The priority seating in public transport systems seems to be the pride of all Taiwanese. Regardless of how crowded the bus or train or metro, the fact that priority seats — “altruism seats” in Chinese — will remain unoccupied for the benefit of those in need is an expression of the good manners of Taiwanese.
However, there have been frequent disputes over the priority seating system in recent years. Some even feel that the whole system is unreasonable and that it should be abolished altogether, because they feel that every seat is a priority seat. I study language, so I approach the issue from a language perspective.
What is altruism? Most dictionaries define it along the lines of “selfless concern for others.” It is indeed about moving outside one’s close social circles and showing love and concern for everyone and not only oneself, one’s family and friends.
What are priority seats? According to the Ministry of Education’s online Chinese dictionary, they are “priority seats located close to the entrance on buses for use by older people, the infirm, women, children and disabled people.” On the whole, this is a reasonable definition, although it must have been a while since it was written, as it only considers buses, while ignoring metros and other public transport systems. There is also room to improve the description of the beneficiaries of the priority seating.
The priority seating concept might have originated in Europe or the US, so let us take a look at the source. During my doctoral studies in the US 25 years ago, there were always priority seats on buses and subway trains, and they worked pretty much like priority seating here in Taiwan.
Looking at the definition in the ministry’s dictionary, it stresses “priority” rather than “exclusivity.” In other words, anyone in need has priority of usage, but if there is no one with such a need, anyone can use the seats.
Some English-speaking countries use the term “courtesy seating” rather than “priority seating.” The name implies, then, that it is a matter of courtesy and politeness based on kindness and concern for others to let someone in need use the seat.
“Altruism” is a lofty ideal that we can only aspire to live up to, and it should not become an excuse for moral oppression. “Courtesy” is an individually nurtured quality, and since it is dependent on ourselves, it should not be used as an excuse for blaming others. “Priority” is the rule for this kind of seats in Taiwan, and it is the yardstick we all have to live by.
Everyone should show concern for others. It is not something that applies to some people, while others can ignore it. In the same way, everyone should be polite and courteous; it is not something that only applies to others and not to me.
If we sit in a regular seat rather than a priority seat and see someone who needs to sit, we should display our concern for others and spontaneously offer them our seat.
Neither should priority seats be treated as sacred and inviolable so that people are afraid of sitting down, because they might have to endure the disapproving looks of other passengers and feel uneasy — and maybe even become the target of online bullying — just because they need to rest their tired legs.
Priority seats should be just that — seats that are prioritized for those in need. Anyone can use them, as long as they relinquish the seat when they see someone who needs it.
Every time a situation arises due to the use of priority seats, that is an opportunity for reflection. Perhaps more debate and practical action are the way to create understanding and build a lasting consensus on the issue.
Hugo Tseng is an associate professor in Soochow University’s English department and a visiting scholar at Fudan University in Shanghai.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS