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
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations