 |
|
Monday, June 12, 2006
I've been insanely busy these last few days, particularly with the pace and intensity of training picking up. I apologize for the irregularity of posts -- unfortunately things can only get worse from here. Here are just a few thoughts on a couple of issues before bedtime then.
Potong Pasir and Hougang to receive lift upgrading by 2015
Today's Sunday Times article citing Mah Bow Tan's statement on upgrading marked a definite improvement from Goh Chok Tong's lament that the two opposition wards will become 'slums' in the 1997 General Election. On behalf of the government, Mah issued the promise that all constituencies will have lifts that stop at every floor by 2015. It will be interesting to see if this is a 'pledge' the government will keep. It irks me though, that the campaigning tactic of preferential upgrading, i.e. PAP wards first, will continue to be practiced. If the IPS analysis of GE 2006 has shown us that people value fairness of governance and checks and balances far above the issue of upgrading, then why is the PAP still hanging onto such an anachronistic approach? Not only is it alienating and ethically suspect, it also seems counter-productive to the criteria that Singaporeans cite as paramount in their election of a government.
On the other hand, this also means that in GE 2011, Hougang and Potong Pasir residents will have this promise to remember: regardless of which way they vote in 2011, their lifts will be upgraded by 2015. So even though I note with regret the fact that such tactics will persist, I also view the press statement with some optimism -- if Singapore remembers this promise in the next GE, it means that if lift upgrading is used as any kind of threat, it will be a phantom menace. :)
MOE to consider bringing in native speakers as English teachers
Generally when the government announces when it is 'considering' doing something, it's usually an oncoming inevitability (remember 'considering' the casino issue?). Bringing in native speakers is a step which may be a thorny issue, seeing as foreigners will be 'usurping' locals in the sensitive role of teaching our young. But I think on the whole, it will help us far more than it will harm us, particularly if we manage to retain our standards in grammar and spelling, i.e. written English, while simultaneously improving on what's most important -- our standards of spoken English. We perform better than most American students for the former, I believe, but we lose out dreadfully when it comes to the spoken word. Hopefully native speakers will help our children become more confident communicators with strength and clarity to the articulation of their opinions. Furthermore, we would do well to incorporate not just personnel, but also their expertise and opinions with regards to the teaching of the English language, and to use that input to revise the curriculum to allow for more discussive and participatory lessons which start from an early age. The formative years are essential to building high standards of communication.
On a more personally indulgent note: I suppose I'm one of those Singaporeans who want to have their cake and eat it too, but I'll be severely nostalgic if one day, my presently-unborn, then-to-be six year old kid runs in the door and goes, "Mommy, mommy, check it out, I had this totally awesome day!" I'm a sentimental sucker for Singlish and I have no qualms in using it in my everyday communication. I hope it shan't ensue that we'll have to sacrifice it like we did dialects in order to achieve 'world-class' English usage. Perhaps a hybrid accent may be birthed, or a schizoid situation where a Singaporean can switch from Singlish to proper English at will, which is what I presently do. It all depends on the breadth and depth to which the government decides to reform how we learn and use the language. But regardless of what happens, Singlish for me will always mean the apologetic "sorry hor, uncle" as I fumble in the dark backseat of a cab for loose change; the bright relief of being myself when I encounter a fellow Singaporean in a foreign land; the intimate smile that can only be exchanged between speakers of the same language; the common idiosyncracies of the tongue -- the winsome dialogue between countrymen.
And on that note, goodnight!
Posted at 01:08 am by gaylegoh
 | | | Curious
June 15, 2006 07:03 AM PDT
Imagine the day when our hawkers will speak proper American English to American tourists, Australian English to Australian tourists, Queen's English to Prince Charles, and Singlish to a Singaporean. Yes, I think we should first get native speakers to teach our hawkers. If the PAP is serious in changing the image of Singapore English they should start with the front line people, i.e., our hawkers.
With regard to Singlish, I believe in preserving our heritage. We have so many words and phrases that are unique and show us our roots. The government should also promote teaching of Singlish which is our culture. | |
| | | PAP Voter
June 15, 2006 01:08 AM PDT
http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/_random_rants/index.html | |
| | | rojak race
June 13, 2006 09:48 PM PDT
we have already established a distinctive identity as singaporeans and it is found in the heartland. it's an identity of wannabees. a rojak concoction that confuse others more than will convert them to be like us.but this trememdous need to fit in the global stage and be like the big boys is taking a toll on the simple folks who came here to build a home away from home. unfortunately, these simple folks did not foresee that once power and prosperity become a staple, it inevitably corrupts and they become feed for the system to keep its image.
enlisting native speakers will not make a great impact here(the number will probably not be huge to make a big difference anyway). we are already growing the next generation of heartland 'aunties' and 'uncles' in our young now and they in turn will raise the next generation of singlish speakers and socially inapt. the singaporean breed is the doing of our political culture here. it is the kind of conditions we set for upgrading that make us incoherent ...like me.lol. | |
| | | PAP Voter
June 13, 2006 08:57 PM PDT
I for one admits that my vote goes to who can give me the best benefits and goodies. I give PAP my vote because they bought my vote and I am not ashame of that fact.This is a cold realistic world.
If Malaysia/Indonesia offers Singaporeans goodies to surrender without a fight.I will be the first to accept it.Ironically,this is the culture I learn in Singapore and no shame about it
| |
| | | john riemann soong
June 13, 2006 06:40 PM PDT
PAP: I think you misinterpreted the 33% 66% dichotomy there.
Only 27% of the population voted. Of that 27%, only 17.2% of the nation cast votes in support of the PAP. Had everyone eligible voted, they would have constituted only 48.8%.
Why so little? For one, 800,000 of that 4.3 million are immigrants or "foreign talent". Did you know, it was 4.5 million before, but it dropped 200,000 for some reason? Must either be that some of the migrants left or there must be a lot of quitters...I left, for one, but not on *that* pretext!
Of course, if they naturalise, they too are voters in the future. Maybe they tend to vote PAP, being the grateful types. Ffunny, maybe PAP wants to seal power...? Immigrant population was only 10.2% in 1990. (Statistics by http://www.singstat.gov.sg/ by the way.)
Also, there's the fact that children compose a pretty large portion of the population, naturally. I used to be under this category, but I think I become part of the "15 and over" statistic a year ago. Also, 1.8 million of Singapore's population are either not residents, or are aged 15 and below. (The days of being sec 2, eh?)
The actual citizen population size is much smaller, because this is including permanent residents. Well this tells us two things - there seems to be a lot of immigration (can be a good/bad sign) ... but one wonders how much of the total population, of that 4.5 million, are "born Singaporeans". After all, only around 35,000 would have been born last year, maybe less.
I'm not trying to be a nativist xenophobe, but really, if that's becoming a minority then that means the cultural identity is no longer stable and is under the threat of changing drastically. Four neat boxes, poof, poof, proof! For better or worse? That is the question. I for one don't want Singapore to become like another Shanghai where the residents are cold towards one another with extreme kiasuness (yes, even more than us) in the subways. But of course, we also have a chance of increasing diversity while keeping our good things. Of course the statistics department isn't releasing those figures.
The other point is that the people who voted in the PAP are a really small minority of the total population. They are a minority of the actual voting electorate.
To clarify, the PAP did not have 2.6 million people vote for them. They had 747,000 people vote for them. That's 17.2%, somewhere between 1/5 and 1/6 of the total population of 4.3 million.
This is for a ruling party with an exceptionally strong mandate with 82/84 seats. Something seems not right...and yet, only 17.2% of the population actually consented to the PAP's rule. How legitimate is the PAP's government?
Even if we count the total electorate: there were 2.1 million Singaporean voters (naturalised and born). Of those, 900,000 were denied the ability to vote because of a silly phenomenon called a "walkover".
A walkover, imagine - that's heard a lot often in dictatorial states, or oligarchies like when they held "elections" in the Soviet Union...either we're really really harmonic and unanimous (two genuine examples in a liberal democracy that's very, very rare: the "Era of Good Feeling" in 1820 and the elections of George Washington).
More people were denied the right to vote than the actual people who voted for the PAP. 747,000 people voted for the PAP. 900,000 eligible Singaporeans did not get to vote. Think about that for a moment. For a mandate of 82/84 seats, what is the percentage of the total amount of people (for *just* the voting electorate, not population!) that voted for the PAP? 35.5%.
PAP has some amazing election tactics, if you ask me. They can turn a 35.5% mandate failure and a 17.2% consent failure, into a 97% strong mandate. That's one of the strongest mandates for a first world developed nation ever.
They should write a book, you know. Maybe hold lots of multinational seminars, go seek business and national leaders, hold conventions, and fairs selling assessment books and books documenting the secret *how* they did it. They could make even more billions than they did already.
How the PAP went from having 3 seats in 1955, a struggling opposition party in Malaysia that had to endure character assassination and accusations of racism in 1964...(used to be "dunce" leh)... to sweeping 82/84 seats in 2006 and now is doing the character assasinaton and arrests based on sedition, and still look legitimate. Amazing! All the world leaders will want to buy! Maybe the mafia leaders also want, because they want to know how they can finally control the elections!
"We're a strong ruling party and so can you! Now, only sign that package deal with us and we'll tell you the secret..."
Remember, the percentage of the total amount of the population that consents is important. Raising the age limit for voting from 18 to 21 decreases the percentage of the total population that can vote drastically. In most other countries it is 18. People can have casual sex with and bear the responsibility of pregnancy legally with no charges...before they get to do something so simple as to vote.
Something wrong there. | |
| | | PAP
June 13, 2006 04:48 PM PDT
This evil upgrading tactic is to nullify the "PAP can be government but increase opposition parliament seats " tactic
so that it makes a difference whether you have ratio PAP 82 : AP 2 or PAP 45: AP 39.
By using this upgrading tactic, every voter will "protect own backside" and vote PAP or else PAP will not give them pipes, lifts, car parks etc.
Now you have 2 AP seats. If you have 39 AP seats, all 39 seats will miss out on goodies.
This Upgrading Tactic is the only way to prevent more AP seats because Singaporeans wants more AP seats but keep PAP as government.
But at what ratio ???
The ratio question worries PAP the most.
| |
| | | gayle
June 13, 2006 04:06 PM PDT
I've personally often felt compliments paid to me by foreigners on the subject of my fluency tinged with a hint of condescension. Kind of like, "you're from Singapore, wow! where is that, China? and you speak English, how cute" -- except phrased in a politically correct way. | |
| | | singaporeheart
June 13, 2006 03:55 PM PDT
My humble views on this. The cream of the crop of Singapore students generally write and speak good english, good enough for some native speakers to even envy us. I am living in Australia and many of the academia were actually surprised I could speak and write pretty well.
I think the problem with the education system lies in an over emphasis on developing the best few, channeling all the resources to this group while leaving the average majority behind for many years. Being a HR practitioner for many years, I had on many occasions wished that the average NUS graduate could express themselves better! It's not just the grammar nor the spelling ... it's a general weakness in analysis and communicating an idea.
This, I believe, has a lot to do with how language is taught in Singapore in the neighbourhood schools. My son was a victim of such a system.
Now, he speaks (even debates!) fluently in class and genuinely loves the language. It is about the whole package; the environment, the teaching style and the philosophy of teaching. Do we just want to pass exams and assessments such that there's no time to inculcate interest for the subject?
By the way, he happily reverts to singlish when chatting with his singaporean friends over skype.
I have no complaints with that ... | |
| | | Zack
June 13, 2006 03:18 PM PDT
PAP,
You claimed that "bitching in forums...has no impact." Funny, why are you still here? If all things can be resolved by sheer action and gestures, then we wouldn't even be using words now.
I have no problem on this policy. What I hope to see from this policy is that the selection of 'native speakers' should not primarily privileged the Americans, or the British for their dominance in the global marketplace but have the search extended to Australia, NZ and Canada (perhaps some African states as well). There are clear accepted criteria of what is meant by 'native speakers' and all the countries I have cited belong in this category where the majority of the populace use and live within an environment where the native tongue is spoken for a good part of their early life.
While I do not share the narrative of loss with some of the bloggers here, I do share an implicit fear that what is taught, or imparted will not solely be just the technicalities of the language but accents, slangs and modalities or speech that are completely alien and superficial for Singapore. Perhaps the policy makers should clarify on the exact goal of this program? At least for me, speaking like an american or with an english accent in the global marketplace is less important than the clarity of one's thought and the capacity to express these thoughts well. I have seen Africans and Europeans speaking English with a heavy accent of their native tongue yet could articulate their ideas very clearly without bombastic or pretentious language.
I really think MTV is already a bad teacher to our youths in some respect so we don't have to exacerbate the 'americanization' of Singapore with a recklessly wrought 'native speaker' policy. | |
| | | PAP
June 13, 2006 03:15 PM PDT
This blog is a white elephant. Just like what Buangkok station was, just for show but serves no practical purpose. | |
| | | PAP
June 13, 2006 02:16 PM PDT
If anyone here feel grave injustice about issues concerning PAP, then only you yourselves can change the situation.
Nobody can help you.
Take concrete action by voting PAP out or join Worker's Party to contribute in any role.
Take action, bitching in forums, petitions, blogs etc has no impact.
Complete removal of PAP and its organs is the only way out for Singapore and Singaporeans.
| |
| | | Ikan Bilis :P
June 13, 2006 01:29 PM PDT
Well, gayle speaks very good english, and is as natural as she can be.
This is a very simple thing, whilst not being ourselves, many of us tried so hard to be something else. So why all that inferiority? Does that give us less right to express ourselves the way we want, instead of having to put up false accents. Worse still, I've seen so many cases of people speaking with false accents, like, gosh, were you ever born that way? Does putting up a false accent make you more cool or more attractive? | |
| | | Prisoner of PAP
June 13, 2006 01:07 PM PDT
I think if PM Lee wants to smile, he can smile himself to death with the 2,640,000 PAP supporters who voted for him ! Does he really think that the other 1,360,000 have any reason to smile ??? | |
| | | Puzzled
June 13, 2006 11:46 AM PDT
gayle
how can you be a native speaker when you do not have natural blonde hair and you do not eat hamburger and steak every meal. If you eat rice and roti then you are not a native speaker of English. | |
| | | Kelvin
June 13, 2006 10:46 AM PDT
Sylvia Lim responds to Marlboro Tan's statement in this letter to ST.
June 13, 2006
PAP policy belies 'Staying Together, Moving Ahead'
IN THE wake of General Election 2006, various senior People's Action Party (PAP) leaders pledged to respect voters' choice.
At the Cabinet swearing-in ceremony on May 30, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong pledged that his Government would work with all Singaporeans, including those who voted for the opposition.
Singaporeans who hoped that the PAP would therefore remove its votes-for-upgrading strategy got a lightning bolt of reality with the Minister for National Development's statement over the weekend that, basically, nothing has changed.
Minister Mah Bow Tan's main argument was that the Government had to be fair to those who had voted for the PAP on its promise to upgrade PAP wards. But the bigger question on voters' minds is a very simple one - whether such a promise is a legitimate use of taxpayers' monies. To state the obvious, everybody pays taxes, whether they live in PAP or opposition wards.
Mr Mah had previously said that he could not 'look PAP MPs in the eye' if he gave the same priority in upgrading to opposition wards. But how, then, does he look these taxpayers in the eye?
No one living in an opposition ward expects special treatment, that is, to jump ahead of PAP wards with older blocks. But, all things being equal, it should not matter whether a PAP or an opposition MP is the incumbent.
The same objections apply to how the public funds entrusted to his ministry under the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) for estate improvements are disbursed.
Further, to say that disbursing CIPC funds through the citizens' consultative committees is not political because they are made up of residents, makes as much sense as saying that residents' committees are politically neutral when they are heavily mobilised to help PAP candidates campaign.
On this vexed question of selective upgrading, the recent conflicting messages from the PAP are telling. For instance, the day after Polling Day, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong praised Potong Pasir and Hougang residents for having loyalty towards their MPs, which was a 'better (characteristic) than for them to be chasing after every goodie which we offer them'.
After this dose of honesty from SM Goh, what kind of values is the PAP promoting by continuing with its votes-for-upgrading policy?
The overarching theme of the PAP's 2006 Election Manifesto is 'Staying Together, Moving Ahead'.
As a Singaporean who decided to stand with the Workers' Party, I look forward to the day when election campaigns will be fought by all parties over long-term national policies which affect Singaporeans' lives deeply.
Let Singaporeans reflect and decide elections on these questions, which are surely far more important for the nation's future than the selective use of public funds to ensure that the PAP stays in power.
Sylvia Lim Swee Lian (Ms)
Non-Constituency MP (Elect)Chairman,
Workers' Party
The link is here: straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=6fadbe120b93a010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:54ca8c3a86acb010VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD
| |
| | | gayle
June 13, 2006 10:38 AM PDT
I do consider myself a native speaker of English, largely because if I don't, then I'm not a native speaker of anything and that's disturbing :( but perhaps some native speakers are more equal than others. It is true and undeniable that the ang mohs have a certain fluency and comfort level with the language that most Singaporeans have yet to attain. Despite my being a debater and a public speaker, I'm still very verbose when I talk and stumble at times. | |
| | | soulgroove
June 13, 2006 09:23 AM PDT
To all who are debating about the "native" speaker thingy.
Well, how do you define who is "native" and who is "not-native" anyway? The problem is, different people have different definitions and the MOE has their own definitions.
I do not think it is important to debate on the "nativity" of the teachers. Instead, judge them on whether they can teach better than our local teachers and whether they MIGHT have a positive impact of the teaching of the English language in our schools.
Basically, its how the teacher in the classroom inspires/motivates/engages the student to learn the language better, no matter be it in the spoken or written form.
Apparently, the logical conclusion can be made that a significant portion, which means SOME, note SOME not ALL, of our local teachers just simply can't teach.
Blame who? Blame NIE? Blame the govt? Well, I think there's no real answer. | |
| | | john riemann soong
June 13, 2006 05:19 AM PDT
Since when weren't people who grew up speaking it as the first language not "native speakers"?
After all, it's hypocrisy. Why are Americans judged to be "native speakers", since you argue that people from England are "native speakers" but people who speak it as their first language in Singapore is not?
It's the Asian inferiority complex again.
I don't mind Caucasian teachers, I've had great experiences with them, but I just think this "native/non-native" dichotomy is absolument absurde, n'est-ce pas?
Singaporean Chinese aren't necessarily born in China, but don't we treat them as native speakers? Oh wait, that's right, we recently started hiring teachers from the PRC because we have the impression they will speak Chinese better.
We're native speakers of many languages. The only difference is that the influences end up being diffused across one another. This is a result of our multilingualism. If anything, we should be proud of it, unless the government wants to continue its "four neat boxes" policy, as Gayle so aptly puts it about how we (or the government, rather) proud that you have other languages but allow no diffusion. | |
| | | Mark
June 13, 2006 02:08 AM PDT
http://forums.delphiforums.com/kelongsg/messages/?msg=6.1 | |
| | | Mark
June 13, 2006 12:27 AM PDT
http://urbanrant.blogspot.com/ | |
| | | agc123
June 12, 2006 11:23 PM PDT
Long ago, our ex PM said why HDB flats are so square.
Some time later, round HDB flats appear in some area.
15 years ago. Our ex PM said, if clock can wind back 25 years. He will let chinese school to continue.
Some time later, MOE k\list seed school and start introduce chinese as 1st language.
Recently MM in china said our english suck.
Now MOE want angmo to teach english.
you also see MBT wear mini-skirt now. | |
| | | botak
June 12, 2006 09:15 PM PDT
Lift upgrading should be in order of age. It should not be used as a political weapon to browbeat voters. | |
| | | Mr Yakki
June 12, 2006 09:12 PM PDT
I wonder if there are any 30+ year olds here. There was a time in Primary school they introduced Mr Yakki and Mr Lala to teach English. It was a regression in English standard. The MOE has really "good" ideas. Very experimental on children but not willing to listen to public suggestions and other organisations research on teaching and instruction. You'd think they were god! | |
| | | Mark
June 12, 2006 09:05 PM PDT
http://onlinehammer.proboards76.com/index.cgi | |
| | | mojoe
June 12, 2006 07:42 PM PDT
I wonder if 13,989 residents in Hougang and 8,245 residents in Potong Pasir should heed the PM's call for the 4-million smiles campaign to welcome delegates of the IMF/World Bank... so in this campaign, we are all Singaporeans, 4 million strong. However, in the case of HDB upgrading, it's PAP wards vs. Opposition wards.
This is indeed an Uniquely Singapore... | |
| | | Alice
June 12, 2006 07:42 PM PDT
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3689557191707756526&q=nus+forum | |
| | | Alice
June 12, 2006 07:37 PM PDT
It is better for PAP to separate itself from business, GLCs, unions and grassroots.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages
Tampines and Pasir Ris which is newer than Potong Pasir and Hougang finished Lift Upgrading. You can go these two towns to check for yourself. | |
| | | YCK
June 12, 2006 07:18 PM PDT
Mr Mah Bow Tan's comments on the upgrading issue is not very satisfactory. The factors considered 1) age, 2) locality and 3) support for the ruling party still leaves much unexplained.
On age: It was pointed out that there are 800 flats outside the opposition wards' 150 as old or older needing upgarding. But are these the same kind of upgrading as there are several: MUP, IUP, LUP etc? For the matter should the overall state of repair the flats rather than just the age be of concern? If no one can be certain what kind of upgarding is referred to or what is really neccessary.
On locality: It was mentioned the need to spread out the upgarding. But the impression is there is already a low rate of major upgarding in the opposition ward. So should not this factor be counting towards these ward being upgarded first? Could someone should look into the proportion of flats not upgarded with lifts in all wards?
On support for the ruling party: Given that factor 1) is not good for determining the urgency of the need to upgrade and factor 2) seem to weigh lightly or not at all, the most weight must certainly come from factor 3). We are back to square one almost! Support for the ruling party is the significant factor determining priority in upgrading. This can be used to justify almost anything. In fact they should not even list the other two as the black box will do quite well by itself!
And as for the lack of funds as Amy Khor pleaded (Today 12 June), I have doubts. When SM Goh could be so quick to flash a budget for upgarding during the GE campaigning were PAP wins the opposition wards, the government cannot be so cash-strapped can it?
I wish the governing party would be clearer on the deciding criteria. | |
| | | Kelvin Tan
June 12, 2006 06:55 PM PDT
Maybe MOE officials saw Singapore Idol 2 and that infamous "Camp fire in the Moonlight" twist to "Can't Fight the moonlight" and decided enough is enough!
Time to bring in the angmos! Eat Ah-Kwa anyone? | |
| | | confused
June 12, 2006 06:50 PM PDT
I am confused and have way too many questions.
What exactly IS the criteria for flat upgrading? Is it the age of the flat?
If so, I do agree perhaps there are indeed much older flat in Singapore that needs upgrading more than hougang or Potong Pasir. However, if so, why do PAP claim that they will be offering the huge sum to Hougang and Potong Pasir during election campaign? By doing so then and later on come back to say there are older flats are they trying to say:
1) "opps! we forgot to consider older flat when we offered hougang and potong pasir upgrading"?
