Shih Hsin University’s Lifelong Education Center signed a letter of commitment that it would not promote “one China, one Taiwan,” “two Chinas” or Taiwanese independence.
This letter, which amounts to supporting the “one China” policy, contradicts Article 11 of the Republic of China Constitution, which says: “[T]he people shall have freedom of speech, teaching, writing and publication.”
The letter is unconstitutional and has no binding power over lecturers or students.
According to the Council of Grand Justices’ Constitutional Interpretation No. 380: “The provision regarding the freedom of teaching provided in Article 11 of the Constitution is an institutional protection mechanism for academic freedom. Such provision shall encompass the freedom of research, instruction and study, etc, in the field of college education.”
The Constitution guarantees academic freedom, including the right of professors to teach and conduct research freely, as well as the right of students to study freely.
The letter of commitment signed by Shih Hsin University restricts the content of lecturers’ instruction and students’ study direction, which violates the guarantees expressed by the Council of Grand Justices, and therefore should be declared unconstitutional and null and void.
If Shih Hsin University professors have any academic conscience and strength of character, they would sue the university for violating their constitutional right to freedom of instruction if the school interferes because their instruction touches upon “one China, one Taiwan,” “two Chinas” or Taiwanese independence.
This is clearly stated in Constitutional Interpretation No. 736, which concerns the right of school teachers and university lecturers to judicial remedy.
Of course, if the school in violation of the Constitution interferes with students who express the opinion that there is not “one China,” the students could also sue the university for violating their constitutionally protected right of instruction and freedom of expression in accordance with Constitutional Interpretation No. 684, which states that: “When a university makes administrative decisions or other public authority measures for realizing educational purposes of seeking academic truth and cultivating talents... if the decisions or measures infringe the student’s right to education or other constitutional rights, even if the decisions or measures are not expulsions or similar decisions, based on the mandate that where there is a right, there is a remedy under Article 16 of the Constitution, the student whose right has been infringed shall be allowed to bring administrative appeal and litigation and there is no need to place special restrictions.”
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer.
Translated by Perry Svensson
With a Taiwan contingency increasingly more plausible, Taiwanese lobbies in Japan are calling for the government to pass a version of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), emulating the US precedent. Such a measure would surely enable Tokyo to make formal and regular contact with Taipei for dialogue, consultation, policy coordination and planning in military security. This would fill the missing link of the trilateral US-Japan-Taiwan security ties, rendering a US military defense of Taiwan more feasible through the support of the US-Japan alliance. Yet, particular caution should be exercised, as Beijing would probably view the move as a serious challenge to
As the Soviet Union was collapsing in the late 1980s and Russia seemed to be starting the process of democratization, 36-year-old US academic Francis Fukuyama had the audacity to assert that the world was at the “end of history.” Fukuyama claimed that democratic systems would become the norm, and peace would prevail the world over. He published a grandiose essay, “The End of History?” in the summer 1989 edition of the journal National Interest. Overnight, Fukuyama became a famous theorist in the US, western Europe, Japan and even Taiwan. Did the collapse of the Soviet Union mark the end of an era as
During a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in Tokyo on Monday, US President Joe Biden for the third time intimated that the US would take direct military action to defend Taiwan should China attack. Responding to a question from a reporter — Would Washington be willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan? — Biden replied with an unequivocal “Yes.” As per Biden’s previous deviations from the script of the US’ longstanding policy of “strategic ambiguity” — maintaining a deliberately nebulous position over whether the US would intervene militarily in the event of a conflagration between Taiwan and
Will the US come to the defense of Taiwan if and when China makes its move? Like most friends of Taiwan, I’ve been saying “yes” for a couple decades. But the truth is that none of us, in or out of government, really know. This is precisely why we all need to show humility in our advice on how Taiwan should prepare itself for such an eventuality. After all, it’s their country, and they have no choice but to live with the consequences. A couple weeks ago the New York Times published an article that put this reality in stark relief. As