In a recent article ("Ma tries kindergarten Taiwanese," Jan. 14, Page 2), Hakka and the Aboriginal languages are listed with "Taiwanese," as separate languages considered for inclusion in the educational establishment.
Unfortunately the reporter uses the term "Taiwanese" as an equivalent to one of the several languages commonly used in Taiwan: the Hokkien language.
As is well known, Hakka and the Aboringinal languages are also native languages spoken by groups of people in Taiwan; they are as "Taiwanese" as the Hokkien language.
Using "Taiwanese" to refer only to the Hokkien language is a trait of the so-called Hokkien chauvinism, like using the term "Taiwanese" to refer only to people who speak Hokkien in Taiwan.
That practice dates back to when Chiang kai-shek's
To date, even many Hakka unconsciously calls Hokkien Taiwanese, not thinking of Hakka as Taiwanese also.
To really promote ethnic harmony and the Taiwanese identity, all native languages in Taiwan should be called Taiwanese (Taiwanese Hokkien, Taiwanese Hakka and Taiwanese aboringinal language or simply Hokkien, Hakka and the Aboriginal languages).
Daniel Chan
Irvine, California
Bosses are the bottleneck
In a recent letter, Bunjay Su posed a question common among foreigners here: Why are English translations so bad in Taiwan? ("A last word on language," Jan. 14, Page 12).
Aside from things like insane time pressure, the utter lack of training most of us translators have, the low pay and the fact that the majority of documents we receive are badly-written (few people write well), the single greatest problem is bosses.
Give a Western boss a solid translation and he will be ecstatic to pass it on to a printer without the need to make changes. This is not so of my Chinese bosses.
In Taiwan, being the boss has a moral dimension: his role is to correct employees; hence, if a document passes through his hands without correction, he has failed in his role.
Bosses feel this need to "correct" regardless of their level of English and all bosses in the document's chain of existence will tamper with it.
Consequently, on many occasions I have been handed back documents with "corrections" (all contradictory) from a secretary, her boss and the printer, and told to implement them.
Since none of them speak English, all such "corrections" are errors.
One manager at a government bureau I worked for used to routinely change all verbs to "execute."
A boss at a large-volume retailer used to insist that the order and number of sentences/phrases be the same in the translation as in the original.
I have had documents returned because the English was too "easy." Many bosses feel they haven't gotten their money's worth unless there is plenty of latinate English in the translation.
Moreover, when changes are implemented, the translator is generally not consulted, though our names are on the document! We cannot even read our own work without wincing.
Exacerbating the problem is the prevalence in this society of finding fault in others.
I was fired after one client ran the document through Microsoft's abysmal grammar checker and found that all the passive voice sentences were "wrong." (Although I have worked for many translation companies, at none of these was the person directly responsible for me able to communicate in English. Frequently neither was the owner. Corporate clients are usually more reasonable.)
At a couple of companies my wife and I work for the "editor," a secretary who speaks no English, delights in calling my wife and reeling off a list of our latest "offenses," putting us in the undignified position of justifying our decisions or not getting paid.
Authors love to play games, such as not providing technical terms or titles (if known) to test us as well as demonstrate their own superiority.
Boss intervention no doubt accounts for the outbreaks of Chinglish common in otherwise fine documents.
It probably also has something to do with boners like Taiwan's hideous slogan, "It's very well made in Taiwan" or naming a sedan "Cedric," or the countless errors in the junior high English textbook, or everyone's favorite "open" sign -- "to run business."
Michael Turton
Kaohsiung
The evils of capitalism
It seems that capitalism has the last say in every aspect of modern life. A recent article ("Nobel peace winners attack AIDS drugs policy," Jan. 14, Page 7) fully reflects such an ominous reality.
In that report, Medecins sans Frontieres said that the US is restricting developing nations' access to life-prolonging anti-AIDS drugs to protect the interests of big business and that this is causing more AIDS deaths in Asia, especially in Thailand, since few Thais can afford the treatment.
I pray Taiwan's prosperity lasts forever, otherwise, we too will end up like Thailand.
The catch-22 is that, to do so, we must become more and more involved in cold capitalism.
I do not despise commercial interests. But putting them ahead of all other things will lead to an undemocratic disaster, where the majority are at the mercy of a few tycoons.
Ni Kuo-jung
Hsinchu
The right to clean air
Kudos to reader C. Yao of Taipei for expressing my feelings exactly (Letters, Jan. 9 Page 8). One more thing I could add to his very logical statement is this: smoking stinks.
Even if it is a national habit, it may be offensive to those who would like to breathe clean air.
Chewing raw garlic is acceptable in Sicily, Italy. How-ever a New York City taxi cab driver was fined by a court after a customer complained about the stench the driver generated while taking his fare.
The taxi driver tried in vain to defend his position that it is his right to chew garlic as he was an Italian-American.
The court found that he was infringing on the rights and freedom of others by stinking up the air, his ethnicity notwithstanding.
How about tobacco smoke that is proven to be toxic and dangerous to all concerned parties: the users and the bystanders alike?
Andrew Budai
Hsinchu
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing