On July 30, the National Taiwan University (NTU) Cooperative Shop convened a board of directors’ meeting. Board director Sun Phok-ju spoke in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese) during the meeting, but was ordered to stop by chairperson Shih Hsiu-hui (施秀惠).
Shih cited a resolution passed by the board in the previous meeting on June 14, when director Jerome Geaun (官俊榮), an NTU professor, proposed that board meetings be conducted in Mandarin.
At the July 30 meeting, Geaun compared speaking Hoklo to smoking cigarettes, saying: “You have the liberty to smoke, but you cannot infringe on other people’s liberty, which is why the government set up the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act (菸害防制法) and non-smoking areas.”
Geaun said that although he opposes speaking Hoklo in public settings, he does not oppose Sun speaking Hoklo in private.
This raises the question of whether comparing speaking Hoklo to smoking cigarettes is reasonable or a matter of comparing apples and oranges.
If Geaun is right, should the Legislative Yuan, following Geaun’s logic, pass a “Hoklo prevention act” designating Hoklo-prohibited areas in the same way that there are areas where smoking is prohibited, for example, Public Television Service’s (PTS) Hoklo channel, which is using state power to showcase Hoklo culture?
It also raises the question of why Mandarin is allowed when speaking in public, but not Hoklo.
How would Geaun feel if Sun had proposed that board meetings should be conducted in Hoklo, and if the resolution were passed, he would no longer be allowed to speak Mandarin in public?
Article 3 of the National Languages Development Act (國家語言發展法), passed on Dec. 25 last year, states that “national languages” refer to the “natural languages” used by all Taiwanese ethnic groups and peoples — Hoklo, Hakka and the Aboriginal languages — as well as sign language.
Article 4 states that all national languages are equal, and Article 11 stipulates that Taiwanese can use the national language of their choice when participating in administrative, legislative and judicial procedures in government agencies and institutes.
Geaun’s proposal is a serious contravention of the aforementioned articles, but the act does not stipulate punishments. This means that the act of using Mandarin to suppress Hoklo — as Shih and Geaun did — is not controlled by the law.
This creates a legal loophole that someone with an ulterior motive could use to suppress local languages.
Apart from verbal condemnations, the nation needs additional measures to curb such cultural bullying. For example, Article 19 of the Environmental Education Act (環境教育法) stipulates that all public employees, teachers and high-school students, must take at least four hours of environmental education each year.
How about following this example and formulating an article in the national languages act that demands at least four hours of national language education every year?
Or consider the punishment for contraventions of the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act, which states that offenders shall be fined “repeatedly and continuously for every single violation” until the contravention is corrected.
Perhaps the government should follow this example and set up a regulation to punish offenders of the national languages act.
Koeh Ian-lim is vice chairman of the Taiwan Teachers’ Union.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry