Skip to main content

An Analogy Is An Analogy Whether It Is Ancient Chinese Or Not.



Suddenly, it is ‘cool’ to speak Mandarin in the Parliament.  The cool wind has received mixed feelings among Singaporeans as some of them think that analogy based on ancient Chinese may not be relevant to today’s Singapore.  Furthermore, how many Singaporeans really know about ancient Chinese, not to mention whether they are proficient enough to understand the analogy?


Singapore has four official languages even though English is the main language for administration and government.  However, in the Parliament, a Member of Parliament can choose to speak in any one of the official languages. Discouraging the use of other languages will not be good for Singapore and it will only show the mono-lingua, single culture of Singaporeans.

To demonstrate to the world Singapore’s multi-culture, multi-language and multi-race, we should encourage the use of all four official languages inside and outside of the Parliament. The old normal and practice of (either intentionally or unintentionally) Speak English only should not be continued, especially if we really want our bilingualism policy to work.

This is also inline with the worry of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew who said the lost of Chinese language was like losing our (Chinese Singaporeans) roots.   

Chinese is a ‘continuous’ and ‘live’ language.  Without the past and ancient, there is no present Chinese. It will be extremely difficult to understand Chinese and Chinese thinking without understanding the ancient Chinese analogies and idioms.  

With the increasing popularity of Chinese language in the West, there are more and more new Chinese terms and names being accepted by the West. In the Wall Streets, one will find some Chinese names that are not known to Singaporeans but are already being traded in the financial sectors.

Even in the internet and social media, you have the similar words, with the backup of Chinese meanings, like facebook, tweeter, cloud computing, etc.
    
Without the ancient Chinese culture and history, there is no soul in the Chinese language. Just like the western civilization. Without the ancient Greece, what actually is the civilization of the western world?  

If we can accept the Emperor’s new cloth, Snow White, and other English idioms; why can’t we also accept the Chinese analogies with our open hearts?   

One day, we, Singaporeans, will suddenly wake up and discover that the Americans and Europeans have more knowledge of Chinese analogies and idioms than us even though they may or may not master the Chinese language.   

Do we really want to be a banana republic?

Can the cool wind of speak Mandarin sustain after the debates on the President’s address to the Parliament?  Can it last under the new normal environment?

Our current standard and level of Chinese language is rather poor.  If we continue to practice the old normal, it will end up like what Ix Shen has described below:  
  
Ix Shen: Singaporeans can't speak Mandarin


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting

因为有比较, 才知道做得不够, 才明白什么叫做易通。

  因为有比较, 才知道做得不够, 才明白什么叫做易通。 如果只有一套解决方法,很难看出好坏,方便还是不方便,易通还是不容易通。用新方法代替旧的系统,人们当然会做比较,尤其是科技产品,使用的人很多,一用就马上看到结果。 这是一个竞争的世界,即使一党独大,也要考虑到便民。当人民觉得不方便,不好用,不易通,就会反映,发声,不满。为什么没有预先想到,最可怕的是测试时,已经接到反应,还是不加改善。或许,行动党还抱着“令伯”最大,用者自行解决问题。 易通公交收费系统的整合,似乎缺少一种人文,沟通,反而更加多表现出政府的独断独行。尤其重要的是,如果只有一套系统,我们是看不出问题,做不出好坏的评价。 这其实证明国会里不可以只有一把声音,没有比较,没有进步。

梁文辉可能有点傻, 但却是真的真情流露。