An alliance of pro-localization groups, formed to oppose the exclusive use of Hanyu pinyin to translate station names into English on the Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) line, protested outside the Ministry of Education in Taipei on Tuesday last week.
“The romanization used on road signs and public transport is intended for foreigners. Every foreigner learning Mandarin learns Hanyu pinyin, because it is the international standard. The decision has nothing to do with the nation’s self-determination or any ideologies, because the point is to ensure that foreigners can read the signs,” an official from the ministry said, responding to the protest.
The use of Hanyu pinyin for place names and street signs is nothing more than a tool to aid understanding and has nothing to do with politics, according to the ministry.
Following this logic, since only a minority of the world’s “foreigners” speak Chinese, only a minority learn Hanyu pinyin, which is somewhat different from English phonetics. For example, in Hanyu pinyin the letter “x” is used to pronounce the Chinese character 西 (xi), rather than “si,” which is closer to how it sounds in English.
The romanized names on the Taoyuan airport MRT are there for the benefit of all foreigners, not just those who understand Chinese. If a foreigner understands Chinese, they are able to read Chinese characters and therefore probably do not need to read any form of pinyn.
Since Taiwan’s Tongyong pinyin is closer to how English is actually pronounced and spoken around the world, — it uses “si” instead of “xi” — the new MRT line should use Tongyong pinyin. Kaohsiung’s MRT has used Tongyong pinyin for many years, yet foreign visitors and residents have no problem navigating the system.
If we follow the logic of the ministry, it should recommend to China that its airport metro systems use Tongyong pinyin, since the romanization of station names on China’s metro systems is for the benefit of all foreigners around the world, not just those who understand Chinese.
One suspects that the Chinese government would have something to say about that.
It would probably state unequivocally that Hanyu pinyin forms a part of the official language of China, it is a sovereign matter and that Chinese metro systems will not be using Tongyong pinyin.
Calling on Chinese metro systems to adopt Tongyong pinyin, based on the notion that the romanization of place names and street names has nothing to do with politics would — quite rightly — be seen as political interference in China’s internal affairs — and a violation of basic international norms.
A sound language policy should strike a balance between the competing arguments of language as identity and language as a tool.
In 2002 then-premier Yu Shyi-kun approved the use of Tongyong pinyin. Why does the ministry still insist on rolling out the extreme and highly ideological argument of Hanyu pinyin as “purely a linguistic tool”?
Liu Chien-kuo, Chen Ting-fei, Kuan Bi-ling and Cheng Pao-ching are Democratic Progressive Party legislators.
Translated by Edward Jones
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and