Earlier this month, 67 Academia Sinica researchers jointly published an open letter in the Academia Sinica Weekly (中央研究院週報), giving the Examination Yuan a “C” grade in protest to its inaction on the Civil Service Administrative Neutrality Act (公務人員行政中立法), an inaction that has let the law, highly criticized upon passage last year, continue to harm Taiwan. The agency’s response reminds us of the incompetent public servants portrayed in the Taiwanese film No Puedo Vivir Sin Ti (不能沒有你).
The Examination Yuan’s original draft deprived civil servants of their basic rights. The final version passed by the Legislative Yuan was even more unreasonable thanks to an additional clause that directly restricts academic freedom. This resulted in a strong backlash from the public and academic circles, especially the faculty of Academia Sinica, the direct victims of that clause. Under social pressure, the Examination Yuan told the media it would be pleased to see an amendment passed. Minister of Civil Service Chang Che-chen (張哲琛) and then-Examination Yuan secretary-general Lin Shui-chi (林水吉) both visited Academia Sinica to ask Academia President Wong Chi-huey (翁啟惠) “for advice.”
Wong led the scholars at Academia Sinica to draft a proposal that suggested a complete amendment to the law. He then presented it to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the Examination Yuan. Wong was reportedly given a warm welcome when he met with Examination Yuan President John Kuan (關中) to discuss the matter. However, the agency later blamed the Legislative Yuan for the mistakes and rejected all of Academia Sinica’s suggestions. Since then, nothing has happened.
In an interview on April 2, Examination Yuan Secretary-General Hwang Yea-baang (黃雅榜) said the legislature had destroyed the law due to its amendments and asked Academia Sinica to push legislators to rectify it. The Examination Yuan is the authority charged with overseeing the Civil Service Administrative Neutrality Act. Under public pressure, it first said it would be pleased to see an amendment to the act, and top-level Examination Yuan officials visited Wong for advice. Once public pressure dissipated, it refused to propose an amendment, completely rejected all suggestions and instead passed the buck to the legislature, telling Academia Sinica to contact the legislature itself. Aren’t they behaving just like the glib but irresponsible civil servants portrayed in the movie? With this attitude, how can the president, minister and the Examination Yuan’s secretary-general possibly bring reform to the nation’s lower-level civil servants?
The Examination Yuan officials seem to have forgotten that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is in total control of government power and that it has promised to take corresponding full responsibility for that power. Isn’t it a fact that the political appointees at the Examination Yuan are members of the KMT? And isn’t the KMT the majority party in the legislature? Shouldn’t the Ma administration take full responsibility for the act proposed by the Examination Yuan and passed by the legislature?
If the Examination Yuan sincerely accepts the amendment plan suggested by Academia Sinica, perhaps it would still be able to restore the government’s image that was defiled by the act’s passage. On the other hand, if it tries to once again pass the buck, all the intellectuals who insist on academic freedom will persist in alerting people of the law’s menace. Then, in the next legislative and presidential elections, public opinion, which has been overwhelmingly critical of the law, will make voters aware which party is responsible for the debacle.
Kevin Stahl is an associate research fellow at Academia Sinica.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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