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
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS