Unseemly Conduct and Educational Failure

Unseemly Conduct and Educational Failure
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 6, 2012

Summary: Education Minister Chiang Wei-ning was subjected to name-calling in the Legislative Yuan by Tsinghua University students taking part in political protests. The incident attracted considerable media attention and sparked considerable public debate. Right and wrong in this matter is easily determined. We would like to examine the matter from three perspectives.

Full Text below:

Education Minister Chiang Wei-ning was subjected to name-calling in the Legislative Yuan by Tsinghua University students taking part in political protests. The incident attracted considerable media attention and sparked considerable public debate. Right and wrong in this matter is easily determined. We would like to examine the matter from three perspectives.

First, consider whether the contents of the Ministry of Education's official statement were appropriate. Taken literally, the statement merely asks universities to express concern about the health of students who are taking part in sports. But two questions arose. The first was "How did executive branch authorities obtain background information about students participating in sports?" The second was 'Did the expression "concerned about their health" contain an innuendo?' In the former instance, the Ministry of Education obtained information that certain students attended certain universities through normal channels. This was perfectly reasonable information gathering. It is hardly necessary to invoke terrorism related concepts such as "undercover operations." Now consider the expression "concerned about their health." It is hardly necessary to compare this to Mafia expressions of concern for their victims' health. The opposition DPP is making quite a stretch by equating these e-mails with the White Terror. The Ministry of Education's only questionable action was to make a mountain out of a molehill, and issue an official statement. This made the Minister's statement sound like an interrogation instead a personal expression of concern. This was a case of "official statements sent 200 km are better than ministers walking 200 meters." The official statement ought to be criticized. But the error was not that grievous.

The second point of controvery is the students' attitude and legislators' behavior. Let us be blunt. The legislators and the students set the worst possible example. They insulted the legislature. They underscored the students' lack of socialization. Legislators have no right to "transfer" their interpolation authority to others. Government officials are under no obligation to submit to questioning by non-legislators. Grand Justice Constitutional Interpretation 461 states that legislators may invite students to interpolations, but the students would be the ones being interpolated. They would not be the ones doing the interpolating. They would be permitted to respond to questions from legislators. They would not be permitted to point fingers at government officials.

Consider the behavior of the students. We do not agree that "Etiquette is of secondary importance when the issue is right and wrong." If anything, the opposite is true. Respect for other human beings must reign supreme in any civilized society. Every member of a democratic society must understand this. The school system must teach students how to behave like human beings. Only then can they choose to be human beings who practice science, human beings who practice the arts and culture, human beings who protect the environment. Every human being must treat others with respect. They must accord others the basic courtesies, especially when the person is 30 years one's senior and a member of the cabinet. Even supposing the students interpreted the Ministry of Education's official statement in a negative light, they should still not have demonstrated a total disregard for etiquette, and called Minister Chiang names. Phony indignation cannot rationalize boorish behavior. The students behavior reminded one the Red Guards. If legislators engaged in political struggles provide intellectual cover for boorish students, they set a negative example for society. They also weaken society's core values.

The Ministry of Education's official statement contained no serious errors. The students and legislators behaved badly. That said, Education Minister Chiang's handling of the matter warrants criticism. Ministry heads in today's political arena must meet three requirements. One. They must adhere to a consistent policy framework. Two. They must uphold the dignity of their office. Three. They must remain flexible during prolonged ordeals. Over the past 10 months Minister Chiang has demonstrated extraordinary patience and flexibility. But he has shown little in the way of the first two requirements. One month ago, legislators interpolating Minister Chiang demanded that he translate several remarks by President Obama. This demand was nonsensical. It had nothing to do with educational policy. Yet Vice Minister Chiang translated them. In a similar case, the National Youth Commission chairman agreed to legislators' demand that he donate his year-end bonus. This is how legislators avoid interpolation and instead use the opportunity to insult ministry heads. When ministry heads behave like pushovers, it may help them survive Legislative Yuan interpolation. But the job of ministry heads is to serve the people, by implementing policy. If the only thing that ministry heads do all day is bow and scrape and come across like children terrified of making mistakes, then officials within these ministries will have no choice but to act equally frightened. Officials from top to bottom will be paralyzed. Where will they find the energy to implement policy?

Finally, we must talk about the Minister of Education's ideas. Should the Ministry of Education or universities care about students? If so, what sort of care is consistent with liberalism? A Minister of Education should know the answers to these questions. By the same token, suppose one wishes to promote 12 year compulsory education? Ministry heads cannot simply dialogue with people everywhere. They must have their own conceptual framework and rhetorical style. Minister Chiang issued an official statement which was sent to various universities. He conducted himself ineptly during Legislative Yuan interpolation. He was too much of a pushover. Many political appointees probably do not understand the policies they themselves are promoting. Students behaved boorishly and self-importantly. The opposition DPP legislators' coarse demagoguery was regrettable. But our greatest concern is ministry heads. They must have a better command of the concepts they are promoting. Taiwan's educational system hangs in the balance.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2012.12.06
社論－國會尊嚴淪喪 公民教育失敗
本報訊

    　教育部長蔣偉寧在立法院被參與社運的清大學生當面責罵，受到媒體關注，也引發了許多討論。這件事的是非並不難釐清，我們要從三個面向切入分別探討。

    　首先，是教育部所發公文其內容是否妥適。從字面上看，這份公文只是要求各大學對參與運動學生的身體健康表示關切。但是這裡有兩個問題：其一是行政機關如何得知參與運動學生的學校背景資料？其二是「關心身體健康」是否有其他的隱寓涵意？就前者而言，教育部若透過管道得知某在場學生是來自Ａ大學，其實算是合理的資料蒐尋，未必有什麼「滲透情搜」的恐怖概念。就關心學生身體而論，我們也無法將此類關心與黑手黨「黃鼠狼給雞拜年」式的問候相提並論；在野黨硬要把這封電子郵件牽拖成白色恐怖，實在是相當勉強。教育部唯一可議之處，是這種公文式關心太不真切，是形式詢問而非部長本人的關注，似乎表示「公文旅行兩百公里優於部長走路兩百公尺」，確實可以批評，但此事即使有錯也不算嚴重。

    　第二個爭議點則是學生的態度與立委的處理。讓我們直率地說：立委與學生都做了最壞的示範；既侮辱了國會尊嚴、也暴露了學生公民教育的失敗。就國會尊嚴而言，立法委員並沒有權力把質詢權「讓」給任何人，而政府官員也沒有義務要面對任何非立委的質詢。依大法官釋字四六一號解釋，立委邀請學生備詢固然合法，但此時學生只是受詢問者，只能回答立委問題，而絕不能對在席其他政府官員指指點點。

    　就學生的表現分際而言，我們完全不能同意「禮貌是公理辯爭時的次要價值」這種辯詞。事實上剛好相反，任何人對人的尊重，是公民社會極為上位的、不容侵犯的價值。所有民主社會的成員都該了解，學校教育一定是先教學生做「人」，然後他們才會選擇做科學人、文化人、環保人等。任何人對於任何其他人都該有基本的禮貌與尊重，更何況對話者是一位比自己年長卅歲、身任閣員的公僕。就算學生們對於教育部公文有極為負面的解釋，也不應該以完全不顧禮儀的態度，對蔣部長辱罵。這種假抗爭有理之名、行粗魯無禮之實的作風，確實有紅衛兵的影子。立委們若是在政治鬥爭的盤算下袒護無禮的學生，不但是錯誤社會教育，也是在摧毀台灣社會最基本的敦厚文化價值。

    　即便教育部的公文沒有明顯錯誤、學生與立委的表現荒腔走板，我們也還是要對教育部蔣部長的表現予以批評。在當今台灣政壇作為部會首長，大概需要三個條件：其一是圓融一貫的政策思考、其二是維護部會官屬尊嚴的能力、其三是折衝樽俎的柔軟身段。令人遺憾的是，蔣部長在過去十個月似乎展現了凡事忍讓、彎腰的柔軟，但是對於前兩個要件卻殊少呈現。一個月前有立委質詢蔣部長要他即席翻譯歐巴馬總統的幾句英文，對於這麼無厘頭、與教育政策無關的質詢要求，蔣部長也居然逐句翻譯。類似的案例包括青輔會主委隨便答應立委要求捐出年終獎金，這也是為求逃脫質詢而妥協掉機關或首長尊嚴的例子。部會首長脖軟腰輕固然有助於其在立院存活，但是首長的任務是服務人民、推動政務，如果首長整天鞠躬合十，活像是個恐懼犯錯的小孩子，那麼部會內的官員也只好如驚弓之鳥。如此機關上下皆忙於應對進退，又哪裡有推動政策的主體性與積極性？

    　最後，我們也要談談教育部長的理念。教育部或大學該不該、可不可以關心學生？若是關心，要怎麼關心才合乎自由主義的理念？這些問題是教育部長該要有的知識底蘊。同理，要推動十二年國教，部長不能只是四處訪問座談溝通，而要有一整套的哲學思想與論述鋪陳。此次發函各大學之事，蔣部長之所以在立法院表現這麼差，不只反映出身段柔軟之不足恃，恐怕也凸顯不少政務官對於自己主管政策欠缺圓融之觀念。學生們的失禮膨脹、立委們的粗鄙操弄固然令人遺憾，但對於台灣教育，教育部長對理念掌握的深度才是最令我們擔心的。