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

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

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