Politics has driven much of the dispute between the Ministry of Education and the Taipei City Government over an official Romanization system. The clash of ethnic and cultural factors in the debate has triggered an endless war of words that does little to resolve the differences.
For centuries, a majority of the people in Taiwan could not read Chinese because education was largely limited to wealthy families. Only after the introduction of Christianity were members of Christian churches in Taiwan able to read the Bible and sing hymns in their mother tongues -- in Romanized form. It was largely due to church-sponsored efforts to devise Romanization systems that the various ethnic groups -- Hokkein and Hakka immigrants and aborigines -- were able to preserve considerable portions of their languages despite 50 years of Japanese colonial rule and decades of the KMT's martial law regime.
This historical background has long made language use a symbol of both oppression and resistance in Taiwan. It has also made rational debate on the question of languages and Romanization systems difficult.
Supporters of China's Hanyu Pinyin system -- represented by the KMT-led Taipei City Government -- need to understand the deep wounds left behind by that history. At one time or another, the ethnic identity and mother tongues of Taiwanese and aborgines were all brutally suppressed by the powers that be. Official regulations forbade people from speaking in their native languages at public places and in schools. The city government cannot use Taiwan's need to stay connected with the rest of the world as the sole basis for its demand that the people of Taiwan immediately adopt a system aggressively promoted by Beijing and now accepted by the international community. Such persuasion takes time.
Some in the pro-Hanyu camp have even used the term "de-Sinicization" to describe the motivation of those who favor Tongyong Pingying. Such criticism could easily escalate ethnic tensions.
However, proponents of the Tongyong system also need to face up to the fact that Hanyu has long been accepted by the international community -- including the UN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Time magazine and academic institutions around the world. It is therefore inappropriate for the education ministry to forge ahead with plans to make Tongyong compulsory in Taiwan's schools.
In light of the needs of the nation's various ethnic groups, the best option would be to use Tongyong as the main system for instruction, so that each ethnic group can use the spellings for place names, street names and personal names that are preferred by the persons involved. Forcing people to spell their names in Hanyu would be as unreasonable as the old practice of forcing Aboriginal people to adopt Han names.
While teaching the Tongyong system, teachers would only need to make the time to compare it with Hanyu in the few instances where the two systems vary. This way students would become familiar with both systems. This format would allow for both local cultural development and allow Taiwan to stay connected with the rest of the world.
Rational communication and dialogue is what is needed now, not more emotional attacks that only serve to inflame passions. The easier it is for people -- both within Taiwan and around the world -- to communicate with one another, the better off we will all be.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS