Amnesty International Press Release:
“If Singapore has pretensions to being an international commercial center, especially in the age of the internet, its legislature must immediately act to bring the country in line with commonly accepted concepts of free expression and media activity.” (Read the full release on TOC Facebook.)
Andrew Loh
When I was in primary and secondary school, Chinese class was always a struggle. I absolutely hated the classes. And when there was a test on a particular day, I would dread going to school. I could never understand why I was expected to learn those strange, difficult-to-write and impossible-to-read characters of the Chinese language. Even though Singapore adopted the “jian pi zi” (short-form) Chinese language characters, they still made no sense to me.
In class, my teacher would purposely pick on those who were worst at the language, to read out loud from the textbooks. It was nerve-wrecking and a torture. I would perspire spontaneously and dip my head behind my classmate seated in my front of me, all in the hope that I could be invisible.
I remember once when, to my terror, I was called upon to read a passage from the textbook. I think I was in primary four and I could only read very basic, simple words like “wo” (me), “ni” (you), “mei you” (none), etc. I stood up, picked up the textbook and opened my mouth – but nothing came out as I didn’t know how to read the very first word of that passage.
The teacher, bless her for being so patient, had to help me. After another three words, I was stumped again. More help from the teacher. And it went on like this for a while. I could sense my classmates turning impatient and I hoped that I would be relieved of my embarrassment.
It was the same in secondary school, so much so that when I was to sit for my O Levels exams, I decided to skip it entirely. I stayed home and studied my other subjects. Needless to say, I received an F9 for my Chinese O Levels exams. However, I never felt bad about this. I was just glad all those years of misery were over.
All my brothers and sisters (eleven of them) struggled with their second language and none, as far as I know, were any good in it, even now. I see the same thing happening with my nieces and nephews who are in school presently.
I was fortunate that the English language was more manageable for me. I never really had any problems with it in school. In fact, it was a joy to breeze through English language lessons. I do not know why I had such an affinity with the language, given that my family spoke Teochew at home and hardly any English at all.
To be honest, despite my experiences with the Chinese language in school, I still feel it is good if one could be proficient in more than one language. However, I also feel we should not impose this on everyone. While I am ambivalent about how my personal experiences may have affected my self-confidence in my younger years, I would hate for others – children, especially – to go through what I went through.
The bilingual policy needs to be tweaked – and I am glad the Ministry of Education had looked into this. For some of us it may have come too late, way too late, but it is good that someone like the Minister Mentor has realised the shortcomings of the policy. I would not discard the bilingual policy, but I would want to make it optional. Only those with the ability to master the language should volunteer for bilingual education.
If the Minister Mentor indeed feels he has made a mistake with the policy, then perhaps he should also look into these other issues which have resulted from the policy as well. Language streamlining for example, led to dialects being banned from schools, television, and radio programmes. The resulting communication barrier between the older dialect-speaking generation and the younger generation brought up in an English plus mother tongue environment is an issue we should worry about.
MM Lee’s admission at this time gives us an opportunity to take a more comprehensive look at the policy. We should see how we could fine-tune it, and look more closely at how it has affected society as a whole.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
42) haunted library on November 19th, 2009 8.24 pm
two quick points:
1. ‘jian PI zi’? did u mean to say ‘jian BI zi’?
2. ’short-form’ sounds strange. i think u meant ’simplified’.
1. ermm… You are also wrong. it’s jian TI zi. “简体字“
2. Yep. “simplified” chinese is the correct term. It would then become the direct translation of the chinese characters I typed, “simplified form”
The question now is – what is wrong with our educational methods through which chinese is being taught that makes it so tedious to learn?
Why is it only Singaporeans that are facing such a problem, whereas our neighbours in Malaysia do not and some can speak better mandarin than some of us?
People in other countries like Russia, Germany can speak 2 or more languages beside English.
The govt should review its teaching methods but w/o sacrificing the language and killing it that our younger generation end up being even more half past six with our languages as we already are currently.
Being able to speak and read it at working level is not enough if the next generation of Singaporeans is to remain competitive in the face of these new citizens coming from China. Being able to write it is just as essential.
I am a Punjabi Sikh. My younger brother an ex-army major speaks and write good mandarin, which he picked up during his army days. He was under no pressure to pick-up mandarin, but he was able to do it because he wanted to converse with his man in mandarin.
What LKY did, fool that he is,was to force it down the throat of the Chinese, who gave in barely without a whimper.
I agree with Andrew that if people are free to choose whatever language they want to learn, who knows we might have produced great Chinese scholars to rival those from China and Taiwan
And by the way, i hope i dont sound boastful, i am tri- lingual; i can read and write in English, Bahasa Melayu and Punjabi (Gurmukhi) and i can speak good Hokkien and Cantonese and a smattering of Teochew and Tamil.
The point i am making is that as long as you dont force it down people’s throat, people can pick up any language and excell in it, like they do in the free western countries.
Pardon, i forget to also include Hindi in my speaking ability. Cheers.
Look at our inter-schools mandarin speaking debate, our top students cannot hold well in their fort without one PRC speaking in reference of the chinese thousands years history, cultures, wisdoms, idioms etc.
Not even our Media Corp local comperes can be up the mark, till date except only guo liang or quan yifeng to host the other shows…….. real sad……. can our $million education minister care to comment…..why …… looking back at the education policies implemented……and so call every speak mandarin campaigns…….why
last but not least, how many of our $million cabinet ministers are able to…… so to speak…….real sad.
hello 52) lobo76 on November 20th, 2009 3.59 pm
oops, thanks for pointing out (my mistake in ti3/bi3)!
If all you are looking for is an apology, then perhaps you are letting your emotions run too wild.
The articles and responses here fail to appreciate how deeply political language policies are in any country. Missing also is an understanding of Singapore’s educational history.
The PAP’s language policy has always been bilingual policy. This was the legacy of the report of the All Party Report on Chinese Education (1956), where Mr Lee Kuan Yew was a member. This report formed the blueprint of PAP’s educational policy when they came to power in 1959. What changed over the years was that in the early years of independence, the focus was on an “English knowing bilingualism”. Besides the English Language, Mathematics, Science and technical were emphasized as they were deemed useful for Singapore’s industralization. The Chinese community decried the drop in standard of mandarin (yes, mandarin was the medium of instruction in Chinese schools) from the 1960s and 1970s.
Today, English is the medium of instruction for all schools in Singapore. However, before 1987, there were Chinese, Malay and Tamil medium schools. Besides the trade unions, the Chinese school students were instrumental in PAP’s rise to power in 1959. The split within the PAP in 1961, resulting in the formation of the Barisan Socialis, crippled the party. The Barisan Socialis (BS) had great appeal amongst the Chinese educated, but they (BS) were deeemed as pro-Communists. The PAP had to rebuilt the party from stratch, and they found an ally amongst English educated populance. An example would be the attitude of the Straits Times, which was anti-PAP before it came to power. In the ‘battle for merger’ with Malaysia, the Straits Times became increasing pro-PAP. We all know that the PAP emerged victorious in the fight. A number of the Barisan Socialis MPs and supporters who were detained for suspected Communist and/or pro-Communist links were Chinese educated. This cast an unfortunate shadow on Chinese schools in Singapore, as they were deemed to be too political and pro-Communist.
The English educated and Chinese educated viewed the bilingual policy differently. I shall not elaborate on the problems that bilingualism had on the English educated as most of the people who read theonlinecitizen are very familar with the impact of this policy. To the Chinese educated, the way bilingualism was implemented led to the decline in the standard of Chinese in Singapore. A lot has been written on this in the chinese newspapers, as well in academia. For instance, Dr. Lee Guan Kin of NTU has written some articles in English on this issue (she publishes mostly in chinese). Dr Huang Jianli, historian in NUS has written on the activism of the Chinese school students in the 1950s and 1960s.
The speak mandarin campaign (1979) and the introduction of SAP schools (1978) represent a swing in the PAP’s emphasis from an English knowing bilingualism, to one that emphasizes the learning of mandarin as the mother tongue for all Chinese. We are feeling the effects of these initiatives today.
MM Lee’s apology has to be understood in the context of Singapore’s educational and and recent political history. We need to know this historical context in order to better understand the bilingual policy today.
A disproportinate amount of time was spent on Chinese which resulted in chinese tutors coffers being filled to the brim and the childrens attempt to live and enjoy a child’s life completely drained and dehyrated.
Who will give them back their childhood?? All this because of the stubborn policy stuffed down our throats by numerous ministers of education who did what was expected of them. Our education policy changed with the seasons-a few made it and have become robotic in their thinking and will in all likelihood ‘pontificate’ in a few years time when they become ministers etc. This cycle will go on ad nauseum for years to come.
Language usage as seen in the pragmatic manner of the Leadership is(was) that it must have the greatest commercial value, in short; a business language. And this is how it is explained, the political developments and connotations that lead the Vernaculars to their impotence today, have little or no relevance to the younger generations; may i subjectively put it as after Year 1965.
The Over Fifties in Singapore are likely to have better understandings of the Language Situation and would also have their pro and anti reasons for the Langauage Policy as implemented by Lee Kuan Yew. One aspect is very clear, majority of the pro vernaculars(Mandarin, Malay, Tamil and Arabic etc) were(are) the view that the English Language was used as a significant weapon to rid or reduced the Political Opponents to PAP.
The Pro English Language Segment was bought over by the belief that English was the more practical language medium, seasoned and convinced by the century old British Rule; this belief was reasonable.
The Anti English Language Policy Communities then were the more conservative and culturally fidel lots who take their cultural roots and values as the main ethos in their livings. It was also true that they were less acceptable of the PAP Leadership then which resulted in the need for the Vernaculars to be relegated for resistances to the PAP to be reduced or crippled.
In any case, i opine that MM Lee is innately in love with the English Language as seen in the fact that whenever and wherever he had the opportunity to talk about langauge, he will exhort people to learn English, be it in China, Malaysia, Thailand, Japan and everwhere else. Maybe he is genuinely Anglicized while he was studying in England or that that he truly feels that English is the Superior Language. Whichever way he thinks; i think he should respect the choice of the others in this very personal issue.
patriot
MM Lee admits he’s wrong : does that mean he’s REALLY wrong ?
With MM Lee’s about turn, the table’s now turned into the blame game. Everyone who’s ever flunked their Chinese lessons crawl out of the woodwork to blame their chinese teachers, blame boring lessons, blame everything and everyone except themselves for their inability to master Chinese.
Pedagogy trends in language come and go, teachers can use English to teach chinese in school, use I.T, use other creative and interesting methods but at the end of the day, the question teachers will ask themselves is : My innovative methods may interest my students, but can these methods make him DO WELL in the EXAM ?
Is teaching Chinese interestingly and doing well in exam mutually exclusive ?
The bottom line is Singapore’s exam based system makes it difficult to really teach for learning, not just teach for passing exams.
My experience with Chinese mirrors yourself, even though i got enough tuition to do HCL. However, I can’t understand all this self-righteous anger at the policy. Speaking from experience, even though I HATED HCL lesson, I’m forever thankful of the basic proficiency of the language that the Singaporean education system gave me.
And can anyone here deny the importance of bilingualism? A command in Mandarin is not just essential for pragmatic business reasons, it is also essential for communicating with fellow Singaporeans, especially those in different stratas of society. Unless you plan to spend your whole life in your ivory tower communicating with people from similar backgrounds, a second language is nigh-essential.
And just like English, Math and Science, a government is justified in compelling the populace to study something if its importance is so self-evident. I was horrible at Science, but the basic Scientific education i received is was indispensable. I agree that the MOE has made huge mistakes in the application of the policy. Teaching Chinese through rote-learning has been manifestly unsuccessful, and students should not be denied entry to a local university for failing Chinese. But I do not see how poeeople can deny that SOME compulsory education in the language can be abandoned.
*But I do not see how people can deny that SOME compulsory education in the language CANNOT be abandoned.
oops. Looks like my grounding in the English Language hasn’t been stellar either. lol.
I did well in both languages! Thanks to MM’s vision and direction. What a leader!
We love and respect his leadership!