Introduction

 

Since Singapore achieved independence in 1965, the government has established Singapore as a disciplined, orderly, rugged, efficient and controlled nation where individuality and alternative expressions of national and personal identity are discouraged (Chua 1995). With such a mindset in place, former Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew has personally developed very particular ideas about language and about how these meanings of language further his view of what is a good society and how that society is to be understood (Bokhorst-Heng 1999).

The production and reproduction of these language ideologies find their avenues in the annual Speak Mandarin Campaign (SMC). The SMC is aimed at the Chinese, the largest ethnic group in Singapore with the goal of stimulating the use of one standardised language variety, that being Mandarin Chinese, as opposed to the many Chinese dialects spoken by members of that group in Singapore. The ultimate effect that is hoped to be achieved is the homogenisation of the Chinese community, which is seen as a necessary cornerstone for building a multicultural, pluralist Singaporean nation (Bokhorst-Heng 1999).

[Back to Top]

Sociolinguistic Background

 The Singapore population consists of 77.4 percent Chinese. In the 1957 census, 11 Chinese dialects were identified as mother-tongues: 39.8 percent claimed Hokkien to be their mother-tongue, 22.6 percent Teowchew, 20 percent Cantonese, 6.8 percent Hainanese, 6.1 percent Hakka, and the remaining 4.7 percent other Chinese and Malaysian dialects. Since independence in 1965, the government has attempted to reduce this linguistic diversity and to homogenize the Chinese community. Government leaders have argued that this diversity is incompatible with the goals of nation-building and have developed policies specifically aimed at solving the problems posed for the nation from such diversity. The Chinese community has especially been targeted because it is particularly divided in its heterogeneity.

Policy of Multilingualism

The Singapore government has developed a policy of “pragmatic multilingualism” where it prescribes four official languages (Malay, English, Chinese and Tamil), to be treated equally. Of these four languages, Malay is designated as the national language (Kuo and Jernudd 1988)

Mandarin Chinese, while not the mother tongue for the majority of Chinese in Singapore, was chosen to represent the largest ethnic community in Singapore because of historical and political considerations. Apart from the sentimental appeal as a language associated with Chinese culture and traditions, Mandarin is also promoted for its increasing importance as a trade language which facilitates access to the expanding market in China (Kuo and Jernudd 1988).

Mother-tongues act as languages of identity, of ethnicity and of culture. They are the languages of good values and in the words of Lee Kuan Yew, “a whole philosophy of life” and “while English is for new knowledge, to support the development of a modern industrial nation, mother tongue is for old knowledge, to keep the people anchored and focused amidst the changes around them” (ST 24 November 1979). They are languages of national cohesian. According to MP Dr. Ow Chin Hock, there is no such thing as a Chinese community in Singapore. Rather, “there are three sub-communities: the English educated Chinese, the Chinese educated, and the less educated, dialect-speaking Chinese” (ST 16 October 1990).

Special attention has been given to the Chinese because there was nothing within the community to unite them, making the re-ethnification of the Chinese community paramount. It was in this context of crisis intervention that Lee Kwan Yew launched in 1979 what has become an annual Speak Mandarin Campaign.

[Back to Top]

Language Planning in Education

In Singapore, general goals and guidelines of language-related policies are expressed in policy speeches by political leaders. There does not exist in Singapore a separate and permanent language planning agency to deal with language problems at the state level. In implementation, the Ministry of Education is most directly and explicitly involved in language planning. It is in the education system that the government’s role in language planning is most clearly manifested.

Before 1965, there were four more or less independent school systems, each with a different language as the major medium of instruction. The Ministry of Education since then has consolidated the schools of different language streams into a national education curricular system where English is the medium used in all classes except when special considerations warrant the use of one of the other official languages.

Under the policy of bilingual education, all students are required to take lessons in English as a first language and one of the other official languages as the second language according to their ethnic identity. In the case of Chinese students, they are required to attain the minimum language requirement of a pass in Mandarin to be admitted to Secondary schools and Pre-university colleges (Kuo and Jernudd 1988).

To promote individual bilingualism, small scale campaigns are also carried out in schools in the form of student debates, dramas, oratory contests, compositions, etc. (Kwok 1980) Pupils are seen as potential change agents in their respective families and are encouraged to adjust the language environment at home.

[Back to Top]

Language Planning in Media

The policy of multilingualism is reflected and enforced in the mass communication networks in Singapore.  Measures have been taken by the government to phase out dialect programmes over radio and television. The total communication network in Singapore is designed to carry messages in as many languages as economically feasible in order to reach and to mobilise the linguistically diversified population. This policy is moderated by the Speak Mandarin Campaign objectives, in that for example, all Cantonese dramas are dubbed into mandarin. The television networks also do not broadcast advertisements in the other dialects. (Kuo and Jernudd 1993)

However, with the availability of other channels from the Singapore Cable Vision such as the Hong Kong Channel TVB in which the medium of communication is Cantonese and Malaysian channels which regularly run popular Cantonese drama serials from Hong Kong as well as the readily available source of videos and video compact discs which are available in dialect allows people with preferences for Cantonese programs to view such programs easily.

[Back to Top]

The Speak Mandarin Campaign

The government in support of the Speak Mandarin Campaign has appealed to three key official arguments. The first being the educational argument: because the continued use of dialects created a burden for children having to learn two languages at school, the use of dialects at home must be restricted and replaced by mandarin. The second argument involves culture where the dominance of English and the threat of deculturisation through the influx of Western decadence would require Singaporeans to be re-ethnicised through Mandarin and also united to form a Chinese community. Lastly, the third argument involves the communicative argument: Chinese Singaporeans need a lingua franca other than English and Mandarin was the most logical choice because of its neutrality to all dialect groups. (Bokhorst-Heng 1999).

The SMC has been intensely prescriptive in its effort to alter the language behaviour of Chinese Singaporeans, to convince them to abandon their use of dialects for the sake of their community and nation. The SMC speeches seem almost messianic in their warning of impending crisis if the Chinese failed to unite through the use of Mandarin (Bokhorst-Heng 1999). In Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong’s 1991 SMC speech, he commented that “One may speak Hokkien only while the other Cantonese. How can we ever build a nation if the Chinese community is unable to even speak the same language, be it dialect, Mandarin or English?” He goes on to say “For the Chinese, the common mother-tongue should be Mandarin rather than a dialect. Unlike Hong Kong, where Cantonese predominates, it will not be politically acceptable if we replace the teaching of Mandarin with any of the major dialects.”

The 1979 campaign was launched with the call to “Speak more Mandarin and less dialect” and “No dialect, more Mandarin.” Future slogans were softened to read “Let’s speak Mandarin.” However, the objective to eliminate the use of dialects remained central to the campaign.

By placing Mandarin and the dialects in contrast to each other, the leaders reinforced both the validity of Mandarin within the imagining of the nation and the inappropriate presence of the dialects. For example:

- Dialects are vulgar, polluting and associated with the uneducated; Mandarin is refined and part of the literary culture. Mr. Rabim Ishak, then Senior Minister of State (Foreign Affairs) noted the vulgarity associated with dialects in a speech where he noted that he learnt swear words in Cantonese, Hokkien, Teochew and Hainanese whereas in Mandarin, the swear words were less common and was a language for the refined people” (ST, 11 July 1980).

- Dialects are divisive, fragmentary and a major cause of miscommunication and misunderstanding; Mandarin is the language of unity, cohesion and a bridge between the different members of the Chinese Community. Goh Chok Tong, then Second Defence and Health Minister, pointed out at the opening ceremony of the SMC in his constituency that “The spoken and written form in Mandarin are in unison and do not create problems, unlike dialects where one word can have several meanings depending on the dialect it is spoken in” (ST, 9 June 1981).

- Dialects are a burden on the young, forcing them to learn two languages when they go to school; Mandarin facilitates academic success. Lee Kuan Yew argued that “dialect will hinder the learning of the child if he uses dialect … to speak dialect with your child is to ruin his future” (ST, 17 November 1980).

- Dialects have no value, neither culturally nor economically; Mandarin is linked to a 5000-year old history, rich in culture and bears immense economic potential with the opening up of China’s market. Lee Kwan Yew stressed that unlike Mandarin which “has cultural value and will also have economic value twenty years later,” dialects “have no economic value in Singapore. Their cultural value is also very low” (ST, 17 October 1980).

- Dialects represent the past and are primitive; Mandarin is the future. Lee Kwan Yew in a television forum argued, “Mandarin is a developing language; on the other hand, dialect is a stagnant language” (ST, 10 January 1980).

By contrasting the meanings of dialects with Mandarin, the government has denied the validity of dialects in the imagining of the nation. The government simultaneously created a void by banishing dialects from the nation, community and home, leaving the Chinese community and individual with no mother-tongue, and then filled that void by prescribing Mandarin as their mother-tongue (Bokhorst-Heng 1999).

In trying to manage the Mandarin norm, the campaign involved corpus planning in the drive to promote use of Mandarin names for local food items and in the pinyinisation, on the basis of Mandarin, of district building, and street names, and of personal names based on the dialect pronunciation.

The food name problem was partly solved by a conscious effort to codify into Mandarin uniquely Singaporean names, based on an adjustment of existing dialect names. The campaign secretariat compiled and at times codified a list of names of items commonly used in hawker centres, markets, restaurants and also at Hungry Ghost Festival auctions in pinyinised forms following the Mandarin pronunciation. Many of these items are of purely local origin with no mandarin lexical precedent., Such newly codified items in Mandarin represent an original contribution from Singapore to the corpus of Mandarin lexicon. However, it should be noted that many hawkers and their customers simply do not use the Mandarinised names because there is little in their immediate communicative environment that gives them reason to do so. (Kuo and Jernudd 1993).

[Back to Top]

IMPACT 

There is generally a shift from dialects toward the official languages such as English and Mandarin which is a direct result of aggressive government policies like the Speak Mandarin Campaign. These factors contribute to a decline in the usage of dialects in Singapore (As can be seen in the statistical findings below), Cantonese being one of them.

Larger Society

Looking at the larger society, we focus on the impact of direct or indirect language policies on Cantonese, from a more macro perspective. As covered under Government Language Planning and Policy, the government recognizes only the 4 main national languages, all of which do not include dialect groups.

Due to government emphasis that dialects are part of our past and not of our future, we see evidence of language shift of language loss of Cantonese in Singapore's society. It is seen as a language of lower status, as its functions are limited to unofficial roles. Being in contact with more dominant and stronger languages such as English and Mandarin has pushed Cantonese to the peripherals of society. Cantonese is not used in areas of commerce, information technology, research and development and other areas that have come to the forefront of the new millennium.

Limited to low levels of interaction and communication, we see that Cantonese has lost most of its functions except those at our everyday level interactions such as at hawker centers and casual conversations within limited spheres. We will explore interactions in the family domain later on.

In the past, clan associations played a large part in the lives of the Chinese in Singapore. Back then, the newly arrived migrants were alone and struggling for survival. Drawn together by circumstances, clans were formed according to dialect groups and surnames. Within such close-knit cliques, use and functions of the different dialects including Cantonese remained strong. Cantonese and other dialects were used at all levels of life and enjoyed a relatively higher status as compared to the present day. When Government policies of language planning and other broad based policies came into play, the roles of clans became increasingly threatened.

Clans that once provided welfare, education, safety, community and trade were now obsolete. A stable government, safe environment, abolition of Chinese schools in the late '70s, and HDB flats put an end to the need for clans. In 1984, 9 major clans came together to form the Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations (SFCCA). This reflects the gradual diminishing functions of the various dialects, including Cantonese. Cantonese speakers no longer found it practical to only stick to their spoken dialect but moved towards the new multi-lingual society that the government promotes as the future of Singapore.

The policy of "re-ethnification" of the Chinese community had probably the biggest impact on Singapore's society - being made up of a large majority of Chinese. Mandarin was enforced as the mother tongue of all Chinese, regardless of dialect group. Government schools taught all subjects in English and mother tongue under the respective languages. Mandarin is compulsory as a second language for all Chinese. In schools, student are encouraged not to speak dialects and parents are advised and encouraged not to speak dialects to their children as it would not be advantageous to them in their future and their education. The long standing language policies in schools have been very successful in eliminating dialects and enforcing Mandarin as majority of society's new generation are not able to converse in dialects as their parents and grandparents. The Mandarin-for-all-Chinese policy has changed Singapore's society and has shaped a generation of bi- or multi- linguals who are fluent in English and Mandarin but not in dialects. This has contributed to the lost of functions of Cantonese and other dialects.

Language and education policies are not the only kind of government policies that have caused the decline of Cantonese. Housing policies are an important factor as well since more than 80% of Singaporeans are housed in flats. Before the implementation of housing policies, different dialects groups are concentrated in various parts of Singapore. After the introduction of these policies, these different areas of dialect-concentration are broken up and its residents are redistributed to various parts Singapore. This has negatively influenced Singaporeans' proficiency and exposure to Cantonese since both adults and children will be communicating to one another in either English or Mandarin.

On the macro-scale, we see that the effects of government direct and indirect language policies have far reaching effects on the role and functions of Cantonese and other dialects in society.

[Back to Top]

Group Domains

With respect to the work environment, Cantonese is increasingly neglected since English is the predominant language used especially in formal occasions such as meetings and discussions with superiors. Cantonese is still being used in casual conversations between closer colleagues either during meals or chit-chats and is a marker of solidarity within the speech community. After the introduction of several government campaigns to promote the official languages, many people feel that they would be judged negatively if they were to be seen as a speaker of dialect. All in all, Cantonese's role in the working environment is somewhat limited largely because it is not effective as a communicative tool.

Cantonese plays a distinct role in the friendship domain and is also an indicator of intimacy among friends. However, it is clearly apparent that Cantonese is increasingly neglected in the work environment and between friends.

Generally, while many Cantonese speakers do not discourage their younger generation from acquiring the language, few of them are actually proactive in passing on Cantonese. Many Singaporeans still see Cantonese as a way to bridge the linguistic bridge between generations and feel that it can also bring people closer together by evoking the sense of kinship. In short, Cantonese serves as a marker of identity and culture. (This will be further discussed in the section on the individual impact of language policies and be seen in practice during the case study.)

There is also a negative aspect about the attitudes towards Cantonese. A large group of people feels that Cantonese is becoming less functional especially in view of the policies and campaigns held by the Singapore Government. Also, many parents are worried that learning Cantonese will be an additional burden on their children who may already have difficulty coping with both English and Mandarin.

[Back to Top]

Individuals

On a more micro-level, we explore the impact on the individual by government language planning policies. On the individual level, we look at one's sense of identity and ethnicity as a Cantonese. Government Language policies have definitely made its impact within this sphere. With the "re-ethnification" policy, the government sought to unite a diverse group of Chinese peoples in Singapore. A group of people who formed the majority of the population, made up of people from different dialect groups and different origins. The Singapore government used language as a unifying force to create a society with less diversity and with more unity. Creating Mandarin as the mother tongue of all Chinese, the government sought to change mind-sets and re-invent identity. This was first implemented through the educational system where all Chinese students were to study Mandarin as their mother tongue and English as their first language.

The implementation of such a language policy has borne fruit as young Singaporeans, who have come through the educational system or are still going through the educational system, see themselves as Chinese rather than differentiated into their dialect groupings. They see themselves as firstly Singaporean, then Chinese, then Cantonese. This reflects a change in society's sense of identity and ethnicity. The importance of dialect groupings has been lost almost entirely, resulting in a more united societal identity. A more interesting fact is that young Cantonese Singaporeans consider themselves Cantonese although they may not be able to speak the language. It seems that being Cantonese no longer entails speaking the language. Rather, it means having a Cantonese surname and observing certain Cantonese practices. This points to a new and emerging trend of Cantonese who cannot speak Cantonese! A definite shift in the definition of being Cantonese (or any other dialect group) in Singapore's society due to various government direct or indirect language policies.

The other policy that has brought up issues of the importance of one's dialect groupings and heritage is the Hanyu Pinyin system that was introduce into schools for Chinese names. This move brought up much opposition to the changing of traditionally dialect surnames to Hanyu Pinyin, at times changing the surname totally. It seems that although the outward mentality has changed due to external forces, the inner sense of identity and heritage still remains strong. Yet, it may be that the "Pinyinisation" of Chinese names will in the long run also bring about an acceleration of the total re-ethnification process of the Chinese in Singapore.

[Back to Top]

Family

From the larger society to the individual, we move on to explore the impact of language planning policies on the family. It is interesting to observe the impact of language planning, in the public domain, on the domestic domain - the family. Language shifts are greatly accelerated in Singapore due to physical as well as social factor, with government policies having far-reaching impacts. The dominant home language has shifted from dialects to, over the years, either English or Mandarin.

With language policy impacts on the other areas in mind, we go further as we examine its impact at home. The patterns of first to third generation communication have changed considerably in the past 20 years. Grandparents and grandchildren have problems communicating due to language differences and the generation gap. Grandparents are forced to take up either English or Mandarin, or grandchildren are forced to pick up dialects to bridge the language barrier. Yet, communication will not be the same. The wisdom of the older generation is not passed down and cultural elements lost due to the communication breakdown between generations.

The dynamics of family communication and understanding between generations is also impacted by the breakdown of the Cantonese language. Grandparents cannot impart their knowledge of the Cantonese language and it's culture and heritage.

We find that those who have gone through the Singapore educational system in recent years are unlikely to be able to speak dialects fluently or not at all - while the older generations tend to be fluent in languages other than English or Mandarin. This poses a great challenge to the passing down of culture, of knowledge and heritage. To see how the family has been affected, tune in to the segment on the Case Study for a closer investigation!

[Back to Top]

Statistical findings on the usage of Chinese Dialects in Singapore.

1. In 2000, 76 per cent of the Chinese spoke either Mandarin or Chinese dialects. (Table 1)

2. Overall, Mandarin has superseded Chinese dialects as the predominant home language of the Chinese resident population. The proportion of Mandarin-speaking Chinese increased from 30 per cent in 1990 to 45 per cent in 2000. There was a corresponding decline in the proportion who spoke in dialects, from 50 per cent to 31 per cent.

3. Compared with 1990, English had become more popular as a home language for all the ethnic groups. The proportion speaking most frequently in English at home increased from 19 per cent to 24 per cent among the Chinese.

4. Compared with 1990, there has also been a decline in the use of Chinese dialects across all age groups and an increase in the use of English, and an even greater increase in Chinese usage. (Table 2)

Table 1: CHINESE RESIDENT POPULATION AGED 5 YEARS AND OVER BY LANGUAGES MOST FREQUENTLY SPOKEN AT HOME

 

Table 2: RESIDENT POPULATION BY LANGUAGES MOST FREQUENTLY SPOKEN AT HOME AND AGE GROUP

[Back to Top]