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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS