My greatest disatisfaction with the Singaporean social fabric and culture has really nothing to do with the lack of logical thought among them. Let me first explain this idea.
I realised some time ago that Singaporeans are very quick to tell others that they are wrong, especially when faced with ideas that are not what we call mainstream, inter alia more controversial or maverick ideas. While less than pleasant, there is nothing much else wrong with that.
The actual problem lies on 2 levels. Firstly, Singaporeans have very little reasoning to explain why a certain concept is wrong. The counter-arguments virtually never vary from the following 2 templates: a) Somebody important or supposedly important said so, or b) We are older and have gone through experiences you have not, therefore we are right and you are not.
Now, to be fair, there is a certain validity to both these concepts, when applied appropriately. It is in this application where Singaporean society in general falls short. These concepts cannot be used simply as a one-liner and be expected to have an effect. And it is self-evident that they cannot possibly apply to everything. Yes, it is rather demanding, but a simple 'Confucius says' does not necessarily make whatever you present right. There needs to be a further explanation of why Confucius said what he did. Furthermore, I don't suppose we are more older and more experienced and therefore know better can be applied to information technology, now can it?
In other words, write me off all you like, but please demonstrate actual logic when you do so.
But enough of that and on to the main gist of today's post. I feel that Singapore is a dishonestly lowest common denominator society. Now that's just funky terminology, sometimes known as cheem-inology, and makes absolutely no sense on its own. So let's move on.
In every society, there are some elements of a lowest common denominator culture, where people because of human nature try to pull down others who try to excel, or rise above the crowd. It is not a desireable state, but it exists. And most societies are honest enough to acknowledge that and do something about it. The USA is a good example of this, with many schemes and programmes to encourage development of specific talents. Other societies are honestly trying to equalise everything and make sure nobody stands out. Its terrible, but at least they do so without trying to hide it.
In Singapore however, we like to present the image that we are doing something about this lowest common denominator problem, but refuse to admit that we have this problem. This leads to policy changes without any changes in thinking, which is ultimately meaningless, because nobody is going to take 'the new way of doing things' seriously. It leads to strange concepts like creativity classes with structured worksheets.
But let's look at a more detailed example. Contrary to popular belief and MOE statements, the standard of English in Singapore is rather terrible, and the standard of Chinese is worse. Nevertheless, lets focus on the English language, since I admit that my standard of Chinese is too poor for me to comment.
Now to examine some evidence to back up my case. Now, the standard of written English in a daily context is passable, if you do not work in the civil service, which regularly makes up its own words such as 'operationalisation' or 'tranch'. However, for professional publications, the level of written English lacks the level of sophistication and polish necessary, especially with lack of distinction between 'will' and 'shall', or 'which' and 'that', just for example. There is also an issue with the diction (choice of words) used which relflects either a limited vocabulary and a poor one which does not distinguish between the connotations and nuances of similar words.
Moving on, we confront as a second example the standard of spoken English in Singapore, which I can confortably say is abysmal. We need look no further than the confusion of the number 'three' with the plant 'tree'. Further evidence lies in the way we mispronounce words like photographer (emphasis on the 2nd syllable, not the 3rd as is the norm). Unfortunately, the usual escuse presented that its a matter of accents hold no water. Accents involve the quirky ways people of different native tongues speak English. They sound a little strange, but they place the emphasis on the right syllables and the sentences are mostly grammatically correct, with colloquialisms. Singlish is not like that, however commendable its amalgamation of the various languages spoken here is.
In the face of this, and our daily exposure to English better than are own, we still insist on holding on to our false belief in our own standard of English. In fact, we vehemently defend it against criticisms whether direct or not, intentional or not. In fact, the most telling kind of critcisms are the indirect and unintentional ones. These arise when one person in class simply speaks and writes English of a higher quality and sophistication than others.
Now your language standard is intrinsic in the way you communicate. The level at which you normally interact with others is your standard of language. It is a perfectly natural expression of how well you know that language. In spoken terms, this is reflected in the fluency and confidence of speech. It is rather unreasonable to ostracise someone for that.
Nevertheless, this is what happens in Singapore society. Instead of ackowledging the gap in the local standard on what is required, we cling on to our belief that we are good enough. And when a person's performance exposes the fallacy of that belief, that person immediately comes under sttack for threatening our precious belief. This simply because if the belief falls, then society as a whole will have to make an effort to change.
At the end of the day, behind everything else, it is this social intertia that is masked by a facade of progressiveness that leads to the advent of a dishonestly lowest common denominator society, and it is this whcih i so detest about Singaporean society.
This piece was partially inspired by the responses in the Straits Times to the recent forum between certain selected members of my generation and the Minister Mentor, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, whom I greatly respect for his achievements, but not necessarily agree with.
">
(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments
No comments:
Post a Comment