Former premier Simon Chang (張善政), the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate for Taoyuan mayor, denied allegations that he plagiarized content in a research report that he was commissioned to write for the Council of Agriculture in 2007.
Chinese-language Mirror Media, which first published the allegations on Tuesday, said that Chang’s research team had failed to cite their sources for some of the content in the report. Chang defended himself by saying that as the report was not academic in nature, the lack of citations could not be considered plagiarism.
However, Council of Agriculture Minister Chen Chi-chung (陳吉仲) said that although the research was not for academia, all research commissioned by the government should adhere to certain regulations and be checked by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics before the project is closed.
The crux of the matter is that Chang was paid NT$57.36 million (US$1.88 million) of public money for research of which the quality and integrity is now under question, while Chang is running for mayor.
Both major political parties have been digging into candidates’ backgrounds looking for evidence of plagiarism and other wrongdoing, and the sheer amount of accusations that have been raised is staggering — which points to a serious systemic problem.
Former Hsinchu mayor Lin Chih-chien (林智堅), the Democratic Progressive Party’s Taoyuan candidate, withdrew from the race last month after being accused in late July of plagiarizing his master’s thesis. A spate of other accusations of plagiarized theses then emerged involving Taiwan People’s Party Legislator Tsai Pi-ru (蔡壁如), KMT Nantou County commissioner candidate Hsu Shu-hua (許淑華) and Nantou County Council Speaker Ho Shang-feng (何勝豐).
The issue is of concern because if a politician demonstrates poor academic integrity, how can they be trusted with larger issues that concern the residents of their constituencies?
The question is who should be held accountable? Should it be the universities that allow candidates to graduate with plagiarized theses; the Ministry of Education (MOE), which is the authority recognized in the Degree Conferral Act (學位授予法); local election committees, which allow candidates to register for elections without investigating their backgrounds; or some other supervisory body?
Maybe the education system itself is to blame. It is no secret that Taiwan’s education system is test-oriented, and does not facilitate original thought or analysis. An opinion piece published by The News Lens on Oct. 14 last year said that Taiwanese students spend more time each day studying than students anywhere else in the world. The piece cited a graduate of Taipei Municipal Zhongshan Girls’ High School named Janice Yeh as saying that Taiwan’s schools are conservative and “reactive.”
“The information that students acquire isn’t done so by themselves, but instead, they are spoon-fed the information, which is harmful,” she said.
This approach to education might be conducive to preparing students for entrance exams or for public service roles, but it does little to create independent thinkers of the type who would enter graduate school.
There is an idea in Taiwan that to be competitive you must go to graduate school, but in reality, graduate school should be a pursuit for those who have original ideas they want to explore, or problems they want to solve. Plagiarizing a master’s or doctoral thesis just to graduate completely misses the point, as the intention is to obtain a paper to show others, rather than to explore answers to burning questions.
On a superficial level, schools and the MOE could better supervise students’ academic work, but to solve the issue in a meaningful way will mean changing public perception of what graduate school is all about.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
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
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS