可愛有時，批判有時 ——閱讀中大英語化政策
In-Media編按：香港社會運動的一個弊病，就是往往輕視開拓在公共空間的論述戰場，因而常是三分鐘熱度。表白立場，擺擺恣態就以為完事。但最近中大教學語文問題引起的爭論，卻冒出新的氣象。多次為文投於報章的鄧小樺，今日更在文匯報發表了發人深省的文章，並不點名批判諸如方曉舒(也來哭中大學生會)及喬菁華等作者的觀點，情理與辭鋒並重，編者謹此向In-Media讀友高度推薦。
---------------------------------------------------
任何事件，它值得公眾注意的原因，除了它涉及重要的公眾利益之外，還因為它能夠提出一新我們認知的事物。就因如此，中大近日發生的改變教學語言政策事件，我認為大家都值得去看一看。
香港社會的分化情況已經日益嚴重，到了無法忽視的地步。而中大的教學語言政策事件中，反對校方政策的學生會，則流露出一種亟欲統合各方意見的包容性。這點在我們的社會中，不可不說是彌足珍貴的。
尊重自重，社群互融
首先，學生會所發表的《哭中大》初稿，文中有言「很不幸也很諷刺地，我們的大陸同胞，較香港人更看不起自己的語言，只會挑那些以英語授課的香港的大學來讀」；此言一出，在校內引起了很大反應，一些內地同學感到強烈不滿，幾乎令學生會陷入危機。
然而，中大學生會的同學並沒有就這樣與內地同學來個無盡的論爭，而是很快就認清了，這樣是陷入了校方的分化政策，因為指內地同學喜歡唸英文多於中文的，是校方文件裡的論調，並不能真正全面代表個別的、作為人的同學。
建立同一族群親厚感
事實上，就我們的自身經驗也可知道，內地同學的想法和取向當然是多元的，學習不同科目、來自不同地方的同學，怎會只有一種想法？學生會向同學道歉，更改文章，並着意去了解和把內地同學的聲音引入事件的討論。這樣一來豐富了討論，二來也讓內地同學在校園中的重要性真正地提高，不再處於過客般疏離又邊緣的位置。這樣成熟的處事手段，是令社會人士驚喜的。
當然，一些內地同學的勇氣和見識也值得佩服。他們沒有怯於一時猛烈的反對聲音，反而敢於在看來不屬於同一個族群的人面前，說出不同的意見。例如有同學稱，她是放棄了北大的學位而到中大讀書的，因為她聽到她的老師說，在南方一個小島上有一間以「中文」為名的大學，這種對中國傳統文化的堅持令她心嚮往之。
這種說法不落俗套之處在於，它顛覆了「北方╱文化vs南方╱經濟，南方永遠從屬於北方」的古舊論述。可見，我們這些南方的城市，更應建立自己文化上的自尊心，不要讓人誤會我們只埋首於賺錢。而因為表達了對對方的尊重，看來屬於不同族群的內地生和本地生，就建立起屬於同一個族群的親厚感。無論是任何族群之間、任何方式的交流，其成功都必須建基於對他人文化的足夠尊重，和對本身文化的深刻自尊。
我們的大學生好像已經被唾棄很久了：功利、冷漠、語文能力低，不一而足。其實，學生不就是一個專門學習的職業嗎？學習，吸收新知識，接着更新自己的想法。理想中的大學，大概是個最具包容性的烏托邦，讓各種知識和文化在衝突中共存。一個有激烈衝突和矛盾的社會，份外需要一間優秀的大學，和優秀的大學生，把象牙塔裡的包容性帶入社會。有趣的是，這次中大學生會在對大學的不理想狀態之批判中，透露了一些熹微的光芒，彷彿我們與這種理想狀態尚未絕緣。
可樂與「本地主義」
我們經常會看見「國際化是大勢所趨」這種話。「國際化」當然是不可迴避的問題，但稍具常識和頭腦不是過度發熱的人，都會想到必須找到自己的立足點，才能面對國際化的挑戰。事實上，伴隨國際化潮流而興起的，除了「全球化」的單一化傾向外，就是全球各地的「本地化」反思。
一位美國教書的台籍教授Wang Jing，曾做過一個廣告研究：在可口可樂的全球化商業侵略之下，中國本土的飲品如何確立自己的地位而不被侵佔？她舉了兩個例子。一個是「中國可樂」的廣告，以民族主義作招徠——「中國人的可樂」，但廣告的風格和賦色，都和可口可樂的廣告如出一轍。
「中國可樂」初期投資很大，但很快就在競爭中敗下陣來，其市場佔有率完全不能與可口可樂相比。但一個上海的老品牌「力波啤酒」，卻始終在市場上遙遙領先。
「力波啤酒」一九八八年成立，在新世紀的全球化挑戰中，它採取的廣告策略是強調品牌與上海社會的共同成長，口號是「喜歡上海的理由」，電視廣告中亦營造新舊共存的社群感。筆者瀏覽過力波啤酒的宣傳網頁，發現它不但將自己企業的興衰起跌形容為「曲折動人」，而且非常注重本土策略和地方殊異性，主動提出「中國人最愛喝『自己的啤酒』，北京人喝燕京、瀋陽人喝雪花、廣州人喝珠江、哈爾濱人喝哈啤……每三個縣就有一家啤酒廠，一方人喝一方酒。」
話說回來，Wang Jing的研究結論是，能夠讓我們在全球化衝擊中站直身子的，不是民族主義（nationalization），而是本地主義（localization）。這也令我想起我的老師，在科大教書的台灣學者陳麗芬，一針見血的諷刺：「以前從來沒有人懷疑過香港是國際城市呀，但現在偏要點明『亞洲國際都會』，就令人疑心是不是某處出了問題，香港不再國際化了。」
多位評論者都已經解拆了「國際化等於英文化」的簡陋思維，這裡不一再重複。要動員群眾又不簡化問題，實在是很難的，尤其當「簡化的思維有利於號召」這種說法奇怪地被塑造了一種共識。而中大學生會在這次的事件上，一直吸收外界的意見，不斷調整策略，沒有墮入狹隘民族主義或閉關自守拒絕面向世界的陷阱中，可算是近年學生的最高水準表現之一。就是在這裡，我看見一些象牙色的反光，堪稱可愛。
必要的批判
當然誰都知道，包容不等於把所有觀點不理好壞全無批判地照單全收各打五十大板。學生會把焦點集中於攻擊校方，而沒有分散精力去批評一些實在有欠水準的論點。在這一點上，可算是照顧不周，欠點稜角。
例如某報有一篇評論文章，《也來哭中大學生會——粗口與咄咄逼人的語言》，裡面批評學生會「罵老師」、「罵校長」，說到底認為學生必定要是俯首低頭的馴服動物，這種只是腐儒之見，大眾也不必理會。可是作者在後文卻又提起中大學系合併的舊事，以「合併可節省公帑六千萬」為招徠。若只談節省，關閉所有大學，還可節省數以十億計的公帑哩。
重要的是，大學教育的質素如何，公帑花得值不值得。問題是，連日本研究系為何要自成一科這點都不明白，證明他的「國際化」裡，並沒有「了解他人文化」這點基礎，好像把不同人放到香港來就很國際了。日本在亞洲佔有極高的國際地位，且又對本土文化極為堅持，正是國際化一個重要的研究例子，連這點視野也欠奉，還要對「國際化」問題置喙？
另一個專欄作者最近常就中大改變教學語言事件發表尖刻評論，最有趣就是突然表現得很知道中大學生在想什麼，說「大部分師生都贊成英語化政策」。我也沒有做數據調查，但憑常識都知道，此專欄日日都是紅酒大班之類，談的地方不是在三藩市就是洛杉磯，這種高級人物，一個月會見到多少個學生？作者還嘲笑中大人好哭，認為是酸秀才表現。
此言侮辱了中大學生不要緊，卻把我們自古以來所有憂國憂民的先哲都輕貶了，正是學了洋文過了大海就忘乎自身的買辦人物。在香港逆境求存的時候，我們格外需要具有信念和對本土有深切關懷的大學生，而不是對本土疏離得隨時遠走高飛的精英。
鄧小樺
文匯報
回應
關於戰線
如此文章本不值得大家注意，但就中大英語化事件，實在想向各位作出一點呼籲。
我昨天回過中大，我的觀察是，現在校園好像靜了下來，〈笑中大〉風雲再起，可以成為我們討論教學語文問題的再一個起點。但在外面的傳媒，則可見到支持英語化者的反撲，「3%」尤其是個很有煽動力的論點，致使傳媒也開始轉軚（24日之前學生的論點是較受傳媒同情的），反對和解拆3%的聲音至今尚未出現。我有朋友投過稿到傳媒，但似乎有點困難（董建華又辭職）。而世紀版的「中大風雲」已經漸漸收結——但難道是次風雲要以〈有什麼好哭〉這樣的文章來收結嗎？
學系的諮詢期已過，學生會又處於交接期。悲觀一點說，現在在針對校方的戰線上已經沒有什麼據點。那麼，起碼要讓校園和社會不那麼輕易就忘記這件事、語言在教學中的重要性、民主是大學的必要之物；並且，要交出更多的思考資源，給這次論爭在歷史上真正的重要性。換言之，文章是不能停寫的。inmediahk現在讀者眾多，希望留意事件的讀者都會投稿出去表達意見。在下能力有限，只能寫成如此；在對自己深感不滿之餘，也更期待看到有識之士的好文章。在學術視野而言，我自覺是次中大英語化事件的討論深度尚未達標。
（當然，據說大家都忙。這種資源上的拉扯最是令人感傷。）
另外，我的原文對方曉舒和喬菁華是指名道姓的——以本人脾性，怎會不指名道姓——現在是編輯改掉了，以至有些句子有主語缺失的問題。另外原本的段落不是這麼短的，現在看來有點精神分裂的味道。不過，一些錯字和漏字的確是我的錯。
愛莫能助
聽了這一切﹐統統看在眼裡。
有人的確‘只會批評﹐不管回應’。
事到如今﹐能做的好像都做了﹐又沒辦法動員‘有影響力’的人﹐校方也‘貫切始終’﹐一意孤行﹐還能做什麼了﹖
很關心這事﹐有切膚之痛﹐可愈來愈感‘愛莫能助’﹐有什麼提議嗎﹖
下一步更關鍵的，是就著"中大條例"提出司法覆核
深化討論還是需要的，但下一步更關鍵的，是就著"中大條例"提出司法覆核。校方不作根本讓步，是路人皆見，當討論無法改變事情時，惟有訴諸法律。先禮後兵，校方自己攞嚟！
仗才剛剛開始。
真的已經沒彎轉﹖
I agree that '先禮後兵，校方自己攞嚟！', but are we already there, at this stage already?
I still hope that we can talk things out, before making it too political. If the students (or alumni, or anybody) do that, I can expect the one-sided support of the mass media towards the school. Then it will be even harder for us. Esp. the students, they might not be able to stand such pressure.
Only the last step left, really?
拉据對同學不利
訴諸法例可以, 但亦可以研究外國經驗. 其實可考慮在12月反wto國際大會搞一個國際性的青年研討會談大學私有化問題, 順便問問日本, 南韓這些非英語但又很國際化的國家如何採取語文政策, 什至中國大陸的高校亦可以拿來借鏡.
研討會過後,可以請國際青年遊行隊伍到中大踩場!
不過wto的統籌核心無聲無氣, 唔知可以點同佢地傾...
回應
在下看了幾篇回應後，也有點回應。
首先，我同意鄧小樺所說，從實際行動的層面看來，反偽國際化的行動的確處於膠著的狀態。原因方面，鄧小樺已經交代得頗清楚，我也大致同意。我想回應的是關於深度的問題。
鄧小樺和趙蓮生都提到深度的問題。我不太明白所謂「深度」是指甚麼？是理論的深度﹝比如援引的經典或理論不夠多？﹞，還是是次反偽國際化的論點或討論，還未觸及更深層的問題？如果是前者的話，我可以回答說︰一，群眾運動從來都不會要求太多的理論援引，因為這是沒有用的，甚至會加深了論點鋪陳者與受眾之間的距離。二，老實說，現在主導反偽國際化運動的，是在學的大學生。他們之中，又有多少個能援引高層次的理論或經典？一方面我們﹝我也是在學的大學生﹞在堂上所學往往支離破碎，膚淺至極，「講得出又怕被人認出唔熟經典」，一方面接觸到的經典或理論又少，如何援引更多的理論？
但另一方面，如果「深度」是指「反偽國際化的論點或討論，還未觸及更深層的問題」，則我是同意的。比如趙蓮生所鋪陳的「幾個反對校方的理由」是很好的分析，而且當中每一點都可以大做文章。事實上，「哭中大」一文已經嘗試以眾多的論點反對偽國際化。但問題在於，現時很多文章都嘗試把眾多的理由囊括及濃縮在一篇文章中，以致討論往往未觸及更深層的問題，因為每一點所觸及的「更深層的問題」往往又要幾千以至上萬字。每個論點都觸及更深層的問題的話，整篇文章達半萬字都有可能，但又有誰願意﹝有心、有時間﹞及有能力寫得出呢？其效果又是否真的這麼大呢？我當然不是反對加深討論的深度，但也想指出，這不是易做的事情，以及現時討論還未達一定深度是可以理解的。
以上是實際行動的層面的問題，下面我想談談理論層次的問題。
大致來說，我同意趙蓮生的疏理﹝當然，我認為點與點之間是有關連，並不可以一刀切把它們逐一拆開﹞。但我想指出，如果我們真的把第三及第四點作為主要的論點，則討論的重點很容易陷入技術性討論的層面。比如﹝可以想像﹞，喬菁華之流見到「英文化影響教學質素」、「英文化打擊母語教學」等論點，就會第一時間反駁︰「英文好d 咪得囉！」要排除把問題變成技術層面的討論，就要把討論帶回﹝比如﹞英文和殖民化及權力結構的關係，結果討論又會帶回理念層面的討論。
最後，我想提出一個問題，這真是一個問題。我非常同意趙蓮生最後幾段的論述，尤其「很多人心目中的視野，其實是MBA式的視野……中大國際化，最終的目標，便是增強中大畢業生的全球受聘能力」的一段。但我想問的是︰如果﹝並且很有理由相信﹞中大大部份的同學都認為這是沒有問題的，認為這樣的國際化「會令學生變得更精明更勢利更懂得玩全球化的遊戲」並沒問題，那我們可以如何呢？上一上中大的新聞組，這樣的看法比比皆是，不，簡直可以說是「比比比比比比比比比皆是」。在他們看來，讀大學的目的，就是增加受聘的機會啊，又有甚麼不妥？中文大學的理想？不知道啊，錢唐牟關我屁事，全球化就意味要和全世界的人競爭，也意味更多的商機，所以我要好好的學習市場學啊。這樣的話，我們可以如何呢？當我們說，「大學也是學生的，也是中大教職員和校友的，更是整個香港社會的。因此大學要發展成怎麼的一個模樣，每個人都有資格提出意見，其意見也理應受到重視」，但當他們的視野就是「MBA式的視野」，那我們可以怎麼做？
一個旁觀者的意見：
以一個旁觀者，我以為問題正是運動焦點太多，但推動者無法駕馭它們之間的矛盾關係。一是功利主義vs理想主義，二是西方文化vs中國文化，三是大中國vs地方主義，四是教學效率vs文化精神，五是中大傳統vs當下香港需要，六是大學的決策過程，其實還有很多，每一個都值得深入討論，也每一個都有不同的支持者。問題是這個運動將自己放到最窄的論述位置，既要對教育有理想主義的執持，又是對中大傳統有深厚認同，更加為大中國的文化自傲，....這樣是很難拉開來，團結最廣大同學校友的。當然更加難以在社會上得更大的迴響。
回應及討論
1.小西：
我覺得訴諸法例是殺雞取卵之法。不知是不是我對法例的理解太膚淺，我擔心訴諸法例之後會帶來硬性規定某些科目用中文教的情況，這樣只是規定某些課程以英文教的翻版。
我參與這次事件的原因，是因為我相信大學的教學決策應該通過廣泛討論才作決定，及需向公眾交代和負責。我不知道以「國際化」政策去決定教學語言和以法例去決定教學語言，兩者有何分別。
2.night fiber：
我想這個問題是學生組織必須要面對的，簡化地說就是學生組織與同學的距離。打到這裡我的後腦劇痛，無法給你很負責任的回應。我的基本想法是，必須想像「大眾」或「同學」為一個混雜、迥異、流動的群體，才不致跌入過度自我中心的封閉狀態或絕望和放棄狀態。想想，即使cu forum墮落依舊，但這次到底也是近來最多非學生會同學出來發聲支持學生會的事件呀。
另外，我一直認為，學生組織其中一個角色是溝通學術與社會，將學術知識與社會批判連結起來。可能是我守舊，我最敬佩昔日的學生組織理論水平高。在運動初期無法達到的理論高度，也該在日後補回來。當然，我自己讀書太少，對此也深感無力，不敢指責誰人。
3.FROSTIG:
不好意思地說，我就是希望你能通過撰寫英文文章，把事件在外文媒介裡的討論擴展。不好意思我可能一廂情願了一點。
4.蓮生和子華：
因為頭痛，恕我說得淺陋。
蓮生的分析我大部分都不反對，除了母語教育的愉悅那一點：「那種愉悅，在於你根本不會意識到語言的存在，你只會意識到自己在思想！」
我基本上反對這種思考可以完全free from語言影響的幻覺，就是這種幻覺令我們相信語言是中性的工具。而相信語言是中性的功具，豈非和「用英語學習與用母語學習效果無差異」，是一個錢幣的兩面。
子華的分析很獨特，一般我們以為學生會左閃右避，是把支持群體擴展，但子華卻認為這樣最難獲得最廣大的支持。我有時會回去和學生會的同學談，我認同他們「無法駕馭運動焦點之間的矛盾關係」，而當然我也不可以。
簡單來說，對我來說，蓮生和子華的看法似乎有一個共通點，就是二人都認為這次運動好像太貪心了；這似乎指向我在上面那篇廢文裡作激賞狀的「包容性」。我對運動想法很天真（只希望開拓一個比較有價值的討論），也許我以為是好的「包容性」的確造成了壞影響，希望兩位繼續不吝賜教。
正是到了現在，有深度和複雜的矛盾性該作大量爆發。我不認識曾憲冠所以不敢叫他曾公，但我看見那篇文也真的好感動。叫他曾公的人，「瀟灑」兩個字也用得極準。好感動，嗚！
訴諸法例大概是無計可施時的最後策略
小樺：
訴諸法例大概是無計可施時的最後策略，叫校方知難而退(當然起訴一方不一定勝)，阿堂把這形容為領匯事件。
另，如果我的理解沒有錯，蓮生說：「那種愉悅，在於你根本不會意識到語言的存在，你只會意識到自己在思想！」，意思似乎是：語言成為使用語言者的存在的一部分，血肉相連，思考也就不可能完全free from語言。我想蓮生提的是一種語言存在論，而非語言工具論。
當然，我同意以上的陳述可被挪用，被喬裝為語言工具論。
大學生欠遠見是整個教育制度的錯
失敗者好像從沒有資格發言﹐幸好有In-media (真心的)。
我自問是香港教育制度下的弱者﹐A-Level ‘炒粉’﹐被香港各大學拒諸門外﹐無奈下‘一走了之’﹐算是塞翁失馬。
就我耳聞目見﹐香港的學生對學習失去興趣﹐幾乎無一幸免。剩下我們這種失敗者﹐無法‘融入’這‘目標考試為本’的制度﹐堅持自己的喜惡﹐根本不可能在‘大學’裡發聲。我們既為外人﹐好像不該批評那些在學習上比我們‘成功’的‘大學生’﹐否則難免給人‘吃不到的葡萄’之感。
If you conduct a big-scale survey on 'why students want to further their studies', I bet with anything 'to get a better job' is one of the most popular 'reasons'. It matches the viewpoints of an article (about helping the poor citizen) discussing about general concepts of the parents and even the government, ‘唔讀多D書﹐第日掃街’. Students only KNOW that they need to try their best to stay in the game of education, so they can get a job more easily, and get a better job in the future, when they graduate. If this is what they are taught, how can they think of anything else? How can we expect them to be able to think of 'internationisation' in different ways, but not only 'internationalise oneself in the competitiveness in getting a job'?
It is a sad fact, but still a FACT. We have to change the mantality of everybody in the society and to improve (a lot!) our education system to see healthier thoughts towards 'academic achievements' other than 'job searching qualifications boosting courses'. HK people (when I say that I don't mean ONLY HK people) see 'higher academic qualifications', 'better jobs', 'better income', etc. as signs of being 'SUCCESSFUL'. When will it be changed? When can those who couldn't climb up the ladder get respect from the others, while they (some of them at least) just want to lead a simple, happy life with their own styles?
Bottom line, it is NOT ONLY education, but many social problems......
Thanks t sw for answering my question.
Actually I am not sure using mainly English here does help or not, but I thank t sw for giving me this recommendation! No need to '不好意思', as I frankly don't see why you should.
By the way, I have 'HIGHLIGHTED' many times I type in English only because it is much quicker and easier for me. I am trying hard, at the same time, to practice more on Chinese input so to improve.
In fact, I do find it difficult to present some 'Chinese concepts' and esp. hard to express my feelings in English. However, I think the English I use here in In-media are 'understood by everybody', hopefully.
There is one question I really want to ask then. Who we are trying to persuade, by using English, in this issue particularly. Is there anybody who doesn't understand Chinese interested in this issue at all? I was thinking about it when somebody mentioned that using English can help this message spread to more people, but who would the messages reach? Of course I don't find any problem having this discussion in English, just a little query I have.
By the way, I don't understand totally what 蓮生 and the others have mentioned about '根本不會意識到語言的存在，你只會意識到自己在思想'. Maybe I have never had such experience. When I really concentrate to think, I usually can't express myself logically, I wouldn't be able to speak properly. I mean, it seems to me that language comes first, kind of a 'self-reflex'. Just like you say yes even before understanding what the others say, sometimes. Well, if you really fight for 'mother tongue as the media of instructions'(let me call it MTMI for the moment)(what I think should be called instead of CMI, according to the real meaning of the Chinese term ‘母語教學’), then I doubt whether it is the major frontline. CUHK has been a 'bi-lingual' school as most people agreed, would it work if we mention the importance and advantage of MTMI and ask for the acceptance of the public? I guess we should use 'remain unchanged' instead of 'MTMI' in this fight. MTMI is really a very big issue these days, but with secondary and primary schools, I suppose, instead of in universities. I am not pro-MTMI myself overall, but I know the importance of Chinese in CUHK, the CHINESE University of Hong Kong. I can easily introduce you with somebody who are from 'EMI' schools with bad English and those who are from 'CMI' schools with terrific English. I really don't think it is a matter for language education, just politics.
Back to CUHK, I am now worrying about the impact which could be brought if the school insists to implement the new system. Even if, by any means, possibly by law order, the school is forced to revert to the old system, the damage would be very huge. How can the students get used to the fluctuating language policies? How would the public see CUHK? How would it be seen in the international academia? It would probably become a joke. Now, we really should try to stop the school from implementing this policy rather than trying to think of how we can 'change back' the policy.
Truly, I am so worried because universities are 'models' of secondary schools and this sudden change would probably reinforce the privilege of English in most people's mind. I don't want to imagine that.
Tactically, I believe revealing the 'lies' of the management (e.g. 3%, 4% thing) is the most useful in getting the support of the public. They don't know a lot, so they could only judge on what they know. Worst of all, they are all educated (both in school and by mass media) to judge everything before understanding thoroughly. If we can get more support from the public, then we can win this war more easily. It is just the problem through what media can we have our voice.
Language, People and Identity (Re: 可愛有時，批判有時 ——閱讀中大英語化政策)
I am sorry that I could
only reply in English because my Chinese typing is poor.
Our language shapes our identity. In return, we shape our language as well. Hong Kong as a bilingual society (or even more accurate diglossic society (雙層語言社會) as English and Cantonese in Hong Kong have different functions) has always been under such linguistic discussion and challenge. We viewed Cantonese as our own social, day-to-day language, and English as a high language for government, education and business. This language dichotomy still permeates the general polarize opinion on English. English is viewed as an important tool for business and education. Therefore, many parents would push their children for getting into EMI schools instead of CMI schools. And also, the government spent tremendous amount of money into improving the general standard of English. This favouritism towards English is also seen in China actually, where now English becomes the barrier for further education. People have to passed CET (China English Test) in order to graduate from university, to get into post-graduate studies and research. Some government posts also require this test in addition of the Mandarin Standard Test, not excluding numerous jobs in the business sector! That is English favouritism to extreme in China.
However, if you ask the general public would they dare to abandon Cantonese for English, most of them would disagree. The reason is Cantonese is interwoven into the local Chinese, or indeed, Hong Kong’s cultural identity. Cantonese is always ferocious on their linguistic identity. Even in the mainland where Cantonese is discouraged for Mandarin, Cantonese is still growing strong. Indeed, Cantonese, not Mandarin, start to displace Hakka and Teochow in
Guangdong! To understand this mentality you may go to this website 《其實你不懂廣東人》. Or better yet, buy this book. Many of you would understand or even agree with the author’s idea of Cantonese. This language hegemony is very evident in Hong Kong. Before 1970s, Teochow and Shanghainese were also quite common and known in the streets. Nowadays, only Cantonese triumphs due to the widespread education and fewer people bother to learn their parents’ dialects. Of course, our Cantonese now is really a mixed bag of languages, peppered with English (usually), Teochow, Japanese etc. and we should not pursue a path of linguistic purism because it would lose such vibrant language and most people wouldn’t even bother to speak that.
As a result, when CU decided to push through its globalisation programme, people are anxious about the loss of “CU identity”. People have spent in lengths on the implications of such policy, and I would not reiterate them. However, I would like to add a few points of the above comments:
蓮生: You have stated that our ability on a language controls the way and the flow of our thoughts. I agree with you in some ways. However, even though my mother tongue is Cantonese, I would think in English quite a lot of times. My brain thinks in whatever form it is most convenient. For example, if you ask me stuff like Physics and Maths, my brain would use English rather than Chinese as I was taught under English education, so those terms would make sense in English in my mind. Once I had a discussion with my friend on Maths during a dinner, and we were code switching between Cantonese and English. My uni friends in the UK who were on the table were amazed by that discussion, as they would have never thought of using such language as they were monolinguals. Hence, sometimes, we’re not confined to a language when we’re thinking. In fact, there’re people who thinking in pictures and colours instead of words. I’m thinking mostly in English now while typing this.
You also mentioned the changing ideals of the university students and intellects. You said that people are less anthropophilic(人文素養) and less responsible to the society(社會關懷) and more materialistic, that is an unfortunate product of our ever more materialistic and more capitalistic society. People would only want to grab as much gain as they can, and less thoughtful about the consequences of such act. It is very dangerous, and unsustainable as well. We often limit ourselves into apologists of capitalism, and we might be blinded from other consequences of this corporate capitalism, where we are mainly mere consumers of big corporations. It is no wonder that the university want students to have better bargaining power from the corporations! As we know globalisation is just a sheath of the more developed countries to gain more from each other and other developing countries. Unfortunately, this is the reality; this language discussion is just a tip of iceberg of a bigger problem.
小西:Hmmm... That would be rather defeatist about further persuasion to the university authority. Instituting a judicial review is rather damaging to the students and the university, I'm sure we are not as far as that final step yet.
Night fiber: It is important to have the depth and the width in this discussion because language is an ever-going important topic in Hong Kong. I spent almost 2 hours in finishing this reply, and I'm just skimming through the points I would like to make. Could you see how many words I have written? If this topic were seriously discussed, a lot of time and effort would be sucked in it. I spend almost half an hour reading this post carefully, and I still have to read back and forth while writing,
that's why I spend so long on it. I think people like 蓮生 and 鄧小樺 also spend a lot of time on their essays.
子華: I agree that this discussion could branch itself into several branches as you said to widen the audience and to get a more thorough and logical discussion. The CUSU students seem to mingle all the consequences together without a clear thought. I’m planning to do that, but I think I would send this reply as a basis of my future thesis/argument first. We often have too little time in thinking in such depth, so we rather skim through them, hoping that no one would realize the flaws.
t sw: It is good that you bring up this topic, so we know what happen in the CUHK. This topic concerns me a lot even though I'm not a CU student, and your participation of this movement is much appreciated. However, if we want to change the CU into fully CMI or MTMI as Frostig said then it might not be the best benefit to the university. We should try to make the language policy of the university into status quo instead of going to any extreme as a language policy in extreme (exemplify by the government's policy of Mother Tongue Learning in secondary schools with strict EMI) would cause more problems in implementing them.
Frostig: You said that the education system is to blame as people are pushing themselves into further educations. Well, this is not a problem isolated in Hong Kong. In fact all over the world, academic learning is in favour, and so many people who are inadequate of such learning also enter universities. They might be capable in memorising and phrasing knowledge,
ut they are lack of critical thinking. Critical thinking is not learnt through a course, it is learnt through discussions like this. Only through open discussions and debates, we acquire the ability of critical thinking. Many people who studied through the A-Levels have been so stuffed with knowledge that they are turning into Eggheads. I might be one of them actually because I have been quite successful under the education system in HK. In fact if I remained in HK after CE I’m pretty sure I would be able to enter HKU or CU without much academic problem. There are also other people who might prefer vocational training but since the government policy of “improving” tertiary education, those polytechnics became universities. Those people may or may not struggle under the new systems, but there is certainly enough pressure for the people to get into prestigious universities instead of what they really want to study. I’d write several pieces about this one time.
to 28481k
Thanks for your reply!
I thought quite the same before I have seen all these 'inspiring scenes'.
In fact, you are correct. In a lot of places, people think that higher academic qualifications mean higher status in the society, but not ALL places. I can only tell what I am familiar with, so at least in Switzerland it is not the case. Most people are proud of themselves and their jobs. They are happy to choose what they like. Getting into university is not the only way to 'get a better job'. They like what they study, and they study just because they want to (most of the time). Technical institutes are not seen 'not as good' as universities because they are practically different things. Of course there are things that I dislike in their education, but what I've seen from this is really impressive. They have also the minimum wage to protect workers in all occupations. Even 'cleaning the street' is a well-paid job (compare with us, foreign students working as apprentices). After seeing all these, I think that the mentality of people is really the major cause of 'fighting to get into university, SO to get a better job'. Of course, the inhuman low salaries help spread this idea.
Another point I would also agree is that, I had believed I would be able to enter any university as I wanted when I just took my HKCEE. How lucky you are being able to skip HKALE!!!!!! With 20sth marks, a few schoolmates or classmates and I had no doubt we would be able to enter university in Hong Kong. However, fact proved our belief wrong. We could never be able to imagine how horribly high the workload would be for matricualtion years (or what we call 'six & seven'). Not only study, but also numerous of ECA, which were not to be done by lower form students.
Anyway, I am not blaming anybody for my own failure, esp. when I have got my first class honoured degree finally after all the hard work. It is just I feel like we really need to be careful not to fall in a trap like 'the countries we are most familiar with (Japan, Korea, the US, Canada, etc.) are like that also, so nearly the whole world is having the same problems or making the same mistakes'. We really need to see how the world looks like from a totally new angle.
因為相信聆聽，我繼續言說
如果不是28481k如此有心，我想我本來不會回應了。看見非中大人願意關心這件事和為此發聲，我真的很感動。
28481k擁有雙語視角，指出我們在思考時並不是只會用一種語言，我後來想想，大概很多香港人都有類似經驗。我以前的中學是英文名校，但其實老師都頹得很，課本雖是英文，上課都是中英夾雜。我記得上到中四，大家接觸了新學科，很多同學都興高采烈，有事沒事都把那些新學的術語opportunity cause、 high-sounding nothing（這個是維也納會議上某政要的形容詞，但具體的已完全不記得了）搬用一番，買包薯片都分析得天花龍鳳。我覺得那樣很快樂。看見現在中文中學的母語教學教材，我倒會有一種陌生感（當然，和我所學習的系統不同嘛）。我想對我而言，中英夾雜那種半生半熟的情況，既新鮮又熟悉，令我感到學習夾帶著緊張和遊戲感，因而快樂。
所以我後來一天到晚吵著要混雜。所以我也不贊成要求中大某些課程硬性使用中文教學。我是唸中文的，我甚至樂於見到中文系有英文課程開辦。不過，若太表明保持現狀，又會顯得保守。最近有位都算不錯的文化評論人私下表示，（在傳媒的再現中）學生看來是強調傳統、反對改革的保守派，因此他也對事件表示有所保留。這是我所始料不及的。
另外——現在再談也許顯得太過執著——不過，我認為，我沒有誤解蓮生的意思。我與蓮生是秉持著兩種完全不同的語言觀，這兩種語言觀可以用德里達來劃一條模糊的線，中間出現的是分歧，而不是誤解。我幾乎完全不認同我們學習、使用或研究語言的最高層次便是完全意覺不到自己在使用語言(如果指意覺到語言作為與自身分離的對象而存在是「族庖」的表現，更是一種罔顧文/哲學史實的說法)。
當我們在某種語言、某種環境裡如魚得水、相忘於江湖，當然舒服過癮，但亦是我們最容易服膺於意識形態的時候，想想團契甚至家庭這類狀態就可以明白了。之所以要汲汲於把語言從我們的血肉中拉出來當成可分離的對象，是因為——用偵探小說的語調來說，可能是是語言自身在運作，而不是我們的思維在獨立運作，即明明是語言在構成我們的思想，但我們還以為自己獨立自由得很。常常這樣提心吊膽當然很不過癮，但我認為這樣比較保險。
小西區分了語言存有論和語言工具論，那麼可否再賜教，這種包納且具統攝性的「語言血肉」，怎樣確保不與語言工具觀發生共謀關係？再者，蓮生那一句「那種愉悅，在於你根本不會意識到語言的存在，你只會意識到自己在思想！」，是如何令你看出他其實並無秉持「透明工具觀」的？
另外，就疏離的經驗蓮生說得當然很感人，但我想許多沒有到過外國讀書的人，很輕易就可反駁道：「上課用英文，沒人要你下課後的生活也用英文呀。現在到底是香港，不是外國呀，就算全間大學都用英文教學，也不會改變整個香港社會的日常語言。而且，難道港大的人就全都活得很不過癮嗎？」
所以，我認為這裡比較核心的問題應該是蔡寶瓊在中大國際化研討會上所說的，知識與生活的距離，社會與課室的距離。英語化政策會容易把學生教成平日不食人間煙火、隨時遠走高飛的精英，而不是默默為本土耕耘的大學生。
就第二點，我也不知我那裡誤讀了蓮生。我向子華和蓮生提問題時，是把我心目中的「包容性」放在引號「」之中的，而蓮生在引述時去掉了引號，變成「小樺在第二點上也誤讀了我。我絕對不認為這次抗爭太貪心，然後要反對包容。」即是說，我是在質疑自己心目中的「包容性」是否帶著盲點，並請蓮生和子華賜教，蓮生則誤會我指他「反對包容」。不過這第二項誤解其實也只是個很無謂的小節，尤其其實我問的主要是子華，子華又不理我，我還是自己摺埋吧。
我的確常常發現自己不懂得，但這一次好像不是。anyway,希望有分歧的討論能夠引出積極的事物。
回 t sw
t sw: 我明白你對語言的感覺，我也明白中大現時的語文政策在未全面英語化前是已經大部分英語化了。英語化的學校會令學生對當下社會有所抽離。我認識好幾位在中大讀理科的學生，他們對英語化不置可否，因為現實中他們已在近乎全面英語化的環境學習。香港不同星洲，香港主體還是華人社會、中文社會，所以如果我們的英語用詞過分高尚、艱澀，我們便不能發揮溝通功能。因此有些英語學習出來的人便選擇遠走他鄉，不問港事。現今很多傳統名校學生便是這樣了。
近日重聽中大各種校歌如《中大學生會會歌》以及《新亞校歌》，感到中大先賢對中大的盼望、對社會的承擔。隨著中大中央化、三年化，這種對人文主義漸漸消逝。我們現正陷入技術官僚的陷阱，妄想英語化等如國際化，不知要植根本地才可論國際化。這種態度是要不得的。
(Revised comment: I thought t sw was a langauge purist, but he/she isn't so I've changed certain content.)
問題不是包容與否
我不是不理鄧小樺的問題，而是討論實在很精彩，還是在消化之中。
我的意見不是反對不反對包容，事實上問題也不是推動這場抗爭的，是否太貪心。如果真的可以用運動的角度看的話，運動的目標當然是捲入更多的人，在最大的範圍內轉化支持者的觀點和世界觀。問題是在一個複雜而互相矛盾的處境發生，要碰它的話，當然會扯出很多不同的層面，所以議題 的多樣性是無可避免的。
不過，如果最後還是各自說話，各個議題之間又互相扺消，最終就不成運動。我同意議題不是一定由推動者決定，但一場戰爭是由一連串戰役組成，各場戰役如何部署，按具體環境而定。既然討論中己點出那麼多的面向，它們每一個是否對應一個特定的site，可以作特定的分析呢？
我覺得這次還未成為一場運動，只是一場抗議，但如果推動者一早將自己放在最少數、最先鋒的位置上，它大扺也只能作為一場抗議而完結。
比較有效的溝通須以一定的互相理解为基礎
小樺：
我想蓮生原來的陳述「那種愉悅，在於你根本不會意識到語言的存在，你只會意識到自己在思想！」，可以被理解作：「思考可以完全free from語言影響的幻覺，就是這種幻覺令我們相信語言是中性的工具」，也可以被理解作蓮生後來進一步補充說明的那種語言存在論。語言存在論和語言工具論是兩種相當不同的語言觀，我只是對蓮生原來的陳述提出另一種理解的可能性，而我猜這也更貼近蓮生的原意。我想，比較有效的溝通須以一定的互相理解为基礎，辯清蓮生的原意，之後便好辦事了。當然，你仍然可以把蓮生的語言存在論「判断」为一種「思考可以完全free from語言影響的幻覺」、把語言視为「中性的工具」的信念，但蓮生的語言觀始終舆一般的語言工具論有別吧；至於是否有足夠的論証作出小樺以上的「判断」，還需另一輪辯証。
至於小樺問：「小西區分了語言存有論和語言工具論，那麼可否再賜教，這種包納且具統攝性的「語言血肉」，怎樣確保不與語言工具觀發生共謀關係？再者，蓮生那一句「那種愉悅，在於你根本不會意識到語言的存在，你只會意識到自己在思想！」，是如何令你看出他其實並無秉持「透明工具觀」的？」其實我在原來的留言已作了一點補充：「當然，我同意以上的陳述可被挪用，被喬裝為語言工具論。」也就是說，我同意以上的陳述有可能與語言工具觀發生共謀關係，但說蓮生秉持一種與語言工具觀發生共謀關係的論言觀，舆說蓮生本身就秉持了某種語言工具論，始終有別吧。
我明白小樺的擔心，尤其是「相忘於江湖」式的語言經驗的危險性，但那似乎是一個需要另外辯証的議題了。
我反對﹗
‘英語化的學校會令學生對當下社會有所抽離’這說法﹐我對此很抗拒﹐很反感。可以說是我一廂情願﹐或者過度反應﹐我不管﹐因為這話在我帶有強烈指責的味道。坦白說﹐我看了這句子真的沒法保持理性的思想﹐請原諒﹗
反正我不喜歡我就讀的中學﹐也很討厭裡面大部份‘風氣’跟很多老師和同學的作風以及想法﹐你大可以說我不必維護他們。可事實是﹐我看到很多同學﹐即使是我不喜歡的﹐她們很積極地關心社會﹐討論政治議題﹐也有滿懷理想的(不管我認同那‘理想’與否)。更何況﹐這話同時對本人帶有直接指責。每天只說英語就不會心繫香港﹐心繫中國了嗎﹖說普通話或者任何中國方言代表‘愛國’嗎﹖如果有這錯覺﹐恐怕有點膚淺。就算這是某一學校的情況﹐實也不代表其它五所﹐十所學校也盡如此。我是從頭到尾都認為‘教學的方式/方法跟學習的內容和教育的成果沒有直接的關係’。如果有人說‘用英文學習就沒法認識中國文化﹐沒法愛香港’﹐我肯定帶頭反對﹗也請不要誤把我這激動﹐極端的言論解釋為‘我反對母語教學’﹐儘管我的確不全盤反對英語教學。
我愛香港之情﹐雖然未至於無人可比﹐卻著實不容置疑﹐更不許冒犯。本文如有得罪﹐懇請見諒﹗
Back to this 'protest' or 'campaign'...
About this whole 'protest' or 'campaign' thing. The major difficulty, I think, is the difficulty on drawing further attention from the public. As said by many people, the media seemed to have a 'judgement' or 'decision' already. The are not motivated to 'chase after' news about language policy of CUHK further. And I DO wonder how the others thing and feel while we fools are discussing about it here everyday.
Here come the questions......
How can we draw the attention and concern of more people to make it a significant 'campaign', at this stage, after having already so many incidents and events? How do we change the mind of those who are pro-school? Is it possible to change their thoughts at all???
不要太激動
Frostig，希望你不要太激動。我翻看‘英語化的學校會令學生對當下社會有所抽離’這句，也只是28481k推演鄧小樺的一些想法，是否一種過度推演，或者28481k可以自己說，但我看他寫過的段落，好像並沒有對英中、英語教學有如此敵視 ，或者將英中的一些負面經驗都歸咎於英語。
不過我很覺得你的直率表達是十分有啟發性的。因為以你一直以來在海外還是這麼支持這次抗議，但對於討論中的相互詮釋和推演，出現了這一些較強的以母語為先、質疑英語教育環境的說法，還是有這麼強烈的反應，感到offensive 的話，這正好說明了這場抗議的一些內在困難。也就是當一部份人肯定中文，到一個程度說它有不能比擬和取代的優點時，他們會否不自覺地否定了另外的語言，甚至活在那另種語言環境 (英語、英中) 的正當性。言者無心、聽者有意。我不知道目前中大入學的英中、中中比例，但可想英中不少。是否在說明全面英語授課的弊病之時， 對英語教育經驗的否定，本身就已經不自覺地offend了一大批同學的經驗和自我認識呢？
這個是很有意義的，那就是在香港，當一些人大力批評殖民主義的時候，用很民族主義的恣態。但他們忘掉了，無論殖民主義是如何壞，是如何地是不是自由選擇的結果，但在殖民地生活的經驗，卻是他們生活和存在的一部份。因此，到某一點，對殖民主義的那些雖然很合理的批判分析，也免不了是對大部份在殖民地成長的人的蔑視和否定。
更何況，英語教育更是很多人自己選擇的結果。
有這點覺得being offended的人，可能一千個之中，也找不到一個像Frostig一樣，會跟你說下去。
Right, I've really opened a can of worms...
I thought that I could leave this topic alone at least 24 hours, but I think I couldn't now because the previous post for t sw caused a stir among the readers.
I might have been using too many superlatives or absolutes in my reply, so there cause a little problem that might offend Frostig. Frostig, I was trying to elaborate Siu Wah's idea of the possibility of linguistic seperation to the society.
Look at Singapore, how anglized their Chinese population can be. Many of them might still going on doing some traditional stuff, but their attitude and thoughts have changed immensely after the change of education policy from the 1970s.
Could you still remember the emgration trend in the late 1980s and early 1990s? Most of the people who had left were highly trained professionals, mostly trained in English as well. How could we explain the situation then? Was it that they feared so much that they flee? or just could just care less about the changes of HK, so they decided to get out from the pan? This is a real question to ask.
I still care about HK, or else I wouldn't even glance this site or spend so much time on this site. True, many people who have left HK STILL CARE ABOUT HONG KONG, and they would really crave for news. I personally speak more English than any other language everyday when I attend uni, when I speak to my friends (including some Chinese friends that is). I'm sincerely sorry if Frostig has been offended by what I say, I should have been more careful when I write out things.
I would also applaud that many students in EMI do care about the society, see those campaigners of the Secondary School Coallition for Democracy for example. I was in an EMI school as well, and there used to be a drive towards the understanding of the society, but this might have changed a bit when I entered the school. I read through the school history book, and saw lots of student campaigns and stuff.
I'll try to write a more balanced analysis about this in the future. This issue would stay afloat by itself because of the never ending discussion of the policy of language of instruction.
(P.S. Strange, if my post is more than just tiny points, it'll stir up big discussions. You may want to refer to this site:http://slashdot.org/~28481k and see which post has caused a little stir.)
My second point
I was not going to post a second post so shortly, but due to a posting error I would have to reply 蓮生's post.
Learning any second language is useful, because you aren't just acquire another tool, you can also peek though another culture, another identity. So personally I don't think anyone would vote against more English in CU. However, there is a few problem when they try to push through the policy. Hence, it is not just a langauge problem, but an adminstrative/political problem as well.
Languages in HK are often used as political labels, such as the EMI-CMI segregation, English at Work Scheme, NET scheme, etc. The government spent more time in pushing through English then to encourage the use of Chinese, could you guess why? Well, besides the usefulness of English globally (or as Frostig says, the Anglo-centric view of the world), I bet most people in the government are still used to English, certainly most leading civil servants and accountable secretaries of departments are. You can't blame them to have more of an affinity to English, that is their language of administraion. I bet Prof Lawrence J Lau (劉遵義教授) had the same urge about English or else he wouldn't push the policy so secretly yet blatantly.
Everyone's view about language is different. Some people think that minority languages need to be protected, others think that a universial language would be good for communication. There should be no absoulte stance, and I hope that this discussion could still go on despite the gulp.
(Revised due to an error at the last sentence. I should have prove read more but i ws hurrying for my dinner.)
Another reply. Sorry for being SO over-reacted!!!
I am so sorry, I knew my over-reaction would be a bit too much, yet I couldn't stop myself from typing it. I was a bit angry, much annoying, frankly. Anyway, I am okay with it, but feeling sorry couldn't keep my courtesy.
子華, you are right. I kind of chose to study in an EMI school myself. However, one point you and many others need to note. I chose to enter an EMI school not for 'EMI', just as a band 1 student, of course both my family and I wanted me enter a 'top school' (academic results -wise)(superficially), with no choice, it had to be an EMI school. Of course, we considered something more, like geographic location, students of the school...... Not related to this topic, so I skip it here.
And in fact, that is one of the reasons why I myself is SO against the EMI, CMI 'interchangeable' policy proposed by the authority. It just left the students with good academic attainments with no more choices, not better then before, but worse.
And to 28481k, I doubt how old you are. You asked 'Was it that they feared so much that they flee? '. For me, it was clear enough that was exactly the reason why everybody was leaving. They couldn't imagine how life would become after 1997, and they were worried, because they were afraid of possible changes. They saw getting 'another passport' as buying insurance, in case there was any fluctuation or crisis in Hong Kong, they could leave at once. Remember 'stability & prosperity', as the most popular 'phrase' I can remember for that period? People like me (and my family) never asked for 'stability', as 'stability' means consistent hard, poor life, while only the 'more affordable' people, so-called 'professionals' and 'middle-class' were so worried. In fact, it was not a matter whether they were educated in English or not. It was just whether they could stand a hard life. For those who were leading a comfortable life, they would not get used to a 'worse' lifestyle anymore. ‘由窮入富易﹐由富轉貧難’may be the best explanation. And in fact, even if we wanted to emmigrate, other governments wouldn't accept our applications at all, for we had no money, no special skills and appearantly 'no possible contribution' to their countries. In fact, one of my aunts (and her family) has got the British passport (right of abode in the UK), and she was never educated in English. She moved from Guangzhou to Hong Kong, then she entered a primary school without the possibility of entering a subsidised secondary school (wasn't able to take the 小學會考)(accidentally, considering my grandma didn't know ANYTHING about the education system then), so she entered the evening secondary school and worked in daytime since she was only 12! She is a hard working person and lucky enough, blah blah blah...... She is in a very high position in private banking now.
SHE was one of those who worried about the 'future of Hong Kong'. I can only say that it is because of how good her job and salary was, rather than being educated in Chinese or English. In fact, those people didn't care about the future of Hong Kong, but only 'future of themselves'. Of course, I know how people can say the case of my aunt is an exception. However, I would like to remind you that, people have a wrong impression that 'most professionals' were educated in English. As a matter of fact, it is the other way round. It means to me, only getting education in English will bring you there. Have you got a choice at all? Can you choose to study Law in Chinese? How about Medicine? Or, say Accountancy? See what I mean now. That's exactly why I hate the government's new proposal about EMI schools and CMI schools. I understand that for certain fields one ought to learn in English for much higher efficiency, but the students with good academic results have no choice then, when choosing a secondary school, for a 'non-EMI one'; then, for the survivors in the horrible exam-oriented education system, if the students have to become 'professionals', they would study in English. Can anybody go out there to count how many Medicine students in boths U's in HK are from CMI schools? I bet it wouldn't take too long. It is a big problem. Like for Actuarial Science (the department getting the TOP students, with highest requirement of admission so far), they only take students with at least 3A's in AL, and even more 4 or 5 A's. Whenever did any of those students got into any CMI school??? This is, again, the 'input-output relationship' I have stated for nearly a thousand times. The whole education system is unfair, and rather sick, according to me.
And last but not least, don't worry, I am not mad at you, but just that particular sentence, okay?
蓮生:'每個人發言或作判斷的時候，都是從自己的教育或學習語言的經驗出發', you said. I can't agree more! In fact, when I am here supporting this campaign far, far there in CUHK, I might have forgotten to tell everybody I haven't really got much experience in 母語教學。I acually mean ‘母語學習’, as I happened to teach my 'students' in Cantonese, so maybe it does count...... After my sweet, happy, wonderful, lovely school life with the excellent, caring teachers in my primary school (yes, I call it MINE!), I was never taught in my mother tongue again, except for Chinese Language and Chinese History lessons. Also, there were exceptions, like when I was nearly cutting my own hand in Home E. lessons, hahaha! I should admit that I have nearly forgotten how hard it was for me to understand totally in English when I couldn't do that. I just picked up this feeling recently when I attend my French class......
I think it is very true, by picking up the subtle differences, the underlying meanings of certain words, phrases, clauses and sentences, you learn about the teacher's teaching, his / her thoughts and the conception being discussed more clearly, with a deeper impact. In fact, by discussing in Chinese, it creates more emotion for me, don't know for the others. And also, it is much more easily for me to express my feelings and emotions deep inside, more precisely, in Cantonese, or when written, Chinese, so you see why I wrote that stupid reaction in Chinese.
I really want to tell the world, even I was educated in English, under a rather British environment and system, I am still pro-母語教學. Remember 母語教學 is not PTH教學, which I find disgusting afterall!
Wow? SO long already??? Sorry, please take your time to read......
Pro-母語教學 for me...
is the use of mother tongue in class for several subjects, but not neccessarily all.
I personally believe that learning some Science sudjects like Chemistry and Physics in English is easier, and better, for those Chinese terms are really horrible, can't even write and read them. But for subjects like EPA (sorry, it is probably some out-dated things for our days......) and geography, teaching and learning in Chinese do help promoting discussions...
To Frostig
Frostig,你說：
The whole education system is unfair, and rather sick.
我完全同意你所說。香港的教育制度，是一個充滿不義和醜惡的制度！
Thanks, 無為
Except all those we have discussed about, there are even more problems. The situation is, if you are wealthy, you get the best education (international schools) in Hong Kong. They can have 'small classes', they don't need to sit for so many horrible tests and exams, etc. etc. They is proof that international schools are on avaerage, much better than local schools, with more resources.
Mother tongue?
When I read the word mother tongue, and how it is used in Hong Kong, I would usually ask who's mother tongue are you talking about.
If we are just talking about Chinese university, then it is fine. I think it is fine to have an university that dedicated to Cantonese speakers of Hong Kong.
But when it comes to general education, in primary and secondary schools, I tend to hestitate a bit on what do people when they said mother tongue.
There are a lot of new comers to Hong Kong that their mother tongue is not Cantonese. When the policy said 'mother tongue' teaching, has of the policy makers think of the non Cantonese speaking children of Hong Kong?
According to the statistic, there are more than 5% of non Cantonese speaking residents of Hong Kong. Plus the new comers moving from PRC. Should we think of their children education as well when we think of teaching medium? Should we do that instead of keep using the term "mother tongue" as if all of Hong Kong people shared one common mother tongue?
Again, I would like to think about how Cantonese is being used as an international communication tool.
Putonghua or Mandarin is the number language in the world in term of usage. Most of the population of the world speak and write in Mandarain/Putonghua.
English is the number one second language of the world.
When an education think of what language it should use, being in a Chinese dominating community. Shouldn't Putonghua plus English be the obvious choice?
Well, it is violence.
PTH, precisely speaking, is not a mother tongue of anybody. The 'proper' PTH is not spoken by people of any province, any city. Only foreigners learn them as a 'standard'. When you speak accentless PTH, it only makes people don't know where you are from. Frankly, I think the 'proper PTH' sounds very gentle, very nice, but it is even worse than asking people to speak 'Queen's English'. I don't mean people shouldn't try to learn Queen's English, just doubt 'mother tongue's meaning' in that context. In China, such a big country, trying to force everybody speak PTH, or even try to replace their mother tongues with PTH is good? I don't think so. At least, we are trying hard to protect local cultures, not KILLING it!
Again, please don't under estimate the increasing use of Cantonese in the global Chinese population.
Putonghua is the common language, while people speak their own d
Learning in Putonghua as the common language is in no way undermining the important of the cultural use of dialect.
If you go to Shanghai today, you will still find Chinese speaking in Shanghainese while able to communication to non Shanghainese in Putonghua.
Why would Cantonese speakers be any difference?
I seriously doubt the usefulness of Cantonese if that is the only dialect you could speak, in term of being in a multi-cultural and multi-languages world.
In reality, it is much better for students to learn in Putonghua as a language, because no one write in Cantonese any more. I doubt you could do that yourself. And continue to use Cantonese at home and in the media. I doubt the TV in Hong Kong would switch to Putonghua programs, as the population here likes to watch programs in Cantonese. So, the worry that learning in Putonghua in school would make people here lost their Cantonese cultural uniqueness is unfound.
Also, continue learning in English as a second language would help Hong Kong people to communicate with people from all over the globe. The importance of English as a communication tool has been established and reinforced, even in cultural pride France.
I think the minority in Hong Kong would be really worried about losing their own cultural languages as there is no program to learn their own languages. Think about all the Nepalese, Palestinian, Indonesian children in Hong Kong, being told that they should learn Cantonese as the mother-tongue, and with no support whatsoever in their own cultural development. With no television programs in their own language.
Excuse me for seeing the irony in all these. I have repeatedly heard from the local Chinese that new comers have to learn local language and go to CMI schools. But when it comes to asking the local Chinese to learn in common Chinese language, one tried to bit my head off for saying that.
language problem
it's the way he (lau chun yi) launched his policy i guess. the consultation is a bit unskillful.
shanghai is an example of using local dialect and the official language. true. a lot of places in the world speaking dialect. taiwan too. i didn't spend too much time to adapt to Mandarin. it was a rather easy thing to do, if u have to. and be honest, i like speaking mandarin a lot.
ideally, HK people can switch into cantonese and mandarin easily.
and i try to imagine if a japanese wants to study in the CU. this japanese might be asked to learn ''Chinese''. isn't it a bit harsh to ask this japanese to learn CANTONESE???
a greater emphasis on English and Mandarin might be not that bad after all???
Mandarin may erode the local langauge, as we know in Shanghai.
I understand Frostig's concern about the possible language takeover in Hong Kong. Education is a big influence to the local langauge. For example, the prevalence of Cantonese in HK is due to education, which drowns out other Chinese dialects and other languages such as Indian langauges. Another example is in Wales, the people who are fluent in Welsh plummets from 50% of the population into 20% in 60 years due to widespread of English education. We also know how Mandarin education in Taiwan kills out Holo, Hakka and other Taiwanese indigienous language, so it is entirely possible that a language shift occurs.
Cantonese is the 16th most spoken language in the world with about at most 70 million people speaking it. We are sure not a minority langauge. Cantonese is spoken where most Chinese resides because it was Cantonese who emgrated many years ago. Of course, in international context it's a fairly small amount of people, but it's our cultural identity. YL Chim mentioned Shanghai as an exmaple of balance between mandarin and the local language, but Shanghainese drifted towards Mandarin endlessly. Do you really want our Cantonese sound mandarin one day? This is why Cantonese are so concerned about the state of Cantonese, for Cantonese is once a strong langauge within Guangdong and Guangxi. Any suggestions about abandoning or degrading the language is frown upon, as we don't want to be another Taiwan or Singapore.
Of course, equipping ourselves with another language is very useful, so I agree that we should learn Mandarin and English and become trilingual. It doesn't mean though we should learn in Mandarin in elementary education though because it is a dangerous path to eliminate other languages. So many languages are endangered because many people didn't bother to teach their childern their native tongue, or even worse, the language was banned by the government. We should stand by our languages.
Balance between standard language and dialect
Well, of course no one suggest Cantonese speakers to give up their dialect and use exclusively Putonghua/Mandarin when the speak in Chinese.
But look at the positive side of the shift of teaching medium from Cantonese to Putonghua, and using English as the alternative teaching medium for non Chinese subjects.
Education become much more accessible to non Cantonese speakers in Hong Kong.
For non Cantonese speakers, it is extremely difficult to learn. And by using Cantonese as the teaching medium, it is an added burden for all the school age children born of non Cantonese speaking families.
Putonghua, on the other hand, is much more accessible. Not only for those new immigrants that use Putonghua as their first language, but for those non Chinese speakers as well.
As for Cantonese speaking students. Having to learn in Putonghua/Mandarin will help their written Chinese as well.
Students no longer need to convert their Cantonese into Putonghua when they write. Wouldn't that be better for students?
Would Cantonese be lost in all these? I hope not. There may be a drop in usage in the future, but if the major TV channels don't change their policy for broadcasting, I don't think Cantonese will be lost because students are learning properly in Putonghua, with one synchronized the spoken and written format.
When I think of the Welsh dialect, I would think if the schools in Welsh use only Welsh as the teaching medium. Would they disadvantaged their students in term of their chance of attending prestige universities that teaches in English, and their competitiveness in the English speaking UK?
久違久違
因為面壁和決意不讓inmedia改變我偶然上網的習性，我潛水了四天，現在彷如隔世。
其實frostig的怒火有大約一半是我惹出來的，偏偏我不顧而去。現在各方好像已經互相了解清楚。我想補充的是，「英語教學的理論」這個論點不是我想出來的，是中大教育學院的教授蔡寶瓊在座談會上說出來的，而如果我沒記錯，她當時是說「我曾經做過一個港大的研究」。希望我顯得不算太過推諉，我會說：
1.這是一個研究而不是單純的看法，不可以當成不可推翻的真理，也不會因為一個例外而推翻。但就像我在回應麥海珊那裡所說，我始終覺得最有意義的永遠是逸出界限之外的東西——換言之，誰要說我輸打贏要的話，我也只好承認。
2.那是一個針對大學的研究。而大學和中學是有分別的，我想在地理劃界較明顯和較廣闊的大學裡，某種自成一角的生活及想像方式較易形成（當然現在已經弱了很多）。我昨晚沒睡，下次想清楚再修改和補充這個論點。
personally我覺得子華很有趣。既有糾察式的細心，又有父執型的規勉，復又謙謙潛沉。當然，子華是不必理會我的，我強調。
另外，這個話題下有些空降部隊出現了，很有趣，好像完全沒有理會過、閱讀過有關之前在這裡在其他地方的教學語言及中大英語化事件的資料，突然在這裡講一些浮淺得令人發笑的好處出來。嘩，用英文（及/或普通話）又可以用世界溝通，又不會損害我們的文化！這種巨大的著數，就像唐英年說「政府部門現在是用較少的錢做到較多的野」般令人飄飄欲仙。
在這種飄飄欲仙的感覺之下，論點之中的互相矛盾也完全不值一提了。例如一邊說粵語不會消亡，一邊說用普通話教學可以省去
使用者在腦中轉譯兩種方言的時間，喂連思考都可以不用那種語言了，那麼粵語的消亡也就指日可待，難道電視和電台會使用不被大部分人作為思考工具的語言？此外，我們之前講得唇乾舌燥的語言和思維的關係，看來空降者都跳過了。人家說完PTH不是任何人的母語，他那邊又繼續假設普通話是新移民的first language。frostig和28481k，你們知不知道，這世上是不是有些生物是只懂type英文而不懂read英文的？
看見如許空降部隊，馬上什麼話都不想說了，真是「我將開口，同時感到空虛」。或者要殺死inmdia的討論是很容易的：對於讀點書的人（無論是儒者型還是流氓型，打中文還是英文），同語重複和淺薄浮泛都像殺蟲劑般有效。
這真是技術官僚的時代，意識型態的終結。我不敢說香港社會向普通話和英語傾斜一點點是非常有害的事，但這種不問情由、自我重複、無法就他人提供的框架思考的表現，卻真是值得徹底反對。而這次中大英語化事件，對支持英語化者最不幸的地方，就支持普通話和英語的人，大部分都有不問情由、自我重複、無法就他人提供的框架思考的表現。在此對少量例外者付上敬意。
Why get offensive?
I would understand some may get over protective, or emotionally attached to their native dialect.
The problem is for education policy, it is not just to make students feel 'comfortable' but to help to excel after graduation.
I have heard one of the professor said at a seminar at HKU. I think he heard of the on-going debate about the teaching medium at CU, and he kind of proudly announced that HKU use English as the main teaching medium.
Should he feel such superiority because it is taught in English? I really don't think so. But HKU has made itself from accommandating to non Cantonese students who could not use Cantonese as the teaching medium.
As for the majority of Cantonese speakers, after years of education in English, would they still be disadvantaged if their university courses are taught in English?
Maybe I have too much confident in Hong Kong unversity students.
As for the whole education system and the use of teaching medium. I do think Singapore has done a great job in their decisiveness in making Singapore an Internationally accessible city. As for Hong Kong, it is still a slogan only.
Would the changing of teaching medium help the future of Hong Kong? I would think so.
But for those who are still worried about losing their Cantonese and their cultural identity in the near future. With addition to the standard Chinese (Putonghua/Mandarin) and English, maybe Cantonese as one of the subject to ensure its survival.
Thanks SO MUCH, t sw!
I have no more patience talking to somebody who can 'type' English but can't 'read' English. Thanks for this vivid description, I LOVE it!
By the way, I still have something more to say on that, just I have been too concentrating on the 'LU, CU discrimination' and have been following that for these two days.
First of all, XOX, please don't 'imagine' some fact and try to make people believe it is a 'fact'. You said, 'The importance of English as a communication tool has been established and reinforced, even in cultural pride France'. Ignoring the grammatical mistakes, I would like to say that it is hardly the case. Ask me, this (quarter-) French speaker (more precisely French learner, frankly), if you want to know the current situation in France!!! They are in NO WAY caring about teaching the people English. The people learn English for reasons they have, like work, study, etc. If a government provides English education to students since they are 12, sadly it is the same in Taiwan, is it really as what you said, ''The importance of English as a communication tool has been established and reinforced'??? I DOUBT. Worse than that, English is merely one of the foreign languages, as most French students start to learn their third language (probably German or Spanish) at 13 or 14, then possibly the fourth language (which can be anything, including Russian or Italian) one or two years later. For this, how can we see that 'French sees English as an important communication tool'? The result of this system makes most French end up 'monolingual', I don't know purposely or not.
For another point, you said, 'The problem is for education policy, it is not just to make students feel 'comfortable' but to help to excel after graduation.'
This is the most worrying thought according to me. If education is merely nothing more than 'vocational training', I have nothing more to say on this topic, as my heart dies already. Education is a lot more, at least for me, otherwise I see no point we all are WASTING all our precious time discussing about the future of Hong Kong education system, and gradually the future of Hong Kong. Please check my previous posts (I know no one, including myself, can do that anymore, as I have been (crazily) posting too many comments everyday) for what I have said, as I heartily don't want to waste my time repeating and repeating (remember, not even clarifying or explaining) what I have said and to bore those who have been here reading patiently.
Here, I suggested reading the comment ‘We can link it to another problem of our society’ under http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=20584 and other comments I have made just above.
And to t sw, you know I was mad a bit because of you, so you appeared finally, huh? Anyway, I am fine now, and research results are not necessarily correct, I believe. Feeling good that I am not treated as a crazy lady from Castle Peak (Tsing San). Thanks for your response, again. In fact, I agree with your comments on how people don't want to discuss with the others TOTALLY. I would add, if you don't want people to respond to your comments, please don't post it up, or at least tell the others to ignore it, but not just repeating your points and saying that the others are wrong.
And to 28481k
I have found that you seldom reply to my comments related to your speeches and comments. Just wonder, because I think you are not a 'turtle' from your comments, but this phenomenon makes me feel a bit uneasy, as I seemed to be talking to you, and you seemed unable to hear. Of course you are not obliged to respond to my responses towards your comments, just asking, as I am curious, as always, in case you can't see.
For me, of course I want to know at least, whether you agree with me, or anything you think I am wrong, so we can continue discussion. I can't discuss with myself, hope you understand.
Frostig, I'm so sorry...
But I'm really busy at the moment as it is my end of term, there're endless coursework... Hence, I couldn't reply all posts in this thread. Your stance is not really different from my stance, so I think it would be more necessary to reply others first. May I suggest to have your email address so that I can prepare a well packaged reply.
My email: 28481k@gmail.com
just for reference
另一篇回應〈笑中大〉的大字報
只能苦笑
──對笑中大一文的淺見
何妨
在本文開首，有兩點務必重申，捍衛中大理想小組、中大學生會幹事會以至中大學生報，從來沒有主張中大不應該國際化，更沒有主張中大應純以廣東話授課。雖然已經反覆強調，但假如有人仍然不小心看漏了，因而拿此作為批評或攻擊的根據，也就只好不厭其煩地重提一次。
內地生與廣東話
不論就廣東話語言結構、辭彙、語法的相似性而言，普通話的距離都遠比英語少。笑文作者將「聽不懂的中文」與「聽得懂的英文」放在一個對立的位置上二選一時，似乎將三語距離上的差別完全抹去，過快地代替了內地生發言。筆者一次在國際化討論會，一次在校長公開會面，一次在評論文章中耳聞目睹數位內地同學均不約而同地表示樂意呼吸本地語言，而且經過一兩個學期的時間，已經能夠比較順暢地和同學以廣東話交流。即使是內地生對此問題也有不同的意見，筆者認為教學語言的選擇最好交回師生決定，但內地生也應該有一定的心理準備學會廣東話，不然難以真正認識、體會本地文化，更遑論融入本地社會，於四年大學生活也不能說不惋惜。至於外地生，牽涉到甚麼學系該招收甚麼外地生的問題，便不在本文討論之列了。
共同語、方言及書面語
《笑中大》作者對「中文」有一非常落後的見解，作者將書面語及方言書寫兩者對立，而且以為「傳承著上千年中華文明的中國文字與中國語言」的光環僅應該落在普通話的頭上。
首先，普通話不等於書面語。而書面語也不過是我們共同的想像，含義浮動，且因時地人而異。其實採取何種書寫語言需視乎我們的書寫對像是甚麼人，書寫語言經具體而合理的考慮按實際需要而「廣東化」並無問題，重要的是我們沒有放棄能與中國其他地區的人溝通的書寫語言。
其次，從語言學而言，普通話與吳湘客贛閩粵具有同等地位，所分別者不過是政治上的強勢弱勢。每一種方言都承載著各地獨特的文化，而這些地方文化都是中華文化不可或缺的一部份。再者，各地的殊方異語也不斷為我們的書面語提供豐富的養料。高舉純淨的權威語言而蔑視地方語言的價值，本身就是一種駭人的語言觀。
而真正貽笑大方的是，笑文認為大陸的獨尊普通話政策並未對當地方言造成實質性的衝擊。這種意見可謂既可笑又可怕，甚麼才算是對當地方言的「實質性衝擊」？前陣子筆者為英語授課的問題訪問中文系的張洪年教授，他直謂現時大陸許多學生已經不能以方言讀出書上的文字，因為內地學校都是以普通話教學，但恐怕《笑中大》之作者仍會嫌此未夠「實質」吧。
表達形式所負載的意義
回顧中大學生報關於校長會見同學的號外，整篇報導都以reported speech寫成，之所以有被《笑中大》作者抬出來借題發揮大書特書的一段，編者的用意乃在於表現該同學的機鋒及其嘲諷的語調，並透過這種表達方式的書寫，展示同學對劉校長多番迴避問題的憤慨和不齒。我們知道任何翻譯都會有一定程度的失真，以口語書寫直接引述同學的提問，目的正為儘量保留其神髓和韻味。決定一篇報導的敘述方式通常有幾項考慮，包括給誰看、如何看、看甚麼，三者互有牽繫，互有拉扯。在此例中，中大學生報這份號外的預設讀者為中大同學，以一般中大同學都能明瞭的文字書寫為最低要求，至於採取何種形態表現，則要視乎撰文者對新聞資料的選擇取捨及重組事情經過的方式。這種報導方式是否得宜，大有斟酌餘地，固然大部份同學都能流暢無礙地理解兼能體會那份親切的況味，但同時亦無可避免地為部份內地生帶來輕微的閱讀困難。然而，任何報導方式都無法十全十美，在著重以保留同學提問的神韻來展現對話雙方的角力關係及該角力場所的氣氛的大前提下，以口語書寫無疑是一個權宜之策。如果論者忽略以上種種考慮，單以該份號外無法照顧十億華人來批評中大學生報，我們也沒有甚麼話好說。而如果矛頭非僅指向中大學生報，而且指向反對劉校長「國際化」政策的一干人等，則情況便變得有點不倫不類──聽見反對「國際化」的同學一些夾雜中英文的言論，於是便說反對「國際化」的人不過在「捍衛一種區域性的地方方言」。
「教育以人為本」
笑文最後提倡「教育以人為本」，但其意竟然是指因為香港地小人也少，不能提供足夠優秀學生，所以中大無法躋身一流大學的行列。筆者訝異於笑文作者完全抽去教育過程中對人的關懷、對人格全面發展的要求、教者與學者的關係等等問題，而將「教育以人為本」赤裸裸地歪曲成一種競爭論。教育的基礎之一是「有教無類」，但何時需要保證我們所收的都是本來已成績優秀的學生？就是當我們的教育競爭到了只問結果，不問過程的時候。笑文希望以某種劃一的標準衡量學生的價值，將商業性的競爭思維置於人文關懷之上。我們並非不講競爭，但這種競爭至上的教育功利論難道就是我們的大學的精神和理念？被笑文作者所高舉的博文約禮、誠明、明德新民、修德講學、止於至善，又如何能透過這種功利教育得到體現和實踐？難道校訓就如魔法咒語，一唸就可使中大搖身一變成為我們的「精神家園」？
文中「可堪玩味」之處甚多，留待其他論者補足。筆者願意再提出的是，所謂宏揚中國文化，不只是將國產技藝儘量外銷，也包括對自身國民──包括大中小學生以至社會各階層人士──的教育。我們需有所依據、有所憑藉、有所充實、有所發展，才能談對外的宏揚。故此宏揚中國文化，以辦好國民教育為始；辦好國民教育，以國民最熟練的語言教學，建立屬於本地的學術語言，將世界各地的知識帶進社會各階層為始。
舊聞一則
"As for the whole education system and the use of teaching medium. I do think Singapore has done a great job in their decisiveness in making Singapore an Internationally accessible city. As for Hong Kong, it is still a slogan only."
李光耀調整教育政策 重新重視華文
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
【大紀元10月16日報導】（中央社記者陳毓平吉隆坡16日專電）新加坡資政李光耀提出改革現有重英輕華的教育政策，準備設立特選小學，以華文第一語文，重新讓新一代的國人都能掌握華文華語，不僅有利於發揚中華固有的文化價值觀，更重要的是能夠配合中國大陸的市場，增進商機利益。
馬來西亞華社普遍讚許之餘，都不忘給這位資深政壇領導人物再行挖苦一番。
馬國華教董事聯合總會（董總）主席郭全強表示，新加坡過去為了生存，不惜關閉華校，只重英文，影響當地百分之八十華裔正確使用母語的機會，並造成今天半數以上的華裔家庭深受西化，而使中華文化的傳統減弱。
他說，但是現在由於中國大陸的崛起，商業市場更是一個誘人成果，李光耀於是又從務實立場，鼓勵新加坡人學習華文。多年前他還不以為華文有什麼好處，但這一兩年他重臨大陸瞭解，新加坡商人只會講華語是不夠的、只會寫沒有深度的華文更不行。
郭全強指出，李光耀五十年代如果不關閉華校，今天新加坡人在華文的掌握方面，就不會這麼困難；他已率領新加坡人繞了這麼一個大圈，走了這麼長的冤枉路，現在才要重新轉頭，實有許多困難。但無論如何，他的改弦易轍勇氣，卻叫人偑服。
因此郭全強強調，大馬華裔社千辛萬苦的保持、衛護與發揚母語教育，今天看來，這些以痛苦換來的代價是珍貴的。他勸請大馬華裔認清時勢，珍惜現有良好的華文教育資源。
大馬公正黨副主席蔡添強表示，新加坡政府費了四十年的時光去強調英文教育的重要，結果卻發現失去更多寶貴的國家文化。
他說，李光耀這次肯定華文教育的重要性，純粹從商業的觀點去審視。它與母語教育的價值觀毫無關係，這兩點立場應該清楚分開。
他指出，李光耀經過四十年的時光，才間接的承認當年所作的教育政策是錯誤的。現在才要國人惡補，卻是給世人一個重要的歷史教訓。
他也讚揚李光耀的認錯勇氣，雖然新加坡人花了四十年的時間改變母語文化與思想，現在走回頭路不是件易事，但是能夠因此重拾民族的根，重整母語文化價值觀，也未嘗不是星國新一代人民的福祉。
http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/4/10/16/n692405.htm
P.S. What's wrong?
What's wrong if you ask Japanese students to learn Cantonese?
1) I, and I believe everybody must, have seen or met Japanese who speaks Cantonese. Some of them learn Cantonese because they need to come to Hong Kong, some learn it because they like Hong Kong culture (strange enough, huh? So many people in HK and mainland China likes Japanese culture) and some even learn it because they love Jacky Chan!!! So, I don't see why it doesn't work.
2) Have you seen how many exchange students or foreign students going to Japan (including many HK and Chinese students, plus European students, etc.) learn Japanese? So, why they can learn Japanese, but Japanese can't learn other languages?
In fact, students studying in universities in Germany need to learn German, and those going to France need to know France? Is there anything wrong about that as well???
That's ok, I can wait.
28581k, I don't think sending you e-mail is a good idea for me. Take care of your own studies first! Wish you good luck in your exams!
I can wait, just feel strange about that, and now I understand.