I did not watch the live telecast of the speech by our PM on TV, rather, I just read the highlights from the CNA website. The two major issues that caught my interest were (1) urge to produce more bilingual and bi-cultural Singaporeans, primarily Chinese/English knowing, and (2) urging Singaporeans to learn Malay as a 3rd language.
And it just so happened that I was reading a chapter on language planning and policy in Southeast Asia, so let me just say a few things.
One, I think those were pragmatic moves. Sure, they are encouraging more people to use Chinese due to the Chinese market boom, but at the same time, they are raising the value of a minority language (Behasa Melayu). In doing this, they are obviously trying to avoid a situation whereby Mandarin is seen as being favoured as a de jure language in Singapore. Also, by urging more students to take up Behasa Melayu as a 3rd language (by giving them 2 bonus points in JC entrance; how nice), they are trying to get more younger Singaporeans to actually KNOW our national language, beyond Majulah Singapura and burong kakak tuah.
However, I think these plans are lofty, really. Not only do we have the Speak Good English campaign, and Speak Mandarin campaign, now we’re going to have some Learn Malay campaign? What’s a student to do in a situation like this? As far as I know, students are only allowed to take up a 3rd language in secondary school provided they have good PSLE results (score of 250/300 and above). Which really translates to good English and mother-tongue command. So these smart students are drafted into taking a 3rd language, and since Malay has suddenly gained favour, these students will then be the favoured ones who get admitted into elite JCs. So aren’t they really still trying sift through the entire cohort, and adding to the challenge of being a scholar? Where do the average student stand in this race? And seriously, will a student who is barely average in EL, yet fully competent in Chinese and Malay be valued? Ultimately EL is still of utmost importance. (You know, this really echoes the policy to encourage couples to have more children of 1987; the operative clause being something along the lines of “provided the parents are educated and can comfortably provide for the children”. )
And drawing in what I read about language policy and planning, I want to quote this particular definition of language policy that I like:
“Language policy: an attempt by someone to manipulate the linguistic behaviour of some community for some reason” (Baldauf Jr.)
Manipulate. Gosh I love that word. So yes. I’m calling the above two language policies by our central government.