Abolishing Traditional Chinese at UN

[Raymond]

The United Nations is planning to abolish the use of Traditional Chinese in its documents starting in Year 2008, and will only use Simplified Chinese thereafter. There is a growing global concern about this planned UN action due largely to the reality that many Chinese people still use Traditional Chinese versus Simplified Chinese. For additional information on this issue, check out the following website: www.gopetition.com/region/237/8314.html This web link also includes an invitation for those who oppose the UN's action to sign an online petition.

[Woodson]

Raymond, thanks for the notice. However, the transition from Traditional Chinese to Simplified Chinese, in my mind, is really nothing more than evolution of the language, a natural progression. This is not the first time that the written Chinese undergoes a major transformation. The current traditional form didn't come into being until the mid-Han dynasty. Here is the character for Lee/Li in traditional form:



This is the same character that was in use up till the Han reformation.



Reason for the switch was to simplify the form and made it easier for people to learn and use. The communist government introduced the Simplified Chinese for the same reason. Please note that not all Chinese characters have been simplified, only the most frequent used ones.

The petition site mentioned that future generations wouldn't understand the works of the ancient masters. I don't think it'll happen because there will always be people who can read and understand Traditional Chinese just like there are still people who read and write in the ancient prose. Besides I've seen these ancient writings in published in Simplified Chinese on the library bookshelves and bookstores in Vancouver.

[Raymond]

Woodson,

Thanks for your added clarification on the issue of Traditional vs. Simplified Chinese writings. I guess the point of concern is or should be whether UN documents written in Simplified Chinese will be more comprehensible to the global Chinese public at large or not. While I understand China's intention to modify its language to be more progressive, I also understand the need for documents of substance to be effectively communicated to the Chinese people whose lives may be impacted by UN actions.

Raymond

[Henry]

I believe this UN action is politically motivated - not so much related to literacy or whether "normal" people can read UN documents - generally, only diplomats attend the substantative UN meetings. It is more about a long term strategy to minmize and/or eliminate the ROC - politically. This action was probably proposed by PRC and the petition initiated by ROC.

I believe that the UN has violated its professed role of "transparency" ( neutrality ) by taking a side.

[Woodson]

The switch to Simplified Chinese is inevitable because all the Chinese born and educated in Mainland China since 1960 or so were schooled in the simplified form. This number could well be 600 million or 1.5 time the entire population of the USA. It would be a shame that UN documents are incomprehensible to such a large pool of people.

It is easier for people schooled in the traditional form to read and understand the simplified form than vice versa. So switching to the simplified form, in my opinion, does improve comprehensible.

Henry, the UN has never been "neutral". How can it be when 5 members have veto power? Even if we abolish the veto power there is the tyranny of the mass due to backroom politic and horse trading. Nothing is perfect, my friend.