The polemic touched off by the “minor adjustments” made to the high-school curriculum guidelines passed amid controversy in January last year has set off a fresh outcry after the minister of education insisted, despite the High Administrative Court’s ruling against the ministry on the transparency of the adjustment processes, on introducing the curriculum in the next academic year beginning in August.
A Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmaker recently questioned why the protest against the new curriculum is aimed only at Chinese and social studies, but not mathematics and natural sciences. She then argued that the opposing forces have betrayed their “ideological” intentions.
Two objections could be made to her complaint, both showing the absurdity of her defense. The first is plainly factual: The adjustments have been made only to particular subjects.
The existing guidelines, set in 2012, have evolved from the so-called 2009 guidelines, whose comprehensive implementation was obstructed by the change of government in 2008, which had history and Chinese pulled from the rollout agenda. A new revision committee was set up to produce the 2012 guidelines, inclusive of the two suspended subjects, which were “conservative, but still acceptable,” according to National Taiwan University history professor Chou Wan-yao (周婉窈).
However, not long after the 2012 guidelines were announced, the ministry handed a booklet of “opinions from the public” calling for revisions to be made “in accordance with the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution” to the history review committee “for reference.”
A “checkup team” was then convened and swiftly passed the “minor adjustments” to the Chinese and social studies (including history, geography and civic education) curricula in January last year.
The lawmaker’s accusation that the objections are “ideology-driven” is similarly wide of the mark. Or, to be fair, it is on target in a meaningless sense that all objections are ideological, insofar as “ideology” is understood not in a negative light, but as a set of political beliefs and ideas.
That said, ideas could be put to debate and examined, and there are some that are considered more reasonable and valuable.
For example, one could certainly say the changes made to social studies textbooks — first in 1997 in junior-high schools and in 1999 in senior-high schools that (finally) included, as extra materials, knowledge about Taiwan’s history and geography — were “ideological,” as they were already then fiercely criticized by some as “anti-Chinese.”
However, which is more reasonable? No Taiwanese history and clinging to a pre-1949 (KMT China-centered) historical and geographical view, or equipping students with a realistic understanding of their surroundings and knowledge that they can actually relate to?
In 2003, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government’s attempt to revise the history curriculum again triggered the fury of some, who called the move to single out Taiwanese history into a standalone volume and to begin students’ history learning with Taiwanese history — rather than Chinese ancient history — “politically motivated.”
Was the perspective guiding the revisions radical? According to the then-review team, the guidelines were amended to promote students’ “understanding of the present” in a historical context and establish their “self-identity.”
Most people would probably agree that learning the history and geography of one’s own surroundings is more appropriate (and better) than an imaginary, irredentist historical view, despite the latter’s adherence to the (no less illusory) ROC Constitution.
The ongoing efforts to reintroduce Chinese-
centered and mystic mono-ethnic views to the school curriculum are disturbing, but common sense and reason, one hopes, will prevail.
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his
Retired army major general Yu Pei-chen (于北辰), a former head the Taoyuan chapter of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) veterans branch, on Wednesday last week said that chapter head Tsang You-hsia (臧幼俠) — who dismissed Yu from his position — “would rather see cross-strait unification than yield to the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] government.” The statement ignited public debate, as it was the first time that a retired officer loyal to the nation — and the KMT — said out loud what has long been rumored among the public: Some KMT members would rather work with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)