If local governments were to continue using the old high-school curriculum guidelines, they would have the law on their side. This is why:
First, in principle, the Ministry of Education has no right to conduct a substantive review of textbook contents and can make only a formal review. The Educational Fundamental Act (教育基本法) complements Article 10, item 10 in the additional articles to the Constitution, which says: “Priority shall be given to funding education, science, and culture, and in particular funding for compulsory education, the restrictions in Article 164 of the Constitution notwithstanding.”
According to Article 2 of the act, the right to receive an education is intended to be for the benefit of the people. Of course the ministry, which exists to assist the public, must not ignore the formation of a normal national identity, providing a correct international outlook and nurturing the ability to form judgements among students, for whom the right to an education is intended, nor must it ignore offering a diversified historical viewpoint — itself a core value.
Also, according to Article 4 of the education ministry’s administrative Regulations on the Review and Approval of Senior High-School Textbooks (高中教科書審定辦法), as well as Article 48 of the regulations’ parent act, the Senior High-School Education Act (高級中等教育法), which deals with the editing of curricula, the ministry can in principle conduct only a formal review of textbooks. Nowhere in these rules does it say “substantive content review,” and only in Article 7 is it explained that such a substantive review can be made in exceptional situations, precisely because it cannot violate the Educational Fundamental Act.
Second, for the ministry to be allowed to make an exceptional substantive content review, there first must be a legal and appropriate curriculum guideline, or it will not be possible to invite experts to review textbooks “in accordance with the curriculum,” as required by Article 7 of the Regulations on the Review and Approval of Senior High-School Textbooks. This why it would be difficult to claim that the decision by local governments to continue using the old curriculum is illegal.
It is obvious that the curriculum guidelines on the ministry’s Web site are neither legal nor appropriate. Because none of the people revising the guidelines are history experts, they have made the mistake of thinking that Taiwanese and Chinese history are linked, and that is why students’ national identity, international outlook and ability to make judgements have been ignored.
Consider Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功) as an example. It was a matter of record during the Qing Dynasty that Cheng did not try to reinstall the Ming emperor, so where on earth does the idea that he did come from? Since the guidelines are both illegal and inappropriate, there is no need to resort to the rule for exceptional content review in Article 7, and it also means that there is nothing wrong with continuing to use the old — reviewed and approved — guidelines.
Third, in making a substantive content review, the ministry can be suspected of trying to destroy the legal system, because it is relying on review and approval regulations that are a set of internal administrative regulations. It would be very difficult to imagine that any country that abides by the rule of law would allow an internal administrative regulation to encroach on its constitution.
Also, according to Article 14 in the ministry’s own administrative review and approval regulations, if it wants to make a substantive review, it could do so no sooner than 2018, six years after the previous review was completed in 2012. The ministry’s changes to the curriculum jeopardize legal stability and violate students’ educational rights.
Tuan Cheng-ming is a lawyer.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry
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