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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS