These days, bullying frequently occurs on campus. Students feel anxious about going to school, their parents worry about them and the schools are under a great pressure.
To address the problem, the Ministry of Education proposed amendments to the Regulations Governing Prevention and Control of Bullying on Campuses (校園霸凌防制準則), but many say that it should focus more on counseling, rather than paying too much attention to investigating incidents of bullying.
Since “bullying on campus” became a common phrase, the relationships between teachers and students, and between the students themselves, have become tense. They have to interact with one another in a more sensitive way.
Teachers communicate with students and students play every day, but the contact and joking might result in humiliation or injury. If that happens, it might be portrayed as a bullying case.
If there are obvious and persistent humiliating and injurious actions, that undoubtedly should be called bullying, but if the case has only emotional or incidental consequences — while an investigation might be necessary — there should be room to discuss the situation without branding it as bullying.
Some people accuse teachers of bullying when they properly and responsibly discipline students, while some call some of the antics that students get up to during play bullying. This creates unnecessary misunderstandings and tension.
Since the “zero corporal punishment” policy was implemented, the right for teachers to discipline students has been strictly limited. They dare not to correct students’ unruly behavior.
At the same time, parents want to protect and defend their children, and they tend to believe their child’s account rather than that of the teacher.
This makes it more difficult for teachers to discipline students, leading to more bullying.
Parents want their children to be able to study with peace of mind and grow up in a carefree environment. Of course they do not want their children to be bullied.
However, unless the bullying is serious and ongoing, excessive intervention in a child’s school life might have unintended consequences. Children might lose an opportunity to improve their self-reliance and their ability to deal with others.
Should people coddle their children and insulate them from harm, or should they be educated, guided and trained so that they can become brave enough to confront the outside world?
Children need to be protected, but they also need to be mentally strong and trained to endure pressure and frustrations. If parents only ever protect them, it is likely they will be incapable of facing society and dealing with challenges.
The ministry has attempted to regulate bullying incidents on campus, but the key is prevention.
Teachers should be endowed with adequate rights and be respected when they discipline students. Teachers understand students the best. They know how they learn, how they react emotionally and how they interact with their classmates. Teachers can correct their behavior directly while teaching them concepts of equality, respect, mutual help and friendship.
In this way, bullying can be nipped in the bud.
Parents should also trust teachers to be professional. Both sides should collaborate to facilitate proper education while keeping an eye on the mental and physical health and behavior of the children.
In doing so, children would not be bullied, and it would be unlikely for them to bully others.
Shiao Fu-song is a lecturer at National Taitung University.
Translated by Emma Liu
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