The rebranding of “compassion seats” (博愛座) as “priority seating” (優先席) is a move toward clarity — a name rightly chosen, a concept aptly conveyed. With this change, supplemented by clear guidelines and sustained public awareness, the controversies once tied to these designated seats might gradually fade.
For many visitors to Taipei, the MRT leaves a lasting impression — not only for its cleanliness and order, but also for its compassion seats. Even during peak hours, these seats often remain vacant, reserved for those truly in need.
Yet in recent years, disputes over these seats have tarnished their original goodwill. Some who appear young and healthy — but might have needs that are not visible — find themselves shamed or even harassed for not yielding to elderly passengers. What begins as moral judgement escalates into verbal clashes, sometimes even physical altercations.
The term “compassion” is an inherent expression, appearing in classical texts more than two millennia ago. It calls for love beyond oneself — beyond family and friends — extending to strangers in a spirit of universal care.
Historically, “compassion” also translated the French revolutionary ideal of fraternity, or brotherhood, alongside liberty or freedom and equality. Here, it embodies the sentiment that “all under heaven are brothers.”
According to Taiwan’s Revised Mandarin Chinese Dictionary, a compassion seat is “a priority space for the elderly, infirm, pregnant, disabled or others in need, typically located near the doors of MRT trains, buses or other public transit vehicles.” This definition has evolved — years ago it was simply “seats near bus doors reserved for the elderly, women, children and the disabled.”
The concept originated in the West. During my doctoral studies in the US in the 1990s, buses and subways featured priority seating — functionally identical to Taiwan’s compassion seats, with the key word being priority. That is, those with needs come first; if none are present, others can sit.
Also called courtesy seating, these spots rely on consideration, not compulsion.
Compassion is an ideal. Courtesy reflects cultivation. Priority is practical. Returning to the essence of priority helps resolve disputes. Yet habits run deep — even renamed, many might still avoid these seats, wary of judgement. Changing this requires not just advocacy, but time.
Hugo Tseng holds a doctorate in linguistics, and is a lexicographer and former chair of the Soochow University English Department.
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taiwan and India are important partners, yet this reality is increasingly being overshadowed in current debates. At a time when Taiwan-India relations are at a crossroads, with clear potential for deeper engagement and cooperation, the labor agreement signed in February 2024 has become a source of friction. The proposal to bring in 1,000 migrant workers from India is already facing significant resistance, with a petition calling for its “indefinite suspension” garnering more than 40,000 signatures. What should have been a straightforward and practical step forward has instead become controversial. The agreement had the potential to serve as a milestone in
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS