Today, as we all know, the minister will make a final statement to end the meeting.
So I hope the minister could write down some of the questions that he didn’t answer,
especially when many of his responses are problematic.
The minister just said the secrecy was to protect the committee members, so they can talk freely, that’s why the MOE doesn’t consider keeping that information from the public illegal.
I find that reasoning questionable. The fact is such act is already found guilty by the Taipei High Administrative Court in the first trial.
I think as such the Minister and the MOE should respect the ruling of the Administrative court,
and not say stuff like “it isn’t illegal because we don’t think it’s illegal.”
In addition, if committee members would feel harassed, than we need to know how does the illegal act justify upsetting the balance between public interest and private interest.
We’d like the minister address the balance of public interest and private interest on the issue of MOE secrecy.
The minister also said, all final decisions were announced during the meeting.
However, legislator Zheng Li-jun said that in the Jan. 15th committee meeting, most of the modified items were decided by consensus, even pass by having applause, or take home votes.
Please explain is difference in the narrative caused by legislator Zheng misunderstanding the process, or did the minister not tell us the whole story.
Also, you said the contents of the new modified textbook guideline is good, and the teachers and students has the right to choose which guideline to use.
If that’s the case, then I have to ask, what’s the purpose of drafting any guideline in the first place?
If the guideline are irrelevant, and the teachers do not need to follow it when teaching a curriculum, then the guideline is pointless.
In that case we wouldn’t need modification at all, why not just rescind it?
If the MOE truly feels that the guideline does not to be followed, why insist on pushing a highly controversial textbook guideline?
I’d like to offer the MOE officials a word of advise, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
If you can’t be accountable and rescind the guideline in question after it’s been found illegal,
if you are afraid of accepting public supervision and have to resort of black box committees,
if most of the people find the new modification controversial, but you can’t shoulder the responsibility,
I suggest that politics isn’t the career path for you.
The minister also didn’t address the issue of modified word count.
MOE said they’ve only adjusted 23% of the text, that doesn’t sound like much.
Only a quarter, well even less a quarter of changes.
But does this evaluation method really mean there were only a few modifications?
There only a single word difference between “it’s so hot today” and “It’s not hot today.”
There are only a few changes to “the Mayans were conquered by the Spanish” and “the Mayans conquered the Spanish” as well,
however, the meaning is completely the opposite.
I don’t think the word counts is a valid way to evaluate the issue.
I suggest the MOE to immediately address issue of how much was modified.
Some people say it’s a 30% difference, some say it’s a 60% content difference,
Please address what standard should be used when evaluating the amount of change.
教育部說他們只調了 23% 的字數，聽起來好少喔！
更何況，有些人算出來是 30% 的差異，有些人算出來是 60% 的內容差異
To extend on the issue, the minister has also said
that the controversial contents won’t be tested. Exactly what does that mean?
Does it mean what the students and the public finds controversial wouldn’t be tested? Or does it mean only what the 4 officials here today finds controversial wouldn’t be tested?
Please tell use what is the difference.
Finally, please respond directly, under the immense controversy of the black box committee,
would you suspend this textbook guideline modification? would you rescind it?
would you reexamine it after it has cause so much public debate,
and give the public a peace of mind?
In my opinion, if the minister continues to skirt around the point and refuse to give an direct response,
I would suggest to not go on and waste the time of the other 3 schools. Thank you.