A case involving a sixth-grade student in Taichung — who allegedly hit a teacher with a tee-ball bat — has stirred up heated public debate in the past week.
The teacher reported the incident to the police after the student refused to apologize the next day, and the student was taken to the local precinct by two police officers.
The case gained public attention after Taichung City Councilor Lee Chung (李中) on Monday last week said he received a complaint by the student’s parents and questioned the school’s handling of the case.
Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) criticized the teacher, calling them “unsuitable to be a teacher,” saying that the child had apologized but the teacher refused to let it go.
She also called the school principal an “incompetent leader” ignorant of the law for letting the police officers take the child without a warrant.
The education department must “severely punish” the teacher and the principal, she said.
Teachers, some parents and people who disagreed with her criticized the mayor’s remarks. Lu’s Facebook page received many comments, accusing her of bullying the teacher.
The city’s police department reprimanded the two police officers who took the child from school without the consent of a legal guardian.
Lu the next day apologized, saying that she had been “too quick to comment,” and that she would ask the city’s education department to establish standard operating procedures regarding such issues.
Over the next few days, local media reported that on March 26 the student allegedly hit the teacher with the bat during an argument in physical education class, and the teacher took him to the counselor’s office and informed his parents.
On Mar. 27, the teacher called the police after the student refused to apologize, but the student apologized upon the police officers’ arrival and the teacher agreed not to file a complaint for bodily harm offenses, reports said.
However, the officers said they are required to complete legal procedures, and took the teacher and child to the police station to take their statements.
The child’s parents in June reported the incident to the city’s education department, while a settlement was reached in a juvenile court session on June 21, and the case was dismissed.
However, the parents in July petitioned the school to investigate the teacher for “improper discipline” and later took the case to the city councilor.
The incident showed that all people involved were unfamiliar with the Juvenile Justice Act (少年事件處理法).
As laws were revised to better protect minors’ rights, including limiting teachers’ discipline methods and allowing parents to report teachers for investigation, many teachers have expressed frustration.
According to the Student Guidance and Counseling Act (學生輔導法), schools are required to provide three levels of guidance and counseling — developmental guidance to all students, intervention counseling by counseling teachers and remedial counseling by professional counselors for those with special needs.
Taking legal action against a student should be a last resort unless immediate danger is involved, but growing distrust between parents and teachers causes a lack of communication. The government would only cause more harm by blaming teachers and denying their rights.
The Taichung City Government should instead investigate whether schools have sufficient counseling resources so that teachers feel supported when dealing with special cases.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS