If you are interested in joining future Face Off debates, fill out this form to submit your application.
For: Tiffany Taw, 15, German Swiss International School
In Hong Kong, some international schools use simplified Chinese characters in Mandarin lessons to make learning easier. Others stick to traditional characters. The vast majority of local schools, on the other hand, teach with traditional Chinese characters, paying homage to Hong Kong’s cultural history.
I firmly believe that there are many benefits to students learning both traditional and simplified forms.
Firstly, knowing both traditional and simplified characters opens doors to different cultural spheres and enables students to communicate with more people in different parts of the world.
Simplified Chinese is mainly used in mainland China, Malaysia and Singapore. It is essential for daily life, business and contemporary media. Traditional Chinese characters are primarily used in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau, as well as many Chinatowns overseas. It is crucial for understanding these regions’ vibrant culture and history.
Learning both gives students a deeper understanding of language and culture. The characters in traditional Chinese are often considered works of art, as they encapsulate deeper meanings and connections.
For example, the traditional character for “love”, 愛, includes the “heart” component (心), symbolising that love comes from the heart. But when simplified, 爱, it no longer includes the heart component, leading some to argue that the simplification has led to a loss of depth.
Similarly, the traditional character for ‘door’, 門, clearly looks like a pair of double doors, while the simplified character, 门, does not. Many say that learning traditional characters can help students understand why they are written this way and deepen their connection to language history.
Learning traditional characters gives students access to older Chinese literature, as virtually all pre-1949 classical Chinese books, documents and historical texts were written in traditional characters. Knowing both would allow students to read materials from the entire Chinese-speaking world without barriers.
This is a significant advantage for academics, journalists and business professionals.
In conclusion, while translation services are now widely available, it is still a huge advantage for a student to know both traditional and simplified characters.
Against: Sophia Ling, 14, German Swiss International School
Learning both simplified and traditional characters in Mandarin classes is an unnecessary burden that misses the point of what learning the language should achieve.
The primary objective of learning any language is to converse with native speakers. The true challenge for many Hong Kong students is often mastering Mandarin speech – especially tones, pronunciation and fluency – rather than reading simplified characters. Spending classroom time drilling a second writing system, when we could be practising conversation, shifts the focus away from what is important.
In early childhood, the primary objective is to develop functional literacy skills. Learning two writing systems simultaneously doubles the initial memorisation burden for characters and can lead to constant mix-ups and errors.
Cognitive load theory suggests that working memory is limited; introducing a second, competing set of character forms at this stage can overwhelm students. This can hinder fluency in either system, and potentially diminish enthusiasm for language learning as a whole. The goal should be to first build a strong foundation in one system.
The two writing systems are not entirely separate. A significant portion of characters are identical in both systems.
Of those that are different, many follow predictable patterns. For example, the character 言 in traditional Chinese is always written as 讠in simplified Chinese.
Most Hongkongers, especially the younger generation who consume media and news from the mainland, naturally acquire a passive understanding of simplified characters through exposure.
Many are fluent in reading, and some are also fluent in writing. This passive skill is sufficient for practical communication and consumption of simplified content.
Mandating formal writing lessons is redundant, since it teaches us what we have already learned informally. Classrooms should focus on teaching us active speaking skills to converse fluently.
Forcing simplified writing proficiency on all Hong Kong students is an inefficient use of precious classroom time that could be spent on the universal skill of conversation; what is difficult to acquire outside the classroom is spoken proficiency with teacher feedback. Simplified Chinese can be offered as an elective course.
