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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS