When much-maligned Taiwan Statebuilding Party Legislator Chen Po-wei (陳柏惟) last week insisted on questioning Minister of National Defense Chiu Kuo-cheng (邱國正) in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), Chiu appeared annoyed.
Before answering the question, Chiu told Chen: “Language is a communication tool, if everyone can use the same tools, it will make things more convenient. If you insist on going through an interpreter, then I will follow the rules and have your question interpreted before speaking.”
Things got heated from there, as Chen asked why Chiu was questioning his use of his mother tongue, which he is working hard to protect.
“Would you ask a French person to speak Mandarin?” he asked, before accusing Chiu of being overbearing.
Chen was not forcing Chiu to respond in Hoklo, as he had requested an interpreter to be in attendance.
Chiu stood his ground and said that he was not being disrespectful; he was just making a suggestion so that the communication process could be smoother and faster.
Chen issued a public apology that evening for causing a stir, but continued to defend his right to use his mother language, and called for more communication and discussion on the matter.
This was sad to see, as Taiwan’s various languages suffered for so long under Japanese rule and then the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime, and when they are finally allowed to be used in official situations like this, they are met with such disdain.
It is even sadder to see that many Internet users actually supported Chiu, arguing that not everyone speaks Hoklo in Taiwan.
That is not the point.
Chiu was not expected to understand or respond in Hoklo, that is what the interpreter was for, but one should not have their right to speak in their mother tongue questioned; whether Chiu asked nicely or not is irrelevant.
This much should be apparent after the government enacted the Development of National Languages Act (國家語言發展法) in 2018, but people are still not getting the message.
Yes, Chen is controversial — a recall vote against him is to take place later this month — but there is a larger problem here.
It is true that Mandarin is everyone’s common language in the nation and using it is technically the most efficient way to conduct a discussion without potential misunderstanding, and Chiu was not as rude as the National Taiwan University professors who shut down a student representative who spoke in Hoklo at a 2019 board meeting.
Not only did the professors insist that anyone using any language other than Mandarin would not be allowed to speak, the remarks they made were blatant cultural bullying.
However, Chiu still subscribed to one of the biggest misconceptions surrounding the language issue: that language is just a communication tool.
Language is much more than that: It is an important marker of one’s identity and culture. Throughout human history, no matter in what region of the world, one of the first things a new ruler would do to subjugate a conquered people was to forcefully suppress their language — often violently.
Before it is too late, Taiwanese need to do everything they can to reclaim their endangered mother tongues — even if it means taking a little more time to have their message translated. Looking at the big picture, what is a little inconvenience after more than half a century of linguistic oppression?
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS