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
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under