台灣課綱 中國直營(Unification through a change of identity)◎ 范姜提昂/自由時報+Taipei Times 06-14-2015

敬請支持‧歡迎訂閱本報newsletter

中國各項侵台策略講到後來,都會指向他們觀察到的,阻礙統一大業「最根本的問題」是台灣人認同問題!而涉入我國教育,則一直被認為是解決「認同問題」非達陣不可的總關鍵。這個思維可從二○○八年的「胡六點」看出來:政治統合的「一中教條」擺第一,經濟統合的「一中市場」擺第二,緊接就是鞏固政經統合成果的「民族認同」基礎:「弘揚中華文化,加強精神紐帶」。

 圖為「微調版」公民課本樣書。(資料照,黃益中提供)

怎麼做?當時自由時報引述文匯報報導關中副主席在湖北的講話頗能反映國民黨的意向,他說馬英九第一任期肩負「非常重大的工作責任」,就是改變島內(前朝)積累下來的「去中國化」「台獨化」思想。重點是他提出要求:「但這也需要大陸方面的協助」。

可見「教育如何中國化」這件事,國民黨自始就要求共產黨伸手協助!此後,雙方雖然展開漫長研商,但必然涉及意識形態,國民黨不敢做出太大動作。結果,顯然並不順利!二○一二年八月六日人民日報海外版就提到:雙方努力方向是要商簽「兩岸文教交流合作協議(有人稱為文教ECFA)」,企圖將「文教合作」機制化、制度化。

歡迎訂閱本報newsletter

馬政府這邊,一上任就把他們認定「去中國化」的前朝「文史課綱」攔下,組專案小組調整;花了整整四年,才公布一○一課綱。沒想到兩年後,二○一四年突然又以「勘誤」「補正」及「合憲」為由對台灣史進行「微調」,幅度高達六成!社會譁然。

到底為何突然大動作?看背景:二○一四年,太陽花學運爆發!事實上,馬英九從兩年前連任起,就開始倒行逆施,其引信老早被引燃;這點中國當然清楚,且顯得很焦慮,並做最壞的打算:政黨會輪替!透過國民黨以「加盟」角色進行統戰的做法,由於國民黨氣勢已弱,何不憑多年根基,乾脆自己來,搞直營!

這就是為什麼原本已經交付編書,突然改變的重要背景。日前,台聯以具體證據包括「課綱委員名單」指控教育部已經全面淪為中國在台「統戰教育部」,這也足以證明共產黨不再信任國民黨,明顯開始以「直營」取代「加盟」的強勢作為!

(作者為台灣北社法政組副召集人)

—————————————————

Unification through a change of identity

By Christian Fan Jiang 范姜提昂

All China’s strategies to invade Taiwan are directed at what Beijing perceives to be the fundamental problem preventing unification: Taiwanese identity.

Interference in Taiwan’s education has always been considered key to resolving the nation’s identity problem. In 2008 then-Chinese president Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) made six Taiwan policy proposals, known as “Hu’s six points.” The first of these points stresses the “one China” doctrine and the second stresses a “one China” market. They are followed by the foundation of a national identity that comes as a result of closer political and economic integration: Promoting Chinese culture and tightening spiritual bonds.

Then-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) deputy chairman John Kuan (關中), while attending a Taiwan Week activity in Hubei Province, summed up the KMT’s intentions by saying that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) had a “very heavy responsibility” during his first term to change the previous administration’s promotion of desinicization and Taiwanese independence. The focus of Kuan’s statement was that: “This requires the mainland’s [sic] assistance.”

From the beginning, the KMT has asked the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for help in making Taiwanese education more China-centric. The KMT and CCP have launched long-term talks, likely to involve ideology, which means the KMT is unlikely to act audaciously. The results have not been very smooth.

On Aug. 6, 2012, the international edition of the People’s Daily reported that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait were discussing the signing of a cross-strait cultural and educational exchange and cooperation agreement, which some people have called a cultural and educational version of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, in an attempt to institutionalize cultural and educational collaboration.

When Ma took office, his government blocked what they defined as the “desinicization course guideline” that was introduced by the previous administration and formed a special task force to adjust the curriculum. After four years, the 2012 course guidelines were released. No one could have imagined that only two years later, as much as 60 percent of the Taiwanese history curriculum would be changed through what the government termed “minor corrections” due to “errors” and the need for “corrections” and “constitutional compliance.”

Why suddenly make such major changes? In analyzing events, it should be remembered that last year the student-led Sunflower movement broke out. Since Ma’s re-election two years ago, he has behaved more irrationally, but the seeds for change were planted long ago. China was naturally aware of this and anxiously prepared for the worst: A change in government power.

China previously entered into an “alliance” with the KMT as a means of implementing its unification strategies. However, now that the KMT has lost support, Beijing has not used its influence and network in Taiwan to manage things on its own. This is important when trying to understand the reason for the changes to the finalized course guidelines.

Recently the Taiwan Solidarity Union put forward concrete evidence — a list of all the members on the course guideline task force — and accused the Ministry of Education of being China’s “unification education ministry.” This is evidence that the CCP no longer trusts the KMT and is directly managing education-related affairs, rather than relying on the KMT as the go-between.

Christian Fan Jiang is deputy convener of the Northern Taiwan Society’s legal and political group.

Translated by Zane Kheir

本報24/7隨時更新 歡迎定閱newsletter

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here