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
Would China attack Taiwan during the American lame duck period? For months, there have been worries that Beijing would seek to take advantage of an American president slowed by age and a potentially chaotic transition to make a move on Taiwan. In the wake of an American election that ended without drama, that far-fetched scenario will likely prove purely hypothetical. But there is a crisis brewing elsewhere in Asia — one with which US president-elect Donald Trump may have to deal during his first days in office. Tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea have been at
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
Historically, in Taiwan, and in present-day China, many people advocate the idea of a “great Chinese nation.” It is not worth arguing with extremists to say that the so-called “great Chinese nation” is a fabricated political myth rather than an academic term. Rather, they should read the following excerpt from Chinese writer Lin Yutang’s (林語堂) book My Country and My People: “It is also inevitable that I should offend many writers about China, especially my own countrymen and great patriots. These great patriots — I have nothing to do with them, for their god is not my god, and their patriotism is
RSS