Comparing NTU presidents
During the time when he was a civil servant, National Taiwan University (NTU) president Kuan Chung-ming (管中閔) received regular payment for writing unsigned editorials for Next Magazine.
On Monday last week, the Judicial Yuan’s Public Functionary Disciplinary Sanction Commission found Kuan guilty of illegally serving in a concurrent capacity, in contravention of the Civil Servant Work Act (公務員服務法), and issued a reprimand.
Chen Ping-hei (陳炳煇), a distinguished professor at the university, said that Kuan should decide according to his own conscience whether someone who has broken the law can serve as the school’s president.
Decide according to his own conscience? If Kuan had a conscience, he would not have made a Facebook post quoting lines from a poem by Tang Dynasty poet Chen Tzu-ang (陳子昂) that suggest that he has been done an injustice.
He clearly does not have the slightest remorse and is not qualified to remain in the post of NTU president.
More than two years ago, then-NTU president Yang Pan-chyr (楊泮池) stepped down unscathed over the university’s investigation of fabricated content in research papers authored by professor Kuo Min-liang (郭明良).
NTU academic vice president Kuo Tei-wei (郭大維) explained that while Yang was coauthor of some of the reports, he had indeed made major contributions to the research, and in adding his name as coauthor, he had not fabricated any experimental data, so there was no reason for Yang to have to resign because of it.
The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Science and Technology each set up teams to investigate the case and, after confirming one another’s investigations, arrived at non-conflicting decisions.
However, an NTU ad hoc university committee meeting was still called to discuss the issue of Yang not serving a further term as NTU president, which accepted by acclamation Yang’s request not to serve another term.
Comparing the two cases, it is clear that Yang has much greater strength of character than Kuan.
Chang Hui-ju
New Taipei City
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