Skip to main content

Singapore working language is English? Yes and no


Yes. It used to be the way, especially when the first language in our schools is English and we have effectively phased out other language schools in Singapore.  For local citizens, English is the working language plus may be our unique singlish.

No. When our population increases to 5 or even more millions, with a sizable foreign born population, it is quite impossible to have only one working language. You may ask property agents, insurance people, car dealers, entertainers, or even some doctors and lawyers, what is their working language?

Then we may have to define what working language is. Is it different from official language in the government and courts?  Look at Hong Kong, the working language is English or Cantonese?  Hong Kong people will tell you that it depends on the money factors.

You may argue Hong Kong is different.  More than 90% of the population are Cantonese. In Singapore, we have different races and cultures. Then, you look at USA, a dominant English speaking country but with a quarter of the population speaking Spanish. 

Singapore has two worlds. People in one world will only claim that English is the only working language. Just like some rich and elite Americans who only know English and no others.  They fail to realise there is another 25% Spanish speaking Americans plus another few percentages who speak other languages.

Our foreign born population in terms of percentage is one of the highest in the world.  With such a high percentage and even in number, it will easily be 2 or even more millions. This is equal to how many Ang Mo Kio or Toa Payoh put together.  For this group of people, it is not sure whether their working language is English.

So far, Singaporeans are complaining about the non-English speaking service personnel and workers.  There are also training courses conducted in other languages. Are these working or non-working languages?

If we step out of our comfort zone, Geylang is like another world. Little India is another one.  I am not sure whether you can extend the working language English to these areas. 

Language of money and politics

Unfortunately, we are facing the challenge of money and politics in defining a working language.  Ask the sales girls in Hong Kong, can they not speak Mandarin to the high purchasing power Chinese? Can our property agents not speaking Mandarin to rich Chinese buyers? Can we do business with China with only speaking English?

Even when we come to politics, when the election is so fiercely contests, like Potong Pasir, Joo Chiat, etc, the foreign born voters will be the king makers.  This is why political Americans are forced to speak Spanish; Ma Ying-jeou has to force himself to speak in “taiyu” (台语). 

Perhaps, we cannot define working language as a working tool for money and politics.  This is wrong and in Singapore, working language means the administration language of the government because the government has the monopoly power to decide the working language. If this is the case, you are not listening to the money, politics and people.  Can such so-called working language survive in the long-term?  

Just like bilingualism, if Singapore wants to be an international business hub, we have to be flexible and not only limit ourselves to English.  There is an urgent need for young generation to know more than one working language. The Americans are doing it. The Europeans are doing it.  What is the need to restrict Singapore with one and only one working language?

To survive under the language of money and politics, the working languages are decided by the people who are the buyers, voters or decision makers.
  


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 ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...