Top-notch funding use
In an editorial on university funding, the point was made that if the way National Taiwan University has used the special funding received under the Road to Top-Notch Universities Project is problematic, it must be even more true of other universities receiving this funding (Editorial, July 13, page 8). Regarding this point, I am writing in defense of the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (Taiwan Tech), where I have been teaching since September 1975.
Taiwan Tech is the only university from the technological and vocational education track to have received funding under the Top-Notch Project. As with the vocational education track as a whole, Taiwan Tech has a higher proportion of students from low-to-middle income families than comprehensive universities do. In 40 years of teaching, I have learned that students do not necessarily end up in vocational education because of lack of talent or effort. Often family misfortune — such as divorce, financial difficulties, the illness or death of a parent, results in a student seeking part-time work to help with family expenses, leaving little time or money to prepare for entrance exams.
It has long been the goal of Taiwan Tech through a variety of policies to enable students from such backgrounds to receive the best possible education. Thus, with the funding received from the Top-Notch Project, Taiwan Tech has sought to enhance the full spectrum of our students’ educations, from the classroom through club activities — where leadership skills are learned — and even scholarships to enable lower-income students to take advantage of opportunities to study abroad. However, in promoting club activities and study abroad, we ran into a major obstacle — the need many of our students have to hold down one or more part-time jobs to pay for their education and help with family expenses, a challenge we met by fulfilling one of the requirements of the Top-Notch Project — internationalization.
We have more than 800 international students from more than 40 countries (in a student body of nearly 10,000) — a percentage ranking among the top in Taiwan, mostly studying for master’s degrees or doctorates. Thus, we are playing the role that US universities played for Taiwan 40 years ago, training the new generation of university faculty and leaders in business and government for these countries, a considerable impact for a small school in a small country — an impact that is set to continue to grow long into the future. Our faculties can thus have graduate students to assist with their research, in spite of the effects of Taiwan’s low birth-rate.
In addition, Taiwanese students who cannot afford to study abroad can receive one of the chief benefits of such study here on campus — interacting with people from different cultural backgrounds, leading to a broadened world view. We see our international students not as a “burden” but as a major asset, and welcoming them has involved input from the entire university community — English-taught courses, staff learning English, and the creation of a bilingual, multicultural campus. We are proud of Taiwan and proud of how we show Taiwan to the world.
Although vocational education track universities generally receive lower subsidies than comprehensive universities in Taiwan, and Taiwan Tech has received one of the lower Top-Notch subsidies, we have been careful in our use of the extra funding and mindful from the beginning of the need to develop sources of replacement funding for when the project ends. Given all of this, we are now internationally ranked in the middle of all the universities that have received the Top-Notch funding, ahead of universities which received several times the subsidies we have.
Thus, I strongly affirm that Taiwan Tech not only has not wasted our portion of the special funding, but has accomplished a great deal with relatively little. Taiwanese can be as proud of us as we are of them.
Alicia Lloyd
Office of International Affairs,
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS