committee, as opposed the usual practice of consulting high-school teachers before such a review commences.
The 10 members of the ad hoc committee are known for their pro-unification stance and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) connections. None was a historian with knowledge of Taiwan’s history.
The latest leaks said the committee proposed the guideline changes on Nov. 23, 2013 — when high-school teachers were still being consulted as to whether it was necessary to conduct a review — and set a closing date for the consultations of Dec. 31.
In just two weeks’ time, the committee rammed the proposal through four more steps to complete the review procedure, which critics later found to be murky, shambolic and non-inclusive to other opinions. The proposed changes sparked a widespread outcry at the time, but the ministry went ahead and promulgated the new guidelines on Feb. 10 last year.
Those adjustments were simply the latest in a series of attempts made by President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration since May 2008 to change textbooks from a Taiwan-oriented perspective to a China-oriented perspective. Several previous attempts — including a proposal to increase the portion of ancient Chinese in Chinese language textbooks, to merge Taiwanese and Chinese history textbooks and to refer to the nation as the “Republic of China” instead of “Taiwan” and to China as “the mainland” — were all called off because of intense public opposition.
Whether or not the ministry appeals the ruling, the likelihood of it complying with the ruling is low. The Ma administration has been drafting general curriculum guidelines for the entire 12-year system to replace the ones currently in use. If the administration made public how it handled the changes to the high-school Chinese language and social science guidelines, it would only promote a greater backlash against its plan to overhaul the entire system.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS