As a teacher at an elementary school, I understand deeply that in this era of information overload, teaching children how to distinguish between fact and fiction is more important than simply imparting knowledge from school textbooks. Tomorrow’s referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County is the perfect teaching material.
According to data from Taiwan Power Co’s Web site, even though there are currently no operating nuclear power plants in Taiwan, there is still a 15 percent reserve margin during peak power utilization and power supply remains in the “green,” meaning it is sufficient.
This is a clear indication that Taiwan’s energy supply does not rely on nuclear power, and yet, society is filled with claims that there would be power shortages without it. This is the world that our children must face — one filled with conflicting information, and a chaotic mix of truth and falsehood.
Examining another controversy, some claim that nuclear power is “clean and cheap,” but the reality is that high-level nuclear waste has a half-life that can span tens of thousands of years, and there is still no adequate solution for its disposal.
Furthermore, the use of nuclear power involves the enormous costs of decommissioning, maintenance and waste storage. However, this information has not been fully presented and is instead dumbed down into one convenient slogan.
I often remind my students: “When you see a sensational headline, do not just rush to believe it. When you come across data, you always need to question its source.”
Only through media literacy can students avoid a future where they are manipulated by misinformation.
The referendum further exposes a contradiction — the Jinshan Nuclear Power Plant and Guosheng Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City have been left out of the equation. Thus, only residents of southern Taiwan are being asked to bear the risks associated with restarting the Ma-anshan plant.
The votes would be cast by citizens nationwide, but the consequences of that vote would be borne by just one region. Is such a design not a test of human nature?
I want to appeal to my fellow educators across the nation — we are not just transmitters of knowledge, but also leaders in cultivating information literacy. When it comes to public issues such as energy, air pollution and climate change, the classroom should guide children to examine different perspectives and learn to think independently to prevent them from being misled by one-sided or selective narratives that purposefully ignore facts and undermine rational judgement.
On the surface, the referendum might appear to be about energy choices, but at its core, it is a test of democratic literacy. Society is caught up in a heated debate, and children are watching how adults are handling the dispute. Helping them to develop the ability to think independently is the most fundamental function of education in safeguarding our democracy.
Hsieh Chia-hao is a teacher at an elementary school in Hualien County.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS