In
the article “Where ISN’T social media ubiquitous?”, Levi (2012) suggests that
not every part of theworld is bitten by
the social media bug. This is clearly evident in areas where the access
to Internet is scarce, such as undeveloped areas or regions facing political
instability. In addition, Levi adds that the unavailability of languages
contribute to the lack of prevalence, though the problem is lessen by the
availability of second languages. To avoid any political complications, the
author highlights that Facebook has intentionally omitted some languages, such
as Taiwanese and Tibetan.
The
strained relationship between Taiwan and China began as early as 1949, when
Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists lost the civil war to Mao Zedong's Communist
forces, which then "sets up government-in-exile on Taiwan" (Murdoch & Richardson, 2008). Throughout the years,
the two countries' relationship was never settled on a peaceful note. As such,
I do agree with the author that it was necessary for social media sites to deliberately
exclude Taiwanese as a language on its platform.
On Mar 8, 2008,
China released details of the planned new anti-secession bill during its annual
session of parliament. The bill stressed that any attempt of secession by the
Taiwanese government will result in an initiation of war, something which Wang
Zhaoguo, vice-chairman of the National People's Congress (NPC) said that China
was prepared for. In addition, it was later announced that Beijing’s arms
budget would increase by 12.6% in that year (Labott .E, Grant, S. & Duffy, T., 2014). The strong emphasis of a possible
war breakout by China had prevented Taiwan from trying any means of declaring
independence. By introducing Taiwanese as an option in the ‘language
selection’, it may suggest that social media sites are
supporting Taiwan’s proposition of autonomy.
Taiwan
had also began to accept the use of hanyu
pinyin since more than five years ago (The Economist, 2014). Both its president, Mr Ma Ying-jeou,
and officials supported the use of this phonetic system and agreed it would
improve Taiwan’s economic situation with other Chinese-speaking regions.
However,
this view was not shared amongst the rest of the country. The Economist (2014) reported that major cities of
the country insisted on using the former Romanization system, which was
introduced in 2002. Therefore, Facebook’s implementation of the Taiwanese language may
insinuate the view of the opposition parties, and aggravate relations
domestically as well as internationally, between Taiwan and China. As such, the
omission of
the language by social media sites would prevent any political problems.
Despite all the negative
effects social
media sites
might create upon the official release of the Taiwanese language, it does not
mean that they should exclude this possibility as an area of development. In the article "Taiwan stays on course for closer ties with mainland China", Chung (2015) noted that Wang Yu-chi, the chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, which
oversees policies towards the mainland, said that one of the government's goals this year was to engage in further talks with Beijing. Chung also mentioned that recent polls have revealed that 80 per cent of the Taiwanese public supports the idea of
fostering closer ties with mainland China. According to CCTV (2014), Taiwanese
have been patronizing the China-based online store, Taobao, for both commercial
and individual use. As such, social media sites that advertise Taobao could use this
opportunity to increase Taiwanese users by supporting their native language on
their platform. This may then increase the economic trade activities between
the two countries, and hence, supports the Taiwanese government’s goal of
building closer ties with China.
(591 words)
References:
CCTV (2014). Taobao's popularity in the Taiwan region. [Online Video]. Available from http://english.cntv.cn/program/bizasiaamerica/20140213/102487.shtml
Chung, L. (2015). Taiwan stays on course for closer ties with mainland China. Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1689369/taiwan-stays-course-closer-ties-mainland-china
Labott .E, Grant, S. & Duffy, T. (2014). U.S urges China to rethink Taiwan Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/03/07/china.npc.law/
Levi, D. (2012, July 24). Where ISN'T social media ubiquitous? [Web log post].Retrieved from http://www.etondigital.com/where-isnt-social-media-ubiquitous/
Murdoch, G. & Richardson, A. (2008). TIMELINE: Milestones in China-Taiwan relations since 1949. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/06/12/uk-china-taiwan-idUSSP28081420080612
The Economist (2014). Lost in Romanisation. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21603500-ideological-warfare-over-spelling-lost-romanisation?zid=306&ah=1b164dbd43b0cb27ba0d4c3b12a5e227
The Economist (2014). Strait of alarm. [Online Video]. Available from http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/03/taiwans-relations-china?zid=306&ah=1b164dbd43b0cb27ba0d4c3b12a5e227#
Ello!
ReplyDeleteOverall organisation of the response is clear. Transition between paragraphs are done in an logical manner where each paragraph presents a new point that you are trying to convey.
We feel that it might be better to start your second paragraph with your thesis statement because the content of your reader response is focused solely on an example of the original article. The main point that you are trying to argue is that certain languages (in your response, its Taiwanese) should be omitted from social media platforms. From there you can start to focus and elaborate on your main opinions on the Taiwan-China issue.
However, this is a very factual response and we feel that you can do more in analysing the **FACTS** to support your claim.
We like your research but please do proper citations *wink*
No language issues.
Asyraf, Chuye and Elaine
Jovyn,
ReplyDeleteCitations:
Since there are no authors for The Economist articles, the citation should be like so:
Lost in Romanisation. (2014) [i]The Economist.[/i] Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21603500-ideological-warfare-over-spelling-lost-romanisation?zid=306&ah=1b164dbd43b0cb27ba0d4c3b12a5e227.
Content:
We feel that your reader response has no thesis. Rather than being an argumentative essay, it seems more descriptive.
You have given us a history of China and Taiwan, but we feel that it is abrupt to jump from history to language in your third paragraph.
Popular social media sites like Facebook, which included Taiwan's traditional Chinese in their language selection, are banned in China. Perhaps you could have looked into the reasons why these social media sites are not "ubiquitous".
For the third and second last paragraph, the focus of it is not clear. Who is the country? (2nd last paragraph) Is it inferred to be Taiwan? Also there was no clear direction and link for those two paragraphs as to what you are trying to argue. Which are the opposition parties and what are they fighting for? It requires more elaboration and linkages. The link between the paragraph is not established, 2nd last paragraph is on government decision but the third is about the people?
In the last paragraph, you mentioned that Taiwanese wants closer ties with mainland China, but it was not established how taobao helps foster closer ties. Would these ties be genuine or would it be strictly economic?
You could also add a short conclusion by reiterating your stand and the main ideas.
Guoxiong and Paulette
Thank you, Jovyn, for this effort. Your initial summary seems quite effective and accurate. As your peers have noted though, the response has some weaknesses. For one, even while your content is well researched, the connection between your discussion of the Taiwan issue and Levi's article doesn't come through strongly enough. That may be because of the lack of a clear thesis. There is no need for you to write an argumentative essay, because this is a reader response. Still, there needs to be more response to the original reading and its content. That implies the need to tie the China-Taiwan issue more closely to the social media thrust of Levi's discussion.
ReplyDeleteYour peers have given lots of good feedback as well. Take note of their comments and one when you rewrite this.