• Sun
  • Dec 21, 2014
  • Updated: 3:01am
NewsHong Kong

Hong Kong actor's criticism of simplified Chinese character use stirs up passions online

PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 17 July, 2013, 4:19pm
UPDATED : Thursday, 18 July, 2013, 10:52am

Award-winning Hong Kong actor Anthony Wong Chau-sang has stirred up passions in cyberspace with his lament at what he sees as the "death" of China’s ancient culture in the mainland due to its use of simplified Chinese characters.

Wong’s message has drawn both fierce criticism and passionate support from mainland and Hong Kong users of the Sina Weibo micro-blogging site.

Over half of the population in China does not read traditional Chinese characters. Sigh. The Huaxia civilisation is dead
Anthony Wong Chau-sang

“Over half of the population in China does not read traditional Chinese characters. Sigh. The Huaxia civilisation is dead,” Wong said in his message posted early this week. (Huaxia refers to Chinese civilisation in historical literature.)

Some bloggers who agreed with Wong pointed out that traditional characters were important as they were used to write most of China's ancient cultural classics.

But critics of Wong said the Hong Kong star had failed to acknowledge the merits of the mainland’s simplified characters.

“One of its big advantages is that it makes it easier to reduce illiteracy, and therefore promote cultural exchange,” said one user identified as Happy Spear.

The issue of simplified Chinese characters often touches the nerves of the people in Hong Kong, which along with Taiwan, uses the traditional characters as their standard written form of Chinese.

Last April, a Hong Kong café chain was forced to change its menus that used simplified Chinese characters only after it was accused of discriminating against Hongkongers by internet users.

Wong, often an outspoken critic of the mainland in his blog and other media, was also accused by some bloggers of simply using the issue of simplified characters to promulgate his anti-mainland sentiments.

“You habitually look down upon mainlanders to establish your own sense of superiority! You oppose everything [that is] mainland Chinese. You prefer to be a British dog rather than a Chinese man,” one user said in a reply to Wong.

“[You have] no dignity and no brain!” a user identified as Moonshadow Sunlight wrote.

Wong, 50, has won the Hong Kong Film Awards Best Actor Award twice, in 1994 for his serial killer role in The Untold Story and in 1999 for his appearance in Beast Cops.



Related topics

More on this story

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

There is no doubt simplify Chinese character is a degraded, poorly developed, unfinished process trying to use some simple stroke to replace or destroy those heritages of chinese traditional characters. From scientific point of view, it did not really 'simplify' much. It will not improve rate if literacy as people still need to learn simplify Chinese in order to read, why did they learn traditional one with a little bit more effort. Simplified Chinese words are strange products.
@mbop: Wow - you're one angry individual. I wonder who is actually demented here...
Traditional Chinese are an art form, it is regrettable indeed.
You know huaxia is in trouble when the character for East is easier to write in traditional chinese.
Easier to reduce illiteracy? Why don`t you simplify the Chinese characters once more and do it again and again.
Seems like the who's lacking critical thinking and basic online research is YOU! Yes, simplified characters were proposed & discussed by the KMT, but the simplified chinese as you know it was not formerly introduced until the 1950's & 60's. And even then, it was the Communist version of chinese, during the time period in which they sought to destroy chinese traditional values with Communism. Simply discussing an idea is NOT the same thing as actually putting it into practice! Simplified characters individually have been in use since the Qin dynasty. But today's version of "official" simplified characters is a demented Communist version of Chinese.
Simplified chars were created by 1 political party, literally on a quick and dirty political campaign drive. It is not thought-out and not systematic like traditional characters. I will go buy an Anthony Wong movie now.
Honestly, does it mean Huaxia wants to write in jiaguwen, because the so-called traditional chinese is not as traditional compared to jiaguwen. People should move forward, not stagnant, nor backward.
I agree with Giwaffe that the Chinese language can be cumbersome. However, I disagree when it comes to numbers, though I'm not sure whether Giwaffe is of the same opinion when it comes to the spoken aspect of the language as well.
Take a random number of 139,294. In English, this is "one hundred (and) thirty-nine thousand two hundred (and) ninty-four". That's 14 syllables (not including the "ands", which is debatable whether they should be included or not). In CANTONESE, this is "saap sam maan gau cheen yi bak gau sap sei". 10 syllables.
Another example: 5,378,984. Five million three hundred seventy eight thousand nine hundred eighty four (18 syllables - can someone advise whether "million" is 2 or 3 syllables??!), versus ng bak saam sap chat maan baat cheen gau bak baat sap sei (13 syllables).
Not trying to argue that either language is better than the other, but each language has its own advantages. Merely trying to point out that this is one of the instances where Chinese may just have an advantage over English.
It seems to me that character, as a media of communication, is nothing but a tool. However I admit that traditional character is of more "beauty" if I may identify it like that...
For example, we find poems beautiful, but it doesn't mean we shall use this manner of expressing in our daily life.
People in different area have different lifestyle, we just show our respect.
Not everything needs to be marked as RIGHT or WRONG.
On the other hand, people's using any kind of character does not necessarily mean they are graceful or something... it is the inner most beauty that matters.
I should have removed my comment towards KMT in case another friend catches C fever. Shame on me! BTW, at the end of 1930s, WAR began.
I fully understand your idea but it does not response other arguments.
Also, thank you for deleting some word.
@baishui: There's no anger involved here, but if that's what you perceive, that's your business. However i haven't said anything different than what supporters of Traditional chinese would agree with. It's important to have both points of view in order to make one's own opinions.
@mbop: Glad you're not angry. So stop calling another reader 'idiot' then. It's bad form you know.
@baishui: Btw, I removed the 'idiot' from my post, in retrospect it may have sounded a bit harsh
****blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_40305bff0101a2p7.html this blog may explain some of the story focusing the character itself other than politics.
@zack.chen.3726: Hello, I just hope you know that's a CCP approved web site. It just might be a bit biased ;)
There are many Chinese dialects. The written Chinese language should be the same one so that we can understand one another. There are many Chinese living outside China.
Compare with other languages the written Chinese is more difficult to learn,but we can learn it if we want to.
To follow up, the Chinese language, simplified or traditional, is not a very multi-purpose language. It is inherently ambiguous and lacks specificity. For comparison, there are nine specific tenses in English, whereas there are (correct me if I am wrong) three in Chinese.
It is is cumbersome. Imagine using Chinese numbers for complicated mathematical equations in place of Arabic numerals. It is also very difficult to learn, being memory based. Alphabet based, phonetic languages are far easier to learn as it relies on more than rote pictorial memory, allowing aural sequencing and patterning to serve as memory aids.
I may probably have rotten eggs thrown at me, but if the aim was to reduce illiteracy, the Chinese language would not be the best choice. It is, however, a most beautiful art form. Chinese poetry is in a class of itself.
Sure, but is making more tenses going to remove ambiguity ? What about asking negative questions like: You don't want to go ? Yes, I ... or No, I ....
Russian and French e.g. are richer in tenses, does that mean less ambiguity ?
There's no such thing as Chinese numbers, or English, or French numbers, for that matter. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Arabic numerals is similar to Chinese characters, except that Arabic single numerals can be written with just one stroke each, without lifting one's pen, in contrast with Chinese characters for the numerals which requires one or more strokes.
Chinese is more difficult than European languages, and that just implies you need a "bigger" brain. In fact, Chinese requires alot more brain sections compared to other languages, including Arabic. I read articles of these before, and here's one e.g. : ****voices.yahoo.com/how-brain-processes-language-2046733.html?cat=58
Memory is important, but I'm not saying we should regurgitate or rote. Are you saying that lawyers, doctors, scientists, or the likes don't need a strong memory ? Without memory, you can't "upgrade" to the next level. I too find Chinese hard at times, and hope we have a book on the origin of each word, to give meat to them. It's a language and not a language at the same time.
I'll say reducing illiteracy here, means reducing the brain power needed to know and remember the strokes, but at the same time, not expunging the language.
More tenses are just one way a language can be more specific and descriptive. Since a language is a sum of its parts, more tenses do not necessarily lead to a language with less ambiguity, but it can certainly help. That certain tenses do not exist, and thus certain ideas cannot be clearly described or conveyed, can be seen as a limitation of a language with perhaps far reaching results. For instance, clarity and specificity can be very important for scientific applications.
Another inherent point of ambiguity is the high frequency with which the same sound represents different words/pictographs, leading to a heightened necessity for contextual information for interpretation. This not only increases the processing required for comprehension (thereby lowering efficiency), but also the chance for interpretation error (increasing ambiguity), since contextual interpretation is not standardized and tends to be more subjective. This additional layer of ambiguity is in addition to the ambiguity that exists whenever a word with more than one meaning is used, no matter what the language.
Regarding "Chinese numbers", I am referring to the use of Chinese characters to represent numbers. The point I am trying to get at is efficiency and ease/speed of comprehension. Arabic numerals could represent the number 4545 with only 4 characters requiring no more than 8 strokes. In comparison, Chinese would require 4 to 8 pictographs (depending on whether one writes the units as well) requiring 18 to 28 strokes.
With reference to memory, of course it is important for a great many people for a great many things, but that is a separate topic altogether.
What I am trying to say is if the aim is to reduce illiteracy, the language chosen to accomplish this would ideally be easy to learn, relatively intuitive, and require minimal processing and memory intensity. Phonetic, alphabet languages usually employ a standardized, logic based system for word formation and pronunciation. One advantage is that a word can be spelled if one knows what it sounds like, and one can pronounce a word even if one does not know the precise meaning. This is unachievable for a non-phonetic language such as Chinese.
@zack.chen.3726: Cheers!
With all due respect... What is communist version of Chinese character. If my first sentence made you suffer a bad "communism fever", my apologies.
@zack.chen.3726: Hello, to make a long story short, "communist" simplification was created by the communist government post civil war, when china was 100% under the rule of Mao and his fellows, and communism was the end all way of thinking. The communists' desire was to destroy & uproot ancient chinese culture in order to make the population subject to their new policies. And one of the best ways to do that was by replacing traditional writing, since that was independent of CCP government control. By creating a new system of characters defined only by the CCP, they now maintain control of people's words & thoughts. It had less to do with actually helping people than it did to strengthen the CCP's grip on population control. On the other hand, a truly beneficial form of simplification which was discussed by the KMT, would have been something similar to Japan's simplification post WW2, where they simplified certain forms, and not others. And this was done independently (since they were under the watch of the US), thus making it truly for the good of the people, and not for the benefit of government control.
@mbop: Thank you!
@baishui: You post what you want, i'll post what I want.
Don't worry about the criticism, Wong! Those mainlanders love putting everything down to 'anti-mainland' sentiments and 'foreigners' sense of superiority! How can you argue with those mainland Chinese when you just want to help preserve the beautiful 'traditional' Chinese characters and hope that more Chinese people will know them well and understand their poetic, literary, cultural and historic background?! And they accuse you of being anti-Chinese? I rest my case!
Sheer nonsense. I pitty those who try to politicise every single issue available in order to drive a wedge between HK and the mainland. I read and write both traditional and simplified characters and find no problem whatsoever in having both systems side by side. Who cares about what this so-called actor - whose father happens to be an English sailor - says about anything? By the way, I doubt he reads much Chinese and understands Chinese culture anyway.
Anthony Wong is truly British. More accurately, half Brit and half Hongkie
Anthony Wong Chau-sang is correct. The Huaxia civilisation is dead. Soon, the same proportion of the Chinese population will read it as the proportion of people of European descent who read ancient Greek. Next to nil. That's a loss.
On the other hand, those in favor of the simplified characters are also correct. Mass literacy is necessary and schools must have time to teach more than the language.
If anything, the simplified characters aren't simplified, enough, in comparison with the sound based alphabets that relatively atonal Semitic and Indo-European languages have been able to use.


SCMP.com Account