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
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS