In the past, most of the ruling party’s government officials were academics, and the same was true of most critics in the opposition parties. This shows that in the nation’s social elite, there is a close relationship between academics and politicians, and the two groups are often indistinguishable from each other.
There are three primary reasons for this. It is an age-old tradition for those who excel in the academic world to advance to government positions; the constitution in a presidential system lacks the spirit of a parliamentary system and most politicians fail to perform their work in a professional manner.
Once these academics become part of the political world, they must apply their expertise in knowledge management to policymaking and human resource management, and this results in innumerable mistakes. The major reason for that is that moving from academia to politics is a giant leap from one domain to another.
To make policy and to criticize it are two different matters. Can academics criticize politics? Of course they can. Anyone can criticize politics. The key question is, do academics comment on matters on which they have academic expertise or do they merely express their political points of view?
If it is the former, they are applying their expertise and are commenting as intellectuals. No one can blame them for that. However, if they comment on matters outside of their expertise, they cross the line.
In the democratic era everyone has the freedom to voice their opinions, but we should express our personal political opinions as individuals in the political arena.
For instance, everyone can participate in demonstrations, sign petitions and vote, but it would be inappropriate for an academic to criticize politics in the classroom, especially when the issue being criticized is not what the class or the instructor’s expertise is about.
If they do that, it is a sign that they are doing more than teaching their class and that the school does not focus on education.
If teachers can criticize politics in the classroom, then doctors can discuss politics when they treat patients and prosecutors can get involved in politics while they are prosecuting people. Could a society such as this protect human rights? Could a nation such as this have a viable and accountable government?
One could say that the phenomenon of academics becoming politicians has arisen because politicians have failed to do their jobs adequately. Because of their inadequacies, even though they are popularly elected local government heads, city councilors or lawmakers, they are unable to make their way to a ministerial post in the central government, which is why academics begin to criticize politics and then become politicians themselves.
This is the result of decisions made by presidents. Using academics to fill key government positions is one method that presidents use to monopolize power. Since academics are not elected, they do the bidding of their superiors.
As a result, academics and politicians become indistinguishable. Academics do not concentrate on their academic and research work, but are busy forging an image to show how much they care about public affairs, commenting freely on politics to get the attention from the political world.
In particular, they use their professional image to serve a political agenda or their professional position to take action in public affairs in an attempt to profit individually. Consequently, the research atmosphere in academic circles has become messed up and the professional image of academics is destroyed.
In the long run, this could result in schools being filled with political academics and a government filled with unprofessional politicians.
In the past, sovereignty was enjoyed by kings and emperors, and while members of the general public could become government officials by passing examinations, they only had administrative powers.
Today, Taiwan is a democracy, so sovereignty rests with the people, and governing power is exercised by elected officials and representatives. Hence, these positions are best served by professional politicians.
On one hand, politicians would feel more encouraged to enhance their proficiency and create a more stable political climate. On the other hand, the purity of the academic world could be maintained and academics could focus on their academic work.
Academics can discuss politics and make professional suggestions, but they should not take on ministerial positions. Academics dedicate their lives to their professional knowledge, while politicians dedicate their lives to good government. All jobs are valuable. This is the path that a modern society should take.
Duh Bau-ruei is professor of philosophy at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
The US Department of Defense recently released this year’s “Report on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China.” This annual report provides a comprehensive overview of China’s military capabilities, strategic objectives and evolving global ambitions. Taiwan features prominently in this year’s report, as capturing the nation remains central to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) vision of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” a goal he has set for 2049. The report underscores Taiwan’s critical role in China’s long-term strategy, highlighting its significance as a geopolitical flashpoint and a key target in China’s quest to assert dominance
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
RSS