Jamie Li Chou Han
In the recent public debates over the future direction of Singapore’s Chinese language education policy, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is right in noting that much of the discussion has revolved around emotional responses regarding what level the language should be pitched at (‘Help every child go as far as possible’, The Straits Times, 4 Dec 2009).
Such emotive reactions are to be expected when it comes to discussions on language issues in general, as shown by the recent furore over the English language standards of Singaporeans. This is because language is perceived by many to be, rightly or wrongly, a cornerstone of one’s cultural and ethnic identity. German philosopher Martin Heidegger even goes so far as to proclaim that the essence of our being is to be found in language.
PM Lee has justifiably sought to depoliticize the Chinese language issue by calling for a rational approach towards what he sees as mainly a pedagogical issue. However, what he failed to address, and which is largely missing in the public discourse on the teaching of the Chinese language – and Mother Tongue policy in general – is precisely the inherent political nature of the issue.
This blind spot has resulted in the lack of serious public discussions on the long-term implications of the State’s current language policy for the fabric of our society as well as its effects on Singapore’s image on the larger geopolitical stage.
At the domestic level, the state’s preoccupation with propagating the Chinese language at the expense of the other official languages has the unfortunately political effect of giving minorities the impression, true or otherwise, that the State, rather than being a secular and impartial entity, is actually bias towards the dominant ethnic group.
While policymakers have tried to justify the disproportionate allocation of public resources towards cultivating a bicultural elite fluent in English and Chinese on pragmatic grounds, specifically their usefulness in international trade, scant attention has been paid towards the tensions that such a policy can and has created in our multicultural, cosmopolitan society.
What is being advocated here is not a rigid attitude of political-correctness towards minorities, or worse still a token effort at portraying impartiality through positive discrimination, but rather a serious reconsideration of the potential pitfalls of linking language to ethnic/racial identity and then actively promoting certain languages over others in the name of pragmatic economic concerns. Pursuing such a policy will lead to more Singaporeans asking: Are we truly one united people, regardless of race, language or religion?
The impact of the current language policy extends far beyond the domestic realm, affecting the image that Singapore projects on the wider global stage. Since our independence, much effort has been made at the diplomatic level to cultivate the image of Singapore as a non-aligned, secular country that seeks to make as many friends as possible on the international stage rather than stick to strictly defined ideological, cultural or civilizational blocks. Such a policy is even more important in today’s geopolitical climate, which some are keen to portray as a clash of civilizations.
Language has played a key role in portraying Singapore’s cosmopolitan image overseas, with our pioneering political leaders choosing to adopt Malay as the national language and English as the language of governance, while giving minorities the secular space to maintain their own languages. Such measures were and are still needed if we are to continue persuading our neighbours and the international community that we are a secular, multicultural nation that does not intend to cultivate a special relationship with one particular country mainly due to perceived cultural and ethnic ties.
In the struggle for independence, our founding fathers played a risky political game of riding the communist tiger and succeeded, albeit by the skin of their teeth. The question for us today is if we should tempt fate once more by riding a much more unpredictable rising dragon. Unfortunately, the answer cannot be found through the use of language teaching tools boosted by technology – a troubling thought indeed for those who see language as merely a pedagogical issue.
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
As a non-chinese and meaning no offense to my chinese brothers here, everytime I switch on the TV and see the speak mandarin campaign ad, my guts turn inside out. Fine if you have it on the chinese channel but must you show it on the other channels too? So much exposure by the local media on chinese this, chinese that i.e. we were wrong about chinese, more kids taking up chinese. Hello? Are we in China now? Are there no other races staying here? Last time I checked, we are a multi racial community with Eurasians, Malays, Indians, Chinese and many more. The situation is not helped by the influx of china talents who can’t speak a word of english and expect me, a non-chinese Singaporean to be able to speak his tongue. It is sickening and frustrating at times.
Learn Chinese by all means if you think the knowledge will bring you economic progress. But make it optional, especially for non-Chinese Singaporeans, especially those whose mothers could be Caucasian, non-Chinese Asian, South American, African, Polynesian, etc.
This emphasis on learning Chinese so that we will survive is yet another example of the siege mentality that is still being imposed on us by our leaders of old, who grew up fearing the worst. And that fear somewhat has metamorphosed into many of us believing that the nation’s survival meant the acquisition of more and more material goods. Hence, the drive to learn Chinese to foster our links with China.
Times have changed — the focus is no longer only on producing technicians with knowledge of science but also on bringing forth more Singaporeans with a gracious knoweldge of the arts.
Many of us feel that we can be happy with the pursuit of non-material success. We do not need a bursting bank balance to reflect our success. Maybe, we will be even more unhappy wondering how to keep up with the Joneses, Sims and Lees if material success was the sole and main judge of progress.
We should be confident to say that even if we do not know enough Chinese to take advantage of China’s economic boom, so be it. There is room in Singapore for a multitude of different peoples — the wealthy, the not-so-wealthy, and even those who get by on just enough.
as a pragmatic society, the government only wishes for its citizens to stick to the more economically superior one; and china is just one striking example of such. in fact, back when the west held the most economical power, there were no such campaigns propounded.
the government’s view is as such: if you take up malay, for example, your scope of contact is only limited to part of the south-east asia region, which – lets be frank here – doesn’t prove to be much of an economic treasure trove.
besides, with chinese migrant workers at every sector of our life (think: the woman who clears your tray, the masseuse, the women in geylang…), it benefits us as individuals to take up the language so as to not impede our daily lives.
moreover, if the government is indeed bias to the dominant ethnic group, it is my opinion that such a stand would not cause much furore; it is the dominant ethnic group, after all.
To GABRIEL on December 10th, 2009 11.13 am:
Re: “Learn Chinese by all means if you think the knowledge will bring you economic progress.”
What’s going to happen when India overtakes China – as it is projected to – as the world’s largest economy around 2050, and after China would have had a grand total of thirty years as the world’s largest economy?
Should we abandon the Chinese after that?
And for what, may I ask? Will you be prepared to learn Hindi? Or tell your children to?
And why is it that majority Chinese Singapore is the only country to believe that the entire population needs to learn Mandarin for the sake of economic survival?
You are absolutely right bro! ‘If u are a dominant group, u have nothing to worry about.
Is the Mandarin speaking community and Foreign Talent Mandarins feeling insecure n inferior, that they have to impose their forceful thoughts on the Dedicated, Sincere, Law Abiding Minority Singaporeans? Just look up the the National Straits Times n Chinese newspapers, to figure out , which Majority Race commits the most crimes and breaking the law?
So does one follow more towards the economic leader or criminal leader to accumulate the vast wealth?
to xp-
seriously,’if the government is indeed bias to the dominant ethnic group, it is my opinion that such a stand would not cause much furore; it is the dominant ethnic group, after all.’
are you serious? so what now, the majority speaks for the minority?
the speak chinese movement is one thing but when u see everything translated only into chinese while the other main languages like malay, tamil take a backseat. and when foreigners start questioning , ‘are you sure u’r singaporean, how come you’re not chinese?’, isnt it something the government should take notice of.
and dont start about the SAF, why the malays still cant have certain positions is something still puzzling after so many years of independence.
dont be ignorant.
what happen to all the policies about a multiracial society, when we are producing singaporeans like you.
but thank god, it also produced singaporeans like this writer.
Why can’t we promote the idea of being comfortable with ourselves? Learn what we want to learn and innovate based on our own interests (which is alot more fulfilling and much more likely to bear results). Instead, we’re ‘guided’ along by MIW’s strategy of what they think will bring success.
All I see is alot of backtracking and sidestepping…very little forward progress. :(
If LkY could have his way, he’d rather have this whole country be populated by Chinese people only.
In Singapore, the Chinese take up over 70% of the population. And it is perhaps inevitable that the Government has to devote more attention and resources to the language problem faced by the majority. But the minorities do have the secular space to pursue their own languages. If one takes a look at the website of the Singapore Exams and Assessment Board, one will find that O-levels are offered for Malay, Tamil, Hindi, Urdu, Gujarati, Bengali, Arabic, Burmese, etc.
Perhaps the author has somewhat exaggerated the problem of Singapore’s language policy. While it is true that there is the perception that we have a special relationship with one country may alienate certain minorities, the fact remains that a large number of foreign immigrants/expats from India, Burma, Korea, the Philippines, etc. have arrived in Singapore”. This seems to suggest that for many of these people, the cosmopolitan nature of Singapore still overrides its perceived “Chinese-ness”. Also, our so-called “special relationship” with China is not built on an exclusive platform which alienates other countries, especially the US. For example, during his trip to Washington recently, MM Lee Kuan Yew spoke at an awards ceremony sponsored by the US-Asean Business Council and said that no Asian country was able to match China’s growing might and America was needed to strike a balance.
It seems to me that Singapore is still, in its own way, maintaining its traditional foreign policy of non-alignment while trying to balance a country of disparate diversity on the home front.
I sincerely hope to see such developments in the near future:
1. Ethnicity and language delinked. Let all students, based on their interests offer English and any other official language of Singapore as 2nd lang. This may bring us closer to acknowledging our multicultural heritage.
2. 2nd lang as criterion for promotion or admission to U or whatever, totally dropped. If students do well, it simply ups their total GPA. If they don’t , they’re not penalized just for that.
When we have a generation that learns languages without being unduly pressured, or under a biased climate that pays lip service to multiculturalism, maybe we will finally gain a bit of confidence and creativity that increases the value of our cultural offerings. At the moment, we are only using money to import excellence from outside, going after the shortcuts. Is this the way to develop ourselves?
It’s very easy for you Yueheng to say things like “But the minorities do have the secular space to pursue their own languages.” and perhaps say that we are a country open to diversity.
It’s easy for you to say because you are part of the majority. Try talking to a group of Indians and Malays who are affected by the focus on the Chinese in Singapore. There is an underlying current of racism and elitism in all of Singaporean society and the government with its policies and approach to play in it.
The writer of this article is at least able to see the reality of the situation.
Ray:
I do not intend to suggest that there is no racism and elitism in Singapore. That would be naive. Imperfection is part and parcel of the human condition.
However, whether or not I am part of the majority (does that disqualify all Chinese Singaporeans from ever analyzing issues pertaining to the minorities?) is besides the point. The fact remains that there is nothing to stop the minorities from studying and expressing themselves in their “native” languages if they wish to do so. There has been no attempt to impose Chinese on any of the minorities. Contrast that with the prohibition of Chinese in Indonesia during the Suharto years.
I am a staunch believer in multiculturalism and diversity. But much as we would like to aspire for an Utopian ideal, our feet must remain grounded in concrete reality. In a small island republic where over 70% are Chinese and given our strategic dependence on global economic trends, an emphasis on Chinese is inevitable.
personally, I do not see it (the campaign) as an issue of chinese dominance… rather it is only the Chinese who are losing their language, and thus needed the help.
Of course, I could be wrong… I frankly have no idea how many Malays speak accented Malays nor the number of Indians who speak accented Hindu/Tamil (or whatever their dialect is). But I do know of more Chinese who speaks their ‘own’ language as a foreign one.
I’m Teochew, with Peranakan roots.
I was brought up in an English & Teochew speaking family, I never made it through Primary school because of Mandarin as a Compulsory Subject.
Now, I run my own business & I speak and understand all dialects as well as Mandarin.
…enough sid.. I’m outside the friggin “system” & surviving..
hello,sadsack
As a non-chinese and do not worry too much.why ? majority of chinese speaking have no influnence or carry no weight …Most significant influence , are those english speaking.Chinese are divided into many cat and subdivided into religion….
Yueheng:
Thank you for acknowledging that there is racism and elitism in Singapore. Imperfection is part and parcel of the human condition – but is imperfection the only reason why there is racism and elitism in Singapore, and how much of it trickles down as an example from the PAP themselves?
“There has been no attempt to impose Chinese on any of the minorities.”
There has been no “official” attempt, but try getting a job in company if you’re a Malay or Indian. Even if you can SPEAK Mandarin AND another dialect you are often not to get the job. When pushed to a corner, the employer will finally tell you that its a “Chinese working environment”, expect you to get the drift and leave the interview room.
“Contrast that with the prohibition of Chinese in Indonesia during the Suharto years.”
Yes we can go on contrasting for as long as we like. I can contrast the Chinese in Indonesia under Suharto the Africans under the Whites in America, or the Indians under the British. Let’s not compare, but address the reality of our own local situation in reference to its own root causes.
“I am a staunch believer in multiculturalism and diversity. But much as we would like to aspire for an Utopian ideal, our feet must remain grounded in concrete reality. In a small island republic where over 70% are Chinese and given our strategic dependence on global economic trends, an emphasis on Chinese is inevitable.”
You sound just like the Government in this case, though I won’t lump you with them because I believe your intentions to be good (but based on your own interpretation of Singapore’s social and cultural politics).
An emphasis on Chinese may be inevitable for any country hoping to make a quick or lengthy buck on the rise of China. But in Singapore, have we even addressed the fact that the local ethnic groups are disunited – with even the government coming forward to admit that there is no racial harmony but racial tolerance.
It is that unaddressed festering situation that will make Singapore’s pro-Chinese maneuvering make locals who are not Chinese feel even more left out and segregated.
If I was born in Japan and I was expected to learn their National language then fine, I will because I respect their history and culture.
But in Singapore, independence was founded on the belief that this will be a Singapore for all Singaporeans – not based on what the “majority” is. Why is it that such a majority of the “majority” know basic Malay and can’t even decent sing the National Anthem? Should we not be proud of our National Language and would it not bring about more National cohesion?
Or perhaps the Singapore government is not interested in that?
i think it would be fair to say that Singaporean chinese need help in mastering their language thus the need for a ‘Speak Mandarin movement’.
What i dont understand is how come the advertisement are not talking about that, instead they are currently focused on foreigners and other races speaking chinese. Have u seen the advertisements?
Sorry correction on 2nd line of last paragraph of my previous comment: Why is it that such a majority of the “majority” DO NOT know basic Malay and can’t even decent sing the National Anthem? Should we not be proud of our National Language and would it not bring about more National cohesion?
Ray:
I get your example of a non-Chinese not being able to get jobs in a “Chinese working environment”. So what solution would you propose then? How would you solve the lack of National cohesion in Singapore? I am genuinely curious to know.
Yueheng:
We would all have noted that Singapore has become overwhelmingly “Chinese” over the past decades. From television, to the languages we can speak, to even the ethnic proportion of the number of foreigners coming to work and live in Singapore.
The lack of National cohesion is brought about directly because of Lee Kuan Yew’s ideas of Race, Culture and Genes – http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/lib/ne/lky/raceculturegenes.pdf
Had the opposition not been repeatedly crushed by his brutal and cunning foul play, Singapore would definitely be a more cohesive society today.
The leaders of a country set the direction for the people, the views that they express in the media and elsewhere will create a climate and affect the way people see their environment.
So to answer your question, one of the ways to improve National cohesion is to remove LKY and PAP politicians who think similarly to him and replace them with progressive-minded politicians (PAP or opposition) who truly believe that we are all born equal with the capacity to excel and succeed, given a conducive social environment.
Ray:
Thank you for your prompt reply. I do not disagree that there has been an influx of Chinese migrants/new citizens over the years. But this is just part of the picture. I am a teacher in a neighbourhood secondary school and over the years, I have taught students from India, China, Taiwan, Myanmar, the Philippines, South Korea, Laos, etc. And then there’s the expats from other Western countries. The fact is that Singapore has become increasingly cosmopolitan and I don’t think that we are not going to be a new province of China anytime soon.
While I do agree that a more vibrant opposition can lead to an engaged society, I am not sure if your logic is sound here. A more vibrant opposition does not necessarily mean a more cohesive society. The US has become polarized due to a partisan politics between the G.O.P and the Democrats to such an extent that reforms are often paralyzed. In fact, many cohesive societies have been run by dictatorships with a monopoly on power, Nazi Germany is one example. North Korea is another.
You suggest that removing the PAP from power will improve National Cohesion. I do not agree with that. Please note that I am not a PAP member nor do I support any opposition party. As a person affiliated to no party or clique, I am offering an objective and realistic view. It is a reasonable assumption that the PAP is here to stay for a long time. Any solution to improve National Cohesion must involve the PAP either by voicing feedback through available channels, working through Civil Society or through the electoral process. To wish the PAP away is just…wishful thinking.
Correction: “And then there’s the expats from other Western countries.” This is not to say that I have taught such expats (this was written in connection with my reference to teaching). I was merely citing that example to reinforce my point regarding Singapore’s cosmopolitan nature.
Yueheng:
“The fact is that Singapore has become increasingly cosmopolitan and I don’t think that we are not going to be a new province of China anytime soon.”
I’m sorry but I disagree. And I’m sure many other Singaporeans will disagree with you as well.
“A more vibrant opposition does not necessarily mean a more cohesive society. In fact, many cohesive societies have been run by dictatorships with a monopoly on power, Nazi Germany is one example. North Korea is another.”
Nazi Germany became a “cohesive society” for the Aryan Whites, not for the other ethnic groups that were there. So would you be alright with a dictatorship that wipes out the minority groups in a society?
At what cost did Nazi Germany become “cohesive” for its majority race? Through the brutal decimation of 6 millions Jews. Is that your idea of a sound logic?
“To wish the PAP away is just…wishful thinking.”
I am neither simply wishing the PAP away nor am I saying they will disappear overnight. I am saying that certain racist and/or ethnocentric politicians have to be removed from office before actual cohesion takes place.
But then you cite Nazi Germany and North Korea as examples of “cohesive societies” so I don’t think we see the word in the same way to being with.
Ray:
Why do you disagree that Singapore is increasingly becoming cosmopolitan? Mere assertion does not qualify as an argument.
A cosmopolitan city is defined as a city which embraces multicultural demographics. Nowadays in Singapore, it is very common to find people of different races and nationalities working and interacting together. There are China PRs and Ukrainians in the SAF. There is a Burmese provision shop in Clementi. There is a shop selling Korean products in West Mall (Bukit Batok). Some time ago this year, I was watching a movie at West Mall and on the way to one of the theaters, I overheard a Caucasian couple speaking in an unidentifiable European language. When I was in Secondary school, there was only one foreign student in my cohort – an Indonesian Chinese. That was 1994. Now in the school where I teach – a neighbourhood school – there are so many foreign students hailing from China, India, Vietnam, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines, etc. Last year, my form class had more foreigners than locals!
All these are empirical realities which are just a tip of the ice-berg. The evolution of Singapore into a more cosmopolitan city is beyond question.
I’m afraid that you have entirely misunderstood my references to Nazi Germany and North Korea. I am not advocating any dictatorship. I believe in a cohesive and secular society achieved through democratic and lawful means. What I was doing was questioning your assumption that a vibrant opposition will lead to national cohesion. The Weimar Republic had a vibrant parliamentary democracy, but it did not lead to a cohesive nation. Under the rule of the Nazis, the vast majority of the Germans rallied under Hitler and was mobilized for a Total War. Under Kim Ill Sung, many North Koreans genuinely believed in the cause of reunification of the Korean Peninsula. Just because I used these examples does not mean I approve of dictatorship. I was just questioning your logic that a cohesive society will follow because of a vibrant opposition by providing examples that cohesive societies can and has emerged from dictatorships.
As mentioned in my previous comment, I think a vibrant opposition can lead to a more engaged society, but whether or not it is a cohesive one is dependent on other factors like a sense of shared history, common interests despite diverse cultures, and a mature citizenry.
Judging from the ratings of my earlier comment, it seems that many have misunderstood the intention behind my words; and onyr is undoubtedly one of such.
‘…if the government is indeed bias to the dominant ethnic group, it is my opinion that such a stand would not cause much furore; it is the dominant ethnic group, after all.’ – this sentence is fundamentally right.
Think about it for a moment; if you were a Chinese (in case you aren’t) in Singapore, and your government starts initiating all sorts of speak mandarin movements, even to the point of having them at public places and non-mandarin tv commercials, would you be the first to complain?
I was in no way purporting the fact: ‘the majority speaks for the minority’, as onyr here has so erroneously put it, but merely speculating on what would happen if this were indeed true – that the government has really taken a pro-Chinese stance in its policies.
xp-
yes, precisely why i’m speaking out. because i’m not chinese. and even if i am i would be ashamed to let the world know that here is a chinese who is a passive citizen of a country that has truly wasted much of their funds on national days protraying a multiracial society. that is my point.
and seriously taking up chinese in support of china workers just doesnt cut it. they are in singapore where the main language is ENGLISH. so they ought to respect that and learn it.
in the parliament, one of our ministers note that just as we are suppose to help them integrate into our society, they are suppose to integrate themselves into ours by learning our culture, social diversity etc.
its not indeed true. it is true. where have you been? jupiter?
So Yueheng, do you know how to speak our National language, Malay?
Yueheng:
“I was just questioning your logic that a cohesive society will follow because of a vibrant opposition by providing examples that cohesive societies can and has emerged from dictatorships.”
Okay so let’s stop using the word “cohesive”, because if you use the example of how Nazi Germany and North Korea were “cohesive” societies, then that word is not applicable to our Singapore context.
Unless of course you are alright with everyone in this country following what the majority believes or prefers.
Ray:
I have a very rudimentary Malay vocab and can identify certain Malay words and phrases. But frankly, I do not see how that is relevant to the discussion. Perhaps you could elaborate.
It is not necessary to stop using the word “cohesive” just because it could be applied to Nazi Germany and North Korea. Cohesion can be achieved through different means.
i am a non-chinese singaporean.
i do support airing of chinese ads about speak mandarin campaigns on english channels and on buses. i also do support airing of chinese dramas or serials on buses.
in a muli-lingual society as singapore, the balance is not about making sure the chinese is less chinese. its silly to demand there be no chinese ads or dramas on english or common media channels.
instead the balance should be airing malay and tamil ads on english channels, having malay and tamil dramas on common media channels.
segregating the channels by saying tamil and malay must only stick to their channels and their ads must not surface in english channels is not the way to integrate people. worse still when you have this condition but promote a double standard for chinese and allow their ads on english channels.
likewise promoting mandarin use is not something against integration. whats against integration is ONLY promoting mandarin. in the last 50 years, the government has done no campaign on how to communicate effectively with each other between the races. they can have campaigns saying like “go learn conversational english”, “pick up some malay, mandarin, tamil words”.
the whole idea about effective mandarin is about effective communication with mainland chinese in China for better business relations. for god’s sake life isnt all about making money. you need to think about saving money also. you need to think about other things also.
I wonder about the use of the word “cohesion”. Would “coercion” be the better word?
Yes Gabriel I think coercion would be a better word. Anyway it’s clear to me what Yueheng’s perspective is.
I will not bother engaging in further dialogue with the person because it seems that we have very different interpretations of the Singaporean reality (partly because, unlike the writer of this article, Yueheng is part of the majority that does not wish to accept that Singapore does not respect the minority groups.)
Ray:
Perhaps you have digressed so far from the discussion that you have forgotten what it was about in the first place: Do the minorities have the secular space to pursue their languages? In my first reply to you, I acknowledged that while there is racism and elitism in Singapore, the fact remains that there is nothing to stop the minorities from learning and expressing themselves in their languages. You have failed to cite any concrete examples where the minorities are restricted from pursuing their languages.
With all due respect, I don’t think you have tried terribly hard to engage in dialogue in the first place. I asked you to explain why you disagreed that Singapore is becoming increasingly cosmopolitan. This was met with silence. We seemed to be talking past one another regarding my examples of Nazi Germany and North Korea, which was used only to question your assumption that a vibrant opposition would lead to a cohesive society. I suggested that there are different types of cohesion and the cohesion that I’m sure we both wanted to see was one achieved through democratic and lawful means. That was met with silence. When I asked you how my proficiency in Malay was relevant to the discussion, you did not bother to reply.
If this sort of snipping is your idea of “dialogue”, I must politely decline to participate.
Yueheng:
“You have failed to cite any concrete examples where the minorities are restricted from pursuing their languages.”
My engagement with you is not only on whether the minorities are restricted from pursuing their languages. It is on how the large social divide based on ethnicity is made worse by a constant promotion of speaking Mandarin on all media channels and other public spheres.
“I asked you to explain why you disagreed that Singapore is becoming increasingly cosmopolitan. This was met with silence.”
Singapore is not becoming increasingly cosmopolitan. It is becoming increasingly closer to China. I guess your experience in your school influences your outlook, but the reality of other Singaporeans’ experience may be very different, so your statement cannot be taken to be true.
“I suggested that there are different types of cohesion and the cohesion that I’m sure we both wanted to see was one achieved through democratic and lawful means. That was met with silence.”
Is Singapore a cohesive society to you? It really seems like you think so. So we are not talking about the same situation or end result.
“When I asked you how my proficiency in Malay was relevant to the discussion, you did not bother to reply.”
Why do you not bother learning Malay, which is the National language of Singapore, but find it very justifiable that a focus be put on the majority ethnic group of Singapore?
Thank god we aren’t in Malaysia.
The Chinese from 44% in the 60s to 22% today.
Many have shipped out to Singapore, Australiasia, etc., over the years. Just last week we learnt from the Malaysian Parliament that another 330k have emigrated last year. Why do so many non-Malay citizens want to UPROOT and go elsewhere to make a living? Why? Have the majority there treat their minorities fairly?
Vice-versa is not taking place here even with the ethnic-biased sweeteners from across the causeway to entice them. Speaks million, right?
The authorities here have time & again maintained that despite migration, S’pore will maintain its ethnic proportion. So what’s the problem. And learning MANDARIN is going to be of great ECONOMIC benefit when China becomes the world’s largest economy. I remember, PM studied Russian when he was a student then because people thought the USSR would become one of the economic powers later.
Singapore has no mineral resources and it’s so tiny. What the hell are we arguing about? The people are its wealth creators to pay the public servants, build infrastructures, etc. We can’t print money like what Sukarno did and then no one wanted the rupiahs.
Just ask ourselves whether we’re mere consumers or wealth creators? The private sector (paymasters) taxpayers are COLOR BLIND (if you didn’t know). Why? Because tthe bottomline is PROFIT not CHARITY. if Ah Beng or Ali or Samy can deliver optimally at its cost then that person is hired otherwise any company will eventually go into the red like eg, Proton, MAS. Why? Because LABOR is always a factor of production. See, we have so many ex-Malaysian CEOs running our businesses eg Hyflux, then SIA (Mr Cheong).
Finally, we’ll see Singapore becoming more & more cosmopolitan because whoever who can contribute economically are welcome in so long as he /she pays taxes &/or his/her company pay taxes. Simple?
Why are our fellow Singaporeans making a hue and cry over nothing? Isn’t the State subsidising their mother tongues at schools, TV & radio stations, vernacular newspapers, HDB flats. State giveaways like Growth Dividends, etc. The public sector recruits them. And by the way NS is applicable to and for all able-bodied male citizens. I believe it would be more improvements in the near future because surely everyone will u8nderstand “JI” is not written on one’s forehead.
So let’s put the ethnic baggage down, maju lah Singapore for another 44 good years.
Ray:
You write of the “constant promotion of speaking Mandarin on all media channels and other public spheres” as if they were directed at the minorities. These campaigns are directed at the Chinese. There is no attempt to impose Mandarin on the minorities. If a Malay student wishes to learn Higher Malay or Malay Literature, there are resources for this student to do so. If an Indian wishes to take Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Punjabi or Urdu at PSLE, O-level, N level and A level.
Whether or not Singapore is becoming increasingly cosmopolitan is not a matter of opinion. It is an objective issue that can be empirically measured. A cosmopolitan city is one which embraces a variety of cultures. It is true that we have many China PRs and foreign workers here. Some even become new citizens. But there are also many people from different cultures working and studying here. There are Koreans, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Malaysian, Laotians, Burmese, etc. working here. There are Western expats working here. Those who hold on to the so-called conservative Asian values co-exist with people who are Westernized and more liberal. It is hard to understand how one can simply ignore all this diversity and say that Singapore is not cosmopolitan.
Your assertion that because outlook is influenced by my experience in school and is therefore not true is not even an argument. An assertion is not an argument. I connected the huge diversity and number of foreign students to the cosmopolitan nature of Singapore. Why is the unspecified “reality of other Singaporeans” more true than this empirical observation?
And I don’t think you are reading my words carefully. Where have I said that Singapore is a cohesive society? Please furnish quotes.
How do you know that I am not learning Malay? I do pick up certain words and phrases from my Malay students and colleagues. As a National language, Malay has a largely ceremonial purpose and I do agree that Singaporeans can be more proactive in learning Malay. But I do not think my Malay friends will begrudge me for learning more Chinese than Malay. I am Chinese after all. In the same way, I would not expect them to learn Mandarin just because the Chinese are in the majority. Multiculturalism doesn’t mean that we wipe away all differences and be united under one language. That is not practical in Singapore. Multiculturalism means that all cultures are given room to express themselves.
Yueheng:
“But I do not think my Malay friends will begrudge me for learning more Chinese than Malay. I am Chinese after all.”
Likewise, I would not begrudge you for not learning Malay if you didn’t make it seem like its just so “practical/rational/inevitable” that Mandarin and “Chinese relations” be promoted overwhelmingly by the state.
I’ll bring it back to gist of the article: The state’s preoccupation with Mandarin creates the perception that it is biased towards the dominant ethnic group.
It may not create any such perception to you or others who think like you in the dominant ethnic group, but the minorities in Singapore definitely get that perception.
But I cannot expect you to understand, so its alright Yueheng.
Ray, let me see if I understand you correctly. You said that you would not begrudge me for not learning Malay if I did not argue that it is “practical/rational/inevitable” for Mandarin to be promoted. Is there anything wrong with learning Mandarin for practical or rational purposes? If China is already an economic force to be reckoned with, is there anything wrong with a Government urging its population to learn Chinese for economic benefits?
The state’s preoccupation with Mandarin creates the perception that it is biased towards the dominant ethnic group. The word “preoccupation” suggests exclusivity. You seem to have conveniently ignored the fact that the Government has also pushed for an increase in the standard of English. Have you forgotten very recent and still ongoing The Speak Good English Movement? Can we then say that it is biased towards Anglo Saxon culture? The way I see it, our Government is operating out of pragmatism rather than out of any ideology of superiority or discrimination. It recognizes that Singaporean Chinese must be proficient in Mandarin to engage with China for economic reasons. It is also aware that an acceptable standard of English is necessary for Singaporeans to retain a role in globalization.
The fact remains that the Singapore is a disparate diversity and it is not easy to balance this diversity. I am by no means suggesting that the country is perfect and that everyone is living in harmony.
By the way, today I asked one of my Malay friends whether he has ever felt discriminated by the state’s constant promotion of Mandarin. His simple answer was: “No.”
Ray:
You still have not explained why the unspecified “reality of other Singaporeans” is more true than my empirical observation regarding the diversity of foreign students. You also haven’t furnished evidence which shows that I believe Singapore is a “cohesive” society.
Yueheng:
“You still have not explained why the unspecified “reality of other Singaporeans” is more true than my empirical observation regarding the diversity of foreign students. You also haven’t furnished evidence which shows that I believe Singapore is a “cohesive” society. ”
I’m never said my remark was more true than yours. But I don’t think your “empirical” observation of foreign students can be comparable or adequate to qualify for the rest of Singapore society.
I believed that you believed that Singapore is a “cohesive” society based on what you wrote. But sure, my assumption may have been wrong, and its good if you do not think Singapore is a “cohesive” society – because it surely isn’t.
What on earth do you mean by ‘giving the impression’. You talk like a member of the party in power. This bias has been obvious for more than 2 decades. Here in the UK, the only party that promotes such policies is the BNP which is commonly reviled as a fascist or ‘neo-nazi’ party. Their policies are just about identical to the PAP. People here wouldn’t be pussyfooting around this issue as and when it rears its head as you do. In fact, people who write like you would be reviled themselves as ‘white-washers’ and ‘fascists’ themselves.
This bias is far more significant that you think. In promoting chinese-ness over singaporeaness, the PAP has utilised the ‘Chinese’ as a container wherein all credit may flow. For instance, in the future, greater economic benefits accrued from economic relations with China can be, implicitly, attributed to the Chinese in singapore as the mother-tongue policy has already ensured it. The ‘speak mandarin it’s an advantage’ was a blatant affront to the equality of all in the country and has served very well in bringing out the right biases to undermine the sense of self-efficacy amongst the ethnic minorities. Economically, it saw ethnic minorities ‘moderating’ their own aspirations and sticking to leftovers. You people at TOC tend to talk the good talk, but do not think (deep enough) the good think mate. Too bad singaporeans are so underdeveloped as to think that you blokes and blokettes really know what it’s all about. That’s just a consequence of the state of affairs brought about when singapore moved from multiculturalism to monoculturalism. Much of the problems you are encumbered today is a corollary of the latter mate. But as all victims of monoculturalism usually do, they tend to thereafter, reach into a bag of vipers for an antidote after a spat with the former.
This bias has been structured since the 80s to disadvantage all in relation to the Chinese. The chinese were the first victims in that their multicultural exposure was compromised with the backlash against ‘westernisation’. Additionally, the SAP school system, the mother-tongue policy, the policy of maintaining a racial balance in favour of the chinese, the increased celebrations of various chinese festivals on a national scale, etc, etc, etc, helped to ensure that the ensuing discriminatory tendencies that are birthed by it translates to the assimilation of all into the ‘Chinese’ ethos. That is why, for instance, singapore is perceived as a ‘foodie nation’ today whereas in the past, it could have taken on the national pastimes of, say, India – which is debate and activism, not eating and shopping…and gambling (which is more of a chinese thing than an indian or malay one mate)
There are many other pertinent factors of course. But i’ll leave it at that for the consideration of passers-by.
ed on December 11th, 2009 8.00 pm -
What the heck ed?
As China’s paramount leader Deng Xiaoping once said, “Black or white cat is immaterial, so long as it catches mice”.
Remember this is a resourceless, tiny island! We don’t have oil, plantations, minerals, water, etc.
Let’s have Singaporean geese that lay golden eggs for ALL in spin-offs or the multiplier-effects.
“Additionally, the SAP school system, the mother-tongue policy, the policy of maintaining a racial balance in favour of the chinese, the increased celebrations of various chinese festivals on a national scale, etc, etc, etc, ” Even if we agree with you (unfortunatey we don’t) MONEY must come not from heaven but from the private sector taxpayers. So what’s the problem? Much, beyond proportion or contributions, have in fact been spent in favour of the non-Chinese by the State over the years.
Therefore, let all Singaporeans including the Chinese work towards BILIINGUALISM like what the Malays & Tamils are already competent in, without imposing one’s mother tongue on the other. And English will continue to be the bridge across all ethnic Singaporeans.
Shalom!
Check this out.
Nimble Singapore in the face of global competition –
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/world/37803-eyeing-china-singapore-sees-mandarin-as-its-future
Why can’t we give the Malay Language the importance and prominence? After all Malay is the National Language, and since before the Japanese war everyone spoke Malay as a common language among different races , besides English. All the four races, the Chinese,Malays, Indians and Eurasians communicated well with a sense of belonging to the nation. We had two common languages used then. as Malay was an easier to learn and understand. Even the uneducated Chinese could learn and speak the language with ease. Today there is only one common language used, which is English. Not all in speak English today, here.
Malay is also economically important, considering Malaysia and Indonesia who are our immediate neighbours. Even the Filipino language, Tagalog has close similarities to Malay.
Considering all these positive reasons, one wonders are there any other ulterior motives for the prominence of the Mandarin language now. At the expense of Malay the National Language and other Official Languages.
In my opinion the drive by the government re. Mandarin issues is completely correct. If anything, it is the only last remaining reason why I might still vote for the PAP, they have been disgusting in handling numerous other national issues, e.g. Minibonds, terrorist escape, CPF issues, et all, but throughout the years, the mandarin policy is the most admirable thing that they have ever done in my opinion.
The drive to improve our mandarin is correct because mandarin is a very difficult language, we need help, all the help we can get. Chinese Singaporeans are given so much opportunity to link up to our roots via Mandarin; and yet we curse the government for it.
Where else on earth do you find a Race who refuse or hate to learn the language or culture they are associated with, but in singapore. Japanese are proud to speak japanese, malays are proud to speak malay, french are proud to speak french. There are those Chinese Singaporeasn who say, heck, my mother tongue is hokkien, please don’t force me to switch to mandarin. To some extend i salute them too, at least they are proud that they are hokkien (or cantonese). and can handle it. But what about their children? Anything not used on a wide scale, nationally, will be forgotten with time.
Since the reality is that hokkien or cantonese though popular, will not become the international lingau franca of the chinese race, it is never a bad thing to learn Mandarin, which is a uniting force, in as much as it is a divisive force. So let us stop clamouring for lower standards of chinese in schools, just because your children fail all the exams. Stop worrying about whether the current compaign is divisive. I think most Malays or Indians in singapore are pragmatic, they know mandarin is a difficult language, and singaporean chinese are not really good at it. and need a lot of help. Some non chinese may also be happy to learn. What is wrong with learning something. Are we nuts?
Finally a word for those who really hate chinese to the core and born in an English speaking environment. May i remind you that you are where you are and you are able to stand tall and proud speaking just only English, because you are rich and you have money. Strip the wealth from you and you have nothing. Even the poor foreign chinese worker in singpaore, stripped of wealth, is able to stand tall and proud, able to connect with the cultures. The average chinese worker you see in Singpaore, has more knowledge of their culture and speaks better than many of us. And, if i were them, i wouldn’t want to learn English from Singaporeans, the accent is all wrong and Singaporeans justify all their mistakes by saying “Singlish is ok”. Many Chinese Singaporeans are just too proud and cocky to admit it. They need to wear the shoes of a foreigner and look in, and see, and hear and feel the emptiness of the soul they are trapped in.
Zero
Ray:
You wrote: ‘But I don’t think your “empirical” observation of foreign students can be comparable or adequate to qualify for the rest of Singapore society.’
Actually they can be comparable when you consider that a neighbourhood school, with all it’s diversity, is sort of a microcosm of Singaporean society. In the school where I currently teach for instance, there is a Chinese majority followed by Malay and Indian students. Then there is a large body of international students from China, Korea, Burma, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Cambodia, Laos, etc. All these students have parents and families. This diversity of international students in a neighbourhood secondary school would have been unheard of 10 years ago. Isn’t this an indication of Singapore becoming increasingly cosmopolitan?
Furthermore, I have cited so many examples of cosmopolitan diversity in Singapore. But it seems that they are not as valid as the unspecified “experiences” of “other Singaporeans”. Why is this so? So far I have only seen assertion after assertion from you, but hardly anything which qualifies as a reasoned argument.
Those who complain that Chinese is difficult to master might want to consider whether or not it is a matter of attitude rather than anything inherent about the subject. This year’s top PSLE student Qiu Biqing came to Singapore three years ago without knowing English. She managed to do well because of sheer hard work, overcoming many local Singaporeans who had a linguistic advantage as far as English was concerned.
In 1971, Paul Rozin, Susan Poritsky and Raina Sotsky of the University of Pennsylvania did an experiment with 8 second grade (the equivalent of our Primary 1) children who had reading disabilities. They were taught to read English represented by Chinese pictographs and were able to construct simple sentences within four weeks. The abstract of their findings can be read here:
http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1971-29604-001
(1)zero on December 12th, 2009 8.34 am -
hokkien & cantonese are DIALECTS. Why Mandarin? Because it makes dollars as well as cvommon sense. It is used by 1.3 billion mainland Chinese and the 30 million Taiwanese as the official language; taught in schools. Imagine the economic marketplace. Moreover, if hokkien & cantonese & mandarin share a common written script, then the smart choice it clearly mandarin.
(1)sad sack on December 12th, 2009 5.40 am -
The national language is given its pre-eminence in the national song, uniform groups commands and at various State functions. The four languages are used in State posters, signages, etc., at taxpayers’ expense.
Using Malay for all intent & purpose is a backward step for the following reasons. Malay borrows its script from the West and beyond a certain level say, in Science & maths, the words are twisted & tweaked from the romanised form. That’s is why Malay students have a problem with spelling in either Malay or English beyond a certain level. Secondary, progression in knowledge can only be in English for the Malay students especially. Thirdly, the Indonesian & Malaysian market may be big but it lacks purchasing power and is also held back by envy & jealously of others’ success. Forthly, Malay is not one of the UN languages and so learning it has no international bearing. Fiftly, the current state of developments in Indonesia & Malaysia (both resource rich) leaves much to be desired and one of the causes is its Malay language dominance that makes for parochoilsm a key feature. Sixthly . .
Btw, someone once said that Malaysia has an astronaut because of its Malay education. To that, I’d simply ask you just to compare Malaysia’s astronaut with the American astronaut, the Chinese taikongnaut or the Russian cosmonaut. If you understand, then you’ve grown out of the box.
@Yueheng: please note that the government’s purported non-idelogicial stance of pragmatism is itself a form of ideology. Professor Chua Beng Huat of NUS has done an excellent job in showing the ideology of the Singapore government, so I suggest that you read his book “Communitarian Ideology”.
@ zero: “Since the reality is that hokkien or cantonese though popular, will not become the international lingau franca of the chinese race, it is never a bad thing to learn Mandarin…”
If you’ve been to Chinatowns abroad, like in the UK, USA or Canada, you will notice that cantonese is the lingua franca of the Chinese there. Despite more than 10 years since Hong Kong’s handover to China, Cantonese remained the dominant language of Hong Kong. I met a few people from mainland China who are studying and working in Hong Kong, and they all picked up Cantonese. Likewise, I met some mainland Chinese who immigrated to Toronto, Canada, who picked up Cantonese in Toronto. Cantonese is still being widely spoken in Toronto, and there are no signs of the language disappearing. Likewise, Hokkien (also referred to as Taiwanese) remain the lingua franca of the southern Taiwanese, especially the supporters of the DPP.
Having said that, I do agree with you that it is a good thing to learn Mandarin. But it must not be solely be for economic reasons.