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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS