The letters of commitment signed by many Taiwanese universities accepting Chinese students into their programs have caused quite a stir. The issue is certainly worth exploring.
When I was a university president, I signed agreements with more than 70 sister schools in China.
There were very clear differences between those institutions. Some of them were open and did not make any additional demands when their students came to Taiwan to study. Others were a lot more cautious.
I recall how, on a visit to one such university, one of the administrative staff responsible for Taiwan affairs was fastidious in their instructions, insisting that we not allow the students to come into any contact with the Falun Gong movement, or any political events.
SYMPATHIZERS
Having lived through the period of martial law in Taiwan, I understood their concerns.
We respected these concerns and could but acknowledge that they have them. After all, with the academic freedoms and lack of suppression of thought that we enjoy in Taiwan, educators will bristle at any suggestion of demands placed on them from outside.
Back then, at the Shih Hsin University communications center, we had personnel — both full-time and part-time faculty members — with Taiwan independence sympathies, just as we had unification sympathizers.
INQUISITIVE
However, they were principled and would not alter their course content just because they happened to have Chinese students in their classes.
They would, on occasion, share with me their observations teaching Chinese students and they were always happy with the new challenges it presented them.
In turn, Chinese students were curious about what it would be like in Taiwan.
They would travel nationwide, visiting places even I have never been. You could not hold them back. Some of them were particularly interested in gender studies and would enroll in those classes.
The controversy over the letters of commitment is not really about acceptance of the “one China” principle. It is more a reflection of the concerns of university heads and parents sending their students and children to Taiwan.
DAMAGE DONE
However, why target these few schools that want to sign letters of commitment, which are purely formal and clearly impossible to realize?
The wording of the letters is damaging to the educational autonomy of the universities asked to sign them: “The course content shall not touch upon any politically sensitive activities and cannot deal with any activities related to the ideas of ‘one China,’ ‘one Taiwan,’ ‘two Chinas’ or Taiwanese independence,” also: “the study content shall not intentionally guide students to touch upon contentious political subjects such as cross-strait relations.”
Words such as “shall not,” “cannot” and “touch upon” are manifestly counterproductive and compromising.
Academic integrity is important for universities.
It is little wonder that this might be called into question when they sign documents of this sort for the sake of just a few students, especially when the universities in question are hardly plagued with low enrollment numbers.
Why do they feel the need to resort to these measures and bring upon themselves suspicions of damaging academic freedoms?
Lai Ting-ming is a former president of Shih Hsin University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing