Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
23 July 2024 Photo Barend Nagel
Nhlanhla Simelane
Nhlanhla Simelane is a second-year Language Practice student, majoring in South African Sign Language. He is also a former Chairperson of Signals – a student association that is aimed at promoting SASL and Deaf awareness.

Opinion article by Nhlanhla Simelane, Student Assistant: South African Sign Language and Deaf Studies, Faculty: The Humanities, University of the Free State.

It has been a year since the president signed off on the amendment bill to include South African Sign Language (SASL) as one of the country’s official languages. And one may wonder, what has changed since then? After all, many individuals and organisations, including the Deaf Federation of South Africa (DeafSA), the National Institute for the Deaf (NID), and Deaf rights activists from the Deaf community, believed that official recognition of sign language would lead to significant developments for SASL and the Deaf community.

Since then, SASL has mostly benefited from exposure from the SASL Indabas that PanSALB held on 9-10 March 2023 and another one on the 1-2 February this year. These Indabas were aimed at “discussing the standardisation of SASL and mapping a way forward”. They included several stakeholders, including our very own institution. They also had an impact on the development of SASL in various institutions, including UNISA and University of Cape Town (UCT), and it is hoped that this influence will extend to other institutions.

However, one must not overlook the fact that despite being a minority language, SASL already enjoyed significant language rights. For example, the South African Schools Act recognised it as an official language in 1996. The Use of Official Languages Act of 2012 provided another benefit that was not even enjoyed by the other 11 official languages; with this act, state entities had to establish a language policy outlining the use of official languages for public communication, specifically if a member of the public chose SASL as their preferred language. It also benefited from protection under the South African Sign Language Charter, launched by the SASL NLB (National Language Board) in 2020, roughly three years before it became official. Even Prof Theodorus du Plessis, Professor Emeritus in the Department of South African Sign Language and Deaf Studies, University of the Free State (UFS), in a previous opinion article, mentioned that there would be little to gain from officially recognising SASL, aside from the added symbolism associated with such a move. As a matter of fact, SASL had more to lose than gain due to its official recognition, as you will learn later in the article.

A human rights level

On a human rights level, which is more relevant to those living with hearing impairments in the country, the officialisation of SASL still had no significant effect on any of their human rights. This is simply because these persons already enjoyed their rights. However, what the officialisation cost the Deaf community* is the privilege as mentioned earlier that the Use of Official Languages Act of 2012 provided – users of SASL having the right to choose SASL as their language of interaction with the state – the very one that official languages do not enjoy. This is thus a disadvantage to the Deaf community, considering that they already suffer from a lack of interpreters in the county. An article by Nicky Bezuidenhout early this year highlighted that there is a “lack of access to crucial services like healthcare and justice due to a shortage of qualified South African Sign Language (SASL) interpreters”. Therefore, many Deaf people rely on untrained or unqualified individuals and mostly even family members to act as interpreters. This was mostly the case in my life, being a CODA (Child of a Deaf Adult) and having to interpret for my parents. And besides my proficiency in SASL, there was still the matter of a breach of confidentiality. This is a common problem for many people. Therefore, more SASL interpreters (SASLi) are needed. Additionally, it is up to everyone to take it upon themselves to learn SASL through the various provisions that are available today.

More development for SASL as a language

Thankfully, the UFS, among a few other institutions such as the Wits University, North-West University as well as the Durban University of Technology, makes such a provision through its SASL short course. Another way to learn is through mobile applications such as DEAFinition and the NID SASL Dictionary. The previous platforms also offer inexpensive online courses. This way, one can be equipped with SASL fundamentals to at least be able to hold a conversation without the need for an interpreter. Furthermore, we can only anticipate that since SASL is officially recognised, it will become more accessible in higher education institutions, as mentioned earlier, and will be included in the South African school curriculum, particularly for mainstream schools. As a result, more people will have the opportunity to learn SASL. Moreover, we can expect to see an increase in the number of qualified teachers with not only teaching skills but also proficiency in SASL.

Nonetheless, it has only been a year and matters regarding language plans and policies often require a great amount of resources, with time being the greatest of all. We can only hope that its officialisation has indeed led to the cultural acceptance of SASL and the relevant community, promoting substantive equality, and preventing unfair discrimination based on disability. But more importantly, we hope that this is not the end of the road for SASL in terms of its development as a language.

*Footnote: It is important to make a distinction between deaf people who are deaf but do not identify as part of the Deaf community and do not use SASL (who are referred to with a lowercase “d’’), and those who are deaf and are part of the Deaf community, making use of SASL as their first language (who are referred to using a capitalised ‘D’).

• Nhlanhla Simelane is a second-year Language Practice student, majoring in South African Sign Language. He is also a former Chairperson of Signals – a student association that is aimed at promoting SASL and Deaf awareness.

News Archive

The TRC legitimised apartheid - Mamdani
2010-07-20

 Prof. Mahmood Mamdani
“The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) accepted as legitimate the rule of law that undergirded apartheid. It defined as crime only those acts that would have been considered criminal under the laws of apartheid.”

This statement was made by the internationally acclaimed scholar, Prof. Mahmood Mamdani, when he delivered the Africa Memorial Lecture at the University of the Free State (UFS) last week on the topic: Lessons of Nuremberg and Codesa: Where do we go from here?

“According to the TRC, though crimes were committed under apartheid, apartheid itself – including the law enforced by the apartheid state – was not a crime,” he said.

He said the social justice challenges that South Africa faced today were as a result of the TRC’s failure to broaden the discussion of justice beyond political to social justice.

He said it had to go beyond “the liberal focus on bodily integrity” and acknowledge the violence that deprived the vast majority of South Africans of their means of livelihood.

“Had the TRC acknowledged pass laws and forced removals as constituting the core social violence of apartheid, as the stuff of extra-economic coercion and primitive accumulation, it would have been in a position to imagine a socio-economic order beyond a liberalised post-apartheid society,” he said.

“It would have been able to highlight the question of justice in its fullness, and not only as criminal and political, but also as social.”

He said the TRC failed to go beyond the political reconciliation achieved at Codesa and laid the foundation for a social reconciliation. “It was unable to think beyond crime and punishment,” he said.

He said it recognised as victims only individuals and not groups, and human rights violations only as violations of “the bodily integrity of an individual”; that is, only torture and murder.

“How could this be when apartheid was brazenly an ideology of group oppression and appropriation? How could the TRC make a clear-cut distinction between violence against persons and that against property when most group violence under apartheid constituted extra-economic coercion, in other words, it was against both person and property?”, he asked.

“The TRC was credible as performance, as theatre, but failed as a social project”.

Prof. Mamdani is the Director of the Institute of Social Research at the Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda; and the Herbert Lehman Professor of Government in the Department of Anthropology at the Columbia University in New York, USA.

Media Release
Issued by: Mangaliso Radebe
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2828
Cell: 078 460 3320
E-mail: radebemt@ufs.ac.za  
20 July 2010
 

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