Go back a few decades. In junior high school, students would receive a slap in the face from teachers for failing to bring textbooks. New students attending high-school orientation would feel dizzy performing exercises under the command of training instructors with military connections. And, once in university, they suddenly realized they had to share tiny dormitories with strangers.
It was not until many students went overseas that they began to feel that corporal punishment should be prohibited, that certain physical exercises were best left with the military and that every student was entitled to a private room in college.
Over the years, Taiwanese students have been pushed through a managerial system in which the goal is to get the highest score.
The educational system has become a mirror image of the military -- the essence of education is discipline, and achieving the highest score in an exam to enter the best school is the basic goal of all students, parents and teachers.
Thus was formed the principle of school-based management, the product of deep-rooted communal nationalism. But this principle is a misapplication of the rule of law in the context of basic human rights.
Since the lifting of martial law, the government has ignored the goal of safeguarding these rights, seeking only to push toward its favored goal of "democracy." The Ministry of Education in particular has failed to fulfill its role of implementing educational reform and failed to provide an educational environment that conforms to the rule of law and the protection of human rights.
As a result, the nation has become selective in its application of democracy rather than adopting democratic principles comprehensively.
The system of managerialism has not been revised, while at the same time there are constant calls for greater rights on campus, which has everyone in a muddle. Now, in the middle of all of this, the government is calling for the "friendly campus," the abolition of corporal punishment and amendments to the law pertaining to education.
If such amendments are made -- albeit through using loopholes rather than correct legislative procedure -- and prove effective in protecting the rights of students, then it is the right course of action.
But judging from the responses from teachers' groups, lawmakers and ministry officials, the proposed amendments are more style than substance.
First, the amendments would not have legal force, which means that even if teachers violate the law, they cannot be punished.
Second, ministry officials point out that there remains plenty of room in the amendments for interpretation, including how the key words "guidance," "reasonable discipline" and "corporal punishment" are defined.
In effect, the amendments have achieved the dual purpose of responding to demands for educational activists to stop corporal punishment, while at the same time placating educationalists who demand "discipline" -- with their fuzzy definitions and room for interpretation unmolested.
The result of pandering to both sides is that the new legislation is little more than a statement of intent, rather than a substantive change.
In fact, opponents can stand up to corporal punishment without resorting to amendments in the existing legislation by invoking sections of civil, criminal and administrative law. Whether opposing corporal punishment before its use, or claiming compensation after the fact, the law can serve as a comprehensive protector of students.
Establishing regulations on corporal punishment with legal force is therefore not necessary; instead, attention should be directed toward making the public understand their rights and responsibilities.
Unfortunately, ministry officials and lawmakers rarely think about such things. Instead, in pushing through legislation, they simply give the public the impression that they have solved the problem.
Of course, we cannot ignore the concerns of educational organizations about how they will discipline students in the absence of corporal measures. Many examples cited by these groups focus on "naughty" students, but isn't discovering why these students are "naughty" and teaching them to know better precisely the responsibility of the teachers?
Also, over the past decade or two, corporal punishment has been applied to badly behaved students, but no improvements in the overall situation have emerged, so isn't it time for teachers to find a new method?
The crux of the problem is how to use resources effectively to teach our younger generations. If our nation's executive and legislative bodies limit educational reforms to paying lip service to such issues, then educational reform as a whole will be doomed to failure.
Of course, a lack of educational resources cannot be used as a pretext for rationalizing corporal punishment. Each child has only one chance to grow up, and the negative impact brought by corporal punishment is significant and can influence a child for an entire life.
Therefore, the impetus for changing the social and educational environment remains with changing the perceptions of students, parents and teachers. This can be done by raising awareness of individual and professional rights and learning how to respect each other.
In this way, together we can build a harmonious and friendly campus environment, instead of putting all our hopes into an educational law that bans corporal punishment.
Hsu Yue-dian is an associate professor and Ling He is a graduate student of the Department of Law at National Cheng Kung University.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs