Don’t discard Mandarin
Although I sympathize with some of the localization goals of the Taiwan Society as reported in the Taipei Times (“Independence groups call for education localization.” Sept. 4, page 3), I am strongly opposed to their proposals to push education localization at the expense of Mandarin Chinese.
First, the fastest-growing group of Taiwanese in Taiwan is the so-called “new immigrants” (新住民). These are the newly settled Taiwanese and their mixed children, who usually do not speak Hokkien (台語) or native languages (other than Mandarin) as their mother tongue.
Second, the future of Taiwan depends on its ability to form a more pluralistic and open body politic, and with the rise of Mandarin as a global language comes the opportunity to bring on board potential Taiwan advocates who speak Mandarin.
Switching from Mandarin to “native languages” like Hokkien would not only be impractical (indeed, the number of people who do not speak Mandarin is surely less than the number who do not speak Hokkien or other native languages), it would further alienate foreign journalists, academics and businesspeople who want to understand Taiwan through the Mandarin they worked hard to learn.
Third, former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) government already acknowledged all of the major languages of Taiwan (Hokkien, Hakka, Aboriginal languages, etc.) as de jure “official languages” (國語) of the Republic of China and made mother-tongue education available to students nationwide.
Finally, instead of having a plurality of official languages, it sounds like the Taiwan Society really wants to displace Mandarin and substitute it with a different majority language of their own, i.e., Hokkien.
If so, how would this be different from what the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) did when they took over the island and forced everyone to learn Mandarin?
Education policy should not be determined by ideology or guided by a shifting blue-green nationalist tit-for-tat, but the suggestion that Hokkien proficiency should be mandatory on college entrance exams surely epitomizes that idea.
Using language education as a political tool in this way can only lead to further ethnic division and less real communication.
Ron Judy
Taichung
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath