During a ceremony at Chaoyang University of Technology’s summer volunteers’ camp in Taichung on Tuesday, Vice President William Lai (賴清德), the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) presidential candidate, said that the government would subsidize students at private universities to cover “at least half” of the gap between the tuition fees of public and private universities, which is estimated to be about NT$25,000 per year.
The subsidies are to be implemented from the second semester of the 2023-2024 academic year and approximately 590,000 students at private universities are expected to benefit.
For most students at private institutions, this was welcome news, but to the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) presidential candidate, New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), the proposed measure was nothing but the DPP pandering to voters.
When asked about the policy, Hou told reporters it was clearly a political ploy, as the DPP, despite having been in office for the past eight years, suddenly thought to address the private college tuition gap right before the January presidential election.
He asked whether the policy would be retroactive to cover people who graduated from a private college and are paying student loans.
Splurging is not the solution, he added.
A better solution would be to facilitate stronger ties between universities and industry, which would help new graduates find jobs, and promote increasing salaries, Hou said.
When asked if the DPP is using state resources to help Lai with his campaign, Hou said he was afraid this was the case.
As the subsidies would come from state coffers, it is highly doubtful that the policy would provide the substantial benefit for private institutions that Lai believes, Hou said.
However, Hou’s “splurging” comment reveals that he is not aware of the economic burden most students at private colleges face, while Lai has taken to heart students’ interests and the heavy burden they face after graduation.
The high cost of private tuition has been an issue for a long time and the government has been looking out for students’ interests by putting the brakes on demands by private universities to increase tuition fees.
Consequently, as the government’s finances are healthy enough to offer subsidy programs, it is seizing the chance to facilitate social justice, an act that any national leader would seek to do.
Unsympathetic to the plight of private college students by loftily calling the policy “splurging,” Hou’s remark exposes him as a narrow-minded candidate with limited understanding of issues of higher education and one who does not have the magnanimity to appreciate his rival’s policies.
Premier Chen Chien-jen (陳建仁) followed up on Lai’s remarks at an event at the Freeway Bureau’s traffic control center in Taipei on Thursday, when he said that the Executive Yuan is proposing three supplementary measures to broaden subsidies for college tuition, make high-school and vocational high-schools free, and extend tuition loans to bolster education in Taiwan.
As tuition at private universities and colleges is prohibitively expensive for many Taiwanese aspiring to get the education they want, the subsidies would level the playing field and increase fairness in education opportunities.
This is a concrete plan to implement the spirit stipulated in the Educational Fundamental Act (教育基本法) and, if possible, to benefit students at experimental education institutions.
Surely Hou would not have the heart to say “nay” to these proposals?
Chang Huey-por is a former president of National Changhua University of Education.
Translated by Rita Wang
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