One Nation, One Language or Go Local, Go Global?

Gui Yi

【Abstract】This article illustrates Singapores bilingual policy has managed Singapores multicultural and multilingual population， which is a crucial resource in ensuring Singapores competitive edge over many competing economies globally. English possesses linguistic market value， and its adoption as Singapores working language is thus positioned by the state as a capital in its people.

【Key words】language policy; linguistic capital; meritocracy; multiculturalism; diversity

【作者簡介】Gui Yi，Hubei University of Technology.

In Singapores globalized economy founded on the ideology of meritocracy built on neoliberal principle of self-reliance， English was declared one of the countrys four co-official languages， together with three other local languages， i.e. Mandarin， Malay and Tamil after Singapores independence in 1965. In 1966， Singapore implemented a bilingual education policy following the recommendation of the All-Party Committee set up in 1959 to look into the multilingual issue of the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country， which is， if English was the medium of instruction， students were required to learn an ethnically ascribed second language which was either Chinese， or Malay or Tamil （e.g.， Platt & Weber， 1983）. As English was regarded as an ethnically neutral language which was owned by none of the ethnic groups， it gradually became the linguistic tool different racial groups used for cross-ethnic communication.

Singapores bilingual policy has been privileged to be instrumental to Singapores remarkable economic progress for five decades. In this cosmopolitan global city-state that boosts economic and political stability， multiculturalism gets defined through broad ethnolinguistic delineation of the founding ethnic communities of the island， i.e.， Chinese， the Malays， Indians and the minority ‘Others as monolithic blocs， largely promoting the diversity that exists within one country. This conception and subsequent management of its ethnic diversity construct Singapores nation-building narrative that emphasizes meritocracy and racial harmony as significant to Singapores survivability and political and economic interconnectedness with the rest of the world. The bilingual policy， with its emphasis on English language， has been implemented post-independence to manage Singapores multicultural and multilingual population that is a crucial resource in ensuring Singapores competitive edge over many competing economies globally.

Singapore is well-positioned for its political and economic relations on the international stage despite its lack of natural resources through the adoption of English as the language of governance， trade and commerce， as well as the main medium of instruction. With an underlying instrumentalist motivation （Wee， 2003）， Singapore adopts a favorable stance towards English as a capital that facilitates its participation in the global economy. Unlike the other languages spoken in Singapore， English possesses much linguistic market value， and its adoption as Singapores working language is thus positioned by the state as a ‘capital in its people. This works well as one of the guiding principles for Singapores policy-making – meritocracy – that implies an emphasis on self-reliance. As a young nation that needs to prove itself through capital accumulation， self-reliance is of vital importance towards ensuring productivity， and hence， economic progress. Essentially， this means that instead of supporting people because of who they are， those who are the brightest and most talented should be rewarded， which results in Singaporeans emphasis on educational qualifications and English language competence where they can take advantage of the opportunities provided by the governments world-class education system， work hard， improve themselves， and achieve social mobility （Moore， 2000; Tan， 2008）.

To quote S. Iswaran， then Senior Minister For Trade and Industry， as well as Education， in his opening address of a public forum on Singapores Languages and Literatures in 2009：“As the global language of education， commerce and technology， English was not just a convenient colonial inheritance — it has played a crucial role in our economic development. Complementary to the Mother Tongues， the English language also serves as the lingua franca in Singapore — a common， unifying and neutral tool to facilitate communication and mutual understanding.” Iswaran asserts that English is “not just a convenient colonial inheritance”， but is positioned as not having any ethnic affiliations， and so it serves to unite the different ethnic groups. This ideology of neutrality seems to justify the states commitment towards multiculturalism where it maintains equal status of all ethnic groups. So， Englishs supposed neutrality with regard to ethnic associations means that no ethnic community would be advantageously positioned over others， which emphasizes Singapores stance on social justice and equality， which is， everyone will be able to obtain social mobility for as long as they are willing to work hard.

To maintain cultural anchor for the population， official mother tongues assigned to Singaporeans ethnic categorization in official identification documents are to be taught in school and maintained to ensure that Singaporeans still remain rooted to their Asian values， all while possessing a global outlook. The official status given to English and the three other Asian languages， namely Malay， Mandarin and Tamil， within Singapores Constitution is supposed to position them as equals. In fact， the way the term ‘mother tongue is used in Singapore rationalizes the ethnic delineation that is officially sanctioned by the state in its definition of Singapores multiculturalism. The ethnicity label， or race as it is called in Singapore， not only appears in individuals official identification documents， but in forms， official or otherwise. Malay as a national language still receives institutional support from the government. In national schools， apart from the assigned mother tongue languages， Conversational Malay and Malay Special Programs （MSP） are also offered to students in some schools whose mother tongue is other than Malay as a means to familiarize them with the language and culture of the region. Although English is now the inter-ethnic lingua franca， given that it is the main medium of instruction in national schools， the national language still retains its symbolic， albeit limited， status and continues to be used in the national anthem， the state crest， currency notes and military commands.

In managing multiculturalism， Singapore positions itself as not privileging one ethnic group over others. Ethnicities in Singapore are made salient through clear delineation and profiling by the state， not unlike the European construct of the linguistically and culturally homogeneous ‘nation-state （Anderson， 2006） where “l(fā)anguage becomes the carrier of the ‘culture associated with the territory from which the group migrated” （Blackledge & Creese， 2012， p. 121）. The essentializing of ethnic groups according to the neat Chinese， Malay， Indian or Others model is taken to be a ‘natural part of Singapores multiculturalism and the states “l(fā)ogic of governance” （Chew， 2013， p. 172）. Singapores bilingual policy， racial quotas in public housing， the Group Representation Constituency or GRC scheme of electoral division with representations from the major ethnic groups， the labeling of ‘race in the National Registration Identity Card or NRIC， the ethnic-based self-help groups and the observance of the annual Racial Harmony Day are just some of the means through which ethnicity is demarcated and governed.

The availability of English to all Singaporeans as the main medium of instruction in school， along with its role as the language of the workplace and intercultural communication， gives everybody who can speak English the equality of access to socioeconomic attainment through Englishs supposed ethnic neutrality （Wee， 2011， p. 115）. The mother tongue languages are assigned based on ethnicity and serve a different social function which can be positioned as competitors in terms of the economic advantage they offer because Singapore is a global economy.

In the global city-state of Singapore， globalization brings about the equal access to linguistic capital and the elitist outcomes of meritocracy with sociocultural， political and economic implications on identities. A more humanist conception of globalization is the idea of cosmopolitanism with its emphasis on supposed egalitarianism and tolerance of cultural diversity （Yeoh， 2004， p. 2432）. This is relevant to the discussion in this essay that Singapore positions itself as a global city， Singaporeans are expected to be cosmopolitan in the sense that they should “speak English， are international in outlook， skilled in banking， information technology， and able to navigate comfortably anywhere in the world” （Yeoh， 2004， p. 2434）， which is also in parallel with my belief that unity and diversity could coexist by bilingual language policy across different ethnic groups within one country.

References：

[1]Anderson， B. （2006）. Imagined Communities： Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism， Revised edition. London & New York： Verso.

[2]Blackledge， A. & Creese， A. （2012）. Pride， Profit and Distinction： Negotiations Across Time and Space in Community Language Education. In A. Duchêne & M. Heller （Eds.）， Language in Late Capitalism （p.116-141）. New York & London： Routledge.

[3]Chew， P. G-L. （2013）. A Sociolinguistic History of Early Identities in Singapore： From Colonialism to Nationalism. Hampshire & New York： Palgrave Macmillan.

[4]Chia， S-A. （2009）. Bid to enhance identity of Singapore Muslim. Straits Times， February 5， 2005.

[5]Moore， R. Q. （2000）. Multiracialism and Meritocracy： Singapores Approach to Race and Inequality. Review of Social Economy， 58（3）， 339-360.

[6]Platt， J.， & Weber， H. （1983）. Singapore and Malaysia. Amsterdam： John Benjamins Publishing Co.

[7]Tan， K. P. （2008）. Meritocracy and Elitism in a Global City： Ideological Shifts in Singapore. International Political Science Review， 29（1）， 7-27.

[8]Wee， L. （2003）. Linguistic Instrumentalism in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development， 24（3）， 211-224.