Colonial Hong Kong was characterized by diglossia: the use of
Cantonese for the ‘low’ functions of daily life and the use of English for
the ‘high’ functions of law and government. This paper shows that
significant linguistic inequality persists at the top end of the legal hierarchy
a full quarter-century after the transition to Chinese sovereignty. By
reviewing the output of the Court of Final Appeal since 1997, this paper
demonstrates that not only has the Court failed to develop a fully bilingual
jurisprudence, the availability of Chinese-language translations of its
decisions is in fact declining over time. This means that roughly two-thirds
to three-quarters of the population is unable to read for themselves the
decisions of the Region’s apex court despite being fluent in an official
language. The paper argues that beyond instrumental arguments (such as
fairness to monolingual self-represented litigants), linguistic equality in
the Court’s output is justified in normative terms. It is an assertion of the
dignity of monolingual Chinese speakers within the community; a
statement that they deserve equal access to the output of the Court given
the significant role it plays. The paper concludes by arguing for an
amendment to the relevant law in order to guarantee linguistic equality in
the Court’s output and provision of the necessary resources to accomplish
it. The problem is solvable with political will and a relatively small amount
of money.
*