In any debate, there will be more than one party. Each party has a voice. This isn't the literal sound that comes out from your throat. Voice in this context refers to the characteristics attached to a certain group of people when it speaks.
For example, academics such as professors and researchers are stereotyped as having their heads in the clouds, only capable of talking about theories but unable to apply them in the real world. This causes academics to have a reputation for being "ivory tower thinkers". That's their voice.
Another example: men are thought of as more rational while women are thought of as more emotional. In matters of the head, men tend to have a stronger voice and their opinions carry more weight. In matters of the heart, women have the stronger voice and people are more likely to listen to them.
Sometimes, people who have a stake in the debate don't have a voice. This means that they don't get to air their views. Obviously this is not fair because their interests are not represented. The term for this category of people is subaltern.
In the Singlish debate, the subaltern consists of people who can only speak Singlish because they didn't have access to adequate education in "standard" English.
Why is this so? The Singlish debate usually takes place in the media. For example, letters are written to the Forum page of The Straits Times stating arguments for and against Singlish. In recent years, the debate has gone online, with blog articles, forum posts, and Facebook pages popping up to attack and defend the local variety.
The common thread running through all these platforms is that they require contributions to be in more or less "standard" English. Even Facebook comments have to be written coherently, otherwise they won't be read by others.
In this way, people who cannot use "standard" English are precluded from participating in these discussions, even though they are also involved in everyday life in Singapore and should have a say.
Their views are instead represented by other parties, namely those with a command of "standard" English who actively participate in the debate. These parties speak on behalf of the subaltern. But this is problematic because they are not themselves the subaltern, and so can never truly understand and appreciate the subaltern's point of view.
We'll come back to the subaltern later, after we look at who are these active participants in the Singlish debate.
Who's talking?
The three parties in the Singlish debate are government officials, academics, and personalities from the creative and media industries such as DJs, filmmakers, authors, and bloggers.
What links all three is that they are highly educated. But they don't always have to take the same stand. For example, it doesn't mean that just because one is an academic, one is automatically pro-Singlish. Indeed, Koh Tai Ann was a professor of English literature at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and chairman of the Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) in 2005 when she said:
Singaporeans are perhaps too comfortable in their Singlish clothes. Even though T-shirts or housecoats might be improper attire for formal occasions, they still wear the linguistic equivalent when they meet visitors and at such occasions.
But in 2011, she became sympathetic towards the Singlish cause, saying:
Singlish should not be regarded as deviant and not ‘proper’ English, but as a spoken variety that has developed alongside the standard ‘proper’ English learnt in schools. Otherwise, we do ourselves a disservice by giving Singlish an odour of inferiority and shame.
A 2016 newspaper report on the inclusion of Singlish words in the updated Oxford English Dictionary (OED) contained quotes from: a poet, literary critic, and literature professor at the National University of Singapore (NUS); an author and columnist; a schoolteacher; an account manager; two students; a pair of filmmakers and authors; the then-chairman of SGEM; and the World English editor at OED who explained that the Singlish terms had been added because there was evidence that they were being widely used in published works such as books and plays.
Excluding the remarks by the chairman of SGEM which reiterated the government's anti-Singlish stance, the comments were largely welcoming of the move by OED. The strongest supporters were the poet and authors Gwee Li Sui, Colin Goh, and Sylvia Toh. They are part of the so-called Singlitterati, an exclusive group of practitioners in the artistic and literary fields who enjoy playing around with and promoting the use of Singlish.
This is noteworthy because the Singlitterati has been instrumental in the progress that Singlish has made in terms of acceptance by both locals and foreigners. Members of the Singlitterati produce books, poems, and scripts that make ample use of Singlish, and it was these books, poems, and scripts that convinced OED to include Singlish words.
Seizing on this, the government points out that pro-Singlish debaters, especially the Singlitterati, are being irresponsible towards their fellow Singaporeans who don't have as good a command of English as they do. In the wake of OED's announcement, Gwee Li Sui laid out the arguments in favour of Singlish in a commentary in the New York Times. It provoked a prickly retort from Li Lin Chang, press secretary to the prime minister, published in the same newspaper:
Standard English is vital for Singaporeans to earn a living and be understood not just by other Singaporeans but also English speakers everywhere. But English is not the mother tongue of most Singaporeans. For them, mastering the language requires extra effort. Using Singlish will make it harder for Singaporeans to learn and use standard English. Not everyone has a PhD in English Literature like Mr Gwee, who can code-switch effortlessly between Singlish and standard English, and extol the virtues of Singlish in an op-ed written in polished standard English.
In this line of reasoning, the government is concerned about the group of Singaporeans who don't use "standard" English not because they don't want to, but because they simply cannot. This is the subaltern mentioned earlier. By creating an environment where Singlish is widely used and even condoned, Singlitterati members are depriving such Singaporeans of the chance to learn and practise "standard" English.
Spoken for and spoken about, but never heard
The subaltern is spoken for and spoken about, but it is almost never heard from directly. This is the very definition of a subaltern. It is of such low status that it is seen as incapable of speaking for itself.
In the case of the Singlish debate, the subaltern is talked about by both sides. Of course, the two sides have opposite agendas so they speak of the subaltern differently, but there is one striking similarity: the subaltern is almost always presented as consisting of working-class people such as hawkers. Such workers are regarded as poorly educated and less wealthy because the jobs that they do require few qualifications and pay rather badly. This places them on a lower rung of the socioeconomic ladder. And because they lack much education, they can't speak "standard" English.
Three examples illustrate this point. On the anti-Singlish side, we have then-Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lee Boon Yang whose speech in 2003 contained the following:
It is not uncommon to hear some Singaporeans speak impeccable English when they are at work, or with their friends. But when they are speaking to a hawker at the hawker center or to a sales person in a shopping mall, they lapse into broken, ungrammatical English. It would appear that they do this so that people will not think that they are arrogant or that they are ‘westernized’. This in itself is not a bad attitude. It reflects consideration for the other person’s feelings. However, this practice, despite having a well-meant face saving reason, may inadvertently be perpetuating bad English. We should make an effort to arrest this trend. We must make speaking good English acceptable at all levels. Those who already speak good English should not be shy about doing so. In the same way you would not speak broken English to a child learning to speak, you would not want to pass on bad speaking habits to those whose command of the English language is not so good. If you can speak good English, please speak out at all times. This way those who do not speak English well can learn from those who do – not the other way around. In fact, I believe that the fastest way to speak good English is to have lots of opportunities to hear good English spoken around us.
Besides noting how the figures of a hawker and salesperson are used to portray situations in which Singlish is used, note also the infantilisation of the subaltern in the sentence: "In the same way you would not speak broken English to a child learning to speak, you would not want to pass on bad speaking habits to those whose command of the English language is not so good." Effectively, the Minister was saying that people with a poorer command of English are like children. This comes across as being quite offensive and insulting.
On the pro-Singlish side, we have the food blogger KF Seetoh who in 2014 waxed lyrical about the joys of learning Singapore hawker culture from a "Singlish-spewing, Chinese-educated, local Ah Pek (old uncle) trying his level best in his brand of English to ensure you get your food and seat fast and comfortably".
Finally, a relatively neutral perspective from a foreign blogger using the pen name Limpeh, a Hokkien phrase now adopted into Singlish meaning "your father":
Whether or not you need to speak standard English (as opposed to Singlish) depends on your personal circumstances. If you were representing your company internationally, attending major sales meetings in New York, London and Sydney, then you need to be able to communicate clearly in a way that best represents your company – if you are in this position, then hell no, you can’t speak Singlish to foreigners who will not understand you. But if you are selling laksa in a hawker center in Ang Mo Kio, then Singlish will serve you just fine – the odds of an American, British or Australian tourist finding their way to a hawker center on Ang Mo Kio street 61 is extremely slim, so why the hell would that laksa hawker need to speak proper English (or even any English at all)?
All three examples show people with higher education and a command of English, referring to the stereotypical image of a Singlish-speaking hawker as a member of the subaltern.
The Singlish debate is rife with further examples showing how the course of the discussions over the years has been heavily influenced by people in privileged positions such as those in the government and Singlitterati.
The Singlitterati portrays Singlish as humorous, fun, and informal through creative works like the book The Coxford Singlish Dictionary and the play Army Daze. But they are capable of doing so because of their better command of language. It's not likely that the subaltern uses Singlish in a similarly humorous and fun way.
On the other hand, the government portrays Singlish as undesirable because it hurts the subaltern's ability to learn "standard" English. But the subaltern itself never made that claim. Additionally, the claim assumes that "standard" English is something that must be learned formally and in a rigorous way such as through classroom instruction and conscientious practice in public, unlike Singlish which is made out to be very easy to pick up naturally through everyday interactions. Speakers who can code-switch are portrayed as doing a disservice to those who can't by removing opportunities for code-switching practice. But this begs the question: How did the code-switchers learn the skill in the first place? Presumably, they grew up in Singapore and were exposed to the same environment that tolerates Singlish, so what is it that enabled them to code-switch where others can't? Discovering the answer might allow us to craft language and education policies that accommodate both Singlish as well as "standard" English.
What to do?
Now that we're aware of the existence of the subaltern, it's natural to ask what we should do about it.
We can't solve the problem by simply asking the subaltern members for their opinions. As mentioned earlier, the Singlish debate is conducted in "standard" English, not Singlish. And subaltern members are subaltern members precisely because they can't use "standard" English. Using Singlish to give their views is not a good option either. Singlish is now associated with humour and being uncouth, thanks to the way Singlish speakers are portrayed in popular media including works produced by the Singlitterati. If subaltern members attempt to represent themselves using Singlish, they won't be taken seriously.
Subaltern members also can't first learn "standard" English beforehand and then go on to represent the subaltern in the debate, because the very act of learning "standard" English would render them no longer members of the subaltern and no longer representative of the subaltern's point of view.
For example, the government claims that people with both "standard" English and Singlish in their repertoires who choose to code-switch into Singlish are being irresponsible towards their fellow Singaporeans who can only speak Singlish, because these Singlish-only speakers won't be able to learn "standard" English and will be economically disadvantaged because they won't be able to do high-paying jobs.
If a subaltern member goes out and learns "standard" English, it will only serve to validate the government's claim that Singlish was previously holding that person back from learning "standard" English. The only type of subaltern member that could possibly falsify the government's claim that Singlish leads to low socioeconomic performance is someone who is rich and speaks nothing but Singlish. Happily enough, there are such people around. Some famous hawkers earn plenty of money from the roaring business they do each day, and they don't even need "good" English, or any English at all if they transact entirely in other languages. But these people are few and far between. The typical subaltern member stays true to the image of the subaltern: someone who can speak only Singlish and is from a humble background.
Unfortunately, there's no way to effectively deal with the subaltern. We just have to keep it in mind in future as the debate rages on, constantly subjecting the various points raised to careful scrutiny to see if they are missing the point of view of these "voiceless people".
The next chapter deals with the commodification of Singlish: how it has been turned from something with seemingly no value to something valuable in more ways than one.
No comments:
Post a Comment