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

危機不會先敲門:從隨機殺人到公民遲鈍的代價    

  張文隨機殺人事件的影像,留下了一個比兇嫌本身更值得深思的問題。當凶嫌手持長刀、丟擲煙霧彈,在車站出入口與百貨公司門前來回遊走時,畫面中卻出現大量「正常生活持續進行」的場景:有人駐足觀望,有人從旁走過,甚至有人繼續逛街,彷彿這只是一場與自己無關的突發插曲。這並非冷血,而是一種集體性的遲鈍。 我們的社會,對「危機」的想像,長期停留在抽象層次。危險被理解為新聞事件、政府通報或災後檢討,而不是一種可能在任何時刻、任何地點發生於眼前的現實。當危機真正降臨時,反而因為不符合日常經驗,而被低估、忽略,甚至合理化。這種遲鈍,並非一夕形成,而是制度與文化共同塑造的結果。 這種心態,也延伸到我們對更大尺度風險的看法。對岸長期越過海峽中線的軍事挑釁,已逐漸被社會消化為日常背景。警訊反覆出現,卻因為沒有立即後果,而被視為噪音。於是,生活依舊如常,對風險的討論被貼上「製造恐慌」的標籤。然而,公民社會的成熟,從來不是建立在「假設最壞情況不會發生」之上,而是建立在「即使最壞情況發生,我們是否有能力應對」。 政府近年推動全民防災、防衛指引,小橘書中詳列急難物資、避難準備與通訊中斷的應變方式,這本質上是一種治理責任的延伸:把風險管理下放到社會與家庭層級。但問題在於,當社會整體缺乏危機意識時,這些指引往往停留在「知道有這回事」,而非真正落實於行動。 隨機殺人事件提醒我們一件事:危機不會先敲門,也不會等社會做好心理準備。它往往出現在最不被期待的時刻,測試的是個人與社會是否具備基本的判斷力與行動能力。公民意識,不只是投票與表態,也包含對風險的理解、對制度演練的重視,以及在異常出現時,願不願意打破「一切照常」的慣性。 當我們在危機面前選擇遲疑、觀望、忽視,代價往往不是抽象的,而是具體而不可逆的。這不只是治安問題,也不只是國安問題,而是一個社會是否真正理解「公共安全」含義的問題。如果我們無法在日常中練習認真看待風險,那麼當真正無法回頭的時刻到來時,任何制度都來不及彌補那一瞬間的遲鈍。 作者:林政武

老師去中國要審查,立委去中國像走灶腳?

就在美國川普政府二度宣布對台軍售、台海情勢詭譎多變的當口,國民黨立委們卻忽然「興致大發」,成群結隊飛往廈門。這趟行程的時間點充滿了令人玩味的「巧合」。一邊是中共對賴清德政府的國防預算與國安修法焦慮萬分,急欲尋找破口;另一邊則是掌握預算生殺大權的財政召委林思銘、手握法案排審權的司法召委翁曉玲,不約而同地現身廈門機場。 面對媒體追問,林思銘輕描淡寫說是「鄉親情誼」,翁曉玲稱是「去開開會」,葉元之更是把「不曉得」三個字練得爐火純青。彷彿他們搭的不是飛機,而是誤上了霍格華茲的特快車,連自己要去哪、跟誰去都搞不清楚。筆者不禁想問,堂堂中華民國立法委員,去一趟中國,為什麼要搞得像做賊一樣鬼鬼祟祟? 最諷刺的對比,在於國家對待「老師」與「立委」的雙重標準。現行法規中,一位公立大學的系主任、甚至僅是國小兼任行政職的組長、主任,若想去中國旅遊或進行學術交流,都得經過層層關卡。簡任11職等以上的教授要向移民署申請許可,連小學主任都必須在五天前填表報備,詳閱注意事項並簽章。身為第一線教育工作者,我們對此並無怨言,甚至給予高度體諒。因為我們深知,既然領受國家公帑、擔任行政職務,本就負有比一般公民更高的忠誠義務與國安責任。為了避嫌、為了國家整體安全,這點行政程序的不便,基層老師們願意承擔。 然而,回過頭看那些掌握國家上兆國防預算、能接觸最高機密,甚至能決定國家安全法案走向的立法委員,他們去中國,卻像是去自家後院「走灶腳」。不需要報備,不需要審查,甚至連行程都可以對外保密。 看看成熟的民主國家是如何做的?澳洲為了防堵外國勢力滲透,早在2018年就通過《外國影響力透明化法》;美國與英國的國會議員若接受外國政府或組織招待,必須鉅細靡遺地申報資金來源、會面與行程,否則將面臨嚴厲的法律制裁與政治醜聞。 透明公開,是民主國家對代議士最基本的要求。 反觀台灣,當藍白陣營在國會連續七百多次封殺民進黨立委沈伯洋提出的「立委赴中報備」相關修法時,他們高舉的是「自由」的大旗;但當他們在敏感時刻,接受中共統戰外圍組織「台商協會」的邀請,去聆聽對岸對我國防預算的「關切」時,這面旗幟就變成了遮羞布。 若是真金不怕火煉,若是心底坦蕩蕩,為何要反對建立一套像英、美、澳等國一樣公開透明的報備機制?為何要讓國人只能透過媒體「直擊」才知曉你們的行蹤? 中共擋不住美國的軍售,便想透過台灣內部的代理人,從國會掐住預算的咽喉。此次出面邀請的廈門台商協會副會長,不僅喊著「反對大罷免」,更身兼廈門「一帶一路委員會」主委,其政治色彩之濃烈、統戰意圖之明顯,立委們難道會不知道? 我們嚴格監控一位基層老師去中國旅遊看風景,老師們也為了國安乖乖配合;國家卻放任掌握國家命脈的立委去中國接受「精神講話」,還以此為樂。這不僅是制度的漏洞,更是國安的笑話。當立委諸公在廈門享受著「他鄉遇故知」的溫情時,連最基本的行程報備都不敢面對,那民眾又該如何相信,你們在密室裡交換的,不是台灣的未來呢? 作者:秦靖  

少年殺人事件     :本文於2014年5月30日曾發表於本刊

對於一個事件的稱呼,影響所有經歷這件事情的人的共同記憶。 為了避免兇手的名字流傳造成後人的追隨或是模仿,我們不會在西方主流媒體看到用人名作為事件的名稱。『德州殺人狂』不會被叫做『艾德蓋恩殺人事件』,『奧克拉荷馬爆炸案』不會被叫做『麥克維事件』,『科倫拜校園殺人事件』不會被叫做『哈里斯/克來伯德殺人事件』,『911事件』不會叫做『賓拉登殺人事件』。甚至對任何有爭議的事件都避免“造名運動”。所以『危機解密』不會被稱為『史諾登事件』。 台灣媒體在對事件的命名上需要再被教育,對於一個事件的稱呼會影響社會對這個事件的共同記憶,應該禁止做任何沒有意義的擴大連結。要避免造神運動第一要務就是要避免直呼人名。在那個台灣籠罩在白色恐怖的年代裡,國民黨政府就是用這樣的手法來防止叛亂,他讓台灣人民記不住這二十萬人的名字,因為他知道如果人們記住這個名字便會產生同情。 美國習慣將因被害人或發起人來作為反案的名稱,性暴力犯罪前科者資料公佈以被害人的名字命名『梅根法案』,反壟斷法以發起人的名字命名『休曼法』。 我們不是應該學著忘記,而是該選擇記憶的方式。如此一來我們才能走出傷痛,痛定思痛,不再讓悲劇重演。 作者 :林瓊媛

無差別暴力與網路狂潮:2025台北捷運無差別攻擊事件社會與政策反思

           近日發生於台北車站及捷運中山站周邊的暴力攻擊事件,引發社會高度關注。該事件造成多名民眾傷亡,不僅衝擊公共安全,也在短時間內引發治安及輿論震盪。對於此類事件,若僅停留於情緒反應或單一責任歸因,恐難以回應社會真正的需求;相對地,從公共政策與社會科學角度出發,冷靜檢視事件背景、社會條件與制度面向,更有助於未來的預防與治理。             所謂「無差別暴力事件」通常並非單一因素所致,而是多重結構性條件交互作用的結果。相關研究指出,此類行為往往與個人心理狀態、長期社會支持不足、以及對現實環境的挫折感累積有關。尤其在高度都市化的社會中,人口密集、生活節奏快速、社會連結薄弱,使得部分邊緣個體更容易陷入孤立狀態。值得注意的是,無差別攻擊並不等同於隨機或毫無脈絡的行為。許多案例顯示,行為人往往在事前已出現壓力訊號,例如長期失業、家庭關係斷裂、心理健康失衡,卻未被及時辨識或介入;故反映的並非單一個體的問題,而是社會安全網在早期預警與支持層面的不足。             捷運系統與大型商業區是現代城市中最具代表性的公共空間,其功能在於促進流動、交流與便利。然而,當暴力事件發生於此類場域,對社會心理的衝擊遠大於事件本身的發生頻率。民眾對日常通勤與公共活動的安全感,會因此產生動搖。從治理角度來看,公共安全不應僅依賴事後的警力反應,而需納入預防性思維。例如,透過更完善的現場觀察機制、異常行為通報流程、以及跨單位即時協調,提升早期介入能力。              事件發生後,網路平台迅速湧現大量討論,其中既有對受害者的關懷,也伴隨情緒化指責與標籤化言論。部分言論嘗試以政治立場、特定群體代稱或既有社會對立框架來解釋事件,例如互相指稱兇嫌為「青鳥」或「小草」,蓋缺乏事實基礎,反而模糊問題本質,突現台灣社會逐漸走向極端政治化與網路對立走向現實生活的傾向。社會心理學指出,在高度不確定與恐懼的情境下,人們傾向尋找簡化的解釋與替罪羊,以降低內在焦慮。然而,這類「獵巫式」反應容易導致社會撕裂,使公共討論從如何預防悲劇,轉變為彼此指責。長期而言,這不利於民主社會中理性對話與政策形成。是故,媒體的角色格外關鍵。專業新聞報導應以查證、脈絡與公共利益為核心,避免過度聚焦於嫌疑人個人細節或未經證實的動機推測。過度渲染或即時追逐點擊,可能在無意間放大恐慌,甚至造成模仿效應。同時,數位平台亦需承擔相應的社會責任,強化對仇恨言論、威脅訊息與不實資訊的管理機制,並與政府及民間組織合作,維護健康的公共討論空間。           […]

Recent Posts

危機不會先敲門:從隨機殺人到公民遲鈍的代價    

危機不會先敲門:從隨機殺人到公民遲鈍的代價    

  張文隨機殺人事件的影像,留下了一個比兇嫌本身更值得深思的問題。當凶嫌手持長刀、丟擲煙霧彈,在車站出入口與百貨公司門前來回遊走時,畫面中卻出現大量「正常生活持續進行」的場景:有人駐足觀望,有人從旁走過,甚至有人繼續逛街,彷彿這只是一場與自己無關的突發插曲。這並非冷血,而是一種集體性的遲鈍。 [...]

More Info
老師去中國要審查,立委去中國像走灶腳?

老師去中國要審查,立委去中國像走灶腳?

就在美國川普政府二度宣布對台軍售、台海情勢詭譎多變的當口,國民黨立委們卻忽然「興致大發」,成群結隊飛往廈門。這趟行程的時間點充滿了令人玩味的「巧合」。一邊是中共對賴清德政府的國防預算與國安修法焦慮萬分,急欲尋找破口;另一邊則是掌握預算生殺大權的財政召委林思銘、手握法案排審權的司法召委翁曉玲,不約而同地現身廈門機場。 [...]

More Info

少年殺人事件     :本文於2014年5月30日曾發表於本刊

對於一個事件的稱呼,影響所有經歷這件事情的人的共同記憶。 [...]

More Info
無差別暴力與網路狂潮:2025台北捷運無差別攻擊事件社會與政策反思

無差別暴力與網路狂潮:2025台北捷運無差別攻擊事件社會與政策反思

           近日發生於台北車站及捷運中山站周邊的暴力攻擊事件,引發社會高度關注。該事件造成多名民眾傷亡,不僅衝擊公共安全,也在短時間內引發治安及輿論震盪。對於此類事件,若僅停留於情緒反應或單一責任歸因,恐難以回應社會真正的需求;相對地,從公共政策與社會科學角度出發,冷靜檢視事件背景、社會條件與制度面向,更有助於未來的預防與治理。           [...]

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