Sun, Aug 23, 2015 page3

• INTERVIEW: Protests prove authoritarianism not welcome

  Student protests against the Ministry of Education’s changes to high-school curriculum guidelines prove that young people are not willing to tolerate a revival of authoritarianism in Taiwan, National Taiwan Normal University Department of Civic Education and Leadership chair Lin Chia-fan said in a recent interview with ‘Liberty Times’ (sister newspaper of the ‘Taipei Times’) staff reporter Jennifer Huang, adding that the government might block young people from voting by retaining the current voting age, but it cannot stop civic and political engagement

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Liberty Times: Twenty-five years ago, the Wild Lily movement demanded political reforms; then there were the Wild Strawberry and Sunflower movements, and this year, high-school students protested against the “black-box” changes to curriculum guidelines. How should we view the emergence of a new wave of student movements and its meaning?

  Lin Chia-fan (林佳範): Although the politics of the Martial Law era were abolished over 20 years ago, authoritarian thinking and nodes of power survived Taiwan’s democratization. For example, the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), among others, still place restrictions on the exercising of human rights in Taiwan.

  

  National Taiwan Normal University Department of Civic Education and Leadership chair Lin Chia-fan reacts during an interview with the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) in Taipei on Aug. 13.

  Photo: Lo Pei-der, Taipei Times

  Students were forbidden to participate in politics throughout the Martial Law era, and schools made rules to punish those “instigating student movements.” However, the Supreme Court’s Interpretations No. 382 and No. 684 established protection for the right of students to appeal, and have a remedy for, administrative and punitive actions by school officials. Last year, the Ministry of Education issued notices to schools to ensure that there were no rules restricting the exercising of civil rights by students, and one by one, schools finally withdrew rules banning the instigation of protests.

  In the past, Taiwanese were apolitical because of the White Terror era, but young people today grew up during the democratization and they are much more open to engaging in public affairs.

  From the Wild Strawberry movement and the Sunflower movement to recent student protests against “black-box” changes to high-school curriculum guidelines, they should be understood as resistance to the partial restoration of authoritarianism in Taiwan’s political environment.

  The Wild Strawberry movement was because university professors and students were discontent with the way the government used the Assembly and Parade Act, and police powers to curb people’s freedom of expression during a visit to Taiwan by China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yulin (陳雲林). The Sunflower movement and the student protests against curriculum changes were expressions of discontent with the way the government dealt with public policy in an opaque manner. The former arose out of concerns about a cross-strait economic treaty that would affect the livelihood of millions of workers in our industries, while the latter related to changes in education that would affect many students. “Black-box” policymaking and China-centric curriculum guidelines are typical methods of the authoritarian era appearing in modern Taiwan. This is what the students protested against. They fought to make the government respect the citizen’s right to know and the right to engage in civic participation.

  LT: The Ministry of Education’s response to the student protests against “minor adjustments” to high-school curriculum guidelines is that textbook content must abide by the Constitution. Does that make the procedural flaws in the guidelines’ drafting process tolerable?

  Lin: The Ministry of Education said “minor adjustments” to high-school curriculum guidelines were intended to bring the nation’s definition in textbooks within the bounds of the Constitution. However, the ministry’s attempt to impose a political ideology on education is unconstitutional.

  The Supreme Court stated in Interpretation No. 328 that “the Republic of China’s territories are not enumerated by Article IV of the Constitution, but instead generally defined as ‘territories that have been held since the past.’ The definition of so-called territories that have been held since the past is a profound political issue, but not one which an organ invested with judicial authority to interpret the Constitution should give.” This ruling says that the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan’s independence or unification are controversies of ideology and politics, and the state’s apparatus must not decide them unilaterally.

  President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration and a handful of fervently nationalistic academics want to use textbook guidelines to indoctrinate students with nationalist ideas about territories, history and the continuity of Chinese ethnicity. It is tantamount to subordinating education to politics and brainwashing students. It violates the Supreme Court’s intent in their interpretation of the Constitution, and the right to free thought and speech granted by the Constitution.

  LT: The students’ occupation of the Ministry of Education forecourt resulted in the first lawsuit in the nation’s history by an education minister against students. How do we balance citizens’ right to protests and the rule of law?

  Lin: Harvard University, ranked the best university in the world, had an incident in 2001 in which students occupied the president’s office for three weeks to support equitable pay for the university’s janitors. In the end Harvard agreed to adjust the salary of janitors. Prior to the occupation, Harvard students had submitted letters and invitations to dialogue in a peaceful manner. After three years of receiving no response from the administration, the students finally decided to occupy the president’s office.

