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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS