Ever since the Ministry of Education promulgated the 2019 curriculum guidelines, critics have always complained about the “mass reduction” of classical Chinese content. They say it is part of government efforts to “de-Sinicize” education, which has led to moral depravity and degeneracy in society.
With the recent controversy surrounding the omission of the Ming Dynasty academic Gu Yanwu’s (顧炎武) work Honesty and Morality (廉恥) in mind, the issue seems to never age as a hot election topic. However, perhaps it is worth thinking about whether classical Chinese still retains as much significance or importance in modern life as academics claim and what kind of impact it has on the public’s linguistic skills in the long run.
According to the 2019 curriculum, classical Chinese takes up 35 to 45 percent of the selected readings, meaning that students still have 15 famous classic Chinese texts as compulsory readings. As much as classical Chinese is aesthetically elegant and useful for reading ancient classics and understanding ancient philosophy and history, that utility lies mostly with professionals and Chinese enthusiasts. For the public, classical Chinese is akin to Latin — a dead language. As derivatives of classical Chinese, idioms and proverbs are still used in modern language as fancy rhetoric, but not as indispensable expressions.
The purpose of selected readings should be about teaching reading comprehension, as well as oral and written expression. As the public reads, writes and communicates in vernacular Chinese most of the time, it is not worth the effort to have students learn classical Chinese by rote. Further, while classical Chinese is a beautifully concise language, it is a poor (or problematic) means for expressing explicit and clear information. As ancient words and phrases are often ambiguous, experts have been debating if this is why the development of Chinese logic lags way behind Western logic.
From another aspect, critics of the curriculum have always maintained that selected texts play a vital role in shaping students’ values and character, as if to say that if someone has never read Honesty and Morality, they would somehow have no sense of shame or integrity. It is as if they hope to solve all the complex issues in a modern society with Confucian rites and archaic values born out of Chinese feudalistic society by cramming classical Chinese texts down students’ throats.
However, texts and language are, after all, a medium. Whether a person internalizes the values in a text so that it becomes part of their character or conduct depends on the person’s attitude, not what form the language takes or the number of texts written in it. If reading classical Chinese text does make someone a morally upright person, then the concept of a xiaoren (小人), or a “scoundrel, small or petty person,” would not have existed in ancient China. As a result, classical Chinese should not be put on a pedestal, nor should vernacular Chinese be overtly praised for being easy to understand.
The crux of the matter is perhaps the teaching of Taiwan’s languages and how they are taught. As one of the languages spoken in Taiwan, Chinese is the most widespread, and the decline in the public’s linguistic skills show that there is a critical problem. What should be addressed is how to elevate the public’s linguistic performance, instead of obsessing about the number of texts from thousands of years ago.
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,
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
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS