Language in Hong Kong at Century's End

17. Three Languages: One Future

17 Three฀Languages:฀One฀Future฀ Stephen Evans, Rodney Jones, Ruru S. Rusmin, and Cheung Oi Ling ABSTRACT฀ Hong Kong's current language in education policy, based largely on recommendations set out in Education Commission Report Number 4, ha s bee n th e subjec t o f considerabl e controvers y sinc e it s announcement. The policy, which calls for the streaming of students into Chinese or English medium schools based on an assessment made in primary 6, represents a major shift in language education in Hong Kong an d ha s sparke d renewe d debat e o n th e respectiv e role s of English and Chinese in the community's education system. Among the proposal's most vocal critics is Dr Daniel So, who claims the policy will result in a renewal of 'language-based bifurcation in Hong Kong secondary schools' . D r S o suggests a n alternativ e base d o n th e principles o f freedo m o f choic e an d 'concurren t multilingual ' education. Thi s chapte r present s th e result s o f a stud y aime d a t measuring the degree of support which the new language in education policy enjoys among students, teachers, parents and business people, compared to Dr So's alternative proposal. The results show that the government has so far failed to secure significant public support for its policy, and that Dr So's proposal more nearly reflects the wishes of the sample populations surveyed . BACKGROUND The 1994-199 5 academi c yea r sa w th e introductio n o f th e Britis h 392฀Stephe n฀Evans,฀Rodney฀Jones,฀Ruru฀S.฀Rusmin,฀and฀Cheung฀Oi฀Ling฀ government languag e policy designed t o encourage Hong Kong school s to us e th e mothe r tongu e a s th e medium o f instruction (MOI) . The ke y elements of the policy — streaming students according to their ability to learn in Chinese or English and eliminating mixed-mode teaching — are based on proposals originally put forward by the Education Commissio n in its Report Number 4 (ECR4,1990). At the time of their publication, th e Education Commission's MOI proposals were criticized in the community on the grounds that an English-medium education would be reserved fo r the elite. One of the most prominent critics of the policy, Dr Daniel So of Hong Kong Polytechnic, described the streaming proposal as 'the linguistic Berlin Wall of the 1990s' (So, 1992, p. 86), and, instead, advocated freedo m of choice for schools and parents in a 'concurrent, multilingual approach'. The issue of the MOI in Hong Kong secondary schools has been a source of heated debate at various times since the resumption of British sovereignty over Hon g Kon g followin g th e Japanese occupatio n durin g th e Secon d World War. Although the government has advocated the use of Chinese as MOI on a number of occasions since the war (Gibbons, 1982), it has never translated thi s advocacy into a clear and consistent policy. Soon after th e return t o Britis h administratio n o f Hon g Kon g i n 1945 , the Directo r o f Education, T R. Rowell, issued the Grant School Circulars, which declared that Chinese should be used as the MOI in all government-assisted school s from primar y t o junior secondar y levels . The grant school s themselves , however, le d by Diocesa n Boys ' School, campaigned agains t th e policy , and as a result it was never enforced (Sweeting , 1990). The Marsh Samson Education Commissio n i n 196 3 and th e Educatio n Gree n Pape r i n 197 3 both proposed introducing Chinese as MOI in the lower forms of secondary schools (Gibbons, 1982), but on both occasions a combination of parental pressure, the needs of the economy, and the government's own laissez-faire approach ensure d th e continue d us e o f Englis h i n th e Anglo-Chines e secondary schools, where over 90% of Hong Kong students receive thei r education (So, 1992). The introductio n o f universa l educatio n i n 197 8 highlighted th e difficulties o f usin g Englis h a s the MOI. However, mos t Anglo-Chines e secondary schools were reluctant to switch to Chinese, despite the fact...