台灣教育部長強暴教育基本法(漢英對照) ◎ 范姜提昂/自由時報+Taipei Times/ 2015-07-23

敬請支持‧歡迎訂閱本報newsletter

教育基本法,國家制定及執行教育政策的根本大法!而凡是「根本大法」其本質都離不開憲法性質的法律本色:保障人民,限制政府!

道理很簡單,凡「民主憲政體制」國家必定遵行「法治」原則;在法治原則下「法律高於一切」,執政者行使統治權不能因為任何人,包括國王在內的個人意志而違背法律;除非經過合法民主程序,改變根本大法。

 教育部長吳思華。(資料照,記者叢昌瑾攝)

黑箱課綱事件從頭到尾是醜聞!教育部居然膽敢窩藏一群關起門竄改課綱,自知見不得人的委員!東躲西藏,是因為照理,身為教育部長應該心知肚明,違背「受教者觀點」的任何課綱,都違反教育基本法!

歡迎訂閱本報newsletter

因為「教育基本法」規定得很清楚!第二條不但明定「人民為教育權之主體」並清楚界定「受教者」以外的「施教者」只擔任協助角色:「為實現前項教育目的,國家、教育機構、教師、父母應負協助之責任」。

夠清楚吧?在教育孩子這件工作上,不僅父母,連「國家」、「教育機構」及「教師」都只是「應負協助之責任」的「協助者」!馬英九和吳思華當然也是。

這意味什麼?這意味:管你什麼史觀、意識形態,教育基本法明文規定,以「受教者」的孩子們出生以後,看山看水、看人看事的「視窗」為「觀點」;不能為了特定目的,分裂孩子人格;不能要他們與從小所見所聞的人、地、事、物脫軌!

這也是為什麼「教育基本法」第二條第二項「教育之目的」列有「愛國教育」與「鄉土關懷」的道理。現在,真相越來越明!大搞「一中同表」與「黑箱課綱」的急統派是「兩塊招牌,一套人馬」,同一批人馬「閹割」鄉土感情,同時把愛國教育「愛」到中國去,企圖拉緊「同表大中國」精神韌帶。

這一切,他們都說合憲,胡說八道!第一、根據釋字三二八號解釋,大法官拒絕解釋固有疆域,疆域無解,大中國理論全部失去支撐!第二、憲法及增修條文,從頭到尾沒有「台灣地區」,若要把「自由地區」正名為「台灣地區」,那請先把「國家統一前」拿掉,意思是:還有得吵!爭議中的東西,不要拿來當太上法律,吳思華違法亂紀,必須下台!(作者為資深電子媒體工作者)

——————————————————————–

Curriculum chaos defies the law of the land

By Christian Fan Jiang 范姜提昂

The Educational Fundamental Act (教育基本法) is the legislation governing the creation and execution of the nation’s education policy. All legislation, by its very nature, should enshrine the constitutional objectives of law: To protect the public and to keep the government in check.

All democratic countries operating a system of constitutional government must respect the rule of law, in which nothing is above the law. National leaders should never, in the exercise of their powers, break the law for their personal interest, and the fundamental law of such a country cannot be changed except through a legal, democratic process.

The whole fiasco of the non-transparent adjustments to high-school curriculum guidelines has been a scandal. The Ministry of Education had the gall to bring together, behind closed doors, a committee to make changes to the national curriculum guidelines. Minister of Education Wu Se-hwa (吳思華) must have been aware that any curriculum that did not represent the viewpoint of the recipient of the education would be breaching the act.

This is because the stipulations within the act are very clear. Article 2 of the act states that “people are the subject of education rights.” It also says that those implementing the provision of education are there to assist the recipient in their self-realization, specifically: “The state, educational institutions, teachers and parents alike shall share responsibilities to facilitate in the realization of the aforesaid education purposes.”

Could that be any clearer? In the task of educating children, not only parents, but the state, educational institutions and teachers are also facilitators sharing the responsibility of education. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Wu are of course also included among these facilitators.

This means that irrespective of differing views of history or ideological beliefs, the act clearly states that children should be provided with an education from the viewpoint of the window through which they have seen the world from the time of their birth, and that you cannot, in order to achieve a specific objective, enforce a different reality on these children. That is, you cannot ask them to learn only about people, places, events and things that bear little relation to the world they have become familiar with.

This is also why Article 2 of the act lists “patriotic education” and “caring for the native soil” as the purposes of education. Things are becoming increasingly apparent. The fervent unification advocates behind the idea of “one China, same interpretation” and the non-transparent adjustments to the curriculum guidelines are peas in a pod, hoping to neuter children’s identification with the land in which they were born and to graft patriotic feelings onto China in order to reinforce identification with the unified idea of a “Greater China.”

This, they say, is all completely constitutional. Rubbish. In Constitutional Interpretation 328, the Council of Grand Justices refused to interpret the question: “What are the boundaries of the national territory of the Republic of China [ROC]?” Without an interpretation of the national territory of the ROC, the idea of a “Greater China” is left adrift. More so, nowhere in the ROC Constitution or its Additional Articles does it mention the “Taiwan area,” and if they want to change the term “free area of the ROC” (中華民國自由地區) to “Taiwan area,” they must first remove the qualifier “prior to national unification” in the preamble to the Additional Articles.

In other words: Enough is enough. Do not take controversial issues and codify them in law. It is time for Wu to resign. He has broken the law and is causing chaos.

Christian Fan Jiang is a media commentator.

Translated by Paul Cooper

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