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.