The furor over National Taiwan University’s (NTU) presidential appointment has continued, despite the Ministry of Education’s decision on Saturday to reject the election committee’s selection of Kuan Chung-ming (管中閔).
In its explanation, the ministry stressed that higher standards are needed, given that a university president is the navigator of a school’s direction, not to mention that NTU leads the nation’s institutions of higher education.
The ministry also focused on Kuan’s failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest involving his role as an independent director of Taiwan Mobile, while the company’s vice chairman, Richard Tsai (蔡明興), was a member of the election committee.
The committee accused the ministry of interfering with school autonomy, insisting that it had adhered to regulations throughout the election process and yesterday vowed not to select another candidate.
While much criticism has been leveled against Kuan for his refusal to offer a clear, firsthand explanation of the allegations against him — which also include academic misconduct and teaching illegally in China — it appears that the committee is also at fault for not facing up to its own problems.
And what are its problems? Its perfunctory and slovenly attitude in the selection process, and its dubious handling of the controversy.
Ever since the conflict-of-interest allegation surfaced, the school has insisted that the committee had done nothing wrong in the selection process by citing the Enforcement Rules Governing the Operations of the NTU Selection Committee and saying that no candidate had ever requested Tsai’s removal from the committee.
The school is obviously and deliberately attempting to let the case slide through the cracks by omitting mention of the Operational and Organizational Guidelines for the NTU Presidential Election Committee, which state that members should be relieved of their role in the committee if evidence shows any bias in the application of their authority.
The committee’s explanation also gives the impression that it was trying to justify Kuan’s alleged plagiarism, which is absurd and runs counter to the academic spirit of seeking truth from facts.
Of all the selection criteria, possessing a “noble integrity” was listed first, yet the committee has seemingly lost sight of this requirement, as well as the meaning of education.
While the allegations surrounding Kuan might be his own personal problems, the controversy has exposed a more serious issue — the committee’s incompetence.
School autonomy should be upheld and a school’s decision on the selection of its president should be respected, but it begs the question: What has become of the committee that it would make light of allegations surrounding its candidate and find it acceptable that he withheld information on a possible conflict of interest and refused to defend his integrity?
On NTU’s Web site, it clearly says that the school’s motto is “integrity, diligence, fidelity and compassion.” The word “integrity” is placed ahead of the others — does this not mean that the school attaches primary importance to the cultivation of virtue?
Members of the committee are advised to revisit famed 19th-century educator John Henry Newman’s The Idea of a University and bear in mind the original raison d’etre of higher education.
If all members of the committee engage in introspection and ask themselves what a university is for, then they could decide on a candidate who is more suitable to lead NTU and who could exemplify the school’s motto.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS