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.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS