WE REFER to Tuesday's report, 'Linguists speak up for Singlish'.

Full Story

But who has been responsible for the widespread use of Singlish here? To me, it is the MOE. The MOE's over-emphasis on the 'mother tongue' (MT), especially on Mandarin is responsible for it all!

Just think of the number of periods in school given to MT lessons. It is far more than for all the other subjects except maybe English ( about 7 to 8 period a week). MT is essentially a second language and for many years it was called 'second language' too.

But the MOE's programme gave it so much emphasis that its status is far from that of a 'second language' and more like a 'first langauge. The MOE gave Mandarin such emphasis that it was the only subject which students are allowed two shots at for the 'O' level. Imagine the amount fo time students spent at their second language in school!

With so much exposure to the MT, the students from non English speaking home become too comfortable with the language and schools could not ask them to speak more or proper English. So they start to speak to one another more and more in Mandarin. Then when they have to speak in English, they mix it up with Mandarin. The students from the better educated, English speaking home disliked Mandarin and found it a chore and was affected far less.

So who do you think has been punished by the MOE's over-emphasis on MT? The young people from the lower socio economic groups! It has done them a great disservice by setting up an environment that has swerved them into Singlish!

Listen to the Chinese students especially those from 'neighbourhood schools' speak to one another on the MRT or on the buses. They naturally prefer to speak in Mandarin If they are so comfortable with Mandarin (courtesy of MOE's programme), how on earth do you expect these young people not to speak in Singlish when they have to speak (and write ) in English? Thus the MOE is in fact, the one that has made this very special 'gift' to the young people from the lower socio economic group! And it is saying that it does not intend to promote Singlish when it already has done so for so many years.

Let me end up with possibly the most classic example that I have come across. I had a taxi driver neighbour whose son came to me for some help in wiritng an English composition. The teacher had asked him to write about a bad dream and he tried to write about beiing chased by ghosts. In one part of his essay, I saw this sentence, "Got one day I walk the half road see the devil then devil chase me".

The number of periods given to Chinese is no different from the number of periods given to other second languages.

I don't think the problem lies with learning Chinese, Malay or whatever MT, as there are many other nations (including the UK) whose citizens could speak more than one language. In Scotland, one may be able to speak Gaelic in addition to English, for example; and in Wales, welsh and English.

In any case, I think generally (emphasis: generally) , the better English speakers in Singapore come from the X generation (mostly from those in their 30s or 40s). ' The English ed' from 'the English ed vs the Chinese ed' generation might not be great English speakers. I once met a Chinese-Singaporean man in his late 50s, who called himself 'English ed', and he spoke with a 'very Singlish' mix of English and Malay, which was obviously different from the Singlish mix of English and Mandarin.

i think that the moe has a point. u need to be equipped with a strong command of english itself to be able to code switch easily between the formal "correct" english when u need to ,say, make a presentation, and the colloqial singlish form to get urself understood when u buy things at the hawker center. that is, if u dun speak dialect there.

yet, i think, there has to be some kind of attitude change. if we keep putting economic concerns at the forefront of everything, we will not succeed in dramatic, game changing ways. we will always be playing for mediocre.

i remember some time ago there was a coding contest, and someone mentioned that the silicon valley types get rich too(i.e. not just investment bankers). but the thing is that many silicon valley types like what they do, and think about the code first , before they think about the commercial bit.

similiarly, we have another habit of 'changing from within', or helping the system become better. see, in alot of things creative, be it art, literature, research or design, i think alot of times you simply have to start with the point of view that everything is wrong or broken or not working or bad. going with our consultative method, we will never invent the next whatever it is, we will always talk about the next ipod, and always make a poor imitation of the existing one. u must think that the whole idea of the ipod is crap before u can make the next whatever it is.

and whats worse, we have been time and again told that we are not ready for certain things (erm, press freedom? dunno what else..). i.e. we're not very smart. how to achieve great things if we convince ourselves that we're stupid all the time? i mean, we got proven right recently, no? with the lehman minibonds saga? that we are not ready, i.e. too stupid to read prospectuses and understand them, for advanced financial products..

i suggest the MOE, for all its disdain of Singlish, first of all find out what Singlish is all about before it "talks so big" la!

go learn something about second language acquisition, sociolinguistics, and second language pedagogy would be my initial recommendations. we have some really good academics in SG, who understand the issues very well bec they've done so much work on them. examples include lionel wee, anne pakir, cheah yin mee, ho wah kum, mary tay and others from NIE and RELC.

speaking for myself, i dunno why i never had any real difficulty with Singlish and English, just like i never had any great difficulty being fluent in multiple (first) languages growing up and moving on to second languages. maybe the MOE would like to "dissect" me instead, i wouldn't mind! ; )

Anyone diagree that the majority of young local Chines prefer and seem most comfortable to prattle away in Mandarin a lot more than English?

Of what education system or policies are the the outcome of? A system where the 'language of instruction' is suppose to be English (but with an overwhelming emphasis on Chinese)! What do you get? 'Phua Tang Sai' ('half buckets of ****' students and young people)!

Thank you, MOE! What a great 'mother tongue' policy you have crafted and maintained for the past 2 decades or so!.

I don’t think it is so much the fault of an over-emphasis of one language (MT) over another (English) if we had ensured that they acquired them well, especially during infancy.

I shall relate the example of the Catalonia (Barcelona) region of north-eastern Spain. Perhaps we may like to emulate them (or any country where kids grow up successfully bi-lingual).

Kids in Catalonia grow up effectively bi-lingual (in Catalan and in Spanish) and speak both languages proficiently. I believe this is because they have been exposed to and taught correctly both languages at home and in the school since infancy (pre-school).

It’s a good starting point to recognize the importance and the need to speak correct English. However, that doesn’t mean a thing if we continue to see Singlish flourish (worse, at the expense of English). We have to GET THE RESULTS! To see it ACTUALLY HAPPEN. Everything else is rhetoric. So I think we ought to sit back and analyze carefully how we could make it happen.

I don’t think we ought to lose any more generations with raw experiments. Studying the RESULTS of those countries where children are effectively bi-lingual may help.

I believe the most crucial age for a kid pick up a language (which probably will remain with him for the rest of his life) is when he/she is right out of the crib (two, or three years old? I’m no expert on that, nor have I done any research or read up anything on it. It’s just gut feeling and observations). So we cannot over-emphasize the crucial role of the pre-schools. This where we will decide if he’s going to grow up speaking one language or another, English or Singlish.

I believe this issue is far too important to allow private (pre-schools) to skew up (don’t have the resources to PRODUCE THE DESIRED RESULTS).

I believe pre-schooling ought to come under a direct umbrella of a Ministry (MOE or MOY). I believe the task and responsibility to educate the child is far greater than what it has been given up to now and only the state have the kind of resources to ENSURE THE RESULTS.

This shouldn’t suggest that we take away the care and nurture of the child from the parents. The parents too will have an important role after school.

Many of the problems that may arise later on in our society could be prevented if we could give our kids that right start. This is also where entire generations would be shaped (inculcating the right values, etc.). That’s how important Pre-school is.

Please don’t tell us about costs to the parents. Surely we can afford to treat Pre-schooling on the same plane as Primary or Secondary schooling. What is the wisdom of having our Wealth Funds chasing shaky private institutions to bail out and not investing them in grooming our future generations?

Besides, what better message is there to send across to citizens to have more babies!

Originally Posted by boixosnois

Kids in Catalonia grow up effectively bi-lingual (in Catalan and in Spanish) and speak both languages proficiently.

You know or you think?

I believe this is because they have been exposed to and taught correctly both languages at home and in the school since infancy (pre-school).

"Correctly"?

It’s a good starting point to recognize the importance and the need to speak correct English. However, that doesn’t mean a thing if we continue to see Singlish flourish (worse, at the expense of English). We have to GET THE RESULTS! To see it ACTUALLY HAPPEN. Everything else is rhetoric. So I think we ought to sit back and analyze carefully how we could make it happen.

"Correct English" is?

Can you point me to any study that shows (conclusively or otherwise) that the use of Singlish negates the use of "correct English", or is it some gut feeling?

Because I'm fluent in both Singlish and "correct/standard English", I find it very hard to understand how the use of Singlish prevents one from learning and using English "correctly/properly".

I don’t think we ought to lose any more generations with raw experiments. Studying the RESULTS of those countries where children are effectively bi-lingual may help.

How about studying second language acquisition and paying attention to sociolinguistics for a start? I doubt there is any chance this will happen in the next decade or so given what the "gahmen" has just said, of which I am full of contempt.

We keep having idiots for language planning and policies - is it any surprise that we're still where we were, if not worse? My father always tells me he cannot understand how come people are much more educated than he is but still, their English sucks.

I believe the most crucial age for a kid pick up a language (which probably will remain with him for the rest of his life) is when he/she is right out of the crib (two, or three years old? I’m no expert on that, nor have I done any research or read up anything on it. It’s just gut feeling and observations). So we cannot over-emphasize the crucial role of the pre-schools. This where we will decide if he’s going to grow up speaking one language or another, English or Singlish.

You need to stop thinking in purely dichotomous terms. Is the world only in black and white for you or what?

There is - to my knowledge - no "most crucial age" for a child to pick up his/her first language. The age range is from 0 to about 7 years old. It is obvious that there is a range first because humans need time to learn any language, plus they also need time to develop psycho-motor and (meta)cognitive skills.

Besides, when you talk of "picking up a language" - I assume you mean first language acquisition - which aspect(s) of it do you mean? Phonology, morphosyntax, lexicon, pragmatics, orthography, writing, what?

I grew up speaking four languages/dialects, and I don't recall being confused. Many studies have shown that children are quite capable of learning a number of languages without being "confused".

I believe this issue is far too important to allow private (pre-schools) to skew up (don’t have the resources to PRODUCE THE DESIRED RESULTS).

"screw up"?

Originally Posted by unewolke
You know or you think?

I know.

(two, or three years old?)

There is - to my knowledge - no "most crucial age" for a child to pick up his/her first language. The age range is from 0 to about 7 years old.

I actually meant ‘as from’ two or three years old.

which aspect(s) of it do you mean? Phonology, morphosyntax, lexicon, pragmatics, orthography, writing, what?

??? Don’t ask me that (liak boh kiew. Never liked to use it, only to show I can speak Singlish too). I’d have to do a course on linguistics.

"screw up"?

Thanks! Screw up.

First, schools should teach grammar in English classes. To implement this, MOE should publish a series of English grammar textbooks to be used at all levels.

if i am not mistaken, they already do with the current syllabus, starting circa 2001.

Second, teachers must use standard English in teaching and communication.

provided they can (and i am not implying they cannot, the use of any variety of any language is first predicated on the awareness thereof and ability to use it).

They should correct students' poor language habits whenever they write or speak Singlish.

another reductionist argument: use of singlish = poor language habits

In addition, teachers must explain to students why their Singlish usage is wrong, and show them the correct usage in standard English.

why don't you tell me why singlish usage is "wrong" - which law prohibits it? or which moral code? stop using pejorative terms like that when singlish is as natural as another other variety of english. don't punish its speakers just bec you don't like it. how is english "right"? according to which law or moral code? this right/wrong argument is so senseless and yet it gets repeated ad nauseam mindlessly!

Students should be taught not to repeat improper English in future.

how?

Apart from the important reasons why we should use standard English, as stated in the ministry letter,

for no less a ministry than the MOE to outrightly dismiss (the scholarly efforts of) linguists and sociolinguists who have been studying the phenomena for years and to call it a zoo act is merely disgusting name-calling, which also diminishes the esteem of the MOE writers in the mind of right-thinking academics and individuals. if education is not to broaden the mind and raise the intellectual standards of being human, but to further politicize the language issue and marginalize certain linguistic users, then this ought to be the new standard of meritocracy in sg! and admitted to as much. that is, if you don't speak english, you're never good enough. and conversely, if only you speak english, you're god! no study that i know of has shown, conclusively or otherwise, that the use of english is significantly tied up with economic progress. it's a fallacy - awaiting proof - that PAP govt leaders like to parrot ad nauseam - without proof - and the sg public is generally quite happy to accept - without more - i guess it doesn't hurt to believe that just bec one is able to speak english, one deserves a nice job and a fat salary, and conversely, bec one has a nice job and a fat salary - even bec of all sorts of other (more relevant) reasons - it is therefore bec one is able to speak english.

i am quite frankly happy to pit my own english language and other skills as a certified standardized english test examiner with any number of sg writers here who claim that they use english on a regular basis, so that it justifies their obtaining and retaining their job (esp without more).

it is vital to be aware that Singlish will undermine Singapore's image as an education hub.

another bare assertion. i am finding it ridiculous that people like this writer can make such sweeping statements and think he is contributing significantly to the discourse with so little evidence of critical thinking, some english writing skills notwithstanding (eg first, second, in addition).