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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS