|
EDITORIAL: Pressing
mute on campuses
With the January elections approaching, the nation’s universities received a
reminder from the Ministry of Education earlier this month that campuses must
respect certain rules regarding political activity to ensure neutrality.
For academics and rights activists who look at the regulations from a strictly
Western, liberal perspective, the limitations imposed on campus might sound like
echoes of the nation’s authoritarian past — and they do — but not necessarily
for the reasons that immediately come to mind.
First, let’s take a look at the restrictions contained in Article 6 of the Basic
Education Act (教育基本法), which lays out the principles about “educational
neutrality” and reinforces the need for “peace and quiet” from learning
environments during elections.
Under the rules, schools may not help spread word or beliefs of particular
political parties and organizations in charge of administrative functions cannot
force administrative personnel, teachers or students to participate in any
activities held by political (or religious) parties.
Civil servants — including public school teachers — are also barred from
inviting presidential candidates to give speeches or participate in symposiums
on campus during the elections. They also cannot put up fliers, posters and
other election-related items or hand out pamphlets during the same period.
Educational staff are also told not to participate in political parties or
organizations during work hours and also should not help with elections. They
are also encouraged to show “self-restraint” about participating in political
activities after work hours.
Anyone who has studied or taught at Western universities would bristle at such
regulations, which are indeed an assault on freedom of expression and could very
well prevent the nation’s best and brightest young minds from debating issues
that will be key to their future. Oftentimes, the most exciting moments in US
elections occur when the candidates visit university campuses, and surely
Taiwan’s campaigns would benefit from similar exchanges.
However, these regulations did not emerge out of nowhere and are organic to the
nation’s history. Rather than some machinations by the Chinese Nationalist Party
(KMT) to prevent freedom of expression, as some would readily charge, the
measures were meant to undermine the party’s hold on the educational sector. In
fact, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) favored the measure, even before it
won the presidency in 2000.
So yes, there is a connection between Article 6 and authoritarianism, but rather
than pointing to a return to it, it is instead a means to counter its afterglow.
Without those restrictions, and given the KMT’s still formidable grip on almost
every segment of society, it is likely that university campuses would be even
less favorable to the DPP than they are now.
The issue at the core of Article 6, then, is one that has yet to be resolved
even after decades of democratization: The imbalance of power that stems from
nearly half a century of one-party rule by the KMT.
Until that imbalance is rectified, some measures, however non-liberal and
unpalatable they might be, will likely be necessary to ensure a certain degree
of fairness. It goes without saying that their application must be closely
monitored to ensure that they do not unduly restrict freedom of speech or target
specific political parties — some in the KMT will remember that it “lost” China
in part because of communist mobilization on campuses.
Article 6 is a built-in contradiction and ideally Taiwan should make every
effort to rid itself of such illiberal practices, but it is likely that those
can only be phased out over time as the nation’s political environment
normalizes itself.
In light of Taiwan’s special historical circumstances, those restrictions are
really the lesser of two evils.
|
