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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.