The Ministry of Education’s (MOE) “minor adjustments” to its high-school social studies curriculum guidelines — returning the viewpoint to a Chinese-centered one — have triggered a major backlash from civic groups and historians, and now the protests are spilling over to those who would be directly affected.
Students from more than 200 high schools are networking to voice their opposition to the changes, and the ministry has organized a series of meetings in a bid to dampen the uproar. The first such meeting was held at Taichung First Senior High School yesterday.
However, it is doubtful that the ministry’s “elucidation” — which can almost be guaranteed to be nothing more than a reiteration of the legitimacy of the changes — could eliminate the students’ suspicions. This is not only because the entire review procedure and the composition of the adjustment committee has been repeatedly questioned, but because there is a widespread lack of public confidence in the administration, especially among young people.
The ministry has repeatedly denied the High Administrative Court’s ruling that it should be transparent about its dealings regarding the adjustments — given that complete meeting minutes have yet to be provided and questions have been raised about the lack of due procedure — has anything to do with the legitimacy of the adjusted guidelines.
Apart from the paradox of whether there could be substantive legitimacy without procedural legitimacy, it turns out that the convener of the six-member history curriculum committee belongs to the same pro-unification organization that two other committee members belong to (and on which they serve as executive committee members). Another member of the curriculum committee once said that it was “a waste of time” to have high-school student “relearn” Taiwanese history after their junior-high lessons on it, because it is just “local history as opposed to Chinese history.”
No wonder the authorities delayed releasing the list of names of the history curriculum committee members until last week.
More than one academic involved in the curriculum adjustment project has intimated that history education is simply a political tool to instill ideology, something the current administration would probably like to say out loud, but does not dare.
That idea may be true to some extent, but in a democratic society, even ideological implementation needs to be subject to debate and to adhere to the principle of transparency, without which a government’s legitimacy and popularity declines.
The protesting high-school students have clearly already learned one history lesson — taking their cue from last year’s student-led Sunflower movement — but apparently the government has not.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government’s impatience to force through the new guidelines in the face of mounting opposition is reminiscent of the way it tried to ram through the cross-strait services trade agreement last year, a move that triggered the Sunflower movement.
Society remembers, as do young people, who probably also remember how the government tried to label the Sunflower movement’s young participants as malleable saps who were being “misled and goaded by the opposition party.”
Given the KMT lawmakers’ procedural obstruction efforts to block a proposed constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18, it is hard for young people not to believe the government harbors an entrenched patriarchal belief that they should be neither seen nor heard.
The government and the ministry like to brag that the goal of education is the cultivation of independent thinking, but their actions belie their words. Otherwise they would be doing more to encourage young people to participate in society and become more politically aware, rather than trying to nip such thinking in the bud.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS