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

「不是台灣人」的政治宣稱,與金門無法迴避的地緣現實   

  立委陳玉珍近日公開宣稱自己「不是台灣人」,並多次強調此一立場。這樣的說法或許是個人認同的表態,卻無法改變一個更關鍵、也更現實的問題:在中國官方話語體系中,她始終被定位為「台灣地區民意代表」。這個稱謂,從中國官媒到國台辦新聞稿,從未改變。 依照中共官方定義,金門與台灣本島同屬「台灣地區」。然而,在實際軍事與政治操作上,金門長期被視為一個高度敏感、卻又刻意避免觸碰的灰色地帶。若北京的目的僅是製造政治震撼、測試國際反應,甚至對台灣與美國施壓,金門無疑是成本最低、象徵效果最強的目標之一。 但中共始終未對金門採取實質軍事行動,原因恐怕不只是軍事考量,而是更深層的政治後果。因為一旦對金門動武並取得控制,北京勢必面臨一個無法回避的問題:如何處理金門居民的政治定位與正當性來源? 2014年,俄羅斯佔領克里米亞後,隨即舉行所謂的「歸屬公投」,試圖為其行動提供政治與法律上的正當性。儘管國際社會多數不予承認,但這個先例已深植於地緣政治的現實之中。若類比到金門,北京是否能在未舉行任何形式民意確認的情況下,單方面主張主權?若金門需要公投,台灣是否也能主張同樣的權利?進一步推演,這樣的邏輯是否會動搖中共對其他地區的統治正當性? 回到陳玉珍的身分爭議,真正值得關注的,不是一句「是不是台灣人」,而是:當一名民選立委否認自身與台灣的連結,卻同時被北京視為「台灣地區民意代表」,這種矛盾本身,正暴露出統戰話語與地緣現實之間的張力。 身分可以宣稱,認同可以選擇,但地緣政治不會因個人說法而改變。金門的存在提醒我們,台灣問題從來不只是情感或語言之爭,而是一道牽動主權、戰略與民主正當性的嚴肅考題。 作者:林政武

從「你抓我啊」到真的被抓 : 當媒體不再中立之時

        如果政治是劇場,新聞是佈景,那麼這起被稱為「馬德案」的國安爭議,無疑是一場讓觀眾同時感到荒謬與不安的現代戲碼。曾經在鏡頭前以戲謔語氣挑釁「你抓我啊」的媒體人,如今真的因涉嫌違反《國家安全法》而遭羈押禁見,這種近乎寓言式的反轉,迅速成為社群輿論的素材,也把一個本該嚴肅的國安議題,推進到諷刺與質疑交錯的公共討論場域。        就目前官方已公開的資訊而言,司法機關的行動並不複雜,檢調掌握線索後發動搜索,認為相關行為涉及對岸人士與現役或退役軍人之間的金錢與資訊往來,因而依國安法等罪嫌偵辦並聲請羈押。法院裁定羈押禁見,案件仍在偵查階段,細節依法未對外說明。從程序角度看,這是一個標準的刑事偵查流程;但從政治與社會層面看,它卻像一塊投入水面的石頭,激起的漣漪遠遠超過案件本身。         近年來,無論是學理還是政策實務,都已不再將國家安全理解為單純的軍事衝突,而是涵蓋資訊戰、影響力操作與社會工程等「灰色地帶行動」。在這套理論架構下,媒體、輿論、乃至個人言行,都可能被重新詮釋為戰場的一部分。正是在這樣的背景下,社會反應呈現高度撕裂。一方面,有人拍手稱快,將此案視為對長期「親中言論」的現世報,甚至以黑色幽默的方式嘲諷當事人「言出必行」。這類反應反映的是一種集體焦慮的宣洩,即在中國對台壓力持續升高的情勢下,任何被貼上「可能協助滲透」標籤的人,都容易成為情緒出口。另一方面,也有不少聲音質疑,若國安法的適用與案件說明不足透明,是否會讓新聞工作者在未來報導時更傾向自我審查,讓寒蟬效應悄然擴散。        從法治國原則來看,民主制度本就建立在一個看似矛盾的基礎上;既要保障言論與新聞自由,又要防範外力利用這些自由來傷害體制本身。理論上,答案是程序正義與比例原則;現實中,答案卻往往取決於政治氛圍與社會信任度。當政府強調依法偵辦、反滲透有其必要性時,人民期待的不只是「相信司法」,而是能看到足以支撐這種信任的說明與節制。否則,國安話語很容易被誤解為政治立場的延伸,而非中立的法律工具。         諷刺的是,這起案件之所以引發如此高度的象徵意義,恰恰因為事件牽涉到媒體。媒體本應是監督權力、揭露真相的角色,如今卻成為被國安敘事檢視的對象,彷彿舞台燈光突然轉向觀眾席。當記者不再只是報導者,而可能被視為風險因子,整個公共討論空間的信任結構也隨之動搖。這並不意味著媒體人享有豁免權,而是意味著每一次國安偵辦,都必須更加謹慎地處理其象徵效果。       若滲透戰是一場無聲的長期戰爭,那麼民主社會最怕的,從來不是防守,而是因過度緊張而誤傷自己。當嘲諷成為主旋律、立場先於事實,國安議題就容易從理性防衛滑向情緒動員。到頭來,真正被侵蝕的,可能不是哪一項軍事機密,而是社會對法治與自由的共同信念。「馬德案」究竟會走向何種司法結論,仍有待時間驗證。但可以確定的是,其已經成為一面鏡子,照出台灣在國安與自由之間的猶豫與不安。若這齣戲有任何值得記取的教訓,那或許不是「誰該被抓」,而是在下一次危機來臨時,我們是否還能分清防衛與恐慌、正義與報復之間,那條本就不寬敞的界線。 作者 / 風林火山

地方財政的隱憂 營養午餐全面免費的挑戰

台北市長蔣萬安宣布國中小營養午餐全面免費,隨後台中、高雄、基隆等縣市陸續表態跟進,使這項原本屬於地方教育政策的決定,很快演變為全國性的政治與輿論議題。在這波「跟或不跟」的比較之中,台南市長黃偉哲選擇先按兵不動,反而成為外界關注與質疑的焦點。然而,若從人口結構與地方財政的長期趨勢來看,這樣的遲疑,並非不願面對政策調整,而更像是一個值得納入公共討論的制度性警訊。 黃偉哲指出,若營養午餐全面免費,台南市每年將增加動輒十多億元的經常性支出。這樣的顧慮,放在當前台灣的人口趨勢下,並非草率決策。自二○二○年起,台灣已連續多年出現出生人口低於死亡人口的「生不如死」現象,人口負成長已成結構性常態;二○二五年,台灣也已正式邁入「超高齡社會」,其速度之快,在全球主要國家中罕見。 人口快速老化,對地方政府而言,不僅是「學生人數逐年下降」的問題,更是高齡化對公共政策與地方財政的實質壓力。高齡人口增加,醫療、長照、社會照顧等支出將持續擴張;與此同時,就業人口縮減、勞動參與率下降,納稅來源也隨之銳減。支出上升、收入受限,將成為地方財政長期面臨的挑戰。 在這樣的背景下,任何新增的經常性支出都必須謹慎評估。營養午餐若全面免費,便意味著這筆支出被制度化、常態化,未來即使財政情勢惡化,也難以退場或調整。它不再只是單一年度的補助措施,而是對未來數十年財政承擔能力的提前預支。問題不在於營養午餐是否重要,而在於地方政府是否仍保有足夠的政策彈性,以應對人口與財政雙重挑戰。 值得注意的是,這場政策競逐,往往被簡化為「誰比較照顧孩子」,卻忽略了各縣市財政結構與人口條件的差異。對財政條件較佳的直轄市而言,短期吸收相關支出或許可行;但對財政自給率偏低、面臨高齡化壓力較重的縣市而言,倉促跟進,反而可能壓縮其他更迫切的公共支出空間。 從這個角度看,地方首長選擇先評估財政承載能力,而非立即加入政策表態,並不等同忽視學童需求,而是在高度不確定的未來中,為地方財政保留最低限度的調整空間。這樣的判斷,指向的其實是台灣整體將面對的人口危機,而非單一縣市或單一政策的政治攻防。 真正值得社會深思的,並非「哪個縣市有沒有免費營養午餐」,而是當人口快速老化、財政壓力全面升高時,我們是否已建立起兼顧福利需求與財政永續的制度設計。否則,當前看似受民眾支持的政策比拚,明天都可能成為地方政府難以承受的結構性負擔。 作者:魏世昌

補助私校營養午餐公義在哪?

台北市長蔣萬安日前宣布,北市國中小將全面推行營養午餐免費,且強調不排富、公私立皆補助,此舉引發批評。眾所周知,北市私校學費高昂,一年動輒幾十萬,家長何須倚靠政府補助營養午餐費?對此,藍營議員意見分歧,議員秦慧珠認為應排富,議員詹為元則稱不希望標籤化。 有趣的是,蔣萬安為北市私立復興國小校友,二○二四年還獲頒傑出校友榮譽,不知蔣萬安感受到何種標籤?筆者也是校友、也出國唸書當小留學生,在前行政院長蘇貞昌推行「班班有冷氣」以前,還真沒注意公立學校沒冷氣這件事。若有標籤,也是社會羨慕、嫉妒的標籤。 學校位處蛋黃區,同學多住在步行就能到校的範圍,旁邊百貨公司下午多的是帶子女逛街、吃飯、喝下午茶的媽媽們,下課接送最多的是家庭幫傭,還有豪車。或也有家長認為私校負擔重,政府有補助最好,但讀私校是選擇,不是必須。政府預算應應用在彌補社會差距,若公私立學校都補助,國中小差距能拉近? 依今年教育局私立國中小每學期雜費核定上限約六萬元,不含特色課程等其他開銷,若計入一學期近十萬,整年約二十萬,顯然非多數家庭能負擔,政府補助一年不到二萬元的營養午餐費。誇張點說,這點費用只是媽媽們的下午茶補貼。 目前北市公立學校餐費,因行政區、學校不同而有落差,有如萬華區低僅六○元,高如大安區達七十五元。若有空點開校園食材登錄平台查看,一分錢一分貨,要說沒差距是自欺欺人,有學校能提供切好的水果,有學校固定幾樣整顆塞給學童,政府促進學童飲食均衡的美意「有但剩不多」。 攤開六都營養午餐經費國中小一餐約五十至七十五元,六都外還有低於五十元的預算。能吃到什麼?大家心裡有數。現行中央補助方法,是在基本餐費上另外補助。鼓勵業者使用有機蔬菜、國產肉類標章食材。外界不知道的是,礙於成本考量這類好食材是按次計算,而非每一餐,頻率低的甚至是每學期一次。 坦白講,選票是政客的緊箍咒,若稍有政治良心就該堅守只補助公立,不補助私立的最後底線。免費的有誰不愛,但沒付錢的背後,是讓學童付出代價,營養午餐品質低落,是不只一代人的生活經驗,還要持續多久?就看政府的決心與智慧。 作者:陳建志

Recent Posts

「不是台灣人」的政治宣稱,與金門無法迴避的地緣現實   

「不是台灣人」的政治宣稱,與金門無法迴避的地緣現實   

  立委陳玉珍近日公開宣稱自己「不是台灣人」,並多次強調此一立場。這樣的說法或許是個人認同的表態,卻無法改變一個更關鍵、也更現實的問題:在中國官方話語體系中,她始終被定位為「台灣地區民意代表」。這個稱謂,從中國官媒到國台辦新聞稿,從未改變。 [...]

More Info
陸軍未來戰車兵力配置

陸軍未來戰車兵力配置

在陸軍戰車的兵力中,新款108輛M1A2T戰車陸續抵台,原本老舊的460輛M60A3戰車將陸續進行性能提升,兩款戰車皆為陸軍重型戰車。舊式的CM系列與M41D輕型戰車將全數除役,未來將以新款國造178輛「獵豹105mm輪型車」作為輕型戰車的代表,預計優先淘汰外島老舊的輕型戰車,在步、戰協同作戰的情境下,未來獵豹輪型戰車將扮演重要角色。 輪型戰車的戰術位置 [...]

More Info
從「你抓我啊」到真的被抓 : 當媒體不再中立之時

從「你抓我啊」到真的被抓 : 當媒體不再中立之時

        如果政治是劇場,新聞是佈景,那麼這起被稱為「馬德案」的國安爭議,無疑是一場讓觀眾同時感到荒謬與不安的現代戲碼。曾經在鏡頭前以戲謔語氣挑釁「你抓我啊」的媒體人,如今真的因涉嫌違反《國家安全法》而遭羈押禁見,這種近乎寓言式的反轉,迅速成為社群輿論的素材,也把一個本該嚴肅的國安議題,推進到諷刺與質疑交錯的公共討論場域。       [...]

More Info
如何看美歐在格陵蘭的對峙

如何看美歐在格陵蘭的對峙

  [...]

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