The brazen hypocrisy of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government has once again been on blatant display this week after a revelation by opposition lawmakers and civic organizations that the new edition of high-school textbooks has failed to give proportional mention of — or even simply omitted — historical events, such as the 228 Massacre and the White Terror era.
Many might recall that in recent years at events marking the anniversary of the 228 Massacre — a brutal crackdown by the then-KMT regime starting on Feb. 27, 1947, against tens of thousands of Taiwanese that subsequently ushered in the White Terror era — President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) could be seen wiping away tears during speeches that touted his understanding of victims’ suffering and how his administration’s efforts “to protect human rights and act in accordance with the law will not stop.”
Ma also pledged that he would instruct the Ministry of Education to increase the amount of educational materials dealing with this tragic page in Taiwan’s history to teach the next generation.
However, as the 228 Massacre fails to secure a proportional mention in the new edition of the high-school history textbook, and the phrase “White Terror” has been erased from the new high-school civics textbook, it proves once again that Ma can only talk the talk, but cannot walk the walk.
The ministry’s changes to high-school social studies curriculum guidelines stirred controversy last year. The changes prompted much criticism from academics who accused the ministry of ideological bias, describing the ministry’s design process as opaque and an attempt to push through a “brainwashing” policy that would see the new curriculum reflect a more China-oriented perspective.
And yet, despite a verdict handed down by the Taipei High Administrative Court in February ruling against the ministry’s decision to implement this controversial national high-school curriculum adjustment, the ministry not only implemented it anyway, but also advanced its efforts by blocking out public scrutiny of its ongoing review of the 12-year national education curriculum plan.
According to Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Cheng Li-chun (鄭麗君), the meetings held to discuss the issues have been conducted in an opaque manner, where names of meeting participants were not mentioned and opinions presented during the discussions were not recorded in meeting transcripts.
It is more than regrettable that in Taiwan, which often prides itself as a democracy, such a ministry exists: One that would resort to a “black box,” opaque and despicable approach in leaving out factual historical events such as the White Terror era from children’s civic education.
So much for Ma’s talk about his government’s efforts to uncover the truths about incidents such as the 228 Massacre, his emphasis on how justice can be served and lessons learned, and his pledge to safeguard the nation’s democracy. The truth is that the ministry’s brazen actions — in its insistence on implementing the controversial high-school social science curriculum and its failure to adhere to procedural justice in the discussion of the 12-year national education plan — clearly demonstrate that the Ma administration is in effect attempting to “brainwash” the youth of Taiwan with a China-oriented perspective, while making a mockery of the nation’s democracy.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS