For the past couple of weeks, reports about a government plan to lift the ban on US beef imports containing residues of ractopamine, as well as about suspicions of a cover-up of the outbreak of avian influenza, have dominated the news. These have been fed not only by the actions of government officials, but of certain experts, whose words and deeds many have considered extremely suspicious. This has once again brought up the debate over whether politicians and academics are in bed with each other.
Farming has always been quite a conservative and closed area. It is quite difficult to get much information about what is going on in the industry, as many people intent on promoting agricultural reform have discovered. Investigating and reporting on issues concerning the rights of farmers is not easy: Just ask documentary filmmaker Kevin Lee (李惠仁), who had to delve deep into his own pockets to finish his film A Secret That Can’t Be Exposed (不能戳的秘密).
The main reason behind this is farmers, as a group, do not wield much power, and find it difficult to exert any real political influence. Farmers’ groups are rather strapped for cash and to a large extent have to rely on government subsidies. In some cases, the representatives of these groups rely on official support if they want to be elected, and as such, they are even less likely to bite the hand that feeds them. It is therefore almost impossible to find anyone willing to come forward and help fight for farmers’ rights.
Some of the senior figures in the farmers’ groups are also local vote captains working to motivate voters at the grassroots level on behalf of political parties, which sets many farmers at cross-purposes with their own peers and has a destabilizing effect on the group as a whole.
The upshot of this is that some of these groups fail in their role of serving as a bridge for communication between their members and the government, making farmers feel that they have no voice and that the government performs less efficiently than it otherwise would. The fact that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) could say to farmers in the south just prior to the election that they should have voiced their concerns over the falling prices of fruit earlier speaks volumes about how serious this problem is.
In the past, academics were able to remain impartial in all this, giving them an important role in the formation of the nation’s agricultural policy. With the proliferation in the number of universities over the past few years and the limited funds available from the Ministry of Education, many academic institutions have seen a drop in subsidies. Teachers have been obliged to look elsewhere to make up the shortfall — and this also applies to academics specializing in fields related to agriculture.
This actually gives government agencies something they can work with, a bit of room to maneuver. There is the good old carrot-and-stick approach: the ability to withhold research projects or to award large research grants, and various combinations thereof.
Many academics, then, prefer to keep their heads down: Examples of those willing to say what they think are few and far between, and some are, indeed, quite happy to speak up for government policy. In short, they have lost their ability to remonstrate against the government and ill-advised agricultural policies continue unchecked, not only impeding the progress of agricultural reform, but also keeping farmers in a vulnerable position.
One academic did speak to the press, saying that academia was being taken over by thugs and that intellectuals were a dying breed; unfortunately, the public paid little attention to this. This is all too clear in the way the ractopamine and avian flu issues are being dealt with: It’s happening right before our eyes. Not only is this detrimental to the image of individual experts, it is also destroying the public’s trust and respect for academics in general.
Academia is in bed with politics, a problem that has been particularly evident in Taiwan over the past few years. Many academics have been enthusiastic participants in political events and on political talk shows, which some prefer over teaching and research. It has reached the point where one’s political stance is regarded as an adequate and accurate measure of the strength of one’s argument.
The academic of yesterday who would plod away in solitude researching a specific notion over a matter of years has become a rarity. Nowadays, many academics with backgrounds in technology are more likely looking to patent their ideas, which does not necessarily cater to the needs of society. They choose relatively simple technology fields that are likely to produce results in the short — rather than long — term, and then apply for the patent so they can flog it off to the highest bidder and become a “famous” professor, get themselves a senior government position or even a place in the Cabinet.
There are many cases of academics who initially showed promise, then opted for the political route and pretty soon started spouting absolute rubbish, to the consternation of anyone who cares to watch.
What, when it comes down to it, is the value of intellectuals studying? It certainly isn’t about promotions to official positions, amassing a fortune or gaining glory. It is about being the backbone of the country, of speaking up for the weak and the vulnerable; it’s about giving society hope.
Being the backbone of the country means not bowing down to politics, not deferring in the presence of power and not being afraid to speak the truth. In Taiwan today, with its preoccupations with success, fame and fortune, these expectations may well appear old-fashioned and behind the times, but they are nevertheless essential if Taiwan is to progress.
The public should stop and reflect on this behavior, given the current stock of officials in this country, who allowed things to get to this point.
Lee Wu-chung is a professor of agricultural economics.
Translated by Paul Cooper
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
RSS