The Taipei High Administrative Court ruled against the Ministry of Education in a case involving its curriculum guidelines committee — which recommended controversial adjustments to the high-school social studies curriculum — for failing to release the names of committee members. However, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration is ignoring the court’s ruling and pushing ahead with the changes.
Deputy Legislative Speaker and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential hopeful Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) on Thursday last week in a radio interview said that the high-school history curriculum underwent comprehensive changes during the administrations of former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), and the names of those curriculum committee members were not made public.
“We are simply returning [the curriculum] to the right track,” she said, adding that the curriculum can contain differing narratives, so long as it conforms to the basic principles of diversity, tolerance and respect, as laid out in the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution.
Using the Constitution to justify the ministry’s self-labeled “minor adjustments” to the curriculum shows Hung has absolutely no understanding of the document.
Convention dictates that the high-school curriculum be revised every six years. During Lee and Chen’s administrations the curriculum was revised in a transparent manner and the proposed changes were put before the electorate. The Ma administration changed the curriculum again in 2012. Although the pan-green camp was unhappy with the changes, the revisions did not go so far as to completely distort history.
The curriculum was not due to be revised again until 2018, yet Ma is attempting to rush a radical overhaul before leaving office.
If the Ma administration wanted to completely overhaul the curriculum, why did it not do so in 2012? The answer is that in 2012 Ma needed to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate so that he would stand a chance of being re-elected for a second term. He did not dare force any radical changes.
Now that he now longer faces electoral pressure, this problem no longer exists. Thus, even the most extreme policies are currently being pushed through government.
Without that pressure, Ma will be even more inclined to force through the most outrageous of policies. More frightening still is that next year there will be a four-month transition period between the Jan. 16 presidential election and the inauguration of the next president on May 20.
If Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) wins the January election, Ma has time to invoke his presidential powers to bring Taiwan to a complete standstill.
The Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) opposed the merging of next year’s presidential and legislative elections. However, due to a number of DPP legislators wanting to capitalize on the “Tsai effect” to improve their re-election chances, the DPP did not support the TSU’s initiative.
Concerned that Ma would use the four-month transition period to inflict serious damage on Taiwan, the TSU proposed a bill to regulate the handover of the presidency, setting out rules and responsibilities for the outgoing and incoming presidents. It would have prevented an outgoing president from carrying out subversive activities detrimental to the nation.
Unfortunately, the KMT killed it off after DPP legislators chose not to lend their support, because they were worried about the January elections. They might live to regret their actions.
Chen Mao-hsiung is an adjunct professor at National Sun Yat-sen University and chairman of the Society for the Promotion of Taiwanese Security.
Translated by Edward Jones
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