The 2014 high-school curriculum guidelines that were criticized as being “China-centric” and for downplaying the significance of the 228 Incident and the White Terror Era sparked a mass protest last year, and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration is striving to right past wrongs.
However, is the DPP overdoing it by allowing students to serve on the Ministry of Education’s curriculum review committee?
It is unusual for a government to implement such an education policy, and the DPP administration should approach the curriculum review with extra caution to ensure fairness and justice in the process.
Therefore, it is a concern that the amendment to the Senior High School Education Act (高級中等教育法) seems to have hit a snag.
As two futile conventions held last week and this week at Taichung Home Economics and Commercial High School have shown, the election of students to serve as committee members is harder than the ministry expected.
Students attending the conventions were supposed to elect committee members among themselves last week, but eventually decided that the ministry should devise the election rules and that the election be postponed.
Under regulations formulated by National Chengchi University professor Chuang Kuo-jung (莊國榮) and fine-tuned by Minister of Education Pan Wen-chung (潘文忠), seven to 11 students are to be elected to take part in the review of curriculum guidelines for students from primary to secondary school.
As objectivity should be the overarching principle when forming curricula, it is important that the ministry make sure the students do not have any political affiliations, so that they will not be manipulated.
According to the amendment, students are to be elected on the principle of gender equality, where the representation of males or females should not be lower than one-third of the committee.
On top of that, there must be Aboriginal students on the panel.
While these requirements clearly show that the government is embracing progressive values, they have added to the difficulty of the election, making the outcome more unpredictable.
With the election delayed until tomorrow, the nation is waiting to see if Chuang and the ministry can overcome the challenge and propose a convincing solution to the impasse.
However, the election of student representatives is hardly the only committee issue waiting to be resolved.
Under the amendment, principals, parents and experts selected from objective members of the public are also to be nominated by the Executive Yuan and approved by legislators.
This prompts the question: will legislators across party lines be willing to put aside their differences when vetting the nominees?
With members on the previous committee still reluctant to make their names known and publish meeting minutes regarding the disputed curriculum guidelines, the DPP has demonstrated a resolve to put an end to the much-maligned opaque curriculum review process by introducing an entirely objective and open review committee, and this alone is commendable.
However, with curricula for the 12-year national education system scheduled to take effect in 2018, time is running out for the DPP.
Given the far-reaching consequences the committee’s work will have, the DPP, as the ruling party, has a responsibility to ensure that education reform will work out as it had envisaged, as in education, failure is not an option.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS