Teaching social justice
When a class at Taichung Municipal Taichung First Senior High School caused controversy recently for naming a booth at the school fair “Hsi Huan Na” (烯環鈉) — which sounds like “indigenous bastard” (死番仔) in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese) — I reminded my son, who is in senior-high school, to pay attention to words and deeds that could be seen as racist or discriminatory. He replied indifferently, saying: “Big deal. Was it that serious? You guys thought it was discriminatory because you overthought it, and you are so sensitive and protective of certain ethnic groups.”
Later, the offensive proposals by two candidates running for president and vice president of the student council at National Taiwan University’s economics department caused another controversy. This time, I collected in-depth articles about the issue from experts and academics, hoping to get my son to take the matter seriously.
To my surprise, he still replied with “big deal,” adding: “It is obvious that the content on the department’s election bulletin is impossible to implement anyway, so we will talk about it when the two candidates are really elected. If they are elected and their policies are implemented, then there is a real problem.”
I pursued the matter.
“How could they propose policies in the bulletin that were not only absurd, but also discriminatory and disrespectful?” I asked.
“Well, isn’t that freedom of speech? Candidates have the right to express their views freely, as long as there are no specific personal attacks,” he said. “Besides, I’ve seen such discriminatory policies in Taiwan’s election bulletins.”
He quickly found a news report on his cellphone about a candidate’s policies, such as a husband must buy his wife a Hermes bag if he does not have sex with her, and provide proper training for parents-in-law to become quiet and polite.
“Don’t such policies discriminate against men and disrespect the elderly? Why can they be published without being banned?” he said.
I was more shocked by what he said next.
“The policy of protecting the disadvantaged in society mitigates the unfair treatment they received in the past. However, we have been taught from childhood that all people are equal, and this is the mindset with which we face the world,” he said. “Since everyone is generally regarded as equal in society today, why should anyone be given special protection in Taiwan — such as extra points for indigenous students in certain examinations or reserved seats for female candidates in certain elections?”
“There are some individuals from unprotected groups who are more disadvantaged than those from protected groups,” he added. “What should they do? Does this mean that the protected groups need to be discriminated against to enjoy such special protection? The students’ attempts at humor were simply a reaction against political correctness.”
I was shocked, perhaps because those words seemed cold and even heartless, but they also showed deep empathy with the angry students who were condemned by the public, while reflecting the possible blind spots of social justice.
The argument of a senior-high school student made me, as a mother, think about it for a long time. I also hope that while society teaches and punishes the students for discrimination, someone can try to have a deep dialogue with them.
Hsieh Hsin-chien
Chiayi
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’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
RSS