Nantou County commissioner candidate Hsu Shu-hua (許淑華), of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), has been accused of plagiarism on a thesis, and the allegations are backed by plenty of evidence.
However, Feng Chia University’s academic ethics review committee has said that Hsu’s thesis did not seriously contravene academic ethics, so it did not revoke her degree, despite the document including passages that were apparently copied from other sources without citation.
On the other hand, former Democratic Progressive Party Taoyuan mayoral candidate Lin Chih-chien’s (林智堅) master’s degrees were revoked by National Taiwan University and Chung Hua University for plagiarism, which shows that universities have drastically different review processes and standards. The differences are beyond comprehension.
Lin’s case highlights a double standard at his alma maters, as the universities have handled other cases concerning academic ethics more leniently.
Due to the Ministry of Education’s ineffective regulations, academic ethics review committees lack a common standard and transparency.
The ministry should take full responsibility. Ministry officials, including Minister of Education Pan Wen-chung (潘文忠), Chief Secretary Liao Hsin-kuo (廖興國) and those in the Department of Higher Education, failed to act.
The ministry should take the issue seriously and take the initiative now, because it is better late than never.
The “Principles for Handling Academic Ethics Cases at Junior Colleges and Institutions of Higher Education” (專科以上學校學術倫理案件處理原則) should be amended immediately. Every review committee should include a member appointed by the ministry and a representative of the university’s faculty evaluation committee.
There is also no reason that the names of the committee members should be kept confidential, and their findings should be open to the public.
The reason is simple: Should, for example, lay judges be required to wear a mask to ensure that defendants and other attendants of trials cannot recognize them so that they cannot seek revenge? Of course not. It would also be unacceptable to inform those involved in a criminal trial of the court’s decision without providing the full verdict.
Should the person whose thesis is being reviewed by an ethics committee disagree with the result, they should be able to appeal directly to the ministry, rather than apply for another review by the university. The ministry should organize a standing reconsideration committee to investigate such cases. Once it finalizes a decision, the university should handle the case accordingly.
A special budget should be allotted for universities and colleges to assess the quality of their students’ theses and dissertations. In the first half of each year, all theses and dissertations of in-service degree programs should be examined, and in the second half, those of regular degree programs should be reviewed. The assessments should be handled impartially, and the ministry should be informed of the results.
These measures would help preserve the reputation of the higher education system and prevent plagiarism from taking center stage every election cycle.
It is imperative to review the system of recurrent education. If in-service master’s programs remain as popular as they are, the Degree Conferral Act (學位授予法) should be revised, and universities should be authorized to determine whether a thesis is required to complete master’s programs.
This would solve the problem once and for all.
Huang Rongwen is a professor at National Changhua University of Education.
Translated by Liu Yi-hung
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