Cantonese/Mandarin Education: Duplicity and Integration

I have written <a href="https://asiatimes.com/2018/04/sociopolitical-meaning-mandarin-cantonese-code-switching/" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">before</a> that one of the reasons why it is difficult to distinguish Cantonese and Mandarin as separate varieties of Chinese, <a href="https://asiatimes.com/2018/02/chinese-language-myths-misconceptions/" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">let alone different languages</a>, is that both are so deeply entrenched and entangled with one another in modern Hong Kong (HK) society and elsewhere in the Sinosphere that it is meaningless to treat them as dichotomous language varieties. Moreover, I have pointed out <a href="https://asiatimes.com/2018/04/sociopolitical-meaning-mandarin-cantonese-code-switching/" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">before</a> that Mandarin and Cantonese in HK are not simply categorized as “mainland” vs “local” but “written” vs “spoken” registers respectively, since Mandarin is not only the official dialect for spoken communication in contemporary mainland China but is also the standardized norm for written/literary composition, which places Mandarin on a par with Classical Arabic in the Middle East, standard Italian in modern Italy and High German in the German-speaking world. <a href="https://keithtse.medium.com/asia-times-cantonese-mandarin-education-duplicity-and-integration-f51f8e8291bc">Visit Now</a>