The Singlish Controversy by Professor Lionel Wee: Chapter 6

People use languages like Singlish. People move around, sometimes even migrating from one country to another. Languages follow, and also cross geographical borders.

This is the phenomenon that this chapter examines.

Incoming!

One possible direction of people movement is inwards, from outside Singapore into Singapore.

Singapore, along with many other developed countries, has been struggling with a low fertility rate for many years. The population is more educated than before, and prioritises career advancement over childbearing.

A low fertility rate means that Singapore's population will not replace itself and will eventually decline. Singapore cannot allow this to happen because human resources are the only resources Singapore has to sustain its economy.

So the Singapore government adopts a strategy of attracting foreign talent. The idea is that by wooing capable and skilled workers to move to Singapore and subsequently become citizens, the shortfall in the fertility rate can be compensated for.

Besides foreign talent, Singapore also brings in lowly paid labourers for jobs such as construction that the educated Singapore populace doesn't want to do.

The effect of this has been an upheaval in the previously established Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others (CMIO) ethnic order. With more and more foreigners from a variety of countries taking up citizenship and even marrying and producing children in Singapore, it's becoming increasingly difficult to categorise people neatly into the CMIO groups. Indeed, the Others category accounted for 3.3% of the population in 2010, a sharp increase from 1.4% in 2000.

In response, the government allowed double-barrelled racial identification in 2011, in which people with mixed parentage could decide to take up both of their parents' races with a hyphen in between.

But this comes with its own set of problems.

For one, the race that comes first takes precedence over the race that comes second for official purposes. So someone with a Chinese father and a Malay mother can choose to call themselves Chinese-Malay or Malay-Chinese. If they opt for "Chinese-Malay", they are regarded as being "more Chinese, less Malay" and will take Chinese as a mother tongue language in school and get financial support from the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC) in times of trouble. If they opt for "Malay-Chinese", they are regarded as being "more Malay, less Chinese" and will take Malay as a mother tongue language in school and get financial support from Mendaki, the equivalent of the CDAC for the Malay community, in times of trouble. This means that having a double-barrelled race is not truly being of mixed heritage from the government's perspective, since there's still a "dominant" race and a "less dominant" one.

Additionally, the government has said that it won't be extending the allowance to more than two races. In other words, it will not be allowing triple-barrelled or quad-barrelled races. This raises questions about how children of parents who themselves have double-barrelled races will be handled, since for example a child of an Indian-Malay father and a Caucasian-Chinese mother could technically identify as any permutation of the four ethnicities, for instance Caucasian-Chinese-Indian-Malay.

The rising proportion of foreigners and citizens of foreign descent poses two challenges for Singapore's language policy.

First, the mother tongue policy is becoming difficult to implement. More people don't fit neatly into the Chinese, Malay, and Indian categories, so they don't have an official mother tongue that can be assigned to them. And because the government insists that mother tongues must be Asian to resist the effects of Westernisation and tie people back to their cultural roots, English cannot serve as a mother tongue. So we have a problem: There are increasing numbers of children of mixed and foreign parentage, including even Westerners, in local schools who are forced to learn mother tongues for the sake of it, even if does not mean anything to them culturally. Related to this, English is losing its neutrality. The government wanted it to be the primary language for communication between all races because it was a non-Asian language and did not "belong" to any of the ethnic groups in Singapore. But now, there are many foreigners, particularly those of Western origin, for whom English is a native language. This calls for a rethink of the government's language policies with regard to the roles of English and the mother tongues.

The second point relates directly to Singlish. Supporters of Singlish have argued that it serves as a marker of the Singapore identity and a unifying force to bind all Singaporeans regardless of background. But if this is so, then the unifying force is slowly weakening as foreigners, who don't come with a ready ability to speak Singlish, "dilute" the Singapore identity. More sinisterly, Singaporeans are using Singlish competence as a shibboleth. A shibboleth is a distinctive characteristic. The ability to speak Singlish is assumed to be a shibboleth that distinguishes a Singaporean from a non-Singaporean. So those who cannot speak Singlish are treated as outsiders. In this way, Singlish has been turned into a weapon. Anti-foreigner sentiments are running higher in Singapore as it is perceived that foreign talent is depriving Singaporeans of jobs. Since Singlish is used to distinguish Singaporeans from non-Singaporeans, those who don't speak Singlish will have a large target painted on their backs. Even Singaporeans who cannot speak Singlish, for example those who grew up overseas before returning to Singapore, as well as Singaporeans who consciously don't use Singlish, are seen as "not Singaporean" and may be the subject of vitriol.

Exodus

Another direction that people move in is outwards, from Singapore to other countries. When this happens, they take Singlish to foreign lands.

In the early days of Singapore, the government was keen to keep Singaporeans rooted physically in Singapore. They built large public housing estates and sold the apartments in these estates at heavily subsidised prices, so that the majority of Singaporeans own their homes. In this way, the government hoped to foster among the people a sense of attachment to Singapore.

With the advent of globalisation, the government's mindset had to adapt to keep up with the times. Singaporeans were increasingly going overseas to work and do business. The physical connection to Singapore soil didn't apply as broadly as before. But the government was still anxious to remind overseas Singaporeans of their identity as Singaporeans. This was largely spurred by pragmatism: Singaporeans who lose sight of their Singaporean identity and renounce citizenship will contribute to brain drain, causing the Singapore workforce to become less talented as a whole.

The government started some initiatives to connect overseas Singaporeans back to their homeland. For example, Singapore Day is a regular event held in major cities such as New York City, London, and Melbourne. During Singapore Day, famous hawkers are flown from Singapore to give overseas Singaporeans a taste of home.

Singlish is often seen and heard at Singapore Day events, with Singaporeans having a "gleeful time" using it with one another. Under normal circumstances, overseas Singaporeans don't get to use Singlish except on the rare occasion that a group of them gets together with no foreigners present.

Interestingly, intermarriages between overseas Singaporeans and foreigners in other countries have taken place. These marriages have allowed Singlish to spread even further. For example, a Malaysian woman who could use Manglish, the Malaysian counterpart to Singlish, moved to Singapore as a young adult to study and begin her career. While in Singapore, she picked up Singlish. Later, she moved again to San Francisco where she married an American. According to her, the American man picked up Singlish from her and uses it "unself-consciously", even to engage in arguments with her as couples do. Hers is not a one-off case. A female Malay Singaporean who married a Swedish man in Stockholm said her husband had learned Singlish through interacting with her and her circle of Singaporean friends in Sweden. Singaporeans in America "noted that some of their American colleagues would express interest in Singlish and would ask for demonstrations of this variety".

The class divide

Supporters of Singlish say that it transcends class boundaries because it is used by Singaporeans from all walks of life, a claim that the government disputes. In reality, Singlish and class are closely linked.

In 1999, then-Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong defined two types of Singaporean: the cosmopolitans and the heartlanders.

The cosmopolitans are the ones who migrate out of Singapore because they have good career opportunities overseas. They are professionals in the banking, IT, engineering, science and technology sectors, and they speak "standard" English as well as their mother tongue.

The heartlanders are from more humble backgrounds. They are taxi-drivers, stallholders, provision shop owners, production workers, and contractors, and none of them leave Singapore because they can't find jobs overseas. Most importantly, they speak Singlish.

Mr Goh explained that both types of Singaporean have a role to play. They support each other. The cosmopolitans bring prosperity to Singapore, which benefits the heartlanders economically. Meanwhile, the heartlanders anchor the cultural roots of Singapore by maintaining the social values that Singaporeans hold dear, so that the cosmopolitans won't lose touch with their inner Singaporean. If the cosmopolitans and the heartlanders go into conflict, Singapore society will crumble, warned Mr Goh.

Problematically, Mr Goh claims that Singlish is a feature of the heartlanders. But the government does use Singlish to communicate with the cosmopolitans too, such as during Singapore Day. And the cosmopolitans use Singlish with one another, as mentioned earlier. So Singlish is used by both heartlanders and cosmopolitans, which means it can indeed transcend class boundaries and bond Singaporeans from various socioeconomic groups.

On the other hand, Singlish supporters say that "Singlish is a language for fun, humour, and one where speakers are also encouraged to deliberately play around with linguistic conventions". But they're failing to acknowledge that the heartlanders use Singlish for more mundane and even serious purposes too, mostly because they lack the ability to use "standard" English. This lack of ability also doesn't allow them to play around with language the way Singlish supporters do. It is this lack that Singlish supporters are citing when they claim that Singlish can bond Singaporeans from various socioeconomic groups. But by their reasoning, only cosmopolitans use Singlish, at least to the fullest extent of being playful with it!

How is it possible for both sides to have such big holes in their arguments? Maybe it's because they have different definitions of what Singlish really is. They can't hold a logical debate if their understanding of the most fundamental issue "What is Singlish?" is extremely divergent.

In the next chapter, which is the last, we will try to figure out the answer to the question "What is Singlish?", as we grapple with the many complicating factors involved such as the ambiguity of the "Singaporean identity" in this globalising world.

The Singlish Controversy by Professor Lionel Wee: Chapter 5

This chapter focuses on the commodification of Singlish.

The word "commodification" comes from "commodity", which refers to something desirable or useful.

Traditionally, we think of commodities as physical goods that can be transferred from one party to another, like gold, silver, wheat, and milk.

But increasingly, people recognise that intangible things can also be commodities. For example, skills are considered commodities even though they cannot be passed from one person to another the same way that physical goods can, because they do meet the basic definition of a commodity: they are useful.

Language is like a skill. It's something you acquire by learning, and you can develop it and become progressively better at it.

In this way, we can think of language as a sort of commodity. This implies that it is useful and/or desirable.

So when we talk about the commodification of language, we're actually referring to the process of making a language useful.

When it comes to Singlish, commodification is especially important to understand because the Singapore government often argues that Singlish is useless.

Is it really so?

Books, films, and plays: Showing off to the world

The Singapore government's claim that outsiders cannot understand and appreciate Singlish has proven to be false.

Many works by Singaporean writers have found global success. For example, The Coxford Singlish Dictionary, a lighthearted repository of Singlish expressions resembling an actual dictionary, was praised as "invaluable" by the Times of London. "Humorous, with lots of cross-cultural wordplay" was the opinion of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Note that these are media outlets in Britain, which is where Singapore often looks to determine what "standard" English is.

Singapore Dreaming was a movie that also attracted critical acclaim. Audiences around the world loved the use of Singlish dialogue. Taiwanese youth started repeating some of their favourite Singlish expressions from the film and were envious that Singapore has its own version of English. American and Spanish viewers could identify with how languages mix together the way they do in Singlish. One reviewer wrote that the use of Singlish in the film allowed him to "understand just how ‘globalized’ Singaporeans really are AND because of its use in the film, the story and characters seemed more familiar" to him.

Online, Singlish has spread quickly thanks to YouTube videos such as Sinful English.

And even universities are getting in on the act, with the University of York putting Singapore You Are Not My Country by Alfian Sa'at on its reading list for literature courses, and lion heart by Amanda Chong being on the syllabus for the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations. These works contain Singlish expressions which literature students are expected to analyse for their deeper meanings.

At home

Numerous works targeted at a more local audience have also been created. For example, Mee Pok Man, Army Daze, and 12 Storeys were films that enjoyed success at the local box office. Because the films were set in Singapore, it was crucial to use Singlish for the dialogue to ensure authenticity.

A book titled Singaporelang - What the Singlish? was published in conjunction with the fiftieth anniversary of Singapore's independence, supported by a government grant. This shows the "schizophrenic attitude towards Singlish on the part of the government", especially in contrast with the banning of Singapore Dreaming from local television because it contained what the government felt was excessive Singlish dialogue.

When the government thinks there is an opportunity for Singlish to be commodified, it is happy to lend its support. The clearest example of this is how the Singapore Tourism Board (STB), an arm of the government, readily promotes Singlish as a unique selling point of Singapore. Its website contains a guide to Singlish and entices visitors to come and hear it for themselves. In this case, Singlish is commodified for economic gain through attracting tourist spending.

Foreigners promoting Singlish

Not only Singaporeans produce works with Singlish. Foreigners are increasingly taking an interest in Singlish as the wealthy city-state attracts more and more expatriates. Some of them are writing about their experiences with Singlish.

For example, a blogger going by the moniker "Aussie Pete" wrote:

As time goes by, and one spends much time living and interracting with the locals (especially outside of the tourist areas), it soon becomes apparent that English alone is not enough to fully converse on local topics. The intent of this post is to offer a guide to non-Singlish speaking people to perhaps better understand what is going on around them.

Another writer Cullen Hartley wrote:

If you’re a soon-to-be expatriate planning a move to Singapore, you have undoubtedly heard of Singlish, the peculiar creole English spoken by most native Singaporeans. It is a mix of Malay, Chinese dialects, and English. Most people who bother to write about Singlish know it well, and they produce in-depth dictionaries cataloging the dialect’s nuances. These books are an ever-present facet of every Singaporean bookstore, and if you want to learn more the material is definitely out there. However, I feel the end result for most foreigners that pick up Singlish dictionaries is terminal information overload. People just don’t learn much from picking up a dictionary. Even-tempered expats become overwhelmed and give up and the more adventurous look silly as they misuse and mispronounce words. (Excuse me, did you see that ang kat makaning char siew cheem bye? Lah-lor.) I don’t claim to be an expert on Singlish, but I will share ten words that I guarantee that you’ll hear in Singapore.

In these examples, we can see non-Singaporeans trying to pass on their understanding of Singlish to other non-Singaporeans. Singlish has become more than a marker of Singaporean identity. It can be actively used and exchanged by non-Singaporeans too, taking on a more commodity-like character.

We will explore the impact of non-Singaporeans on Singlish further in the next chapter.

The Singlish Controversy by Professor Lionel Wee: Chapter 4

This chapter addresses the "who" in the Singlish debate: Who are the debaters? Who is left out?

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.