HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 211 of 259
397
396
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
representations to Government requesting that the whole related matters be reviewed by a special committee, and to examine the socio-economic-moral position and see if it is considered necessary or desirable, to change the existing law to meet what has apparently been pointed out as a new situation developing or developed. Actions along this line will be taken by me as I have been instructed.
Finally, a word about bilingualism. I wonder whether we are quite certain or quite clear what exactly do we mean by making Chinese an official language. Do we mean that every speech we make, every minute we write, every note we make, or every letter we send out should be accompanied by an accurately rendered interpretation or translation, as the case may be, and that both versions are to be accepted as authoritative? Or do we mean that Mr. BERNACCHI can speak to me in English and I speak back to him in Hakka? Or do we mean that every law enacted should be translated into Chinese, every legal instrument to be accompanied with an accurate translation? I believe only lawyers understand what the laws really mean to say, a layman's interpretation of the law is seldom if ever accepted. Are we to use solicitors and barristers as translators and interpreters? Would Dr. HUANG accept a mixture of English words in Chinese phraseologies, interposed with Cantonese slangs trimmed by some terminologies extracted from quotations and decorated with wise sayings which appear to me to be typical of a new language developing and widely used in the ordinary day-to-day conversations of our people in this community?
I personally have spent solidly 40 years of my life using both English as well as the Chinese language, the latter include Cantonese, Hakka, Mandarin and a bit of several other dialects, and I chose English Literature and Chinese Literature for my degree at H.K.U., but I have yet to be able to express myself fully and accurately in the written Chinese language, and every time I drafted a passage in Chinese my linguistic experts in S.C.A. succeeded in splashing all over my draft with red-ink corrections, but when I read over the corrected version of my own draft, I invariably find that it conveys a meaning somehow not quite what I wanted to say. As an example, when I try to express the concept of democracy meaning a Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, the translated version often means no more than "a Government for the people". The Hon. Mrs. LI touched upon certain practical difficulties she experienced in the use of two languages—I believe Mr. LI Yiu Bor said something similar some years ago regarding difficulties arising out of translations. I still remember the story when a Court Interpreter was stuck with an appropriate name in English for he scolded the hawker saying, of all the things you could sell, why the hell have you chosen to sell... Serve you right—you should be jailed. The late Mr. Yu Wan used to be very fond of joking with his language exam paper with the phrase...
So I hope these may provide some food for further thought on the subject. (Applause).
CHAIRMAN:--Ladies and Gentlemen, I should like to begin my speech with some words on the subject of our annual conventional debate. From what I have read in a section of the Press recently it seems to be regarded in that quarter as a useless proceeding. In another section of the Press there has been a quite different suggestion: that what the official members of this Council say in their replies to the matters raised by the unofficial members on the first two days of this debate should be carefully scrutinized. There seems to be an implication here that anything less than full answers, as well as frank answers of course, will in some way be indicative of a lack of sincerity or purposefulness on the part of Government. Then again, at the conventional debate of 1965 Dr. Raymond LEE, after he had heard the official members' replies, described us as masters of evasion. This year Mr. SALES wants us to advance suggestions of our own, not just defend our own departments. And I have been privately urged to make a speech today, not a reply—by which I think was meant that I should deal constructively with at any rate some of the matters raised which were outside the jurisdiction of the Council.
Let us examine the foregoing. I believe that the annual conventional debate does have value. First, however much unofficial members may be frustrated at other times in the year, either by the Chairman or by their own good sense, from raising matters at our meetings which are outside the purview of the Council, they can on this occasion express their opinions freely. Apart from this I think also that the debate is one of the ways in which the central Government can take the pulse of the community. And thirdly, let us not forget the motion which gives rise to the debate. We have drawn up with care a Statement of Aims—with one exception all dealing with matters of business within our jurisdiction—which will bear study by the public, and which each year serves to focus the Council's mind on its tasks.
Having said these things in favour of this annual debate I must now make it clear that in my opinion it leads to muddle, administrative and constitutional, if members, or the public, are led to believe that I can speak today at length, and with authority, on matters outside the Council's jurisdiction. Apart from the fact that I lack the knowledge to do so, does anyone on reflexion think that I would or could anticipate anything that the Governor might say in his address to the Legislative Council on Budget Day next February, or that I could steal the Commissioner of Labour's thunder, for example?