No written form?
As a Taiwanese-American, I feel it is my solemn responsibility to educate the public and often times “correct” misleading information pertaining to Taiwanese culture and history on an “overseas representative level.”
On Thursday last week, I was Web-surfing and came across what I deemed to be a misleading statement issued by the Tourism Bureau with regards to the Hoklo language (also known as Taiwanese) as it relates to mainstream Mandarin Chinese: “Mandarin is the most widespread and commonly used language. The Taiwanese language has no written form, which has prevented it from becoming as sustained and easily used as Mandarin.”
I find this statement offensively misleading, especially coming from a government agency; stemming from the Government Information Office. Whether deliberate or unintentional, this misrepresentation portrays the Taiwanese language as lacking a written form, false information that is disseminated throughout the World Wide Web in English. If the action is indeed intentional, the goal would maliciously perpetuate the idea that Taiwanese do not have their own distinct identity in the international community.
As for Mandarin Chinese becoming the sustainable and easily used “national language” (since the late 1940s), this is a separate issue. I ask that the Tourism Bureau and the Government Information Office retract the statement that “the Taiwanese language has no written form, which has prevented it from becoming as sustained and easily used as Mandarin” that appears on www.go2taiwan.net/chinese_language.php or any other mass-distributed information forum, and offer a formal apology and explanation for their belittlement and misrepresentation of the Taiwanese language to Taiwanese.
Please spread the word.
ANDY CHANG-CHIEN
Irvine, California
[Editor’s note: This passage has since been removed from the Tourism Bureau’s Web site.]
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS