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
The Paris Olympics are over and the five-ringed views of the Louvre, Invalides, Eiffel and Versailles just memories. As a diplomatic historian, my thoughts naturally turn to France! The Olympian of world affairs, the creators of “diplomacy,” Cardinal Richelieu and Prince Talleyrand. But sixty years ago, at the 1964 diplomatic games, Team China bested Team France in a battle of wits in “free-style negotiations” over Taiwan. Paris never recovered. To be fair, in Europe of 1963-1964, France was besieged. She had been ousted from her Asian dominions. She had begun her first nuclear weapons tests just as the United States and
Having the title doctor or the letters PhD after your name carries the connotation of having broad knowledge. In reality, while people with doctoral degrees often possess highly specialized expertise and might be held in high esteem among their peers, they are likely virtually unknown to the general public. In Taiwan, people with doctorates are common, while probably fewer than one out of 100 of them could truly make a name for themselves. Of course, there are exceptions. Those who gain media exposure can easily become well-known, especially if they are involved in politics. However, many fail to live up to
For the past few weeks, the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and its Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) have been embroiled in a series of scandals related to irregularities in their presidential campaign financial reporting. These scandals continue to expand as more evidence surfaces, raising more questions about the party’s financial propriety and competency. These irregularities include unusually high spending, allegedly accepting donations from abroad, reporting 97.3 percent of personal donations as “cash,” making large payments to marketing firms with close ties to the party and accounting errors. When the financial irregularities were first reported, the party blamed it on “arbitrary misconduct” by
Over the past few years, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a visible change in the EU’s approach to Taiwan. I call this phenomenon European hype about Taiwan. The change is noticeable at both the EU and member-state levels, with parliaments and Central Europe leading the way. The best example is the fact that Taiwan is finally mentioned in various EU documents (a real novelty compared with the past 30 years), in addition to statements by European politicians, an increase in bilateral contacts, a growing awareness of Taiwan’s importance and its contribution not only to European prosperity, but