[lg policy] Singapore: Let ’s not forget our multilingual roots

Thu Dec 10 14:50:44 UTC 2009

Let’s not forget our multilingual roots
Thursday, 10 December 2009, 9:35 am
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.

Related Posts
Singapore: Multiculturalism or the melting pot?
Make mandarin compulsory for all
MM Lee: My insistence on bilingualism was wrong
A response to MM Lee’s private secretary on dialects
Should the use of dialects be encouraged once more?

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/lets-not-forget-our-multilingual-roots/
-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal.
(H. Schiffman, Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list