The focus on the curriculum following remarks made last week by Taipei First Girls’ High School Chinese literature teacher Alice Ou (區桂芝) has been on what is and what is not recommended to be taught in schools.
Ou had criticized what she saw as the de-emphasis of classical Chinese in the 2019 curriculum guidelines, citing the omission of Ming Dynasty academic Gu Yanwu’s (顧炎武) work Honesty and Morality (廉恥), which is written in the archaic form of the language.
The issue runs far deeper than that.
Ou’s comments require context. One could start with the need for providing a balanced education within the time and resource constraints of the compulsory education system.
One could debate the evolution of language and question whether putting an emphasis on the discussion of archaic texts is a constructive use of class time, or whether it can prepare students for the workplace.
One could also argue that teaching historical texts that embody the collective culture imparts a sense of national and social unity.
After Ou’s comments, online posters identifying themselves as her students complained about her teaching methods and her tendency to express opinions the students found to be politically biased, in particular those which were pro-China, anti-Japanese and skeptical of the US.
Ou responded that it was her right to express her opinion, which is perfectly reasonable. That said, to what extent parents and students feel that her expressions of bias are acceptable would depend on what they think about the teacher’s responsibility to offer neutral and objective truths.
Ou also said that she was open to having her opinions challenged in class. If this is a case of a teacher trying to inculcate critical thinking in her students, offering a biased opinion to elicit a refutation, that is laudable, but that side has been lost in the debate, which has quickly become politicized due to the ongoing presidential election campaign.
The curriculum is an emotive issue. Teachers have a responsibility to provide their students with a well-rounded education; parents want their children to be prepared for a successful career; politicians care about education because it can be used to manipulate minds.
History is written by the victor, knowledge is controlled by those in power. Education is necessarily political. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) knew this all too well when it came to Taiwan and imposed its own Sino-centric stamp on the education of Taiwanese.
The Han ethnicity is now dominant in Taiwan, but it has not always been and might not be in the future.
China can take care of its own historical legacy. Taiwan has its unique story, and yet Taiwan is officially the Republic of China (ROC) and this, as always, is where the waters become muddy.
Whatever the KMT says, the ROC is not China, and while it is legitimate to say that Chinese culture is a major part of Taiwanese culture in the current situation, whether imposed on it from outside or not, it is not the entire story of Taiwan, and the maintenance of this narrative should at least be questioned.
Asked about the issue, KMT presidential candidate New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) talked about how moral education is taught in South Korea and the Confucian classics are on the school curriculum in Japan, so teaching moral education and ancient Chinese texts is fully consistent with education in democracies. This was political obfuscation by a candidate in a presidential campaign.
When former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) spoke out in support of Ou, it was for deeper ideological reasons, and it is important for voters to understand the difference.
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