我希望至少校方真的做到約見反對團體、延長諮詢時間，以及向校友評議會常委提供資源將諮詢搞好。

只要對話平台能夠保持暢通，是可以得到共識。

dear friends

i emailed some members last night, they have been very quick to respond, king sir is out of town, when he is back next week, we will invite some concerned parties and individuals for a long and in-depth discussion. i am thinking of someone like ma kwok ming, ma shiu yan (ha ha, all with a surname ma!!), etc.

as i see it, the meeting is not a window dressing PR exercise, i hope it will be a stimulating debate thru which feasible formulations can be reached.

frankly speaking, no hidden agendas, pls don't think that members are that smart as to find ways to muddle through, in fact last few weeks members were eager to find effective ways of collecting feedbacks. i don't know what happened in those previous cases (new colleges, etc); but for this one, i don't see manipulation.

you guys are asking good questions, i think committee members should reconsider the issue of knowledge production in chinese (how to strengthen it, and what are the options), and we as members of the cuhk collective, should also think of the position of english in a strategic sense. yes, cantonese / putonghua is another tricky issue too

a quick point: there have been suggestions to internationalize chinese, one question keeps puzzling me is the question of how, i am being practical here, how can we do it?? what are the policy recommendations?? and does it mean going that far as to translating stuff from med. and the natural sciences into chinese?

i am in poor heath these few months, not able to write up long responses, but i will try hard to read all comments and come up with new suggestions, maybe by the end of this month.

eric

Oh no, I think the rhetoric of internationalization is a myth. University is a place to produce and transmit knowledge, and connect knowledge in local, regional, national, and global scales. Internationalization is an ambition, which can be good or bad. I am thinking in very concrete and practical terms. As far as I am concerned, the practicality of the whole fuss is: 1. how to push forward knowledge produced and transmitted in Chinese, 2: how to react to the scenario of the integration with china (more mandarin speaking students), 3: how to connect to the heart of the global knowledge production machine (which is predominantly English). I am thinking of NOT making all these language proposals because of wanting to be internationalized, BUT the other way around-- how to help cuhk (teachers and students) connect to the international (academic and otherwise) communities as well as working towards a stronger presence of Chinese academic outputs, especially in the areas of historical, social and cultural significance (national/ china and local/hk). Whether internationalization or not, is secondary. I think a good area of new discussion is the objective/significance/effects, AND, the real meaning of internationalization for cuhk.

Again, practical questions we need to address is
How do we meet the challenge of admitting good mandarin speaking students from all over china?
How do we connect to the English speaking world?
How do we promote Chinese in this English dominant world?

My two cents

eric

I am not so ill disposed, as to interrupt the dialogue between Prof. Ma and 小不 by a sudden excursus; and yet, there is, besides the main lines of dispute, one concern, which both of you raised and argued over, that has been troubling me many years since. It is this:

Prof. Ma: "3: how to connect to the heart of the global knowledge production machine (which is predominantly English)"

小不: "可以有許多方法。其中一個最有效的，是中大校方能夠有勇氣有遠見的站出來，承認中文書寫的學術著作的地位，不要再歧視中文，並且鼓勵老師多用中文書寫，包括撰寫中文的學術教科書，以及創立不同學科的中文學術期刊，並給予承認。我們大家都知道，即使在中文大學，中文也是受歧視的。馬教授不會不知道吧？！你們的諮詢報告，連這點都不敢提出來，連這點都不敢抗議，我們還談什麼promote Chinese in the English world?"

The trouble goes much farther than the latter author's suggestions seem to recognize. It is scarely controversial, that in such areas of expertise as the medical and the natural sciences, English is the language of instruction, of usage, and of authority. Nor is it to be disputed, that the same preferment is frequently, and increasingly, found in the social sciences and the humanities today, to such a degree, that it is almost unnatural for a professional writer in these subjects to end an essay, intended as it was to be in Chinese, without some parentheses signifying the proper English term or concept meant by their Chinese translations, however simple, conventional, and direct that term or concept be. Peruse an article or two on the Mingpao Forum, written by some academic, and it is plain that the writer can hardly avoid supplying hither and thither quite a few English terms in parentheses.

