Speaking of English standards
Hong Kong people's allegedly appalling English skills are in the news again. An online survey conducted by a language school has found that they read and speak less in English than Singaporeans, and that mainlanders are keener to practise their oral skills with native speakers.
Commentators faced with such a dubious act of self-publicity have a stark choice: ignore it so that the school will not get more exposure than it deserves, or take the prey by trashing it. For me, it is far more important that misconceptions about English standards in Hong Kong are corrected.
Any survey that seeks to use Singapore as the basis in comparing English language competency reveals a lack of knowledge of the Lion City's language scene. According to the Singapore Ministry of Education, half the city's primary one students of Chinese descent speak English as the first language at home. The problem it faces is how to stimulate their interest to learn Chinese.
The survey found that 80 per cent of Singaporean respondents read five or more hours a week in English. That is what they do, because many are not interested in reading in other languages. Sixty per cent said that they felt comfortable talking to native English speakers. The question to ask is why the figure was not higher.
In cross-country surveys, great care needs to be taken to ensure that apples are compared with apples. In this instance, the age, educational attainment and motivation to learn English obviously varied among respondents from Singapore, Hong Kong, the mainland, Japan and Thailand. It is inappropriate to extrapolate their responses to give a purportedly representative picture of the respective populations.
Considering the vast amount of resources poured into English teaching and learning, Hong Kong Chinese do have a lot to feel sorry about. Virtually every child begins to learn English from kindergarten. At primary and secondary school, English lessons take up a disproportionate share of the curriculum. But most have failed to master it on leaving school.
This has to do with the fact that while children are constantly told it is important to learn English well, they are turned off by poor teaching methods before they appreciate its utility. Hong Kong was a British colony for more than 150 years, but the teaching of English was never taken as seriously as it should have been until after the 1997 handover.
The colonial administration set strict English standards for recruitment purposes, but did little to ensure it was properly taught until the last 20 years of British rule. Before 1997, anyone could teach English without being trained. It was only a few years ago that a benchmark test for English teachers was introduced.
Yet, in this predominantly Chinese society, there has always been a small but steadily expanding elite whose members are able to function competently in English. With the exception of Singapore, where English has become the first language, Hong Kong is the only major place in the region in which English is an official language and the language for the professions.
Contrary to public perceptions that English standards have fallen, we are more likely to encounter bad English nowadays because many more people speak some English because of universal schooling. More lively teaching methods applied in recent years have lifted learning interests among children, and tests have recorded rising scores.
Regrettably, while the survey is aimed at encouraging people to improve their English by enrolling in the school's supposedly excellent programmes, it might have scared off many of its potential recruits by shaming them yet again.
C. K. Lau is the Post's executive editor, policy
