Cantonese under threat

http://programme.rthk.hk/rthk/tv/programme.php?name=tv/thepulse&d=2014-02-07&m=episode

I really enjoyed the interview at the end of the Cantonese under threat segment in the latest RTHK The Pulse episode. The interview touches on the spirit of rebellion, and the orphan spirit assignments on the city. People are angry, because people have a vague sense of Hong Kong identity, and even in that vagueness, they can sense the violation to that identity.

Yet, in all the media commentary these days, I have yet to see the suggestion that Cantonese become more official: how about standardizing the language, its tones (Can we agree that Cantonese has six, seven or nine tones in the same way that we have a consensus for four tones in Mandarin?), and its Romanization system? What about systematically teaching spoken Cantonese grammar, lexis, tones and romanization in schools: why not create a Cantonese core subject to replace or to supplement the Chinese core subject in primary and secondary school curricula? Official Cantonese dictionary, anyone? When people have a shared knowledge, they can share that knowledge. These are no more than the building blocks for a Cantonese learning culture in Hong Kong.

My mom lived in Hong Kong from 1956 to 1966, and she was not taught Cantonese officially. Not much has changed.

And the elephant in the room is compelling all residents in Hong Kong to learn Cantonese, to a degree. Why not make Cantonese proficiency a part of a new permanent resident identity test, in the way Korean proficiency is compulsory to become a Korean? Even the USA naturalization test requires basic English!

Speaking of which, that the RTHK interview was in English is also deliciously ironic, and was not lost on me. That a Cantonese speaker is compelled to speak English to his neo-colonial master is another elephant in the room, the twisted neo-colonial legacy a significant barrier to making Cantonese more official.

Nonetheless, we can uphold Cantonese and promote it through formal interaction mechanisms in this city. We can marginalize other languages in this city through those same formal interaction mechanisms. We can create and destroy formal interaction mechanisms to emphasize and de-emphasize select languages. I’m not sure if Hong Kong people are willing or able to have this conversation.

Ultimately, the need for a clear and unassailable identity is necessary in the human experience. Praise God, for we’ve got the best in Christ. We must share that in this city. We can break the complaining and the flailing with this holy, eternal, relational sense of self.