But what does this writing habit mean? It means, I venture to say, that deeply ingrained in the mind of these writers is a way of thinking, of perceiving and analyzing the world around them, that cannot be undertaken entirely in Chinese. From the plainest word "alternative" (which many an academic writer do think it necessary to English it in their writing) to some obscure neologisms in French Theory or so; the world, formed of the training these writers have received, and their students daily urged to undergo, directly precludes the Chinese language from receovering its proper place in intellectual intercourse. And yet, one wonders, whether this world is indeed so indispensable for a better understanding of the real world around.

Here I aim principally at certain kinds of cultural studies; for, by virtue of their disciplinary concern, it is they that are often at the forefront of offering views and visions, regarding questions such as globalization, the language of instruction, and the like. Yet in criticizing how the world is, have these studies ignored to criticize, if I may say so, the very means of the undertaking?

Why is it a matter of concern, when an instructor is urged to teach in English, while what he teaches is itself, in a subtle form, so uncongenial to promoting the true use of Chinese, not only in this or that bit of instructing or writing, but first and foremost in how the students will be trained to look at the world?
Why is it not a matter of concern, in turn, when students must submit themselves to the wanton word-creating by Derrida, never-ending as it was until the creator died, while the same students would receive no audience at all from the master, nor from the learned teachers and other students around them, if they be inclined to interpret the world in simple, direct Chinese, free of all the new arrivals from Paris?

I think no installation of new journals can ever resolve this predicament, that so long as instructors are, with good intention no doubt, inclined to introduce what has of late been created abroad, enriching as they think the terms and theories with which the critic can then have at his disposal; so long as such terms and theories enjoy a directing power in global intellectual traffic, a power, not only to direct, but indeed to define, the world; so long as this subsists, I cannot see how the wider use of Chinese per se can reverse the tide, can "emancipate" - a word dear to many writers, of whom I have insinuated above - Chinese speakers, here as elsewhere, from the subtle dominance, not only of a language, but of a full repertoire of terms and theories constitutive of the way the esteemed critic must now speak.

Means or End?

I have to declare that I have no knowledge regarding the ‘decorum’ of cuhk; nor am I a scholar in any field of study besides the arts. Notwithstanding this or that, the subject on which I am reflecting is the ‘end’ of education.

I hold, if it is not too presumptuous, that the supreme mode of education – university – is to INSPIRE critical thinking or individualism, rather than to promote imitative learning. Regarding the former, I could hardly perceive any rule other than the ‘law’ of freedom; in a word, any prescriptive theory – authority – is but obstacle to originality and creativity.

Language, in this case, is but to communicate thoughts; that is to say, it is a means through which one expresses his idea to others. Without idea(s), let it be original or not, communication is meaningless. Is idea confined to rule, at least ,to language? I do not believe so.

Let the student express his idea in the most appropriate, comfortable way is the essence of education. It is of great importance, however, to be reminded that there is difference between expression and comprehension; it is true, that a student – scholar in a proper sense – nowadays is required to understand others’ arguments, most of which are written in English; however, whether he is to write in English or not, is otherwise.

With reference to the ‘rule’ that a ‘scholar’ is to write in English, my question is, why English? I can hardly perceive its grounding, other than vanity. If a paper is to ‘shock’ or, at least, to deliver an original thought, why English? One may argue that since English is universal, in order to ‘communicate’ to the world it is necessary to write in English. Nevertheless, if we are not ignorant of History, English is by no means a universal language; in the period of classical or neoclassical, the universal languages were French, Latin and, to a certain extent, Greek. What is at issue is that whether it is the thought (the End), rather than the means, that is essential? Confucius is an instance; why, he is admired, or at least, studied, by the western? On what ground, furthermore, Shakespeare is studied forever around the world? And why, Kant’s three Critiques, the Bible… et cetera, are translated into many languages?

If a paper, or a composition is to be ‘sublime’ (in Longinus’ words) – product of Genius – I insist that there is no authority other than liberty.

I am inclined to agree with you on many points; but on three of them, I must register some reservation.

1. It is no doubt the mission of a university to inspire; but to restrict that mission to critical thinking and individualism is, I believe, a rather narrow gloss of it, which, indispensable as it may be to the reformist cause, should not be taken as the mission entire. "Sapientia et virtus" covers a much broader vision of human flourishing than "critical thinking and individualism" seems to. Such notions as respect, elegance, dignity, grandeur, sense of history: they do not come chiefly from the two heads last-mentioned, but from something else, which ought no less to be a part of university education. Freedom, originality, creativity are much valued nowadays; but one should be equally sensitive to the evils they may possibly bring: The cult of creativity, backed by some most up-to-date education theories, is now tempting many to believe that students having learnt nothing at all should nevertheless be urged to create; and that no such creation be declared bad or trivial, in fear that they might feel discouraged. But, shall one not detect, in theories as these, nothing but promotion of narcissism, albeit in the name freedom, originality, and creativity?

2. The oppression, which you deem co-original with any prescriptive theory, comes no more from that than, in our present condition, from theories that promote "critical thinking and individualism." To put it plainly: When students are urged to read those books which do style themselves as critical, or subversive, or deconstructionist, etc., is not a new spectre silently rising up, asserting no less authority over many minds than authoritative texts in the past once did, yet harboring much less desire to confess the very same authority? It is ironic, that many critics happen to be most uncritical with that whole host of terms and attitudes, terms and attitudes usually not of their own making, but copied, or learnt, from abroad, with which their critical armory is daily forged?

3. As for the distinction between means and end, i.e., language and thought, I accept that the thought does not, in many cases, depend on the language; hence the very possibility of translation. But I would not go so far, as to assert that it makes no difference at all studying Shakespeare in Chinese or English. Even in philosophy, which is often deemed more universal than literature is, the sense of a term sometimes does have to do with the constellation of terms in the midst of which it makes its appearance. And this is why it is often imperative that we read texts in their original language. Each language, moreover, has its own peculiarities; which a competent writer will exploit so fully as, not only to convey what he means to say, but also in such a way to surprise, to move, to persuade, or to overwhelm. Mencius, for instance, did not speak with some universal language in mind, but with the classical Chinese of his time; and one can admire the beauty of his discourses only in that ancient style of writing. It is equally impossible to reduce Cicero's In Catalinam, Hobbes's Leviathan, Rousseau's Discours sur l'origine ... de l'inegalite all into one and the same language, without destroying something peculiar to each. This is also one reason why I am not particularly fond of "applying" some classic text or contemporary theory in a direct fashion: such texts and theories do inspire; but having been inspired, one must venture to foster one's own vision, and give one's own account.

Hi,

As committee member, I don’t have any 苦衷. In fact, I know that incoming mainland students have the chance to learn Cantonese in their first year. The proposition of having more courses offered in mandarin is to envision a long term goal of facilitating a more fruitful and direct academic engagement with mandarin speaking communities, in the mainland and elsewhere.

Yes, I agree that the proposal says very little on how to strengthen academic productivity (research and teaching) in Chinese. Will follow up.

E

Ps. I write in English simply because I can’t type in Chinese. and, I dream in Chinese. 

看到呀馬生的回應,真係火都滾!

1.唔打中文,只係因為唔能夠打! 仲要話咩dream in CHINESE?當你真係好想使用,會唔會唔想辦法? 連這一點堅持都做不到,旨意你去維護中大精神? 旨意你攪好中大的語文政策?

2.我之前都寫過,http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=147091&group_id=44

大一讀何秀煌邏輯,我呢個土生土長港仔唔識聽普通話,都係咁上...呀馬生你知唔知好多大陸學生,黎香港都想學好廣東話,人地黎香港讀書,為咩?為想感受到香港作為國際性大都市的節奏,魅力...唔係為左黎聽普通話!驚佢地應付唔到,可以好似招呼交換生咁,比機會佢去上語言課呀。

點應付普通話講得好的國內學生?有無攪錯?出發點唔係應該照顧好我地香港本地學生先咩?你係咪攪辦公室政治攪到傻左?

香港學生現在最需要的,是國際化的學習環境,唔係語言政策!

3.How do we connect to the English speaking world?

呀馬大教授, 香港幾十年黎都係咁connect to the english speaking world 啦,你宜家先提出一個咁空洞又無內容既問題?你唔係以為香港作為一個現代化的國際城市,一直都無connect?

我好想講,香港不比NEW YORK, LONDON,tokyo等任何一個國際性城市差, 本身已經係國際性城市......成日將自己定位響低人一等,潛意識就覺得英語世界先至係波!

你攪文化研究,又成日攪香港人文化認同的題材,原來攪係一回事, 跟你個人所相信與認同的又係另一回事。

4.How do we promote Chinese in this English dominant world?

語言的普及與使用,自有其歷史因素。全世界用英文為主,係因為以前殖民呀大佬......

你想點promote? 國富家強, 老外都要去學中文......說到底,還是錢作怪。象牙塔內的馬生,這個問題無需你擔心, 上大陸行一轉, 大把老外普通話講得好過你同我。

你出糧教書既,責任係教好學生, 唔係響象牙塔內得閒無事攪埋呢d政治野。麻煩你,唔好繼續出黎做打手,真係將心放響學生度。

With your further clarifications, I am ready to declare that we share a broad agreement on all three counts, on which I had perhaps too rashly registered my reservation. Let me nevertheless add a few more thoughts.

1. When I first read your thread, I took the early part of it as suggestive of a Millean ode to individuality and human flourishing, to which, if sung in the context wherein Mill wrote, I should readily assent. Yet I fear that the same ode, when sung in today's world, without some qualification to the original message, is likely to promote a politically-correct, everything-goes narcissism. Which is not even the Wildean artistic kind. I object not, but in fact praise the whole line of thought, from Mill to Wilde to G.E.Moore (and his group), which finds an intimate relationship between life and art. Yet I would say, vital to realizing that vision, is something (if I may say so) almost aristocratic, which I do not believe can easily be democratized; and which, it being so forced, will, indeed, degenerate to narcissism.

The aristocratic quality I alluded to, pertains to what I found wanting in the exclusive emphasis on "critical thinking and individualism." Namely, a sense of tradition, of history, of authority (even eventually against which one must rebel), and of elegance. This quality cannot be supplied simply by a professor's marking, devoted as the marker might be; but only by a common acceptation, within a community of teachers, students, and other partakers, of the value of certain things, styles, and judgements. In this respect, a university should, I hold, not only promote "critical thinking and individualism"; but also impart these things, styles, and judgements, or at least the ability to understand and value them, to the next generation.

2. & 3. Respecting the second consideration and the third, I, finding ourselves in perfect agreement, have little to add; except this: I am very inclined to say, that the beauty of a Shakespearean sonnet is well-nigh untranslatable; that though the Bard's deep reflections on power, being instantiated in his plays, may, as THOUGHT, be rendered and discussed in other languages, yet the SENSE (in distinction from the meaning) or MOOD of them, not quite. The long sentences of a Hooker, or a Hume, or a Gibbon, disclose, beyond many pieces of fact and opinion, a hint to the social environment in which these authors discoursed. That hint, I believe, is not translatable; but the thought, of which the discourses were in part made, can be. The line between what is translatable and what not, is not very plainly drawn; nor is it settled (a view I do not think you would endorse either) by the easy demarcation between Literature and Philosophy.

I am conscious of the fact that my suggestion ‘university is to promote critical thinking and individualism’ is disputable in the first place, for I did not define or explain these terms concretely. I am hereby going to justify my theses with the help of some of your [Y.T.] arguments with which I agree.

Reasoning does not exist, I insist, without a subject matter or an object; that is to say, ‘freedom’ (in the truest conception of the word) in thought is by no means lawless; the realization of which, moreover, is indeed a contradiction. Now, putting the particularities of our cognitive faculties aside, I infer that one’s critical faculty is INDEPENENT of one’s faculty of memory (KNOWLEDGE in general), though they are NOT essentially dichotomies. I regard the latter, that is, memory, but a box; the ‘sizes’ of which, however, is what is at issue here: since it directly concerns our current discourse on Education. With reference this, you justly claim that:

“Namely, a sense of tradition, of history, of authority (even eventually against which one must rebel), and of elegance. This quality cannot be supplied simply by a professor's marking, devoted as the marker might be; but only by a common acceptation, within a community of teachers, students, and other partakers, of the value of certain things, styles, and judgements. In this respect, a university should, I hold, not only promote "critical thinking and individualism"; but also impart these things, styles, and judgements, or at least the ability to understand and value them, to the next generation.”

There is little to add to this commendation, and I am not aware that much can be taken away from it: University in the first place is to enlarge one’s ‘box,’ ensuring that one is not ignorant of others’ idea regarding one’s object of reflection. University, in addtion to this, is to motivate a student to express his personal (and critical) view, no matter it be a critique of others or an ‘original’ dissertation as such. It is my conception of ‘freedom’ or originality of expression. Thus, a student is to convey his thought through a means which is most effective and APPROPRIATE to the subject matter.

In response to your first argument that:

“I fear that the same ode [individualism and human flourishing], when sung in today's world, without some qualification to the original message, is likely to promote a politically-correct, everything-goes narcissism. Which is not even the Wildean artistic kind. I object not, but in fact praise the whole line of thought, from Mill to Wilde to G.E.Moore (and his group), which finds an intimate relationship between life and art. Yet I would say, vital to realizing that vision, is something (if I may say so) almost aristocratic, which I do not believe can easily be democratized; and which, it being so forced, will, indeed, degenerate to narcissism."

It is evident, in literary point of view, that every ‘doctrine’ or ‘revolution’ of art is but a restriction per se: how ‘romantic’ were the Romantics if they only quested for imagination and, more particularly, mainly appreciated the age of Elizabethan and Jacobean? Nor could we perceive a reasonable grounding of the aesthetes; those who on the one hand exclaimed ‘art for art’s sake’ or ‘art for life’s sake,’ while on the other hand denied the ‘beauties’ of the moralist school. I am of opinion, nevertheless, that neither is Narcissism equivalent to ‘egoism’ or ‘individualism’ nor ‘an intimate relationship between life and art’ necessarily leads to Narcissism. The first English critic who implicitly possessed this ‘art for life’s sake’ temperament, insofar as my ‘box’ is concerned, is Samuel Johnson (Dr. Johnson). He was not so much being a narcissist as being a moralist. The prophet of ‘art for life’s sake’ in England, moreover, was Walter Pater, mentor of Oscar Wilde; his ‘influential’ article (at least to Wilde), the conclusion to his The Renaissance, was charged to be promoting ‘Hedonism,’ rather than Narcissism. I suggest that it is the difference in our terminologies, rather than conceptions, brings us into this discourse.

Your second and third arguments read as thus:

“The beauty of a Shakespearean sonnet is well-nigh untranslatable; that though the Bard's deep reflections on power, being instantiated in his plays, may, as THOUGHT, be rendered and discussed in other languages, yet the SENSE (in distinction from the meaning) or MOOD of them, not quite. The long sentences of a Hooker, or a Hume, or a Gibbon, disclose, beyond many pieces of fact and opinion, a hint to the social environment in which these authors discoursed. That hint, I believe, is not translatable; but the thought, of which the discourses were in part made, can be. The line between what is translatable and what not, is not very plainly drawn; nor is it settled (a view I do not think you would endorse either) by the easy demarcation between Literature and Philosophy.”

---I have to echo your opinion that on this we are in perfect agreement. It is true, that Shakespeare is by no means untranslatable: one still can comprehend the excellence of his plots, delineations of characters – anything that deals with THOUGHT or reason – in translation. Indeed, as I have connoted before (and you are not ignorant of this), I am exclusively concerned with the SENSE and MOOD – the beauty of expression – that his works exhibit other than anything else. In this case, therefore, Shakespeare is untranslatable.

With regard to 泥彩’s comments; I insist that the end of Philosophy is to deliver THOUGHT and REASON, whereas the means as well as the end of art is to exhibit beauty. Regarding the former, I suggest that its essential means and principle is logic (or systematic thinking) – a SCIENCE of reasoning – rather than language. In short, Philosophy is to deliver CONCEPTS, and thus, be COMPREHENDED. It is of great difference, therefore, between the judgment of Shakespeare (art) and that of Heideggar [Heidegger?], Derrida, and the ancient Greek philosophers.

Yours,
G.

先談一個例子:

上兩個月, freelance 幫一家國際醫學器材用品公司向國內的市場拓展員工做即時詮譯, 那些醫學名詞連本地的醫學專家都不會譯, 而國內的營業員甚至國內的醫學人員又不太懂英文, 結果在技術層面, 溝通唔到. 若說香港於這個 global market 佔有利位置的話, 其實在乎其文化與知識翻譯和轉換的角色. 亦即除了所謂的英文 "universial language" 外, 我們要懂得如何去把它轉成本地的語言. 所以中英要並重, 這亦是中文大學的理念.

若我們尊重不同的語言文化, 並認為應強化中文於國際學術的位置, 那麼就不應該強化所為的 universial theme 以英文為主導的原則, 而要有意識地改變, 強調翻譯, 本土化的重要性.

另外, 亦要處理普通話霸權的問題. 在國內讀書, 尤其是清華北大, 很多時候說話帶地方話特徵會被人歧視, 記得有一次旅行, 剛好有一個廣東同學同行, 談話時我倆以廣東話說了幾句, 竟然有一位同學說我們歧視他! 我即時問他何謂歧視? 是誰霸道?

很多同學會刻意不以母語聊天, 在宿舍, 明明都是東北人, 兩人都以普通話說話, 我鼓勵她們用母語談話. 後來專門交流不同地方的粗口, 因為普通話的粗口太貧乏, 很壓抑.

既然國內同學有幸到香港學習, 為什麼不給他們一點文化衝擊, 反而要回到普通話霸權的操作?

上面提到, 應讓老師有決定教學語言的權力, 也很重要. 我們應該相信老師能分辨那種語言最有利他的教學, 學生最能吸收. 而不是以時間表套死他們.

至於說要有足夠學分讓不願意上廣東話課的學生可以畢業, 其實可透過減少核心必修課, 增加選修科, 加強系之間的互通課去解決.

若我們尊重不同的語言文化, 並認為應強化中文於國際學術的位置, 那麼就不應該強化所為的 universial theme 以英文為主導的原則, 而要有意識地改變, 強調翻譯, 本土化的重要性.
E: This should be stressed again and again. The committee has left out the issue of research and translation. More resources should be given to quality translations: enriching academic vocabularies in Chinese, and introducing Chinese academic writings by more proactive translation.
另外, 亦要處理普通話霸權的問題. 在國內讀書, 尤其是清華北大, 很多時候說話帶地方話特徵會被人歧視, 記得有一次旅行, 剛好有一個廣東同學同行, 談話時我倆以廣東話說了幾句, 竟然有一位同學說我們歧視他! 我即時問他何謂歧視? 是誰霸道? 既然國內同學有幸到香港學習, 為什麼不給他們一點文化衝擊, 反而要回到普通話霸權的操作?
E: At cuhk, I don’t concern about Cantonese being suppressed, sometimes it is the other way around. I might be wrong, but in day-to-day class room interaction, my experiences are that local students may need to be more sensitive to help engage those who are not fluent in Cantonese.
上面提到, 應讓老師有決定教學語言的權力, 也很重要. 我們應該相信老師能分辨那種語言最有利他的教學, 學生最能吸收. 而不是以時間表套死他們.
E: This is a big issue we need to have more in-depth discussion. For me, I think most teachers are sincere, need to negotiate more rooms. I will try to gather feedbacks from teachers, they know more. And I have a naïve conviction that many cuhk teachers hate office politics and have the good will to teach according to class room situations
至於說要有足夠學分讓不願意上廣東話課的學生可以畢業, 其實可透過減少核心必修課, 增加選修科, 加強系之間的互通課去解決.

E: Dear friends, from my experiences, this is the core of the matter, Cantonese/mandarin, we need creative minds to think of creative policy. In fact, I hate administration and I hate policy, and never would I do this again, but the problem of integrating with the mainland in the frontier of higher education is a complex problem we teachers are facing everyday. New inputs are badly needed.

eric

阿藹 : "很多同學會刻意不以母語聊天, 在宿舍, 明明都是東北人, 兩人都以普通話說話, 我鼓勵她們用母語談話. 後來專門交流不同地方的粗口, 因為普通話的粗口太貧乏, 很壓抑."

阿藹 : "另外, 亦要處理普通話霸權的問題. 在國內讀書, 尤其是清華北大, 很多時候說話帶地方話特徵會被人歧視, 記得有一次旅行, 剛好有一個廣東同學同行, 談話時我倆以廣東話說了幾句, 竟然有一位同學說我們歧視他! 我即時問他何謂歧視? 是誰霸道? 既然國內同學有幸到香港學習, 為什麼不給他們一點文化衝擊, 反而要回到普通話霸權的操作?"

Prof. Ma: "At cuhk, I don’t concern about Cantonese being suppressed, sometimes it is the other way around. I might be wrong, but in day-to-day class room interaction, my experiences are that local students may need to be more sensitive to help engage those who are not fluent in Cantonese."

There is, and for some time there still will be, a clash between two views of Putonghua, as 阿藹 anecdotally reported:

For students in China, Putonghua is the common language, not only because it is official, but also because it is the one language which students from most parts of the country (those from Taiwan included for this purpose) are expected to understand. Allowing Putonghua this status, does not prohibit dialect speaking when only speakers of that dialect are involved. In Guangdong, for instance, formal education is given in Putonghua; but no one would worry therefore, that Guangdonghua were endangered of extinction.

Students in Hong Kong, owing to historical reasons which need not be detailed here, do not submit to this view of Putonghua. For them, Putonghua is foreign and hegemonic, with which effort must be made to guarantee Guangdonghua an equal status. It is unlikely that a student from Guangzhou, or even from Shanghai, would regard Guangdonghua or Shanghaihua in this way. Acknowledging expressly a hierarchical relationship between Putonghua and Guangdonghua does not by any means threaten the identity of a Guangzhou student, nor his use of Guangdonghua with friends, colleages, and relatives; yet it may seem menacing to many Hong Kong students, who find in the defending of Guangdonghua, not only a convenient plea for diversity (which is the usual argument), but indeed a subtle resistance against accepting a relationship between "China" and "Hong Kong," as would a Guangzhou student that between "China" and "Guangzhou."

The clash between the two views of Putonghua has caused a mutual misunderstanding: Students from China find it hard to justify, why Hong Kong must hold Guangdonghua, a dialect as it indeed is, up so high and resist the use of Putonghua in areas of social life in which it is being so used in the Mainland; students from Hong Kong, on the other hand, harbor a strong suspicion of, if not outright resistance to, proposals for the wider use of Putonghua.

The language question is, I believe, part of the identity question that people in Hong Kong, the younger generations in particular, need to answer gradually; but in the short term, it is also a question, to which students from China, having not been prepared by their social upbringing to be aware of it in all its local subtleties, may profitably be introduced; lest they appear an instrument of hegemony, re-enforcing what misunderstanding there already is, between the two cohorts of students.

I am not sure whether the mission of undergraduate education in HK has been discussed.

Let's not discuss about postgraduate studies and research, as the language policy we are discussing seems to affect mostly the undergraduates.

Should undergraduate education be:
-educating local students who may or may not be academics in the future;
-educating students for China?

Do we have enough discussion about the language policy in this regard?

Is the aim of the language policy one of positioning CUHK as a university for China, instead of merely for Hong Kong?

What is the justification for either position?

I think we can see the discussion of localization and internationalisation (CUHK occupying the niche as an internationalised university for China) more clearly by discussing about the mission of undergraduate education in CU. Then, we will not see internationalisation as merely an irrelevant myth.

Of course we could argue that attracting more students from China and to a lesser extent from other countries may enrich the learning experiences of local students. This enrichment could be both in language ability and understanding of the larger world. But is this the real purpose? If this is the real purpose, do we have alternatives other than a rigid language policy?

If the purpose of the language policy is to make CU a university for China rather than merely for Hong Kong, why can't we discuss this frankly?

We can have 100 reasons to support a rigid language policy, but which one is the main reason, which ones are just excuses?

CU can aim to be a university for Hong Kong, it can also aim to be one for China, or even for the world (comparable to Stanford or Harvard, if you like). But give people (teachers, students, alumni, HK people) reasons to persuade them why they should support these purposes, focusing exactly on these purposes, not other "side-effect" benefits.

Pretending as if we can please everybody by listing 100 reasons will just be infuriating, if not insulting.

I think Phoenix's query regarding the "cultural background" of teachers could also be more meaningfully discussed in this context of the mission of undergraduate education at CU.