In-Media 編者按：就中大更動原有授課語言政策一事，連日討論不絕，課題日見深入。In-Media上周刊出政治及行政系老師李詠怡的一封公開信後，收到多個回應。就此，李詠怡今日特別覆函，就她在上一封信的立場作一些澄清，並更深入地開展有關香港人後殖民身份問題的討論。隨後，積極參與此次中大事件的哲學系同學戴遠雄，亦為文就李詠怡在早前發表的觀點逐一評論。看來新一輪更精彩的師生辯論，亦會隨之展開。
-------------------------------------------
tsw,
thanks for your very thoughtful comments. Many of your critiques of my letter are well-taken. Re-reading my own writing, I realize that I have focused too much on
deconstructing while neglecting to state clearly my own position. You
pointed out that what I wrote could be appropriated by the university
administration to construct a case against the students. I cannot avoid
this possibility. On the other hand, I also think that the students can
make use of what I said to refine their arguments and construct a
better case against the university’s present policy. The article
written by my colleague Eric Ma Kit-Wai in Mingpao is really great, and
has powerfully articulated what I failed to do so, namely,on how to
build a university that is both international and rooted in the local
community. I believe it is a major shortcoming of the university not to apply the principle of bilingualism and biculturalism to their academic requirement on
nonlocal students. In order to truly realize the ideals of
bilingualism, the university should commit resources to enable
departments to offer more courses (so that they can continue to offer
enough courses taught in Chinese instead of substituting Chinese
courses with English ones) and also to enhance the multilingual ability
of all students, local and nonlocal.
As to your second last comment on my argument regarding the danger of turning to
Cantonese as the sole source of our cultural heritage, I certainly do
not mean that we should discard or marginalize Cantonese. Rather, what
I mean is that we should be open to multiple sources of innovation and
not turn the language into an instrument of exclusion. I detect that many of the students’comments are motivated by a genuine attempt to reflect on their own cultural identity. Making sense of one’s cultural identity is certainly no simple matter for Hong Kong people who, as you characterized utilizing the idea of Rey Chow, feel that they have lost their own voice as they are caught between the old colonial power and the new sovereign power. For those who
have not done so, I strongly urge you to read Rey Chow’s (1998)
“Between Colonizers: Hong Kong’s Postcolonial Self-Writing in the
1990s”. I gather from her article that any attempt by HK people to
search for their cultural “roots” through resorting to the myth of a
pure origin, be it as “Chinese” or “Hongkongese”, is bound to be
futile. For any critical self-reflection on those categories will only
point to the illusiveness of a pure origin. Instead, Chow points to the
possibility of a “third space” between the colonizer and the dominant native (meaning Chinese) culture:
what is unique to Hong Kong, however, is precisely an in-betweenness and an
awareness of impure origins, of origins as impure. A postcoloniality
that marks at once the untenability of nativism and postmodernism
distinguishes Hong Kong’s “Chinese” self-consciousness and
differentiates it from other “Chinese” cities. Because a colonized city
is, in the politics of daily formation, "corrupted," it does not offer
the illusion of cultural virginity nor thus the excitement of its
possible rehabilitation. The postcolonial city knows itself as a
bastard and orphan who, as Luo Dayou writes, "grew up in the state of
being abandoned, struggling for a compromised survival in the gap
between East and est." Instead of priding itself on the purity of
culture in the form of a continuous folk, Hong Kong's cultural
productions are thus often characterized by a particular kind of
negotiation. This is a negotiation in which it must play two
aggressors, Britain and China, against each other, carving out a space
where it is neither simply the puppet of British colonialism nor of
Chinese authoritarianism. (Chow 1998, 157)
Some of the arguments advanced in the current debate on language and cultural identity point to the danger of questing for cultural purity as well as the partiality of linguistic nationalism. If we refuse to use a language just because
it is spoken by our colonizer or former colonizer, it is tantamount to
saying we reject democracy because it is invented by western
imperialist powers. Putunghua is spoken by Chinese state officials, but
is also spoken by millions of Chinese who are our fellow citizens. It
is an important language linking us to some of our Chinese cultural
roots, and is actually the mother tongue of many Hong Kong people.
English is spoken by the former colonizer, but its transnational usage
has also way transcended the historical objective of colonial
domination. Cantonese is the language spoken by the majority of the
local people, but it can also be turned into the language of the
oppressor when it is used to discriminate against new migrants or to
exclude minority groups from the mainstream society.
We should reject any attempt to construct a Hong Kong cultural identity
that is chauvinistic, homogenizing, and exclusive, as in doing so we
are merely adopting the imperialistic logic of those that have
dominated us. The works by Rey Chow (1998), Wai-Ching Wong
(2003), and Rose Wu (2003) all point to the idea that the colonial
subjects of Hong Kong was able to negotiate their identity at the
periphery of the British colonial culture and the Chinese national
culture, and ended up with an identity that is neither British nor
Chinese. Wu characterizes such identity as allowing for fluidity,
flexibility, and multiplicity.
We need to construct a postcolonial cultural identity that transcends the
limits of the nationalist or nativist rhetoric. Can our historical
experience of double subjugation, first under the old colonial power
and now under the new sovereign power, provide us with the opportunity
to construct a cultural identity that is inclusive and non-reifying? At
this point, I am inclined to believe that the maintenance of a
multilingual situation will allow Hong Kong people to negotiate a
postcolonial identity through the claiming of what Chow (1998) called
the “third space” or what Wong (2003) called the “neither/nor space”.
References
Chow,
Rey. 1998. “Between Colonizers: Hong Kong’s Postcolonial Self-Writing
in the 1990s,” in her Ethics after Idealism:
Theory-Culture-Ethnicity-Reading. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press.
Wong, Wai-Ching. 2003. “Negotiating Gender
Identity: Postcolonialism and Hong Kong Christian Women,” in Gender and
Change in Hong Kong: Globalization, Postcolonialism and Chinese
Patriarchy, edited by Eliza W.Y. Lee. Vancouver: University of British
Columbia Press.
Wu, Rose.
2003.“Healing Colonial Scars of Hong Kong” in A Dissenting Church. Hong
Kong: Hong Kong Christian Institute and Hong Kong Women Christian
Council.
(原見論壇版)
----------------------------------------------------------
Reply to Professor Lee at 15 Feb 2005
--Tai Yuen Hung(Year 3, Philosophy Major, New Asia College)
It
is very much appreciated that professor Lee takes the issue of
internalization of the University into serious consideration and kindly
shares her insightful opinions with everyone of us. Her views inspired
me on the implications posed by the current discussions. I would like
to give a short reply to her with a hope to contribute to the current
situation. Therefore, I
should follow her arguments one by one and may mot refer to the
observations and arguments originally presented by the article ‘Cry on
CUHK’ (哭中大) directly. The controversies seem to concentrate on the following 4 points:
1) nationalism and decolonization
Her
argument reminds us that although the dominance of English in HK now is
of course the result of colonization, the dominance of Cantonese should
not a self-evident fact. The later is attributed to the hegemony of
Cantonese speaking people and more importantly, the negligence and even
suppresion of other dialects, like Hakka, Shanghaiese, etc. I
believe we must admit this point as the outcome of a long-term
historical process, but it does not simply lead to the conclusion that
Cantonese merely possess the status of a dialect and Putonghua as a
language shared by every Chinese citizen should be adopted as the
official language.
As language a social practice, though
in which there may exist oppression to some extent on language of
minorities (I think I am not able to develop about this point here due
to time limit), we must admit that the language reality in HK, the most
popular language used, is no doubt Cantonese. In addition, the use of
Putonghua is also becoming more popular due to a higher degree of
integration with South China. This is not to say we should further
eliminate other languages of minorities by any means and proclaim
Cantonese is the solely official language in HK. What
I am arguing is that only when we fully aware of the language reality,
we can determine what the official medium of instruction in CUHK should
be. I predict CUHK in the future with the implementation of the
current internationalization programme would to a very great degree
eliminate the status of Chinese, either Cantonese or Putonghua, as the
official medium of instruction. This is the reason why I think a need
to point out the language reality in HK is the dominance of Cantonese
and we should be opposed to the current internationalization programme.
Meanwhile, the fact Chinese
being the official medium of instruction, is still subject to a
flexibility of using either Cantonese or Putonghua as the medium of
instruction with a view to the future situation, for instance if there is further integration with the mainland in academic and social communication.
2) the mission of The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Undoubtedly,
the mission of CUHK has long been the promotion of bilingual research
and culture with the official medium of Chinese. This certainly
does not equal the promotion of Cantonese culture, which was in fact
not even the work done by our predeccesors, like Mr Qian(錢穆先生). What
leads to the promotion of Cantonese culture lies on the prominence of
research on Cantonese culture, which is not the result of merely using
Cantonese as the medium of instruction. Therefore, what
I propose and I regard the petition’s stance is that using Chinese as
the official medium of instruction, which conforms to the mission of
promotion of bilingual research bilingual research and culture with the
official medium of Chinese, and at the same time, the most important,
facilitates effective learning of students.
With a view
to the vice-chancellor Dr Lau’s (劉遵義博士) remarks that
internationalization has been put forward by our previous
vice-chancellor Dr Lee (李卓敏博士) since the formation of the university, I
am afraid I have quite a different interpretation of this fact. When
CUHK was established in 1963, there is only one university in HK, which
is often regarded as a colonial university, with British curricula,
British professors and the colonial mission to cultivate prominent
Chinese as the social leaders. This is the reason why CUHK has her
identity and her significance that fully respects the promotion of
Chinese language and culture as academic duty and simultaneously,
cultivates Chinese teenagers with our unique liberal education. In the
21st century, there already exist 7 English-speaking universities in
HK. Carrying on our mission, I believe using Chinese as the medium of
instruction can better fulfill the above aims and most important,
preserve our identity among other competitors. This is not to
say we have to undermine our academic competence by emphasizing
Chinese. The fact that most of our professors and researchers are
proficient CUHK’s graduates can sufficiently prove this point.
3) Effective learning, which requires the need to be educated in one’s mother tongue
As
my thesis that adopting Chinese, either Cantonese or Putonghua as the
medium of instruction carries on, the argument that using mother tongue
makes learning effective does hold. One may doubt that mainland
students may not gain any if we insist they are taught in Cantonese. In
fact, only 280 students are non-local students now, compared to over
9000 local students. I do not mean to make a sacrifice but we have to
strike a balance in practice without fundamentally changing CUHK’s
mission. For instance, not all major programmes admit to foreign
students or only integrated programmes provided by several departments
admit foreign students. In addition, we have to understand why foreign
students like to come to CUHK. I doubt if CUHK really becomes a Peking
University or Yale University, is CUHK still attractive to foreign
students?
Professor Lee, as many other professors have noted that the
most prominent centres of China studies are located in the West, where
English is mainly used as the medium of communication. This is the
phenomenon that we, as Chinese have to seriously reflect upon. Why the
Chinese, being the object of research, is not at the same time the most
keen and proficient subject of the research? May not we feel strange if
the Chinese did most enthusiastically and proficiently in Western
research? This is not a matter of cultural prejudice or pan-Chinese
thought. This is due to a belief that university is not a knowledge
factory which produces the most excellent academic product for exports
worldwide but a leading think-tank integrated into a local society
while without refusing to absorb the most proficient research
accomplishment from an international platform of knowledge. If
our local studies are conducted in English either by westerners or
Chinese scholars, how can the research products contribute to the local
society where the language reality is the popularity of Cantonese and
maybe much more Putonghua in the future?
Obviously
we have no good reason to reject any prominent foreign scholars coming
to CUHK as we believe the university should act as an international
platform of knowledge, except that the coming scholars refuse to
contribute to the Chinese society in the broad sense, where the
language reality is mainly Cantonese and Putonghua. Therefore, we have strong reasons to oppose any policy that leads to undermine the official status of Chinese.
In
fact it is a hard time for a university to maintain her own identity
and mission when she refuses to switch her medium of instruction into
an ‘international language’ favouring international exchange
programmes. I think CUHK is staying at this dilemma now and that is why
the current internationalization programme needs to be implemented
without thorough consultation and public discussion. However, I
believe only if we maintain our mission as much as we can with the
least compromises, especially in this internationalization issue that
we treasure our fruitful discussion, what we can establish is the most
persevering and eventually most invaluable heritage for our future
generations and our foreign counterparts.
4) cultural rights and identity
Professor
Lee raises two very good points that i) we should participate in the
international academic world in order to change the western hegemony on
certain aspects and ii) brought by globalization is the multilingualism
and multiculturism rather than monolingualism and monoculturism. The
later point may be a hot topic in globalization studies and I am sure
every one of us hope that to be true.
Returning to the first
point, my stance, Chinese being the official language of the
university, doesn’t compel our participation in the international
academic world, which I think, we should still continue to do it as we
are doing now. At undergraduate level, a good foundation should be
provided to students which I believe only teaching in Chinese can
achieve. At the research level, students should be equipped with those
languages that most suit their own research interests. This third or
fourth language may be English or German, etc. In view of this, the
university should not impose any monolingual policy at the research
level. This helps CUHK students to enter western academic areas in
excellence.
Lastly, professor Lee points out that Cantonese
culture is a product of fusion of other cultures and therefore we
should not close our minds and rejecting other cultures, to which I
cannot agree more. Adopting Chinese as the medium of instruction does
not mean to exclude other cultures. Again,
culture fusion is not only brought by classroom interaction.
Furthermore, we have to remind ourselves - What fusion of culture would
bring about? Who has the capability to initiate the fusion? A
university or the whole social and economic condition? With limited
research grant and staff, what fusion of culture can we bring about?
This is not the matter of our open-mindedness but rather of resources.
5) Not only a language issue
Besides
the above views put forward by Professor Lee, I would like to add one
more point in reviewing the whole issue currently known as ‘a language
issue’, which refers to the switch of medium of instruction from mainly
Chinese to mainly English. This may have blotted out the several
important considerations pinpointed by many critics. The current
internationalization programme is lack of adequate consultation which
allows thorough discussion concerning several topics. Moreover, it
lacks concrete research suggesting the long-term development of the
university. I am not going to mention all of them here except the one
that I beg to be neglectful in the discussion.
As
we all know that a university is closely connected with the whole
education system, a certain direction in the university may cast a
guiding effect on the adult education, secondary, and even primary
education. The current ‘language issue’ is such an obvious example. We
can be quite certain that the secondary schools would tend to follow
the universities closely if the latter adopt English as the only
official medium of instruction in order to guarantee their secondary
graduates better prospects. Although only a quarter of secondary
schools is allowed to teach in English now, we should not overlook the
fact that the current EMI schools are generally more prominent in
academic achievements and there is an increasing number of directly
aided schools, which usually better-off families are able to afford,
appear and are taught in English. What is then the implication of this
fact? From
an ethical point of view, it is not unreasonable for us to doubt
whether the affair is going contrary to our strong adherence to
equality. It has been clearly shown that the socio-economic status of
students poses enormous influence on their academic achievements and
thus social mobility. Then what if the only Chinese university in HK
abandoned Chinese as official medium of instruction? Can we tolerate
that the CMI secondary school graduates lose their opportunity of being
educated in their familiar language? More importantly, can we tolerate
that the less affluent students, who are more prone to become poor
academic achievers, lose their opportunity of tertiary education?
This
article only hopes to make a few remarks to Professor Lee with
reference to the current situation invoked by the so-called
internationalization programme. If its aim is fulfilled, that is all
the writer expects to do.