Download
1 / 29
290 likes | 300 Views
Report on the compliance of national government departments in South Africa with language laws and policies, highlighting invited departments' responses and participation levels.
E N D
PPC: ART & CULTUREPANSALB PUBLIC HEARING REPORT06 January 2018Dr RRM MonarengModimowaNkodtšaMeedtsi
PRELUDE We are established in terms of the Pan South African Language Board Act (No. 59 of 1995), as amended by the PanSALB Amendment Act (No. 10 of 1999): • to promote and create conditions for the development and use of, all official languages of the Republic of South Africa; the Khoisan languages and sign language. • to promote and ensure respect for all languages commonly used by communities in South Africa including German, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Portuguese, Tamil, Teleguand Urdiand; Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit and others used for religious purpose in South Africa
Continuation… • The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996) recognises the historically diminished use and status of the nine indigenous South African Official languages. Sesotho sa Leboa - Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu; the Khoisan and sign language. • It obligates the state to take practical and positive measures to elevate the status, and advance the use of, these languages (cf. section 6(2)(3)). • Duty bound to our mandate we judiciously invited all national government departments of the Republic of South Africa, including the Office of the Presidency, as anchors of service delivery to all South African communities to give an account of their observance of the prescripts of the Languages Act since its inception in 2013.
Continuation… • The constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996) recognises the historically diminished use and status of the nine indigenous South African Official languages. Sesotho sa Leboa - Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu; the Khoisan and sign language. • It obligates the state to take practical and positive measures to elevate the status, and advance the use of, these languages (cf. section 6(2)(3)). • Duty bound to our mandate, we judiciously invited all national government departments of the Republic of South Africa, including the Presidency as anchors of service delivery to all South African communities, to give account of their observance of the constitutional language requirement and chiefly the prescripts of UOLA since its inception in 2013.
PURPOSE The main purpose of the conducting public hearing was in pursuance of our mandate as outlined in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996) and the PanSALB Act (No. 59 of 1995) to monitor and investigate the observance of the Constitutional provisions set for the South African languages (Official or otherwise) and the Use of Official Languages Act No. 12 of 2012 (UOLA) by the national government departments of the Republic of South Africa.
INVITATION • We invited 42 invited national departments to appear before the public hearing panel, • 31 obliged • 11 did not.
Continuation… • Department of Basic Education: The acting Chief Director: Curriculum Dr Moses Simelane, was in the Eastern Cape on the scheduled day; he forwarded the department’s language policy for discussion. It was not worthwhile discussing the submission in the department’s absence. • Department of Correctional Services: No response to our invitation, despite countless follow-ups. • Independent Police Investigative Directorate: No response to our invitation, despite countless follow-ups. • Department of International Relations and Co-operation: Despite the telephonic promises made by the departmental Official Tonyane, it neither attended nor submitted any document prior the hearing. • Department of Mineral Resources: Confirmed that Ms NeliswaChiloane was to attend, but despite reminders no one at the hearing.
Continuation… • National Treasury: It was impossible to attend as officials were preparing for the Annual Budget Speech. • Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation: an official, Ellen Mabunda, promised to provide the names of those who would represent it at the hearing, but that was the last time PanSALB heard from the department. • Department of Public Service and Administration: “Due to the legal nature of the matter, the DPSA requests that its presentation be deferred to a later date which can be mutually agreed upon. The request is based on the need for the DPSA to manage its internal preparations and approval processes so as to make a presentation that is comprehensive yet not misleading. We hope to keep in touch so as to prepare for the DPSA to make its presentations”. However, further attempts to contact the department by email and telephone elicited no response.
Continuation… • Department of Tourism: the language policy and presentation submitted, but the person named as representative, Mr Thabo Manetsi did not arrive. • Department of Water and Sanitation: there was no response to PanSALB’s invitation. • Department of Women (Ministry in the Presidency): No response.
EXPECTATIONS Each national government department was expected to: • Present its language policy formulated in line with the prescripts of the Languages Act (cf. Sections: 3(2), 4(1)(2)(3), including 5-9) respectively. • Outline its language language policy implementation plan. • Confirm the existence of the language policy implementation structure (the Language unit) and delineate its role and positioning within the departmental organogram. • Explicate the language policy implementation progress since the inception of UOLA in 2013.
PROCEDURE • Each department was requested to submit it individual language policy prior to their appearance before the panel. • It was further required to make a PowerPoint presentation and respond to comments and questions posed by both the hearing panel and members of the public within an hour. • The panel’s approach was collegial rather than adversarial, preferring to encourage the co-operation of the invited. • Each department was further encouraged to be honest and to note that their presentations would be critiqued in line with both the constitutional requirement and the Act in question. • The recommendations made in this report would be binding upon them upon being sanctioned by Parliament.
FINDINGS • The submissions and presentations made by the invited national government departments alongside our subsequent analysis show that very little has been done by government to give effect to the constitutional multilingual requirement and the provisions of the Use of Official Languages Act (Act No. 12 of 2012) (UOALA) since its inception five years ago. • Apart from apparent lack of political will to promote South African official languages and inculcate multilingual ethos there is a lack of understanding of why the promotion of all eleven official languages and status elevation of previously marginalised official languages are important. • Almost all departments perceived UOLA and the multilingual language policy implementation as sheer provision of translation and interpreting services, rather than creating equitable space for the official language to grow and create value.
Continuation… • Most departments admitted to not having done anything about implementing UOLA. • There appeared no inclination to allocate sufficient human and financial resources towards multilingual language policy development and implementation. • They unequivocably displayed a strong predilection to default to English on the assumption that it is easier, logical and common-sensicallythe only language inherently able compared to others. • “Practicability”, “as far as reasonably practicable”, along with lack of insufficient budget, were the bylines fronted frequently as the main reasons that impede the use of the previously marginalised languages in departmental official business.
Continuation… • A particular stumbling block is the process of developing proper multilingual language policy, the bedrock that nurtures linguistic diversity. • It would be easy to simply blame the Department of Arts and Culture for its formulaic, workshop-style introduction of a policy template to all departments – as it did in 2016, but all departments need to take full responsibility for not complying. • Virtually all of the departments slavishly followed this template and produced almost identical “language policy” documents. Instead of developing multilingual language policy befitting their individual context they merely restated UOLA.
Continuation… • None of them devoted any serious thought to the following key points: • the ultimate benefit the adoption of a more diverse linguistic framework would bring to their departments and the people they serve; • the linguistic right of both the departmental client and staff; • the value of remedying the persistent linguistic imbalance in South Africa. • Parliament earnestly enacted this legislation for government to implement but the latter, as evinced by the position intoned, abdicates their solemn responsibility.
RECOMMENDATION • The government departments should construct acceptable multilingual language policy with time-framed implementation plan. • Both the language policy and its implementation plan should be strategically biased towards the development and creation of business space for the indigenous South African official languages. • The departments should in tandem make solid provision for sufficient resources to enable language policy implementation. • They should accord top priority to fully functioning language units with cogent executive standing within the departmental executive/management committee. • The language units should be a multilingual language policy implementation structure of the departments and shall therefore not be limited to translation, editing, proofreading and interpreting. They are meant to actively entrench multilingualism within the context of each department’s business, to enhance service delivery.
Continuation… • The department should appoint professional and expert language practitioners well entrenched in multilingualism, language policy, language politics and related studies. Each government department should be dutifully bound to develop its own specialised multilingual terminology lists and get them verified and authenticated accordingly. • We will facilitate language policy workshops for departmental staff, management and executives on multilingualism, language policy development and implement, terminology development, and indigenous languages empowerment. • We will continuously monitor and evaluate language policies development and implementation to provide necessary support and guidance.
CODA • Ketšeasebaka se go lebogamafaphaohleao a tšeregokarolotheeletšong ye yaphatlalatša gore re tsinkeleleseemo le bolengbjatsenyotirišongyabolelementšibjalokagebotheilwekemolaotheowaAforikaBorwa. • I take this moment to thank all the departments that took part in this public hearings so that we could critically analyse the progress implementing multilingualism as set by language policy implement. • DzwazwinoAfurikatshipembeikhouḓivhauri a hunatshithutshoitiwahotshivhonalahotshaufhatshikhalakhanyambodzokandelezwahodzamuvhuso,nangwehunamilayoyotewaho. • South Africa now knows that it has given scant attention to the provision for meaningful equitable space to the marginalised South African Indigenous official languages regardless of existing legislations. I
Continuation… • Milavisisoixikombiso xo tiyalexilavakantiyisowakutiyimiselakahinakukotakuhumelelaekaswamabindzu, ntirhisanonankokawamianakanyonaendlelowatindzimileti. Mhakayankokaiku: xana hi lava kuswiendlakumbeee: loko hi swiendla, a hi swiendleni hi kuhetiseka. Lokoswingakoteki hi ngaswiendliswiriswahavahikuvaswi ta vekaAfrika-Dzonganatikonkuluekaxiyimo xo ka xi ngarikahle. • The findings are a solid indicator that we need reaffirmation of our commitment to advance the commercial, social and epistemological value of these languages. The critical question is: Do we want do it or not. If we do, let us earnestly DO IT. If not lets not waste by mouthing our intention for mere window dressing. It serve South Africa and the continent no good at all.
Continuation… • Lixeshalokubasizibophelelengokuthenkqi, silandelaisikhokelonamaxeshaesizimiselewona. KungokokesifakaiNgxeloyoViwozimvozoLuntuyePanSALBukubaiphunyezwe. Kananjalosikwacelangokuzithobaukuba le ntlanganisoizipoposhenjengezibophelelayoiziphakamisozalengxelo. Njengokosimeleke, sizakukubekaesweniukuthotyelwakweziziphakamisozeamasebesiwathwaliseuxanduvangokwezenzozawo. • It is time for a solid commitment punctuated by planned action with defined time frame. We herewith submit the PanSALB Public Hearing Report for endorsement. We further kindly ask this sitting to declare the recommendations as binding. We will, dutifully monitor the implementation of the recommendations and hold the departments to account.
Nobody ever got muscles watching me work out... Arnold Schwarzenegger (1947-)
A re šomeng! Thobela! Kanimambo! Enkosi! Ro livhuwa
Comments/Questions • DBE: Language promotion: School Language Policy? SA School’s Act? Multilingualism within Parliament, Advancement of PMSAOL. • Compliance with UOLA; Roadshow to promote UOLA. • Judge President (English only Approach). • Incremental Introduction of African Languages. • Eye on Parliament. Accountability
