Group Project: Analysis of a cultural object
LAM WAN HANG
LIN LI
LIN SHAOJIE
LOW WEI SHAN
TOH XINLING
SINGLISH AND THE SINGAPORE IDENTITY
Singlish was first widely acknowledged as a variety of English in Singapore in 1982 . Known as Singapore Colloquial English (SCE) in the linguistic field, it is a local breed of English which “contains non-standard features of English including borrowings from other languages, peculiar grammatical structures and a distinctive pronunciation. ”
Our essay will take a backward approach in deconstructing the myth of Singlish and the Singapore identity. The first part of the essay will focus on Singlish in relation to the Singapore identity. We will analyze critically what the Singapore identity is, and show how Singlish functions at the core of our national identity.
The second part of the essay will focus on how Singlish was integrated into the Singapore identity. The results of our survey showed that most Singaporeans are either ignorant of how it was integrated into our national identity or believe that it was integrated naturally. The main thesis of our essay is to show that Singlish was conveniently adopted as part of our national identity due to a crisis; it does not, in fact, function at the core of our national identity. By means of ‘crisis’, we are employing cultural theorist Kobena Mercer’s theory of cultural identity that “identity only becomes an issue when it is in crisis, when something assumed to be fixed, coherent and stable is displaced by the experience of doubt and uncertainty. ”
1. The Singapore identity
Our survey results show that the Singapore identity 1) does not contain a single element that all Singaporeans have in common, but rather, 2) is made up of a combination of many different aspects of Singapore. These elements are however, mostly transient or constructed.
50% of our respondents regarded the Esplanade and hawker centres as part of the Singapore identity. However, these are just physical landmarks that change rapidly over time due to constant demolition and renewal of our landscape. Their importance, and hence the degree to which we identify with them, are transient. For instance, Singaporeans may no longer regard the Esplanade as THE landmark that gives us our national identity after the Integrated Resorts are established. In fact, it is not difficult to realize that the Esplanade had already been an object (at the receiving end) of such transience – it is in fact a reincarnation of Victoria Concert Hall (except that it [should] reflect better on Singapore as a global city) that took away all attention from the centennial building which used to be an icon of the arts scene in Singapore.
The Merlion also garnered many votes as an element of the Singapore identity. This is however, straightforwardly, a constructed icon of Singapore. It was not only “erected as a symbol to welcome all visitors to Singapore ”, but also constructed as an embodiment of the national identity. It was, in fact, highlighted as “the Singapore identity” in Uniquely Singapore, launched by the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) in 2004.
Other symbolic elements of Singapore did not fare as well in the survey. Only 23% acknowledged the national flower as part of the national identity, and 35% with the national flag, anthem and pledge. Singaporeans do not (wish to?) identify with the latter group as a crucial component of nationhood that should necessarily have been part of one’s national identity.
It is in light of these constructed and transient elements of the national identity that makes Singlish attractive to Singaporeans as an integral part of the Singapore identity. Almost 80% of our respondents and 75% from a large-scale survey conducted by the National University of Singapore (NUS) believe that Singlish is an important part of their national identity. In fact, not only is Singlish an important aspect, it functions at the very core of the Singapore identity.
2. Singlish as the core of the Singapore identity
Since majority of Singaporeans either speak Singlish or are able to recognize the language, it functions as our own unique tool of communication. Viewing language as a system of signs, it necessarily creates for the users of the language an encoded environment that others cannot understand. Hence, Singlish becomes a vehicle for Singaporeans to create and express a body of meaning and thought, which relates back to a stock of experience and knowledge that is only common among Singaporeans. Therefore, when Singlish is viewed in the vein of how language functions, not only does it help to bridge social gaps in society, it “expresses, embodies and symbolizes cultural reality ”. It taps on the roots of a social culture.
Secondly, it is an aspect of the Singapore identity that Singaporeans believe they truly own and have control over. Unlike icons and landmarks, language is believed to be an “intrinsic” element that cannot be divorced from the self. No doubt Singaporeans are also known for another “intrinsic” element, “kiasuism” (fear of losing out) – which 66% of our respondents acknowledged in the survey, but this is perhaps not the best thing that one might want to be known for. In addition, what makes Singlish even more attractive is that it was conceived truly by Singaporeans through interaction over time, and hence can be said to be created and owned by them. It is ingrained in native Singaporeans and is difficult to acquire by foreigners. Therefore it works from the core of what truly defines the Singapore society. This is unlike other elements of the Singapore identity (for instance Singapore food) which even though are unique to Singapore now, did not originate from here.
It is easy, and perhaps tempting, to deduce that Singlish must therefore have been integrated into our national identity naturally through time given its social importance. This is however not the case: even though one cannot dispel the importance of Singlish in the Singapore society, the notion of it being a part of our national identity was actually formed due to a crisis. Therefore, Singlish never did function at the core of our national identity; it was conveniently adopted into the Singapore identity.
3. The crisis
The crisis which resulted in Singlish being adopted as part of the Singapore identity consists of two aspects: a) the government’s intervention and b) Singapore’s search for a national identity.
a) The Government’s intervention
Singlish was first formally highlighted in the political arena in 1999, when former Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew highlighted the importance of speaking good English. He noted that Singlish was a “handicap he did not want to wish on Singaporeans” . A mere eight days later, former Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong criticised a much-loved television character, Phua Chu Kang, during the National Day Rally, as he “speaks only Singlish ”. The immense attention given to Singlish by two highly-ranked politicians made Singaporeans realize, for the first time, that Singlish did not function merely as a tool of communication, but also as an object of political attention. This resulted in a defamiliarisation of Singlish as a language of the people; an object formerly used in the private sphere of communication has now been projected into the public sphere as a subject of political attention. “Singlish” was not longer just “Singlish as a spoken language”, it was “Singlish as an issue for political debate and criticism”. Hence, Singlish had actually been divorced from its “intrinsic” setting into the public domain since this first step of political control in 1999.
The second step of government control was large-scale and reached out to the masses. As the government “felt that something had to be done to promote English ”, they launched the Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) in 2000. SGEM targets the masses with annual festivals comprising of more than 100 activities to encourage Singaporeans to speak accurate English. It can be seen as an outright critic of Singlish, as exemplified by this year’s tag-line: “Be understood. Not just in Singapore, Malaysia and Batam”, in which the latter sentence is a modification of Singlish icon Phua Chu Kang’s catch-phrase. These measures made people realize that not only had Singlish been propelled away from their individual realm of control, it was now in acute danger, as the government is “renowned for their (successful) attempts to create a carefully ordered society” . Singaporeans started to recognize Singlish as a site of power struggle between the government and them. Many Singaporeans turned defensive in their quest to regain ownership of their own language, which by now, had turned into an object of political attention and power struggle.
The last step of government control was an intrusive one introduced through the media and education. The broadcast media banned Singlish from being used freely on television and sent Phua Chu Kang for English classes (whose progress is “commendable” ). Columns dedicated to promoting Standard English started sprouting up on The Sunday Times. In addition, the Ministry of Education retrained 8000 primary school teachers in Grammar to improve their English standards to ensure better education for the young. These measures were intrusive because they projected into the individual’s personal space. Hence, all Singaporeans, even those who did not wish to participate in the debate, were by now, directly affected by the “Singlish issue”. The government’s act of blowing up its campaign to curb the use of Singlish had done exactly the opposite – it had made people actively readopt Singlish in the quest to regain ownership and power over it. They had recognized that Singlish was no longer a “language” that was inseparable from them, but rather, an “issue” that can be subjected to crisis (political attention and power struggle) in the public sphere. This “issue” then morphed into “identity” when it was reintroduced into the private sphere, because “identity”, in “implying an original essence defining the person ”, was a convenient ideology to cling on to in reassuring that a subject (Singlish) was anchored to the self and cannot thereafter be removed (after having been threatened so).
b) Singapore’s search for a national identity
In addition to the crisis of Singlish that Singaporeans faced, they also had to deal with the crisis of national identity. This lack of national identity has been continuously (and somewhat self-referentially) highlighted by the Singapore government. Their first major attempt to set a common Singapore identity came in the form of Singapore Shared Values , which took four years to be formalised and launched. Subsequently, another document, Singapore 21 (more popularly known for its tag-line “together, we make the difference), was presented in 1997 and the project went on till 2003. Both projects attempted to strengthen the Singapore identity by emphasizing national unity through individual participation. In this way, they proposed an ideal template for the social function and identity of a Singapore citizen, for instance “one that strives for excellence” in Singapore 21: “be the best that we can be – it is not enough to say that we ‘try our best’ ”.
These measures taken by the government made Singaporeans think about their own identity. Hence, when Singlish was placed in a precarious position, they conveniently adopted it as part of their identity to fill the identity vacuum that has been consistently highlighted by the government for many years. In addition, adopting Singlish as their national identity was also an act of open rebellion towards the government (something which Singaporeans are very fond of doing).
4. Conclusion
Therefore, Singlish was perhaps never naturally integrated into the national identity. Rather, it was conveniently adopted as part of our national identity due to a crisis – that of political debate, power struggle and the very crisis of the Singapore identity. This puts into question the validity of Singlish functioning at the core of our national identity (note that we do not dispel the fact that it can [given its undisputable importance as a native language in Singapore], but rather that it has not given the current state of affairs). As a consequence of the ‘natural’ formation of a supposed core of an identity being exposed as a myth, one is then inclined to deconstruct the very notion of a “Singapore identity”.
Bibliography:
1) Anasuya Balamurugan, Speak Good English Campaign, http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/articles/SIP_575_2004-12-23.html
2) BBC News: Asia Pacific (2001)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1261986.stm
3) Kobena Mercer, Welcome to the jungle : new positions in Black cultural studies, New York : Routledge, (1994)
4) Kramsch, Claire J, Language and culture, Oxford, OX : Oxford University Press (1998)
5) Low Ee Ling, Adam Brown, An introduction to Singapore English, Singapore : McGraw-Hill Education (Asia), (2003)
6) NUS Political Association's Policy Studies Committee, http://newshub.nus.edu.sg/ke/0404/articles/pg02.htm
7) Prime Minister’s National Day Rally Speech, 1999 First-world economy, world-class home – Extract E. Education, http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/1999/sp270899.htm
8) Robert G. Dunn, Identity crises : a social critique of postmodernity, Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press (c1998)
9) Singapore 21 Together, We Make the Difference http://www.singapore21.org.sg/S21report_txtonly.doc
10) Singapore Shared Values, Singapore Infopedia, National Library Board Singapore http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/articles/SIP_542_2004-12-18.html
11) Speech by RADM Teo Chee Hean, minister for education and second minister for defence at the launch of SGEM (2002), http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2002/sp18042002.htm
Cheers!
posted by Shaojie @ 10:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home