Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
20 July 2023 | Story Prof Theodorus du Plessis | Photo Supplied
Prof Theo du Plessis
Prof Theodorus du Plessis is Professor Emeritus in the Department of South African Sign Language and Deaf Studies at the University of the Free State (UFS).


Opinion article by Prof Theodorus du Plessis, Professor Emeritus in the Department of South African Sign Language and Deaf Studies, University of the Free State


Firstly, South Africa now becomes the first country in the world to recognise its national sign language as an official language in the country's constitution. This is different from the current 76 countries that officially recognise their sign languages.

Secondly, South Africa becomes only the seventh country in the world to recognise its national sign language as an official national language. The other countries where the national sign language is an official language are Uruguay (as of 2001), New Zealand (as of 2006), Poland (as of 2012), Papua New Guinea and South Korea (both as of 2015), and Malta (as of 2016). Four of these countries – New Zealand, Poland, South Korea, and Malta – have effected the officialisation of their national sign languages through a national sign language law. Uruguay has done so through disability legislation and Papua New Guinea through a dictation of the country's National Executive Council.

Thirdly, it took South African Sign Language (SASL) just as long to become an official language of the country, as was the case with South Africa's nine Sintu languages (Zulu, Sotho, etc.). These languages were first recognised as official languages at regional level in 1963 but were recognised as national official languages alongside Afrikaans and English from the interim 1993 Constitution. SASL was granted official status from nowhere within 30 years. Incidentally, Afrikaans gained official status in 1925 – within 17 years after the 1909 Union Act was passed, recognising only English and Dutch as official languages.

Three factors played a role

Achieving these exceptional milestones is due to at least three factors, namely a favourable socio-political climate globally around minority languages and the whole disability issue, sustained pressure from an active Deaf lobby, and the active and decisive bottom-up actions by a string of role players. The degree of political favour should certainly not be lost sight of either. Already in 1995, the ruling ANC wanted SASL to become an official language, and eventually submitted exactly such a proposal to the Constitutional Assembly. Even though the time was not ripe for this, the proposal resulted in SASL being declared an official language in the South African Schools Act of 1996 for the purposes of teaching and learning in public schools (note, not only Deaf schools), the inclusion of "sign language" [sic] in the constitutional language mandate of the Pan South African Language Board, and the granting of linguistic human rights to all South Africans, including the Deaf, in terms of the Bill of Human Rights. The further amplification of SASL in terms of the 18th Constitutional Amendment crowns this campaign, which goes back to the period of the birth of our democracy.

International experts give three reasons why the officialisation of countries' national sign languages is significant:

  • It can help to ensure that Deaf people have access to education, employment, and other services in their ‘own language’.
  • It can promote the use of sign languages in general and also help to preserve the languages.
  • It can raise awareness about the so-called Deaf culture and the contributions of the Deaf.

All three reasons also bring us to the important issue of inclusivity. Education, in particular, plays an important role in this. To date, the Schools Act has been enforced in such a way that SASL has mainly been taught in Deaf schools as home language, while the law stipulates that it applies to all public schools. Now that SASL is also a national official language, perhaps the opportunity has come for the inclusion of SASL as home language in all schools. More importantly, a curriculum must now be developed so that the language can also be taught as first and second additional language in all schools. Such a thing would give inclusivity an enormous jolt. Many universities have been offering SASL as a subject for some time and can attest to the exceptional contribution it makes to fellowship between hearing and deaf persons.

Will not promote inclusivity as such

Also of great importance is the establishment of a functional language dispensation that will include professional language services for the Deaf as well. This will assist in actively realising the significant provisions of the Use of Official Languages Act of 2012 that state entities must establish communication for persons with SASL as preferred language.

It is important to understand that the mere inclusion of SASL as a 12th official language will not promote inclusivity as such. It will require hard work. And more hard work!

 


Bibliography

Wikipedia. 2023. List of official languages by country and territory.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_official_languages_by_country_and_territory was verified by the author.

Branson, J en D Miller. 1997. National sign language and language policies. In Wodak en  Corson, Encyclopedia of language and education: language policy and political issues in education, 1:89–98). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Constitute. 2013. Zimbabwe 2013 (2017 hersien). https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Zimbabwe_2017.

De Meulder, M. 2015. The legal recognition of sign languages. Sign Language Studies, 15(4):498–506.

De Meulder, Maartje, J Murray en RL McKee. 2019. Introduction. The legal recognition of sign languages: advocacy and outcomes around the world. In De Meulder,  Murray en McKee (2019), The legal recognition of sign languages: advocay and outcomes around the world. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Kiprop, V. 2019. Which countries recognize sign language as an official language? World Atlas: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-countries-recognize-sign-language-as-an-official-language.html

Parlementêre Redaksie. 1995. Gebaretaal dalk gou SA se 12de amptelike taal. Die Burger, 8 Mei, bl. 9.

Reagan, T. 2020. Linguistic human rights and the deaf: implications for language policy. Hooftoesprak, 2nd Language Diversity in Educational Settings Workshop 2020: "Making a change through sign language". Organised by the Department of South African Sign Language and Deaf Studies, University of the Free State, 9–20 November 2020. Virtual event.

Timmermans, N. 2005. The status of sign languages in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

VN (Verenigde Nasies). 1975. Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons adopted 9 December 1975 by General Assembly resolution 3447 (XXX). United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commisioner. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-rights-disabled-persons

—. 2006. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities adopted 13 December 2006 by Sixty-first session of the General Assembly by resolution A/RES/51/106. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities

—. 2017. International Day of Sign Languages, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 2017 A/RES/72/161. United Nations General Assembly.  https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%2FRES%2F72%2F161&Language=E&DeviceType=Desktop&LangRequested=False

WFD (Wêreld Federasie van Dowes). 2016. Our story. World Federation of the Deaf. http://wfdeaf.org/who-we-are/our-story

—. 2022. The legal recognition of national sign languages (Update: 10 January 2022). World Federation of the Deaf. https://wfdeaf.org/news/the-legal-recognition-of-national-sign-languages

Wikipedia. 2023. List of official languages by country and territory.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_official_languages_by_country_and_territory (Verified by author).


 

News Archive

Protection of Information bill- opinions from our experts
2011-11-28

Prof. Hussein Solomon
Senior Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of the Free State. 

In recent years, given their failure to effectively govern, the ANC has become increasingly defensive. These defensive traits have become particularly acute in light of the various corruption scandals that members of the ruling party involve themselves in.
 
Given the fact that for now they are assured of an electoral majority (largely on account of their anti-apartheid credentials), coupled with the fact that they have managed to make parliament a rubber stamp of the executive as opposed to holding the executive accountable, it is the media which has increasingly held the ruling party to account by exposing such corruption and incompetence in government.
 
The passing of the information bill, therefore, is not merely an attack on the media, but an attack on the pivotal issue of accountability. Without accountability, there can be no democracy.
 
By defining national interest broadly, by refusing to accept a public interest clause in the bill, the ANC increasingly shows its disdain to South Africa's constitution and its citizens.
 
More importantly, as former Minister of Intelligence and ANC stalwart Ronnie Kasrils pointedly makes clear, the ANC is also betraying its own noble struggle against the odious apartheid regime. It was the media which played a key role in exposing apartheid's excesses, it is the same media which is coming under attack by the heirs of PW Botha's State Security Council - Minister of State Security Siyabong Cwele and his security apparatchiks whose mindsets reflect more Stalin's Gulag's than the values of the Freedom Charter.
 
The passing of this bill is also taking place at a time when journalists have had their phones attacked, where the judiciary has been deliberately undermined and parliament silenced.
 
Democrats beware!

 
Prof. Johann de Wet
Chairperson: Department of Communication Science 
 
The ANC’s insistence on passing the Protection of State Information Bill in its current form and enforcing it by law, means that the essence of our democratic state and the quality of life of every citizen is at stake.
 
Yes, our freedom as academics, researchers, mass media practitioners and citizens comes into play. Freedom implies the right to choose and is, along with equality, an underlying principle which helps make democracy happen. While the South African state needs to protect (classify) information which could threaten its security and/or survival, the omission of a public interest clause in the Bill at this stage effectively denies a citizen the right to freedom of information.
 
 Freedom of information, along with press freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and religious freedom, are essential to democracy. These freedoms are granted because they conform to basic liberal ideas associated with (Western) democracy and which resonate with South Africa’s liberal constitution, such as (1) belief in the supreme value of the individual (and thus not of the state); (2) belief that the individual has natural rights (rights which belong to all human beings by nature – such as the right to life and to control government)) which exist independently of government, and which ought to be protected by and against government; and (3) recognition of the supreme value of the individual. 
 
One wonders how many cases of South African government corruption and mismanagement would have been uncovered by investigative journalists over the past number of years if this Bill in its current form was on the statute books. This Bill represents a backward step from the promise of democracy of having an informed public. The former National Party government had similar laws in place and one does not want to go there again. The infamous Information Scandal in South Africa of some thirty years ago, or Muldergate as it has come to be known, reminds one of what governments can do when it works clandestinely.
 
What South Africans need, is more information on what government structures are doing and how they are doing it with taxpayers’ money, not less information. While information in itself does not equal communication or dialogue, it is an indispensable part thereof, and the need for dialogue based on verifiable information is urgent for meeting vexed challenges facing South African communities. Academics in all fields of specialisation are constantly in need of untainted information to pursue answers and/or offer solutions to where South Africa should be moving in all spheres of life.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept