Because of China's incessant oppression of Taiwan, a variety of names for the country have emerged -- including Taiwan, the Republic of China (ROC), Formosa, Taiwan-Penghu-Kinmen-Matsu and Chinese Taipei. The diversity of the country's names has caused confusion among its own people, not to mention foreigners. Some countries which are not familiar with the complexities of the names are likely to make mistakes and cause embarrassment during a diplomatic trip of Taiwan's -- and China's -- top officials. This chaotic situation has severely damaged the people's national identity.
\nThere is similar confusion about China's name. It has been called "Red China" and "Communist China." But now there is consensus in international society to simply use the name "China." Nevertheless, Taiwan still addresses China in various ways. In the past, the most commonly used name was "Chung Kung," which, strictly speaking, refers to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rather than a national administration. Maybe "Chung Kung" can be better understood as a backward construction of "Communist China," or as a conflation of party and state entity. Also, some people call China the "Chinese mainland," the "mainland," or even the "inland."
\nSince China insists on its "one China" policy, the name "China" has become its unique designation. As a result, more and more Taiwanese people use the name "China" for the sake of showing respect to the Chinese government. But some Taiwanese people are not only unwilling to make such a concession, but want to fight over the title and legitimacy of "China" -- so they still use "Chung Kung" or "the mainland" although these are not very precise terms.
\nApart from connoting the unity of party and state, "Chung Kung" can negatively imply a single "party-state" entity. The character "Kung" (共) has a negative association and its use is avoided in China. Almost no one will accept being labeled as "Chin Kung [affiliating to the CCP]." Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan (
Taiwan’s status in the world community is experiencing something really different; it’s being treated like a normal country. And not just a “normal” country, more like a valuable, constructive, democratic and generous country. This is not simply an artifact of Taiwan’s successes in combatting the novel coronavirus. It is a new attitude, weighing Taiwan’s democracy against China’s lack of it. Before I continue, I should apologize to the readers of the Taipei Times. I have not visited Taipei since the opening of the American Institute in Taiwan’s new chancery building in Neihu last year, so I was unprepared for the photograph
At a June 12 news conference held by the Talent Circulation Alliance to announce the release of its white paper for this year, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) emphasized that, in this era of globalization, Taiwan should focus on improving foreign language and digital abilities when cultivating talent, so that it stands out from global competitors. I suggest the government should consider building a professional translation industry. If the public believes that there is a relationship between learning English and national competitiveness, then the nation must consider the social cost of language education. This should be assessed to maximise educational effectiveness: Is
In the face of the COVID-19 crisis, cities around the world are re-evaluating the importance of accessible green spaces for the benefit of public health and well-being. However, Taiwan’s success in containing the virus might impede opportunities to transform its cities into greener, healthier and more resilient places. Urban vegetable gardens have been highlighted by community planners worldwide during this wave of the green-space movement. Such gardens help enhance food security and also mental health, which in turn fosters social resilience in local communities during lockdowns. Since 2015, Taipei has run the “garden city” program, which allocates vacant land for use as
In March 2011, then-US president Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper, told the US Senate Intelligence Committee that, considering both its capabilities and intent, communist China presented “the greatest mortal threat” to the US, followed by Russia. In the ensuing years, in the face of faltering US responses, China expanded and intensified its hostile actions against US interests and values. Consistent with US President Donald Trump’s call for a dramatic new approach, within months of taking office, his administration’s National Security Strategy said of China’s multidimensional assault: “China is using economic inducements and penalties, influence operations ... implied military