Taipei’s MRT subway signs have recently been internationalized, with Japanese and Korean being added to the existing Chinese and English texts. Meanwhile, signage across China has gradually undergone “de-Anglicization” — the elimination of the English language — turning from bilingual to Chinese only, thus forming a sharp contrast between the two countries. While Taiwan is going international, China appears to be locking itself off from the world.
The decline in Chinese tourists has led the Taiwanese government to promote tourism to other countries. With the increase in foreign tourists, the Taipei MRT has been adding Japanese and Korean to the original Chinese and English signage to make travel more convenient for foreigners. This is a change that Taiwan has made as it tries to move from the Chinese market to the global market, so as not to fall into a tourism crisis due to a lack of Chinese travelers.
Meanwhile, China has changed its highway signs from bilingual to solely Chinese due to its leaders’ preferences. This change has also made its way into schools, where it has started reducing the influence of foreign languages such as English. From banning English as a subject from final exams in elementary schools to limiting elementary-school students’ maximum tutoring hours at English-language institutes, the traces of Beijing’s “de-Anglicization” is visible in almost every aspect of life. This has also led to the closure of online tutoring platforms in China, as they flee to other Chinese-speaking regions to make ends meet.
From these examples, it could be seen that Taiwan is moving toward internationalization and globalization, while broadening its vision to avoid the impact of a single market on its economic development.
The government has also strengthened bilingual education for children to cultivate an international outlook, and an understanding of various foreign cultures through language.
By contrast, China is moving toward “de-Anglicization.” Although the authorities claim that this is to enhance Chinese cities’ image and a sense of national identity among citizens, they are actually giving up the nation’s future competitiveness. In an era of diminishing demographic dividends, would China’s approach result in a more depressed domestic economy and an accelerated outflow of foreign companies from China? The impacts from this could be seen in China’s surging youth unemployment rate and the massive withdrawal of foreign firms. If Beijing persists with its “de-Anglicization” campaign, its economy might go from bad to worse.
Taiwan’s and China’s traffic signs also demonstrate the completely different policy thinking of the two countries. China has used official propaganda to cover up the crisis brought about by its “de-Anglicization” and exaggerated its people’s self-confidence. In doing so, its next generation might eventually lose its international competitiveness.
As for Taiwan, through bilingual education and bilingualization or multilingualization of signage, its next generation would be more accustomed to the use of foreign languages, and would be able to boost its national competitiveness. As a result, Taiwan and China would be on two very different paths, and the former is expected to achieve greater success.
Yang Feng-jung is an interior designer.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS