社會觀察 . 獨立評論 . 多元觀點 . 公共書寫 . 世代翻轉

  • Home
  • English
  • 評論
  • 民意
  • 時事
  • 生活
  • 國際
  • 歷史
  • 世代
  • 轉載
  • 投稿須知

Taiwan & Bilingualism – A Personal Perspective

  • English Article
  • 時事
  • 民意

It seems like the real problem here is that – according to the government – the English ability of Taiwanese people just isn’t up to snuff. But if that’s the case, why not just change the way it’s taught at school instead of implementing an all-encompassing policy?

Does Taiwan really need to become a bilingual nation? According to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration, which recently introduced a policy to that effect, the answer is ‘yes’. But what gives? I mean, what are the actual benefits of making everyone learn English?

Taiwan is planning bilingual education before 2030. Photo: Shutterstock
Taiwan is planning bilingual education before 2030. Photo: Shutterstock

It certainly sounds nice to say that – just like Hong Kong, Singapore and the Philippines – everybody in Taiwan can speak English as well as the native Mandarin. But isn’t that already happening, to some extent? Currently, Taiwanese children start learning English in primary school (while some begin way before that, enrolling in private classes at as early as three years old!), and – as anyone who’s lived there knows – many parents also send their kids to cram schools at night, to study even more English (among other subjects). Plus, when people in Taipei set eyes on a Western person, they often spontaneously break into that international lingua franca.

Actually, the amount of people that speak English in Taipei can be disconcerting, especially if you’re trying to learn Mandarin. For example – as a foreigner attempting to learn Chinese myself – the following is a common experience I’ve had: I walk into a coffee shop, and the girl behind the counter sees me and immediately says: “Hi, welcome. How are you?” I then go up to order, determined to use my fledgling Chinese language skills – despite what she’s just said – and utter, “Qing gei wo yi bei nai cha, xie xie” (請給我一杯奶茶,謝謝). Having made it clear that I speak a little Mandarin, I naturally expect her to respond in that language, as it’s the native tongue of the land we’re in, and yet, instead she says, “You want hot or cold?” – a question that, infuriatingly, isn’t even completely correct English! At that point I usually get frustrated and mutter, “Hot”, quickly stepping aside to avoid talking more in a language I didn’t intend to speak upon entering.

Perhaps that barista just wants to make me feel at home by speaking ‘my’ language (but what if I were French? Or Italian? Or Russian?). However, it’s also possible that she simply wants to ‘use me’ to practice her English, or maybe her belief that foreigners don’t speak Mandarin is so strong that she can’t trust the evidence of her senses. (Side note: I recently visited Japan, where I found that people always, regardless of what you look like, start off by speaking in Japanese, and only after you begin hemming and hawking or a make a confused face do they switch to English). Don’t get me wrong – Taiwanese people are some of the nicest, most polite and welcoming on Earth, but it’s kind of annoying when you’re trying to improve your Chinese – a difficult language to begin with – and everywhere you go people talk to you in English, because, well, you’re white.

But I digress. The point is that, from the perspective of foreigners who come to Taiwan to learn Mandarin (and there quite a few of them), the idea of making Taiwan a bilingual country may seem unnecessary, if not absurd, as most people under the age of 35 – at least in the capital – appear to already have that ability, while a policy of forcing everyone to speak English may diminish even further the natural Chinese practice opportunities available on the street.

But, besides this (somewhat selfish) point, there are other reasons I’m not so enthusiastic about Taiwan becoming English-bilingual.

First, one doesn’t need to be fully bilingual to function effectively in the international business world. Many people, from lots of different nations, do just fine with the English they learn through normal channels – e.g., at school or by studying abroad – and although they may not be able to write poetry or read Faulkner without having a dictionary handy, they don’t need to. What they need, basically, is to understand an English-language email (not exactly advanced literature) and be able to have a straightforward conversation about negotiating prices, invoicing, technology, etc. I’ve personally worked for two different Taiwanese companies over the years, and at both of them a lot of people spoke decent English, meaning we had few problems communicating and the workflow was almost never impeded by language issues. Frankly, it just doesn’t seem necessary to expend so many resources making everyone bilingual if all they’re going to do is chat with foreign clients.

Second, Taiwan has an ugly history of its native tongues being suppressed by the powers that be. Initially, it was the Japanese, who during the colonial period did their best to eradicate Hokkien (aka Taiwanese) and other indigenous languages through compulsory education in their own tongue, and then, when the Kuomintang arrived in 1949, they made everyone speak Mandarin in an effort – once again – to stamp out the native idioms they didn’t care for. Both these efforts eventually failed (although almost everyone now does speak Mandarin), as many people on the island still speak Taiwanese and other languages. But given this disturbing historical situation, the government should at the very least tread lightly over any notion of introducing a new, foreign idiom that every citizen has to learn. For instance, how will the less-frequently spoken Hakka and Aboriginal tongues fare when the speakers of them – besides needing to learn Mandarin – are also forced to acquire English? Will these seemingly less ‘useful’ and more ‘obscure’ languages simply fall by the wayside from disuse? And while the administration’s reason for implementing its bilingual policy is to help Taiwan’s ‘economic competitiveness’ – something most citizens probably support – I have wonder what the Japanese and KMT’s justifications were for getting everyone to learn their languages.

Finally, the DPP National Development Council Minister, Chen Mei-ling – whose agency is responsible for the new policy – cites the English fluency of officials in Germany, which she recently visited, as an inspiration for Taiwan’s bilingualism. The irony, though, is that neither Germany nor any other non-native English-speaking country in Europe considers itself ‘bilingual’ or lists English as an official language. They simply have an effective education system for language learning – one that likely emphasizes speaking and listening over the reading and rote memorizing of Taiwan’s.

It seems like the real problem here is that – according to the government – the English ability of Taiwanese people just isn’t up to snuff. But if that’s the case, why not just change the way it’s taught at school instead of implementing an all-encompassing policy? Maybe it’s because the administration believes that by making bilingualism law, schools will have no choice but to comply, accelerating the process of Taiwan becoming a global competitor (in fact, the target for making the country bilingual is set for 2030, which feels far-fetched given that it took the British – who, like the Japanese, were colonial invaders – 20 years to make all Singaporeans speak their language). If that’s the case, one can only hope the DPP gives this issue the sensitivity it deserves, and doesn’t end up putting ‘business competitiveness’ ahead of its own people’s identity. Otherwise, the administration may go down in history as a version of those very powers it claims to vehemently oppose.

Author / Javier Smith

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • More
  • Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn

Related

Bilingual Education 教育 社會 雙語
2019-07-21 Javier Smith

Post navigation

我們不一樣 — 酒店公關啟示錄(三) → ← 柯文哲現在撿到槍還來的及嗎?

Related Posts

為何委內瑞拉未對美軍集結提前反應?一場多層次的戰略誤判

今年初,美國啟動名為「絕對決心行動」的軍事計畫,動員三軍快速向委內瑞拉方向集結,最終成功突襲並拘捕委內瑞拉總統,而總統在整個過程發生時竟仍在睡夢之中。乍看之下,這似乎只能用軍力懸殊來解釋,但深入分析後可以發現,真正導致委內瑞拉完全沒作出提前反應的,不是單一因素,而是一連串涵蓋軍事、情報、政治與心理層面的結構性誤判。 首先,美軍若真的準備發動這類高風險行動,通常會以高度隱蔽的方式進行兵力集結,避免引起目標國的警覺。美國擁有成熟的「低可偵測部署」能力,可以透過分散部署、例行化航行掩護、遠距離戰力平台與區域盟國合作等方式完成集結,而不讓委內瑞拉的雷達網、軍事監視系統察覺任何異常。委內瑞拉本身的海空監測能力有限,軍備老舊、雷達網不完整,使得其本來就難以辨識美軍行動。即便美軍已經開始逼近,委內瑞拉也可能完全 unaware。 然而,武器落後並不是關鍵。更深層的問題在於委內瑞拉政府對美國意圖的錯誤預期。委內瑞拉長期採取高度政治化的對美敘事,認為美國不會直接動武,因為這會引發國際反彈,甚至可能破壞美國自身在拉美的戰略布局。在這種自我安慰下,美軍的異常行動可能被詮釋為外交施壓而非軍事威脅,使得整個國家未能進入戰備狀態。這種錯估敵方意志的情況在威權體制中相當普遍,因為領導者往往只接收到被過濾過的「安全資訊」。 委內瑞拉情報體系的封閉性也加劇了這種問題。在威權政府中,情報官僚傾向於報喜不報憂,不敢呈遞可能讓領導階層不悅的訊息。再加上情報系統彼此之間互不信任,往往導致情報呈報延遲或消失。換言之,即使有軍官或情報人員注意到美軍部署異常,這些訊息也可能無法有效抵達決策核心,或被高層視為「不必要的驚慌」。因此,當行動發生時,總統毫無警覺便不足為奇。 除了情報問題,軍隊士氣低落與腐敗也構成另一重要因素。委內瑞拉軍隊在經濟崩潰背景下已長期受後勤不足、逃兵率提高、薪資被通膨侵蝕等問題所困,軍事體系早已疲弱。部分軍官甚至未必願意為政權冒險,尤其在面對美軍壓倒性武力時,選擇不報警、不動員甚至消極配合,都並非不可想像。換句話說,即便軍方察覺風險,也未必會採取行動。 最後,美軍的作戰方式本身就使委內瑞拉難以反應。美國擅長外科手術式的「斬首行動」,如夜間滲透、特種部隊快速突擊、電子壓制與極速撤離等。這類行動的設計本來就旨在讓對方毫無準備,而不是打消耗戰。整個行動可能在數十分鐘內完成,讓對方無法動員或反擊,使得領導者在睡夢中被捕反而是這種戰術邏輯下最典型的情境。 綜合來看,委內瑞拉之所以毫無提前反應,並不是單純因為軍力落後,而是因為錯估美方意志、情報系統封閉失能、軍隊士氣低落、體制內部腐化,以及美軍本身精密的快速突襲戰術所共同造成的一場「全面性戰略誤判」。這不是軍事問題,而是政治、體制與心理共同交織的結果。 作者:那麼

鄭麗文的「恐怖預言」,捧普丁是民主、罵賴清德是獨裁?

國民黨主席鄭麗文在中常會上語出驚人,將賴清德比作面臨死刑求處的南韓前總統尹錫悅,繪聲繪影地編造賴清德將「鋌而走險」、發動戒嚴甚至挑起戰爭的恐怖劇本。這番言論不僅是邏輯上的嚴重滑坡,更暴露了國民黨為了引起台灣內部動盪,不惜扭曲現實、自我打臉的心態。 首先,依據《中華民國憲法》,總統宣布戒嚴須經立法院通過或追認。當今立法院由藍白兩黨掌握絕對多數,賴清德若宣布戒嚴,藍白立委只要舉手表決就能否決。鄭麗文拿「戒嚴」當鬼故事恐嚇台灣社會,就是欺負台灣人不懂憲法。 一個曾讓台灣經歷全世界最長戒嚴令(38年)的政黨,竟然有臉指控民選總統要「搞戒嚴」,這簡直是滑天下之大稽。國民黨是一個擁有「戒嚴專利」與「獨裁DNA」的政黨,反過來指著受民主機制層層節制的賴清德大喊「獨裁」,這種毫無羞恥心的歷史失憶症,令人嘆為觀止。 其次,鄭麗文「幻想」賴清德發動武裝政變解散國會,有可能嗎?台灣軍隊國家化已久、軍方嚴守中立,執政黨發動武裝政變推翻在野黨,這種毫無邏輯的囈語,竟成了鄭麗文口中煞有介事的「迫切危機」。指控賴清德會「故意製造兵凶戰危」來實施戒嚴,更是倒果為因。鄭麗文這套說詞,不過是配合北京的認知作戰,在台灣內部販賣恐懼,藉此削弱台灣人的抵抗意志。 最令人感到精神錯亂的,莫過於鄭麗文對「獨裁」與「民主」的標準。當全世界都在譴責普丁入侵烏克蘭的暴行時,鄭麗文在專訪上大談普丁體制有其民主正當性。一個發動侵略戰爭、修改憲法讓自己無限連任、暗殺政敵的普丁,在鄭麗文眼裡是可以被理解、被稱頌的;而一個經過民主選舉產生、在國會面臨朝小野大困境、處處受制於在野黨的賴清德,卻被她貼上「獨裁」、「比尹錫悅更危險」的標籤。 最後,國民黨無差別地擋總預算、卡國防經費,加上過去兩年在立法院違憲濫權的種種作為,才是真正的「癱瘓政府」。 鄭麗文憂心台灣未來能否順利迎來總統大選並政黨輪替,真的多慮了。台灣人的確擔心台灣未來沒有總統大選,迎來的不是政黨良性競爭,而是北京接管,屆時台灣只剩下香港式的「愛國者治臺」。在這模式下,沒有擋預算的在野黨,沒有罵領導人的自由,只有像鄭麗文這樣符合北京標準的「愛國者」能在那裡歌功頌德,那才是台灣真正的末日。   作者:秦靖

Taiwan’s 2026 Local Elections: A Shift in Political Balance

Taiwan’s 2026 local elections will take place amid a rapidly evolving political landscape shaped by the 2024 presidential transition and the emergence of a competitive three-party system. While local contests […]

代理孕母制度之比較法分析:加拿大、澳洲、美國加州與台灣

代理孕母制度在全球法制中呈現高度多樣化,各司法領域依其文化脈絡、倫理判準、家族制度與生殖醫療發展程度,形成不同監管模式。本文以比較法視角,分析加拿大、澳洲、美國加州的代理孕母制度,並與台灣民眾黨立委陳昭姿所提出的代理孕母法案進行制度性比較,旨在釐清各模式之政策考量及其可能對台灣生殖法制的啟示。 一、加拿大模式:反商業化與「利他型」框架 加拿大聯邦法採取明確的 非商業代理孕母(altruistic surrogacy) 模式,禁止支付超過必要費用補償代理孕母,也嚴格禁止代理仲介營利。其立法目的在於避免脆弱女性因經濟壓力進入市場化的生殖勞動關係。親權確認須經法院程序,以確保代理孕母、委託父母與胎兒的權益均受到平衡保護。 此模式反映加拿大對「身體自主」及「生殖非商品化」的倫理重視,也形成全球無償代理孕母的重要參考。 二、澳洲模式:州分管制與強調倫理審查 澳洲多數州亦採 無償代理孕母模式,並強化倫理審查程序,包括心理評估、關係背景調查以及法院核准機制。部分州要求代理孕母與委託方具有既存社會關係,目的在降低剝削風險並確保代理行為基於互信與非市場性交換。 整體而言,澳洲制度介於加拿大與歐陸保守模式之間,兼具「無償原則」與「強化監管」兩項核心。 三、美國加州模式:市場化、契約保障與明確親權制度 加州的代理孕母制度被視為全球最為成熟的 商業化代理孕母(commercial surrogacy) 模式。其特徵包括: 允許代理孕母取得報酬; 允許仲介機構營利並提供完整服務; 以契約法保障代理母、委託父母與醫療端之權利義務; 採「出生前命令」(pre-birth order)直接確認委託父母親權。 加州模式的核心理念在於 契約自由與司法保障,其高程度市場化與法制完整度,使其成為跨國代理孕母常見目的地。 四、台灣陳昭姿法案:介於無償與有限補償之間的本土化模式 陳昭姿立委版本之代理孕母法案呈現混合型設計,兼具國際無償模式與台灣本土倫理考量,具有以下特徵: 非商業化,但允許必要補償:制度定位接近加拿大與澳洲,但較後者彈性。 以醫療機構為核心監管單位:強調倫理審查、身心評估,以及對代理母健康保護。 禁止利益交換與商業仲介:旨在阻絕市場化鏈結。 親權確認採法律程序審查:並未採加州式的完全契約化模式。 保障代理孕母自主權:包括健康風險中止權、免受強迫或不當壓力等。 […]

Recent Posts

為何委內瑞拉未對美軍集結提前反應?一場多層次的戰略誤判

為何委內瑞拉未對美軍集結提前反應?一場多層次的戰略誤判

今年初,美國啟動名為「絕對決心行動」的軍事計畫,動員三軍快速向委內瑞拉方向集結,最終成功突襲並拘捕委內瑞拉總統,而總統在整個過程發生時竟仍在睡夢之中。乍看之下,這似乎只能用軍力懸殊來解釋,但深入分析後可以發現,真正導致委內瑞拉完全沒作出提前反應的,不是單一因素,而是一連串涵蓋軍事、情報、政治與心理層面的結構性誤判。 [...]

More Info
鄭麗文的「恐怖預言」,捧普丁是民主、罵賴清德是獨裁?

鄭麗文的「恐怖預言」,捧普丁是民主、罵賴清德是獨裁?

國民黨主席鄭麗文在中常會上語出驚人,將賴清德比作面臨死刑求處的南韓前總統尹錫悅,繪聲繪影地編造賴清德將「鋌而走險」、發動戒嚴甚至挑起戰爭的恐怖劇本。這番言論不僅是邏輯上的嚴重滑坡,更暴露了國民黨為了引起台灣內部動盪,不惜扭曲現實、自我打臉的心態。 [...]

More Info
Taiwan’s 2026 Local Elections: A Shift in Political Balance

Taiwan’s 2026 Local Elections: A Shift in Political Balance

Taiwan’s 2026 local elections will take place amid a rapidly evolving political landscape shaped by the 2024 presidential transition and the emergence of a competitive three-party system. While [...]

More Info
代理孕母制度之比較法分析:加拿大、澳洲、美國加州與台灣

代理孕母制度之比較法分析:加拿大、澳洲、美國加州與台灣

代理孕母制度在全球法制中呈現高度多樣化,各司法領域依其文化脈絡、倫理判準、家族制度與生殖醫療發展程度,形成不同監管模式。本文以比較法視角,分析加拿大、澳洲、美國加州的代理孕母制度,並與台灣民眾黨立委陳昭姿所提出的代理孕母法案進行制度性比較,旨在釐清各模式之政策考量及其可能對台灣生殖法制的啟示。 一、加拿大模式:反商業化與「利他型」框架 加拿大聯邦法採取明確的 [...]

More Info

搜尋

精選文章

川習會的中美矛盾是戰略,不是貿易!

2017-04-08 韓非

八仙樂園爆炸案:缺乏常識造成的災難

2015-06-28 異想

彰化縣民輪替後的哀與愁

2016-03-06 許家瑋

新文明病:儲物症(Hoarding disorder)似正在增加

2015-04-13 楊庸一

訂閱本站

輸入你的電子郵件訂閱新文章並接收新通知。

Powered by WordPress | theme Dream Way
Powered by WordPress | theme Dream Way