*'''
Nextel ringtones Talk:Hong_Kong/Archive1//Archive1'''
*isnt that alot of clutter for something which is not even official?
Abbey Diaz Huaiwei/Huaiwei 13:17, 27 Feb 2005 ::The name "Victoria City" does exist, although the name is rarely used in everyday speeches among the people. —
Free ringtones Instantnood/InstaMajo Mills User_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 17:58 Feb 27 2005 Is there anyone that wants a listing of Victoria City as the Capital besides Instandnood? Is this a single user crusade?
Mosquito ringtone SchmuckyTheCat/SchmuckyTheCat 23:18, 27 Feb 2005 Again using the references used previously to declare Victoria the capitol, the 2002 CIA world book lists Victoria in the appendix as the ''former'' name of a seaport city in Hong Kong colony. the 2004 world book no longer lists victoria ''at all'' in it's appendixes.
Sabrina Martins SchmuckyTheCat/SchmuckyTheCat 01:01, 28 Feb 2005 :I don't think Victoria City is the capitol, but a remark in the article may help those with old or inaccurate information. -
Nextel ringtones Wshun/wshun 01:59, 28 Feb 2005 Email from HK Government:
Received: from pimx11.scig.gov.hk ([202.128.225.30]) by mc3-f29.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:31:44 -0800
As Hong Kong is the "Special Administrative Region" of the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong is not a nation and so there is no capital city for Hong Kong.
Abbey Diaz SchmuckyTheCat/SchmuckyTheCat 06:45, 28 Feb 2005 :Well, I suppose this ends the discussion. Its about time we get rid of that factual inaccuracy, edit the
Free ringtones Victoria City page, delete Hong Kong from the
Majo Mills List of capitals and larger cities by country, and of coz, rename pages such as
Cingular Ringtones List of cities and towns in Hong_Kong and
cards because List of cities and parishes in Macao because there is simply no such thing as multiple cities within these territories today! Why did all those pages end up like this? Because some radicals such as Instantnood kept trying to depict Hong Kong like an independent country seperate from China in wikipedia. Its about time his ulterior motives gets uncovered and scrutinised.
police international Huaiwei/Huaiwei 10:26, 28 Feb 2005 ::No. I never tried to depict Hong Kong as an independent sovereign states separated from China. Please don't make such accusation and make things up. —
on synthesis Instantnood/Instaof oak User_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 11:23 Feb 28 2005 :::Then explain your insistance in removing Hong Kong from all listings under the People's Republic of China. If i remember correctly, you first insisted that this should be so because supposedly "local Hong Kongers will find it an insult to be considered a part of the PRC". I am hardly surprised that this impression exists in some quarters of HKers, but unfortunately for you, they simply dont represent a united view from Hong Kong as you claim, and neither does it concur with the undeniable fact that Hong Kong '''IS''' a part of the PRC.
s observation Huaiwei/Huaiwei 15:50, 1 Mar 2005 ::::Didn't I explained? And please kindly tell where did you quote that sentence if it's a quote. —
two trained Instantnood/Instato said User_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 16:57 Mar 1 2005 :::::You explaination obviously has no relevance to the above questions. Insisting that HK has great autonomy does not make it an independent entity on par with the PRC. This is something I have been repeating just as often.
friend cents Huaiwei/Huaiwei 17:30, 1 Mar 2005 ::::::So is that a quote of my or anybody's words?
::::::And I have never said Hong Kong is not part of the PRC, nor on par with the PRC. —
info offered Instantnood/Instageneral rate User_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 17:58 Mar 1 2005 :::::::Of coz you did not say that. You wrote that.
wondering whether Huaiwei/Huaiwei 18:36, 1 Mar 2005 ::::::::Provide the links please. I don't think I have typed those words. —
communique to Instantnood/Instaseeded utah User_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 19:05 Mar 1 2005 :(response to SchmuckyTheCat) I am interested to know which department did you write to. Its arguments is simply ridiculous. Many dependent territories and subnational entities have capitals (which is not necessarily a city) or seats. —
that consular Instantnood/Instaeyewitness greg User_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 11:20 Feb 28 2005 ::Which department did you write to, SchmuckyTheCat? —
few mice Instantnood/Instamonitored their User_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 19:57 Feb 28 2005 Hey, Huaiwei, mind your language, you are crossing the line. Well, the Hong Kong government answers that there is no capital city for Hong Kong and so this should be official and final. The argument given by the Hong Kong government is stupid, but it is of no importance to our discussion. -
position among Wshun/wshun 11:55, 28 Feb 2005 :I agree I am crossing the line. But if you have to deal with this guy who ruins my personal talk page with his silly ramblings for weeks on end, who scrutinises my every edits in this website like a stalker, who and now tries to pick faults with anything related to Singapore, I must say my patience is reaching its last strands?
derek walcott Huaiwei/Huaiwei 15:50, 1 Mar 2005 ::I thought we could have the dispute settled, and I was wrong. Nobody would be interested to "ruin" anybody's personal talk page. —
zas a Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 16:58 Mar 1 2005 :::Apparantly you are. There is no settlement when you are not interesting in arriving at a solution, because the only solution you would accept is your solution.
Huaiwei/Huaiwei 17:30, 1 Mar 2005 ::::In my point of view it was you who were not satisfied with my arguments, and not interested to compromise on anything. Afterall I wouldn't blame anyone because a resolution is not always the outcome of a discussion. There are often something that one cannot be satisfied or convinced. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 18:00 Mar 1 2005 :::::Now who dosent know you are holding on to that point of view?
Huaiwei/Huaiwei 18:32, 1 Mar 2005 ::::::And everybody knows yours too. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 18:54 Mar 1 2005 *Huwaiwei, It is obvious that different cities and towns and villages exist in Hong Kong. It isn't necessary to make radical steps. The cities and towns just aren't political divisions. In the case of Victoria, it's been swallowed by the term "Central" and it's role in handling external affairs as a "capitol" is unncessary since the Basic Law was enacted (even before the handover). The argument from the government isn't stupid - Hong Kong external affairs are handled by Beijing. Instantnood - yes, many subnational entities have capitols or seats, but that is when it is politically necessary because of political divisions within the entity. For a unitary government it is superfluous.
SchmuckyTheCat/SchmuckyTheCat 14:58, 28 Feb 2005 **Well, it is of coz true that Hong Kong does have various towns and villages within its borders, but several problems comes in. '''1.''' They insist there are still seperate cities within contemporary Hong Kong, which is simply erroneous. For example, they argue that Victoria City and Kowloon City exists '''today''' as distinct cities in Hong Kong, which is not true, because both are by now amalgamated into one entity. Listing them as '''historical''' entites is completely acceptable, but to insist that they '''still exist''' as seperate entities is ridiculous. If they do indeed exist as seperate cities, then why are they not treated like every other city on Earth, in that they are always listed as multiple cities on maps? Why does the official HK map not show these cities at all? '''2.''' Insisting that Hong Kong is composed of multiple cities/towns/villages has to mean, then, that the "City of Hong Kong" does NOT exist. It is now akin to being a province. Perhaps we should go round removing all references to Hong Kong as a single city? May I know which city does HKIA belong to? Tung Chung Town? '''3.''' In "normal" cities, they do not share their physical footprints. For example, New York City does not have another city within its borders, with the smaller city not counted as part of NYC. For example, you could have the Vatican City in Rome as a seperate country, but references to Rome is understood to exclude references to the Vatican. When we talk about Hong Kong, do we exclude all references to Victoria and Kowloon cities? When we talk about Hong Kong as a "world class city", do we not refer to all those new towns within Hong Kong? If all these constituant towns and villages are part and within the borders of Hong Kong city, then may I know what is the reational of having a "list of cities in Hong Kong"? A listing of towns and villlages is ok, but ''cities''?
Huaiwei/Huaiwei 15:50, 1 Mar 2005 :::Kowloon City is not a city, but Kowloon. The name Kowloon City came from the Kowloon Walled City. I have never said Kowloon City is a city.
::::So you are still saying Kowloon exists today as a seperate city from Hong Kong right?
Huaiwei/Huaiwei 17:30, 1 Mar 2005 :::::Depends on which definition of the term city are you sticking to. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 18:01 Mar 1 2005 ::::::My definition?
Huaiwei/Huaiwei 18:32, 1 Mar 2005 :::::::Yes. Throughout the discussions you define "city" by official designation and demarcation, and their active enforcement. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 18:54 Mar 1 2005 :::There are many definitions of the term city. For instance, both London and the City of London (the Square Mile) are categorised as cities, albeit London is referred to in its article as a conurbation. London is also listed as a capital city, and as a city that hosted the Olympic Games before. It's already a POV by sticking the term city with one single definition —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 17:07 Mar 1 2005 ::::Interesting choice for comparison, but you are glossing over a major difference here. The conurbation of London is specified by a fixed boundary, and its constituents, including the City of London, is also demarcated by boundaries which are '''actively enforced today''', as well as published in contemporary maps of the City of London and the Conurbation of London. Do we have that for HK?
Huaiwei/Huaiwei 17:30, 1 Mar 2005 :::::Okay. You're still sticking to this definition of the term "city". —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 18:02 Mar 1 2005 ::::::Because we are talking about cities? Duh?
Huaiwei/Huaiwei 18:32, 1 Mar 2005 *Also, I agree that Instantnood has some sort of motive. Whether it is pedantic or political I don't know.
SchmuckyTheCat/SchmuckyTheCat 14:58, 28 Feb 2005 ::I'm not sure if a designated place for capital has to be correspond to administrative divisions. A capital is not only a place to handle external affairs, but also the major location where most government departments have their head offices. Victoria City's role as such the location has nothing to do with the enactment of Basic Law in 1990.
::Diplomatic matters is handled by the government in Beijing, but Hong Kong deals with many external matters on its own, such as bilateral aviation agreements, extradition, trade, etc.
::I don't think it's necessary to guess anybody's motives. Consider one's arguments is much more important in such a discussion. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 16:11 Feb 28 2005 :::And '''so what''' if Hong Kong enjoys large amounts of autonomy when this is not administered solely and specifically within Victoria City?
::::The Pentagon is not in the DC either. Is it necessary to be "solely and specifically"? —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 17:11 Mar 1 2005 :::::So why dont you go edit the entire site and remove all references of Washington DC as the capital of the USA?
Huaiwei/Huaiwei 17:30, 1 Mar 2005 ::::::Simply because I don't think it has to be "solely and specifically". If you insist on "solely and specifically" then perhaps you should go modify references of the Washington DC as the capital. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 18:03 Mar 1 2005 :::::::I was talking about Hong Kong. Who's talking about Washington or any other capital city on Earth? Keep this discussion on and about Hong Kong unless you are trying to turn it into another discussion circus.
Huaiwei/Huaiwei 18:32, 1 Mar 2005 ::::::::It was you who said "solely and specifically" and that was the reason why I mentioned an example to prove that's not necessary. Are we getting away from the discussion of Hong Kong by having examples? —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 18:59 Mar 1 2005 = Note to Instandnood Instantnood =
This discussion has been going on for weeks. It is the concensus of everyone but you that that Hong Kong has no capitol city. I am inserting a NPOV sentence in the article that mentions victoria city as a center for government and administration. I will remove the twoversions header and the capitol city statement. Please stop reverting, you are being belligerent and using edit wars and misinterpretations of policies (such as putting twoversions on every page where people disagree with your new edits). If you disagree from here, please make a formal request for dispute resolution.
SchmuckyTheCat/SchmuckyTheCat 18:00, 28 Feb 2005 :It will be interesting that Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia to left it out. Let's see if The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Merriam-Webster Online and Encyclopædia Britannica will follow. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 19:07 Feb 28 2005 :One more note: a discussion is not a count of people. The arguments are much more important. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 20:01 Feb 28 2005 m-w online: note the words "formerly" in the hong kong definition. note the word "served" (past tense) in the victoria definition.
AHD, and Columbia enc, are FOR SUCK references. besides being circular to each other. Encarta gets it right. When I read it there they say the same thing I wrote here as teh NPOV addition earlier today. Plus, other sources could be wrong!
SchmuckyTheCat/SchmuckyTheCat 23:58, 28 Feb 2005 =Proposals and resolution=
My proposed version, and its differences with the immediately previous version. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hong_Kong&diff=10675074&oldid=10667915 —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 19:11 Mar 1 2005 *Reference to crown colony, sure. Hyphen removed from Tung Chee Hwa, already changed. Victoria as the capitol, no. That there is dispute about it being the capitol, no. The reference to the Japanese wiki with kyoto as a disputed capitol is a bit of Japanese kookdom even sillier than this argument, that is not a reference. That many administrative offices, embassies and such are located there because of the ''historical'' capitol, sure.
SchmuckyTheCat/SchmuckyTheCat 19:30, 1 Mar 2005 ::For details about the Kyoto-Tokyo debate, please read Capital of Japan debate.
::My bottomline is to mention Victoria City as the capital, but whether it is still the capital after the transfer of sovereignty is a matter of dispute. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 20:32 Mar 1 2005 ::* ''There is no capital of japan debate'' anymore than there is debate about whether Elvis lives on a UFO. Read that articles discussion page please. Declaring Victoria City as the capitol is non-factual, not just since the handover but since the HK government was reformed, at least as far back as 1991. You have been told this, ''repeatedly'' and yet you continue to press on with this assertion. Your bottomline is ''wrong'' and there is no dispute. ''You are the only one'' making this claim after discussion. Now please stop.
SchmuckyTheCat/SchmuckyTheCat 21:15, 1 Mar 2005 ::::I don't care if there is such a debate over the capital of Japan. I just followed its way of presenting in an infobox.
::::In what way was the Hong Kong Government reformed in 1991, that the Victoria City ceased to be the capital at that time? I have talked about the discussion here with some of the Hongkongers I know, and many of them were surprised why this is a matter of debate. They knew that the name is seldom used nowadays, but they agreed Victoria City is the capital. As far as I know Victoria City's status as the capital was ''de facto'', and the government has never made any formal declaration publicly that the City ceased to be the capital. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 22:39 Mar 1 2005 :::::If ordinary HKers think the capital of HK is Victoria City, then why is this certainty not reflected anywhere else outside HK, and worse, not even by the HK Government itself?
Huaiwei/Huaiwei 09:00, 3 Mar 2005 ::::Probably it is because the name Victoria City is seldom used among Hongkongers in everyday conversations in the last fifteen or twenty years. People use more specific place names such as Central, Hong Kong/Central, the Mid-levels or Sheung Wan, without the need to mention the Victoria City. Sometimes even "Hong Kong Island" is replaced by "''opposite the harbour''" or "''across the harbour''". People from other places won't even bother to know what and where it is (not to mention about the capital..). They don't need to know. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 09:38 Mar 3 2005 ::::I don't know where SchmuckyTheCat got the answer from. She/he hasn't told me. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 09:38 Mar 3 2005 :::::So if even HKers themselves are beginning to refer to the term Victoria City with rare frequency nowadays, in what way is it still considered de facto? Meanwhile, could you produce any evidence to show that "most" HKers consider the capital of HK as Victoria City, and that they use the term less nowadays? Casual observations of your surroundings dosent ''always'' count, I am afraid. This is an encyclopedia...an academic piece of work. Not a personal blog of personal observations and assumptions.
Huaiwei/Huaiwei 09:48, 3 Mar 2005 ::::I bet you can read some Chinese. Perhaps you can ask around on some newsgroups or message boards. There are hyperlinks to some of those at Current events in Hong Kong and Macao.
::::Victoria City has been the de facto capital since its foundation, and the government has never publicly announced it ceased to be. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 10:57 Mar 3 2005 :::::Chinese? Why do we need to look for information only in Chinese before this can be established? How many geographic entitites in the world defines their capital cities only in one language, but not the other?
Huaiwei/Huaiwei 13:35, 3 Mar 2005 ::::Who's asking you to look for information only in Chinese?
::::I suggested to ask around on some newsgroups or message boards where Hongkongers chat, if you want some proofs to what I said at 22:39, Mar 1. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 13:56 Mar 3 2005 :::::We have to go to '''newsgroups''' or '''message boards''' now in order to verify information for an '''encyclopedia'''?
Huaiwei/Huaiwei 14:12, 3 Mar 2005 ::::Please read what I said at 22:39, Mar 1. Yes that's my own observation. If you want an academically valid proof of it perhaps newsgroups and message boards aren't the right place to go. You need a large scaled survey. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 14:18 Mar 3 2005 :::::Show us a large-scaled survey then. We dont take any casual observations as de facto in this encyclopedia just because they are the deductions of a few observors, especially when dealing with an issue as important and normally undisputable as this?
Huaiwei/Huaiwei 14:28, 3 Mar 2005 ::::I stick to the fact that some encyclopedias and dictionaries say so, and my observation. It was listed in the infobox for some time before you guys started challenging. If it is divided among encyclopedias and dictionaries, or it is disputed among contributors, tell readers in the article.
::::One doesn't challenge something by asking her/his opposition to provide evidence. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 14:48 Mar 3 2005 :::::Irrelevant. The capital city field did not exist on the Hong Kong page until fairly recently...and this was not the first time the issue was raised. It has been raised ever since anon added it in.
Huaiwei/Huaiwei 15:50, 3 Mar 2005 ::::Double checked in its edit history. Victoria City was added to the infobox on Dec 4, and was first questioned on this discussion page on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHong_Kong&diff=8756104&oldid=8328475. IMHO it will be best solved by telling the readers it is divided among other encyclopedias and dictionaries, and among contributors of Wikipedia, on the article Victoria City, and with short note beneath the infobox on Hong Kong. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 16:59 Mar 3 2005 ::::*On the HK page the sentence about "historical location" is incomplete. That's a quick change to say "historical location of the capital as a colony". The infobox does not need changing. I thought Victoria City already mentioned the former status.
SchmuckyTheCat/SchmuckyTheCat 18:49, 3 Mar 2005 Basic Law
SchmuckyTheCat/SchmuckyTheCat added the following: "'' Many government and administrative operations are located in Central on Hong Kong Island near the historical location of Victoria City, the capital before the adoption of the Hong Kong Basic Law/Basic Law. ''". Is there any evidence for saying that the adoption of the Basic Law in 1990 made the City ceased to be the capital? Should it be ''within'' rather than ''near''? The limits of the Victoria City is still stated in law. Why is it ''historical location''? The location is still the same. — User:Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 20:25 Mar 3 2005 *Why before HKBL? The Basic Law basically put an end to the colonial system in preparation for the handover. The colonial system had political entities for managing, and defining, traditional city sized areas. Once the Basic Law was in place and the government became unitary with a legislative body and broken up into large districts. Distinct "cities" ceased to be.Victoria City is a relic, it may be a specific area with the old name, but as a political entity it is a relic.That is also the answer to why it's a historical location. Obviously the area still exists, but the capitol being there is historical. It is also historically interesting in the touristy kind of meaning to "historical". And, I said "near" and not "within" because nothing holds government offices to that area - some departments may even relocate to Kowloon.You ask to prove that establishment of HKBL made VC "cease to be the capital", you are asking to prove a negative. The HK government has stated, a positive assertion, that the SAR has no capitol. I will not attempt to prove the negative corollary of what made it stop being the capitol.
SchmuckyTheCat/SchmuckyTheCat 21:13, 3 Mar 2005 I am afraid that is not the case. The Basic Law was passed by the the NPC, PRC's parliament in 1990, 7 years before the transfer of sovereignty in 1997. The Basic Law was not in effect in Hong Kong until 1997. District boards were set up in the 1982, and the Sanitary Board transformed into one of the two municipal councils in 1983. Another municipal council was set up in 1985. The legislative council since 1843, and the first elections, though indirect ones, were introduced in 1985. If there were some events that made the City no longer the capital, it shouldn't be as late as 1990, and it wasn't because of the Basic Law.
The government replied you by e-mail that Hong Kong does not have a capital at the time being. But it did not tell when it ceased to be, to support your claims that it was because of the Basic Law. And you failed to provide the information (hyperlink or e-mail address) for other people to verify the e-mail from the government.
The definition of Victoria City is still useful in administration. For instance, land lots are numbered separately by each "demarcation district" (DD), and Victoria City is one of DDs. Land leases are different within the City, on the rest of Hong Kong Island, in Kowloon, New Kowloon and the rest of the New Territories.
Yes some government offices are located outside of the City, but most departments have their head offices within the City. Around the world many departments of different countries (and subnational entities) have their headquarters outside the capital too. The Pentagon is already an example. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 09:05 Mar 4 2005 :How does demarcation districts accord them city status? We do not dispute that there may be administrative boundaries within Hong Kong, and is often so in many other cities too, but you are trying to argue that these internal boundaries are city boundaries. This is the assumption I am disputing, and you have yet to proof to us that Hong Kong is indeed composed of multiple independent cities? If we cannot even establish the existance of independent cities within the territory of HK, then how will we be able to determine the continued existance of Victoria City as a seperate capital city today?
Huaiwei/Huaiwei 13:53, 4 Mar 2005 I was not using districts to accord city status, but to say that Victoria City is not just simply relic.
The DDs do not correspond to the districts of Hong Kong/districts. They are used by the Lands Department to assign lot numbers. The definition of Victoria City is still useful in administrative matters of the government, e.g. lot numbers and duration of land leases.
Hong Kong has no official or legal definition for "city" or "town", and the boundaries of the districts of Hong Kong/districts are not drawn according to the natural extent of the cities, towns or villages.
In my opinion a capital does not have to be a separate or independent city within the entity. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 14:51 Mar 4 2005 E-Mail from the government
SchmuckyTheCat/SchmuckyTheCat would you mind telling which government department sent you the answer? — User:Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 20:25 Mar 3 2005 *yes, as I said, I went to info.gov.hk and sent a general query.
SchmuckyTheCat/SchmuckyTheCat 21:00, 3 Mar 2005 ::May I have the hyperlink or the e-mail address? —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 21:03 Mar 3 2005 Tung Chee HwaFor most people in Hong Kong the names on official records are written without the hyphen. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 17:49 Mar 1 2005 *yes, your valid corrections get lost in the wholesale replacement of articles because of your edit warring. please stop reverting.
SchmuckyTheCat/SchmuckyTheCat 18:17, 1 Mar 2005 Is there any possible resolution? —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 19:03 Mar 1 2005 :Hasent the name already been edited? Meanwhile, didnt he step down yesterday?
Huaiwei/Huaiwei 19:11, 2 Mar 2005 No not yet. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 19:30 Mar 2 2005 :You refering to whether he stepped down or not right? Yeah....we will be waiting for updates. Will be cool if we can update this faster then any other information source out there. :D
Huaiwei/Huaiwei 08:56, 3 Mar 2005 Official languagesAlthough no law explicitly states which spoken language(s) of Chinese is/are official, both Cantonese and Mandarin (Putonghua) are accepted as the official languages at formal occassions. Intepretor service is provided in English, Cantonese and Mandarin at meetings of the Legislative Council, and at press conferences of the government. —
Instantnood/InstaUser_talk:Instantnood/ntnood 02:06 Mar 2 2005
