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
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath