The Ministry of Education (MOE) should waive its right to appeal the Taipei High Administrative Court ruling on Thursday last week, after the ruling threw into doubt the legitimacy of the ministry’s revisions to the high-school curriculum for Chinese language and social science. The ministry should drop its plan for new textbooks to be introduced in August and go back to the drawing board.
The Taiwan Association of Human Rights filed suit a year ago to demand that the ministry observe Article 9 of the Freedom of Government Information Act (政府資訊公開法) and make public all information about the meetings in which the new curriculum guidelines were decided upon.
The association, along with many other groups, said the new China-centered and Han-centered historical perspective of the guidelines was an attempt to stifle the development of Taiwanese identity.
The ministry has tried to downplay the seriousness of the ruling. In its initial response, it said that the ruling “held no bearing” on its schedule that the textbooks for this year’s summer semester should conform to the new curriculum guidelines. It insisted that the information about the meeting discussions, which it said was “for internal use or preparatory work prior to decisionmaking,” should be restricted from the public — one of the exceptions to Article 9 allowed under Article 18 of the act.
The ministry’s stance was nothing but sophistry. Although the lawsuit ruling was not directly about the actual adjustments made to the guidelines, but about the procedure by which the revisions were made, without due process as their basis, the legitimacy of the new curriculum guidelines is untenable.
The nature of the information can in no way justify the ministry’s opaque review process.
There have been leaks that revealed that last year’s review had been conducted in an unorthodox manner, with the curriculum proposals coming from an ad hoc committee, as opposed the usual practice of consulting high-school teachers before such a review commences.
The 10 members of the ad hoc committee are known for their pro-unification stance and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) connections. None was a historian with knowledge of Taiwan’s history.
The latest leaks said the committee proposed the guideline changes on Nov. 23, 2013 — when high-school teachers were still being consulted as to whether it was necessary to conduct a review — and set a closing date for the consultations of Dec. 31.
In just two weeks’ time, the committee rammed the proposal through four more steps to complete the review procedure, which critics later found to be murky, shambolic and non-inclusive to other opinions. The proposed changes sparked a widespread outcry at the time, but the ministry went ahead and promulgated the new guidelines on Feb. 10 last year.
Those adjustments were simply the latest in a series of attempts made by President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration since May 2008 to change textbooks from a Taiwan-oriented perspective to a China-oriented perspective. Several previous attempts — including a proposal to increase the portion of ancient Chinese in Chinese language textbooks, to merge Taiwanese and Chinese history textbooks and to refer to the nation as the “Republic of China” instead of “Taiwan” and to China as “the mainland” — were all called off because of intense public opposition.
Whether or not the ministry appeals the ruling, the likelihood of it complying with the ruling is low. The Ma administration has been drafting general curriculum guidelines for the entire 12-year system to replace the ones currently in use. If the administration made public how it handled the changes to the high-school Chinese language and social science guidelines, it would only promote a greater backlash against its plan to overhaul the entire system.
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS