Chung Yuan Christian University associate professor Chao Ming-wei (招名威) told a news conference in Taipei on Monday that the institute had forced him to apologize to a class after a Chinese student complained about remarks he made on the origin of COVID-19 and for saying that he was from the “Republic of China [ROC], Taiwan.”
If there were nothing more to it, it would be a total travesty that warrants a serious investigation of the university, as self-censorship, especially on campus, has no place in a free and democratic society — even more so when it is out of fear of Beijing.
If a university is so afraid of offending China that it bows when one Chinese student complains about Taiwanese sovereignty, that surely would be a problem — and is not likely to be an isolated incident.
It would indeed be “trampling on Chao’s character and the nation,” as Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Mark Ho (何志偉) said at the news conference.
However, the matter is not so simple.
He did not mention “ROC, Taiwan” during the lecture, but in his initial apology, in which he stated: “As an ROC, Taiwan professor, we do not discriminate against any individual, and if my speech during class made you unhappy, I apologize.”
The Chinese student was unhappy with the apology and lodged a second complaint. Chao was questioned again by university officials before being told to make a second apology.
Here is where things get confusing: In a recording of his conversation with the university that was played at the news conference, the officials seem to take exception to Chao saying he is from the “ROC, Taiwan” and asked why he emphasized that when he knew there were Chinese students in his class.
It is unclear whether the complainant mentioned Chao’s use of the phrase, but in any case, the university’s stance is completely unacceptable.
The Ministry of Education said that “no university lecturer in Taiwan needs to apologize for stating in class that they are from the Republic of China.”
However, Chao might not be completely without blame. After the news conference, the university released a transcript and video of Chao’s lecture, which showed that during a discussion on amino acids, peptides and proteins, he suggested that “certain” students had consumed too much tainted milk powder, adding: “Those across the Strait, you know, I’m talking about you.”
“If you really think the Wuhan pneumonia only killed 10,000 people, I’m talking about you, yes,” he said.
So it makes sense that the Chinese student was upset, at least initially. Anyone would be if they were called out in that way for no reason.
Despite constant bullying of Taiwan by Beijing, this kind of unnecessarily provocative behavior toward Chinese students is embarrassing and only brings Taiwanese down to the level of the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese netizens, who lose their marbles at any suggestion of Taiwanese sovereignty.
Their behavior can be infuriating, but that is no excuse to single out Chinese during a lecture.
The government is doing what it can to fight back — the latest example being the 22 airlines it convinced to correct the way they refer to Taiwan on their booking sites — but petty aggression toward Chinese who have done nothing wrong is not reasonable.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS