The recognition of Chinese academic qualifications and admission of Chinese students to Taiwanese colleges have recently been the subject of heated debate.
Those who support liberalizing the system have not come up with clearly thought-out plans and have not carefully considered the potential impact of such policies. They have failed to persuade the public or to allay anxiety about the job market.
The government is in favor of liberalization, but, having failed to garner enough public support, it has put in place numerous restrictions that have crippled the policy to the point where it is likely to fail.
Opponents of liberalization, on the other hand, have from the start treated the question as a matter of political principle. Seeing the entire issue in terms of “an enemy country” and “de-Sinicization,” they are unable to discuss the question in a rational manner.
A reasonable cross-strait liberalization policy should be guided by the following points.
Recognition of Chinese academic qualifications should be implemented cautiously and step by step.
It can be done in stages and be based on the experience of other countries that have dealt with the matter more objectively.
This would represent a positive approach to cross-strait academic competition while avoiding practical difficulties that might arise if the doors were opened too wide and too quickly.
Opponents think that there are too many examples of fake Chinese qualifications and that they generally cannot be trusted. These worries are not unreasonable, considering the widespread practice in China of “arranging” qualifications. However, major host countries for overseas students such as the US and the UK have not let this problem get in the way of admitting Chinese students.
The application process for students to come to Taiwan generally requires written documentation, letters of recommendation and interviews by telephone or in person.
In this regard, we ought to have confidence in the ability of academic bodies to verify the credentials of applicants.
Second, liberalization needs to occur as part of a comprehensive policy framework. Given that the number of postgraduate students in Taiwan is not growing, we need to work hard to maintain research funding, grants, scholarships and other educational resources.
Under present conditions, some private colleges in Taiwan charge high fees but lack resources and do not have good academic reputations. Expecting Chinese students to travel to Taiwan to attend such institutions is wishful thinking.
Considering the shortage of scholarships, grants and subsidies for students and the poor job prospects for graduates in Taiwan, as well as the income levels of Chinese students and the friendlier study environments offered by destinations like Hong Kong and Singapore, students from China will not necessarily choose to come to Taiwan for their studies even if we welcome them with open arms.
Those who oppose admitting students from China think they will eat up educational resources, with Taiwanese taxpayers fostering talent for an “enemy state.”
This logic is completely at odds with the openness and tolerance that should be inherent in higher education. The idea that our education system will be “infiltrated” and “Sinicized” is groundless and reveals a lack of confidence in Taiwanese social values.
Third, Taiwan’s employment market must be adequately protected. Given that the government’s proposed policies for Chinese students tend to treat them as foreigners, opponents to reform need not be overly worried.
In addition to considerations of language (lack of understanding of Hoklo, simplified versus traditional Chinese characters), culture and lifestyle, prospective employers of Chinese graduates will also have to deduct 20 percent from their salaries for tax purposes and go through all the trouble of applying to the Council of Labor Affairs every time they want to hire a Chinese citizen or extend his or her term of employment.
These factors give an employment advantage to local graduates. In addition, the regulations require any person who wants to sit exams for professional licenses in Taiwan to meet nationality requirements.
Chinese students will only be able to compete in certain fields, while market forces and personal career choices will decide whether they choose to stay and work in Taiwan after graduation.
Chinese students should not be made scapegoats for the unemployment rate. Blaming them for economic problems would be barking up the wrong tree.
Interaction and exchanges between youths and students from Taiwan and China would promote competition, understanding and mutual trust.
At the same time, it is undeniable that these policies will touch on social issues, and in a difficult economic climate, the significance and impact of Chinese students in Taiwan will differ greatly between social classes.
While better-off social groups may hope to see increased cross-strait exchanges leading to new economic opportunities and challenges, the less privileged may worry about sharper competition for limited resources.
All things considered, the government needs to do more thorough research before deciding on its policy.
Rather than taking a one-sided view and rushing policy through, it should seek a balance between the interests of different sections of the community.
If the government acts wisely, cross-strait educational liberalization will produce a more open society with increased knowledge and a free flow of talent.
Jackson Yeh is a doctoral candidate in sociology at Hong Kong University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS