A holistic language policy
Taiwan is a multilingual country in a multilingual ASEAN context. It deserves a holistic language policy that respects this fact.
The “official bilingualism” advanced by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration would be as damaging and alienating as the Mandarin “official unilingualism” imposed by the Chinese National Party (KMT) for decades. It would work against the natural linguistic diversity of Taiwan.
First, the facts. Contrary to the claim of Lee Po-Chih (李博志) (“Bilingualism beneficial for Taiwan,” Dec. 13, page 8), Singapore is not “bilingual,” but has four official languages: English, Mandarin, Tamil and Malay — with the last constitutionally enshrined as the national language. Most of the other countries he listed as “bilingual” — the Philippines, Malaysia, India, Pakistan and Nepal — legally recognize several languages.
Take legal matters as an example of the potential damage: Rushed implementation of official bilingualism risks introducing unintended side effects in Taiwan’s legal system, which already has enough problems. Translators for the legal texts, to be deemed as equally authentic, would be hard pressed to hastily reproduce the delicate compromises obtained years ago in the legislature.
The textbook lesson is the Stauder v City of Ulm case (1969), in which the European Court of Justice had to interpret four-language versions of the same law whose plain reading did not match one another.
Are Taiwanese lawyers ready for such jurisprudence as soon as 2030? Not if the “criminal bulletin board” I spotted recently in front of a Tainan courthouse is any indication (read: “bulletin board for criminal cases”).
It took a decade of work before the 1997 handover to prepare the Chinese text of the Hong Kong statute book. Singapore statutes are only available in English. The city-state also stifled its own linguistic diversity through the Speak Mandarin Campaign.
National Development Council Minister Chen Mei-ling (陳美伶) said in her interview (“Minister outlines blueprint for bilingual nation,” Dec. 17, page 16) that the colonial background of Singapore and Hong Kong “help[ed]” their bilingualism.
Is colonialism or the geopolitical status of Hong Kong seriously what the DPP wishes for Taiwan?
Likewise, it is difficult to understand why the DPP administration is competing with Kaohsiung mayor-elect Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) by promoting official bilingualism in this fad-chasing way. All this at the expense of tongues like Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), Hakka and the Aboriginal languages — alienating these communities.
Hoklo has especially been left by the wayside: Even though it is the mother tongue of a majority of Taiwanese, there is still no state-funded public service television station for it, unlike the other native tongues.
Every time this is raised, cries of “Hoklo chauvinism” resound, but such an accusation is never directed at policies to force-feed Mandarin or English.
Chen’s response to the question “Will the bilingual policy suppress efforts to preserve mother-tongue culture?” was shockingly cavalier.
She simply told us: “No need to worry about that,” changed the subject to talk about “digital technology,” and went on reading from her press briefing.
Instead of piecemeal “official bilingualism,” let me repeat my exhortation for the third time in two decades: Taiwan needs a holistic language policy (Letters, Jan. 12, 2000, page 8; Jan. 21, 2017, page 8). The best way to proceed is a national languages development act, as proposed by the Ministry of Culture (“Hakka group slams caucus whip’s comments,” Nov. 15, 2017, page 3).
There are university professors with expertise: Tiunn Hak-khiam (張學謙) and Shih Cheng-Feng (施正鋒) in Hualien, and Wi-Vun Taiffalo Chiung (蔣為文) in Tainan. They could help develop a holistic policy respecting Taiwan’s multilingual diversity, including the use of English and Mandarin.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has created a dilemma that could soon cause him to be hoisted with his own petard, bringing his leadership of China to an end. His threatening rhetoric over the unification of Taiwan with China, in which he has said, “we are willing to draw blood if necessary,” has placed Xi in a corner. Xi is portrayed as a strong world leader, yet he has created a scenario for himself that most likely would have an unfavorable outcome. With the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) scheduled to convene this month, Xi cannot
I was privileged to meet with many of Taiwan’s leaders and leading thinkers during a study tour visit in August. One theme I heard several times during that trip was that bad relations between the United States and China benefit Taiwan. At first thought, I empathize with the argument. After all, there is a troubling record of America’s leaders negotiating with Beijing over the heads of Taiwan’s leaders. For example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt returned Taiwan to China after World War II. President Richard Nixon surprised Taiwan leaders with his 1972 trip to China. President Jimmy Carter unilaterally chose to normalize
Washington’s “one China” policy has not changed and the US does not take a position on Taiwan’s sovereignty issue, a US Department of State spokesperson has said. He said that this has been the principle of US policy toward Taiwan since 1979, and the policy has remained in effect. He also said that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has privately made this clear to Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅). The US’ “one China” policy and China’s “one China” principle recognize China as the “representative of China.” The two diverge on the issue of Taiwan: Beijing asserts sovereignty
I live in Taiwan because, like many foreigners, I fell in love with and chose to align my life with a Taiwanese. In an era where personal freedoms are mandatorily ceded to government decree, I am thankful to the Taiwanese government for the spousal visa, as well as the lack of demeaning bureaucratic hoops and hurdles needed to get a work permit, residency permit and healthcare. However, if I then choose to attempt citizenship, this enlightened attitude spasms to seizure, culminating in what appears to be blatant xenophobia. In contrast to Western countries, the path to citizenship mandates a protracted period