On China’s list of ‘demands’, mind the language

When reading Chinese Foreign Ministry readouts, watch your language. Do not assume the English version is a faithful translation of the Chinese version, writes Kevin Yam. Pictured: China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Picture: AFP

Australian and Chinese foreign ministers Penny Wong and Wang Yi met a week ago on the sidelines of the G20 foreign ministers’ meeting in Bali. Afterwards, Wong put out a measured statement about the parties speaking “frankly” with each other. But it was the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s readout of the meeting that caused a stir in Australia.

Its English version lists four action points for Australia: “First, stick to regarding China as a partner rather than a rival. Second, stick to the way we get along with each other, which features seeking common ground while reserving differences. Third, stick to not targeting any third party or being controlled by any third party. Fourth, stick to building positive and pragmatic social foundations and public support.”

When these points were described by Australian media as Chinese “demands” (including by The Australian and the ABC), some voices in Australia objected.

David Brophy, an academic at the University of Sydney’s China Studies Centre and author of China Panic, said the use of the word “demands” demonstrated a lack of interest on the part of Australia’s media and political class to cool tensions with China. While I do not agree with Dr Brophy, his contention was at least arguable if one read only the Foreign Ministry readout’s English version, which contained no wording that directly pointed to the four action points as being “demands”.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong with China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi during their bilateral meeting on the sidelines of G20 Foreign Ministers Meeting in Bali. Picture: AFP

However, James Laurenceson, director of the University of Technology Sydney’s Australia-China Relations Institute, took things one step further. He claimed “a bunch of fluent Chinese speakers I’ve spoken to” said calling the four action points “demands” or “musts” was an “extreme interpretation”.

“Judge yourself,” he tweeted, adding a link to the Chinese version. In other words, people not fluent in Chinese have apparently got it all wrong.

As a Hong Kong lawyer and former activist, I have for many years drafted court documents in Chinese, written client advice in Chinese for mainland Chinese clients and written columns for Chinese-language publications. I would like to think I am not just fluent in Chinese, I actually had to use Chinese language in a professional setting that required a high degree of precision, as well as catering for the mainland Chinese style of Chinese language use. So I took up Laurenceson’s challenge.

Whereas nothing in the English readout suggested the four action points were “demands” or “musts”, the Chinese version was different. Each of the four action points for Australia was prefaced with the Chinese words “yao jianchi”. “Yao” is typically used for “must”, “shall”, “needs to”, “has to” or “required to”, while “jianchi” means “insist”. If these do not convey “demand”, what does?

Jocelyn Chey, Australia’s consul-general in Hong Kong during the Keating government, translated the phrase as “should”. However, the prevalent wording for “should” in Chinese is “ying” or “yinggai”, meaning trying to attach “should” to “yao” is, to use Laurenceson’s words, the more “extreme interpretation” of “yao”.

Chey’s explanation – in a piece published on Pearls and Irritations, a website run by Gough Whitlam’s former private secretary, John Menadue – was that Australian media, and presumably ethnically Chinese Australians like me, failed to appreciate the routine use of “brusque language” in Chinese. “When read with better appreciation of the subtlety of language, one sees readily that the official report of this historic meeting is positive,” Chey, who is with the China Matters policy institute, explained.

I should add the discrepancies between the Foreign Ministry readout’s Chinese and English versions did not end with “yao jianchi”. Another material difference related to the issue of “One China”, the sensitive formulation used for Taiwan. The Chinese version correctly stated Australia insisted on a “One China Policy” (“yige zhongguo zhengce”), whereas the English version went further and asserted Australia adhered to the “one-China principle” (which in Chinese should be “yige zhongguo yuanze”), despite the two concepts being vastly different in international diplomacy-speak. Chey didn’t mention this difference as she scolded Australian media for their “hasty comments” about the “historic” and “positive” meeting.

All these discrepancies lead to a simple conclusion: when reading Chinese Foreign Ministry readouts, watch your language. Do not assume the English version is a faithful translation of the Chinese version. Always consult the Chinese version and do not just rely on the English version. Do not be bluffed by individuals who use purported Chinese fluency to insist on linguistically uncalled-for Chinese language interpretations that happen to favour China.

And where there are discrepancies, do not insult the intelligence of Chinese officials by assuming they are mere translation errors – think carefully about why such discrepancies may exist.

Kevin Yam was a Hong Kong-based lawyer and pro-democracy activist. He now resides in Melbourne.