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
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS