Review of Language, Society and Education in Singapore
Chapters/Sections on Part I, Language in Singapore

Handouts for SARS 523,
Multilingual Education in South/Southeast Asia

  1. Part I . Language Policy Changes from 1979 to 1997.

    2. Chapter by Gopinathan: begins by characterizing language policy using Paulston's definition as "deliberate attempt at social change in language behavior by a decision-making administrative structure" (Paulston 1973:1921). (Problem for me [hfs] is that this is talking about language planning, whereas language policy is the outcome of deliberate or other kinds of planning. Or, this could be a definition of policy formation if we see policy as a thing, not a process.)

    But, as Gopinathan then admits, deliberate intervention does not always lead to the outcome one predicts; as for me, I would say that policy may result from unplanned and random side-effects or unintended consequences of planning. This model (planning begets policy) is typical of the authoritarian Singapore state: We want it, we plan it, we get it. If something else happens, it's the problem of the planning, not the problem of the unplanability of certain things.

    In evolving multi-ethnic states, ethnicity and language must be managed. But language is contested and therefore things don't always work out the way it's planned. Fundamental and competing claims must be renegotiated. So language management issues have to do with changing power relationships and access to resources. There must be an accomodationist and dynamic view of language management.

  2. Background to the Policy Debate

    3. Basic strategy for pluralism and multilingualism: equal treatment. Languages are to be treated as a resource, and language development is engineered to targeted ends. (Goes back to 1956, "All Party Report on Chinese Education")

    Bilingualism and trilingualism set as targets for primary and secondary children; Malay designated as national language, in 1959, this kept after 1965 (but minimal: national anthem). Continuity: adherence to these principles. As implementation proceeded, systematic rationales for language roles in domains of home, school, social occasions, the economy.

      Language 1970 1980 1990
      English 49.4 56.0 65.0
      Chinese 49.4 59.6 61.5
      Malay   16.6 16.0
      Tamil   3.3 3.4

      General literacy rates increased to 90% in 1990; biliterates constituted 46% of population. In above tables, remaining 35% (not lit. in English, Chinese, or other) were educated before the bilingual policy took effect, or are under 5 years.

      Predominant household language, 1980/ 1990.

      Language 1980 1990
      English 11.6 20.3
      Mandarin 10.2 26.0
      Chinese dialects 59.5 36.7
      Malay 13.9 13.4
      Tamil 3.1 2.9
      Others 1.7 0.7

Language use has shifted toward the desired profiles. General literacy has increased (to 90%, a combination of all languages).

Chinese children speaking Mandarin entering school now 66.7%, rather than earlier 25.9%. But literacy in Tamil is low (should be more like 4%, which is 60% of the 7% of population that are Indian.)

  • Assessing Bilingual Attainment

    By the end of 1970's there were problems noticed; 1978 report by Goh Keng Swee (Depty Prime Min.) noted:

    Feeling that too much was being demanded of too many, in language. "Bilingualism has not been universally effective"

    So, major structural changes to create streams from Primary 4 onwards: Normal, Extended and Monolingual. At secondary level, special, express, normal streams created with weaker pupils in normal stream, not sitting for GCE O level exams. Previously, schools were divided by medium fo instruction, now divided by different ability bands. Elitism and separation of people into ability streams; not everybody can do everything, not everybody can be bilingual.

    Speak Mandarin Campaign

    New attempt to get Chinese children to speak Mandarin, so that Chinese speakers won't use English as a link language. Also dialect use fragmented the Chinese community. Then in late 1980's recognition of economic value of Chinese for doing trade with China. Campaign also timed to coincide with changeover (loss) of Chinese-medium university (Nan Yang) so was to be a compensation for this loss. Various attempts to get all Chinese to use Mandarin not always successful; persistent dialect users in lower socioeconomic levels. Some backfiring of speak Mandarin campaign felt by other ethnic groups. Need to make sure Mandarin used more by Chinese, not have them use English. Mandarin as household language has increased. Also, Hanyu Pinyinization of names seen as backfiring; if name was spelled Hsu (in romanization) and then is changed to Xu this is resented.

    National School System

    By 1983, most children were not being enrolled in Chinese, Tamil or Malay medium schools, so a new National School System was announced for 1987: everybody would use English as first school language. Panic among Chinese, but measures taken to increase quality, offer Language Elective Programme so that Chinese wouldn't feel standards were declining. But bilingualism would continue to be the policy.

    Another measure: SAP (Special Assistance Plan) to try to bolster Chinese skills and keep them at level of English. This would mean Chinese would be offered at first-language level as well as English. But reaction to this from other ethnic groups: are Chinese better? more Singaporean? More elite, more deserving? Chinese education better than other kinds? etc.

    Improving Primary School Education.

    In 1991, more work to improve primary school education, more tinkering with streaming;

    Improving Chinese Language Teaching

    Language and Values

    More Inclusive Language Learning Provisions

    Explaining Policy Shifts and Concerns

    haroldfs@ccat.sas.upenn.edu

    last modified 4/4/05