Amid the great recall wave, university students are participating in off-campus volunteer activities, but inside university walls, it is silent, in what could only be described as maintaining “pedagogical neutrality.”
However, if such neutrality truly exists, then politics should not be allowed on campus. Why, then, did universities across Taiwan not stop their students from creating “Lennon Walls” to protest China’s extradition law in Hong Kong in 2019? Doing so was undoubtedly allowing politics to come inside campuses. It was broadly supported by the public, too.
Students today are trying to put up posters in favor of the recalls, but are blocked by university administrations. Perhaps school officials are scared of incurring the wrath of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), which together hold a majority in the legislature.
They also appear to be anxious about a backlash from anti-recall movement activists, parents, alumni, foundations and groups who make large donations, and a considerable number of professors, so they would rather placate them by banning the hanging of recall posters.
That is a betrayal of the aim to establish places where students have free speech and can conduct activities autonomously.
That also shows school administrations’ unwillingness to see law school and political science students’ common sense recognition that the KMT’s and the TPP’s legislative amendments are ruining the Constitution, disrupting the functioning of the government and paralyzing the Constitutional Court — the ultimate defender of our democracy.
When Taiwan was under the KMT’s authoritarian rule, universities were molded into centers of “leisure culture.” The party enforced censorships and bans, including prohibiting law and political science departments from discussing how the authoritarian system was harming the nation.
Progressing in tandem with advances in democratization, universities relaxed their prohibitions on speech and taught students to take legal responsibility if they are involved in slander or defamation. Politicians also began regularly holding political seminars on campuses. So the reality is that politics have long been a part of universities.
Today, students must discuss recalls — a nationally important topic — on their own, despite schools claiming neutrality or saying that politics should not be allowed on campus to dodge and ignore the issue. Prohibiting students from putting up recall posters signifies universities’ retreat from democracy and harms students’ autonomy.
Politics is an issue for everyone, however controversial it might be. Politics is only one part of what students discuss and care about. Talking about recalls is just as normal as welcoming a politician as a guest speaker. Discussion of politics is a regular and everyday affair in democracies.
Saying that politics should not be allowed on campus is a bad-faith argument. Universities are centers of learning and incubators of public thoughts and opinions. It helps students get closer to the statement that the truth becomes clearer the more one discusses a topic, helping form and consolidate a broader horizon for democracy.
University administrations should respect students and not hinder them from openly discussing legislative recalls on campuses.
Liu Shih-ming is an adjunct associate professor in the Graduate School of Taiwanese Culture at National Taipei University of Education.
Translated by Tim Smith
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS