There has been a lot of controversy over a bid by Want Want Broadband to acquire the cable TV systems owned by China Network Systems. Speaking about the case in the legislature, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Tsai Cheng-yuan (蔡正元) threatened to have funding for Academia Sinica’s legal research institute — the Institutum Iurisprudentiae — halved after associate research fellow Huang Kuo-chang’s (黃國昌) said he opposed the bid. Tsai’s remarks have caused an uproar among academics.
It is understandable that Academia Sinica president Wong Chi-huey (翁啟惠) did not have a ready response when he was suddenly confronted by Tsai. Nevertheless, the controversy continues, and Tsai has not been reprimanded for throwing his weight around.
Academic figures commenting on the case have made accusations of connivance between politicians and business interests. Some have compared Tsai’s threat to the witch-hunt that swept the US academic community 50 years ago, known as McCarthyism.
Even amid the harsh red-baiting atmosphere of the McCarthyist era, then-University of Chicago chancellor Robert Hutchins stood firm in defense of academic freedom and freedom of expression. In 1949, US senator Joseph McCarthy was on the verge of launching his anti-communist campaign. At the beginning of that year, the University of Washington dismissed three professors said to be members of the US Communist Party, and the University of California sacked 25 professors just because they refused to sign a “loyalty oath.” It was amid such an atmosphere that Hutchins appeared before an investigative commission in the Illinois General Assembly. In his address to the commission, Hutchins firmly stated that the University of Chicago guaranteed its professors “absolute and complete academic freedom.”
“The American way has been to encourage thought and discussion ... The whole educational system ... is a reflection of the American faith in thought and discussion as the path to peaceful change and improvement. The danger to our institutions is not from the tiny minority who do not believe in them. It is from those who would mistakenly repress the free spirit upon which those institutions are built,” Hutchins said.
When state legislators asked Hutchins whether he agreed with then-US president Harry Truman’s comments, in which he called members of the US Communist Party “traitors,” Hutchins retorted by asking whether he was duty-bound to agree with whatever the president said.
Such a legacy may also be found among our forebears. In 1947, Fu Ssu-nien (傅斯年), director of Academia Sinica’s Institute of History and Philology, blasted government policy by publishing three articles in which he demanded the resignation of Soong Tse-ven (宋子文) as premier. In 1949, Fu was appointed president of National Taiwan University. When the April 6 Incident (四六事件) took place and army and police personnel raided colleges and arrested students, Fu had the guts to challenge Peng Meng-chi (彭孟緝), head of the Taiwan Garrison Command, saying that he would fight him if there was any bloodshed involving students.
One should also take into consideration the concept of institutional protection, as laid out in Interpretation No. 380 by the Council of Grand Justices regarding the constitutionality of the Enforcement Rules of the University Act (大學法施行細則). What Tsai said in the legislature was injurious not only to Huang, but also to Academia Sinica as a whole, and to all institutions of higher education and research. Since academic freedom has its institutional aspects, leaders of institutions should use their authority to defend it — as seen in the examples set by Hutchins and Fu.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. When giving an account of the true situation, there is no freedom to concoct bogus facts. However, public affairs are complex and multifaceted, and information about government and corporations is often not very transparent. It is therefore especially important in a civil society to allow people to analyze and comment according to the facts they know. This is known as the principle of “fair comment.”
As long as someone who comments on major matters of public interest does not intentionally lie, or willfully and seriously depart from factual evidence and rational deduction to the extent of “actual malice,” they should be allowed to go on revealing the truth ever more clearly through the market of opinion. That is why the defamation case filed by the Formosa Plastics Group against National Chung Hsing University professor Tsuang Ben-jei (莊秉潔) constitutes a threat to freedom of expression.
As to Tsai, he has acted in an even more underhanded manner than the Formosa Plastics Group. If anyone were to sue Huang for defamation, the opinions he expressed would certainly be protected by the “fair comment” principle. Be that as it may, Tsai’s threat to cut funding was intended to muzzle Huang. It was a repressive move and a kind of “viewpoint discrimination” that directly violates academic establishments’ institutional rights. More than that, it strikes at the heart of freedom of expression.
Academics should not remain silent about what Tsai said. Democratic regression and erosion of human rights tend to start with slight infringements, after which the heat gradually gets turned up. When those who have the power to resist such violations tolerate them, the infringements will become more and more pervasive. If Tsai is not denounced in public today, there will be more and more Tsais as time goes by.
Hsu Chia-shin is an assistant research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institutum Iurisprudentiae.
Translated by Julian Clegg
A return to power for former US president Donald Trump would pose grave risks to Taiwan’s security, autonomy and the broader stability of the Indo-Pacific region. The stakes have never been higher as China aggressively escalates its pressure on Taiwan, deploying economic, military and psychological tactics aimed at subjugating the nation under Beijing’s control. The US has long acted as Taiwan’s foremost security partner, a bulwark against Chinese expansionism in the region. However, a second Trump presidency could upend decades of US commitments, introducing unpredictability that could embolden Beijing and severely compromise Taiwan’s position. While president, Trump’s foreign policy reflected a transactional
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has prioritized modernizing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to rival the US military, with many experts believing he would not act on Taiwan until the PLA is fully prepared to confront US forces. At the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th Party Congress in 2022, Xi emphasized accelerating this modernization, setting 2027 — the PLA’s centennial — as the new target, replacing the previous 2035 goal. US intelligence agencies said that Xi has directed the PLA to be ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027, although no decision on launching an attack had been made. Whether
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.