TNAG-0305-FCO40-341-Use-of-Chinese-as-official-language-in-Hong-Kong-1971 — Page 80

2

4. We have included little other than the recommendations made by the

Government Chinese Language Committee in its four reports, since up to now, these seem to be the most learned findings made, and those most acceptable. However, we must stress again that this is merely an example, open to alterations after due consultation. The Legal Department of the Hong Kong Government, we are sure, will be the most authoritative and most competent to deal with detailed drafting once the principle of legislating for the official languages of Hong Kong has been accepted by the Government.

SECTION B : REASONS FOR LEGISLATION

1

1. Itis evident that a policy declaration is no guarantee for its implement- ation. A General Circular was issued on 30th March 1968 over the signat- ure of the Principal Assisstant Colonial Secretary (General) which is referred to as 'General Circular 13/68'. This quoted His Excellency the Governor's reference to as near equality of use and status as is practically possible...' for the two languages in official business. The Chinese Language Committee, however, shockingly revealed in para.18 of its 2nd Report that "the General Circular 13/68 does not appear to have been followed up with vigour", "This failure to carry out a declared policy and practical way in the first place be attributed to the lack of a central authority charged with the responsibility for direction, co- ordination and supervision". Further "when departments found that their very varied responses and their very different interpretations of the performances expected of them were not challenged it is not surprising that many may have assumed that it would be sufficient to deal with those forms which could easily have a Chinese version added and to so only when the occasion arose in the normal course rather than as a positive exercise." We wholeheartedly agree with these observations, Accordingly, we come to the conclusion that a mere policy statement as contrast to a legislative declaration, no matter in what form, does not safeguard the official status and usage of a language.

2. However, on the other hand, should a language legislation be promulgated

and not observed by the Government, an individual of the public can apply for a writ from the Supreme Court to compel the relevant Government Department to abide by the Law. Thus the use of a language is guaranteed and can be demanded for as of right.

3. The alteration of or addition to any legislative enactment requires the consent of the Legislative Council which should seriously deliberate on the matter. Any step falling short of makingChinese an official language in an Ordinance would not have the same guarantee.

4. With the promulgation of an Ordinance stating the status of the language . with the areas of use defined, not only could the public know exactly what they can expect, the various Government officials would also know where they stand, and this is to the interest of the Government internal administration.