Why Don’t Singaporeans Try To Speak Proper English?

‘Singlish’ or ‘Singapore English’ is uniquely Singapore. It is what Singaporeans speak. The following was written by Grace Teng in response to a question by an ex-pat who asked: ‘Why don’t Singaporeans try to speak proper English?’

Oh wow. You're spoiling for a fight. 

Firstly, Singlish is not bad English. It has its own phonology, its own syntax, its own grammar. It is possible to speak bad Singlish, just as it is possible to speak bad English. Singlish is a creole, and while there isn't a lot of agreement as to what defines a creole, many creole languages suffer from perception problems; they're seen as "corrupted" forms of a "proper" language. Many creoles exist on a dialect continuum. On one end is the acrolectal form, the "proper" form of the base language (in this case it's English), and on the other end is the basilectal form (in this case it's Singlish). Even the terms acrolectal and basilectal are loaded terms but I'll just use them anyway. 

I should say that it's not just creoles that form parts of a dialect continuum. Pretty much any regional accent will also exist on a continuum. In the UK, for example, the acrolect is Received Pronunciation / Queen's English, and the basilect could be Scouse, Geordie, Cockney, Brummie... if you go to Liverpool, Newcastle, East London or Birmingham and tell them they're speaking bad English, you're not going to have a good time. 

Besides, the huge diversity of languages that we have today came from somewhere. Once upon a time, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, Catalan, Galician, Occitan, Romanian, etc. were "bad" Latin. 

I'm going to make a bold, somewhat tenuous (but I think correct) claim here - Singlish shows many traits of natural language, it is consistently spoken the same way by a large group of what are, in effect, native speakers of Singlish, so we should consider it a language in its own right. (It's still a creole on one end of a continuum, but for the purposes of this argument...) 

Singlish is under-researched, except in sociolinguistics, but here are some things about Singlish phonology and grammar that I bet you never thought about:

Singlish is syllable-timed, unlike American and British English, which are stress-timed. This means that in Singlish, each syllable takes the same amount of time, while in American and British English, the interval between two stressed syllables takes the same amount of time. 

Vowels are usually fully articulated. In American and British English, unstressed vowels tend to be pronounced as schwa or as a lax high front vowel (the "i" in "bitter"). Not so in Singlish. "To", for example, will be pronounced /tu/ regardless of stress. 

Consonant clusters are reduced and a lot of phonemes get elided, especially in running speech. How does a Singlish speaker know that "liddat" means "like that" and "dowan" means "don't want"? Those are just the canonical examples. Listen to a Singaporean the next time he says "I don't understand", and see what you actually hear, not just what you think you hear. Curiously, in Singlish, word-initial consonant clusters are never reduced, yet reduction can happen across a word boundary. 

A quirk I recently noticed: th-stopping and th-fronting happen allophonically. In non-technical terms: when "th" appears at the start of a word or after a consonant cluster, it is realised as /t/ or /d/, when it appears at the end of a syllable or between vowels it is realised as /f/ or /v/. 

Topic prominent syntax - the most important part of a sentence goes to the beginning, regardless of part of speech. "The camera must bring hor" (noun - object), "Blur lah him" (adjective), "faster go if not no more seats" (adverb), all acceptable constructions in Singlish that are not acceptable in English. The set of acceptable syntactical constructions in Singlish is a superset of that of English. And if you doubt that this is even syntax, think about this: why can't we say "lah cannot make it"?

Productive morphology - Singlish allows you to apply English morphology to any lexical item, regardless of origin. "Nuah" can become "nuahed" or "nuahing", "kope" can become "koped" or "koping", same with "chope". The word "agaration", from the verb "agak" and the derivational suffix "-ation". Nouns, too: kopis, kuehs, goondus...

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Trust me, I could go on. Nobody sat in a room and said, we shall all speak Singlish this way, let's write a grammar of Singlish. There is a wrong way to speak Singlish, but at least two generations of Singaporeans have now learned to speak a language that is remarkably consistent in its own phonology and grammar across speakers, when considered separately from English. 

I also want to make a distinction here between speaking Singlish and speaking English with a Singaporean accent. To an English speaker from a different part of the world, the latter sounds like English with a different accent, while Singlish often sounds like a completely different language. 

Now to the other part of your question: why don't Singaporeans speak English more often instead of Singlish?

Because, like it or not, Singlish, not English, is what we grow up speaking. It's what we hear in our homes growing up, it's what we hear when we go out, it's what we hear in schools and informally in the workplace, and it's what we become comfortable with from a young age. We think in it, its lexis and syntax are what come most naturally to us, it becomes the default medium for expression. I know my argument is tautological, but since I've spent all this time arguing that Singlish has many features of a naturally acquired first language (as opposed to features of an imperfectly acquired second language), what I'm really saying is, you wouldn't ask a Frenchman why he prefers to speak French over other languages, would you?

Let's consider a different case of diglossia (two different but closely related languages coexisting): do you ask why Cantonese speakers in Guangdong or Shanghainese speakers in Shanghai don't speak "real Mandarin Chinese"? They do speak it when they have to, they just prefer Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. for daily communication. Same goes for Catalan/Galician/Aranese/Asturian/etc. and Spanish, same goes for Bairisch/Schwäbisch/etc. and German, same goes for many, many diglossia situations around the world. Just because Singlish is a creole doesn't mean it's any different from the above cases. (In this respect, the Bairisch-German comparison is probably the most accurate.)

Besides being a first language of most Singaporeans, or perhaps because of it, Singlish also has features that make it feel unique to a Singaporean - the staccato quality (due to our tendency to insert a glottal stop before a word-initial vowel), its syntactical efficiency, its varied lexis drawn from many different languages - all Singlish speakers know what "shiok" means and yet not one person can give an accurate definition of it to a non-speaker. Some things simply do not feel the same expressed in English: can you find a way to say "why you so like that?" that conveys the same measure of annoyance and curtness?

Heck, why do we even have any linguistic diversity in the world, why don't we just make everyone speak English? It's because each language has its own fluidity, its own quirks, its own peculiar expressions that are beautiful in and of themselves, and speakers of different languages want to preserve that. 

I will admit Singlish is a "problem" when the speaker isn't aware of where he or she falls on the basilectal-acrolectal continuum. It is a problem when Singaporeans think they're speaking English when they're not, and I have also encountered the reverse (when Singaporeans think they're speaking Singlish when they're only speaking English with a Singaporean accent - yes, it happens to Singaporeans abroad). But if we continue to pretend that Singlish doesn't exist as a language in its own right, we'll never begin to be able to sort out what makes Singlish Singlish, what's bad English, and what is actually good English.

- Grace Teng

Why I’m Coming Back To You, Singapore

By Charles Tan Meah Yang - 19 March

In Singapore, as in life, change is the only constant. I am reminded of this fact every time I come home for Chinese New Year, looking out at the CBD skyline as I travel over the Benjamin Sheares Bridge.

More recently, however, it is our politics that have undergone a fair bit of change, and my worry is that the path we are heading down is an all-too-familiar one that democracies lean towards over time — but one that Singapore cannot afford to follow.

The saying “you don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone” is particularly poignant for me. My grandfather, who practically raised me, passed away just before Chinese New Year, and it evoked strong feelings of regret and guilt, for not having spent more time with him while he was alive.

The event was particularly distressing because I was unable to attend his funeral, being stranded in the United Kingdom, waiting for my visa to be renewed — a process that was already four months in, and would have taken two months more, if not for the unfortunate circumstances which enabled me to expedite my application.

I never appreciated the importance of an efficient public sector, until I actually found myself at the mercy of such inefficiency in a foreign land; such woefully long waiting times are unheard of in Singapore, and even if some might protest that standards are slipping across quasi-public services such as SingPost and SMRT, at least we appear to be addressing these issues, which is more than I can say for my temporary country of residence.

MOVING THINGS FORWARD

Undoubtedly, it will take time to implement improvements and, yes, the populace will suffer certain costs in the meantime as a result of these policy shortfalls. But hindsight is 20/20 and it is all too easy to criticise.

I am not saying that we should “cut the Government some slack” —we have a right to expect more from those elected to public office, and as public servants they should not be beyond reproach when they let us down. However, the time for protest is done, and the time for constructive dialogue is now; the electorate and the elected alike need to engage to move things forward instead of allowing populist rhetoric to set us back.

There are two points I would like to make: One, Singaporeans should stop making emotionally-charged, one-sided complaints if they are unwilling to offer pragmatic suggestions/solutions and defend them vigorously against scrutiny. And two, politicians need to avoid making unilateral decisions without due communication to the electorate; they too must be prepared to justify and defend their policies instead of waving off concerns.

On the first point, an interesting anecdote of a conversation with a taxi driver comes to mind. The encik began his tirade with the usual lines about inflation, immigration and income disparity and concluded that the Government was conspiring to subject the masses to a vicious circle of debt and depressed wages.

To be fair, I have yet to meet a taxi driver that did not harbour some misgivings about the “gahmen”, but what struck me was that I had heard all this just shortly before, from my friends, who shared his sentiment despite coming from what some might consider a different socio-economic strata.

“Stay in the London, lah,” the cabby advised, espousing the virtues of Europe, to which I countered with points about high tax rates, crumbling infrastructure, rising unemployment and an unsustainable, widely-abused welfare system (to name a few).

I prodded further, “so, what do you think the Government should do?”, hoping he would share some of his insights with me. The response, however, was classic. “We already pay the MPs so much money! Why should we also do their jobs for them?” — which I have come to understand is code for “I don’t know either, but I’m just unhappy with the status quo”.

This attitude, in my opinion, is plain wrong. If we, the citizens, want to be treated like adults, we have to stop behaving like petulant children. One of the Government’s functions is to improve the lives of its people, and much like a visit to the doctor’s, feedback is a vital part of the process.

A CLOSER LINE OF COMMUNICATION

On the second point, I believe that politicians need to be more upfront and maintain a closer line of communication with the people.

Gone are the days when the Government could claim intellectual and moral superiority as “philosopher kings”. An increasingly educated and politically aware population demands more say and respect than that.

In this vein, I found reassuring Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s acknowledgement of the changing political landscape, in an interview in The Washington Post last week. “It’s a different generation, a different society, and the politics will be different. We have to work in a more open way. We have to accept more of the untidiness and the to-ing and fro-ing, which is part of normal politics,” he said.

A good analogy, perhaps, is that of one’s journey towards maturity. We all start out young and vulnerable, and in these formative years, benefit from a strong, if often controversial or unpopular, authority figure.

But as time goes by, greater autonomy must be given, and the relationship shifts from one of pure instruction to mutual consultation. While I would not go so far as to let referendums dictate policy direction, the introduction of a regularly-scheduled, televised forum along the lines of BBC’s Question Time could be something to consider.

Another issue to consider is that of social justice. It is imperative that we not continue pushing blindly for economic growth — as several leaders have acknowledged — but to consider how the distribution of that growth impacts the stability and, therefore, sustainability of our ecosystem.

The Government has a duty to bridge the wealth divide by extending short-term transfers (such as taxes on the rich, subsidies for the poor) so as to preserve our long-term ideology, that of levelling the playing field for a truly meritocratic society.

More fundamentally, the Government must demonstrate that they understand what their role entails — they are there to inspire, to lead and to empower, but ultimately, to serve.

Small gestures to help make everyday life easier may seem pointless to the privileged, but can make a significant difference to middle- and low-income households: One idea (since taxis are expensive and cars now priced out of the reach of many) is to give all Singaporeans access to free public transport by giving them special, non-transferable EZ-Link cards.

But we must never take what we have for granted.

The never-ending torrent of news about economic despair and political turmoil across the world serves as a reminder of what an enviable position we occupy in the global context, and how fragile and fleeting success can be when met with complacency and a sense of entitlement.

Ours is a position that has been achieved through the hard work and tireless struggle of those that came before us, and it is our shared responsibility to preserve and grow this brilliant legacy for our children to inherit.

This is why, even as some around me contemplate emigration, perhaps facetiously, I am coming back to you, Singapore.

Charles Tan Meah Yang is an Investment Analyst working in London and intends to return in the near future. 

The Expats Will Soon Rule Singapore!

I guess all developed countries have this problem.

The Expats Will Soon Rule Singapore!

By Adam Khoo

I have a prediction. My prediction is that in a couple of years, the expatriates (from China, India , US etc...) will rule Singapore . They will increasingly take on more leadership roles of CEOs, directors, heads of organizations, award winners etc... If you observe closely, it is already happening now. Last year's top PSLE (Primary School Leaving Exam) student is a China National. Most of the deans’ list students and first class honours students in the local universities are foreigners and more and more CEOs, even that of government link corporations are expats. The top players in our National teams are expats.

As a Singaporean, I am not complaining. I think that in a meritocratic society like Singapore, it is only fair that the very best get rewarded, no matter their race, religion or nationality. Like Lee Kwan Yew said, I rather have these talented and driven people be on our team contributing to our nation than against us from their home country. The question I have been asking is, 'why are the expats beating the crap out of Singaporeans?' What I noticed is that these expats have a very important quality that many Singaporeans (especially the new Y generation lack). It is a quality that our grandfathers and great-grandfathers (who came from distant lands) had that turned Singapore from a fishing village to the third richest country in the world (according to GDP per capita).

Unfortunately, I fear this quality is soon disappearing from the new generation of Singaporeans. This quality is the HUNGER FOR SUCCESS and the FIGHTING SPIRIT!!! Expats who come here today have the same tremendous HUNGER for success that our grandfathers had. They are willing to sacrifice, work hard and pay the price to succeed. They also believe that no one owes them a living and they have to work hard for themselves. They also bring with them the humility and willingness to learn.

Take the case of Qui Biqing, the girl from Qifa Primary school who topped the whole of Singapore in last year's PSLE with a score of 290. When she came to Singapore 3 years ago from China, she could hardly speak a word of English and didn't even understand what a thermometer was. Although she was 10 years old, MOE recommended she start at Primary 2 because of her lack of English proficiency. After appealing, she managed to start in Primary 3. While most Singaporeans have a head start of learning English at pre-school at the age of 3-4 years old, she only started at age 10.. Despite this handicap, she had the drive to read continuously and practice her speaking and writing skills, eventually scoring an A-star in English!

This hunger and drive can also be seen in the workforce. I hate to say this but in a way, I sometimes think expats create more value than locals. Expats are willing to work long hours, go the extra mile, are fiercely loyal to you and don't complain so much. They also come a lot more qualified and do not ask the moon for the remuneration. Recently, I placed an ad for a marketing executive. Out of 100+ resumes, more than 60% came from expats. While local fresh grads are asking for $2,500+ per month, I have expats with master’s degrees from good universities willing to get less than $2,000! They know that if they can come in and learn and work hard, they will eventually climb up and earn a lot more. They are willing to invest in themselves, pay the price for future rewards.

Sometimes I wonder how some of the locals are going to compete with this. Of course, this is just a generalization. There ARE definitely some Singaporeans who create lots of value and show fighting spirit. Unfortunately, I have found that more and more young Singaporeans lack this hunger for success. Instead, they like to complain, blame circumstances and wait for others to push them. Some hold on to the attitude that the world owes them a living. I shake my head when I see local kids nowadays complain that they don't have the latest hand-phones, branded clothes and games. While I acknowledge that the kids of today are much smarter and well informed than I was at their age (my 4 year old daughter can use my Macbook computer and my iphone), I find that they lack the resilience and tenacity they need to survive in the new economy. Some kids nowadays tend to give up easily once they find that things get tough and demand instant gratification. When they have to work first to get rewards later, many tend to lack the patience to follow through.

So, how did this happen? Why is our nation of hardworking, hungry fighters slowly becoming a nation of complaining softies? I think the problem is that life in Singapore has been too good and comfortable. Kids today have never seen hunger, poverty, war and disasters. What makes it worse is that parents nowadays give kids everything they want and over protect them from hardship and failure. Parents often ask me why their kids lack the motivation to study and excel. My answer to them is because they already have everything! Giving someone everything they want is the best way to kill their motivation. What reason is there for them to fight to become the best when they are already given the best from their parents without having to earn it?

It reminds me of the cartoon movie MADAGASCAR where Alex the Lion and his animal friends were born and raised in the Central Park Zoo. They were well taken care of and provided with processed food and an artificial jungle. When they escaped to Africa, they found that they could barely survive in the wild with the other animals because they had lost their instincts to fight and hunt for food. They could only dance and sing. I see the same thing in the hundreds of seminars and training programmes I conduct. I see increasing more and more expats attending my Wealth Academy and Patterns of Excellence programme in Singapore. Not surprisingly, they are always the first to grab the microphone to answer and ask questions.

While many of the locals come in late and sit at the back, the expats (especially those from India and China) always sit at the front, take notes ferociously and stay back way after the programme is over to ask questions. I feel ashamed sometimes when I ask for volunteers to ask questions, and the Singaporeans keep quiet, while the foreigners fight for the opportunity. For my "I Am Gifted!' programme for students, I have the privilege to travel & conduct it in seven countries ( Singapore , Indonesia , Hong Kong , China , Malaysia etc...) and see students from all over. Is there a big difference in their attitude and behaviour? You bet! Again, I feel really sad that in Singapore, most students who come are usually forced by their parents to come and improve themselves, Some parents even bribe them with computer games and new hand-phones to attend. During the course, some adopt the 'I know everything' attitude and lack the interest to succeed until I kick their butts.

It is so different when I go to Malaysia, Indonesia and once in India. The kids there ask their parents to send them to my programme They clap and cheer enthusiastically when the teachers enter the room and participate so willingly when lessons are on. I still scratch my head and wonder what happened to my fellow Singaporeans to this day. So mark my words, unless the new generation of Singaporeans wake up and get out of their happy over protected bubble and start fighting for their future, the expats (like our great grandfathers) will soon be the rulers of the country. At the rate at which talented and hungry expats are climbing up, our future prime minister may be an Indian or China PR or may even be an Ang Moh!

A Foreigner’s View Of Singapore

I am always pleased when a foreigner has nice things to say about my homeland - Singapore.

Glenn Connley: Singapore’s rules liberate, they don't oppress!

By Glenn Connley

Getting to flush… you name it.

I suppose it’s a little bit funny. But it’s a gross exaggeration. In fact, these days, it’s practically a myth. In cases where rules still exist to curb marginally harmful anti-social behavior, they are rarely, if ever, enforced.

The serious side to the fine joke is that it represents an entirely inaccurate attitude which many in the big wide world out there continue to hold about Singapore: that its desperately oppressed citizens live under the heavy burden of rules which govern even the most intimate aspects of their daily lives.

How do I say this without offending? It’s total BS.

An extension to this misnomer is when foreign commentators –- some of whom have never set foot outside Changi Airport –- take pot shots at Singapore’s harsh penalties for violations like vandalism or crimes against property which, in their countries, are considered minor offences.

The most celebrated case, of course, is that of American Michael Fay, whose sorry teenage backside was reddened by four strokes of the cane after he was found guilty of spray painting cars back in 1994.

Who could forget then-President Bill Clinton’s impassioned (yet ultimately unsuccessful) plea to keep Fay’s pristine butt cheeks in tact?

We saw it all again last year when Swiss national Oliver Fricker was jailed and caned after breaking into a depot and spray painting a train with British accomplice Lloyd Alexander, who has since fled the country.

While the bleeding hearts were bleating about cases like Fricker and Fay, I was applauding.

The thing I love most of all about Singapore is the low tolerance to the moronic behavior which is ruining other cities. I love feeling secure wherever I go.

I love that there is no graffiti and I appreciate that all of the city’s wonderful amenities and facilities are used, not abused.

I use the MRT most days. I live quite close to the Circle Line. For me, train travel is far more pleasant than taking a taxi. It’s cheap, cool, spotlessly clean and efficient beyond any public transport system I’ve ever seen anywhere else on this earth.

Recently I visited my beloved hometown of Melbourne, Australia, a city that regularly tops surveys which claim to measure the world’s “most liveable” locales.

I had cause (if not the desire) to use the metropolitan train system back home. Aside from being unreliable, slow, weighed down by a billion-dollar ticketing system which still doesn’t work and being desperately overloaded, the carriages are old, covered in graffiti, littered with rubbish and uncomfortably hot.

More recently, I read of a new problem sweeping the city’s train system. There is, apparently a “train surfing epidemic.”

“Train surfing?” you may ask. It’s exactly as it sounds. Mindless teenagers! -– and a few moronic 20-somethings -- get their kicks by climbing onto the roof or the outside of a suburban train and try to stay aboard as it hurtles through the network of tracks and tunnels.

“Metro busts more than 20 a month for train surfing in Melbourne” reported the city’s most popular daily newspaper (and my old employer), the Herald Sun last month.

Okay, 20 is hardly an epidemic. But, to state the obvious, it is dangerous. Deadly, in fact. In 2008, a teenage boy died after being electrocuted while allegedly surfing a train in the city’s western suburbs.

It all got me thinking back to Singapore’s marvellous MRT. Train surfing simply couldn’t, and wouldn’t, happen here.

I recently wrote a column bemoaning the “ kiasu curse” of locals barging onto trains without waiting for their fellow travelers to get off first. That’s about as bad as it gets on the MRT.

Compare that to the problems confronting commuters in London, Paris, Munich or New York, which all have similar issues to Melbourne.

In England and the United States these days you also have the added nuisance of foul-mouthed, disrespectful teenagers intimidating their fellow commuters aboard suburban and inter-city trains.

Give me a group of Singaporean kids lah-ing and ah-ing any day. At least the only thing they’re damaging is the English language.

Linguistics aside, I have never for one second been uncomfortable on the MRT, even when it’s packed.

I have never spotted a single swipe of spray paint and I’m convinced there are more dear old uncles sweeping invisible dust off the walkways than there are actual specs of dust in the system.

So, sure, you can mock this fine country and all its rules. You can exaggerate them, lie about them and throw them in my face whenever I travel to a so-called “more civilized” country.

You can criticize the penalties and regurgitate the tired old arguments about a brutal, medieval corporal punishment which treats young offenders as hard criminals when they themselves are the victims of a heartless society.

My heart bleeds.

But I’ll tell you one thing ... the system works.

I’ve got the T-shirt to prove it.