On June 6, Legislator Chen Pei-yu (陳培瑜) inquired about the suggestion that Taiwan Taiyu (台灣台語, Taiwan Taiwanese) be used alongside Minnanyu (閩南語, “Southern Min”) as the name for the language in government documents.
On July 18, the Ministry of Culture said at a conference that it would use “Taiwan Taiwanese.” The decision spurred a flurry of dissatisfied commentary by Hakka-language educators and social groups who were firmly opposed to using the term Taiwan Taiwanese in official government documentation.
Regarding how languages are legally referred to, Article 3 of the National Language Development Act (國家語言發展法) states that a “‘national language’ as referred to in this act shall mean the natural languages and sign languages used by the different ethnic groups in Taiwan.”
As for the naming conventions for a “national language,” apart from Mandarin and Taiwanese Sign Language, the issue of shifting from using the term Minnanyu in official documentation has been endlessly argued in the past few years due to political factors. Those who want to maintain the term Minnanyu prioritize preserving objective linguistic terminologies and the historical record.
The Ministry of Education has used Minnanyu for more than 28 years and its application has been used for 10 years in the naming of its Taiwanese Language Proficiency Test. Those opposed to using the term say it is tinged with a pejorative meaning.
The language’s localization in Taiwan over the past 400 years has produced noticeable differences between it and the other languages in the Southern Min language family. They say they should have the right to name their own language as they wish.
However, the crux of the debate is the government’s naming convention in official documentation, not the name of the language in a colloquial sense. If used colloquially, people of course have the right to call what they want.
However, when it comes to government documentation, Hakka speakers say that Hakka is also Taiwanese (台語, Taiyu). The common term Taiyu cannot be used solely by one population group within Taiwan and so they are opposed to the names Taiwan Taiwanese or Taiwan Taiyu.
Those who have ancestry tracing back to Fujian who speak Taiwanese say that the Chinese character for Min (閩) is a pejorative character composed of the simpler characters for a gate (門) — something to keep unwanted or uncivilized people out — and a worm or insect (虫). Therefore, they oppose the term Minnanyu.
As there is such fierce debate over the term, there is a possible solution: A third way between Taiyu and Minnanyu.
Hoklor Taiwanese (福佬台語) is problematic because while many Hakka speakers do not oppose using the term, the character “lor” (佬) has a pejorative connotation that refers to thievery, deception, blindness or being an uneducated country hick.
However, using the term “Hok Taiwanese” (福台語, Futaiyu) could be a solution. The character “hok,” or “fu” (福), has four basic contextual meanings or references:
It gives a historical reference to Taiwan’s first foreign name: Formosa (福爾摩沙); it provides a Hakka perspective: Hoklor Taiwanese (福佬); it provides a post-1949 Chinese emigres and Fujian Province perspective (福建); and it has connotations of being fortuitous (福氣).
“Hok Taiwanese” integrates ethnic perspectives and could be used by all groups in Taiwan without too much fuss.
Whenever the discussion does not involve interethnic arguments, many groups in Taiwan might use the shorter name “Taiwanese” internally to describe their own language. In 2005, during the 16th session of the education ministry’s National Languages Committee, a motion was proposed to switch to using Hok Taiwanese instead of Minnanyu.
However, proponents of Taiwanese phonetic spelling were adamant about using the term Minnanyu and were opposed to using the ingenious proposal, ultimately causing the motion’s failure to pass. Currently, the members are opposed to the use of Minnanyu in naming conventions, so perhaps now might be a suitable time to pass a proposal to use the term Hok Taiwanese in official government documentation.
Lai Chin-he is a former director of the New Taipei City Hakka Affairs Department and a former school principal. Boris B.C. Yu is president of the Taiwan Languages and Culture Association and convener of the Central Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Tim Smith
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