In the past, most of the ruling party’s government officials were academics, and the same was true of most critics in the opposition parties. This shows that in the nation’s social elite, there is a close relationship between academics and politicians, and the two groups are often indistinguishable from each other.
There are three primary reasons for this. It is an age-old tradition for those who excel in the academic world to advance to government positions; the constitution in a presidential system lacks the spirit of a parliamentary system and most politicians fail to perform their work in a professional manner.
Once these academics become part of the political world, they must apply their expertise in knowledge management to policymaking and human resource management, and this results in innumerable mistakes. The major reason for that is that moving from academia to politics is a giant leap from one domain to another.
To make policy and to criticize it are two different matters. Can academics criticize politics? Of course they can. Anyone can criticize politics. The key question is, do academics comment on matters on which they have academic expertise or do they merely express their political points of view?
If it is the former, they are applying their expertise and are commenting as intellectuals. No one can blame them for that. However, if they comment on matters outside of their expertise, they cross the line.
In the democratic era everyone has the freedom to voice their opinions, but we should express our personal political opinions as individuals in the political arena.
For instance, everyone can participate in demonstrations, sign petitions and vote, but it would be inappropriate for an academic to criticize politics in the classroom, especially when the issue being criticized is not what the class or the instructor’s expertise is about.
If they do that, it is a sign that they are doing more than teaching their class and that the school does not focus on education.
If teachers can criticize politics in the classroom, then doctors can discuss politics when they treat patients and prosecutors can get involved in politics while they are prosecuting people. Could a society such as this protect human rights? Could a nation such as this have a viable and accountable government?
One could say that the phenomenon of academics becoming politicians has arisen because politicians have failed to do their jobs adequately. Because of their inadequacies, even though they are popularly elected local government heads, city councilors or lawmakers, they are unable to make their way to a ministerial post in the central government, which is why academics begin to criticize politics and then become politicians themselves.
This is the result of decisions made by presidents. Using academics to fill key government positions is one method that presidents use to monopolize power. Since academics are not elected, they do the bidding of their superiors.
As a result, academics and politicians become indistinguishable. Academics do not concentrate on their academic and research work, but are busy forging an image to show how much they care about public affairs, commenting freely on politics to get the attention from the political world.
In particular, they use their professional image to serve a political agenda or their professional position to take action in public affairs in an attempt to profit individually. Consequently, the research atmosphere in academic circles has become messed up and the professional image of academics is destroyed.
In the long run, this could result in schools being filled with political academics and a government filled with unprofessional politicians.
In the past, sovereignty was enjoyed by kings and emperors, and while members of the general public could become government officials by passing examinations, they only had administrative powers.
Today, Taiwan is a democracy, so sovereignty rests with the people, and governing power is exercised by elected officials and representatives. Hence, these positions are best served by professional politicians.
On one hand, politicians would feel more encouraged to enhance their proficiency and create a more stable political climate. On the other hand, the purity of the academic world could be maintained and academics could focus on their academic work.
Academics can discuss politics and make professional suggestions, but they should not take on ministerial positions. Academics dedicate their lives to their professional knowledge, while politicians dedicate their lives to good government. All jobs are valuable. This is the path that a modern society should take.
Duh Bau-ruei is professor of philosophy at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
The image was oddly quiet. No speeches, no flags, no dramatic announcements — just a Chinese cargo ship cutting through arctic ice and arriving in Britain in October. The Istanbul Bridge completed a journey that once existed only in theory, shaving weeks off traditional shipping routes. On paper, it was a story about efficiency. In strategic terms, it was about timing. Much like politics, arriving early matters. Especially when the route, the rules and the traffic are still undefined. For years, global politics has trained us to watch the loud moments: warships in the Taiwan Strait, sanctions announced at news conferences, leaders trading
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
The Executive Yuan and the Presidential Office on Monday announced that they would not countersign or promulgate the amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) passed by the Legislative Yuan — a first in the nation’s history and the ultimate measure the central government could take to counter what it called an unconstitutional legislation. Since taking office last year, the legislature — dominated by the opposition alliance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party — has passed or proposed a slew of legislation that has stirred controversy and debate, such as extending
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators have twice blocked President William Lai’s (賴清德) special defense budget bill in the Procedure Committee, preventing it from entering discussion or review. Meanwhile, KMT Legislator Chen Yu-jen (陳玉珍) proposed amendments that would enable lawmakers to use budgets for their assistants at their own discretion — with no requirement for receipts, staff registers, upper or lower headcount limits, or usage restrictions — prompting protest from legislative assistants. After the new legislature convened in February, the KMT joined forces with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and, leveraging their slim majority, introduced bills that undermine the Constitution, disrupt constitutional
RSS