Academia, politics not mutally exclusive

On July 1, Academia Sinica held a meeting of its Assembly of Mem-bers. At the opening ceremony, Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tseh (李遠哲) said that international academic competition is very intense, that mobility among academic talent is the norm and that these two phenomena are converging to create a new kind of globalization. He emphasized that every country is eager to attract outstanding talent and that there is no room for nationalism. He is right, but I don't know who he could be talking to. There is no nationalism to speak of in Taiwan. China, however, is pushing for unrestrained nationalism.

The meeting coincided with the fifth anniversary of Hong Kong's handover. Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮), who also spoke at the ceremony, said that according to research from Hong Kong, the period since the handover has brought falling real-estate prices and a rise in unemployment to 7.4 percent. She quoted statistics showing that 60 percent of Hong Kong residents feel that life has deteriorated, while 50 percent believe that Hong Kong is a mess. Only 2.2 percent feel Chinese, a far cry from the 30 percent prior to the return to China.

Lu went on to say that China has more than 400 missiles aimed at Taiwan and that it is as if the whole world were a zoo where China is the lion showing its fangs and sharpening its claws, while Taiwan is Hello Kitty.

Lu's remarks triggered a fierce rebuttal from Academia Sinica scholar Hsiang Wu-chung (項武忠). He said that 50 years ago, when Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) wanted the institution to study the Three Principles of the People, believing that these principles could save China, then Academia Sinica president Hu Shi (胡適) said the institution should not get involved with politics. Hsiang finished with the words "I protest" and was met with thunderous applause. Hsiang's point, apparently, was that whoever is in power should not bring their politics to the institution.

The argument that there should be no political interference in academia is a direct reaction to Chinese chauvinism. Academia Sinica, and especially the institutes of history and sociology, harbor many pro-unificationists who are opposed to former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), Lu and other proponents of Taiwan-ese sovereignty.

It is easy to understand that Hsiang and other scholars are unhappy to hear any criticism of China. But when they jump to their feet shouting "I protest" in response to Lu saying a few words about China casting hungry glances at Taiwan. Do they disagree with the vice president talking politics, or her talking about Chinese imperialism? The answer is clear.

Lu is Taiwan's vice president. What should she talk about in a speech at an event where she is the hostess if not politics? Physical chemistry? Wouldn't she be guilty of dereliction of duty if she didn't talk about politics in support of Taiwan?

Academia Sinica is an important institution, but it's no ivory tower. Caring for Taiwan should be an important responsibility. The institution is supported by taxpayers' money. Its scholars travel across the Taiwan Strait, receiving princely treatment in Beijing. But have they ever protested against political control of China's Academy of Sciences or Academy of Social Sciences?

China's political control of academic institutions is complete and airtight. Chinese President Jiang Zemin's (江澤民) political talks permeate China and there is no academic Eden free of political interference. In democratic Taiwan, it is OK for Hsiang and other academics to protest when Lu talks politics. In China, when Jiang talks politics, will they, dare they, protest? I doubt it.

Chiou Chwei-liang is a visiting professor at the Graduate Institute of Southeast Asia Studies at Tamkang University.

Translated by Perry Svensson