Response to “Speak Good English Lah!” by Jessica Hsieh
Response to “Speak Good English Lah!” by Jessica Hsieh
In the essay “Speak Good English Lah!” by Jessica Hsieh, Hsieh explores the public reaction to the Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) launched by the government in 2000. SGEM promotes the usage of Standard Singaporean English (SSE), as opposed to the local dialect, Singlish. Singlish has an English foundation, combined with Hokkien, Malay, Cantonese, and Mandarin. As Hsieh describes, Singlish is often referred to as a “lower-class English dialect” because of its intelligibility to Standard English speakers. Despite the intelligibility of Singlish, Singapore frequently excels in international English reading skills tests. Part of the backlash against SGEM included a media response. This included TV shows such as ‘The Noose’ and ‘Phua Chu Kang.’ Such TV shows portrayed British English as a dialect to aspire to, but also mocks it as pompous. Chan Chun Sing, a member of the People’s Action Party (PAP) used Singlish at a PAP pep rally, but the speech failed to strike the audience, demonstrating that there is a time and place for Singlish. Hsieh concludes that the SGEM will likely not succeed, Singaporeans can continue to achieve a high-quality education, be successful in their careers using SSE, but also talk amongst themselves in Singlish.
I agree with Hsieh to the extent that Singlish should be preserved as it acts as a cultural symbol, but I think that the Singaporean government was right in that Singlish has the potential to be an obstacle in career success. The intelligibility of Singlish could give an impression of a lack of education to those outside of Singapore. This is not to say that I think Singlish represents a lack of education, but that parallels could easily be drawn between how people perceive Singlish and how African American vernacular is commonly viewed as uneducated.
Although Singapore regularly excels in international reading tests, that may not necessarily reflect proficiency in SSE. Singaporean students’ success in reading comprehension could partly be attributed to the intense test-taking, and studying culture; Singaporean parents prioritize academic achievement. Similar to the SAT, many college admissions boards and contemporary academic institutions now recognize that the SAT is not a true reflection of students’ academic performance.
Coming from Singapore myself, I could not help but make a number of personal connections to this text. As Hsieh emphasizes, it is true that Singlish is a valuable cultural symbol. I do not speak Singlish, though I understand it, and this has played a big part in my own cultural identity. When I am in Singapore and talking to other local Singaporeans, I have never referred to myself as Singaporean, and this is because I do not ‘sound’ Singaporean. Local Singaporeans would not consider me Singaporean, either, even after living in Singapore for 16 years. I often tell friends at Yale that I am a terrible example of a ‘typical’ Singaporean.
I cannot stress enough what Singlish means to consider yourself a Singaporean. Taxi drivers will often assume I am a tourist and be surprised after telling them how long I have lived in Singapore. I have also had taxi drivers ask me to speak slower because they could not understand what I was saying. Another time, I picked up the phone for my mom while she was driving, and when my mom took the phone off my hands, she told me that her friend had asked “who was that American girl on the phone?”
The disconnect between local Singaporeans and expatriate families is not just that expatriate families do not speak Singlish, it represents a sign of lack of interaction with ‘true’ Singaporeans.
Discussion questions
1. To what extent does language represent one’s cultural identity?
2. Why do you think that Singaporeans feel pride in Singlish, even though it is viewed as a lower-class dialect?
Key quotes
1. The SGEM has attempted to replace local pride in Singlish with national pride in Standard English, arguing that Singaporeans should feel a sense of accomplishment from joining the developed, well-educated English speaking world. - pg 10-11
2. The episode concludes with an interview with news anchor B.B. See (a pun on the acronym of the British Broadcasting Service), who asserts in flawless British English that Singapore's declining English standards are not due to Singlish, but the fact that Singaporeans weren't "speaking English in the first place." - pg 5
Comments
Amelie,
It was interesting to read about your personal experience growing up in Singapore and see a first-hand account of how language and accents play into a sense of belonging in the nation-state. I would like to push you to elaborate on what you see to be the difference between a “cultural symbol” and perhaps an “official” language. You note that people could draw comparisons between perceptions of AVVE and Singlish and worry that the usage of Singlish could be an obstacle in career success. Here it seems like career success does not only denote typical indices of “success” (e.g. drawing a certain salary, opportunities for moving up the ladder, etc.), but I also sense some tension between the “local” and the “global.” In other words, does embracing a sense of Singaporeanness through Singlish render the Singaporean less desirable, less modern, and less educated to the multi-national corporation that might be considering setting up shop in Singapore? It is such that I find this essay to be a useful gateway to explore certain questions. For example, what is Singapore’s place in South East Asia and the world at large? Might we be able to connect language and the projection of a particular image with what it means to be a postcolonial state that is keen to establish its identity as a “successful” nation-state?
Amelie,
Nice engagement with all the issues, and you are especially good at infusing your own experience into this case. At the core of your own example–and your own compulsion to insist that you are not a good representative of a Singaporean–may well lie something deeply important about the constitution of “Singaporianness.” Most importantly for this week’s discussion is how central the question of language it. What Hsieh is noting so wonderfully is that languages are languages (for example, you obviously “have language” that works just fine for your social world), but the politics surrounding what counts as the “right” or proper language is something entangled with economy, politics, history, cultural exchange, and so much more.
It is also true, as you note, that even if the linguists tell us that X language is just as much a grammatically correct language, there may well be social circumstances that militate against that “scientific” assessment. As an analogy, a scientist may explain that a tomato is a “fruit” because it is a ripened flower with seeds that can reproduce the plant, but if you order a “fruit plate” at a diner and receive a plate of sliced tomatos you may still feel like your waiter got it “wrong” no matter how much they might insist on the scientific truth of their action.