In the past week, it was revealed that a number of universities have been accepting Chinese students into certain programs after reaching agreements with educational institutions in China that could undermine objectivity and freedom of expression. The “letter of commitment” signed by these universities might also contravene Taiwanese law.
A letter signed by Shih Hsin Univeristy said that course content would not include politically sensitive subjects and would not discuss concepts such as “one China, one Taiwan,” “two Chinas” or Taiwanese independence. National Tsing Hua University was also accused of signing a similar letter and — following a preliminary investigation — more than 150 other institutions have been accused of the same thing.
Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Ho Hsin-chun (何欣純) said in the legislature on Friday that the word “national” was missing from National Tsing Hua University’s title on the seal stamped on its letter.
Such promises reek of interference from Beijing officials who do not want Chinese students who participate in educational exchanges in Taiwan to be tainted with concepts that do not agree with Chinese Communist Party orthodoxy.
Minister of Education Pan Wen-chung (潘文忠) said the letters might be in breach of Article 33 of the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例), which states that: “Contractual cooperation between Taiwanese and Chinese universities must comply with regulations, not be driven by political agendas, and must be declared to the ministry beforehand.”
So how widespread is this issue? Shih Hsin University said three universities are involved — Zhejiang University of Media and Communications, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University and Jiangsu Normal University — accounting for about 30 to 45 students every semester. These institutions have apparently been demanding these letters since February 2015.
Beijing does not want Chinese students to study in Taiwan. Chinese students are by default young and educated, could see how democracy works while in Taiwan — for all its strengths and weaknesses — and experience living in a free society with uncensored access to media and the ability to express your opinions freely without fear of state retribution. When they return to China, they are likely to share their opinions with their peers.
Should China be concerned? Of course. It is one of the peripheral benefits of having Chinese students study here. However, that is not to say that Beijing has the right to manipulate Taiwan’s universities.
Taiwan would gain from any bottom-up political change in China that could emerge from young Chinese. Beyond the short-term financial gain for universities, this is a major advantage.
The other issue is the propriety of universities complying with the demands of foreign universities. Pan believes it might have contravened the law.
There is also the fundamental question of whether universities should insist on offering all students, wherever they are from, an objective and politically neutral education.
That only a small number of students are involved is irrelevant; it is the principle of the matter. The government should investigate and ensure these worrying beginnings do not lead anywhere more pernicious.
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