The debates in the Examination Yuan over the scope of the test on the subject of "national history and geography" in the qualification exam of entry-level civil servants next year highlights the fundamental problem of national identification within Taiwan -- which has become the root of many problems here. Just what exactly is the "national history and geography" of this country?
In other countries of the world where people do not have a self-contradictory and confused national identity, this would be a simple question that even elementary school children could answer. However, this is not the case in Taiwan, where not even those with PhD degrees in history and geography can necessarily give the right answer.
The question is this: Does the country's national history and geography mean Taiwan's history and geography? The common-sense answer would of course seem to be "yes." Unfortunately, too many people in Taiwan do not seem to have that kind of basic common sense. In national examinations at all levels, ranging from qualification examinations for civil servants to entry examinations for senior high schools and universities, Chinese history and geography continues to be tested as "national history and geography." Moreover, national history and geography textbooks used in schools of all levels also focus predominantly on Chinese history and geography.
In fact, even Mongolia, which is an independent country formally recognized by the world, is treated as part of this country in these tests and textbooks. Anyone who so much as bothers to suggest or recommend that the definition of "national history and geography" be redefined to conform with reality is condemned for blasphemy. That is exactly what has happened in the current debate in the Examination Yuan.
Lin Yu-Ti (
The ironic thing is this: Those who insist that Chinese history and geography be labeled "national history and geography" are even more blinded by their personal "one China" ideology. Otherwise, it is hard to imagine how they can persist in their arguments while turning a blind eye to the fact that China is not just another country to Taiwan, but a hostile country that many consider to be an enemy state. As pointed out by Lin, one purpose of the national civil servant examinations is to select those who can vow their loyalty to this country and the Taiwan government.
Isn't it ironic, and dangerous, if those chosen actually think that Taiwan is part of China? Won't they feel confused about where their loyalty lies, and to which government -- that of Taiwan or that of China -- they owe allegiance? According to the pan-blue lawmakers, Taiwan's civil servants should not be taught to be narrow-minded and they need to learn as much about the world as possible. It is therefore wrong, they say, to exclude Chinese history and geography.
They are right, of course. But while it is a good thing to learn as much as possible about Chinese history and geography, these subjects should be studied as part of world history and geography instead. Moreover, Chinese geography and history that is related to Taiwan may of course still be included in teaching and testing "national history and geography."
One is not even talking about amending the Constitution to completely reflect the political reality of this country, which requires dealing with much greater political complications and pressures -- in particularly those coming from China and the US. Yet these opponents still put up a strong fight. This only highlights the magnitude of our national identity problem.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS