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
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS