Content uploaded by John Newman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John Newman on Jul 11, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [University of Alberta]
On: 05 August 2013, At: 01:39
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20
Singapore's speak Mandarin Campaign
John Newman a
a Department of Modern Languages, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Published online: 14 Sep 2010.
To cite this article: John Newman (1988) Singapore's speak Mandarin Campaign, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 9:5, 437-448
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1988.9994348
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be
liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of
the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
SINGAPORE'S SPEAK MANDARIN
CAMPAIGN
John Newman
Department of Modern Languages, Massey University, Palmerston
North,
New Zealand
Abstract. The Speak Mandarin Campaign aims to persuade the ethnic
Chinese of Singapore to use Mandarin as their
lingua
franca in place of
Chinese dialects. The three main arguments are: educational (dialects
interfere with the effective learning of Mandarin in schools), cultural
(Mandarin, it is claimed, represents a core value of Chinese culture),
practical (Mandarin is preferable to a multitude of mutually unintelli-
gible dialects). Some difficulties with these arguments are discussed.
Some other aspects of the campaign, such as the paraphernalia, changes
in the university's entrance policy and changes in the media, are also
reviewed.
Introduction
Since the late 1970s1 the Singapore Government has sponsored a Speak
Mandarin Campaign which aims to persuade the ethnic Chinese (comprising
approximately 77% of the total population) to use Mandarin in place of
Chinese dialects. While government-sponsored campaigns are a common
feature of Singapore society, this campaign has involved much more argu-
mentation and justification by the government than any of the other cam-
paigns (such as the Courtesy Campaign and the anti-litter drive). Clearly the
success of the campaign depends to some extent on convincing the target
audience of the need to change and so the arguments in support of the
campaign play a critical role in the act of persuasion. After all, it is not just
the public use of language which is the concern of the campaign, but all
language use between ethnic Chinese including, and in particular, use within
a family. If language use in such private domains as the family and between
friends is to be altered, then obviously the target population must be acting
out of a conviction that the campaign is sound and necessary and not just
out of a drive to make one's publicly visible behaviour acceptable. A system
of fines, for example, which may work in the case of an anti-litter campaign,
cannot possibly work in the case of attempts to change behavioural patterns
0143-4632/88/05/0437-12$02.50/0 © 1988 J. Newman
JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT Vol. 9, No. 5, 1988
437
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 01:39 05 August 2013
438 MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
in the private domains of interaction. Considering the importance of the
argumentation in the campaign, then, it is appropriate to examine the
arguments for the campaign in some detail.
In an overview of language policies in southeast Asia, Noss (1984:25)
distinguishes three official arguments which have been appealed to in support
of the campaign. These are educational (if there were no dialects, the
bilingual policy of teaching Mandarin and English to the ethnic Chinese
would be more successful), cultural (Mandarin is a symbol and vehicle of
the Chinese cultural heritage), and practical (Mandarin can function as a
lingua franca
amongst the Chinese). I shall proceed to discuss each of these
arguments in turn, basing my discussion on the speech given by the Prime
Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, on 21 February 1978 (repeated on 4 March 1978)
entitled 'Mandarin:
lingua
franca for Chinese Singaporeans' in the official
collection of government speeches (Speeches Vol. 1, No. 10). I shall then
discuss some of the other supporting activities which are designed to further
the aims of the campaign.
It should be mentioned that other arguments in support of the campaign
are sometimes advanced. One additional argument relates to increasing trade
with China (see, for example, Platt, 1985: 22,23). While a 'commercial'
argument along these lines might be expected to have an immediate appeal
to Singapore Chinese, it has not figured nearly as prominently in ministerial
speeches or newspaper editorials as the three main arguments mentioned
above, which relate more to 'home affairs'. (There is no mention of trade
with China in the speech singled out for discussion here.) One occasion
when it is used, albeit with an interesting twist, is in a comment attributed
to the Prime Minister in
Asiaweek
(14 November 1980), where competence
in Mandarin is seen as an advantage in learning Japanese: 'We use Mandarin,
which makes the Japanese language easier to learn. The Japanese will need
people who can work out the software for the computers they can sell to
the world, including China.' In the same
Asiaweek
article, Singapore officials
are reported as saying that business with China is no more than a secondary
benefit of the campaign. It has also been claimed that the campaign will
raise productivity at the worksite, as argued in the speech of Mr Ong
Teng Cheong, Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour, of 8
October 1982 and reported in Speeches Vol. 5, No. 5.
The Educational Argument
The educational argument is both the most commonly appealed to, as
well as the most extensively argued defence of the-campaign. Before turning
to the argument
itself,
some recent history of Singapore can help put this
argument in perspective.2
Following self-government in 1959, the People's Action Party (PAP) Govern-
ment took steps to ensure equal treatment for all four language streams provided
for in the education system, namely, English, Mandarin, Malay and Tamil. In
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 01:39 05 August 2013
SINGAPORE'S MANDARIN CAMPAIGN 439
so doing, the PAP was acting in a way typical of the emergent new nations in
the post-World War II era. Such nations characteristically took steps to raise
the status of their so-called 'mother tongues' which had not been given sufficient
recognition by colonial governments. In the case of Mandarin, events in
Mainland China in the 1950s would have given further encouragement to the
promotion of Mandarin in Singapore. Such events included: the campaign to
promote Putonghua announced in October 1955 by the Education Minister,
Putonghua becoming the basic instructional medium in all schools in 1956; the
plan for simplification of characters promulgated by the State Council in
January 1956; and the adoption of Hanyu Pinyin as the official romanisation
in February 1958. All these events gave greater credibility to Chinese (in
particular Mandarin) as a viable medium of education within the Singapore
context. Apart from these developments external to Singapore, there was a
more immediate local cause for positive action in the promotion of Chinese
(i.e.
Mandarin-medium) education and that was the political and social unrest
amongst the Chinese-educated community on account of various issues. The
issues included denial of citizenship in some cases and the refusal to do
National Service by students in Chinese High Schools. These local, Singaporean
developments together with developments in Mainland China and elsewhere
made it inescapable that Mandarin would have to have a more respected place in
Singapore's education system with the advent of self-government and eventual
independence.
While these events provide the backdrop to the development of language
policy in the era of independence, they do not by themselves explain why
a campaign promoting the cause of the Chinese language should have been
started in the late 1970s, more than a decade after Singapore became
independent. To understand this, one must look more closely at the fate
of Chinese-stream education during this period. Beginning even before
independence and continuing unabated after independence, the percentage
of pupils enrolled in the Chinese stream in schools gradually dropped, while
the percentage of pupils enrolled in the English stream increased accordingly.
This (voluntary) transfer from the Chinese stream to the English stream
caused concern in the government. A highly influential Report on the
Ministry of Education in 1978, the so-called Goh Report, begins on page 1
of Chapter 1 with the statistical data on numbers of primary pupils registered
in the two streams, beginning with 45.9% registered in the Chinese stream
in 1959 and ending with 11.2% in 1978. The report, implicitly equating
language and culture, goes on to say: '. . . the drift to the English-stream
schools had made it necessary for the government to pay special attention
to bilingual education. It is clearly undesirable that Singaporeans should
lose all connections with their cultural roots, whether their ancestors come
from China, India or the Malay world' (pp. 1-2). A comparable inclination
towards English-stream education could be seen at higher levels of education.
Nanyang University, established in 1956 as a Chinese-medium university,
was attracting fewer high-quality students, as more and more of the best
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 01:39 05 August 2013
44,0 MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
Chinese-stream high school students were being admitted to the English-
medium University of Singapore. In 1978, Nanyang University announced
that it would be preparing undergraduates for English language examin-
ations, using English as the medium of instruction. (Eventually, Nanyang
University became part of the new National University of Singapore.) It is
this drift away from Chinese-medium education and the concern that this
caused, clearly expressed in the Goh Report, which are the more immediate
reasons for the promotion of Chinese at this time (cf. the discussion by
Noss,
1984: 51, who sees the Speak Mandarin Campaign, in part at least,
as a 'compensation' for the loss of Nanyang).
As long as one was opposing the language imposed by the colonial
government (here English), it was convenient to advocate in its place the
alternative of 'the mother tongue', without worrying too much about the
diversity of dialects and language varieties. The reality of Singapore, how-
ever, is that the ethnic Chinese speak a number of Chinese dialects (mainly
Hokkien) while Mandarin has not traditionally been a language of common
use in Singapore. In the 1957 census, only 0.1% of the Chinese claimed
Mandarin as their 'mother tongue' (defined in this context as the 'language
or dialect principally spoken in the person's home during the person's early
childhood'). While the cause of Chinese education was being promoted in
the 1950s, the linguistic diversity amongst the Chinese was very much placed
in the background. In the All-Party Report on Chinese Education (1956),
for example, dialects enter into the discussion only in a peripheral way. To
the extent that they are discussed, they are seen as exerting a positive
influence on the learning of Mandarin (p. 41):
We are also reliably informed that there would be no trouble at ail for the
pupils in Chinese Schools in which the pupils predominately speak one
dialect to learn Mandarin. . . We are also informed that versions in literary as
opposed
to
colloquial
Chinese, whether in Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka, Hockchia,
Hockchiu, Shanghainese, etc. dialects, have very close affinities to the Mandarin
version, and these no doubt help the Chinese child to adopt Mandarin as the
common medium of communication in schools and outside them.
It was not until the Goh Report that the use of dialects was seen as exerting
a negative influence on the learning of Mandarin: 'When they (i.e. the
pupils) are at home, they speak dialects. As a result, most of what they have
learned in school is not reinforced' (p. 4.4).
The thinking about dialects
vis-à-vis
Mandarin in the Goh Report under-
lies the educational argument appealed to as part of the campaign. Basically,
the argument runs as follows: the bilingual policy (i.e. learning English and
Mandarin) is essential; the learning of Mandarin is hampered by the use of
dialect outside the classroom; therefore, in order for the bilingual policy to
be successful, the use of dialect outside the classroom must be replaced by
the use of Mandarin.
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 01:39 05 August 2013
SINGAPORE'S MANDARIN CAMPAIGN 441
One feature of this line of argumentation is the assumed subservience of
the society at large to the demands of the education system. A conflict is
claimed to exist between an established pattern of behaviour in society (the
use of dialect) and the education policy. The solution being advanced is not
to tailor the education policy to suit society, but to transform society so that
the education policy can be made more effective. While this may strike
some observers as unusual, it may find easier acceptance amongst the
Singapore Chinese, given the traditional Chinese respect for education and
the traditional parental dedication to ensuring children's future prosperity
through education. The opening remarks of the speech make a direct appeal
to this tradition: 'One great strength in our society is the strong support for
education. It springs from the conviction of our people that our children's
future depends on education.'
Just as the All-Party Report on Chinese Education had overlooked the
negative role of dialect in the learning of Mandarin, so the Goh Report and
the Prime Minister's speech ignore the positive role of dialect in the learning
of Mandarin. To take just one example of how one can make use of a
knowledge of dialect, consider the task of learning the tone class of words
in Mandarin. One must learn for each word not only the string of segmental
phonemes, but also the tone (there being four distinct tones). If one knows
a dialect and can recognise a cognate relationship between a word in the
dialect and a word in Mandarin (i.e. recognise them as different pronunci-
ations of the same character), then one can make a very good guess about
the tone in Mandarin. In a study looking at such correspondences between
Hokkien and Mandarin (Newman, 1982), I showed that a good Hokkien
speaker would be able to predict Mandarin tones correctly more than 90%
of the time. A good Hokkien speaker therefore has an enormous advantage
over learners of Mandarin who have no Chinese dialect background at all.
There is no reference in the speech under discussion to the attitudinal
dimension of language learning, although we know that a learner's attitude
towards a language can affect, positively or negatively, the learning of that
language. For example, there is no acknowledgement that Singapore Chinese
may sometimes use dialect because they have a fondness for the dialect or
because dialect makes them feel more relaxed. Nor is there any acknowledge-
ment that Singapore Chinese may not feel particularly drawn to Mandarin,
based as it is on a dialect of Northern China, whereas Singapore Chinese
speak dialects from Southern China. If one genuinely wants to learn Manda-
rin, knowledge of a Chinese dialect will not be an obstacle.
The Cultural Argument
One example of the cultural argument occurs in the last paragraph of the
speech referred to above:
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 01:39 05 August 2013
442 MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
We must keep the core of our value systems in social mores. To do that, we
must have our children literate in Chinese and English. To be literate, they
must be Mandarin-speaking, able to read the books,the proverbs, the parables,
and the stories of heroes and villains, so that they know what a good upright
man should do and be. Hence the Mandarin part of our bilingual policy must
succeed.
It is questionable whether one must be literate in Chinese in order to
preserve Chinese value systems and social mores. Possibly a true appreciation
of Chinese 'high culture' (Beijing opera, etc.) may only come about if one
is literate in Modern Chinese. A full appreciation of Chinese high culture
would probably also require familiarity with Classical Chinese texts as well.
But this surely does not apply to the 'low culture' of everyday life. One
does not need to be literate in Chinese in order to understand and practise
filial piety, habits of thrift, respect for authority, or in order to appreciate
Chinese cuisine. Also there are many features of daily life in Singapore
which are seen as traditional and worth continuing, but which have no basis
at all in the culture of China: Indian curry, nasi lemak, batik etc. Being
literate in Mandarin could not possibly make Singapore Chinese appreciate
such things more.3
My second comment on the cultural argument concerns the claim that
one must be able to speak Mandarin in order to be Uterate in Chinese. It
is well known that one can be literate in a language without being able to
speak the language. One does not have to speak the way Chaucer did in
order to read Middle English. There are many scientists who are able to
read English-language journals in their field without being able to hold a
conversation in English. Similarly, many people can read Chinese quite well
without being able to speak Mandarin in an equally proficient way. This is
especially so with Chinese as a result of the largely logographic nature of
the Chinese writing system, as well as the traditional method of teaching
Chinese in schools where the emphasis was on reading and writing rather
than on conversation.
A further cultural argument which is sometimes advanced takes the
following form: Westerners expect Chinese to be able to speak Mandarin
and you will therefore feel ashamed if you cannot speak Mandarin. This
must be one of the rare instances where the Singapore Government relies
on Western reaction to decide whether Singapore's social policy is right or
not. A linguistically naive Westerner whose knowledge of Chinese culture
and languages is circumscribed is hardly an appropriate judge of what is
truly Chinese.4
Despite the objections which may be raised to the cultural argument as
presented in the speech, Mandarin obviously can function for many Chinese
as a clear and well-defined symbol of Chinese culture. Mandarin, unlike the
dialects, carries with it the prestige associated with learning and education
in Chinese society. There is, furthermore, a widespread perception amongst
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 01:39 05 August 2013
SINGAPORE'S MANDARIN CAMPAIGN 443
Chinese that dialects are in some sense inferior to Mandarin. If one wishes
to counter the influence of the English language in all its domains of usage,
then Mandarin would be the most effective counterweight. The Speak
Mandarin Campaign can therefore act as an outlet for the expression of non-
Western identity. As such it is a far more controllable outlet than, say,
Islamic fundamentalism.
The Practical Argument
The practical argument proposes Mandarin as a lingua franca amongst
Singapore Chinese as a way of rationalising inter-Chinese communication, in
preference to the multiplicity of dialects. The use of mutually unintelligible
dialects is seen as hindering effective communication and creating barriers
to the development of a harmonious and more uniform society. In the
following excerpt from the Prime Minister's speech, 'fracturing' of society
is seen as a direct consequence of the continued use of dialects:
The choice for Singapore is simple — continue with dialects, and we will end
up using only dialects and English. We will continue to have a fractured
multilingual society.
It would be wrong to assume, in the Singapore context, that people who
speak different dialects are unable to communicate effectively with each
other. One must take cognisance of the fact that many, probably most,
Singapore Chinese who claim the ability to speak a dialect would also have
some competence in another dialect or language. In fact, one could say that
familiarity with, though not necessarily proficiency in, a number of Chinese
dialects and Mandarin is a hallmark of the Chinese in Singapore and Malaysia
(excluding the peranankan Chinese). The polyglossic situation of Singapore
has been well described by Platt (1980) who characterises the typical verbal
repertoire of a Singapore Chinese as follows:
It usually includes: It may include:
(1) The native Chinese dialect (5) English
(2) The dominant Chinese dialect (6) Mandarin
(Hokkien) (7) Baba Malay
(3) One or more additional Chinese (8) Malay
dialects
(4) Bazaar Malay
Few Chinese, if any, would be equally proficient in all these different
codes.
Rather, a Singapore Chinese will have the degree of competence in
each code which will be appropriate for his needs. With a repertoire like
that shown above, it would be somewhat unusual for two Singapore Chinese
not to be able to find some common means of communication, even though
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 01:39 05 August 2013
444 MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
they might have as their first languages different and mutually unintelligible
dialects.
Even if the aim of a common Chinese lingua franca were achieved, this
does not automatically guarantee social harmony. We know that identifi-
cation with a linguistic or ethnic group can persist well after a person has
lost the linguistic ability which may have characterised that group. In
Singapore, clan feelings of solidarity may persist even when the dialect of
the clan has been lost.
There is an additional type of practical argument based on the undesir-
ability or impracticality of an individual having to know more than two
languages. Relevant excerpts from the speech in question are:
The average student finds it difficult to master three languages — dialect,
Mandarin and English. It is not easy to master even two languages.
But let me reassure all parents: your child has a brain bigger than the biggest
computer man has ever built. Whilst the world's biggest computer cannot
handle two languages, most human beings can, especially if they are taught
when young.
While one could hardly deny that learning foreign languages is an enor-
mously demanding task, the learning of Mandarin by a dialect speaker is
not the same as learning a foreign language. As discussed above, competence
in a Chinese dialect means that a person will have many correct intuitions
about the pronunciations, vocabulary and syntax of Mandarin. Attacks on
individual multilingualism (as opposed to bilingualism) typically invoke
images from computer technology, as in the excerpt above. Platt (1985: 22)
quotes from an article by the Foreign Editor of The Straits Times (7
November 1979) which also argues in support of the campaign by way of
an analogy with computers:
The human mind is capable of storing a limited amount of knowledge for
immediate usage if needed. Filled to capacity it tends to reject other items
you try to push in. Computer programmers know this well.
Given the paucity of our understanding of the actual psycholinguistic pro-
cesses involved when a Chinese dialect speaker learns Mandarin, it is clear
that linguists are still a long way from constructing actual computer simula-
tions of such processes. In any case, it is unlikely that a realistic computer
model of such processes will be as simple as suggested in the campaign
rhetoric.
Miscellaneous Supporting Activities
In addition to these arguments, which represent the philosophical under-
pinnings of the campaign, there are numerous events and measures designed
to give further support to the campaign.
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 01:39 05 August 2013
SINGAPORE'S MANDARIN CAMPAIGN 445
1.
In 1981, the National University of Singapore (NUS) announced that
English-stream students would henceforth have to meet a second-language
requirement for entry into the university. In the 1982/83 academic year, the
minimum requirement for Chinese as a second language at the 'A' Level
Examination was a grade of E8, raised to D7 in the 1983/84 academic year.
This was supposed to have been raised to C6 in the academic year beginning
July 1985. The level has, however, been maintained at the 1983/84 level
because (a) too many bright students were being excluded from university
and (b) more female students than male students were being admitted. In
addition, students have been admitted to NUS since 1985 without the
required second-language qualification on the basis that they would have to
pass a University Examination in the second language before they could
graduate. The introduction of the second-language requirement by NUS
automatically lent an importance to Mandarin as a serious school subject
and this requirement alone, subsequent relaxations notwithstanding, has
given Mandarin increased status and a higher profile within the Chinese
community. In fact, in so far as the second-language requirement may be
fulfilled by attaining the required level in any of the official languages, it
has meant that all second-language teaching, not just the teaching of Manda-
rin, has taken on increased importance.
2.
Dialect is no longer permissible on government-operated radio and tele-
vision. Already in 1977 it was announced that dialects would not be allowed
in Chinese-language commercials over Radio and Television Singapore
(reported in the New Nation, 26 January 1977). The last dialect (Cantonese)
programme shown on SBC television was the final episode of the Hong
Kong series, The
Brothers,
shown on 24 January 1982. This occurred, despite
the publication of a Straits Times' survey just a few months before (28
September 1981) which found 67% of Chinese aged twelve years and over
felt that dialect programmes over radio and television should not be dropped
completely. Even the privately owned and operated broadcasting service,
Rediffusion, switched entirely to Mandarin for its Chinese programmes (in
place of Hokkien, Teochew and Cantonese) in early 1983. The changeover
resulted in large numbers of subscribers cancelling their subscriptions.
Throughout 1983, an average of 1,228 subscribers per month were opting
out of the service (The Straits Times, 12 March 1984). In the same article
the managing director was reported as saying that these subscribers were
mainly 'elderly people who can't understand and enjoy our Mandarin pro-
grammes'.
3.
The use of Hanyu Pinyin romanisation has been promoted throughout
the society. So, for example, Chinese parents have been encouraged to
register the names of their children in Pinyin; certain localities are now
referred to by their Pinyin forms (without tone marks), such as Yishun (Nee
Soon);
the government encourages hawkers to use Pinyin for the names of
their stalls. Since Hanyu Pinyin is a romanisation of Mandarin, the pro-
motion of Pinyin is clearly also a promotion of Mandarin. Usually, Pinyin
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 01:39 05 August 2013
446 MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
is presented in the press as merely a convenient way of recording pronunci-
ation, like a phonetic alphabet, but this ignores the fact that it is being used
as a phonetic alphabet of the Mandarin forms of language. An example of
this line of defence of Hanyu Pinyin would be the remarks attributed to the
director of the Chinese Language and Research Centre at NUS (quoted in
The Straits Times, 11 February 1985): 'Pinyin is nothing in
itself.
It is only
a tool for transcribing standard Chinese sounds.' Here, 'standard Chinese
sounds' must be understood as 'the sounds of the Mandarin equivalent'.
4.
Although no large-scale punitive measures have been adopted, various
isolated attempts have been made to coerce people into speaking Mandarin,
involving incentives or disincentives. Altehenger-Smith (p. 6) refers to one
school where penalties were imposed on students who continued to speak
dialects. Taxi-drivers' licences in 1980 could be approved only after the
drivers passed an oral Mandarin test (Ng,
1980/81:
41). The Hokkien
platoon of the Singapore Armed Forces, originally established for the benefit
of illiterate Chinese youths, was disbanded and any soldier unable to com-
municate in any of the four official languages would receive only basic pay
with all allowances deducted (Ng,
1980/81:
41).
5.
Accompanying paraphernalia include booklets, stickers, posters, badges,
etc.
which have all the hallmarks of a well co-ordinated campaign designed
to appeal to Chinese. The Chinese character %# 'to speak' (as in 'Speak
Mandarin') has been adopted as a very bold and striking symbol, written
in black against a red background. The usual visual motif to represent the
campaign is the picture of two faces, facing each other with open mouths
with one face shaded and the other clear, bearing a faint resemblance to the
Chinese yin-yang symbol:
yin-yang symbol
the campaign symbol
Slogans which have been used on the posters appear in Mandarin and
English and include: 'Don't hesitate, speak Mandarin'; 'Speak Mandarin
while at work'; 'Let's speak Mandarin'. The slogans are generally more
effective in their Mandarin version than in their English version. So, for
example, the Mandarin version of 'Don't hesitate, speak Mandarin' is a
rhyming trisyllabic couplet jiàng hnàyû, biéyouyù (literally 'Speak Manda-
rin, don't hesitate').
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 01:39 05 August 2013
SINGAPORE'S MANDARIN CAMPAIGN 447
Conclusion
Is the campaign successful or not? The answer to this question depends
very much on the set of criteria used to define success. If one measures
success by the amount of Mandarin used in the official or semi-official
domains (media, public speeches, on public transport, etc.), then the answer
is surely that it has been a success. The range of measures taken by the
government in support of the campaign, such as those briefly reviewed in
the preceding section, would almost certainly ensure the increased use of
Mandarin, regardless of whether the target audience has been persuaded by
the verbal arguments which have been advanced. The vagueness inherent
in a phrase such as 'to speak more Mandarin' also allows a person to easily
claim, quite honestly, that he/she is now 'speaking more Mandarin' than,
say, five years ago. This may just mean that the person has learnt three or
four phrases in Mandarin, or it may mean that the person is able to hold a
fluent conversation in Mandarin. (This kind of vagueness is no different
from the vagueness of claims such as 'I can speak six Chinese dialects'.
Probably such a person speaks and understands one dialect very well, but
does not speak and understand the other five dialects equally well.)
The Singapore Government's objective, however, goes beyond promoting
the official use of Mandarin to making Mandarin the
lingua franca
of all the
ethnic Chinese for all inter-Chinese communicative needs. All the (Straits
Times) surveys indicate that this result has not been achieved yet. It may
be achieved in the future, but no one pretends that this will happen very
quickly. The chairman of the Promote the Use of Mandarin Campaign,
speaking in 1986, has said that the campaign will continue for at least ten
more years (reported in The Straits Times, 4 October 1986). If the ethnic
Chinese can accept one or more of the three main arguments supporting the
campaign, then this will no doubt expedite the conversion to Mandarin. A
linguist may find some of the claims or assumptions of the arguments
unacceptable or at least debatable, but this does not mean that the non-
linguist Chinese would have the same reaction. Like most publicly argued
government policies, the argumentation of this campaign is directed at the
public at large, not at linguists, and certainly not at linguists outside of
Singapore. What counts, in other words, is whether or not the Singapore
Chinese find the rhetoric convincing. For the rhetoric to be convincing, it
may be enough for some people to be impressed by some idea mentioned
in the argumentation. So, for example, the idea that Westerners, who might
be completely uninformed about Chinese dialects, expect a Singaporean
Chinese to speak Mandarin is often brought up along with the idea that
Singaporean Chinese will feel ashamed if they have to admit to the Westerner
that they cannot speak Mandarin. I know Singaporean Chinese who do feel
this way and are swayed by arguments which appeal to this idea. Ideas like
this make an immediate emotional impact with some Singaporean Chinese
and may contribute much more to winning acceptance for the campaign
than the use of carefully constructed and linguistically defensible arguments.
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 01:39 05 August 2013
448 MULTILINGUAL
AND
MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
Notes
An earlier version
of
this paper
was
read
at the
Seventh
New
Zealand Asian Studies Conference,
University
of
Auckland,
15 May to 18 May, 1987.
I
am
grateful
to Lim
Kiat Boey
for
advice
on
some points
and to an
anonymous reviewer
for helpful comments
on the
paper.
1.
It is
hard
to fix the
exact date
of the
start
of the
campaign.
The
event which attracted most
publicity
was the
opening
of a
campaign called 'Promote
the Use of
Mandarin'
by the
Prime
Minister
on 7
September
1979. But
already
in May 1978 Mr
Rajaratnam, Minister
for
Foreign Affairs, alluded
to an
already existing campaign
to
promote
the use of
Mandarin,
beginning possibly with
the
February
1978
speech
of the
Prime Minister discussed here.
Also,
Chinese dialect commercials
on
radio
and
television were stopped
in 1977.
2.
The
educational argument
is
discussed
at
greater length
in
Newman (1986), which also
includes
a
more detailed account
of the
historical background
to the
campaign.
3.
There
is
also
the
'high culture'
in
dialect, such
as
Cantonese opera, which
is
officially
supported. Traditional story-telling,
in
dialect, however,
is not
allowed
on
government
radio/television.
A
Cantonese story-teller,
Lee Dai Soh, who had
been telling stories
in
Cantonese over Singapore radio
for 40
years,
was
taken
off the air in 1982
because
of the
Speak Mandarin Campaign. Ironically, Singaporeans could listen
to Lee Dai
Soh's Cantonese
stories
by
tuning into Radio Australia which broadcast
his
stories weekly throughout
Southeast Asia
(The
Straits Times,
28 and 30
January, 1983).
4.
When
the
context
is the
Speak Mandarin Campaign, Mandarin
is
portrayed
as
being part
of
the
core
of
Chinese culture. When
the
context, however,
is the new
'national education
scheme', whereby English
is the
first school language
of all
Singapore pupils, then
the
significance
of
language
in the
preservation
of
Chinese culture
is
minimised. Thus,
in a
speech reported
in The
Straits Times,
19
February
1984, the
Prime Minister emphasised
the
importance
of the
family
in the
transmission
of
cultural values: 'Language
is
related
to, but
not synonymous with, culture.' This speech,
in
support
of the
national English-language
stream,
is the
most eloquent
and
persuasive argument against
the
Speak Mandarin Campaign
that
I
have encountered.
References
Altehenger-Smith,
S. (ms.)
(n.d.) Language Planning
in
Singapore, Promote
the Use of
Mandarin Campaign.
Newman,
J.
(1982)
A
Study
of
Hokkien-Mandarin Phonological
Correspondences.
Occasional
Paper
No. 22.
Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
(1986) Singapore's Speak Mandarin Campaign:
the
educational argument, Southeast Asian
journal
of
Social Science,
14.2,
52-67.
Ng,
K. M.
(1980/81)
The
Speak Mandarin Campaign: Aspect
of
Public Policy. Academic
Exercise, Department
of
Political Science, National University
of
Singapore.
Noss,
R. B. (ed.)
(1984)
An
Overview
of
Language
Issues
in
Southeast Asia 1950-1980. Singapore:
Oxford University Press.
Platt,
J.
(1980) Multilingualism, polyglossia
and
code selection
in
Singapore.
In E. A.
Afendras
&
E. C. Y. Kuo
(eds), Language
and
Society
in
Singapore 63-83. Singapore: Singapore
University Press.
(1985) Bilingual policies
in a
multilingual society: Reflections
of the
Singapore Mandarin
campaign
in the
English language press.
In D.
Bradley (ed.), Language Policy, Language
Planning
and
Sociolinguistics
in
South-east Asia, 15-30. Papers
in
Southeast Asian Linguis-
tics
No. 9.
Canberra: Australian National University, Department
of
Linguistics.
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 01:39 05 August 2013
