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.
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 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
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
RSS