The minister's proposal was perceived as representing a lingering colonial mentality: that the speech of "white" people from the "white" countries was seen as the standard to which to aspire. As expected, many detractors pointed out that standards of English in the UK, US or Australia, for example, could be quite atrocious, and large numbers of those natives spoke with thick accents. At the same time, they questioned why Singaporeans who spoke English as their primary language were not considered native speakers by the minister. Wasn't there a whiff of reverse racism in his ministry's plan, they wondered?

Separately, some asked why we weren't proud of Singlish, especially as it was now a marker of Singapore identity. Why do we have to speak English the way "those" countries do?

These two lines of argument represent two separate issues: whether we have a problem at all, and if we do, whether hiring native speakers is the solution. 

Seen at Fairprice supermarket

I think we do. My estimate is that fewer than 2% of working adult Singaporeans can speak and write English with an error rate of under 1 grammatical mistake per 100 words while using the language in an idiomatic way.

Even if we widened the tolerance band to 1 grammatical mistake per 30 words, I'd think fewer than 10% of Singaporeans would make the cut.

Most Singaporeans fall far short of this. Many sentences they form, on closer examination, are really (badly-pronounced) English words laid onto Chinese grammar, generously laced with words and phrases found nowhere else in the world. They're not speaking English, but a hybrid, i.e. a creole. See Example 1 on the right.

How can anyone defend this kind of language as helpful to being a high-income economy that depends on being connected with the rest of the world? So, yes, we do have a problem.

Singlish doesn't come in one form. There is a spectrum ranging from unintelligible pidgin, to creole to what might be English, but with inelegant sentence construction and awkward intonation.

Seen at IMM Shopping Centre  - "shop theft"???  - "would be"???

Which form one generally speaks depends a lot on the environment that one has grown up in; in turn parents strongly influence the kind of language their children end up speaking.

What about the effect of schooling? Unfortunately, that is not as edifying as it should be. Many teachers themselves speak Singlish, and most certainly, the child's classmates too. One parent who made a point to speak good English to his children wrote of his despair when they picked up Singlish from their school friends. To make things worse, his kids also learnt that speaking "uppity" English would result in their being excluded socially.

Tharman could have chosen his words more carefully. He could have avoided the term "native speakers" for example, but he wasn't wrong to point out that Singapore has a problem with our standard of English. He had a point too when he said that while some Singaporeans have an excellent command of English, there simply aren't enough to push back the corrupting tide. We have no choice but to recruit from abroad.

As the problem is multi-factorial, I doubt if just hiring native speakers from other countries is much of a solution. Of course, I expect the ministry to give thought to the professional qualifications of those they intend to hire, so the fears of some Singaporeans that we'd end up with budget tourists doing teaching stints to pay for their next backpacking trip -- a situation that has been reported in language schools in Thailand, Vietnam and China -- can be laid to rest.

We need to recognise that it is the total language environment that needs to be fixed. A child spends much more time with his family and playmates than with his teachers. Alas, I can't say how the total language environment can be changed, except through a very slow process over a few generations, and even then, with the ever-present risk of backsliding.

What a clumsy sentence! A better phrasing would be: "This covered pedestrian space is open to the public at all hours."

In addition, effective teaching of English needs differentiated strategies since children come from such variable language environments. Some come from homes that speak no English at all, others from homes where Singlish reigns supreme. Only rarely do we find schoolchildren from families that speak good English.

Yet, till now, we have not had a differentiated English language curriculum. This is yet another price we pay for the habit of never questioning authority. State policy has crowned English as the language of instruction, which leads us to speak of English as the "first language". What does that really mean? How does that correspond to reality? Few have asked.

For a generation, we've mostly taught English as if our children lived in an English-speaking environment, because that is what "first language" implies. In such an environment, even toddlers would be exposed to the language pattern of English, as they overhear their parents chatting with friends and neighbours. They would absorb many grammatical features of the language by osmosis.

For a vast majority of our pupils, we will need to go back to teaching English as a second language. In other words, don't assume that they will hear any English around them, don't assume that there will be any osmotic effect. On the contrary, the osmotic effect works against good English. The Singlish that the children hear around them will undermine every lesson that the teacher teaches.

Teaching a language as a second language is very different from teaching it as a first language. The rules have to be taught consciously, since they are not out there in the environment to be imbibed. Every little bit of pronunciation and intonation has to be deliberately taught, since they don't hear it outside either.

Of course, children who come from homes where good English is spoken need different techniques again. This is what I mean by differentiated curricula.

But how far do we have to go? Should we also hire native speakers for other subjects? Perhaps. It is no use having a native speaker teaching English when the physics, geography and physical education teachers use Singlish. But what will that mean for large swathes of the education service?

And what do we mean by "teaching English"? As I argued above, the skills needed should be related to teaching English as a second language. How many teachers from abroad have those skills?

"Feedbacks"???

As for what we can do to reduce the amount of Singlish our children hear in the environment, especially the home, I have to admit I don't know. It is a very big problem indeed.

There is the argument that Singlish is precious to us because it's about the only thing that defines us as Singaporean. Personally, I am not convinced.

There are really two parts to the issue: firstly, the question of whether Singaporeans living here feel attached to this place, and secondly, the emotional comfort of being able to recognise another Singaporean when abroad.

These being soul-destroying, it's hardly any wonder that all we're left with that gives us any emotional satisfaction is our food and our Singlish. Nonethelss, we ought to see them (well, at least Singlish) for what they are: second-best substitutes for genuine engagement with the country and people that is Singapore.

Even abroad, we don't need the corrupted language that is Singlish to identify our compatriots. It would work just as well if we spoke proper English. We don't have to speak the Queen's English with a clipped upper-crust accent, and there's no danger of our ever sounding like  Yorkshiremen, Jamaicans or Texans. We can have our own unique Singaporean accent, like the way the Australians have theirs, plus the occasional expression that adds our own local flavour to the language.

That is what we should aim for. We should lift our sights from our parochial defensiveness and get over the fact that we may need to hire teachers from abroad, though I am mindful, once again, of whether these candidates will come equipped to teach English as a second language. I don't know; it's quite possible that that will be a very big problem in itself.

Nevertheless, we must begin by recognising that our language standards are nothing to be proud of, and there may be too few native speakers of English here to turn things around.

© Yawning Bread