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.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hypersonic missile carried a simple message to the West over Ukraine: Back off, and if you do not, Russia reserves the right to hit US and British military facilities. Russia fired a new intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missile known as “Oreshnik,” or Hazel Tree, at Ukraine on Thursday in what Putin said was a direct response to strikes on Russia by Ukrainian forces with US and British missiles. In a special statement from the Kremlin just after 8pm in Moscow that day, the Russian president said the war was escalating toward a global conflict, although he avoided any nuclear
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
US President-elect Donald Trump has been declaring his personnel picks for his incoming Cabinet. Many are staunchly opposed to China. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, Trump’s nomination to be his next secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security, said that since 2000, China has had a long-term plan to destroy the US. US Representative Mike Waltz, nominated by Trump to be national security adviser, has stated that the US is engaged in a cold war with China, and has criticized Canada as being weak on Beijing. Even more vocal and unequivocal than these two Cabinet picks is Trump’s nomination for
An article written by Uber Eats Taiwan general manager Chai Lee (李佳穎) published in the Liberty Times (sister paper of the Taipei Times) on Tuesday said that Uber Eats promises to engage in negotiations to create a “win-win” situation. The article asserted that Uber Eats’ acquisition of Foodpanda would bring about better results for Taiwan. The National Delivery Industrial Union (NDIU), a trade union for food couriers in Taiwan, would like to express its doubts about and dissatisfaction with Lee’s article — if Uber Eats truly has a clear plan, why has this so-called plan not been presented at relevant
RSS