Matters of language policy invariably prompt intense debate between Taiwan's ruling and opposition parties. They also inspire a wide range of politically correct and dogmatic opinions. I have observed Hong Kong's handling of the language problem and feel it is worth reflecting upon.
Since its handover to Chinese rule in 1997, Hong Kong has been undergoing a transitional period as a post-colonial society. Its residents have been pulled in recent years by the opposing forces of democratization and identification with China.
Language could easily have become a sensitive issue, but in fact, ever since the handover, it has remained a mere technicality rather than a hotly-disputed problem. The technical issues include what languages should be used in schools and whether the parties to judicial proceedings may request that judges who speak only English be replaced. The two languages at the center of the debate are Chinese and English. There isn't much debate about the relative merits and applications of Cantonese versus Mandarin.
The Hong Kong government long ago established a firm "three spoken languages, two written languages" policy, which I believe has been very helpful to the territory's handling of language policy questions. The three spoken languages are Cantonese, Mandarin and English, and the two written languages are Chinese and English.
There is great wisdom in this policy and its implementation has become an important goal in Hong Kong schools and in public arenas of all kinds. The wisdom can be seen in a number of factors: the policy's emphasis on multilingualism, its considerable inclusiveness, its stress on practicality and its forward-looking vision.
The key to the policy's success is its emphasis on a multilingual society. Many of the disputes that arise over language policy around the world stem from one language being favored over others. Language policy often has to take care of more than just utilitarian goals. There are also identity-related objectives. From the purely utilitarian point of view, mono-lingualism is the most efficient approach. But efficiency doesn't satisfy people's desire to use languages with which they identify and the social cost of such policies is high.
Good language policy usually seeks to show tolerance by adopt-ing a multilingual approach. Indeed, there is a trend toward such policies in many societies.
In the past, Taiwan's language policy experienced problems primarily because one language was favored over others, which cost society dearly. An honest look should be taken at the blind spots in monolingual policies and a thorough review conducted.
Although Hong Kong's objective of three spoken languages and two written languages -- and the request that students and citizens strengthen their ability to use more than one of these primary languages -- can't be achieved in the short term, it has been popular with the public. That is why the remaining problems are mere technicalities, such as the amount of resources that will go to each language. Language no longer causes social divisions.
The second strong point is its inclusiveness. This is reflected in the policy's equal embrace of Cantonese and Mandarin. It should be noted that among the three designated spoken languages and two written languages, "Chinese" may be either Cantonese or Mandarin. There is no absolute definition. In many contexts, "Chinese" refers simply to the Chinese language environment in the broadest sense. "Chinese" may be read out loud in either Cantonese or Mandarin. Frequently, the chosen tongue happens to be Cantonese, but if someone uses Mandarin, that is not considered at all inappropriate. This is accepted throughout Hong Kong society.
The asymmetrical policy for spoken and written languages precisely fits the conditions of the Chinese linguistic environment, ie, that a universal written language can be expressed in different spoken languages. For this reason, speakers of both Cantonese and Mandarin can feel at ease with the written form of the language.
In the circumstances of day-to-day life, this kind of inclusiveness has allowed people who habitually use different spoken languages to interact without undue pressure. At least with the aid of written materials, it is easy to communicate effectively.
The third crucial factor in the broad acceptance of Hong Kong's language policy is its emphasis on practicality. The Hong Kong government's stated rationale for its policy is that, for practical purposes, all the languages are essential. This acknowledgement of reality and emphasis on practicality has succeeded in dissolving the ideology and emotions that are rarely far beneath the surface in anybody's interpretation of language policy.
Speaking English is not equivalent to being Westernized or colonized. It is simply a way to communicate with a large number of people. Speaking Mandarin isn't for the sake of unifying the country or expressing nationalistic sentiment. Nor does it mark one as a hick from the country. It is just a matter of a huge population and a vast market. As for speaking Canton-ese, it is still the most convenient way to communicate with the local population.
There is no need to worry about political correctness or to take a linguistic stand just because Hong Kong has been returned to China. As the Hong Kong government adheres strictly to its guiding principles of practicality and multilingualism, native language curricula in schools facilitate efficiency in learning while English-language instruction promotes ease of communication with the outside world.
Although the policy has changed a number of times, the Hong Kong government has never handled it with emotion-laden discourse. That's why the existing problems are just technicalities.
Finally, the multiple-languages policy does not focus on the present but rather on the future. It serves as a goal to work toward. It does not have to be achieved immediately.
In practice, the government has adopted extremely flexible measures. Public announcements are in some cases made in Mandarin while in others the traditional style of using Cantonese and English has been retained. Nobody is under pressure. As the policy is aimed at the future, the majority of people can agree that future generations should be proficient in three languages and encourage the next generation to study the three languages diligently. The current generation is free to adopt all three languages or to choose not to.
All this has made the language policy relatively easy to accept and prevented undue acrimony over the issue.
Edwin Yang is a researcher at the Center of Asian Studies at the University of Hong Kong.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers