Many foreign nationals in this country will be relieved to hear that the government is gearing up to install Hanyu Pinyin as the national system of Romanization. The devolving Wade-Giles system will be abandoned, as will the controversial Tongyong system introduced by the previous administration.
The problem of Romanization hardly appears on the radar for most locals, but for officials that deal with the standardization of street names and place names and other bureaucratic tasks, turning Chinese sounds into Roman script has been a perennial headache, and one that has been amplified and distorted by the debate over Taiwanese and Chinese identity.
This newspaper welcomes the development. Taipei City in effect acted as a trial site for this policy, and the results — evident on signs, brochures and government documents — have been competent and professional, notwithstanding the tweaking of the system with capital letters for syllables or erratic use of the apostrophe.
Few will weep for Tongyong, an ideologically inspired — and poorly crafted — variant of Hanyu Pinyin that failed to deliver on its promise to provide a Romanization system for all of Taiwan’s languages, including Austronesian tongues. Tongyong was a charade that only succeeded in ceding Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) control of the issue to President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) pro-China government.
Local DPP administrations have faithfully introduced the Tongyong system, and some Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) local governments (such as Taipei County) continue to adopt it. It will be interesting to see what types of carrot and stick the central government will wield to convince local governments to spend — yet again — a large amount of money changing Roman lettering on their property.
The superiority of Hanyu Pinyin will ensure its survival, regardless of politics, but supporters of Taiwan’s independence need not be too concerned; any move to introduce simplified characters would be far more threatening and more worthy of vigilance.
That said, there are several problems with installing Hanyu Pinyin, the most pressing of which is the danger that the government will imitate Chinese autocracy in forcing people to change the Romanization of their names in passports and other documents.
Even in the unlikely event that the president and Cabinet officials changed their Romanized names to set a good example — and this would be necessary if they did not wish to be branded hypocrites — this would not justify regulations compelling people, even newborns, to spell their names in a certain way.
Introducing Hanyu Pinyin is about convenience and consistency, but should not, through autocratic rules, become a new front in the battle over identity.
Pragmatism is exactly why we would see the retention of “Taipei,” “Kaohsiung” and “Hsinchu” instead of “Taibei,” “Gaoxiong” and “Xinzhu,” and is the most sensible way to proceed in a politicized environment.
Familiarity and ease of use is more important than ideology. But more important than any of this is the principle that individuals in a free society have the right to decide how they shall be addressed. If the president turns up his nose at “Ma Yingjiu,” or if the minister of the interior curiously insists on his name being spelled Liao Liou-yi (廖了以) instead of Liao Liaoyi (despite the first two syllables being identical), or if the minister of finance is particularly attached to the given name “Sush-der” (述德) instead of “Shude,” then this should be respected.
But the Cabinet should understand that if it does not extend this courtesy to ordinary people, present and future, then a strong protest would be justified. Indeed, a strong protest would be essential.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS