Recent reports show that about 20 national museums and cultural centers under the Ministry of Education were demoted and lost their title as "national" institutions. This has caused alarm among personnel at these organizations as the demotion meant the loss of independence and the right to appoint staff.
While some may think these institutions were demoted because of serious wrongdoing, the reality is that it was all done in the name of "reorganization."
Ten of the demoted institutions have been transferred to the Council for Cultural Affairs for governance. Strangely enough, the council plans to double its size -- from three departments to six -- presumably to handle the new institutions under its care.
This change brings to mind the way the ministry carries out annual evaluations of junior colleges and vocational high schools. Based on these, it decides which schools can expand their classes, which must accept less students and which must close. Accepting less students means a demotion, while expanding classes is a promotion. Why can't this same approach be applied to the streamlining of museums and cultural centers?
The National Central Library and the National Science and Technology Museum managed to keep their status as "national" institutions. But what mechanism was used to decide which institutions should be promoted or demoted?
Some reports have said that an institution with more than 300 employees qualifies. But having a large number of staff hardly counts as a valid criterion.
Having a clear mechanism for evaluating a museum or cultural center's status can also be useful in other ways. For example, the National Museum of History has arranged for an exhibition of rare treasures from abroad. The foreign party only agreed to lend its treasures after ascertaining that the museum really was a national institution.
And if one were to judge a museum's status by its achievements, a look at some recent exhibitions would reveal some disappointments. Take, for example, the Taipei Fine Arts Museum. One of its recent exhibitions, "Dirty Yoga," was deemed a success by the Taipei City Government and described in a local magazine as one of the best exhibitions last year.
However, an inquiry by National Taiwan Normal University revealed that the exhibition cost NT$22 million and attracted 133,766 visitors, placing the average cost per visitor at NT$164. With the entrance fee costing only NT$30, the city government had to pay a subsidy of NT$134 per visitor.
What is clearly needed is a fair mechanism to make official evaluations. Unfortunately, as one newspaper report said: "This kind of annual review in the art world should be done by the Council for Cultural Affairs." It's a pity it isn't.
So, before reducing the tasks of the education ministry and expanding the council's, it would be prudent, a priori, to determine what the public wants.
Public impression of the council is limited to the belief that it is an institution that has produced many museum directors and published a lot of books.
However, even this latter function has been criticized on the YLib Web site, which said the council's publications value quantity over quality and that all of them were outsourced.
We are still awaiting an investigation by the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission on this issue. Only then can a decision be made on what institutions should be reduced or expanded.
Lu Ching-fu is a professor in the Institute of Fashion and Communication Design at Shih Chien University.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS