A stabbing incident involving a junior-high school student in New Taipei City shocked the community, prompting much debate, primarily focused on legislative changes.
While preventive measures are undoubtedly essential, education is about personal engagement, so does defining the authority of schools and parents through laws affect the respect and trust between teachers and parents?
The Chinese idiom “if a child is not raised properly, it is the fault of the father; if they are not disciplined, it is the dereliction of the teacher” seems out of touch with today’s emphasis on respecting students’ rights.
However, safeguarding students’ rights should not be a boundless endeavor. It should not compromise the dignity of teachers, undermine their enthusiasm for teaching or neglect the values, sense of responsibility and law-abiding principles that should be instilled during schooling.
In the US, a police officer responded to a domestic violence case reported by a 10-year-old boy. The boy’s mother told the officer that a teacher told her he always skips class and when she confronted him, he lied, so, she spanked him with a belt.
The officer asked the boy if he reported his mother because she disciplined him for skipping school?
“She abuses children, and I have my rights,” the boy responded vehemently.
“Who told you that?” the police officer asked.
“My friend,” the boy responded.
The officer stared at the boy and then scolded him.
“You’re not allowed to report your mother again,” he said. “If you skip class again, I’ll use this thick belt to give you a spanking personally. Understood? Now go inside immediately.”
The boy scuttered back into the house.
This child abuse case was handled by the police with reasonableness and lawfulness, while maintaining “law enforcement dignity,” resolving it with just a few words.
The response addressed the issue of false complaints by the child. It defused the parent-child confrontation, offering the child an educational opportunity to correct his “misguided understanding of rights” and teaching him accountability for his actions.
Consider three questions.
First, is using a belt to discipline a child accepted disciplinary action or abuse?
Second, should a child’s assertion of “having rights” be protected, or should the situation be carefully considered and deeper understanding be provided to prevent misunderstandings?
Third, was the police officer’s stern response to the boy regarding skipping class and reporting his mother a correction of wrongdoing or unwarranted intimidation?
For adolescents just beginning to develop a sense of “rights consciousness,” safeguarding their interests might overshadow the earnest expectations and self-reflective abilities of parents and teachers.
The law must balance emotional reasoning, consider reality and not let “law” be a talisman for rebellious children.
Discipline remains necessary for students whose mental and behavioral maturity has not fully developed.
However, cumbersome regulations often target adults, making educators and parents cautious in disciplinary actions and hindering the holistic development of children.
Merely relying on the law is insufficient. Rebuilding ethical standards in schools and reviving the spirit of “respecting teachers and valuing principles” might be the fundamental solution.
Shiao Fu-song is a lecturer at National Taitung University.
Translated by Shelby Tang
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS