Nothing-new dollar
Is it not finally time to drop the “New” from the name of Taiwan’s currency?
After all, it has been 70 years since the New Taiwan dollar replaced the Old Taiwan dollar in 1949, so it has been a very long time indeed since there was anything new about it. Would it not be much more appropriate now to call it simply the “Taiwan dollar” (台幣), dropping the “New” (新) from its official name?
In the UK, after the decimalization of the currency in 1971, the change in the value of the smaller unit of currency was indicated by changing its name from “pence” to “new pence,” as denoted on the coinage. However, the “new” was only kept for 10 years, until 1981, when its newness had worn off sufficiently for it to be dropped.
Many other countries, more than 20, use “dollar” as the name of their currencies. Apart from Taiwan, they only add the name of their country to the name of the currency, without any other descriptor.
Thus, there is the US dollar, the Canadian dollar, the Australian dollar, the New Zealand dollar, the Singapore dollar, the Hong Kong dollar, the Jamaican dollar, the Liberian dollar, the Solomon Islands dollar and so on. None but Taiwan adds a “New,” or any other adjective before or anywhere else, in the name of their currency.
Moreover, there is no other country that prefaces the name of their currency with a “New” or any other adjective. All simply qualify the chosen name of their unit of currency with their country name: the Argentine peso, the Brazilian real, the Danish krone, the Indian rupee, the Japanese yen, the Kuwaiti dinar, the Lebanese pound, the Malaysian ringgit, the Moroccan dirham, the Nigerian naira, the Russian ruble, the South African rand, the South Korean won, the Swiss franc, the Turkish lira, the Thai baht, the Vietnamese dong and so on.
So is it not about time that Taiwan came into line with the rest of the world and officially simplified the name of its currency to “Taiwan dollar”? Besides removing the potentially misleading reference to the currency’s already venerable age, it would also put to the fore and accentuate the name of its issuer: Taiwan, not “New Taiwan” or some other sub-national or embryonic entity.
Peter Whittle
Linkou, New Taipei City
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS