Catering to President Lai, Anti-China Bureaucratism on the Rise

China Times Editorial, February 23, 2025

Minister of Education Cheng Ying-yao recently announced plans to prohibit academic exchanges between Taiwanese universities and three mainland institutions—Jinan University, Huaqiao University, and Beijing Chinese Language and Culture College—due to their affiliation with the Chinese Communist Party's United Front Work Department. Additionally, Taiwan will no longer recognize degrees from these universities. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration justifies this ban as a countermeasure against United Front influence, a deeper concern emerges: Taiwan’s bureaucracy has become entirely entangled in ideological constraints, exposing a dangerous trend of "anti-China bureaucratism." This, rather than the ban itself, may have more severe consequences.

Bureaucratism, broadly speaking, refers to officials abusing their power by manipulating rules and regulations—essentially "pulling rank" to assert dominance. Bureaucratic systems often breed corruption, abuse of power, and policies that severely undermine the rights and interests of the public. A hallmark of bureaucratism is its "anti-intellectual" nature, manifesting most evidently in blanket, one-size-fits-all policies that disregard logic and practicality. Officials may implement crude, rigid policies to demonstrate loyalty to their superiors while neglecting their responsibility to society.

Taiwan’s democratization has often been praised as a success story, particularly for its smooth and peaceful transitions of power between political parties. A key factor in this stability has been the civil service, which traditionally operates with a high degree of professionalism and adherence to legal principles. Even as Taiwan’s political landscape remains deeply polarized, government operations have generally remained stable and unaffected by partisan disputes—unlike in some less mature democracies, where every change in ruling party leads to dramatic policy swings and governance paralysis.

This has been particularly evident in Taiwan’s cross-strait policies. Since the country’s first direct presidential election in 1996, Taiwan’s approach to cross-strait relations has shifted multiple times, often amid rising tensions. However, the bureaucratic institutions responsible for executing cross-strait policies have largely played a stabilizing role, mitigating volatility. Historically, while the DPP and pro-independence factions have championed an anti-China stance, this was largely confined to "anti-China populism"—leveraged through electoral strategies and political rhetoric, rather than radicalizing the bureaucratic system itself.

During the administration of President Chen Shui-bian from 2000 to 2008, despite strong pro-independence rhetoric such as advocating "One Country on Each Side" and promoting a referendum on Taiwan’s United Nations membership, cross-strait economic interactions flourished. Though direct air and sea links were not established, informal channels facilitated dialogue on tourism and transportation, allowing for pragmatic negotiations. The bureaucracy, even under an independence-leaning government, maintained a relatively balanced approach toward cross-strait exchanges.

Under President Tsai Ing-wen from 2016 to 2024, many civil servants from the Kuomintang (KMT) era continued to handle cross-strait affairs. This institutional inertia helped counteract the more extreme tendencies of anti-China populism, ensuring that economic and educational exchanges between Taiwan and the mainland remained largely stable during former President Tsai’s early years in office. However, this also led to internal pressure within the pro-independence camp, with some radicals pushing for a more aggressive stance against Beijing.

Now, under the administration of President Lai Ching-te, there are clear signs that "anti-China populism" is seeping into the bureaucratic system, evolving into a more institutionalized "anti-China bureaucratism." The Ministry of Education’s recent ban on three mainland universities stems not from an independent policy review but from political pressure originating in last year’s "Bluebird Movement"—a political campaign that initially targeted KMT Legislator Fu Kun-chi for his studies at Jinan University. Later, a pro-unification Taiwanese student from Huaqiao University, known online as the "Minnan Wolf," unexpectedly switched allegiance to the pro-independence camp, rebranding himself as an anti-United Front activist. The Education Ministry’s decision appears to be heavily influenced by these political undercurrents.

Beyond the education sector, similar bureaucratic inconsistencies are evident in the Mainland Affairs Council’s erratic handling of travel permits for mainland Chinese officials and the issue of restoring mainland tourism to Taiwan. These policies appear to be dictated more by ideological posturing than by coherent policy-making, reinforcing a "bureaucratic authoritarianism" in which officials wield arbitrary power under the banner of anti-China sentiment.

A further example is the government’s recent move to regulate Taiwanese business people holding mainland residence permits, citing national security risks. Given this logic, why not go a step further and legally bar individuals with Taiwan compatriot permits from holding public office? After all, under mainland Chinese law, Taiwan compatriot permit holders are classified as "Chinese citizens residing in Taiwan"—a direct contradiction to the DPP administration’s claim that "Taiwan and China are not subordinate to each other."

When administrative agencies abandon professionalism in favor of enforcing party ideology, the result is a chaotic and arbitrary governance system. If left unchecked, "anti-China bureaucratism" could soon become a major destabilizing force in cross-strait relations.

From: https://www.chinatimes.com/opinion/20250223002709-262101?chdtv
〈Back to Taiwan Weekly Newsletter〉