The “Circular Tea Space” exhibit, which forms part of the Taiwan Pavilion at this year’s Venice Biennale of Architecture in Italy, received NT$3.8 million (US$122,898) in government funding. It is showcasing pu-erh tea (普洱茶), which is only grown in China’s Yunnan Province. Pu-erh’s surprise appearance in the exhibit shows the cultural power of the Chinese tea invasion.
Exhibiting Taiwanese tea in other countries should be a cause for celebration. The exhibit’s curators said they are using the tearoom to promote Taiwan’s tea culture and the nation’s efforts to further a circular economy. Visitors can taste 10 types of fine tea, and savor the relationship between people and nature through color, fragrance, sound, taste, touch and feelings. The organizers hope that visitors can draw closer to Taiwanese culture through a cup of tea.
However, the exhibit features Yunnan pu-erh tea under the brand name “Ganlu,” whose packing says it was made last year using leaves picked from 1,000-year-old trees. This Chinese tea’s presence in the exhibit has many in the local tea industry wondering whether Taiwan has any good teas to showcase on the international stage.
Taiwan’s tea culture is often praised as a fine product of Taiwanese creativity. In the past few years, young Taiwanese tea makers have been winning awards and making a name for themselves in international tea competitions. The government has subsidized tea to promote Taiwan’s international image, and of course the message should be delivered with Taiwanese tea. Who on earth thought of doing it with smartly packaged Chinese pu-erh tea?
Pu-erh is a good tea, and aged pu-erh tea can fetch high prices at auctions. However, the Taiwan tearoom is sponsored by the Taiwanese government to promote Taiwan’s image. Exhibiting pu-erh tea from Yunnan is incongruous and could cause cross-strait misunderstandings.
Fine teas are grown from the northern end of Taiwan to its southern tip. In the north, bazhong (or pouchong, 包種) tea is grown in Taipei’s Wenshan District (文山) and tieguanyin (鐵觀音) is grown in Wenshan District’s Muzha (木柵) area. Taoyuan, Hsinchu and Miaoli counties are renowned for their Oriental Beauty tea (椪風茶 or 東方美人茶). Nantou County is known for its highly prized dong ding (凍頂) oolong tea, while high-mountain oolong is grown around Nantou County’s Shanlin River (杉林溪) and Chiayi County’s Alishan (阿里山). Fushou Mountain (福壽山) in the Lishan (梨山) area of Taichung’s Heping District (和平) is famed for its dayuling (大禹嶺) high-mountain tea grown at an altitude of more than 2,000m. Kaohsiung’s Liouguei District (六龜) is known for its liouguei white tea, which is picked from wild bushes.
Each of these varieties is a local specialty tea that can appeal to connoisseurs across the world. Taiwan’s international event revolves around the theme of a “Circular Tea Space.” No matter which way you tour around Taiwan, you can find Taiwanese tea growing everywhere, so why spin off to China’s Yunnan Province and feature its pu-erh tea?
Tea is a wonderful cultural and creative product of history and sensibilities. The government subsidy to promote Taiwanese tea has the additional purpose of boosting Taiwan’s image. It should involve more than arranging a few tables and chairs and building a tearoom. This event has sparked discussion about the qualifications of the architects who are responsible for the project, and how well the tearoom was built. However, a more important question to ask is: if typically Chinese pu-erh tea is inserted as one of the main items in a Taiwanese tearoom, where can people discover the fine taste of real Taiwanese tea?
Chee Jung-sien is the founder of the International Tea Sommelier Academy.
Translated by Julian Clegg
As the world’s nations sailed the River Seine during the opening ceremony for the Olympics last month, Taiwan once again suffered the enduring humiliation of being the sole country forced to sail under a fictitious name and flag. “Chinese Taipei” is not merely a fake place, but part of a strategic campaign by China to conquer Taiwan in the minds of the global public, forcing the international community to accept the fiction that China has authority over Taiwan, as I have written before in the Taipei Times (“Taiwan’s ‘Chinese Taipei’ problem,” May 22, page 8). If Taiwanese wish to be seen as
The Ministry of Education announced recently that it was considering changing the official name of the Minnanyu Language Certification Test, replacing the term Minnanyu (閩南語, “Southern Min [abbreviation of Fujian Province]”) with Taiyu (台語, “Taiwanese”). The ministry said suggestions would be welcome during a 60-day public consultation period. As there is probably no other term in Taiwan that would stir up stronger feelings than “the Taiwanese language,” it is important that the proposed name change is addressed with great care, and through consultation with people directly involved with language history and classification. The terms “the Southern Min language” and “the Taiwanese
Air New Zealand Ltd’s decision to ditch its 2030 emissions target suggests more airlines would also have to confront a harsh reality: There is simply not enough sustainable fuel or new, more efficient aircraft. This double whammy has left the world’s commercial carriers, among the planet’s biggest polluters, without their two best decarbonization weapons. Global supply of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) would be just 0.5 percent of total fuel requirements this year, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) said. At the same time, Boeing Co and Airbus SE cannot make jets fast enough. Boeing, under pressure from regulators, has slowed output
Aurelijus Vijunas’ recent opinion article “An accurate term for ‘Taiwanese’” (Aug. 3, page 8) argues that ‘Taiwanese’ (the common name for Hoklo) is not a suitable name for the Southern Min variety spoken in Taiwan. He presents three main points: Taiwanese is mutually intelligible with some Southern Min varieties, especially in China; the name was coined by Japanese officials without linguistic basis; and Taiwan is a multilingual and multicultural society. Vijunas’ arguments are flawed based on global language naming. First, he conflates language naming with linguistic classification. While Taiwanese is a Southern Min variety, many languages are named independently of their typological