Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Lysimachi/WikiCommons/CC BY-SA 4.0
IN COMMENTS DURING a legislative review of the Education and Culture Committee, KMT legislator Yeh Yuan-chih criticized the lack of budget for educational exchanges with China.
Yeh framed this as indicating the Lai and Tsai administration’s unwillingness to conduct exchanges with China, suggesting that this was to the detriment of academic exchanges in Taiwan. In this sense, Yeh was suggesting that the DPP has had an undue impact on academic exchanges, seeking to block exchanges with China and only allowing for exchanges with western countries.
This would be a means of leaning into an accusation against the DPP that they have sought to “desinicize” curricula in Taiwan. The KMT has alleged this of the DPP as part of claims that the DPP has attacked institutions of the ROC, and eroded historical and cultural links between Taiwan and China, as part of efforts at “cultural Taiwanese independence.”
To this extent, Yeh was also seeking to suggest that such exchanges could not occur under a DPP administration. The KMT has historically justified its claim that it should hold political power in Taiwan on the basis of claiming to be the only political party in Taiwan able to conduct relations with the CCP and this would be a variation of that claim.
Academia Sinica president James C. Liao has denied Yeh’s claims, stating that research expenditures were drawn up by researchers from the bottom up and that there is greater interest in overseas exchanges with Taiwan at present. Liao also stated that Academia Sinica, in fact, signed a memorandum of agreement with Peking University on academic cooperation recently and that the reason for a low level of academic exchanges with China was because China primarily focuses on advancing its own historical narratives, and there is not much room for Taiwan to interject with its own perspectives.
Photo credit:
Yeh’s claims are not new, then, but prove another version of familiar KMT talking points that have long been used against the DPP. Yeh’s comments reflect how the KMT was focused only on exchanges with China and not with the Western world during its years in power, as seen in its efforts to steer Taiwan toward political and economic relations exclusively with China.
At the same time, academic exchanges between Taiwan and China have become more fraught in past years because of cross-strait tensions. For one, it proves harder to do research in China when access to historical information is sometimes arbitrarily blocked because it is seen as politically sensitive.
Likewise, there are dangers for Taiwanese scholars in China if they work on topics considered too politically sensitive. A number of the Taiwanese currently held in China are, in fact, academics–many of which are pan-Blue in political orientation. This has not prevented their detention in China on allegations of seeking to subvert the state or similar charges.
Still, while there has been some controversy regarding Yeh’s comments, the exchange reflects the state of academic politics in Taiwan. That the pan-Blue and pan-Green camps fight about university appointments, contest what curriculums should be taught in schools, and fight over what sort of research should be funded reflects the incompatibility of the worldviews of the two respective political parties. This also exists within the academic sphere.
With the KMT in control of the legislature, it is to be seen how the pan-Blue camp tries to impact budgeting for future academic research. It is likely prestigious institutions such as Academia Sinica that will first be targeted.