  Similarly, students involved in recent protest movements had spent a long time peacefully demonstrating and petitioning the government in hopes of initiating a dialogue before breaking into the the Legislative Yuan’s main chamber and the Ministry of Education’s forecourt. Civil associations spent an entire year calling on the government to pay attention to a potentially negative impact of the cross-strait service trade agreement. High-school students’ groups had been collectively calling on the government since May to oppose “black-box” education and brainwashing. Only when all options had been exhausted did students finally charge over the walls and through the gates. Then, and only then, did the government and the public wake up and realize the injustice of those policies.

  In the Sunflower movement, technically the students’ charge into the Legislative Yuan’s main chamber was illegal, but they did not damage property or harm anybody after they got inside. In effect, they simply changed the location of their sit-in demonstration, and it should still qualify as a peaceful protest.

  The decision by the Ministry of Education and the prosecutor assigned to the case to try the students on charges of “trespassing on the dwelling or structure of another” under criminal law is highly problematic. In criminal law, this statute exists under the rubric of offenses against personal liberty, and the intent is to protect the rights and legal interests from trespass. However, the Executive Yuan and the Ministry of Education compounds are not private residences. Which individual’s liberties were infringed? Those charges are nonsensical and are very controversial from a legal perspective. A good citizen is not an obedient subject. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government brainwashed the public with the “rule of law” as a slogan, but actually it wanted people to surrender to the KMT their rights to decide public policy. Civil rights only begins with the ability to vote; our elected officials are public servants, and one who is elected with more than 6 million votes, like Ma, has license to do whatever he wants. Citizens must observe policymaking closely to ensure that they maintain a focus on public interest.

  When public policy is not in the interest of the people, citizens have the right to protest and to engage in civil disobedience, and even to challenge ossified laws and statutes.

  LT: Every time a student movement emerges, opponents always repeat stock phrases, calling students “immature,” and saying that they should “study more books instead,” otherwise “they will not get good jobs,” or that the “intervention of political forces” was present, or “students should stay away from politics.” Should students stay away from politics? If so, how is it possible to raise mature citizens?

  Lin: Some opponents of the anti-curriculum guideline change protests criticized students for not understanding what they are opposing, saying that students who are supposed to get an education have no right to express their opinions. Most people are ignorant of the fact that last year, [Taiwan] passed the Act to Implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child (兒童權利公約施行法), which states that because children and young people have no power or influence over adults, who make most decisions on personally relevant issues, the Convention specifically demands states to protect the rights of children and young people to express their opinions with regard to issues relevant to them, and that their opinions should be weighed and considered.

  In the authoritarian era, students are discouraged from political participation. This kind of non-engagement is inherently authoritarian and it aims to reduce students to “obedient subjects.” In a modern democratic society, the best civics education is to give students the opportunity to be engaged with and to participate in public affairs.

  The Legislative Yuan refuses to lower the voting age to 18 for political reasons, but students’ interest in public affairs and their political participation far exceeds that of the past. They are willing to practice democracy on the streets, which is the best civics classroom.

  American philosopher of pedagogy John Dewey said: “A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint, communicated experience.”

  Civic education in a democracy is supposed to begin early so that the younger generations can learn how to tolerate difference and listen to different opinions through personal interaction. It is through the citizen’s participation in public discourse and deliberation that public will and consent to policy are formed. People ought to stop saying that students must stay away from politics, instead they should be encouraged to engage in such activity.

  LT: Do you anticipate more student movements? How do you think they can become a positive force for the development of society in Taiwan?

  Lin: I want to remind all adults that, since 2006, the pro tempore curriculum guidelines for civics classes in high school have already been teaching the concept of civil disobedience. Democracy, progress and civil rights in Taiwan, like in many other nations, has been realized by the civil disobedience of protesters.

  However, we should not worry that the frequency of student protest movements is on the rise. Rather, we should pay attention to the fact that before student movements escalate into confrontational situations, there is always a long period when activists express their opinions peacefully and it is up to adults and those in power to be willing to listen.

  Student protests against “black-box” curriculum guideline changes shocked the entire educational institution. The traditional top-down ideological indoctrination in education has been challenged by students, who have proved that they are capable of independent thinking and having their own opinions.

  Education must become more democratic and public policy more open to civic participation and diversity of expressed opinions; it is not an issue that only students should care about, but an important topic for adults as well, and a clear lesson for the ones in power.

  Translated by Jonathan Chin, Staff Writer
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Bologna advance to face AC Milan in Coppa final

  • 2

    Bukele proposes prisoner swap with Maduro

  • 3

    Wild’s top line too much for Vegas Golden Knights

  • 4

    HK, Macau residency rules tightened

  • 5

    Eric Chu, 2 others to be questioned for leading illegal assembly last week