The Ministry of Education has been involved in one crisis after the other. After its objection to National Taiwan University president-elect Kuan Chung-ming (管中閔), it became embroiled in another uproar involving the election of a Kaohsiung Medical University (KMU) president.
Then-KMU president-elect Jong Yuh-jyh (鍾育志) was unable to assume the post in August, as the ministry had disqualified three doctors teaching at the university from serving as board members. After they resigned from their teaching jobs, the doctors were re-elected to the board, which last month again chose Jong as university president.
By allowing this to happen, the ministry has let the family members of late Kaohsiung mayor Frank Chen (陳啟川) to continue their more than six-decade dominance over the operations of the university. No wonder some alumni have said that the Chen family is reminiscent of North Korea’s Kim dynasty.
The problem of private university boards being dominated by certain families for decades is not limited to KMU. It occurs in most private universities. These have, over time, become a destabilizing element in society, which is detrimental to education.
According to data from the ministry and unew.com.tw, the category “tuition and fees” accounts for up to 54 and 69 percent of revenue at private universities and private technical colleges respectively.
The figures are much higher than that of public universities at 18 percent and public technical colleges at 31 percent.
Although private universities are inferior to public institutions in terms of lecturers, equipment and academic achievement, the ministry still allows the former to corrupt education by overcharging their students.
Private universities were founded mostly to address gaps in the provision of public education, such as for women and disabled people.
In the past, they were mostly free of charge and even provided free accommodation to students. That is why when the Private School Act (私立學校法) was promulgated in 1974, Article 1 stated that the act aims to encourage people to “make donations” to establish private universities.
However, the nature of private universities has changed, as the amended Article 1 states that the act has been formulated to encourage people to establish private universities — without mentioning donations.
As a result, private universities have replaced the role of public institutions, as the former accounts for 70 percent of the nation’s education system while relying on high tuition fees and social resources such as government subsidies.
Even if private university boards do not donate any money to their institutions, they can act recklessly, as the ministry fails to supervise them in accordance with the Constitution.
In terms of the authority of private university boards, the original Article 31 of the act stated that the board, its chairperson and members shall exercise their powers in accordance with the law, and shall not intervene with the university’s administrative affairs.
However, the amended Article 29 states that the board, its chairperson, members and supervisors shall exercise their powers in accordance with the law, and the rules governing the donation and establishment of the ubiversity.
This has left a loophole for university boards to arbitrarily alter the rules to intervene with the personnel, financial and administrative affairs of universities and their affiliated organizations.
Also, the original Article 32 stated that all board members of private universities are unpaid members, although they may receive payments for transportation.
On a questionable suggestion by the ministry, the amended Article 30 has loosened the restriction by stating that the board chairperson, members and supervisors holding their positions without remuneration may receive payments for attendance and transportation.
However, those who are remunerated for their services in accordance with the rules must hold their positions full-time, the act states.
This has divided board members into full-timers with pay and part-timers without pay. As the information, as well as rights and responsibilities, are asymmetric among them, the act might hinder private universities from operating as they should.
More seriously, some universities have created an unhealthy trend of paying board members attendance fees that are five to 10 times higher than those paid at government agencies, turning themselves into a tool for certain board members to unfairly accumulate wealth.
Chairpeople of private university boards should be barred from simultaneously holding similar offices at other private universities.
When a board member of a company wants to serve on the board of another firm in the same sector, they must obtain shareholders’ approval, as this involves loyalty and conflict of interest.
Surprisingly, there is no such restriction for private university board chairpeople, despite that the institutions are non-profit entities focused on the public interest. As a result, the China Medical University board chairman holds the same post at Asia University, while the Tunghai University board chairman is also the Nan Kai University of Technology board chairman.
The ministry has ignored this situation, despite criticism. The serious decline of private university boards is the result of the ministry’s tolerance, which does not comply with the Constitution.
Lin Terng-yaw is a lawyer.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Recently, the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) published three of my articles on the US presidential election, which is to be held on Nov. 5. I would like to share my perspective on the intense and stalemated presidential election with the people of Taiwan, as well as Taiwanese and Chinese Americans in the US. The current consensus of both major US political parties is to counter China and protect Taiwan. However, I do not trust former US president Donald Trump. He has questioned the US’ commitment to defending Taiwan and explicitly stated the significant challenges involved in doing so. “Trump believes
The government is considering building a semiconductor cluster in Europe, specifically in the Czech Republic, to support Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) new fab in Dresden, Germany, and to help local companies explore new business opportunities there. Europe wants to ensure the security of its semiconductor sector, but a lack of comprehensive supply chains there could pose significant risks to semiconductor clusters. The Czech government is aggressively seeking to build its own semiconductor industry and showing strong interest in collaborating with Taiwanese companies. Executive Yuan Secretary-General Kung Ming-hsin (龔明鑫) on Friday said that Taiwan is optimistic about building a semiconductor cluster in
China has successfully held its Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, with 53 of 55 countries from the African Union (AU) participating. The two countries that did not participate were Eswatini and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which have no diplomatic relations with China. Twenty-four leaders were reported to have participated. Despite African countries complaining about summit fatigue, with recent summits held with Russia, Italy, South Korea, the US and Indonesia, as well as Japan next month, they still turned up in large numbers in Beijing. China’s ability to attract most of the African leaders to a summit demonstrates that it is still being
The Russian city of Vladivostok lies approximately 45km from the Sino-Russian border on the Sea of Japan. The area was not always Russian territory: It was once the site of a Chinese settlement. The settlement would later be known as Yongmingcheng (永明城), the “city of eternal light,” during the Yuan Dynasty. That light was extinguished in 1858 when a large area of land was ceded by the Qing Dynasty to the Russian Empire with the signing of the Treaty of Aigun. The People’s Republic of China founded by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has never ruled Taiwan. Taiwan was governed by the
RSS