Skip to main content

Stereotyping, Ignorance and the Joke of Singapore Education


[Closing down Nantah is an easy decision but can the stereotyping, ignorance and the joke of education about ‘Chinese heritage’ be removed after 33 years, even at the same Jurong campus?]

Even graduating with Chinese majors, English is still the first language for these graduates who still has better command of English than that of Chinese.   

We may have found the last laugh or at least a good laugh after the closure of Nanyang University 33 years ago in 1980.  

Yes. Closing down Nantah is an easy decision which needs only one vote. But has it achieved the objective of removing the prejudices against Nantah graduates or Chinese stream students?   


33 years later, the story continues…..

It begins with the following statement at the second day of Nanyang Technological University (NTU) 2013 Conviction by a student representative in his closing remarks:  

“the Chinese majors who probably have not gotten anything I said in English”.

Chinese readers of mainstream media may have already known the story last Friday and days after.

Stereotyping continues even after 33 years

There is basically no Chinese stream school in Singapore in 1987, seven years after the closure of Nantah.  English is the first language for all Singapore students and the mother tongues of Chinese, Malays and Tamil become second languages. 

Every student having 10 years (up to ‘O’ Level) or 12 years (up to ‘A’ Level) education in Singapore will have to study English or General Papers respectively in schools.  The current situation is we are facing more problems teaching our young the mother tongues than the English language.

This makes one wonder where is the basis of this stereotype coming from?  After studying 10 or 12 years English, for graduates another 3 or 4 more years, yet still can’t understand English? Is this a joke? Or maybe our education system is something like the USA system,  there are some students even after graduating from colleges still cannot command proper English – the average level of American English.      
 
Our society, our education system and even the government must have certain types of stereotype thinking against certain groups of people or students.  One example is ITE. We know about the case of ITE students so much so that the Prime Minster has to hold his National Day Speech at ITE HQ this year.  

This is why closing down Nantah is so easy but to do away the stereotype is not.  Even among local graduates, some may consider themselves higher class than others depending on their graduating universities and majors.

Ignorance of social change in the past 33 years

What surprise me is the student representative is from sociology department.   If sociology students do not know the social changes in Singapore, what and how about graduates from other disciplines.  All graduates can then claim they are ignorance about the social stereotyping and prejudices. Think deeply, how many of our top 20% or 30% of the educated population do think it in this way?  Does the PAP government intentionally want this ignorance and stereotype to happen?

The student representative must have a very short memory.  Just before him, the invited guest speaker is a Chinese majors from NUS.  She spoke in English and talked about her experience and the importance of Chinese language in her work. NTU and the faculty must have some reasons for inviting such a speaker – giving emphasis and importance to bilingualism.  This is really a slap to the university and the academics in the school of humanity and social sciences. 

In fact, many of the Chinese majors students, even after 3 (NUS) or 4 (NTU) years of study, their first language is still English.  And it is not surprised their command of English is still better than that of their Chinese after graduation. Singapore university system is different from other Chinese universities in China, Taiwan or Hong Kong.  Chinese majors does not mean you study 100% Chinese or in a 100% Chinese environment.   There are other courses and electives all in English that a student needs to take.   Our university’s Chinese department is more like the western style universities rather than a Chinese speaking university.  This makes the difference between Nantah and NTU.

The objective of closing down Nantah is to move away from the image and environment of a Chinese speaking university and yet this stereotyping and ignorance still exist today. Why?

It takes a political decision to close down Nantah but the problem remains.  A political decision, no matter how high handed, still cannot solve social, education or worst cultural problems, especially the decision is purely made on economics and politics. 

Perhaps, it is time to rethink the calling of PM Lee on right politics, and then right economics.  How to prevent stereotyping and ignorance under right politics right economics?  We already have this experience in the Population White Paper and the Hong Lim Park protest.

Sociology graduates fail to see the social and educational changes in Singapore.  Is this a joke of education or an intentional strategy?

Joke of bilingualism

Bilingualism is the aim of our education system, bilingualism here and bilingualism there with different kinds of funding.  The more we talk about it, the more difficult we will  face for the learning of Chinese language in schools.  For some students, we need to even provide them a Ipad so that he or she can complete a short and simple Chinese composition.

So, the problem is not English, especially in university level. It is the Chinese (Malay and Tamil as well) causing problem. The Malay Minister had even suggested teaching Malay language as a foreign language!  Can we assume that a foreign language standard will demand a lower proficiency than the standard of a second language?   We already have mother tongue B now we want to create another mother tongue F (F for foreign).     

So, this is a joke of our bilingualism policy and the joke of our education system.  We are training English speaking only graduates and yet some graduates are still stereotyping and ignoring the social changes.  They are still thinking like 30, 40 years ago - the era of ‘Chinese helicopters, Chinese heritage’.

Nantah is not NTU

Or if you wish NTU is not Nantah.  Even today, Nantah graduates still regularly receive alumni magazines from both NUS and NTU. Even today, the Nantah logo is still with NUS.  However, the academic records have been transferred from NUS to NTU. Who are they? NTU says its history dated back to 1955. Why?

Why does an easy political decision in 1980 still looking for a difficult solution today? The former President of NTU even suggested a rename of NTU by removing the word ‘technological’.  This is another dilemma – to please the Nantah graduates?
  
Why can’t we just close the chapter of Nantah from 1955 to 1980? Perhaps, it is better for NTU to cut off its relationship and history with Nantah and develops its own future without this historical burden.

No matter with or without the burden, the stereotyping, ignorance, prejudices and the joke of our education will continue as far as the PAP is still in power.  The PAP government with its ‘right politics, right economics’ mindset will not be able to find a proper solution to tackle this issue. It is because stereotyping, ignorance and prejudices work well with the PAP.  The PAP wants to be the man in between to balance and please different groups of people according to different pressures. So, what is the problem even there is a joke in our education system? So what?

Closing down Nantah is a policy option worked well in the past as there were basically no objections.  Or even there were objections, it was not loud enough.  Only now, 33 years later, we finally see the last laugh or at least a good laugh.   Will the past decision work really and finally? 

It is now a moment that we will see more good laughs out of the PAP policies, be it Swiss standard of living, AIM, CPIB, cleaning of hawkers' centre, population, housing, health care, foreign workers, ……. and education.

However, the PAP will consider this as an isolated incident – stereotyping, ignorance and prejudices are all one-time event.  This is why we have to define who has the last laugh – the people or the PAP.


Chinese media in Singapore has no choice but to report this news in a ‘balance’ way.

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...