Change natural in education
Recently, Taipei First Girls’ High School Chinese literature teacher Alice Ou (區桂芝) criticized the de-emphasizing of classical Chinese in the 2019 curriculum guidelines, triggering a wide debate about desinicization.
When I was teaching Chinese in 1988, the curriculum stipulated that junior and high-school students practice calligraphy every week, while annotations for the selected Chinese readings in the textbook (classical and vernacular Chinese alike) had to be classical Chinese. Would it satisfy Ou if our curriculum returns to such a state?
Desinicization is like a political spectrum. There is the far left wing on one side, but there is also the center left. Not one single individual or group can monopolize the idea of desinicization.
There are complex reasons behind people’s behavior. Focusing on a single reason for a problem oversimplifies things. Since former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) came to office, no one can ignore that corruption has been falling, while several desinicization measures have been put into effect.
Could we say that this is because government officials have been studying less of the ancient Chinese classics known as the Four Books and Five Classics?
Few people would realize that Taiwanese are the Chinese-speaking ethnic group that has read the most classical Chinese, in terms of the number of texts, percentage and diversity. Many classical Chinese works in textbooks were not studied by ancient Chinese. After all, the percentage of literate people (those who can recognize 500 Chinese characters) in the Qin Dynasty was in the low-single-digit percentage. Those who were literate and could also read classical Chinese were the select few.
If we use Ou’s standard, then well over 90 percent of people in the Qin Dynasty lived under conditions of desinicization. The literati, according to The Scholars (儒林外史) and Hu Shih’s (胡適) Autobiography at Forty (四十自述), studied Confucian classics.
As a result, I have full confidence in saying that before the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) made Honesty and Morality (廉恥) a selected reading, not more than one in a thousand Chinese had studied it.
Further, according to Chinese reformer Liang Qichao’s (梁啟超) the Intellectual History of China Since the 17th Century (中國近三百年學術史), only a handful of intellectuals would study the ancient Chinese philosophical texts on Taoism, legalism and Mohism, not to mention the Chinese encyclopedia The Exploitation of the Works of Nature (Tiangong Kaiwu, 天工開物), which the current curriculum has included or listed as supplementary materials.
In 1905, Empress Dowager Cixi (慈禧太后) of the Qing Dynasty abolished the Imperial Examination System, and the Taiwanese government abolished the subject of Three Principles of the People in 1995.
Modern people must have considered those debates meaningless. The same should be said of the current debate on the selection of Honesty and Morality.
Liu Tien-hsiang
Tainan
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
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
RSS