Trích luận án TS. của Quang Can (trang 198-200)
Sự thật và giải pháp cho bất đồng về hệ thống chữ viết Cham
97% học sinh và 98% giáo viên và phụ huynh đồng ý với ATPT. Cả ATTT và ATPT đều được kế thừa từ cùng một nguồn AT Cham. Bộ Giáo dục và cộng đồng đã quyết tiếp tục sử dụng ATPT vào ngày 07/02/2007. Tuy nhiên một vài người vẫn tiếp tục đề cập đến ba vần "chế tạo" và "HS không đọc được văn bản cổ" dù khôn được công chúng để ý.
"The true and solution of the divergence of Cham writing system. Both the conclusion of authority and research findings approved the standardized AT. In response to the request letter by the representatives of Kuala Lumpur conference on 21- 22 September 2006, on The history of Cham language and scripts (Po, 2006b), the Vietnamese MOET held a conference to solve the problem. On 7th February, 2007 deputy Dang Huynh Mai presided over the conference at Phanrang-Thap Cham City. Many teachers, parents, language specialists, showed the manuscripts and dictionaries that used two syllables blamed for CTCC’s new creations and all syllable related to the standardization of CTCC. After one-day discussion, they came to the conclusion that there was nothing new creation in the writing system in MLTP textbooks, which could be used as they were in the textbooks. If there were something necessary to be changed, more persuasive research had to be done. The survey on the divergent issue of Cham community was 97% of students and 98% of adults happy with current writing system in Cham schooling.
For the desire of reduction of inconsistencies of Cham language and making a Cham writing message bearing only one meaning, the concerned authority and CTCC standardized the language on the goals. During 12 years of implementing pilot and laboratory Cham classes from 1978 to 1990, being loyal to the purpose of the standardization, CTCC had standardized 193 issues of orthography (CTCC Document, 1995). Actually, these were the spelling combinations selected from the inconsistent uses of the ancient Cham people in AC dictionary. They are not processed and different from the traditional AT as some protesters thought. Both traditional AT and standardized AT are including in one source, traditional AT (CTCC Document, 1995; CTCC Specialist Guide, 2000).
Moreover, all their reasonable choices were the aspiration of the Cham community, stakeholders who confirmed that the standardizations in the MLTP textbooks since 1988 were the standards of orthography. They want to keep the current writing system used in schools, not the one as used in Manuscript of Royal Pangduranga 200 years ago. They need effective and relevant means of communication, not the old and original.
The conference officially concluded that the writing system in MLTP textbooks was appropriate and could continue to be used. This announcement opened up a new development and unification for Cham language in education and in community, though the divergences in the Cham writing systems were not totally terminated. Some persons kept on claiming of the creation of two syllables and illiteracy of Cham students after graduating from MLTP program, although they got no public attention."