Amid the snowballing scandal engulfing many higher education institutes that have allegedly signed agreements with their Chinese counterparts pledging that classes offered to Chinese students would not touch upon “politically sensitive” issues, all implicated schools on the Ministry of Education’s investigation list ought to be ashamed of themselves for compromising academic freedom for monetary gain.
According to the ministry, Saturday’s preliminary probe suggested at least half of the 157 investigated universities nationwide have signed such agreements with Chinese institutions promising not to mention issues relating to “one China,” “one China, one Taiwan” or Taiwanese independence in class. At National Tsing Hua University, the world “national” was even missing from the school’s title on the so-called “letter of commitment.”
China makes no secret of its ambition to annex Taiwan. It therefore comes as no surprise that it would resort to such trickery as part of its “united front” tactics; what is dumbfounding is that many Taiwanese universities have willingly complied with China’s demands, allowing an autocratic regime — or anyone for that matter — to hamper the spirit of academic professionalism and obstruct schools’ autonomy.
Coming to the schools’ defense, Association of Private Universities and Colleges president Lee Tien-rein (李天任) said the “letter of commitment” does not recognize China’s “one China” principle, but is mainly to help Chinese students more quickly pass review procedures in China, and the signed documents do not have an actual influence on schools’ academic freedom.
That might be the case, but then do Lee’s remarks suggest that the schools, aside from allowing their academic freedom to be trampled, also engage in dishonest actions by attempting to deceive Chinese reviewing agencies? “Pathetic” is an understatement in describing the depth of degeneration to which some of the schools have allowed themselves to sink.
Others, such as National Tsing Hua University, insist the letter merely makes sure politics stays off campus. However, people supporting such an argument should first ask themselves: How is removing the word “national” from National Tsing Hua University’s full name not political? The truth is, removing the word is not only political, but also a self-degrading act.
A university is supposedly an open forum for young minds to explore truth, share ideas and exchange opinions, and academic freedom is the foundation for its existence. That is what sets Taiwanese schools apart from their counterparts in China.
In light of the scandal, it must be asked: How could schools in Taiwan have become so degenerate? How can self-censoring universities without academic freedom be expected to maintain their global competitive edge?
It must also be remembered that it takes two sides to sign an agreement. If the schools have the guts to value the preservation of academic freedom rather than catering to China’s terms, schools should instead demand a guarantee of academic freedom in their exchanges with Chinese academic institutions.
These Taiwanese schools caved in to China’s demands and allowed a communist country to humiliate democratic Taiwan’s sacred halls of education.
Hopefully the incident, however uncomfortable the truth it exposed — that some schools are willing to trade academic integrity for monetary gain — might serve as a wake-up call and remind educators and students alike that academic freedom is not for sale.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry