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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS