As an alumnus of National Tsing Hua University (NTHU), I am deeply concerned about the recent fiasco regarding a promised donation to the university by United Microelectronics Corp (UMC) founder Robert Tsao (曹興誠).
Although UMC has donated NT$120 million (US$3.65 million) to NTHU for the building of the “Electrical Information Hall” (later named the Liu Jiong Lang Hall), and NT$100 million to convert the Activity Center into the Junshan Concert Hall under Tsao’s auspices, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲) accused Tsao of forfeiting a promise to donate NT$15 million.
Even though the payment was not in the form of his own personal check, Tsao maintained that NTHU did receive the money, as was also confirmed in 2011 by then-NTHU president Chen Lih-juann (陳力俊), and widely reported in the news media at the time. However, Chen now denies this. Either the young Chen or the old Chen was incorrect.
Tsao questioned how Chen could betray him so easily when UMC had helped NTHU so much, going so far as to ponder whether “the prestigious NTHU has degenerated into a united front for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)?” That is referring to his current prominent role in leading the recall movement against many KMT legislators who are considered CCP sympathizers and who have passed legislations against Taiwan’s interest.
The current NTHU president has refused to dispel the confusion, saying it was to protect the names and privacy of donors. That could be an important criterion and a fair policy under the normal circumstances. However, the current case goes beyond privacy, as it has become a public issue.
Given its academic excellence and leadership, NTHU needs to promote truth in every corner of society. Besides, the relevant information is readily available.
Weng has openly proclaimed that the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution is invalid and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has the right to take over Taiwan. She is in effect denying the legitimacy of her own status as a legislator granted under the ROC Constitution.
Given that the PRC does not even have a mandate to govern China, as the Chinese had never voted to give their approval, the mere suggestion to let an authoritarian country take over a democratic country makes her a laughingstock in the academic world.
Her illogical thinking and poor scholarship raises questions about her qualifications as an associate professor at NTHU.
China had undergone dynastic upheavals every few hundred years, causing war and poverty. The CCP, in power for less than 100 years, already had the Cultural Revolution with rioting Red Guards; the Tiananmen Square Massacre with at least 10,000 people killed; and White Guards during the COVID-19 pandemic causing an economic meltdown.
The unemployment rate among young people is now as high as 40 to 50 percent, with some left homeless. The vicious cycle of public suffering will continue if China’s political system remains authoritarian. Tsao, who recognizes the shortcomings of nationalism and stands up for democracy, the right choice for both Taiwan and China, should be commended and not insulted.
Weng has done enough damage to NTHU’s reputation. The university’s “ostrich” approach to the issue would cause further harm, as the disrespect to its most generous donor would erode the trust of alumni and others in pledging donations.
Moreover, if the president of the university could not tell the truth, how would the university teach students to tell the truth? NTHU owes the public the truth.
James J. Y. Hsu is a retired professor of theoretical physics.
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