The priority seating in public transport systems seems to be the pride of all Taiwanese. Regardless of how crowded the bus or train or metro, the fact that priority seats — “altruism seats” in Chinese — will remain unoccupied for the benefit of those in need is an expression of the good manners of Taiwanese.
However, there have been frequent disputes over the priority seating system in recent years. Some even feel that the whole system is unreasonable and that it should be abolished altogether, because they feel that every seat is a priority seat. I study language, so I approach the issue from a language perspective.
What is altruism? Most dictionaries define it along the lines of “selfless concern for others.” It is indeed about moving outside one’s close social circles and showing love and concern for everyone and not only oneself, one’s family and friends.
What are priority seats? According to the Ministry of Education’s online Chinese dictionary, they are “priority seats located close to the entrance on buses for use by older people, the infirm, women, children and disabled people.” On the whole, this is a reasonable definition, although it must have been a while since it was written, as it only considers buses, while ignoring metros and other public transport systems. There is also room to improve the description of the beneficiaries of the priority seating.
The priority seating concept might have originated in Europe or the US, so let us take a look at the source. During my doctoral studies in the US 25 years ago, there were always priority seats on buses and subway trains, and they worked pretty much like priority seating here in Taiwan.
Looking at the definition in the ministry’s dictionary, it stresses “priority” rather than “exclusivity.” In other words, anyone in need has priority of usage, but if there is no one with such a need, anyone can use the seats.
Some English-speaking countries use the term “courtesy seating” rather than “priority seating.” The name implies, then, that it is a matter of courtesy and politeness based on kindness and concern for others to let someone in need use the seat.
“Altruism” is a lofty ideal that we can only aspire to live up to, and it should not become an excuse for moral oppression. “Courtesy” is an individually nurtured quality, and since it is dependent on ourselves, it should not be used as an excuse for blaming others. “Priority” is the rule for this kind of seats in Taiwan, and it is the yardstick we all have to live by.
Everyone should show concern for others. It is not something that applies to some people, while others can ignore it. In the same way, everyone should be polite and courteous; it is not something that only applies to others and not to me.
If we sit in a regular seat rather than a priority seat and see someone who needs to sit, we should display our concern for others and spontaneously offer them our seat.
Neither should priority seats be treated as sacred and inviolable so that people are afraid of sitting down, because they might have to endure the disapproving looks of other passengers and feel uneasy — and maybe even become the target of online bullying — just because they need to rest their tired legs.
Priority seats should be just that — seats that are prioritized for those in need. Anyone can use them, as long as they relinquish the seat when they see someone who needs it.
Every time a situation arises due to the use of priority seats, that is an opportunity for reflection. Perhaps more debate and practical action are the way to create understanding and build a lasting consensus on the issue.
Hugo Tseng is an associate professor in Soochow University’s English department and a visiting scholar at Fudan University in Shanghai.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
RSS