Amid the great recall wave, university students are participating in off-campus volunteer activities, but inside university walls, it is silent, in what could only be described as maintaining “pedagogical neutrality.”
However, if such neutrality truly exists, then politics should not be allowed on campus. Why, then, did universities across Taiwan not stop their students from creating “Lennon Walls” to protest China’s extradition law in Hong Kong in 2019? Doing so was undoubtedly allowing politics to come inside campuses. It was broadly supported by the public, too.
Students today are trying to put up posters in favor of the recalls, but are blocked by university administrations. Perhaps school officials are scared of incurring the wrath of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), which together hold a majority in the legislature.
They also appear to be anxious about a backlash from anti-recall movement activists, parents, alumni, foundations and groups who make large donations, and a considerable number of professors, so they would rather placate them by banning the hanging of recall posters.
That is a betrayal of the aim to establish places where students have free speech and can conduct activities autonomously.
That also shows school administrations’ unwillingness to see law school and political science students’ common sense recognition that the KMT’s and the TPP’s legislative amendments are ruining the Constitution, disrupting the functioning of the government and paralyzing the Constitutional Court — the ultimate defender of our democracy.
When Taiwan was under the KMT’s authoritarian rule, universities were molded into centers of “leisure culture.” The party enforced censorships and bans, including prohibiting law and political science departments from discussing how the authoritarian system was harming the nation.
Progressing in tandem with advances in democratization, universities relaxed their prohibitions on speech and taught students to take legal responsibility if they are involved in slander or defamation. Politicians also began regularly holding political seminars on campuses. So the reality is that politics have long been a part of universities.
Today, students must discuss recalls — a nationally important topic — on their own, despite schools claiming neutrality or saying that politics should not be allowed on campus to dodge and ignore the issue. Prohibiting students from putting up recall posters signifies universities’ retreat from democracy and harms students’ autonomy.
Politics is an issue for everyone, however controversial it might be. Politics is only one part of what students discuss and care about. Talking about recalls is just as normal as welcoming a politician as a guest speaker. Discussion of politics is a regular and everyday affair in democracies.
Saying that politics should not be allowed on campus is a bad-faith argument. Universities are centers of learning and incubators of public thoughts and opinions. It helps students get closer to the statement that the truth becomes clearer the more one discusses a topic, helping form and consolidate a broader horizon for democracy.
University administrations should respect students and not hinder them from openly discussing legislative recalls on campuses.
Liu Shih-ming is an adjunct associate professor in the Graduate School of Taiwanese Culture at National Taipei University of Education.
Translated by Tim Smith
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS