High School Students and the Future of the Nation

High School Students and the Future of the Nation
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
July 5, 2007

Comment: The following editorial from the United Daily News is pretty damned feeble. Reading it you would hardly realize how strong the case it makes actually is. In short, less than inspiring, but at least it's not on the wrong side of the issue.

High School Students and the Future of the Nation
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
July 5, 2007

Republic of Taiwan/Republic of China/People's Republic of China

The latest edition of the high school textbook "The Citizen and Society," includes additional material relating to practical politics. It also includes considerable commentary on cross-Straits issues. For example, the textbook directs high school students to discuss the so-called "three options for the nation's future": unification, Taiwan independence, and maintaining the status quo.

Such a curriculum is worth anticipating. After all, discussing these three options in the classroom, where it is easier to keep a cool head and engage in rational thought, should be easier than debating them during election season. But turning a political topic such as the "three options" into an educational topic will be no easy matter. The first problem is the "reunification/Taiwan independence/maintaining the status quo" formulation.

From a realpolitik perspective, the terms "reunification/Taiwan independence/maintaining the status quo" have never been properly defined. Because the definition of these three options remain unclear, controversies arising from them remain difficult to resolve. Before introducing such a political topic into the classroom, one must first define one's terms.

Taiwan independence is a term whose definition is extremely unclear. For example, the Democratic Progressive Party's Taiwan Independence Constitution calls for "the founding of a Republic of Taiwan." The Taiwan Independence Constitution requires the "rectification of names and authoring of a new constitution." But the Democratic Progressive Party's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" asserts that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, whose current name is the Republic of China." This is also considered a form of Taiwan independence, one that doesn't require the "rectification of names and authoring of a new constitution." Furthermore, Taiwan independence rhetoric usually avoids taboo terms such as "Taiwan independence." Instead it resorts to code words such as the "primacy of Taiwan," "nativization," "rectification of names and authoring of a new constitution," "deSinicization," "purging of Chiang Kai-shek influences," and the "normalization of Taiwan."

If one asks a high school student, "Do you support Taiwan independence?" what is one actually asking him? Is one asking him whether he advocates "the primacy of Taiwan?" Is one asking him whether he feels that "Taiwan is already independent, and its current name is the Republic of China?" Or is one asking him if he demands the "overthrow of the Republic of China and the founding of a Republic of Taiwan?" In short, unless "Taiwan independence" is accurately defined, how can it become an educational topic? How can "options for the nation's future" become an academic subject?

What does "reunification" mean? Even Frank Hsieh has advocated a "constitutionally defined One China," only to be pigeonholed as a "reunificationist." But if "reunification" means "advocating Taiwan's annexation by the People's Republic of China," then how many people on Taiwan hold this position? Does advocating cross-Straits exchange make one a "reunificationist?" Ten years ago, Taiwan businessmen on the mainland were denounced as "traitors to Taiwan." Today they have been rehabilitated, and are referred to as "Taiwan's economic advance guard." Obviously the label "reunificationist" has no fixed definition.

At its core, "maintaining the status quo" means to "maintain the Republic of China." But does that refer to the Republic of China as defined by the constitution? Or does it refer to the Republic of China in "One China, Two Interpretations?" Does it refer to the Democratic Progressive Party's definition of the Republic of China, in its "Resolution on Taiwan's Future?" Everyone has his own view. No one is able to agree. Is the Republic of China an "alien regime?" Is the Republic of China merely a shell company for creeping independence? Until these terms have been defined, "maintaining the status quo" may also be hard to define.

High school textbooks will include "maintaining the status quo" as an option. This reflects reality, transcends the "reunification vs. independence dichotomy," and is worth affirming. Otherwise one will see only the "Republic of Taiwan" and the "People's Republic of China" as options for the nation's future, and no mention of the Republic of China.

If one wishes to teach the "three options for the nation's future" in the high school classroom, one should first attempt to define "reunification/Taiwan independence/maintaining the status quo." Students should be advised that this is a subject about which everyone has different views, and opinions are sharply divided. This is the best way to introduce such a curriculum to the students. If one can make students understand the distinction between populist demagoguery and scholarly debate, when students are confronted by such a curriculum, they will find it far easier to keep a cool head and engage in rational thought.

The "three options for the nation's future" should be more precisely defined, not merely in the high school classroom, but also in the real world. Some have suggested that "reunification vs. independence is a phony issue," that it is a remote topic that can only be settled decades from now. But if Taiwan independence advocates the overthrow of the Republic of China and the establishment of a Republic of Taiwan, then how much room is there to demagogue the issue of Taiwan independence? By the same token, if reunification is defined as advocating the annexation of Taiwan by the People's Republic of China, then how many reunificationists are there on Taiwan?

Actually, if one wants high school textbooks to transcend the poorly defined options of "unification/independence/maintaining the status quo," one might as well rename these three "three options for the nation's future."

Taiwan's "three options for the nation's future" should not be the poorly defined choices "reunification/independence/maintaining the status quo." They should be: "annexation by the People's Republic of China/establishing a Republic of Taiwan/preserving the Republic of China"

Only when the issue is defined this way, will high school students and the public understand.

Original Chinese below:

如何與高中生談國家前途三選項？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.07.05 03:45 am

台灣共和國／中華民國／中華人民共和國

新版高中《公民與社會》課本，添增了許多探討現實政治議題的教材，對兩岸關係亦有大篇幅的論述。例如，課本引導高中學生討論所謂「國家前途三選項」：統一、台灣獨立，與維持現狀。

這樣的課程設計值得期待。畢竟，在課堂上討論「三個選項」，自比在選舉場域議論，較能維持理性的思維與平衡的情緒。然而，欲將「三個選項」這類的政治議題轉成教育題材，恐非易事。首先，課本勢須對「統一／台獨／維持現狀」作出定義，正是第一個難題。

在現實政治中，「統一／台獨／維持現狀」始終沒有精確的定義；且正因「三個選項」的定義不明，所以相關爭議亦難有定論。如今欲將此一政治議題搬進教室，首應解決者亦是定義的問題。

「台獨」正是定義最混淆不清的名詞。例如，民進黨台獨黨綱中所標舉的「建立台灣共和國」，自是「台獨」，因此必須「正名制憲」；但民進黨「台灣前途決議文」中所指「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國」，亦是「台獨」的表述方式，卻未必要「正名制憲」。何況，台獨論述通常亦諱用「台獨」一詞，而往往以「台灣主體性」、「本土化」、「正名制憲」、「去中國化」、「去蔣化」、「國家正常化」為變形及分身。

那麼，若要問高中生：「你是否支持台獨？」究竟是在問學生什麼呢？是在問他是否支持「台灣主體性」嗎？是在問他是否支持「台灣已經獨立，名字叫做中華民國」嗎？或者，是在問他是否支持「推翻中華民國，另建台灣共和國」？總之，「台獨」若無準確之定義，如何能成為教育上的概念，更如何能成為學術或知識上的「國家前途選項」？

再者，「統一」究何所指？連謝長廷亦主張「憲法一中」，被歸類為「統派」。但若「統一」是指「主張台灣應被中華人民共和國併吞」，則台灣究竟有幾人持此主張？再者，主張兩岸交流是否即為「統派」？例如，十年前「台商」被視作統派「台奸」，今日卻儼然已轉型成「台灣經濟尖兵」，可見「統派」的標籤其實亦無定義可言。

「維持現狀」的核心概念即是「維持中華民國」。但究竟是指「憲法一中」的「中華民國」，或是「一中各表」的「中華民國」，還是民進黨「台灣前途決議文」中的「中華民國」？各說各話，莫衷一是。再如，「中華民國」是「外來政權」？或「中華民國」可「借殼上市」？在這類議論未澄清以前，「維持現狀」亦難有「定義」。

不過，可附一筆的是，高中課本將「維持現狀」列為「選項」，切合實際，亦超越了「統獨二分法」，值得肯定。否則，在「國家前途選項」中，豈不是僅有「台灣共和國」與「中華人民共和國」，卻不見「中華民國」？

綜上所論，若要在高中課堂講授「國家前途三選項」，首應嘗試對「統一／台獨／維持現狀」作出定義。然而，在進入相關課程之初，倘能首先將迄今這種「言人人殊，眾說紛紜」的「無定義狀態」告知學生，也許反而是將學生帶入門的最佳啟迪方法。若能使學生理解這些名詞在「知識探討」與「民粹炒作」上的落差，學生在面對此類課程時，自然較易維持理性的思維與平衡的情緒。

「國家前途三選項」，非但在高中課堂上應探究其定義問題，在現實政治中尤應設法建立較準確的定義。近來出現「統獨是否皆為假議題」的議論，即是數十年來探討統獨定義後的進階思維。試問：「台獨」若回到核心赤裸的樣貌，主張「推翻中華民國，建立台灣共和國」，則「台獨」這個「選項」尚有多少炒作的空間？同樣的，倘若將「統一」定位在「主張台灣應被中華人民共和國併吞」，則台灣哪裡還有「統派」？

其實，高中課本若欲跳脫「統一／獨立／維持現狀」定義不明的蔽障，或許不妨乾脆從根本處重新為「國家前途三選項」命名：

台灣的「國家前途三選項」，其實不應是定義不明的「統一／獨立／維持現狀」，而應是：「被中華人民共和國併吞／另建台灣共和國／維持中華民國」！

如此，高中生看得懂，國人也看得懂！