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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS