Improving ‘competitiveness’
I’d like to offer some observations on President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) announcement concerning university classes taught in English (“Ma calls for more university classes taught in English,” Nov. 8, page 3).
“If we refuse to make changes, great teachers and students will be gone and it will be more difficult for us to raise competitiveness,” Ma was quoted as saying.
This fragment is ambiguous. In what sense did Ma mean “competitiveness” — in relation to the economy or to Taiwan’s universities versus universities in other countries?
Unfortunately, the article does not clarify this. If Ma intended it in the former sense rather than the latter, then that is substantially different. However, I suppose it would strike most people as obvious that more competitive universities would improve general economic competitiveness.
Yet there is overwhelming evidence that this is simply not true. Two months ago, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, in China, reported that graduates from Chinese universities were earning salaries equal to or in many cases lower than those of migrant field workers from Southeast Asia.
The situation in Taiwan is not vastly different. How does it raise economic competitiveness for a young person to spend large sums of their parents’ money (often financed by debt) and four crucial years of their young lives only to graduate and work at a deli counter or a KFC?
This is lunacy.
Earlier in the article, Ma is quoted as saying: “Higher education in Taiwan should not keep its doors closed any more.”
Might I suggest that Taiwan do precisely the opposite? It is high time that many universities and technical colleges were deprived of state funding. This would not only result in the closure of many smaller, less prestigious universities, but, perhaps more importantly, force the government to repeal or relax laws and regulations that stand in the way of entrepreneurial start-ups.
The best way to raise economic competitiveness is to allow young people to learn to compete economically. The traditional Chinese attitude of revering education, along with disproportionate state support for education, is destroying the potential for many young people to create and sustain their own lives.
Michael Fagan
Tainan
Nazi camps weren’t ‘Polish’
I was shocked to read your photo caption describing a survivor of a “Polish concentration camp” (“Auschwitz survivor speaks against hazards of hatred,” Nov. 11, page 4).
There were no Polish concentration camps — only German ones. This is a complete mix-up of victims and aggressors.
Polish nationals were killed just like Jews in numerous German concentration camps during World War II. Polish citizens regardless of ethnic background were victims of barbaric German and Soviet acts.
It’s completely unacceptable and insensitive to make this kind of mistake. The infamous Auschwitz concentration camp was built by the German government and run by the German military from beginning to end.
I have much higher expectations of the Taipei Times, in particular when touching on issues related to history or human rights. I think most Taiwanese would feel outraged if an international media outlet made a mistake like this regarding Taiwan’s history.
TOMASZ SWATOWSKI
Taipei
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS