The “Circular Tea Space” exhibit, which forms part of the Taiwan Pavilion at this year’s Venice Biennale of Architecture in Italy, received NT$3.8 million (US$122,898) in government funding. It is showcasing pu-erh tea (普洱茶), which is only grown in China’s Yunnan Province. Pu-erh’s surprise appearance in the exhibit shows the cultural power of the Chinese tea invasion.
Exhibiting Taiwanese tea in other countries should be a cause for celebration. The exhibit’s curators said they are using the tearoom to promote Taiwan’s tea culture and the nation’s efforts to further a circular economy. Visitors can taste 10 types of fine tea, and savor the relationship between people and nature through color, fragrance, sound, taste, touch and feelings. The organizers hope that visitors can draw closer to Taiwanese culture through a cup of tea.
However, the exhibit features Yunnan pu-erh tea under the brand name “Ganlu,” whose packing says it was made last year using leaves picked from 1,000-year-old trees. This Chinese tea’s presence in the exhibit has many in the local tea industry wondering whether Taiwan has any good teas to showcase on the international stage.
Taiwan’s tea culture is often praised as a fine product of Taiwanese creativity. In the past few years, young Taiwanese tea makers have been winning awards and making a name for themselves in international tea competitions. The government has subsidized tea to promote Taiwan’s international image, and of course the message should be delivered with Taiwanese tea. Who on earth thought of doing it with smartly packaged Chinese pu-erh tea?
Pu-erh is a good tea, and aged pu-erh tea can fetch high prices at auctions. However, the Taiwan tearoom is sponsored by the Taiwanese government to promote Taiwan’s image. Exhibiting pu-erh tea from Yunnan is incongruous and could cause cross-strait misunderstandings.
Fine teas are grown from the northern end of Taiwan to its southern tip. In the north, bazhong (or pouchong, 包種) tea is grown in Taipei’s Wenshan District (文山) and tieguanyin (鐵觀音) is grown in Wenshan District’s Muzha (木柵) area. Taoyuan, Hsinchu and Miaoli counties are renowned for their Oriental Beauty tea (椪風茶 or 東方美人茶). Nantou County is known for its highly prized dong ding (凍頂) oolong tea, while high-mountain oolong is grown around Nantou County’s Shanlin River (杉林溪) and Chiayi County’s Alishan (阿里山). Fushou Mountain (福壽山) in the Lishan (梨山) area of Taichung’s Heping District (和平) is famed for its dayuling (大禹嶺) high-mountain tea grown at an altitude of more than 2,000m. Kaohsiung’s Liouguei District (六龜) is known for its liouguei white tea, which is picked from wild bushes.
Each of these varieties is a local specialty tea that can appeal to connoisseurs across the world. Taiwan’s international event revolves around the theme of a “Circular Tea Space.” No matter which way you tour around Taiwan, you can find Taiwanese tea growing everywhere, so why spin off to China’s Yunnan Province and feature its pu-erh tea?
Tea is a wonderful cultural and creative product of history and sensibilities. The government subsidy to promote Taiwanese tea has the additional purpose of boosting Taiwan’s image. It should involve more than arranging a few tables and chairs and building a tearoom. This event has sparked discussion about the qualifications of the architects who are responsible for the project, and how well the tearoom was built. However, a more important question to ask is: if typically Chinese pu-erh tea is inserted as one of the main items in a Taiwanese tearoom, where can people discover the fine taste of real Taiwanese tea?
Chee Jung-sien is the founder of the International Tea Sommelier Academy.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
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
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military
RSS