The announcement by Soochow University on Tuesday that it is considering limiting the number of appearances made by its professors on TV political talk shows to four a month raises several interesting issues concerning freedom of speech and an employer’s right to limit an employee’s extracurricular activities.
The idea may be a controversial one, but switching on the TV night after night and seeing the same old faces waxing lyrical about the day’s events does get tedious after a while, no matter whether you agree with their opinions or not. It would at least give viewers a chance to hear some different opinions instead of the same hackneyed views from the same dozen or so talking heads.
If political parties were to make a similar proposal one would assume there would be widespread support as it would rid the screens of some of the nation’s more polarizing characters.
But it would be much more acceptable and a better idea all round if TV stations were to try to improve their programming by widening the pool of pundits to ensure that individuals only appear once every two weeks or so. But this would require a move away from the lazy, cut-price news coverage that is synonymous with cable TV.
Some of the reasons given by the university for the measure seem valid in that professors who appear almost nightly on such talk shows obviously have less time to devote to their students. The universities are their primary employers after all, and concern that such extracurricular activity — if it is affecting the professors’ ability to maintain their quality of teaching — is entirely justified. The only question remaining is why have these concerns not been raised until now?
Even if the proposal was first submitted last year, as the university claims, the timing of the announcement seems suspect. It comes just as Soochow University president Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) is set to assume the role of premier in the government of president-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
Pan-green camp claims that the move is aimed at silencing critics of the new government have some credibility, especially when one considers reports that pan-blue supporters who contribute to Soochow have threatened to halt donations if its faculty continue to appear on air.
While freedom of speech is an important consideration, especially given Taiwan’s history of repression, Government Information Office Minister Shieh Jhy-wey (謝志偉) hit the nail on the head when he said the professors should be allowed to say what they like away from the campus as long as they don’t spend time propagating their views in class.
Around the world universities have historically been breeding grounds for dissent, and this should not change at one of the nation’s most prestigious schools because of complaints from a few wealthy bigots.
To restrict the outside activities of Soochow’s staff in response to complaints from monied benefactors could put healthy political discourse in the nation on a slippery slope.
How ironic it would be if it were to happen in the same week that we bid farewell to one of our most prominent political dissidents, Bo Yang (柏楊), and that Freedom House once again ranked the nation’s media as Asia’s and one of the world’s freest.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers