Skip to main content

Bilingualism, how far can we go? Is another shock therapy needed?


The bilingualism policy and strategy is always a one-side story – the emphasis of English language.  The second language of mother-tongue is always a supplementary – with or without it will not affect a person badly.

For this achievement, we may have to agree with PM Lee Hsien Loong.  Speaking at the groundbreaking ceremony of the Yale-NUS liberal arts college, he noted:
"Our system is not perfect - parents and students (are) still stressed about tests and key examinations, tuition has become a minor national obsession - but despite that, overall (we are) not doing too badly." (Today, 7 July 2012)

Yes. Our education system is not perfect, especially the bilingualism policy.  PM Lee has only looked at the tests, examinations, and tuition; it is culture, value and spirit that will carry a person in his or her whole life.  Overall we are not doing too badly in mathematically term only, but spiritually, are we also doing not so badly?   

Providing an update, Prof Lewis (Yale-NUS college's inaugural president) said that there will be a deliberate effort to combine Eastern and Western elements in the curriculum. (Today 7 July 2012)

One will wonder how to input Eastern elements into Yale-NUS College if the bilingualism in Singapore is in fact an English only policy. We can bring in the Eastern elements from all over Asia, especially China, India and South East Asia. But what about the students, do we have enough local students who are bilingual enough to benefit from Yale-NUS education?  Don’t tell me we have to import foreign students too. Otherwise, we may have to adopt  what Singapore University of Technology and Design did for the first intake of their students – limited the number of students admitted so that it will not break the quota restriction (due to insufficient qualified local students).  

It may be a ‘right way forward’ and "will not be a replica" of Yale University in the United States provided we have (enough) local talents and students who can benefit from the program. However, if you look at our bilingualism education in schools, it is not only a disappointing development; it is a crisis in waiting.

If it is not doing so badly, there is no need to call for proposals to promote bilingualism education at pre-school level.  It directly points out that the formal school education (from primary, secondary to JC) of bilingualism is not doing well or beyond repair.

{Members of the public with ideas on how to promote bilingualism among children at the pre-school level are invited to submit their proposals to the Lee Kuan Yew Fund for Bilingualism.
Launched last November, the Fund is aimed at promoting bilingual education to address the eroding use of mother-tongue languages among Singaporeans. } (Today, 7 July 2012)
We can build the infrastructure of Yale-NUS College, bilingualism policy, and bi-culture education at schools; however, if our students don’t have the soft power and language capability to benefit from the system, then we are just doing it for other people or foreign institutions.  We provide them a platform to venture into Asia or for the foreign students an opportunity venture into the world.

This development will, of course, draw criticism from local Singaporeans.

The bilingualism strategy has now lowered to pre-school status. It is time we need another shock therapy – a painful and difficult one like the Lim Chong Yah's wage shock therapy.

Former PM Lee Kuan Yew has seen the danger and crisis of not having enough bilingual (and bi-culture) Singaporeans.   However, it may be an effort of “ 有心无力
(In your heart you want to do it but you have lost the strength to do it) .

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...