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.
今天，大家應該都知道嘛，等一下部長要來講
那我希望等一下部長可以記下來，他剛剛有一些沒有回覆的問題
而且他剛剛回覆的問題有很大的瑕疵，
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.
剛剛他說，他們因為要「保護委員」，讓他們可以暢所欲言，所以他們覺得不違法
那我就覺得很奇怪，今天高等行政法院一審已經判成違法了
那我覺得部長你們應該就要尊重行政法院判決
而不是告訴我說因為我覺得不違法，所以就不違法
而且，如果委員他會被騷擾，那我們也知道，有沒有違法事要公益與私益去權衡
那我們希望部長就公益與私益要怎麼權衡來回應
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.
那你說，所有的結果都有當場宣布，
一月十五號的審議會議，鄭麗君立委就講說，
他們很多東西都是用共識決，變成「鼓掌通過」，甚至帶回家投票的
那請問一下，這是鄭麗君委員理解錯誤，還是部長你沒有回應呢？
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?
再來，你說內容很好，而且教師跟學生有自己選擇的權利
那，我就想請問一下，那編課綱幹嘛？
既然課綱這麼沒用，教師都不用照著他教，那編課綱幹嘛？
那我們今天也不需要微調，乾脆撤回了
為什麼教育部要堅持這麼沒用，又這麼具有爭議性的課綱呢
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.
奉勸各位教育部的官員，怕熱就不要進廚房啊！
如果你們沒有被判違法就要收回的擔當
如果你接受社會檢驗，大家都說黑箱
很多人認為有爭議，你們仍然不肯承擔的話
那我建議，不要走從政這條路，可以另尋他職
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.
部長跟各位沒有回答，字數問題
教育部說他們只調了 23% 的字數，聽起來好少喔！
只有四分之一，可能只有四分之一不到
這種審法字數，真的很少嗎？
「今天好熱」跟「今天不熱」，只差一個字
「馬雅人被西班牙人滅亡」跟「馬雅人把西班牙人滅亡」，也只差一個字
意思卻是完全相反
我不認為，教育部用字數來回答我們具有任何的效力
我建議教育部馬上回應我們關於字數的問題
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
那究竟要用什麼標準算，麻煩告訴我們
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.
第二個，你剛剛有回答的
爭議不考，究竟是什麼爭議不考
是我們覺得的爭議不考，還是坐在台上的四位官員覺得的爭議不考
究竟差別在哪裡？麻煩你趕快回答
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?
再來，麻煩你直接回應我們 今天在黑箱，並且在有這麼大的爭議狀況下
你要不要暫停課綱，要不要撤回
要不要把這個具有高度社會爭議的東西重審
並且讓社會可以放心
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.
我認為啦，如果部長你要繼續回應這種摸不著邊際，而且不正面回應
我建議不要浪費其他三所學校的時間啦，謝謝
