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
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS