In terms of the controversy over independence and unification, I once asked my students whether they wanted to be Chinese, Taiwanese or citizens of the 51st state of the US.
Most of the students actually preferred the latter.
It was not that they had forgotten their origins, or that they fawned on foreign powers; rather, beyond the controversy over independence or unification with China, they were simply pursuing the dignity and the value of “freedom of choice” — the very thing that makes us human.
People are able to maintain their dignity when they enjoy freedom of choice, and that is why Taiwan is so proud of its direct presidential elections.
As for the ongoing controversy over the so-called “minor adjustments” to the high-school curriculum guidelines, why should the government regulate the content of history education in our high schools?
Why can we not simply adopt soft curriculum guidelines and abolish the textbook review system, so that teachers at the grassroots level and their high-school students can make the choice by themselves, without interference?
Why does the state apparatus have to trample on the dignity of both teachers and future adult citizens?
Prior to the currently suggested adjustments, was it really appropriate to have curriculum guidelines regulate that the Japanese era in Taiwan be referred to as “Japanese rule” — a term now altered to “Japanese colonial rule.”
Such terminology is of course certain to cause controversy and the result can only be that teachers are unable to face the descendants of people who died a martyr’s deaths during the Japanese military occupation of their homelands in Wubukushan (五步哭山) in Hsinchu City, Baguashan (八卦山) and Wushe (霧社) in Nantou County, Taroko Gorge (太魯閣) in Hualien County and other areas across Taiwan.
Likewise, is it appropriate for the curriculum guidelines to substitute the “takeover of Taiwan” in 1945 with the “restoration of Taiwan?” This is an awful term for teachers.
If we call the act a “restoration,” then how can we build a relationship with the Taiwanese-Japanese soldiers who fought for Japan in World War II, or the families of the victims of the 228 Incident and the White Terror era?
These kinds of issues are raised repeatedly.
It is analgous to the doubts of scientists in the 19th century about the assertion that water boils at 100?C.
Does that refer to pure water or water with impurities?
Does it refer to water heated in a hot pan or on top of mercury?
Does it refer to water on the ground or high up in the mountains?
Does it refer to water that has started to bubble or water that has bubbled for a while?
Even the boiling point of water is not necessarily 100?C.
Which historical fact is not floating and full of controversy?
Following the same line of reasoning, there is always more than one truth, because various social activists are behind the related historical events that lie behind the truth.
What those who were oppressed in this nation need is not the sympathy of others. Instead, they need others to listen and to strike up a dialogue so as to find solutions.
The state apparatus should stop smothering people and allow them to speak freely.
It should also adopt soft curriculum guidelines and abolish the textbook review system.
Political forces should withdraw from the campus for the sake of academic freedom.
Stephen Hsu is a teacher in social studies at National Taichung First Senior High School.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
RSS