◎ Ke Jiazhi
The principal of Jinhua Junior High School issued an open letter to apologize. (Taken from the school’s official website)
"Children, there is no need to rush to defend the school in online communities." Huang Qiqing, the principal of Jinhua Junior High School, wrote this sentence in an open letter. He also wrote that "all administrative responsibilities should be borne by me personally." The clearest purpose of this letter is to protect children: to allow students who are unwell to speak out about their experiences, so that other students do not have to defend the school online in order to protect the school's reputation.
The principal did not rush to draw conclusions about the safety of Xiaojuan's meals. He first admitted that some people reported feeling unwell, and also admitted that the uneasiness caused by the incident to students should be taken seriously. He apologized to the affected students, promised to provide care, and said that he would re-examine the meal acceptance, sample retention, abnormal response and notification processes. In contrast, the previous response from the Taipei City Government Education Bureau focused on refuting the doubters.
Please read on...
The competent authorities have the responsibility to explain based on the evidence why the existing information does not meet the standards for identifying mass food poisoning; they also have the responsibility to listen to students' feedback. However, the Education Bureau's press release used words such as "unexpected revelations," "rolling over," and "rumors." Mayor Jiang Wanan even called the controversy "cognitive warfare." When political attacks and defenses outweigh the concern for children, how can the city government convince students that they can feel free to speak out when they feel uncomfortable?
The title of the press release from the Beijing Municipal Education Bureau used words such as "Oolong revelations" and "Rolling over." (Taken from the official website of the Taipei City Government Education Bureau)
What needs more explanation is the notification date. The school previously stated that it received the first student report on September 9; the principal's open letter also stated that the first official notification was received "five days after the meal on September 4." However, the Education Bureau’s press release on September 23 stated that it only received the first student’s complaint on September 11. This date was still used when responding to the principal’s open letter on September 28, and stated that both parties had the same statement. Where does the two-day gap come from? If the records or wording are different, the Education Bureau should provide information to clarify it, rather than asking outsiders to accept it in full.
The principal's open letter cannot prove that Xiaojuan caused food poisoning, but it illuminates the imbalance of the city's response. He is willing to apologize to the children first and ask them not to bear the blame for adults. However, the city government has repeatedly asked the doubters to apologize. If Jiang Wanan really puts students' rights and interests first, the most important thing to do now is to put down political vocabulary and explain clearly the date of the first report, the subsequent notification and investigation process, and what questions have not yet been clarified.
If Jiang Wanan really puts the rights of students first, the most important thing to do now is to clearly explain the date of the first report, the subsequent reporting and investigation process, and what questions have not yet been clarified. (provided by the city)
(The author is a Kaohsiung citizen)
