Addressing the 2005 Youth National Affairs Conference (
Generally, only four universities in China are recognized as meeting top-flight international standards: Peking University and Tsinghua University in Beijing, and Fudan University and Jiao Tong University in Shanghai. US assessments rank Peking University, the most prestigious of the four, 170th on a list of major universities. Taiwan's top university, National Taiwan University, ranks around 100th. It is hardly likely that Taiwan's elite students would forgo attending the nation's top universities in favor of going to China, as one pro-unification newspaper has suggested.
There are three types of Taiwanese students studying in China. There are those who performed poorly in college entrance or graduate school entrance exams; those who intend to pursue advanced studies in Chinese medicine; and KMT, People First Party or independent politicians who want to obtain a higher degree while avoiding the more stringent standards they would face at home.
Moreover, entry into universities in China is generally organized by agencies that charge between NT$100,000 to NT$200,000 for admission. Students who are admitted in this way are not required to go through the examinations held by China's Ministry of Education, and therefore only obtain a "certificate of completion" rather than a degree recognized by the Chinese government at the end of their studies.
What is even more absurd is that a number of especially affluent lawmakers, seeking to avoid the fate of KMT Legislator Yu Yueh-hsia (游月霞) -- who remained so long in China that she failed to attend legislative sittings and subsequently lost her seat -- are bringing their "teachers" over from China. In this way, classes can be held at convenient times, between legislative sessions and seeing to constituents.
Others attend classes for a few days at the beginning and end of each term, then settle matters with their professors to guarantee that they pass the exams. There is no need to ask about the quality of graduates produced from this system.
Some education professionals in Taiwan have warned against recognizing Chinese degrees, as the nation's 100 or so universities already have trouble filling spots. If Chinese degrees were recognized, many of these schools might face closure because of a lack of students. The result would be more unemployed teachers. It would also deal a serious blow to education in Taiwan, not dissimilar to that caused by the hollowing out of the industrial base through the transfer of production to China.
If Ma has any concern for Taiwan, how can he countenance a "united front" strategy that attempts to drag Taiwan's education down to the same level as China's? The low standing of many Chinese institutes of higher education is a result of its poor education system. Taiwan has the right not to recognize qualifications of such institutes in order to protect its own institutions.
Chen's insistence that Chinese degrees not be recognized is perfectly appropriate. Ma should take a long, hard look at his own misdirected policy.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS