The pan-blue camp's lies
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the fundamental fallacy underlying the arguments most frequently heard during Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Lie number 1: "The DPP administration's performance has been extremely poor." Fact: Despite quite a few flip-flops and an unrelenting boycott in the Legislative Yuan by a pan-blue camp hellbent on wrecking Taiwan's economy, the DPP administration has done a good job in steering the Taiwanese economy out of its first recession. Actually, according to international organizations, the Taiwanese economy has even become more competitive and efficient over the past three years.
Lie number 2: "The KMT can manage the Taiwanese economy better than the DPP, so only the KMT can bring Taiwan back to the good old times." Fact: This is really the joke of the century. We all know that during the Lien's tenure as premier from 1993 to 1996 and Vincent Siew's (
Lie number 3: "Why waste time with those useless referendums? Let's keep the status quo and concentrate on the economy." Fact: If Taiwan can forcefully assert its independence from the Chinese dictators, and be internationally accepted with a brand new name and identity, it will be much easier for Taiwan to sign free-trade agreements (FTAs) that are so vital for Taiwan's future.
Lie number 4: "Why provoke China all the time, like the DPP administration is doing?" Fact: Hasn't the DPP administration extended too many olive branches to the Chinese dictators? And have any of them been ever reciprocated? On the contrary, China has stepped up its suppressive and overbearing behavior in the international arena. That statement by the Chinese official at the World Health Assembly, "Who cares about you Taiwanese?" is a perfect indication of this.
Lie number 5: "If the DPP keeps provoking China, eventually China will invade." Fact: China has already made it clear that Taiwan's refusal to unify on China's terms could be grounds for a military attack. Which means that by sticking to the status quo Taiwan is already provoking China. The only reason why China has not attacked yet is because it knows that any invasion will almost certainly be crushed. If they attacked using non-conventional weapons, it would cause not just a massive number of civilian casualties, but the global horror and repulsion could result in countries recognizing Taiwan. Needless to say, the "Boycott made in China" campaigns will gain huge impetus and the communist princelings who run the most profitable Chinese corporations will be hit straight in their pockets.
George Dukes
Sunderland, UK
Undervalued universities
The Ministry of Education has ranked universities by the total number of papers published in internationally published peer-reviewed journals, most of which are in English. On this measure, universities with a large proportion of faculty in the sciences tend to do better than those which are strong in humanities and social sciences. A well-established national university in Taipei was very upset with its low-ranking and protested to the Ministry of Education for using just one indicator for ranking, while ignoring the performance of those who write in Chinese or other languages (such as Arabic or French).
Professors who write textbooks in Chinese or who translate English into Chinese do not gain from this kind of evaluation. While being hesitant to apologize to the offended presidents of universities, the minister of education has not published any English papers in the last six years himself. Despite the debate over the evaluation system, many universities are devising strategies to overcome their "under-performance" in international publications. Some even offer awards to faculty who publish in such international journals. Some have started to solicit English editors or reviewers to upgrade their English papers. A large number are suffering from nightmares for not being promoted because they don't publish internationally, which in effect merely means that they don't publish in English.
There are many counter arguments to the present system of evaluating faculty. One of them is the opposition to an international (or American) standard for faculty performance. Faculty members who teach or research well in Chinese may not wish to write their papers in English, especially if their desired readership is primarily Chinese. Further, their other contributions to academia should also be recognized -- such as editorship of Chinese journals, co-ordinating research programs, organizing conferences and other services to the community. Such academics are quite often good teachers, mentors or advisors to graduate students. They also conduct research projects for different governmental levels, and through their formal consultancies and informal advice help local communities in many ways.
By using only the Western (by which is usually meant American) standard of gauging scholarship, the Ministry of Education may be unwittingly contributing to some of the less desirable aspects of globalization by discouraging those aspects of philosophical thought that are better conducted in Chinese or languages other than English as well as privileging a single cultural academic tradition at the expense of the many others that have served the world well. Forms of discourse developed in China, Eastern Europe or the Latin world may be very different from the currently dominant Western form of scholarship but they are not necessarily inferior. In their current actions, the Ministry of Education may be subjecting Chinese academia to a form of intellectual hegemony it might well regret in the future.
Lan-hung Nora Chiang
Dean of College of Humanities and Social Sciences, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath