Pan SA Language Board’s Language Promotion: strategic plan briefing

Meeting report

EDUCATION AND RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE
01 August 2007
PAN SA LANGUAGE BOARD’S LANGUAGE PROMOTION: STRATEGIC PLAN BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr B J Tolo (Mpumalanga, ANC)

Documents handed out:
PANSLAB Strategy 2007-2012

Audio recording of meeting

SUMMARY
The Pan South African Language Board (PANSALB) made a presentation to the Committee on the vision, mission and work of the Board. PANSALB was a constitutional body governed under the PANSALB Act, that was to make recommendations on any proposed or existing legislation to do with languages and to promote multilingualism as a national resource. Their mandate included the promotion and development of marginalised languages. PANSALB played a crucial role in the National Language Policy Framework, which was not yet implemented by Departments. It promoted the values of respect for all languages in South Africa, equal treatment of all languages and non discrimination on the basis of language. It had international relationships with bodies in the USA and Canada as well as a relationship with the European Union. It also had partnerships to promote multilingualism in Parliament, government department and municipalities. There were eleven provincial language committees and thirteen national language bodies. The challenges were outlined. In particular there were challenges around funding, the present system of reporting through the Department of Arts and Culture and the loss of quality staff due to lower salary scales than other sectors. Further challenges were lack of public awareness, inability to fulfil its mandate, the part-time status of the National Language Bodies and Provincial Language Committee members, shortcomings in the PANSALB Act, and some structural weaknesses. Members of the research team of PANSALB then presented some of the findings on the work of PANSALB. There was a need to clearly define what was a language violation. Complaints were not truly representative and depended largely upon literacy levels. The strategic priorities from the strategy sessions were tabled in the presentation.

Members raised questions on the need for PANSALB to set up awareness initiatives and make itself visible, and noted the recent review of Chapter 9 institutions and their funding models. Further questions related to globalisation and language, the use of English as a "useful" trade language against the promotion of mother tongue, the fact that there were many students outside Africa wanting to learn African languages, the need to maintain standards, the necessity for more outreach work and the work of the provincial investigators. It was reiterated that PANSALB needed assistance from the Committee in updating and refining the legislation. Questions were also asked about the upgrading to official status of SA sign language and Khoi and the production of dictionaries and reading material.

MINUTES
PAN South African Language Board (PANSALB): Briefing on Strategic plans
The Chairperson expressed his disappointment for receiving the presentation late and mentioned that this would restrict the Committee’s interaction with the Board.

Ms Ntombehle Nkosi, CEO of PANSALB, apologised for the late presentation but explained why the presentation could not be forwarded earlier, noting that PANSALB unfortunately was further hindered by not having a representative in Parliament.

Ms Nkosi noted that the researchers that had accompanied her acted as a support team for some of the issues. She outlined that PANSALB was a constitutional body governed under the PANSALB Act and the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). It was to make recommendations on any proposed or existing legislation to do with languages and to promote multilingualism as a national resource. If people were to embrace multilingualism then South Africa would be richer and this would also address issues of reconciliation and national building. Their mandate included the promotion and development of marginalised languages. PANSALB played a crucial role in the National Language Policy Framework, which was not yet implemented by Departments. Its vision was to achieve equal status and use of all the official languages of South Africa as well as Khoi and San languages and the South African Sign Language. It promoted the values of respect for all languages in South Africa, equal treatment of all languages and non discrimination on the basis of language.

Ms Nkosi noted that PANSALB had been developing relationships with African languages teachers’ association in USA and exchange relationships with Canadian institutions. There was a body of knowledge outside South Africa and the African continent about African languages outside Africa and PANSALB  had an indirect relationship with the European Union. Individuals, in cooperation with PANSALB, were running a programme Afri-lingo, promoting multilingualism in Parliament, Government Departments and Municipalities. PANSALB now had eleven provincial language committees and thirteen national languages bodies, and was working well to develop the previously marginalised languages. The work included launch of comprehensive dictionaries in isiXhosa, isiZulu, TshiVenda and seSotho and siSwati.

Ms Nkosi explained that in order for PANSALB to deliver it would need to have sufficient funding to cater for its mandate. It wished to develop a multilingual institute and a process of engaging with Microsoft. The budget for PANSALB has grown over the past years although it was minimal in terms of the mandate. There has been an increase on the salary spending patterns. Most of PANSALB’s expense was directed towards the development and publication of dictionaries. A situation analysis had found that PANSALB was losing quality people due to the disparity between its salary scales and those available in the private sector. PANSALB was proposing an in-house research unit to increase effectiveness. She noted that some of the challenges.

Ms Nkosi tabled the challenges that PANSALB was facing. These included the lack of public profile, insufficient funding, since the Department of Arts and Culture (DAC) tended to allocate funding according to their perception of the need, the consequent inability to fulfil its mandate, the part-time status of the National Language Bodies and Provincial Language Committee members. Other difficulties arose from the shortcomings in the PANSALB Act, including the necessity to report via the DAC rather than directly to Parliament. There were some structural weaknesses. Ms Nkosi requested direction from the Committee to try to become directly reporting to Parliament.

Members of the research team of PANSALB then presented some of the findings on the work of PANSALB.

Prof Sidney Makoni, reported upon his research of PANSALB and the services it provided in South Africa and its effectiveness. PANSALB was unique in Africa as it was the only constitutional body mandated to deal with language issues, and particularly with multilingualism, which was a resource that correlated with cognitive skills. PANSALB wanted to see how the standardisation in language would be affected by including communities in the processes and the research and programmes were being conducted over lengthy periods.

Ms Busisiwe Dube, Post-Doctoral Researcher, mentioned that research had looked at language decline and complaints received were continually reducing. The researchers had looked at three hypotheses in addressing the language decline issue. The first was that maybe PANSALB was doing an excellent job and people were thus no longer finding it necessary to complain. The other directly contradictory hypothesis was that PANSALB was not efficient and people no longer bothered to direct complaints to it but rather channelled them elsewhere.  She noted that PANSALB could only make recommendations; it could not itself intervene if there was a complaint. The findings showed that there was an element of truth in both hypotheses; although people who had complained reported that PANSALB were effective, there were also some indications that in certain areas it had not been perceived as successful and effective.

Prof Makoni mentioned that people did not want an over powerful body that dealt with language issues. 

Ms Dube stated that PANSALB would need to clearly define what was a language violation. Complaints had been raised from some organisations and individuals, but these were not truly representative. Some complaints came from the business and organisation sector. Within some organisations there were serial complaints about a particular language group. Most of the complaints were pro-Afrikaans

Prof Makoni mentioned that technology was advancing and that this influenced society. Language must be used to deal with or incorporate technology.

Ms Dube noted that the profile of the complainants showed that they were a highly sophisticated group that made it possible for them to complain to PANSALB. Many people did not know about PANSALB, nor the legal technicalities and definitions of the language board issues. Literacy levels played a big role in the lodging of complaints to PANSALB. At present PANSALB was limited by its own legal framework and was further hindered by a lack of policy. 

The strategic priorities arising from the strategy session were tabled, and a proposed organisational structure for PANSALB, together with a graphical depiction of stakeholder engagement, was included in the presentation.

Discussion
Mr T Setona (ANC, Free State) agreed that people did not know about PANSALB and there was therefore a need for it to set up awareness initiatives and make itself visible. He welcomed the issue raised on organisational redesign and review of PANSALB but asked whether PANSALB had an interface with the Committee on Review of Chapter 9 institutions. Parliament had acknowledged the problem on accountability lines of Chapter 9 institutions and was asking whether the existing funding model was appropriate.

Ms Nkosi replied that they had an interface with the Review Committee but had not yet been told of the outcome. She reiterated that it would be useful for PANSALB to have a Parliamentary Liaison Officer who would be able to interact directly with Parliament so that information would be communicated directly between each office.

Mr. Setona referred to language development and language as a tool of transformation, but that it was tending to be looked at as a post-1994 issue, rather in isolation, without considering the emerging paradigm and influence of globalisation. He asked whether or not language development in the South African context was responsive to the challenges created by globalisation. He mentioned that English was seen as essential to trade and a tool to getting employment. He asked if there had been strategic interventions within the developments of the global market.

Prof. Makoni replied that definitely globalisation had an impact on language.

Ms Nkosi said that PANSALB was seriously concerned how South Africans had been “colonialised”. PANSALB was promoting multilingualism while at the same time urging people not to forget about their own languages. On the one hand the mother tongue usage should be promoted while on the other hand it was recognised that other languages should be added to avoid being swamped by the global market. The promotion of the English language to the exclusion of others was handicapping the people.

Dr Dube again mentioned that there was an African teachers’ language association in the USA. The American children wanted to learn the African languages. This proved that region did not constrain the use of African languages. Interestingly enough, there were more teachers of  IsiZulu in the USA than in South Africa.

Ms Nkosi said that transformation and integration were not taken seriously. The standards in teaching African languages had to be maintained.

Ms F Mazibuko (ANC, Gauteng) stated that there needed to be more of outreach work so that people became aware of PANSALB. She suggested that perhaps PANSALB should have a toll free line so that people would be encouraged to lodge complaints. She asked how far they were involved with the Department of Education.

Ms Nkosi responded that she was asked to discuss issues with the Minister of Education and had done so. It was agreed that there should be visits made to school governing bodies and revisiting of how the policies were implemented.

She noted that PANSALB needed a lot of staff to achieve all aims. Although PANSALB did employ fulltime staff relating to administration and management of the programmes, the provincial language Commissioners were not on the pay roll. There was only one provincial manager per province looking at a wide range of issues, and there was a need for more people on the ground. These would, for example, be appointed to see at how language was being used in essential public places such as the police stations, hospitals, post offices and the like.

In addition Ms Nkosi reiterated that PANSALB needed assistance from the Committee in updating and refining the legislation.

A member asked for information on salary trends, and whether PANSALB was under-resourced, or if there had been a breakdown of what exactly was required.

Ms Nkosi reported that it had been found that it was preferable to have in-house researchers, which tended to be more cost-effective than outsourced researchers. She stated that PANSALB would like to look at more community projects, establishment of reading clubs and better promotion of mother tongue, but many of the projects could not be fully realised due to lack of resources. 

Dr Dube stated that many African parents wanted their children to learn English. Another influential factors was the media.

Mr Setona believed that South Africa should not attempt to benchmark itself with the USA. Language was there in many cases becoming a security issue. The South African Schools Act had specific provisions in regard to language and these should be met.

Mr M Sulliman (ANC, Northern Cape) stated that sign language and khoi were not official as yet in South Africa. He asked if it was the intention to do so.

Ms Nkosi noted that there were some problems that had to be overcome before a language could be regarded as official. In order to make the language more powerful there must be written concepts, and the ability, for example, to produce glossaries and dictionaries. She agreed that these were issues to be addressed. The Deaf SA association had already approached PANSALB requesting that sign language become an official language, and this issue was under investigation.

Ms J Vilakazi (IFP, KwaZulu Natal) asked for clarity on the right to language and right of language. She asked if there had been any competitions for children, to try to attract them to languages at an earlier age.

Ms Nkosi confirmed that PANSALB did already have multilingualism awards. PANSALB would look at the suggestion and would be trying to address all issues.

The Chairperson stated that the problems really seemed to centre on the fact that PANSALB fell under the DAC. He asked if PANSALB had engaged specifically with what they would ideally like, and that they should also clarify themselves on the matter of the Chapter 9 Constitutional institutions. 

Ms Nkosi indicated Section 20 of the Constitution and said that PANSALB did feel that it was being discriminated against, as it was supposed to be a truly independent body. This issue should be taken to the correct forum.

The Chairperson asked for clarity on all languages having equal status, and further enquired if there were any time frames set for the projects. He noted the mention of preparation of dictionaries, but asked if there was any other stress on preparation of books, since dictionaries were intended for very specific use.

Ms Nkosi noted that the production of dictionaries was but one of the exercises. The question was that PANSALB must be engaged in a host of issues and that it should be more open.

Mr Setona felt that there was a need for further engagement with the ad hoc review Committee dealing with the Chapter 9 institutions.

The meeting was adjourned.