Michael Turton wrote that "ideology is really the problem" ("Letters," July 8, Page 8). It is indeed his ideology of insisting on seeing everything as either black or white, that's the real problem he has. Taiwan, in this regard, simply has a way of life, rather than a "problem."
Turton totally forgets that the romanization method and the teaching of Taiwanese languages are basically cultural and social matters. The members of a society get to decide how they want to enjoy their life within the boundary of that society. That should be the purpose of any human community.
"Foreigners" are, yes, foreign. Flemish is actually Dutch, Afrikaans is also another form of Dutch. Does Turton see any "ideology problem" in the Flemish and South Africans insisting on their own "lan-guage?" Does Turton see any "ideology problem" in Canadians insisting on "tzet" as oppose to "zee."
Cultural differences should be seen as blossoming flowers in a garden: the more varieties the better. Making every flower look the same is dull.
When people argue about the romanization methods or teaching of Taiwanese languages, I see the passion and energy of life! It is fun and it is how culture should be "run." It's the process of argument where life comes to life.
Leave the fixation of "whose agenda is an ideology." Relax and enjoy the heat!
Sing Young
Taoyuan City
In his letter Turton claims that teaching Taiwanese languages will result in the "fracturing of Taiwan's ethnic framework." In other words, local languages bring ethnic "fracturing," and only Mandarin can preserve ethnic harmony.
Turton is parroting some hoary "one China" propaganda here. His claim is patently false; the imposition of Mandarin, which took place not only in the school system, was one of the most ethnically divisive events ever to occur in Taiwan, and the greater official use of other languages in the last decade has gone along with a marked decrease of ethnic strife.
He also claims that teaching local languages will result in their "suppression" by "official versions of themselves." Standardizing languages for use in schools can be contentious, but it would be far less so if it were done in the inclusive, democratic way that Taiwanese society is evolving towards, instead of the Beijing-dialect-centered way that Mandarin has been taught for decades.
The truth is that the true suppression of local languages is their politically-motivated exclusion from the educational system. No one can seriously claim that Taiwanese languages can survive without use in education. So, are we supposed to believe that language standardization is more suppressive than language death?
The weakness and illogicality of the arguments used by Turton and others only makes me more supportive of the long-overdue inclusion of Taiwanese languages in the Taiwanese educational system.
Craig Johnson
Taipei
As the war in Burma stretches into its 76th year, China continues to play both sides. Beijing backs the junta, which seized power in the 2021 coup, while also funding some of the resistance groups fighting the regime. Some suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is hedging his bets, positioning China to side with the victors regardless of the outcome. However, a more accurate explanation is that China is acting pragmatically to safeguard its investments and ensure the steady flow of natural resources and energy for its economy. China’s primary interest is stability and supporting the junta initially seemed like the best
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and
Numerous expert analyses characterize today’s US presidential election as a risk for Taiwan, given that the two major candidates, US Vice President Kamala Harris and former US president Donald Trump, are perceived to possess divergent foreign policy perspectives. If Harris is elected, many presume that the US would maintain its existing relationship with Taiwan, as established through the American Institute in Taiwan, and would continue to sell Taiwan weapons and equipment to help it defend itself against China. Under the administration of US President Joe Biden, whose political views Harris shares, the US on Oct. 25 authorized arms transfers to Taiwan, another
Navy Commander Admiral Tang Hua (唐華) said in an interview with The Economist that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been implementing an “anaconda strategy” to subdue Taiwan since President William Lai (賴清德) assumed office. The Chinese military is “slowly, but surely” increasing its presence around Taiwan proper, it quoted Tang as saying. “They are ready to blockade Taiwan at any time they want,” he said. “They give you extreme pressure, pressure, pressure. They’re trying to exhaust you.” Beijing’s goal is to “force Taiwan to make mistakes,” Tang said, adding that they could be “excuses” for a blockade. The interview reminds me