Taipei’s MRT subway signs have recently been internationalized, with Japanese and Korean being added to the existing Chinese and English texts. Meanwhile, signage across China has gradually undergone “de-Anglicization” — the elimination of the English language — turning from bilingual to Chinese only, thus forming a sharp contrast between the two countries. While Taiwan is going international, China appears to be locking itself off from the world.
The decline in Chinese tourists has led the Taiwanese government to promote tourism to other countries. With the increase in foreign tourists, the Taipei MRT has been adding Japanese and Korean to the original Chinese and English signage to make travel more convenient for foreigners. This is a change that Taiwan has made as it tries to move from the Chinese market to the global market, so as not to fall into a tourism crisis due to a lack of Chinese travelers.
Meanwhile, China has changed its highway signs from bilingual to solely Chinese due to its leaders’ preferences. This change has also made its way into schools, where it has started reducing the influence of foreign languages such as English. From banning English as a subject from final exams in elementary schools to limiting elementary-school students’ maximum tutoring hours at English-language institutes, the traces of Beijing’s “de-Anglicization” is visible in almost every aspect of life. This has also led to the closure of online tutoring platforms in China, as they flee to other Chinese-speaking regions to make ends meet.
From these examples, it could be seen that Taiwan is moving toward internationalization and globalization, while broadening its vision to avoid the impact of a single market on its economic development.
The government has also strengthened bilingual education for children to cultivate an international outlook, and an understanding of various foreign cultures through language.
By contrast, China is moving toward “de-Anglicization.” Although the authorities claim that this is to enhance Chinese cities’ image and a sense of national identity among citizens, they are actually giving up the nation’s future competitiveness. In an era of diminishing demographic dividends, would China’s approach result in a more depressed domestic economy and an accelerated outflow of foreign companies from China? The impacts from this could be seen in China’s surging youth unemployment rate and the massive withdrawal of foreign firms. If Beijing persists with its “de-Anglicization” campaign, its economy might go from bad to worse.
Taiwan’s and China’s traffic signs also demonstrate the completely different policy thinking of the two countries. China has used official propaganda to cover up the crisis brought about by its “de-Anglicization” and exaggerated its people’s self-confidence. In doing so, its next generation might eventually lose its international competitiveness.
As for Taiwan, through bilingual education and bilingualization or multilingualization of signage, its next generation would be more accustomed to the use of foreign languages, and would be able to boost its national competitiveness. As a result, Taiwan and China would be on two very different paths, and the former is expected to achieve greater success.
Yang Feng-jung is an interior designer.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS