Taipei First Girls’ High School Chinese literature teacher Alice Ou (區桂芝) has been put under the spotlight again for an interview with China Central Television (CCTV).
In her interview with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-run station, Ou reportedly said that President William Lai (賴清德) should not call China an external hostile force because she still wanted to visit her mother and relatives in China. She questioned whether defining China as an external hostile force would imply that she should view her mother as an enemy.
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister and spokesman Liang Wen-chieh (梁文傑), when asked if Ou’s interview constituted collusion, on Thursday said that it was “really inappropriate” for Ou to be interviewed by CCTV, and that “she knows the reason why CCTV wanted to interview her. It is because she would say what they wanted to hear.”
There has been extensive discussion over Ou’s remarks. Many questioned if she is too pro-China, and whether it would influence Taiwanese society and the education sector.
Her comments demonstrated that she interprets cross-strait affairs sentimentally, simplifying the issue as a family relationship. What she said downplays the complexity of cross-strait relations. What China has been doing to Taiwan — be they political, economic or military threats — has been deeply worrying and disturbing to Taiwanese.
Lai’s statement acknowledged that Taiwan has to take preventive measures when facing challenges brought by China. Ou’s remark, which framed the issue as a family relationship, ignored the interests of Taiwanese society as a whole and the country’s national security.
Another matter is whether her comments contravened the Teachers’ Act (教師法). Educators shoulder responsibilities of knowledge transfer and instilling values in students. They should be cautious and objective when they publicly express their opinions. They should also avoid political controversies.
Would a teacher who has long been publicly supporting China and criticizing the Taiwanese government negatively affect students? A teacher has a duty not only to demonstrate academic achievements, but also good conduct and a sense of responsibility.
Although Ou is entitled to freedom of speech, are her comments ethical and do they comply with the regulations in the education sector? Should the education authorities step in to provide guidance and censor her comments?
The controversies Ou’s comments have sparked are not merely about personal viewpoints. It is about Taiwan’s social values and educators’ duties. When teachers express their opinions on political issues, they should carefully consider how they would affect students and society.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has said China has not given up on “unifying” with Taiwan by force. Why has Ou not criticized Xi’s intention?
Everyone is entitled to have their own political stance. Ou, keeping the halo of teaching at the Taipei First Girls’ High School, has been criticizing her own country in interviews with the media. Yet she turns a blind eye to China’s threatening gestures and malicious acts against Taiwan.
Ou, who is keen on classic works of Chinese literature, should read Confucius’ (孔子) Analects (論語) again.
Zeng Shen (曾參), the ancient Chinese philosopher and disciple of Confucius, said: “I examine myself daily on three points.” Has Ou been able to do so?
Lin Cheng-wu is a junior-high school teacher.
Translated by Fion Khan
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS