The recent debate about the “minor adjustments” to the senior-high school history curriculum outline seems to have rejuvenated the debate over history as an interpretation based on political ideology instead of an interpretation based on facts.
Just what has been changed in the curriculum outline and why has it been criticized for containing elements of “de-Taiwanization?” I asked a couple of students about the difference between “China” and “mainland China,” and they were hard-pressed to come up with an explanation.
After the Ministry of Education allowed publishers to print their own textbooks for use in schools across Taiwan, the curriculum outline was made the foundation on which textbooks are compiled. In addition, changes are made to textbooks as the political situation changes and history is the prime example of this phenomenon.
The changes dealing with the period when Taiwan was under Japanese rule until the arrival of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) troops from China have sparked the most controversy. For this topic, about 40 percent of the curriculum outline was changed. With a closer look at the changes, it is hard to tell whether they were made for ideological reasons or to bring the curriculum more in line with what actually happened. It seems each side has its own ideological interpretation, making it difficult to find a common thread.
Let us look at the change from “the period of Japanese rule” to “the period of Japanese colonial rule.” The addition of “colonial” has resulted in endless conflict. Those supporting the idea that Taiwan was ruled by Japan firmly oppose the use of the word “colonial” and the use of the term “retrocession” (Taiwan’s return to China), while those who believe that Taiwan was ruled by the Japanese, a foreign people, believe the word “colonial” should be used to reflect this part of history.
When we view the ideological battle between the pro-unification and the pro-independence factions in terms of what this means for education, it is clear that each side believes it is correct.
After Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) became president, the issue of Taiwan’s undetermined status became intertwined with Taiwan’s history. For almost two centuries, Taiwan has been under the rule of the different political systems of the Dutch; Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功), also known as Koxinga; China’s Qing Dynasty; Japan and the Republic of China (ROC). The result is that the Taiwanese have never had a clear sense of belonging.
In addition, immigrants during different periods have identified in different ways with the various political systems in place at the time due to different ideological outlooks and this has resulted in long periods of absurd internal conflict which have wasted too much energy that could have otherwise been used to forge domestic cohesion.
Luckily, for quite a while, the ROC government and Taiwan have been two sides of the same coin. This is something the public views as the normal state of affairs, and there is no longer any real interest in the issues of independence and unification. It is only the politicians who still like to leverage these issues for manipulative purposes.
How should we go about interpreting Taiwan’s modern history? The minor adjustments to the high-school curriculum outline should be viewed as the start of a dialogue instead of the end of it. Hopefully the nation will be able to focus on historical interpretation and train our children that they have a right to be critical of historical events.
Taiwan must not end up in a situation where our children must choose between independence and unification.
Lu Chien-chi is director of the philosophy department at Huafan University.
Translated by Drew Cameron
There has been much catastrophizing in Taiwan recently about America becoming more unreliable as a bulwark against Chinese pressure. Some of this has been sparked by debates in Washington about whether the United States should defend Taiwan in event of conflict. There also were understandable anxieties about whether President Trump would sacrifice Taiwan’s interests for a trade deal when he sat down with President Xi (習近平) in late October. On top of that, Taiwan’s opposition political leaders have sought to score political points by attacking the Lai (賴清德) administration for mishandling relations with the United States. Part of this budding anxiety
The diplomatic dispute between China and Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s comments in the Japanese Diet continues to escalate. In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong (傅聰) wrote that, “if Japan dares to attempt an armed intervention in the cross-Strait situation, it would be an act of aggression.” There was no indication that Fu was aware of the irony implicit in the complaint. Until this point, Beijing had limited its remonstrations to diplomatic summonses and weaponization of economic levers, such as banning Japanese seafood imports, discouraging Chinese from traveling to Japan or issuing
On Nov. 8, newly elected Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) and Vice Chairman Chi Lin-len (季麟連) attended a memorial for White Terror era victims, during which convicted Chinese Communist Party (CCP) spies such as Wu Shi (吳石) were also honored. Cheng’s participation in the ceremony, which she said was part of her efforts to promote cross-strait reconciliation, has trapped herself and her party into the KMT’s dark past, and risks putting the party back on its old disastrous road. Wu, a lieutenant general who was the Ministry of National Defense’s deputy chief of the general staff, was recruited
Tokyo-Beijing relations have been rapidly deteriorating over the past two weeks as China tries to punish Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks about Taiwan earlier this month, and the off-ramp to this conflict is yet to be seen. Takaichi saying that a “Taiwan contingency” could cause a “situation threatening Japan’s survival” — which would allow Japan to act in self-defense — has drawn Beijing’s ire and sparked retaliatory measures. Her remark did not gain public attention until Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) made an apparent threat to behead her. The two sides lodged protests against each
RSS