Beijing’s reaction to Taiwan’s language-education moves

China’s unofficial propaganda machine has come up with a predictable response to Taiwan’s recent approval of an official romanization for Hoklo/Taiwanese, calling it an attempt at wenhua Tai-Du (“cultural Taiwanese independence”). And Beijing doesn’t much care for earlier developments, either:

Lìngwài jù bàodào, z?o zài 2002 nián Táiw?n d?ngjú “Jiàoyùbù” jiù zuòch? juéyì, Táiw?n xuésheng cóng xi?oxué s?nniánjí k?ish? tíqián shísh? xi?ngt? y?yán M?nnány?, Kèji?y? de “y?nbi?o fúhào” xìt?ng ji?oxué, y? tú jìny?bù qi?duàn Táiw?n y? z?guó dàlù de wénhuà ni?dài. Rúj?n yòu zài Táiw?n gè zh?ng-xi?oxué tu?xíng “Táiw?n M?nnány? Luóm?zì p?ny?n f?ng’àn”, q?tú y?c? ruòhuà y? P?t?nghuà ji?jìn de “Guóy?” zài Táiw?n de dìwèi. Zhèizh?ng kèyì zài wénhuà shàng zhìzào Táiw?n y? z?guó dàlù de ch?yì y? q?f?n, shì Táiw?n d?ngjú chìlu?lu? de “wénhuà Tái-Dú” t?xiàn.

(???????2002?????“???”??????????????????????????????????“????”????????????????????????????????????“????????????”??????????????“??”???????????????????????????????????????“????”???)

Blah, blah, blah.

source: “Wénhuà Tái-Dú” — M?nnány? p?ny?n xìt?ng ch?lú (??????“????” ?????????), October 17, 2006, ChinaTaiwan.org

8 thoughts on “Beijing’s reaction to Taiwan’s language-education moves

  1. I am very disappointed at Beijing’s reaction. It views the teaching of Minnan and Hakka in Taiwan as a conspiracy to sever the links across the Strait. Never mind that those vernaculars are spoken by over 50 million Chinese citizens. Never mind that in the last fifty years the PRC has been broadcasting propaganda in Minnan no less — if nothing else, then to remind the Taiwanese of their Minnan ties.

    A more defensible claim would be that the “Taiwan authorities” are engaged in Greater Minnan and Greaker Hakka-ism — i.e. regionalism or ethnolinguistic nationalism. This conspiracy would have the Taiwanese trying to secure the loyalty of their cultural/linguistic relatives across the Strait.

    Yet that is not Beijing’s claim. Instead, they’re saying promoting Hoklo and Hakka romanization weakens Mandarin, the basis for cross-strait commonality. Clearly Beijing has a chauvinistic anti-vernacular agenda. That kind of attitude not only hinders cross-strait integration but, as well, hurts the feelings of many Chinese.

  2. A more defensible claim would be that the “Taiwan authorities” are engaged in Greater Minnan and Greater Hakka-ism — i.e. regionalism or ethnolinguistic nationalism. This conspiracy would have the Taiwanese trying to secure the loyalty of their cultural/linguistic relatives across the Strait.

    Interesting. Can you point to examples of anything like that happening? I’d love to see Taiwan find a way to be able to build such a bridge across the strait. But I haven’t noticed much interest from the government in that sort of approach. And the pan-blues would almost certainly be even less likely to evoke Hoklo as cultural connection.

  3. Hoklo & Hakka both are subculture of Chinese culture.That’s ridiculous to make such an accusation. What if Taiwan government announced English as ONE of the official languages?(We all know that it’s impossible for the time being.) Will China launch the missle because of Taiwan’s language policy toward English?

    Open your mind. The issue of “Taiwan independence” will make you think differently sometimes. You don’t have to stand for Taiwan, but you may try to think in the stance of Taiwan. Maybe it will help China sometimes.

  4. Even more reason why Taiwan needs to say “Screw you China” and just continue to be independent. China is like a big brother bullying a smaller brother. Hell, China can’t even get along with other peoples that it has illegally occuppied including Tibeteans and Turkish Muslims in Xinjiang Province. Why should Taiwan listen to such bull crap from China? Maybe China is just talking to itself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>