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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS