Site icon Jotted Lines

The Agency and Post-Colonial Consciousness in Singlish

admin

Singlish is a creolized language, drawing mainly from English but also supplemented by words and expressions from Malay, Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese and Tamil. Having evolved and still in currency in Singapore, Singlish is not highly regarded by Singaporean elite society, which prefers and promotes Standard English.  In many ways, this cultural conflict is reminiscent of several such linguistic dialectics witnesses over the course of imperialist history.  The most famous being the subservience of English to the French language during the three centuries of Norman rule of the isles. Even in that historical case, it was the peasants and other underprivileged who kept English alive amidst elite preference for French.  Hence, it is interesting to study the development and significance of Singlish in the backdrop of its sociological and socio-economic dimensions.  This essay endeavours to inquire in those lines with an emphasis on ascertaining Singlish’s contribution postcolonial agency and consciousness in Singaporean society.

Despite half a century of Singapore’s independence from British colonial rule, the country has not asserted itself culturally and linguistically. Singlish, which holds the greatest potential for authentically articulating postcolonial agency and consciousness of its people, is set back by numerous challenges.  The linguistic, historical and psychological heritage of the nation will depend upon how indigenously evolved hybrid languages like Singlish are allowed to thrive.  The following quote captures the primacy of native voice to the maintenance of national sovereignty – in both the colonial and postcolonial experience:

“A people’s cultural identity is related to three major factors–historical, linguistic and psychological (the last of which may include the people’s specific forms of religious observance). These factors vary in importance in different historical and social situations; when they are not fully present in a people or an individual, the cultural identity is flawed. Awareness of a common history is the most solid rampart a people can build against cultural or any other form of aggression from outside. Thus in contacts between civilizations– during the colonization process, for example –the colonizer tries to weaken if not destroy the historical consciousness of the colonized people. The exercise of national sovereignty is by far the best school for a people’s mind and soul, and the only way to keep alive its greatest virtues.” (Diop, 1986, p. 58)

The salience of Singlish is enhanced by its ability to serve building national unity.  After all, previous to the development of Singlish, it was British English which bridged the language barriers between various ethnic groups in Singapore.  What British English was able to achieve in a limited way (as the language was primarily confined to official communication) Singlish is able to achieve over and above.  Singlish’s base in grassroots Singaporean society made colonialists see its inherent threat. Hence it was projected as ‘the other’, with connotations of deviancy and inferiority.  But the irony is that British English is quite correctly ‘the other’.  In contrast, the Singlish pidgin, with its inherent spirit of resistance and lack of deference to authority is unfairly labelled ‘the other’ till now.  But, with its ability to bring together disparate and historically hostile ethnic communities together, Singlish truly remains the only legitimate medium of agency and consciousness in postcolonial Singapore. (Morgan, 2012)

For all the elite contempt directed toward Singlish (both during and after the British colonial era), the language is rich, diverse and has ingenuous features.  Proving Noam Chomsky’s theory of universal structures of grammar, Singlish assimilates with ease words, phrases and grammatical rules of a discrete set of languages.  The achievement of Singlish is its ability to weave together languages from different continents and different language groups.  It is also a testament to the flexibility and dexterity of the English language to accommodate and morph as needed. (Bhabha, 1994)

The Singlish language offers value as an instrument for national social integration and collective expression.  This is especially so for the language is predominantly used and developed by the working class.  Considering that the British colonial experience has had a greater impact (mostly negative) on the working classes than the elites, it makes a case for how Singlish can be an apt medium for expressing the post-colonial consciousness.  Detractors of Singlish only need look at the success of Indian-English literature, which has produced several outstanding writers and scholars both during and after British presence in India.  Having adapted British English to their own local cultural sensibilities and aesthetics, Indian English is now a vital part of world literature.  Indeed, in what is an interesting reversal of role, English literature emerging from India has revitalized and renewed interest in the written word across Anglophone countries.  A leading champion of this cause, Sir Salman Rushdie, makes this salient observation:

“What seems to me to be happening is that those people who were once colonized by the language are now rapidly re-making it, domesticating it, becoming more and more relaxed about the way they use it–assisted by the English language’s enormous flexibility and size, they are carving out large territories for themselves within its front…. The children of independent India seem not to think of English as being irredeemably tainted by its colonial provenance. They use it as an Indian language, as one of the tools they have to hand … English literature has its Indian branch. By this I mean the literature of the English language. This literature is also Indian literature. There is no incompatibility here. If history creates complexities, let us not try to simplify them.” (Herther, 2009)

What is true of Indian English is also true of Singlish.  Rushdie’s observation can even be extended to Spanglish (a combination of English and Spanish) and Chinglish (the emerging creolization of English in China). While Singlish can be studied in the postcolonial discourse, Spanglish and Chinglish are apt for study in the backdrop of globalization, which creates a subtle form of cultural imperialism.  As Rushdie contends, “these new Englishes are a therapeutic act of resistance against the dominance that English has imposed over the years through past colonization and, now, through globalization.” (Herther, 2009)

It is a fact that it is the poor and underprivileged natives who majorly contributed to the development of Singlish. This aids two related objectives: first, the relevance of Singlish to the postcolonial agency, and second, Singlish as a medium for the subaltern voice. Linguist Mark Abley, who has done sizeable research on variants of English, notes the following about Singlish: “I’d have to say that my favourite examples are the amazing phrases and expressions you find in Singlish–‘Last time policeman also wear shorts,’ ‘very what one,’ ‘catch no ball,’ etc.” One Abley didn’tinclude in his book: “The Singlish way of saying ‘complain loudly in the morning’–‘seven morning eight morning cry father cry mother.'” (Herther, 2009)

There are several reasons why Singlish is a valid conduit for understanding postcolonial agency and consciousness.  Once we accord authenticity to Singlish as a proper language in its own right, the process becomes simpler.  But one need not look beyond standard definitions of English language in its entirety to place Singlish in relation to the former. For example, David Chrystal, one of the foremost linguists of the twentieth century, comments on the history of English language is one that ““promotes a sense of identity and continuity, and enables us to find coherence in many of the fluctuations and conflicts of present-day English language use”.” (Hitchings, 2006)  This is in contrast to dominant, mainstream accounts that carry a jingoistic tone, evidencing it as proof of Anglo-American excellence. It needs to be remembered that, far from being monolithic, the English language is a forest of varieties.  These include

“Irish English, which has existed since 1169, when a polyglot band of adventurers from Pembrokeshire landed near Wexford, as well as Maori English, the West African English spoken in Ghana and Sierra Leone, and recent fusions such as Singlish (spoken in Singapore). Where a history of English might once have focused on its “standard” form, an authoritative telling must now take account of dialects and variants. Furthermore, where it was once acceptable to talk about “the triumph of English”, it is now customary to identify the extraordinary spread of the language as a mark of the ruthless imperialism of Britain and America…So the very idea of a history of English is problematic, and its politics are thorny.” (Hitchings, 2006)

In order to fully comprehend Singlish’s role as promoter of agency and postcolonial consciousness, we need to look at political factors bearing upon it. As a cursory glance at local Singaporean media’s attention on Singlish reveals, the status accorded to Singlish currently is politically motivated than being linguistically accurate.  Such discrimination is evident in similar language currents across the globe.  For example, while Mandarin Chinese is officially accorded the status of a proper language, Hokkien and Cantonese are always treated as dialects.  The irony is that even experts acknowledge how different the supposed dialects are from the mother language.  For instance, a speech in the dialect would be incomprehensible to a speaker of the mother language.  Hence, in linguistic terms all three are languages in their own right, but official classification doesn’t reflect this reality.  A similar phenomenon is witnessed in the case of Singlish as well. The Singapore government has even promoted Mandarin Chinese to proper language status, while continuing to recognize Singlish as such.  This discrimination has attracted much controversy in Singapore in recent times.

“The government instituted a “Use Proper English” campaign, with the laudable goal of making Singapore more internationally competitive. Newspapers have been running regular columns to teach readers the correct way to use English. The flipside of this campaign is a perceived denigration of Singlish. Many people fear that the plan is to eradicate Singlish. There are even reports of TV sitcom scripts being rejected if they contain Singlish expressions.” (Hitchings, 2006)

This sort of political oppression of what is a genuine native expression is very saddening.  In a political sense, it is highly undemocratic as well, because the average Singaporean is more comfortable with Singlish than Standard English.  Seen in this perspective, the working class intellectuals who are fighting against the dominant government stance can be said to oppose this ‘neo-colonial’ injustice within the larger postcolonial discourse.  The Singlish language, which offered a mode of agency to the common Singaporean during the colonial era, is now facing a threat from its own indigenous leaders.  This situation is fast emerging into a standoff between the average Singaporean and the Establishment.  The entertainment industry, whose customer base is the majority of the population, is also supportive of Singlish usage. They correctly see “Singlish as one of Singapore’s few unique defining features. It is a common language understood by people from all the different racial groups making up Singapore. Furthermore, recent movies like “I Not Stupid” and “Talking Cock” have featured Singlish and helped to build public support.” (Hall, 2004) In this context, it is uncertain yet if Singlish will continue playing its emancipator role in the postcolonial era.  But Singapore and its vast majority of population will be poorer for it if it fails.

The rationality for supporting Singlish goes beyond its utility to studying post-colonialism. There are facets to Singlish that mark it as one of the great cultural achievements of the modern era.  If language had ever captured the spirit of a nation and its people, then Singlish is an outstanding example.  For example, much removed from the sober formalness of Standard English, Singlish has plenty of humour, much of it deliberately constructed.  The political incorrectness inherent in Singlish – a source of discontent for the critics – only adds to its power to serve as an agent of individual and collective expression.  It has its limitations, though, in that it does not possess a comprehensive vocabulary, idioms and grammatical structures.  This could prove a handicap is serious intellectual discourse on par with Western academic scholarship is sought to be conducted in Singlish. (Hall, 2004)  This is a legitimate concern, when even standards of conventional English are declining in Singapore.  In a survey conducted in leading business schools in the country, a majority of undergraduate students were found to have inadequate communication skills.  The findings indicate that the faculty perceived undergraduate communication skills “to be in need of improvement, thus lending support to employer and government criticism. An analysis of survey responses revealed some probable underlying causes for faculty perceptions, including an apparent lack of real commitment to the improvement of such skills.” (Hall, 2004)

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)


Seen in light of the above observation, it would indeed be a tremendous loss to Singaporeans to forsake a language that is their own.  Succumbing to external compulsions and letting Singlish fade and die would constitute cultural and political slavery, which would make the term ‘postcolonial’ nonsensical.  It is a little disappointing that voices fighting for the legitimacy of Singlish’s existence are not as vociferous and not as persistent.  The political Left, which is usually at the forefront of such movements has disappointed by its relative indifference to the threat.  The left, which has always identified freedom of language with freedom in political choice, needs to renew its cause in the case of Singlish. The following concluding paragraph highlights the centrality of language and its free expression to social progress and beyond.

“It is the pseudo-radicalism of a period of retreat for the left, a verbal radicalism of the word without deed, or, rather, of the word as deed. In response to actual structures and practices of oppression and exploitation, it offers the rhetorical gesture, the ironic turn of phrase. It comes as little surprise, then, when one of the chief philosophers of the new idealism, Jacques Derrida, tells us that he would hesitate to use such terms as ‘liberation’.” Imprisoned within language, we may play with words; but we can never hope to liberate ourselves from immutable structures of oppression rooted in language itself. Such views are an abdication of political responsibility, especially at a time of instability in the world capitalist economy, of widening gaps between rich and poor, of ruling-class offensives against social programs.” (McNally, 1995)

References

 

Exit mobile version