Introduction
Amidst third-world countries in Asia, Singapore stands out as a cosmopolitan city frequented by tourists from all over the world. Its multicultural population contributes to its progressive economy. It is swiftly becoming one of the world’s hubs for industrial, technical, technological, and educational advances and resources.
Languages in Singapore
From the time it was founded as Singapura in 1819, it has been a multilingual society. Four official languages were constitutionally enshrined namely: English, Malay (also the de jure national language), Mandarin, and Tamil, all belonging to different language families and having different literary traditions. These languages represent a medley drawn from the three identifiable ethnic groups, Chinese (77%), Malay (15%), and Indian (7%), and other groups such as the Eurasians, Armenians, Jews, and Parsees (1%). In addition to Tamil (which is an official language), Malayalam and Telegu are the two other Dravidian languages spoken in Singapore. Five other South Asian ethnic languages are represented in the school system: Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi, and Gujerati, all belonging to the Indo-Aryan family of languages. The main Chinese dialects spoken by older Singaporeans are Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese, Hakka, and Hainanese. According to Pakir (1999), the language policy in Singapore has had to serve multiple purposes:
- provide for rapid economic development for a small country that has no hinterland and no natural resources except its people;
- promote a common mode of communication among its heterogeneous ethnic groups;
- promote a common mode of communication within its largest ethnic group, the Chinese, with five main dialects (not mutually intelligible) represented in the population;
- give official recognition to the linguistic and cultural pluralism within the nation;
- cultivate a Singaporean identity and loyalty, one drawing from its Asian and Southeast Asian heritage;
- integrate into a region that is predominantly Malay speaking;
- expedite strong international links and regional exchange. (Pakir, 1999)
This paper aims to investigate if the foregoing purposes are being currently served and to critically evaluate the role of the English Language in Singapore.
Historical Background
“The English language is a West Germanic language that originated in England. It is the third most common first language (native speakers), with around 402 million people in 2002. English as lingua franca (diplomatic language) status in many parts of the world, due to the military, economic, scientific, political, and cultural influence of the United Kingdom in the 18th and 19th centuries and the United States beginning in the 20th century. It is the most widely-learned language among those learning any second language.” (www.historymania.com). Although some nations like Malaysia and India tried to move away from English towards their indigenous languages in the postcolonial years, the pragmatism of learning has prevailed. Because of a global need to learn English, it is becoming one of the boom businesses in Asia, usually taught by nonnative speakers from Cambodia to Indonesia. No education is complete today without the study of English. (Mydans, 2001).
In his parliamentary speech in 1986, then Singapore minister for education, Tony Tan Keng Yam said: “Our policy of bilingualism that each child should learn English and his mother tongue, I regard as a fundamental feature of our education system. Children must learn English so that they will have a window to the knowledge, technology, and expertise of the modern world. They must know their mother tongues to enable them to know what makes us what we are” This language policy of Singapore has evolved in its early modern history as an independent nation, lacking every natural resource except its people, who come from a migrant stock of Chinese and Indians and others coming to the city port and its indigenous Malay population. “The racial, cultural, and linguistic mosaic of Singapore underscores the importance of language management throughout the educational system in the country. Much of the success of language management in Singapore is the result of a long-standing policy of multiracialism, multiculturalism, and multilingualism.” (Pakir, 1999). English was chosen as the working language, being “neutral” because it was not the language of any of the three major ethnic groups (Malay, Chinese & Indian).
The bilingual policy placed English as the official language that the whole population should know.
English-knowing bilingualism has been reaping benefits for Singaporeans who have geared themselves to meeting global challenges. In the 1990s, the latest developments in nation-building have begun emphasizing a corporate outlook and regionalism directly related to the use of the English language. “The younger generation is tied to the pragmatics of English-knowing bilingualism because they are the immediate witnesses of the rise of English as a new global force in the period of the second Diaspora of English (Kachru 1992). The emphasis on the pursuit of excellence in the country has been made possible with a large part of the population, now almost 80%, having some command of English”. (Pakir, 1999).
Linguistic Aspect
The multilingualism of Singapore has given birth to a colloquial language mostly spoken by the English-knowing public. Known as “Singlish” (short for Singapore English), it differs from English in rhythm and intonation, stress patterns, vowel length, and quality, and sometimes also word order. “It is the nature of widely spoken languages to fragment into dialects, then into new languages, as Latin did into French, Italian, Spanish and others.” (Mydans, 2001) The same is true with English, as more and more countries are adapting it to their languages. “As they emerge, the world’s various Englishes reflect the needs, personality and linguistic roots of their home ground.” (Mydans, 2001).
“Singlish boasts several Malay and Chinese words and ‘punctuation’, the most common are words like ‘lah’ or ‘meh’ at the end of a sentence or expressions like ‘ahlahma’ “(XpatXperience, n.d.). “These are a small set of words, mostly loans from Southern varieties of Chinese, which are used to indicate the attitude of speakers to what they are saying. In particular, they contradict what an interlocutor has said, make an assertion, or add a sense of tentativeness (Gupta 1992). They are often utterance final. The most common are ah (tentative), lah (assertive ), and what (contradictory).” (Gupta, 2000). An example of its use to be more emphatic is, “Her price is too high for me lah.!”
In cases when a subject can be assumed from the context, it gets left out in the expression. “OK, fly away already. ( it got left out) or “Still got a fever?” (the subject you got left out.).
Certain conditional and temporal clauses, where Standard English would have if or when, do not require conjunction in Singapore Colloquial English, e.g. “You do that I hit you.” Other examples: “You put there, then how to go up?” (the conjunction If is not required); “Disturb him again, I call Daddy to come down”. (If you…)
Where Standard English requires a part of the verb BE, Singapore Colloquial English has the option of omitting it. Examples are as follows (^ indicates where BE would occur in Standard English):
“He ^ scared. “; “Today I ^ going swimming.” ; “Flower ^ there ah.” (Gupta, 2000).
Although Singlish seems like “bastardized” English to standard English users, from a linguist’s point of view, every permutation of the English language is equally valid. “One of the things about world English, as a principle, is that English now belongs to everyone who uses it, not just to native speakers, so a user of Singlish is as correct as you are in the sense that he knows what he wants to say and identifies with his audience.” (Smith as mentioned in Mydans, 2001).
Educational Implications
Singapore’s educational system is gaining world recognition for its high quality. Literacy, numeracy, bilingualism, physical and moral education are emphasized in Singapore’s education system. In its evolution towards excellence, three foci have remained constant. “First is the aspiration to provide the best form of education in the different phases of Singapore’s development, and the second is to ensure that education served the purpose of national cohesion. A third constant has been to ensure that the schooling population is given the opportunity to become bilingual in English and a mother tongue.” (Pakir, 1999). “The bilingual policy requires each child to learn English and his or her mother tongue to ensure proficiency in English (the language of commerce, technology, and administration) and their mother tongue (the language of respective cultural heritage).” (US English Foundation, n.d.)This last focus engages parents to support language learning management even in the home setting.
Students are exposed to the English language at the start of their formal schooling. Lee Kwan Yew, the main architect of the bilingual education policy believes that learning a second language early on leads to higher proficiency. He declares, “Language is a key to the acquisition of knowledge. If a student is unable to understand a language, then he is unable to receive information or knowledge in that language. It is therefore crucial that a breakthrough must be made in the English language as early in life as possible.” (as cited in Platt, 1982).
Although a high premium is put on bilingualism, Singapore’s policy does not provide education in two languages instructing both simultaneously. Instead, each language is allotted a certain number of hours during the day. Pakir notes that “there is a constant desire to upgrade English skills and mother tongue proficiency, and the desire is translated into gate-keeping procedures in terms of student admission to higher levels of education, for example, secondary school to junior college and from a junior college to university entrance.” (Pakir, 1999). Hence, ambitious Singaporean students strive to be proficient in both to gain access to portals of higher learning.
Economic Function
English has become the multinational language of the twentieth century. It has been both the cause and effect of globalization and internationalization. It is predicted to remain as the global language for big business, the language of e-commerce, and the language of knowledge-based economies in the decades to follow. English is needed to disseminate the rapid rate of innovations in information technology.
It is the main language represented on the World Wide Web as 84% of all estimated servers have English as the main language of their home pages. “Singaporeans wanting to plug into the international grid of trade, finance, industry, and scientific advancement will do so in English.” (Pakir, 1999). On top of that, they are realizing the importance of learning the language (as well as their ethnic language) due to the strong economic growth of the region. “The future of English in Singapore is potentially bright because it serves the Republic’s purposes. It is the neutral language for the country; it is the official language of the Association for southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)” (Pakir, 1999).
The concern for connecting to the world in a global community while maintaining one’s cultural roots and identity has given birth to the concept of English in Singapore as being “glocal”. Derived from the words “global” and “local”, it makes for greater awareness of intercultural and cross-cultural exchanges. It indicates that one has to be open to new ideas and yet be embedded in one’s own culture. Today, the call is for citizens of all nations is to “Think globally, act locally.” (Pakir, 1999). Indeed, heeding such a call will have great implications on economic development while fostering nationalism for one’s country.
Social Effects
Since the relevance of learning the English language has become increasingly palpable in Singapore, more and more people are switching to its usage. Encouraged by the fact that “English-knowing bilinguals govern the country, walk the corridors of power, preside at boardroom meetings, teach in schools and rule in the courts of law,” (Pakir, 1999) parents are more convinced of sending their children to good English-medium schools and train them at home by speaking the language themselves. However, the inevitable concern about the relationship between language and culture presents itself. Will the young become bilingual and bicultural, or bilingual while remaining monocultural? This leads to an identity crisis that Singaporeans may be prone to, being in the unique situation they are in. It is pragmatic to want English as a tool rather than a tie, as Singapore wants it to serve a utilitarian but not an emotional purpose. One possible solution is to “nativize” English to carry the identity of its speakers. “When the language shows productive processes that mark its nativization when it can carry different identities through the specific nativization processes, and when it is a language that is distinct within its new context, English may come to be accepted as one that can represent different national identities.” (Pakir, 1999).
The proliferation of the Colloquial Singaporean English (CSE) as known to academicians, or simply “Singlish” to most Singaporeans has created quite a debatable issue among its avid users and advocates of standard, “proper” English. To some, Singlish has been hailed as a unifying force that helps generate social cohesion to connect the different races and bring them together as Singaporeans. It has even come to the point of being an icon of national identity. A Singlish user enthuses, “Singlish is a mark of how we have evolved as a nation and should surely have a place in our culture.
Embracing Singlish as part of our heritage is not self-deception.” (Lee, 2000).
The fear of falling standards in the use of proper English that is universally acceptable has prompted Singaporean leaders to launch the Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) in 2000. This was inspired by the highly successful Speak Mandarin campaign which promoted the use of the more formal Chinese language and the gradual obliteration of other Chinese dialects. The SGEM, on the other hand, entailed determined and vigorous efforts to promote the use of Standard English among Singaporeans and decrease the use of Singlish.
Given global expectations of effective communication, the leaders deemed it essential for their citizens to comply with higher and more universally accepted standards of the language.
Now, the controversy of English use has given it an ambivalent reputation with both unifying yet divisive characteristics. It has also caused social class differentiation, creating a gap between the upwardly mobile English-knowing elite and the disadvantaged peasants who lack the necessary financial resources to avail themselves of services in learning the language.
Another pair of opposing camps associated with the use of the English language is the ‘cosmopolitans’, Standard English users who generate wealth and extend the country’s economic reach, versus the ‘heartlands, – those who form the core of Singapore’s social values and stability. (Rubdy, 2001). The issues fought for by these two camps are causing much confusion and in a sense, an identity crisis among Singaporeans. While English has been assigned to be the working language in Singapore because of its neutrality and usefulness in serving Singapore’s practical needs, it is also seen as a medium to let in Western decadent values and undesirable influences (brought on by English media upholding liberated themes not aligned to the most conservative Asian value system) to which the ‘heartlands are opposed to. Hence, the need to promote the mother tongues which are argued to be the bearers of traditional Asian values. (Rubdy, 2001).
Some people are uncomfortable with the choice of English as a symbol of identity. Pennycook’s questions invite deep reflection: “How can one deal with a language that is both a neutral medium for development and the bearer of foreign and undesirable values?
How can one develop an attachment towards a national language (which English unofficially undoubtedly is) which is linked only to economic success?” (Pennycook, 1994). This is linked to the perennial Western vs. Eastern value systems and science and technological advances vs. preservation of cultural issues.
Such complicated effects of English on a nation’s people are difficult to have foreseen when it simply stemmed from a noble intention of maintaining the rich multiculturalism of Singapore while attempting to promote a common communication vehicle among the different ethnic groups. More challenging questions come to the fore. “Now, Singapore seems on an unalterable course from diverse multilingualism to more uniform bilingualism in English and one other official language. As the trend toward English and official languages continue, will Singapore become more of a monolingual English-speaking country, with mother tongues reduced to a school subject only? Will Chinese dialects and Indian vernaculars disappear altogether or enjoy a symbolic revival? Will a shift to English dominance impair the transmission of traditional values to the next generation?” (Dixon, 2003).
Upon scrutinizing the effects of the English language on Singapore, it has been clarified that the language policy of the country has indeed served the purposes for which it has been created. Further, the author has come to realize how such a policy has created a complicated tapestry of interwoven issues in the socio-cultural, educational, and economic dimensions of Singapore society.
References
Dixon, LQ. (2003) “The bilingual education policy in Singapore: Implications for second language acquisition” Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism.
Gupta, A.F. (2000) “Features of Singapore Colloquial English”. 2007. Web.
Kachru, B. B. (1992) “The second diaspora of English”. In T. W. Machan and C. T. Scotts (eds.), English in its social contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 230–252.
Lee, K.Y. “From third world to first: the Singapore story: 1965-2000” New York: Harper Collins.
Mydans, S. (2001), “Nations in Asia give English their own flavorful quirks” 2007. Web.
Pakir, A. (1999) “Bilingual education with English as an official language: Sociocultural implications, Georgetown University Round Table On Languages And Linguistics. Georgetown University Press/ Digital Georgetown and the Department of Languages and Linguistics.
Pennycook, A. (1994) The cultural politics of English as an international language. Harlow: Longman.
Platt, J.T. (1982) “Bilingual language policies in a multilingual nation: Singapore”. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 5, pp. 17-20.
Rubdy, R. (2001) “Creative destruction: Singapore’s Speak Good English Movement” World Englishes Vol 20 No. 3 pp. 341-355.
U.S.ENGLISH Foundation, Inc. (n.d.) “Language Research: Language in everyday life: The use of language in everyday life, e.g. education, broadcasting, and other”. 2007. Web.
Xpat xperience (n.d.). 2007. Web.