Chapter IV A Narrative of the Fulbright Program in Taiwan: 1979-2019
C. Programs and Activities
5. Regional Activities and Programs
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
donors and vetting hyphenated program after the exchange of letters in 2010, and successfully established two by 2019. The other one, started in 2014, was the Fulbright-Formosa Plastics Group Scholarship, dedicated to a rising vital issues in early childhood intervention and geriatric studies.
5. Regional Activities and Programs
Since 2012, FSE had successfully approached the U.S. State Department and was granted a few centrally-funded activities to be organized by Fulbright Taiwan. These activities not only brought Fulbright Taiwan to a center stage of the Fulbright Programs in the EAP region, but also gave Taiwan, the society in general, an opportunity to introduce herself on a wider basis to American elites, in academia and foreign services, whom engaged in international
educational exchange and public diplomacy. In addition, it could produce a financial contribution to FSE, and sharpen the saws of FSE’s staff.
First, the Cross-Strait Research Workshop, formerly known as ‘Fulbright China Forum’ or
‘Fulbright China Research Forum’ was moved to Taipei in 2012. The forum was first started in 2002, initiated by Dr. Glenn Shive, then head of American Center in Hong Kong, whose
‘intriguing idea’ was brought up in discussion at the EAP meeting in 1999 when Shive was a Fulbright grantee in Hong Kong, who had worked at USIA, several years before.
[268:1999/3/25] It was hoped to serve the dual purpose of providing a mid-year conference for American Fulbright researchers and students in China, and as an opportunity for
American Fulbright students and research grantees in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan to meet and discuss their research and study.[272:2002/4/4] From the first forum in 2002 to 2011, Taiwan’s American Fulbright grantees attended the Forum in Hong Kong, with financial support from FSE and the State Department.
When the idea of hosting the forum was first presented to the FSE’s Board Meeting, the possibility of such a meeting in Taiwan had been talking about; and, Executive Director Wu had attended the forum once. Finally, with the initiative of Executive Director Vocke and the ECA Program Officer for Taiwan (Victoria Augustine) in 2012, the ‘Fulbright China Forum’
was moved to Taipei, and renamed to ‘Hong Kong, China, Taiwan’ (HCT) Workshop. It was a week-long meeting for American grantees stationed in mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, and was an event hosted annually for 70 some American scholars and students.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Since the workshop was held in Taipei, the Taiwan (R.O.C.) Presidents, then Ma Ying-jeou and subsequently Tsai Ing-wen, delivered keynote speeches during its session every year, from 2011 to 2019. FSE was able, at its own expense, to extend the invitation for American grantees in Taiwan to include not only American researchers but also teaching faculty and American MA degree students. Unfortunately, ETAs were unable to attend due to their teaching duties, the distance of most from Taipei, and the cost of accommodation. However, some Taipei ETAs were able to participate given their individual schedules. The total number of participants varied depending on the year but averaged about 70 Americans. It was also regularly attended by staff from ECA and IIE. The AIT and Taiwanese Board members viewed very positively the hosting of this large group of Americans, and the workshop received excellent reviews from the participants. (Chou, 2019 survey results)
Second, an annual Executive Directors’ (ED) Meeting of East Asia/Pacific (EAP) Region was held in Taipei for the first time in 2013. For many decades, the nine EDs from binational commissions in this region have meet every year, to exchange views and ideas and to share their best practices. For example, FSE learned from other EDs about their experiences with an alumni association, the ETA programs, and the MA degree programs. FSE also shared with others the utility of being the first Fulbright Commission in East Asia to have email and access to the internet, [262:1995/3/1] the FSE’s orientation program for American grantees was a ‘shining star,’ and as was its online advising. [270:2001/4/25] Of course, the EDs also shared their difficulties and problems.
Third, in 2014, the ‘U.S. Department of State East Asia/Pacific (EAP) Regional Meeting’
was held in Taiwan, for the first time since 1979. This was once a bi-yearly meeting, but recently it became an irregular event, often happening every three or four year. It gathered American officials, Cultural Affairs Officers (CAO), and Public Affairs Officers (PAO) from 29 countries and entities in East Asia and the Pacific who dealt directly with Fulbright and the Executive Directors of the nine Fulbright Commissions in this region.28 “The three-day event brought in 47 people locally in charge of Fulbright, representatives from the
cooperating non-profits in the U.S. (IIE and World Learning), and a few representatives from the U.S. State Department in DC. Susan Stevenson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
28 In 49 countries/entities around the world the Fulbright program is managed by a nonprofit binational commission, as implemented in the original design of the program. In the rest of the world, Fulbright is managed directly by the American Embassy. The CAO reports to the PAO and usually manages these programs, but occasionally it is the PAO.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Public Affairs in EAP, Bureau of the U.S. Department of State also made the trip to Taiwan to attend this event.” (Li, 2018) This event also marked the biggest representation of
American officials at once in Taiwan since 1979, a non-political, educational exchange had served as a bridge and channel of diplomacy and created a possibility for diplomacy.
Fourth, the Fulbright East Asia Pacific Forum for English Teaching Assistants, the very first of its kind, was decided to be held in Taipei, on March 9-12 of 2019. The biggest event that Fulbright Taiwan had held, for almost 200 participants from more than 20 countries in East Asia Pacific, including 40 scholars and 10-15 regional local staffs. This event was sponsored by U.S. State Department, and the purpose of this conference was to have ETAs in the EAP Regions share their experiences and best practices. It also included a select number of researchers from around the region. Again, FSE invited Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen to speak to the participants on the Tuesday, March 12, and she did so to the general applause and admiration of the attendees. [329:2019/2/26]
6. Establishment of the Chinese Fulbright Alumni Association
The idea of establishing a Fulbright alumni association in Taiwan was first raised in 1977, and it was finally realized in 1992. At the 204th Board Meeting, then newly appointed Executive Director Dr. Wu Jing-jyi, who assumed the position in 1 July 1977, informed the Board that the Foundation (USEF/C) will establish a Fulbright Alumni Association and an initiative financial support. “[A]t least NT$ 40,000 would be allocated for the formation of the association, depending on how much money was left over in FY-76 program funds.”
[204:1977/11/23] Note that the ‘Fulbright Association’ in the U.S. and for all U.S. Fulbright alumni was founded on February 27, 1977. (Fulbright Association) This initiative did not result in the establishment of an association.
Again, in 1984 at the 233rd Board meeting, Executive Director Wu again reported a discovery of an active Fulbright Alumni Association in Japan, at the ED meeting in Honolulu in
September 1984. It acted as hosts for the American Fulbright grantees in Japan, and many of Japan’s wealthy alumni members contributed large amounts of money to the Fulbright in Japan. Wu thought the alumni in Taiwan could be similarly organized. This time, the idea received a volunteer from Board member Sun Zhen, then-President of National Taiwan University, also a distinguished alumnus, to help in this effort. [233: 1984/10/24] Also, the Board expressed its high hope that ‘an active’ alumni association would be established by
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
1987 to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of educational exchange between U.S. and Taiwan.
[259:1993/10/21] By this time, Korea’s alumni association was already founded, in May 1987.
It was not until October 3, 1992, that the ‘Chinese Fulbright Alumni Association’ was officially established, with 202 dues-paying-members. [257:1992/10/28] After fifteen years, the idea finally was realized as “[t]here had been difficulties involving the name, which had been overcome only after the relaxation of martial law in 1987.” [259:1993/10/21]
On the year of its establishment, the Alumni Association joined the Pacific Cultural Foundation, and hosted a reception, on November 10th of 1992, to commemorate the 45th anniversary of 1947 signing in Nanking of the educational exchange agreement between the U.S. and China. [257:1992/10/28] Another big event came in 1998, on March 14th the alumni association joined the University of Maryland Alumni Association, and hosted a reception to welcome and honor a visit by Mrs. Harriet Mayor Fulbright.
In 2006, the members unanimously approved changing the official name of association to
“Taiwan Fulbright Alumni Association” [280:2006/3/8] At the “EAP Alumni Best Practices Conference and Alumni Coordination Workshop,” held in Manila on Oct 3-6 2007, the U.S.
Board member Mr. Nicholas Papp discovered that Taiwan is ‘a leader’ in the EAP Region in working with alumni. [287:2007/12/18]
Recently, in 2015, some ETA alumni, with the support of FSE, initiated the establishment of an alumni association in U.S. for American ETA grantees to Taiwan.
D. Governance, Policy and Administration
From 1979 to 2019, FSE had eighteen Chairs of the Board, included one who only chaired one Board Meeting as Acting Chair and was never officially appointed. [See Appendix IV for a full list and their terms.] During this time period, FSE’s first Chair, Mr. Neal T. Donnelly, who had also the Chair of USEF/C since 1978, was appointed as the Chair of the Fulbright commission in Taiwan until 1982. Likewise, the other two board members who were U.S.
foreign service officers continued their appointments. Similarly, the incumbent board
members on the Chinese side remained unchanged, as the Letters of Exchange stated. Though the Board as a whole stayed with their appointments without a single disruption because of
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the 1979 breakup between U.S. and ROC; FSE could not avoid the fate of rapid governance turnover, changing Chairs every two to three years.
As a matter of fact, the turnover rate of the 10-member Board was much faster than that, dues to the mechanism of a binational commission. In the agreement, it stipulated ‘at least three’
members shall be U.S. foreign officials in the ROC and two members shall be designees of ROC’s Minister of Education (MOE) and Minister of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). The MOE member usually was the Director of the International Education Bureau while the MOFA member was usually the Director from North American Affairs.29 In short, at least five of ten members from both governments were based in their foreign service, which normally rotate often, every three years or sooner. In contrast and technically, “the composition of the Board could change every year” [277:2005/4/6], for by law it was a one-year appointment. In addition, each member came to their post in a different time frame which resulted in a
constant change of members of the Board. The situation was worsened by the position-related members who sent different representatives on their behalf to the meetings. The composition of Board meetings was in constant flux because of these non-board member substitutes, and the people in attendance changed regularly. This was particularly true on the Taiwan side.
But, without proxies or substitutes, attaining a quorum was difficult.
Regarding the Board Meetings, before 1979, the Board met at least six times a year and often had twelve to thirteen meetings a year, with two outstanding peaks of 17 and 16 meetings in 1958 and in 1959 respectively. As things mattered from 1988 to 2004, the Board only met once or twice a year. It was not until 2006 that the Board came to regular quarterly meetings, except only three times a year in 2008, 2009 and 2011. The statistics of Board meetings in each year from 1958 to 2019 are shown in Figure 4.2.
In conclusion regarding FSE’s governance, it is worth a special mention of one exceptional person, Mr. Bao, You-yu, who had sat on the Board Meetings for thirty years, from 1974 to 2004 until he died at age of 80.[277:2005/4/6] He first showed up at the Board Meeting on someone’s behalf, the MOE representative[179:1974/8/21], and since 1977, except in 1977, he was appointed and reappointed as a non-post member of Taiwan side who represented art and culture. [277:2005/4/6] Bao was a young officer, section chief, deputy, and head of the
29 The Bureaus within MOFA and especially MOE have gone through multiple name changes and restructuring over the decades but the focus on North America and international education respectively have been at the core of each bureau that has had Board representation.
‧
Bureau of International Cultural and Educational Relations at MOE, and the first president of Taipei National University of the Arts. He created a remarkable legacy in serving at the Board of the Fulbright Program in Taiwan.
Figure 4.2
Statistics of Taiwan Fulbright Board Meetings, 1958-2019
Note. Beginning in 2012, the Board of Directors of Foundation Scholarly Exchange (BFS) was scheduled to meet regularly four times a year in February, May, September, and December for major decisions on selection of grantees, programs, initiatives, and budgets.
Another lasting legacy was Dr. Wu, Jing-jyi who served as the Executive Director of Fulbright Program in Taiwan from 1977 to 2009. He continued his devotion by serving on the Board after he retired from FSE in 2009, and was still an active Board member in 2019.
His contribution to Fulbright Taiwan and Taiwan’s cultural and educational exchange with U.S. is truly un-paralleled, as is his a ‘non-retirement retirement’. These were two individuals who were the main strengths of the continuance of Fulbright Program in Taiwan after 1979, a story of living history to be investigated for future research. In the context of a fluctuating Board, Dr. Wu’s long-term commitment was a stabilizer and living history for FSE.
Under Dr. Wu’s leadership, which started in an era with an unknown future, he used a “take the action first and report it later” approach, putting measures into place for two or three years before sharing the results at meetings with other educational foundations abroad. “After people saw that these plans yielded great results, we were able to make them standard
practices.” (Wu & He, 2018) Facing a never-decided legal status issue, Dr Wu had to lead the team working on an ad hoc basis, to face the music of program choices. He tangled with the
1716
1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
NUMBERS OF MEETING
YEAR
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
problems and issues one by one, and one after one. Such as FSE’s tax exemption, legal status, the need to move office quarters, governmental funding resources, and tax-deductive
donations, just to name a few of the bigger problems.
Also, for 30 some years, Dr. Wu worked on his own, use all his connections and personal resources to keep the ball rolling, and he even kept FSE growing. “It [was] mentioned many times how Dr. Wu [was] able to resolve a problem based on his experience and personal relationships. Should Dr. Wu leave the position someday; whoever comes in should have the framework to work from a firmer legal foundation…. [I]t was not healthy to have an
organization based on personal relationships.” [277:2005/4/6]
Having earned the trust of the Board, “a discretionary authority was granted to the ED [Dr.
Wu] to allow him to meet unexpected opportunities.” [222:1982.12.15] In contrast, the Chair and the Board “all agreed” that “Dr. Wu can only sign on behalf of FSE with the approval of the Board.” This was a looming tension at the time of signing the contract with Yilan county government for 2nd year’s ETA program; Dr. Wu asked the Board’s authorization to sign the contract even though contract and the terms were essentially the same as for the preceding year. [278:2005/8/31] Eventually the ED was granted the authority to make commitments up to NT$250,000 (about US$8000 depending on the exchange rate).
Due to a lack of continuance of the Board members, it seemed there existed no long-term policy guidelines, besides the FFSB general rules which were set for all Fulbright Programs.
One policy was an exception, a dual citizenship of U.S. and Taiwan was not qualified for applications, in particular outbound to U.S. To this point, since 1979, FSE had operated on an ad hoc basis in all facets and was afraid of opening a pandora’s box or “a big can of worms,”
quoted from a board member.[277:2005/4/6] For example, one Board’s policy of pursuing balance of U.S.-Taiwan grantees was soon forgotten by a later Board. I suggest that a continuous policy could be sustained by FSE in this legal limbo.
In terms of administration, “a sudden death tragedy” of a staff became a “wakeup call” of the need to clarify the legal status of FSE,” at least for its personnel policy. [287:2007/12/18] The salary scale of Fulbright’s staff, since its inception of USEF/C, first followed the U.S.
Embassy’s local personnel scale, then it later switched to follow the system of Taiwan’s civil servants. However, FSE’s personnel policy, in particular the benefits, diverged from the Taiwan’s ‘labor insurance’ system. Legally employees were not actually employees of an
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
entity since the entity’s (FSE’s) legal status was obscure. Instead, an independent pension and retirement fund was established in FSE, and all FSE employees were not under the coverage of labor laws in Taiwan. This issue was solved only after the Exchange of Letters in 2010.
The first task of then new ED, Dr. Vocke, in March 2011 was to write and have approved a comprehensive Personnel Handbook including brand-new personnel policies, which were in compliance with Taiwan’s labor law requirements. This was particularly important given some very difficult, ongoing human resource issues that the new ED inherited. (W. Vocke, personal communication, May 10, 2020)
Recently, a different ‘work-related’ issue was the challenge to ETA’s status at FSE during the expansion of ETA programs. It was instigated by a ‘foreign teacher’ agent in Taichung City who claimed that FSE was acting as an agent and that the ETAs were full-time employees;
hence both were subject to the Ministry of Labor, labor law, and working visa requirements.
In reality, American ETAs were structured to teach primarily as assistants at the elementary level, as the ‘exchange activities’ of their international educational exchange fellowship.
After a lengthy and stressful process in which the Labor Ministry investigated the ETA program, interviewed ETAs and FSE staff, and spoke with MOFA and AIT, a decision was reached that ETAs were indeed a part of an international, cross-cultural exchange program that legitimately uses J visas for their entry. FSE recognized that it uses of English in
discussing the ETA program was partially to blame, given the translation of “work, job, task, etc.” left the impression that this was a labor contract not an educational program. While the English usage is appropriate for education, it created legal confusion and was a change undertaken by FSE to make sure the program was seen as educational. (W. Vocke, personal communication, May 10, 2020)
Furthermore, an administrative problem also arose in the ETA program. In Taiwan, the K-6 elementary education and its budget are the sole authority of local county government, while required to follow the policy guidance of the Ministry of Education. In addition, all
‘outsourcing services’ of governmental entities are subject to Taiwan’s Government
Procurement Act. With a growth of the partnerships with 9 county governments in 2019, that has also created a huge administrative workload. It has also created a risk of uncertainty on
Procurement Act. With a growth of the partnerships with 9 county governments in 2019, that has also created a huge administrative workload. It has also created a risk of uncertainty on