Hanyu no threat to identity
The Mandarin Promotion Council has shown political bias in abandoning the international standard of Pinyin in favor of Tongyong Pinyin (通用拼音) which is unlikely to be accepted by users. The chief architect of the unwelcome addition to Tai-wan's current tower of Babel, Yu Bor-chuan (余伯泉), even had the gall to claim that if his pet system is not adopted, "Taiwan will lose its unique cultural traits and national identity." Gimme a break! Equally biased are the (chiefly KMT) opponents who politicize the issue with their ludicrous claim that Tongyong will further isolate Taiwan from the international community.
Frankly, I cannot imagine that the global political community cares very much how we spell Keelung or Jilong here. Hooey! How Taiwan spells Dunhua or Tunhwa Road does nothing to its national identity, which is and will remain proud and independent. Let us not load what should be practical linguistic matters with such political baggage.
Please! Taiwan has a long history of cooking up home-grown Romanization systems which eventually end up collecting dust on the shelves, from Gwoyeu Romatzyh -- National Phonetic Symbols II -- in 1928, to the 1984 adoption by the Ministry of Education of a modified form of it. Both failed due to lack of public acceptance; it seems that the ministry has never understood the needs and opinions of the users of Romanization, foremost among whom are the foreign community, not some group of Academia Sinica linguists and certainly not some group of political appointees.
Weren't the complaints by the foreigners about Taipei's street signs what started this whole issue? But no foreigner I know was consulted on the adoption of a new standard, and none that I know of will be willing to use the new system. And what did Minister of Education Huang Jong-tsun (
Huang also claims no one will be forced to use the Tongyong system. This is absurd. First, if it is applied to street signs nationwide (except in protesting areas), everyone whose eyes fall upon the signs is being forced to use it. Second, if it is not taught in schools and applied consistently nationwide (ie, forced upon everyone), it is obviously nothing more than an addition to the current mess, making matters worse.
While the goal of having one system for all languages is admirable, the fact is that the main use for Romanization always has been and always will be to help foreigners pronounce and learn Chinese. There is simply no excuse for neglecting our opinions on the issue.
Kent M. Suarez
Taipei
As an English person who has been living in Taiwan for 18 months and learning Chinese for about the same amount of time, I support the adoption of Hanyu Pinyin (漢語拼音), though not necessarily because it is the best system. Although Hanyu is perfectly adequate, it is also flawed and it could well be that the Tongyong system could offer some improvements. But the fact remains that Hanyu is now the accepted standard around the world and you simply have to flow with the current.
By way of comparison, Eng-lish is now a world language, although its writing system is anything but perfect. Unlike other European languages, such as German and Spanish, which by and large spell words the way they are pronounced, there is no logical system in English and you simply have to memorize and accept the irregular spelling of many words without too many explanations.
When I was at primary school in England in the 1960s there were attempts to reform the English spelling system to make it more logical. The attempt was futile and all it did was put the student guinea pigs at a disadvantage compared with other students who had learned to read and write using traditional methods. As flawed as the Eng-lish writing system is, you simply have to accept it, warts and all.
Hanyu Pinyin has only been around for some 40 years or so, but it has now taken root and become the accepted standard throughout the world for the media, educational materials, maps, tourist guides, etc. I'm sure that the well-intentioned people who devised Tongyong Pinyin are convinced that their system is better and I wouldn't disagree with them, but I feel it would be much better for Tai-wan to adopt the international standard than to put students and the general public at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the world, and also marginalize Taiwan into the bargain.
Foreigners and Taiwanese alike who support Hanyu Pinyin do so not because they are "anti-Taiwan." On the contrary, they do so because they love Taiwan dearly and have the country's long-term interests at heart.
Stephen Rimmer
Taipei
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS