日本帝國與殖民地台灣教育法制

The Education Laws of the Empire of Japan and Colonial Taiwan

福田健一(Fukuda Kenichi)

指導教授 ： 王泰升

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2011年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2011.02519

摘要

歷史中並沒有所謂的「善意之殖民地統治」，殖民地統治也並非「慈善事業」，所有殖民地統治政策均不考慮殖民地當地人民，相反地，僅重視殖民地母國狀況而決定政策，當然日本的台灣統治也是屬於此狀況。因此，本文目的並非正當化日本殖民地政策。然而，過去的日治時期臺灣教育法制研究過於化約，也就是將「殖民地母國日本」與「殖民地台灣」理所當然地分別論述之，並且研究範圍幾乎只限於台灣總督府而不考量台灣與日本內地政府之間的關係。然而，由於教育政策對於國家的將來影響相當大，於是大日本帝國憲法中並無規定教育相關內容，反而依敕令來制定這些政策，而這始得即使連帝國議會也無法干涉。因此，認為日本中央政府將有可能支配殖民地統治結果的教育相關事項交給臺灣總督是殊難想像的。雖然制度上敕令是以天皇名稱來公佈，但並非所有敕令均由天皇自己決定的。因此，考察該時期教育政策時，不可忽略透過權力決定教育相關敕令內容的日本內地統治階級。因此，本文認為透過日本與台灣教育政策的決定過程的比較，便能瞭解日本與台灣之間的關聯性。
對日本帝國整體而言，台灣是一個相當特別的領域，雖然明治政府常被叫藩閥政府，可是藩閥勢力之間也有對立，甚至同派系之間也有對立。1895年到1922年台灣是由長洲派軍人或官僚統治，而該派系以山縣有朋為中心。山縣有朋的影響力降低後，政黨勢力便掌握日本內地政治，此後由政黨勢力主張的教育政策影響到臺灣，此即本文所述的臺灣教育令與新臺灣教育令的差別在此，因此，談日期時期臺灣教育法制時，不應只考察臺灣總督府或臺灣的狀況，相反地，應要考察日本內地領導人與臺灣總督府之間的關聯性。
本文認為，過去臺灣學者研究的方式是基於「統治者」與「本島人(臺灣人)」的對立關係，因而將日本政府與臺灣總督府擺在相同立場。然而，事實並非如此單純，臺灣總督府與日本政府之間有時會產生對立，於是應深入詳細地研究。對國家而言，臺灣總督僅為一位外派官僚而已，因此，不應過於重視他。而日本近代教育史研究方面，由於我們了解雖然天皇是名義上的最高權力者，但所有政策並非僅交由他一人決定。因此，日本研究者在考察政策時，基本上會以當時日本領導人(政治家或軍人)來考察教育政策的變遷，其實戰前教育最表現出當時領導人的價值觀。因此，本文從該觀點來研究該時期的臺灣教育法制。
另外，江戶時代日本有三百多個藩(地方政府)，當時日本為地方分權國家並無共通的教育體制或內容，然而，明治維新企圖以近代教育形成對國家而言的理想「日本人」，就是將這些三百幾個藩的人民變成均質化的日本人。國民是以近代性教育形成的概念，日本政府或台灣總督府為了同化台灣人，有時採用與日本內地同樣的教育政策或方法，因此，並非在台灣適用的所有教育政策是殖民地教育政策，反而許多教育政策是曾經於日本內地使用或與日本內地同時使用在臺灣。
一般來說，本文認為日本殖民地相關研究過於重視朝鮮而輕視臺灣，想要正當化日本殖民地統治的人物才提到台灣，他們以日本建設的基礎設施為理由而主張日本殖民地統治的正當性，相反地，想要批判日本殖民地統治的人物僅提到朝鮮，他們以此批判日本殖民地統治。雖然所有研究者多半只搜尋自己需要的文獻或資料，此乃所有研究者的通病。然而，對日本研究者而言，此通病在關於殖民地研究方面相當嚴重。基本上，兩方均基於資料或文獻，因此，兩方均表現了事實的一部分，但兩者卻也僅表現事實的一部分而已。筆者很少看到客觀的殖民地相關研究，相反地，殖民地研究多半帶有深刻的政治色彩。我希望不管日本或臺灣均能超越殖民地相關研究的現況而致力於更客觀的研究成果。

關鍵字

殖民地研究 ； 國語教育 ； 殖民地同化政策 ； 山縣有朋 ； 台灣教育政策 ； 日本殖民地政策 ； 教育敕語

並列摘要

In the history of the world, “colonization with goodwill” has never existed. All the decisions were made by the government of the colonial master without the consideration for the local people in the dominated country. The colonization of Taiwan by the Empire of Japan is not an exception. Colonization is always an enterprise without good intention. Hence, the purpose of this study is not to justify the 50 years of Japanese rule of Taiwan.

There are some serious shortcomings in previous studies on the education laws in the Japanese colonial Taiwan. First of all, most of the studies discuss the dichotomy between the colonial-master Japan and its dependency Taiwan and rarely referred to the interchanges between Japan and Taiwan. The focus of those studies is the differences between the Japanese citizens living in Taiwan and the local Taiwanese. This is a serious problem because we can never capture the features of the education laws in colonial Taiwan without understanding of the characteristics of the educational policies and laws in Japan. Empire of Japan in those days, had no education laws, only imperial decrees regarding education. Education was a sacred area where even the Imperial Diet could not interfere. Since such importance was placed on education, it is hard to imagine that the Japanese government was willing to give this authority to the governor –general in Taiwan, who was merely a government official. Another serious shortcoming in previous studies is the overestimation of the governor-general in Taiwan’s actual power. As a matter of course, the Emperor was not the only person who composed enormous amount of imperial decrees. Who in the Meiji Government actually had the authority to pass the education laws? Were the education laws in Taiwan completely different from those of the Empire of Japan? Referring to those points, this study brings a more in-depth consideration regarding the education laws in Taiwan.

Taiwan was a very special territory for the Empire of Japan, where there were power struggles between political factions and even within factions. From the beginning of the colonization by Japan in 1895 until the eighth governor-general, Den Kenjiro, Taiwan was ruled by the military personnel led by Yamagata Aritomo and government officials from the Yamagata group. In 1920, the political power shifted from Yamagata Aritomo to Hara Takashi, and a drastic change in the education policy, both in Japan and Taiwan, was observed. The differences in educational vision between these two powers were clearly reflected in the Taiwan Education Ordinance and the Revised Taiwan Education Ordinance. This fact implies that we should pay greater attention to the relationship between the two places than to the simple dichotomy between the dominating –power, Japan, and Taiwan under the control of Japan.

In the Edo Era Japan consisted of over three hundred han (domains with local governments) and its power was decentralized. Therefore, there were no unified or national education systems or methods. The Meiji Government attempted to unify the country by providing its people with modern education and to create a new concept for the nation. “Nationality” was a new concept created by modern education, and all the educational policies introduced in Japan were implemented in Taiwan later. Therefore, the education policies realized in Taiwan were not necessarily for the purpose of colonial education. Rather, Japan and Taiwan shared the same education policies.

Generally in Japan, more researchers have been interested in the studies of colonial Korea than those of colonial Taiwan. Those who justify colonial policy often refer to the success of the colonization of Taiwan, and those who criticize colonial policy tend to discuss the colonization of Korea. Most researchers in this field favor materials which make their interpretation sound more persuasive. Their studies include historical fact compiled by a vast amount of material. However, in regard to colonization, there are many studies with strong political messages but few with objective points of view. This study attempts to present colonization objectively and without the use of politically toned view points.

並列關鍵字

colonization research ； education policy ； Aritomo Yamagata ； education policy of Taiwan ； Japan colonialism

參考文獻

王錦雀，「日治時期 臺灣公民教育與公民特性」(國立編譯館，2005年)

(ミネルヴァ書房，2009年)

(講談社，2005年)

(藤原書店2008年)

1、中文