I was stunned to read in the China Times that the government is to downgrade social education centers. In the last few years the government has been making noises about organizational re-engineering, but it seems they have only been thinking in terms of institutions involved in "social education."
It is as though these unfortunate institutions are the only obstacles the government sees, and since the government is not able to disband them altogether as it would like, it is left with the option of either driving them out or suppressing them.
For a start, "social education institution" is just a convenient term as these institutions come under the administrative auspices of the Department of Social Education of the Ministry of Education. You only have to have the slightest connection with museums -- especially the national level museums -- to know that they perform an array of important functions that cannot be done by any other institutions, particularly when it comes to academic research.
The majority of advanced nations in the West use their museums as yardsticks of the country's culture, and this is why national museums tend to be found in the center of capital cities, or in the public spaces that most symbolize political power.
For example, the renowned Smithsonian complex lies at the opposite end of the Mall from the US Capitol in Washington, London's museums are concentrated in South Kensington, central Berlin has the Museumsinsel (Museum Island) and the Hofburg Imperial Palace in Vienna houses several important museums. Furthermore, the French president had the final say when it came to the construction of major contemporary museums in Paris.
All of this goes to show that these countries view their museums as symbols of national cultural progress. Social education is but one of the functions they perform.
Three decades ago Taiwan embarked on a program of cultural construction, and the ministry officially announced a construction project for national level museums, having noted the high status accorded to museums in Western countries. Nevertheless, even though these museums were given level three status, they were still at the mercy of the whims of the government minister, and did not have the freedom to decide their own future.
Fortunately, a number of ministers at the time did, in fact, respect the decisions of those in charge, and so the construction projects progressed relatively smoothly.
Strictly speaking, the fact that the government's Research, Development and Evaluation Commission gave the national museums legal status as a person was a step in the right direction. However, too little attention was paid to the organizational details of this status during the actual legislative process, and the government also failed to make adequate provision for running costs, leading to opposition because of the perceived difficulties of running the institutions.
Why exactly the government decided against amending the draft legislation that would have made the museums independent, self-governing cultural institutions, as is the case in the UK and the US, just makes the mind boggle.
What advantages are there to be had from downgrading these institutions to level four? Actually, there is only one, and that is that it makes it easier for the ministry to throw its weight around. In the past it was difficult for the ministry to do what it pleased because level three institutions are protected by organic law. When the institutions are downgraded, the minister can have directors do as he wants.
There is an unwritten principle in modern democratic societies that the government should not intervene in the arts or in education. Such is the case when the British government provides funding for state universities like Oxford and Cambridge, but stays out of how they are run.
It is the same for cultural and arts institutions: The government provides funding but does not designate who is to be the director. They have even set up intermediary bodies to issue the funding in an effort to prevent government intervention, to keep the government "at arm's length."
Although this principle is not followed explicitly in Taiwan, in the past ministers have by and large recognized the importance of the spirit behind it and have done their best to maintain a hands-off policy. Today, however -- in the interests of convenience for ministers -- heads of cultural and arts institutions can be replaced at the drop of a hat. To some, this may well smack of thought control.
So the problems that will be caused by the downgrading from level three to level four will be more than just the possibility of museum talent jumping ship, or certain civil servants being treated unfairly. I believe that the greatest impact in terms of personnel will be in the senior levels of the museum hierarchy because as the status of these institutions fall, people with their own ideals and true academic status will sever their ties with them.
Who wants to work in management in an institution that has lost its autonomy, and which is subject to commandments from arrogant and overbearing masters? Put another way, government ministers will likely be quite happy to place "yes men" in management positions in these institutions. If these institutions are, in fact, downgraded, we will lose the independence of culture and the arts.
Han Pao-teh is director of the Museum of World Religions.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS