Taiwan has come a long way since the Martial Law era. The public would not enjoy the freedom of speech and democracy it does today without the sacrifices made by democracy pioneers such as Freedom Era Weekly editor-in-chief Deng Nan-jung (鄭南榕), who set himself ablaze on April 7, 1989, in defense of freedom of expression.
It is therefore both comforting and encouraging to see young people take a stand, as National Cheng Kung University’s student body did last month when it voted to name an area on campus “Nan-jung Square” (South Banyan Square, 南榕廣場) in honor of Deng, an alumnus of the school, as well as the school’s symbol of a banyan tree.
However, the school administration rejected the name and said that just because “Nan-jung” garnered the most votes, it did not mean the name would be used for the square, because it might carry negative political connotations.
In an open letter issued on Thursday last week to faculty and students, university president Hwung Hwung-hweng (黃煌煇) cited Article 6 of the Education Basic Act (教育基本法) and said the school should remain politically and religiously neutral.
To avoid disruption on campus, the school’s infrastructure should not be entangled with political activities or ideology, he added.
While Hwung’s statement might sound reasonable, it is not.
Deng’s tragic death planted a seed of democracy in the hearts of Taiwanese. His pursuit of “100 percent freedom of expression” later paved the way for a social movement that called for the removal of Article 100 of the Criminal Code, which allowed charges of sedition to be filed against those suspected of plotting to overthrow the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime.
Why is a name selected to honor the universal value of freedom of speech, for which Deng laid down his life, considered to have “negative political connotations” that might disrupt the campus?
Hwung should take a closer look at a map of the university campus.
There are several places with names strongly reminiscent of the former authoritarian KMT regime, such the Kuang-fu (光復) and Tzu-chiang (自強) campuses. There is even a Chungcheng Hall (中正堂), an obvious reference to Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石).
If Hwung is serious about retaining “political neutrality” on campus, he should take the lead in ridding the campus of all names with strong links to the previous authoritarian regime and its agenda of “retaking the mainland.”
Young people today are often accused of being apathetic and indifferent to the world around them. Some have even chided them for enjoying the sweet fruit of democracy hard fought for by democracy pioneers without thinking of how they might contribute to and solidify those democratic achievements.
Rather than brushing aside students’ opinions, the university administration should be proud of them for displaying depth and understanding of the nation’s democratization while remembering the blood, sweat and tears shed by democratic pioneers.
After all, is this not the purpose of education — to inspire young minds to stand up for and act upon the values they believe in?
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS