Furthermore, judicial officers and lawyers also frequently resort to the deci- sions of the superior courts of Commonwealth countries and textbooks on law for guidance and assistance. All these together with those listed at sub- paragraphs (i) - (iv) are in the English language.
12. In our view, if the Chinese language were to be given equal status in the Courts, there would first have to be a translation into Chinese of the whole of our law as well as the decisions of the superior courts of Common- wealth countries and textbooks on law, with both the Chinese and English versions having equal authority. Reports of the decisions of Hong Kong courts date back to the last century, and reports of English decisions go back to the Thirteenth Century. We consider that it is not practicably possible to translate all these decisions and textbooks.
13. The importance of language as a means of communication is partic- ularly evident in legislative, judicial and quasi-judicial, and other spheres where the law plays a prominent role. It is through the medium of language that the law makes itself known to the people, and the judicial officer and practising lawyer must have recourse to language to interpret and apply the law. The need for the law to be expressed with as near absolute precision and clarity as humanly possible is too obvious to require any explanation, for uncertainty and ambiguity in the law lead to injustice, confusion, and frivolous litigations. The translation of any law from one language into another is therefore a most difficult and exacting undertaking. In view of the practically insurmountable difficulties of accurately translating the whole of our law from English to Chinese, it will not be possible for both versions to be recognized as being equally authoritative. It is also important to stress that certain English legal concepts cannot be accurately expressed in the Chinese language, just as certain Chinese expressions cannot be accurately translated into English. If a new term in Chinese has to be invented to convey an English concept, a Chinese speaking member of the public will not necessarily thereby be enabled to appreciate the full meaning of that term unless (1) he knows the meaning of its English counterpart already; or (2) appropriate and continuous efforts are made to publicize the explanation of these new terms as and when they are invented.
14. Codification may lessen difficulties to a certain degree, but it is unrealistic to expect any such codification because it will involve hundreds of volumes of law reports, to say the least.
15. If equal status were to be given to the Chinese language in the Courts, at least a very substantial number, if not all, of the practising lawyers and members of the Judiciary would have to be able to carry out their duties in Chinese as well as in English. It has been argued that a Chinese speaking person who is legally qualified should have no difficulty in doing his legal work in the Chinese language. The consensus of opinion in the legal pro-
8
fessions and among members of the Judiciary is that familiarity with the Chinese language does not by itself render a judicial officer or a lawyer capable of carrying out his duties effectively in that language. Legal education is given in the English language, and the law student is trained to think, speak and write in that language. It is therefore not in the interest of justice that a judicial officer or a lawyer should be forced to abandon the working language with which he is familiar and to perform his task in a language which he has very little or no practical experience in his legal work. If he is not allowed to work in the language that he is used to, it is the public at large that will ultimately suffer.
16.
Under the present legal system the answer of the Sub-committee to the first question in the Terms of Reference must therefore be in the negative.
SECTION B: TRANSLATION OF HONG KONG LAWS INTO Chinese
17. The Sub-committee is of the opinion that from the point of view of practicality, it is impossible to translate into Chinese all the Hong Kong Ordinances, the English statutes applicable to Hong Kong, the reported decisions published both here and in English, and all the authoritative textbooks. However, the Sub-committee is of the opinion that the Laws of Hong Kong (i.e. the 470 existing local ordinances and relevant subsidiary legislation) should be translated into Chinese, so that a much larger section of the community may have better facilities in their search of the law. It follows that all future legislation must also be published in both languages. We therefore recommend that all bills and ordinances including subsidiary legislation should in future be published simultaneously in English and Chinese, unless the enactment of such legislation is urgent and the simulta- neous publication thereof in both languages would occasion a delay prejudicial to the public interest. In the latter event, the bill, ordinance, and subsidiary legislation shall, in the first instance, be made or issued in the English language and thereafter, within a reasonable time, published in Chinese.
18. The Sub-committee does not envisage an unduly large number of serious discrepancies between the Chinese and English versions of ordinances and subsidiary legislation. However, because of the practically insurmount- able difficulties of accurately translating them from English to Chinese in every respect, and the need to avoid confusion and endless arguments as to the meaning of words in Chinese and English, which must necessarily arise from inaccuracies in translation, real or imaginary, we recommend that the English version shall prevail in the event of discrepancies.
19. We also recommend the translation into Chinese of existing Or- dinances and subsidiary legislation, such translation to be divided into the following stages (for details, see Appendix IV):
9
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.