For Wayne Chan, learning Chinese was like being thrown into the deep end of a pool. Coming from an English-speaking family, Wayne “felt like an alien” in class. His inability to master the language also meant that he was often picked on by classmates. “[They] would tell the Chinese teacher that I had done something wrong when I hadn’t,” recalled the 31-year-old. “I would end up standing outside the classroom or at the principal’s office because I could not understand what they had said in Mandarin and thus had no way of defending myself.”
Getting by in class meant long hours of tuition, memorising Chinese words and filling in countless assessment books. Wayne came to resent and dread Chinese so much that he opted out of the Special stream when entering secondary school (where Chinese is taught as a first language) even though he qualified for it.
The intensive teaching that Wayne and many others in his generation received was recently highlighted by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew – who had been the main driver for bilingual education. MM Lee acknowledged that his assumptions on bilingual learning were wrong and that the way Chinese has been taught for almost 40 years has not been ideal. MM Lee’s daughter, neurologist Dr Lee Wei Ling, had told him – late in his life – that language ability and intelligence are two different things. “Insisting on ting xie (spelling), mo xie (dictation) – madness! We had teachers who were teaching in completely Chinese schools. And they did not want to use any English to teach English-speaking children Chinese and that turned them off completely,” MM Lee said. “Successive generations of students paid a heavy price, because of my ignorance, by my insistence on bilingualism … And I wasn’t helped by the ministry officials, because there were two groups – one English speaking, one Chinese teaching.”
The Language Policy
MM Lee’s comments renewed public debate on bilingual education. While authorities are giving the system a review, it could be too late for many like Wayne whose interest in his mother tongue has been lost.
The bilingual system was first adopted in 1966 to promote English as the neutral lingua franca among diverse ethnic groups and to facilitate Singapore’s integration into the world economy. And with the aim of maintaining cultural and ethnic ties, students were further required to study one of three official mother tongues: Mandarin, Bahasa Melayu or Tamil, with non-Tamil Indians having the option of studying Tamil or a non-official language such as Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Punjabi or Urdu. All mother tongue languages are compulsory and examinable at the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) and the GCE Normal-, Ordinary- and Advanced-level examinations. Students are aged 12-, 16- and 18-years old respectively when they take these exams.
Yet oddly for a bilingual education system – usually defined as that involving instruction given in both languages – English has been used since 1987 as the primary mode of teaching with the mother tongue only spoken in dedicated classes. This led to a greater proficiency in English – but as current debate now shows – at the expense of the mother tongue.
As early as 1978, some 12 years after bilingual education began, then Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee noted in a report that “bilingualism has not been universally effective”. This has become more pronounced over the years. The use of Tamil, for instance, has seen a steady decline in the last 15 years. According to national statistics, the proportion of primary one Chinese pupils speaking English at home is now 60 per cent – up from some 10 per cent in 1980 and far exceeding the proportion that speak Mandarin or Chinese dialects.
Interestingly, Malay has preserved its use as a mother tongue – to an extent. Aishah Md Kassim, a Convenor of the Malay Language programmes at the National University of Singapore noted in a paper that: “The Malays have several institutions [such as religious instruction] within the mainstream population, which allows for the use of [the] language as a cultural tool for maintaining family values and religious instruction.”
The Immersion Principle
Melissa Hyak, CNA Presenter
The way in which the Malay language has kept its relevance reflects one of the keys drivers in language acquisition. As adjunct Chinese-language teacher Yeo Chong Nim explained, language proficiency and adoption requires a level of exposure (such as through lessons) and immersion or the use of the language at home or in society.
Research in language acquisition reveals that there may be a critical period for learning a second language, generally thought to lie between six and about 12 years of age. It is believed that the delayed development of the prefrontal cortex of the brain and the related delay in the development of cognitive control may allow young children to learn a language far more easily than those who are already cognitively mature.
The degree of linguistic vicinity (or similarity) of the second to the first language is also a factor. Assuming that the first language is English, Chinese or Tamil with their character systems would be harder to acquire than Malay, which uses a similar alphabet system to English.
Growing up in a Mandarin- and Hokkien-speaking home, CNA presenter Melissa Hyak (above) attributes her bilingual proficiency to the early exposure to both Chinese, and later English, to a passion for languages and reading.
And using the language habitually can further bolster proficiency. Channel NewsAsia (CNA) presenter Melissa Hyak, for one, well-known for her fluency in both English and Chinese, grew up speaking Mandarin and Hokkien at home. “I learned my Mandarin from my dad, who was educated in a Chinese school,” she shared. “As for my mother, she learned to understand English gradually, on her own, as the language began dominating the conversation among her children … a variation of the immersion method of language learning.” Melissa herself first picked up English – her most proficient language now – from her school-going elder sisters. She didn’t remember struggling with two languages – which she attributed to being exposed to both languages at an early age, lots of reading and having good teachers.
Dual benefits
Even with MM Lee acknowledging the challenges of bilingualism, the system still has its supporters. Apart from having cultural value, corporate communications specialist Sum Pek Kee – who is headed to Beijing for a posting with a multinational company – told Singapore that the system has ensured that almost all Singaporeans have a good grasp of English and a certain proficiency in a second language. “The way it is done in Singapore has allowed us to be internationally credible and viable as individuals, and as a country, thanks to English.”
Foreigners too value the system – a trend evident with the increasing number of foreign students in local schools. Taiwanese mother of two Chen Peiran, for example, is planning to enroll her children here. The bilingual Singapore permanent resident said, “I think Singapore’s biggest success is the bilingual education system. Although there are private bilingual schools in Taiwan, their school fees are substantially higher than any other public school in Singapore, which is already bilingual. The most important thing is that the overall environment in Singapore is bilingual so it’s conducive for picking up both languages, unlike in Taiwan where Chinese is clearly dominant.”
Peiran also sees bilingualism from a practical perspective. “I think it’s not a big problem if the standard of languages does not reach expert level; after all, language is a tool for communication,” she said.
The way forward
“I think it’s not a big problem if the standard of languages does not reach expert level; after all, language is a tool for communication.” – Chen Peiran (above), mother of two
With the bilingual policy being studied (the outcome is expected at the Committee of Supply debate in Parliament in March), the general view is that there will be more focus on practical use of the language. Already, this is the direction that Tamil language instruction has undertaken. During a learning trip to India, a Singapore education ministry official told The Hindu newspaper that prominence will be given to spoken Tamil in its new curriculum indicating that “30 to 40 per cent” of marks will be allotted for spoken language skills.
As MM Lee signalled, students will be taught “what they will find useful in real life”, with most people “more likely to read than to write, and more likely to listen and speak than to read or write”. Ultimately, the direction will be to determine what the best way is to teach languages within the capabilities of students to avoid turning them off languages and ensuring continued interest.
if singapore was bilingual, why is it that majority of the jobs application request chinese speaking individuals and often do not accept the applicant if he/he cannot speak chinese but is well qualified? to add on, there is hardly a request for tamil and/or malay speaking individuals.
What Raji said is common all over the world. In almost every country on earth, you are expected to speak the language of the majority race in the country you live in. Singapore is no exception. The language of the majority race is the dominant language and usually the national language of the country.
In government and International companies, English language is required. In Chinese owned companies, especially those that has major Chinese customers, the Chinese language is required. It is also the same for Indian and Malay owned companies. They usually require that you speak Malay or Tamil, although these companies are lesser in numbers than Chinese companies. This is purely a practical commercial decision. If a Chinese go to India, there he is also required to speak Hindi or Tamil. It is the same everywhere, not just in Singapore.