Many foreign nationals in this country will be relieved to hear that the government is gearing up to install Hanyu Pinyin as the national system of Romanization. The devolving Wade-Giles system will be abandoned, as will the controversial Tongyong system introduced by the previous administration.
The problem of Romanization hardly appears on the radar for most locals, but for officials that deal with the standardization of street names and place names and other bureaucratic tasks, turning Chinese sounds into Roman script has been a perennial headache, and one that has been amplified and distorted by the debate over Taiwanese and Chinese identity.
This newspaper welcomes the development. Taipei City in effect acted as a trial site for this policy, and the results — evident on signs, brochures and government documents — have been competent and professional, notwithstanding the tweaking of the system with capital letters for syllables or erratic use of the apostrophe.
Few will weep for Tongyong, an ideologically inspired — and poorly crafted — variant of Hanyu Pinyin that failed to deliver on its promise to provide a Romanization system for all of Taiwan’s languages, including Austronesian tongues. Tongyong was a charade that only succeeded in ceding Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) control of the issue to President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) pro-China government.
Local DPP administrations have faithfully introduced the Tongyong system, and some Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) local governments (such as Taipei County) continue to adopt it. It will be interesting to see what types of carrot and stick the central government will wield to convince local governments to spend — yet again — a large amount of money changing Roman lettering on their property.
The superiority of Hanyu Pinyin will ensure its survival, regardless of politics, but supporters of Taiwan’s independence need not be too concerned; any move to introduce simplified characters would be far more threatening and more worthy of vigilance.
That said, there are several problems with installing Hanyu Pinyin, the most pressing of which is the danger that the government will imitate Chinese autocracy in forcing people to change the Romanization of their names in passports and other documents.
Even in the unlikely event that the president and Cabinet officials changed their Romanized names to set a good example — and this would be necessary if they did not wish to be branded hypocrites — this would not justify regulations compelling people, even newborns, to spell their names in a certain way.
Introducing Hanyu Pinyin is about convenience and consistency, but should not, through autocratic rules, become a new front in the battle over identity.
Pragmatism is exactly why we would see the retention of “Taipei,” “Kaohsiung” and “Hsinchu” instead of “Taibei,” “Gaoxiong” and “Xinzhu,” and is the most sensible way to proceed in a politicized environment.
Familiarity and ease of use is more important than ideology. But more important than any of this is the principle that individuals in a free society have the right to decide how they shall be addressed. If the president turns up his nose at “Ma Yingjiu,” or if the minister of the interior curiously insists on his name being spelled Liao Liou-yi (廖了以) instead of Liao Liaoyi (despite the first two syllables being identical), or if the minister of finance is particularly attached to the given name “Sush-der” (述德) instead of “Shude,” then this should be respected.
But the Cabinet should understand that if it does not extend this courtesy to ordinary people, present and future, then a strong protest would be justified. Indeed, a strong protest would be essential.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS