The government’s brutal “minor adjustments” of curriculum guidelines for senior-high school history courses at the beginning of this year have now been followed by a new history textbook published by Shi Ji Cultural Co, which has added fuel to the fire and caused further controversy over history education in Taiwan.
The Ministry of Education, saying it respects “freedom of speech,” has done nothing and will not punish the publisher for the textbook, which states that the Taiwan independence movement is likely to plunge society into chaos over national identity.
However, which democracy would state in its history textbooks the future direction that the country should not take? That should be decided by Taiwanese, not textbook writers. In addition, the textbook arrogantly and presumptuously criticizes political parties, without specifying their names. Regardless of whether the party being criticized is the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the Democratic Progressive Party or any other party, the writers have crossed a line by acting like political fanatics.
So many academics and experts are working for the government. Why could they not see these problems in the textbook, which deviates from standard protocol for academic publications? Surely President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) and Minister of Education Chiang Wei-ling (蔣偉寧) know how to write for an academic publication. How can it be that this textbook passed the ministry’s review process? The government really owes us an explanation.
Furthermore, both the editor and the consultant to the publisher of this book serve as members of the ministry’s review committee for the curriculum guidelines, so there has been no attempt to avoid conflicts of interest.
Profits from textbook sales are limited, and most come from selling related products, such as teachers’ manuals, reference books, as well as discs with databases for practice questions and answers. Since they have appointed the publisher’s editor and consultant to sit on the review committee, the ministry should also take some responsibility for the controversy.
Once during a visit to the Berlin State Library in Germany, I saw a Chinese translation of Adolf Hitler’s autobiography, Mein Kampf. The last page of the book noted that the book is a “restricted item.” Researchers must register in advance to browse the book, which is not available to the public.
Out of curiosity, I asked the librarians why a democratic country would choose to ban the book, and their answer was clear and decisive: The German government does not want to repeat the mistakes that led to the Nazi era and it does not want hatred between different ethnic groups to extend to the next generation.
Germany’s ban on Nazi discourse is not a restriction of freedom of speech, nor is it worried about people having diverse opinions. Rather, the government is worried that studying the Nazi version of history may lead to serious consequences — such as hatred between different ethnic groups and massacres.
The true meaning of history education is to have an open mind about one’s own country and homeland and to write textbooks that honestly portray the past.
Textbooks should guide students on how to live with different ethnic groups and to respect differences. Unfortunately, Shi Ji’s textbook is based on the “winner takes all” concept as it tries to brainwash students and stir up hatred. No matter how they went about compiling the book, that is a line that really never should have been crossed.
Chu Ping-yi is a research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of History and Philology.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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
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.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS