National Identity Vs. International Intelligibility: A Preliminary Discourse on Singapore English

On the other hand, Jonathan Schoeder, a Fulbright scholar in English literature who worked as a research assistant with several professors and who read writings and critical works in Singaporean literature at the National University of Singapore said that: “Although English has been the language of instruction in Singapore for nearly thirty years because the institution of English as a national language is a fairly recent phenomenon, people’s English away from the classroom is not very pure.”

Analyzing various works by Singaporean poets and writers, Schoeder discovered “how these works negotiate the tremendous difficulty of establishing a style and a voice where no written equivalent existed before.” Specifically, Schoeder found out that the inability of Singaporeans to create national identity may be characterized with the concept of amnesia, which is parallel to the process of destruction and reconstruction of Singapore and its body of literature that has struggled through times of colonization, modernization, and hybrid cultural identities bridging the East and the West.

PEDAGOGICAL ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS

Unlike Laos, Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, Indonesia, and Cambodia where English is a foreign language, English in Singapore, like Malaysia, the Philippines, and Brunei Darussalam, is a second language, and significantly, is associated strongly with its colonial past (Ho).

In Singapore, children learn English from a very early age, even before attending primary school. At the primary school stage, children learn and utilize English and their mother tongues. English is the language of instruction for all academic subjects, except their mother tongue and moral education, in all schools, colleges, and universities (Ho).

In 1991, Singapore introduced a revised English curriculum that represents a breakaway from the old structural prescriptive curriculum implemented primarily in teaching and in learning English grammar. The revised curriculum allows teachers to use different teaching strategies, approaches, and methodologies to meet the needs of their pupils and students and encourages a more holistic or integrated view of language that emphasize the integration of the four language skills-reading, writing, listening, and speaking. The philosophy of the revised curriculum may be represented in a number of key words: fluency, accuracy, integration, interaction, and contextualization (Ho).

It is important to mention that the implementation of the revised curriculum was preceded by the Reading and English Acquisition Project where new strategies, approaches, and methodologies in teaching and in learning the language were tried and tested in primary schools. Later, when the curriculum was revised, some of these strategies, approaches, and methodologies were used in school-based in-service training for teachers. This sequence of project development, project evaluation, school-based in-service training, and revised curriculum implementation is an important feature of language curriculum planning and development in the country (Ho).

Results of the International Evaluation of Education Achievement project on reading literacy conducted in 31 countries in 1991 shows that Singaporean pupils and student’s level of achievement of literacy in English is compared with those of Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States where English is their native language (Ho).

SOCIO-POLITICAL ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS

In 1942, after the Fall of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, Wang Gungwu, and Lim Thean Soo understood the necessity of making a Malayan eloquence and the necessity to articulate an ideology that would unite and embrace different ethnic minorities into one nation, one destiny. Consequently, they chose to articulate their ideologies in English, though it was the colonial master’s tongue, because it does not carry racial connotation like other ethnic languages, at least not in the socio-political context of the Singapore (Cheong).

For Lee Kuan Yew, English crosses pluralistic boundaries and remains one of the least ambiguous legacies of the British Empire (Cheong). Knowing that Singapore English is a “bad English” or a “broken English” or a “low prestige dialect” (Richardson), he emphasized that “if Singapore is to continue as a successful international center for trade and finance, English, the international language, should be learned at schools (The Language: Singaporean English).”

Decades later, Lee Kuan Yew affirmed the role of the English language in the modernization of Singapore in the October 16, 1999 issue of Singapore, Inc. He said that it was accidental that the British left behind the legacy of the English language and that they decided to stay with the English language though Malaysia decided to return to their mother tongue. This decision has turned out to be an immense advantage for building the nation, its own brand name, and its professional disciplines, such as law, engineering, accountancy, among others (The Management of Multilingual and Multicultural Communities in Singapore).

The dominant role of the English language in rearing educated leaders through various educational projects and programs led to the foundation of a linguistically empowered society that wields on social, political, and economic stability. Failure to learn and to master the English language in school and the prevalent use of Singapore English had led to a “neutered pidgin” language variety. Though Singapore English is a witty, colorful, inventive, charming, and a mildly romantic language, Singaporean government officials argue that “neutered pidgin” retards progress as it is a form of linguistic inbreeding.

In an article published in Singaporean daily newspapers on April 29, 2000, a copy of which I retrieved on the Internet, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong urged Singaporeans to speak Standard English and to give up the popular but corrupted Singapore English. Prime Minister Goh argued that “If we speak corrupted form of English that is not understood by others, we will lose our key competitive advantage. My concern is that if we continue to speak Singapore English, it will over time, become Singapore’s common language” (PM Goh calls on citizens to do away with Singlish).

Singapore English, Goh explained, used Chinese syntax and literal translation of Chinese phrases that resulted in sentences that are “truncated and ungrammatical and often incomprehensible especially to foreigners.” Goh said that he was impressed with the “elegant English” of his Zimbabwean golf caddy, who, after a game asked him: “Would you have some balls to spare me?” and that Goh gave him his entire used and unused golf ball. “In Singapore English,” Goh said “it would be “Got old balls give me can or not?”” (PM Goh calls on citizens to do away with Singlish).

In 2002, Singaporean government officials unintentionally made cinematic history when they slapped Talking Cock: The Movie with an NC-17 rating, meaning children under 17-years-old cannot watch it, because of awful grammar and not because of sex, violence, or profanity. In “Letter from Singapore: A War of Words Over Singlish” published by Time Magazine on July 29, 2002, a copy of which, again, I retrieved in the Internet, one Singaporean argued that despite the wicked title, the movie is nothing but an inoffensive slapstick comedy chronicling the lives of ordinary Singaporeans. Government officials also banned the 15-second television advertisement endorsing and promoting the movie because of excessive use of Singapore English.

For Singaporeans, Singapore English is a witty, colorful, inventive, charming, and a mildly romantic language, and though Goh said that “Poor English reflects badly on us and makes us seem less intelligent or competent,” others argued that Singapore English is crude because it is rooted in the country’s unglamorous past. They asserted that Singapore is a nation built from the sweat of uncultured immigrants who “bust their assess in the boisterous port” and that Singapore English grew out of the hardships of their ancestors and is an important component in the unique melting pot that is Singapore, a city where skyscrapers outclass lowly boats, a city where locals peddle steaming pig intestines beside restaurants that serves delectable cuisine.

In the interest of promoting equality and better communication with the rest of the world (Wikipedia Encyclopedia) and the desire to achieve a balance between national identity and international intelligibility, Singaporean government officials launched the Speak Good English Movement to promote Standard Singaporean English and to eradicate Singapore English or Colloquial Singapore English, at least from formal situations (Wikipedia Encyclopedia and National University of Singapore). However, linguists and sociologists debate whether English must be used as a paradigm of homogeneity for national identity or international intelligibility (The Management of Multilingual and Multicultural Communities in Singapore)? In conclusion, Prof. David Cystal pointed out that the need for national identity and international intelligibility often pulls people and countries in opposing directions. The former motivated the promotion of an ethnic culture and language while the latter motivates the learning of English as a second and international language necessary for international trade and understanding.

To speak Singlish or not to speak Singlish? That is the question, and Singaporeans must answer.