Adding fuel to fire over word gaffe

(The Standard 4 Feb 2014) Remember the Putonghua-Cantonese outcry in Guangzhou in 2010? A similar row has been sparked in the SAR.

 

Perhaps both government opponents and supporters should thank education minister Eddie Ng Hak-kim for giving them the opportunity to escalate a seeming triviality into a display of unnecessary excitement.

Is Cantonese an statutory language or not? That's the question being asked as a result of an Education Bureau blunder. What's worse, the fire will likely continue burning.

The controversy began with a feature article in the bureau's language learning support website 11 days ago. This was only one of many articles on the website, but it quickly sparked criticism after somebody with a picky eye spotted it describing Cantonese as a dialect that had never been a "statutory spoken language."

The reaction was imaginable. In Hong Kong, 97 percent of the people speak Cantonese. So, does it mean their daily language isn't recognized at all?

If Cantonese has no official standing, then does it mean court proceedings in the local dialect shouldn't be given legal effect, and laws passed by the Legislative Council shouldn't be recognized?

People in Ng's team are obviously confused in the concept of language, and have managed to shoot themselves in the foot.

Article 9 of the Basic Law states that in addition to Chinese, English may also be used as a statutory language by the executive authorities, legislature and judiciary in the SAR.

It's clear that the Basic Law refers to both the spoken and written forms of Chinese and English.

But then, is Cantonese excluded? In the linguistic world, there is the concept of lingua franca referring to the working or social languages enabling people to communicate efficiently.

Perhaps Ng may also refer to the education policy that, while students are expected to be bilingual in written Chinese and English, they are educated trilingually in Cantonese, Putonghua and English where speaking is concerned.

His bureau reacted swiftly, retracting the feature article and issuing an apology. In its statement, it used the wrong Chinese character like misspelling "accurate" as "accurat."

It's obvious that Ng tried to put out the fire as quickly as possible. But he wasn't aware that as he picked up an extinguisher to douse the flames, he ended up making matters worse.

As he tried to appease the critics, he angered government supporters. Yesterday, the pro-Beijing newspaper Ta Kung Pao ran a commentary slamming him for apologizing, asking "what was the apology for?"

The commentary said Cantonese has always been a dialect.

The ongoing argument is indeed an academic debate that will never end.

Nevertheless, the last thing we want to see is the debate being given either a localist or nationalist touch, that would turn a minor issue into a very political one.

 

Mary Ma