Connect with us

Commentaries

Singapore’s Speak Mandarin Campaign clown show moment

Published

7 years ago

on

by Vernon Chan

A funny thing happened on the launch of the 2017 edition of the Speak Mandarin Campaign. The poster, unveiled at the official launch by a minister on 12 July, promotes the 2017 slogan for the campaign, which should translate as “Listen, speak, read, write”. Except that the third character 渎 isn’t the one for “read” 读. The character 渎 actually means “diss” or “disrespect”.

This is what COVFEFE looks like in Chinese. This is what sheer incompetence looks like in Singapore.

Well-deserved schadenfreude?

Why does Singapore, an ethnic Chinese majority country, need a Speak Mandarin Campaign? How does a Speak Mandarin Campaign goof up this badly? And why is it scrambling so badly, you’d think its legitimacy is imperiled, its reservoir of goodwill depleted?

We have previously noted that the first cabinet in self-governing Singapore was faced with a pressing issue that forced it to revise its vision of a multicultural, multilingual nation.

Who really won the civil war in Singapore?

Pre-merger bilingualism as promoted by the PAP consisted of Malay (the national language then and still today) plus either Tamil, Mandarin, or English, depending solely on one’s medium of education. The ‘second language’ one spoke did not have any bearing on one’s ethnic identity, and was not expected to. That was the original PAP understanding of bilingualism and culture. As opposed to current orthodoxy of bilingualism in Singapore, which links language, culture, and ethnicity in essentialist terms.

What was the pressing issue that forced such a drastic change in the PAP’s vision?

A state-approved slideshow explaining why purges were necessary

The political purge of the Chinese political elite prior to, on the eve of, and continuing after 1959. Such blatant repression is something that one can get away with, but not without consequences. The price the PAP had to pay was simple. The British would only allow a post-colonial Singapore to exist as a democratic state, whether it be part of a federation or an independent entity.

The price Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP had to pay to remain in power in a democratic Singapore was this: it had to pander to and mollify the Chinese electorate. Having promised that Malay would be the lingua franca in Singapore as the price of admission into the Malaysian Federation, Lee now made a stunning volte face: the PAP government selectively appropriated the cultural and social agendas of the defeated Chinese political elite to fashion a “Chinese” identity that was acceptable to the PAP’s nation-building project. Not only that, the civil service began to absorb the Chinese cultural elites, placed them in silos in the ministries of culture and education and the People’s Association, and ‘soft policy’ areas surrendered to this group.

The Speak Mandarin Campaign and the Promote Mandarin Council must be understood as a vehicle for the Nantah lobby and the reactionary, essentialist, and race-based approach to bilingualism promoted by the Chinese cultural elites, one that is condoned by the state.

No love for the Speak Mandarin Campaign

How would a Mandarin promotion council and campaign not endear itself to a ethnic Chinese audience? The history of Singapore’s Speak Mandarin Campaign shows us exactly how and why.

In its inception in 1979, the Speak Mandarin Campaign waged a cultural war on “dialects”, a copy and paste version of China’s policy on “dialects”, in an attempt to mollify and court Singapore’s ethnic Chinese vote. That’s when the majority of the ethnic Chinese population in Singapore spoke dialect at home as their first language.

The Speak Mandarin Campaign persisted, doubling down annually with shrill and unironic slogans like “Mandarin’s in, Dialect’s out”, “Speak Mandarin, your children’s future is in your hands”, “Mandarin is Chinese”, “Mandarin for Chinese Singaporeans”, “Mandarin. Use it or lose it”. When awarded carte blanche over cultural policy, the Chinese cultural elites’ unstated ideological view that an ethnic Chinese who could not speak Mandarin was less deserving of respect or recognition as a Chinese person was brought into daylight.

“Chinese people speak Mandarin”

Such ideology and goals were not only extreme in Singapore; even China’s politburo admits that “dialects carry Chinese culture”, putonghua is not meant to replace or drive out dialects, and that slightly less than half of ethnic Chinese in China are considered literate in Mandarin. To put it bluntly, Singapore’s Chinese language policy, its Chinese cultural elites, and their Speak Mandarin Campaign have no sense of proportion or perspective.

Year after year, standards of Mandarin testing in schools got more demanding and difficult. Year after year, Chinese Singaporeans struggle with bilingualism and increasingly unrealistic testing standards for their second language that affect their university admissions. And year after year, the percentage of Mandarin-speaking Chinese families in Singapore hovers at less than half the population, while dialect-speaking families switch to English as their home language. A stunning win for the Speak Mandarin campaign.

Until that is, this week’s blunder. For there is nothing so ironic and just as an elitist, extremist Sinophone lobby botching up its annual campaign slogan. Not when the Speak Mandarin Campaign is chaired by the same Nantah alumni network and the same Chinese cultural elites that have made a home and fiefdom for themselves in the ministries of education and culture and mainstream press.

Heads will roll, just not ours!

We expect an investigation into this clown show moment. We expect the most illustrious committee, chaired by the Nantah alumni network and Chinese cultural elites in government, to absolve itself of all blame, and to shift it to some outsourced ad agency or production house or intern. We expect this absolution to be Pyrrhic, and tantamount to an admission of a lack of ownership, responsibility, and oversight. We expect the Speak Mandarin Campaign to confirm that it is a Clown Show.

We expect the Speak Mandarin Campaign to once more avoid uncomfortable truths, and questions that demand an honest and competent answer.

If learning Mandarin is to promote a Chinese culture and identity, why insist Mandarin be tested as a purely academic subject at standards comparable to the monophone societies of Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China? If so many Chinese in Singapore and even in China had never been Mandarin speakers in the first place, why is “Mandarin” the conduit to “Chinese” culture?

In multicultural Singapore, where Mandarin is neither the lingua franca nor the language of instruction, how should children be best taught the subject, and what should be a realistic standard of literacy and testing?

This article was first published at http://akikonomu.blogspot.sg

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Commentaries

Lim Tean criticizes Govt’s rejection of basic income report, urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Lim Tean, leader of Peoples Voice (PV), criticizes the government’s defensive response to the basic living income report, accusing it of avoiding reality.

He calls on citizens to assess affordability and choose MPs who can truly enhance their lives in the upcoming election.

Published

1 year ago

on

15 September 2023

By

SINGAPORE: A recently published report, “Minimum Income Standard 2023: Household Budgets in a Time of Rising Costs,” unveils figures detailing the necessary income households require to maintain a basic standard of living, using the Minimum Income Standard (MIS) method.

The newly released study, spearheaded by Dr Ng Kok Hoe of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) specifically focuses on working-age households in 2021 and presents the latest MIS budgets, adjusted for inflation from 2020 to 2022.

The report detailed that:

  • The “reasonable starting point” for a living wage in Singapore was S$2,906 a month.
  • A single parent with a child aged two to six required S$3,218 per month.
  • Partnered parents with two children, one aged between seven and 12 and the other between 13 and 18, required S$6,426 a month.
  • A single elderly individual required S$1,421 a month.
  • Budgets for both single and partnered parent households averaged around S$1,600 per member. Given recent price inflation, these figures have risen by up to 5% in the current report.

Singapore Govt challenges MIS 2023 report’s representation of basic needs

Regrettably, on Thursday (14 Sept), the Finance Ministry (MOF), Manpower Ministry (MOM), and Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) jointly issued a statement dismissing the idea suggested by the report, claiming that minimum household income requirements amid inflation “might not accurately reflect basic needs”.

Instead, they claimed that findings should be seen as “what individuals would like to have.”, and further defended their stances for the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and other measures to uplift lower-wage workers.

The government argued that “a universal wage floor is not necessarily the best way” to ensure decent wages for lower-wage workers.

The government’s statement also questions the methodology of the Minimum Income Standards (MIS) report, highlighting limitations such as its reliance on respondent profiles and group dynamics.

“The MIS approach used is highly dependent on respondent profiles and on group dynamics. As the focus groups included higher-income participants, the conclusions may not be an accurate reflection of basic needs.”

The joint statement claimed that the MIS approach included discretionary expenditure items such as jewellery, perfumes, and overseas holidays.

Lim Tean slams Government’s response to basic living income report

In response to the government’s defensive reaction to the recent basic living income report, Lim Tean, leader of the alternative party Peoples Voice (PV), strongly criticizes the government’s apparent reluctance to confront reality, stating, “It has its head buried in the sand”.

He strongly questioned the government’s endorsement of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) as a means to uplift the living standards of the less fortunate in Singapore, describing it as a misguided approach.

In a Facebook video on Friday (15 Sept), Lim Tean highlighted that it has become a global norm, especially in advanced and first-world countries, to establish a minimum wage, commonly referred to as a living wage.

“Everyone is entitled to a living wage, to have a decent life, It is no use boasting that you are one of the richest countries in the world that you have massive reserves, if your citizens cannot have a decent life with a decent living wage.”

Lim Tean cited his colleague, Leong Sze Hian’s calculations, which revealed a staggering 765,800 individuals in Singapore, including Permanent Residents and citizens, may not earn the recommended living wage of $2,906, as advised by the MIS report.

“If you take away the migrant workers or the foreign workers, and take away those who do not work, underage, are children you know are unemployed, and the figure is staggering, isn’t it?”

“You know you are looking at a very substantial percentage of the workforce that do not have sufficient income to meet basic needs, according to this report.”

He reiterated that the opposition parties, including the People’s Voice and the People’s Alliance, have always called for a minimum wage, a living wage which the government refuses to countenance.

Scepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs

In a time of persistently high inflation, Lim Tean expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs.

He cautioned against believing in predictions of imminent inflation reduction and lower interest rates below 2%, labeling them as unrealistic.

Lim Tean urged Singaporeans to assess their own affordability in these challenging times, especially with the impending GST increase.

He warned that a 1% rise in GST could lead to substantial hikes in everyday expenses, particularly food prices.

Lim Tean expressed concern that the PAP had become detached from the financial struggles of everyday Singaporeans, citing their high salaries and perceived insensitivity to the common citizen’s plight.

Lim Tean urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Highlighting the importance of the upcoming election, Lim Tean recommended that citizens seriously evaluate the affordability of their lives.

“If you ask yourself about affordability, you will realise that you have no choice, In the coming election, but to vote in a massive number of opposition Members of Parliament, So that they can make a difference.”

Lim Tean emphasized the need to move beyond the traditional notion of providing checks and balances and encouraged voters to consider who could genuinely improve their lives.

“To me, the choice is very simple. It is whether you decide to continue with a life, that is going to become more and more expensive: More expensive housing, higher cost of living, jobs not secure because of the massive influx of foreign workers,” he declared.

“Or you choose members of Parliament who have your interests at heart and who want to make your lives better.”

Continue Reading

Commentaries

Political observers call for review of Singapore’s criteria of Presidential candidates and propose 5 year waiting period for political leaders

Singaporean political observers express concern over the significantly higher eligibility criteria for private-sector presidential candidates compared to public-sector candidates, calling for adjustments.

Some also suggest a five year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before allowed to partake in the presidential election.

Notably, The Workers’ Party has earlier reiterated its position that the current qualification criteria favor PAP candidates and has called for a return to a ceremonial presidency instead of an elected one.

Published

1 year ago

on

5 September 2023

By

While the 2023 Presidential Election in Singapore concluded on Friday (1 September), discussions concerning the fairness and equity of the electoral system persist.

Several political observers contend that the eligibility criteria for private-sector individuals running for president are disproportionately high compared to those from the public sector, and they propose that adjustments be made.

They also recommend a five-year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before being allowed to participate in the presidential election.

Aspiring entrepreneur George Goh Ching Wah, announced his intention to in PE 2023 in June. However, His application as a candidate was unsuccessful, he failed to receive the Certificate of Eligibility (COE) on 18 August.

Mr Goh had expressed his disappointment in a statement after the ELD’s announcement, he said, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) took a very narrow interpretation of the requirements without explaining the rationale behind its decision.

As per Singapore’s Constitution, individuals running for the presidency from the private sector must have a minimum of three years’ experience as a CEO in a company.

This company should have consistently maintained an average shareholders’ equity of at least S$500 million and sustained profitability.

Mr Goh had pursued eligibility through the private sector’s “deliberative track,” specifically referring to section 19(4)(b)(2) of the Singapore Constitution.

He pointed out five companies he had led for over three years, collectively claiming a shareholders’ equity of S$1.521 billion.

Notably, prior to the 2016 revisions, the PEC might have had the authority to assess Mr Goh’s application similarly to how it did for Mr Tan Jee Say in the 2011 Presidential Election.

Yet, in its current formulation, the PEC is bound by the definitions laid out in the constitution.

Calls for equitable standards across public and private sectors

According to Singapore’s Chinese media outlet, Shin Min Daily News, Dr Felix Tan Thiam Kim, a political analyst at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore, noted that in 2016, the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates were raised from requiring them to be executives of companies with a minimum capital of S$100 million to CEOs of companies with at least S$500 million in shareholder equity.

However, the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates remained unchanged. He suggests that there is room for adjusting the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates.

Associate Professor Bilver Singh, Deputy Head of the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore, believes that the constitutional requirements for private-sector individuals interested in running are excessively stringent.

He remarked, “I believe it is necessary to reassess the relevant regulations.”

He points out that the current regulations are more favourable for former public officials seeking office and that the private sector faces notably greater challenges.

“While it may be legally sound, it may not necessarily be equitable,” he added.

Proposed five-year waiting period for political leaders eyeing presidential race

Moreover, despite candidates severing ties with their political parties in pursuit of office, shedding their political affiliations within a short timeframe remains a challenging endeavour.

A notable instance is Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who resigned from the People’s Action Party (PAP) just slightly over a month before announcing his presidential candidacy, sparking considerable debate.

During a live broadcast, his fellow contender, Ng Kok Song, who formerly served as the Chief Investment Officer of GIC, openly questioned Mr Tharman’s rapid transition to a presidential bid shortly after leaving his party and government.

Dr Felix Tan suggests that in the future, political leaders aspiring to run for the presidency should not only resign from their parties but also adhere to a mandatory waiting period of at least five years before entering the race.

Cherian George and Kevin Y.L. Tan: “illogical ” to raise the corporate threshold in 2016

Indeed, the apprehension regarding the stringent eligibility criteria and concerns about fairness in presidential candidacy requirements are not limited to political analysts interviewed by Singapore’s mainstream media.

Prior to PE2023, CCherian George, a Professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University, and Kevin Y.L. Tan, an Adjunct Professor at both the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore and the NTU’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), brought attention to the challenges posed by the qualification criteria for candidates vying for the Singaporean Presidency.

In their article titled “Why Singapore’s Next Elected President Should be One of its Last,” the scholars discussed the relevance of the current presidential election system in Singapore and floated the idea of returning to an appointed President, emphasizing the symbolic and unifying role of the office.

They highlighted that businessman George Goh appeared to be pursuing the “deliberative track” for qualification, which requires candidates to satisfy the PEC that their experience and abilities are comparable to those of a typical company’s chief executive with shareholder equity of at least S$500 million.

Mr Goh cobbles together a suite of companies under his management to meet the S$500m threshold.

The article also underscored the disparities between the eligibility criteria for candidates from the public and private sectors, serving as proxies for evaluating a candidate’s experience in handling complex financial matters.

“It is hard to see what financial experience the Chairman of the Public Service Commission or for that matter, the Chief Justice has, when compared to a Minister or a corporate chief.”

“The raising of the corporate threshold in 2016 is thus illogical and serves little purpose other than to simply reduce the number of potentially eligible candidates.”

The article also touches upon the issue of candidates’ independence from political parties, particularly the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).

It mentions that candidates are expected to be non-partisan and independent, and it questions how government-backed candidates can demonstrate their independence given their previous affiliations.

The Workers’ Party advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency

It comes as no surprise that Singapore’s alternative party, the Workers’ Party, reaffirmed its stance on 30 August, asserting that they believe the existing qualifying criteria for presidential candidates are skewed in favour of those approved by the People’s Action Party (PAP).

They argue that the current format of the elected presidency (EP) undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy.

“It also serves as an unnecessary source of gridlock – one that could potentially cripple a non-PAP government within its first term – and is an alternative power centre that could lead to political impasses.”

Consistently, the Workers’ Party has been vocal about its objection to the elected presidency and has consistently called for its abolition.

Instead, they advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency, a position they have maintained for over three decades.

Continue Reading

Trending