`:::It is not? Then mind telling me what is the whole issue about over Simplified Chinese, Taditional Chinese, and sources like these? You made quite an interesting statement there. May I know what do you write if you are not using scripts? You insist on talking about Chinese as a ``writtern language`` without talking about scripts, when you are actually talking about Classical Chinese/Vernacular Chinese, which is more of a writing style than merely as a writing language (the later usage of which is confusing for people less familiar with the Chinese language). While not a perfect analogy, do you consider Old English, Middle English, Early Modern English and Modern English as distinct languages, fit for inclusion as official languages alongside English? You try to claim that ``no one has ever said official script = official language, or script = language`` Oh? So why are we still talking about adding scripts to official language lists? And meanwhile, you appear to be less upfront in telling us why you consider writing styles as official languages too?  :::Once again, I question your basic ability in reading paragrahs in (hopefully comprehensable) English. In what way do any of my statements suggest that ``written Chinese is just the written form of Standard Mandarin``? This is an original claim by you I have no part to play in, so perhaps you should be explaining to us how you came to this unusual conclusion. Next, you question the idea that ``official languages can only be the spoken languages``. I am quite humoured by your insistance that I substantiate this ``claim``. This article itself is proof. Every single list of official languages as far as anyone can find consistantly lists spoken languages, and not written ones, IF the two are distinct, ie, there are more than one script for that particular spoken language. I think I have listed more then enough examples for your reference. On the other hand, you have yet to show us if Malaysia has the roman alphabet as its official language?  :::The ``the languages government documents are the written form of the official (spoken) languages`` is not exactly a complete sentence, but if I may speculate, you are seemingly now asking if government documents are always in their respective official languages? If that is what you are implying, then no, and this is not what I implied too anyway. I merely indicated, that when governments need to write documents in their official languages, they use whatver script is used for their spoken languages. If a choice exists, then some countries do indicate formally the choice of script to be used, such as how the PRC and Singapore does so in the above examples. But as I then asked...does this amount to them becoming ``official languages``? You arent answering me, and instead, appear to constantly misrepresent and misquote me with your own imaginations of what I am actually saying.   `