National Tsing Hua University (NTHU) is at it again.
Last year, the university was at the center of a controversy after establishing the Taipei School of Economics and Political Science, funded by PJ Asset Management Group.
The on-campus academy was described by some as an “illegal rooftop addition” to Taiwan’s higher education.
This time, there have been reports that a Chinese Communist Party-linked entity, the Cross-Strait Tsinghua Research Institute (清華海峽研究院), had been operating at the university since 2016.
What efforts has the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) made on the issue?
MAC Minister Chiu Tai-san (邱太三) told a question-and-answer session at the Legislative Yuan that the council in July received reports on the issue and informed the Ministry of Education in August.
The problem is that had the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) not uncovered the case earlier this month, the institute might still be open today.
Surprisingly, it took nearly four months for the government to shut the institute. Did the council not see it as a matter of concern?
Chiu also said that, based on “respect for academia,” the council “rarely” investigates whether educational institutions have been infiltrated by Beijing, so the institutions might become loopholes.
His statement was also full of holes.
Rarely? The council has probably never investigated whether there are any infiltrated institutions. Without investigation, how did Chiu come to the conclusion that such campuses might become loopholes?
Clearly, the council was covering up its own incompetence and failure, and used “respect for academia” as an excuse.
Has the council not noticed that the world’s democratic countries are busy eliminating Chinese academies in jurisdictions that have infiltrated their universities?
As the US tries to kick out Chinese-run Confucius Institutes, Taiwan has established one center for Mandarin learning after another in the US.
The world has sensed the seriousness of Chinese infiltration at universities, while Taiwan is still upholding the banner of “respect for academia.” Although the fire of communism has already broken out on campuses, the “firefighters” are still hesitant to go in and extinguish the flames.
As for NTHU, by helping the institute establish itself on campus without asking for the education ministry’s approval, the school might have contravened the University Act (大學法) and the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例), and university officials could face a fine or imprisonment.
However, the university is passing the buck and claims that the institute was formed by its alumni association, and its office was rented from the Tze-Chiang Foundation of Science and Technology. That is certainly a big lie.
An investigation by the National Security Bureau found that the office on the fifth floor of NTHU’s Innovative Incubation Center was rented to the foundation by the university, which then rented it to the Cross-Strait Tsinghua Research Institute on its own accord.
Although the foundation was responsible for renting it to the institute, the university might have been behind the decision to do so.
The government should therefore at least show determination and expel the foundation from NTHU’s campus.
Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS