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.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS