The strong hold Singlish has on the Singaporean consciousness and identity will have to be weighed against its detrimental effects. In the era of globalization, with different corners of the world seamlessly integrated via advanced telecommunication, Singaporeans find themselves under pressure to conform to global standards. And one fundamental criteria for availing international business opportunity is proficiency in standardized English. While Singaporeans were thrust with the English language during British colonialism, they now face linguistic coercion through other means – namely, economic. One can also read cultural imperialism at play here, especially since Hollywood and McDonalds have now become staples of Singaporean society. These external pressures pose a great threat to the survival of Singlish. The economic imperatives of globalization have prompted educationists in Singapore to strictly discourage Singlish usage, while promoting standard English. The future prosperity of the Singaporean economy depends on its workforce’s ability to communicate proficiently in English. This is vital to attracting lucrative foreign investment to the country. The recent financial meltdown in many Asian economies has only highlighted the language imperative. In reaction to the economic crisis,
“the Singapore government has increasingly devoted much of its energies to developing the island-state as a regional knowledge-based hub with a highly skilled service sector proficient in English. These efforts have been motivated in large part by a realization that the country is no longer able to compete with its neighbours for low-cost labour-intensive manufacturing investment… Through the media, employers and the government have long expressed criticism of supposedly declining English language skills, warned of the consequential potential impact on the country’s future competitiveness, and called for an improvement, particularly in graduates’ English communication skills.” (Wharton, 2002)
Language is the central conduit of public consciousness, for it is the “immediate actuality of thought. Just as philosophers gave thought an independent existence, so are they bound to make language an independent realm.” (Wharton, 2002) The power of language in informing and uplifting a community is well articulated in scholarship emerging from the political Left. Scholars on this side of the political spectrum have identified how language is potentially an omnipresent force that helps express human agency. Since human art and civilization is intricately linked to the development of the language faculty, it follows that the realm outside language is not worthy of consideration. This assessment applies most appropriately to public policy discourse and less so for cultural affairs. Singlish will have to be viewed in this perspective. Its value can only be appreciated if we take into account how language defines and limits what we know, what we can imagine, what we can do. In the postcolonial context, the politics of language has assumed renewed importance, for
“oppression is said to be rooted ultimately in the way in which we and others are defined linguistically, the way in which we are positioned by words in relation to other words. Our very being, our identities and “subjectivities,” are constituted through discourse. As one trendy literary theorist puts it in David Lodge’s novel Nice Work, it is not merely that you are what you speak; no, according to the new idealism, “you are what speaks you.” Language is thus the final “prison-house.” Our confinement there is beyond resistance; it is impossible to escape from that which makes us what we are.” (McNally, 1995)