When the Ministry of Education published a report recommending that publishers replace certain terms related to China in textbooks, there was no end to opposition protests.
From the manner in which both sides are disputing the textbook issue, it almost seems as if the future of the country hangs in balance.
However, no attention has been paid in the discussion to the intrinsic values of education, or to the question of whether the ministry's action is legal.
As lawyers who have always cared a lot about educational issues, when we look at the textbook dispute we see a dispute that has lost its focus.
From the legal point of view, the question that should be asked is not whose ideology is best, or whose political position is right, but whether the ministry of a nation built on the rule of law can do this.
The dispute started with the ministry's report, which included the recommendation that publishers be consistent in their use of terminology.
On the one hand, the ministry's recommendations do not appear to be legally binding. They do not restrict the content of textbooks and are at most academic guidelines.
Now if the ministry's recommendations are not legally binding, it should not matter if the ministry were to publlish another 10 or even 100 reports containing its recommendations.
On the other hand, if the ministry's recommendations can cause such an uproar, the government, which is supposed to be based on the rule of law, should examine the nature of these recommendations.
It is debatable whether the ministry's recommendations are just that, or whether they in fact have a larger influence.
Here, we see the toxic influence of the Martial Law era because the merest peep from the higher-ups in the ministry can sometimes influence the thoughts of the people lower down the ladder.
For this reason, the ministry should be more cautious in issuing recommendations in their report in order to avoid creating such unnecessary disputes.
If the ministry were clearly violating the law by publishing the report with recommendations, the opposition would be justified in its concerns.
And if the ministry were using legal loopholes to produce "government guidelines" that have substantial effect, there would be even more need for the opposition to monitor the ministry.
The ministry is charged with enforcing "curriculum standards" that are backed by legal authorization.
However, if the ministry publishes a report with recommendations, the legal status of which are ambiguous, and the opposition is unable to resolve the ensuing dispute on a legal level, then the recommendations become a moot issue.
It doesn't matter if the opposition starts protesting about the bias of the educational system, instigates an ideological debate or calls for cities and counties to start writing and editing their own textbooks.
Thinking along these lines does not solve the issue.
Textbooks should be written and edited in a free and diverse environment by privately owned publishers.
They definitely should not be produced by central or local governments.
When a government centralizes textbook production, it has the ability to use the books as a medium to spread ideological values that are beneficial to the government.
Any government that attempts to force a certain ideology upon its students violates their basic human rights.
History shows the difficulty of arriving at a state of freedom, democracy and diversity. The goal of the establishment of a legal system is to protect these values.
Similarly, the goal of Taiwan's educational system is to protect the freedom, diversity and openness of the educational system.
Two sides that are merely bent on exposing the other's past misdeeds and measuring up one another's political strength does not solve the textbook dispute.
The solution lies in improving the textbook review system by opening it up to more diverse viewpoints and establishing a respect for the rule of law -- and its emphasis on freedom and diversity -- in both the ruling and opposition parties.
Only when that goal is achieved can we ensure the diversity of textbook content, and only then can we prevent narrow ideologies from ever again taking control of the minds of students.
Then such ideological disputes can then finally be put to rest and education can focus on its true mission: Preparing students to live in a free, diverse country.
Hsu Yue-dian is a law professor at National Cheng Kung University. Ling He is a lawyer.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit on May 13, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said that democracies must remain united and that “Taiwan’s security is essential to regional stability and to defending democratic values amid mounting authoritarianism.” Earlier that day, Tsai had met with a group of Danish parliamentarians led by Danish Parliament Speaker Pia Kjaersgaard, who has visited Taiwan many times, most recently in November last year, when she met with President William Lai (賴清德) at the Presidential Office. Kjaersgaard had told Lai: “I can assure you that ... you can count on us. You can count on our support
Denmark has consistently defended Greenland in light of US President Donald Trump’s interests and has provided unwavering support to Ukraine during its war with Russia. Denmark can be proud of its clear support for peoples’ democratic right to determine their own future. However, this democratic ideal completely falls apart when it comes to Taiwan — and it raises important questions about Denmark’s commitment to supporting democracies. Taiwan lives under daily military threats from China, which seeks to take over Taiwan, by force if necessary — an annexation that only a very small minority in Taiwan supports. Denmark has given China a
Many local news media over the past week have reported on Internet personality Holger Chen’s (陳之漢) first visit to China between Tuesday last week and yesterday, as remarks he made during a live stream have sparked wide discussions and strong criticism across the Taiwan Strait. Chen, better known as Kuan Chang (館長), is a former gang member turned fitness celebrity and businessman. He is known for his live streams, which are full of foul-mouthed and hypermasculine commentary. He had previously spoken out against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and criticized Taiwanese who “enjoy the freedom in Taiwan, but want China’s money”
A high-school student surnamed Yang (楊) gained admissions to several prestigious medical schools recently. However, when Yang shared his “learning portfolio” on social media, he was caught exaggerating and even falsifying content, and his admissions were revoked. Now he has to take the “advanced subjects test” scheduled for next month. With his outstanding performance in the general scholastic ability test (GSAT), Yang successfully gained admissions to five prestigious medical schools. However, his university dreams have now been frustrated by the “flaws” in his learning portfolio. This is a wake-up call not only for students, but also teachers. Yang did make a big
RSS