Your editorial on Oct. 25 asked for suggestions on the use of Taiwan's Tongyong Pinyin Romanization system. I have two.
First, for transcribing that elusive initial consonant which is pronounced in Taiwan either as "f" or "h" depending on the speaker's mood, the obvious solution is contained in the question itself. Like the makers of local street signs, simply spell the word in question with an "f" or an "h" depending on your mood. No problem!
Second, for a solution to the entire problem of confusing, competing Romanization systems, I suggest that all Taiwanese students henceforth be taught and tested on all four of the main systems: Hanyu, Tongyong, Wade-Giles and Yale. When millions of Taiwanese students and their parents are subjected to such torture, I suspect a simpler way will be found -- rapidly.
The root cause of this problem is a pathological ignorance of Western-style phonetics, fostered unfortunately by Taiwan's insistence on the loathsome "KK yinbiao" for teaching English pronunciation, instead of the "phonics" approach used in the West. How else can we explain the sign now hanging over the eastern approach to the Huajiang Bridge, which boldly declares "BanQian" as the destination instead of "BanQiao"?
Taiwanese students are not taught in a way that promotes such understanding. Instead, English pronunciation is shoehorned into strings of "KK" symbols in a clumsy caricature of the Zhuyinfuhao symbols. English spelling is not learned, but memorized, with seemingly less attention to phonetic spelling rules than is given to the stroke-order rules for Chinese characters, which are simple by comparison.
The solution to Taiwan's Pinyin Predicament is to teach people how an alphabetic writing system actually works -- whether it's English or Pinyin -- by combining phonetic values and sometimes changing them, according to certain rules. Not only would this facilitate the learning of English or any other Western language, it would allow Pinyin to act as a bridge from the native language to this broader understanding of phonetic spelling.
It doesn't really matter which Romanization system Taiwan uses. As long as a phonetic approach is used in teaching, its adoption will be easy. But as long as Taiwan persists in not teaching any Romanization skills in schools, the Pinyin Predicament will remain.
John Diedrichs
Taipei
I was disappointed to learn that you are following in the footsteps of the Taiwan News and adopting the awful Tongyong system of Romanization. You say that the reason for this decision is to write Chinese place names in the way that most foreigners will be used to them. [Editor's note: the editorial did not say this; it said that names in the paper will correspond to local usage, even if the style is problematic.] If this is so, then the decision to use Tongyong for all place names is severely flawed.
Perhaps half of all Taiwan's foreign residents live in Taipei, and Taipei sensibly uses the Hanyu Pinyin system. It is also the only part of Taiwan I've been to which is now consistent in its naming. And now the Taipei Times -- note the "Taipei" -- is going to Romanize Taipei place names to make them different from what we see on Taipei street signs, MRT stops and government buildings. [Editor's note: No, we are not. We have adopted Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (
I suspect that like the pan-greens who have implemented Tongyong Pinyin, your motivation for this decision is actually based on politics rather than considerations of what is the best and most useful system. Now I am pro-independence, but I think it is utterly ridiculous to reject the only international standard of Romanization, the only option that makes sense, just because it happens to be the same system used in China.
Are we so cowardly that we have to care what China thinks when we make this sort of decision? Romanization has nothing to do with unification or localization. Perhaps we should also use different standards for the Internet, television and telecommunications, just to make sure we don't use the same system as China?
Your editorial said "we don't live in the world, we live in Taiwan," and this sums up the sort of parochial attitude that will help to even further distance Taiwan from the rest of the world, and in the long run only hurt the cause of Taiwanese independence.
Brian Rawnsley
Taipei
[Editor's note: Many of your points are based on a thorough misunderstanding of what we said. Readers are encouraged to carefully examine the editorial in question at www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/10/25/2003208361, bearing in mind that our use of Tongyong Pinyin applies only to those city or county jurisdictions that elect to use it -- unwisely or otherwise.]
That sinking feeling
As an American I am deeply saddened by US Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks [about reunification and Taiwan having no sovereignty, "MOFA blasts US `betrayal,'" Oct. 27. page 1]. My heart actually sank when I heard about that and it was deeply regrettable that he said that.
I have always been a supporter of Taiwan and its independence and I always will be. I just want to reassure you that Powell's comments do not represent the view of the American people, who by and large support Taiwan.
Alex Cross
Seattle, Washington
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
The Central Election Commission (CEC) on Friday announced that recall motions targeting 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安) have been approved, and that a recall vote would take place on July 26. Of the recall motions against 35 KMT legislators, 31 were reviewed by the CEC after they exceeded the second-phase signature thresholds. Twenty-four were approved, five were asked to submit additional signatures to make up for invalid ones and two are still being reviewed. The mass recall vote targeting so many lawmakers at once is unprecedented in Taiwan’s political history. If the KMT loses more
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
RSS