2) "we KNOW that there are older flats but we still offers hougang and potong pasir because:
2a) those older flats not being contested
2b) we do not feel there is nothing wrong using flat upgrading (which every singaporean, regardless of where they stay, should be able to enjoy. correct me if i am wrong here.) in PAP's political campaign. | |
| | | Prisoner of PAP
June 12, 2006 02:13 PM PDT
Mah-Bok Tan commented that every aging HDB flats (PAP and Opposition Wards) will be upgraded and the queue will depend on the "AGE OF THE WARDS". Well , on the surface that sounds pretty fair, but how come during GE2006 PAP can just decide to jump the queue to upgrade PP and HG if they are voted in? Suka suka ah ? Or is this what MM means by " there's no level playing fields ?" Sad to say, the MIW is loosing it's credibility, they are not putting money when their mouth is anymore! And this is scary, they talk about the big picture about bringing big foreign investments and upping our economic activity to benefit all Singaporeans but they failed in the simplest form of trust. Please lah -don't tell lies! !!! | |
| | | recruit ong
June 12, 2006 01:16 PM PDT
S'porean english is a big part of the S'pore identity. It is genuine and not something contrively manufactured or a product of some gahmen-sanctioned national campaign. Take what is indigenous away and u kill some more of our heritage and our identity. Why is the PAP always so lacking in confidence of itself and s'poreans?
Not to mention...
"Jobs for Foreigners, NS for S'poreans!"
pui!!! | |
| | | gayle
June 12, 2006 01:15 PM PDT
Yep absolutely. Native speakers bring more than just knowledge and fluency, they bring their experience and educational approach which is far more warm and engaging, at least from my experience in Canada as a kid in 1st grade and pre school. I remember my teachers well. And I was never so outspoken in my life as when I was a kid in Canada, I think. In fact I was too outspoken, I came back to Gongshang Primary and talked back to the principal =p I've changed since then! | |
| | | john riemann soong
June 12, 2006 12:42 PM PDT
ayoh, it's far beyond that, although Chinese being pictorial can ultimately convey a more profound secret message than English can (then there was the Japanese supression of Nushu).
Anyway, teachers do matter, because teachers can shape attitudes - culture and teacher go hand in hand. This is why a teacher that knows both cultures should be hired (Eurasians, perhaps), not a teacher that *simply* comes from Britain. | |
| | | chinaman
June 12, 2006 12:33 PM PDT
English or Chinese or any language you need to put in hard work and not just depend on the teacher. Learning a language means you master the grammar, the spelling and the literal and figurative meaning. | |
| | | john riemann soong
June 12, 2006 11:59 AM PDT
soulgroove: d'accord. The opposition voters are not necessarily being "disloyal" to the PAP, (and certainly not Singapore). They simply preferred the opposition's plan.
They may also support the opposition as a constituency (regional) administration but still consent to the national government. In no way are they to be viewed as "disloyal".
My lengthy post was really more like a disorganised rant, so I apologise. I was trying to explain how even if one were accept the government's self-interested role - ie. the government chooses to satisfy the people because the people empower it - that benefitting its voters over the people who didn't vote for it actually might be detrimental to the people who voted in the PAP.
"Ang moh" teachers? I don't know. I got my accent from mixing with American classmates, not teachers. My father also frowned on the use of Singlish.
Perhaps ang moh teachers have something to offer as an advantage. But to classify them as "native speakers" and those with their first language as English is not is quite ridiculous. (Of course, perhaps it's sour grapes because not everyone who comes from England necessarily speaks good English and I believe that I am quite the native speaker.)
I have had a whole range of Caucasian teachers during ACS(I): two who taught physics, one who taught history, one who taught mathematics and was the bagpipe leader...they had all their strengths I believe, and were hired for their talents, not because of some advantage due to nationality. It's funny because I don't think I've seen any at ACSI teach language.
After all, are Asian teachers inherently disadvantaged to teach English literature? It is nurture over nature, is it not? Why worry about the Singlish or mother tongue influences? Code-switching is an inherently natural skill.
If there are bad teachers out there, I believe it's not due to cultural disadvantage so more that it's naturally easy to find more people who are bad at something than those who don't.
Why is there only one teaching institute in Singapore anyway? If one hires a so called "ang moh" teacher, it should be because they were looking for teachers and perhaps people applying to be expatriate teachers happen to have better qualifications. Would that not apply to English teachers looking for work overseas in Japan, India, or Israel?
Have you seen on TV and the news when the people in India speak? It seems that those that choose to study English there (quite a lot) speak more intellectually than those in the United States. (C'est une nouveauté, n'est-ce pas?)
My concern is that if these teachers are hired, they would be culturally sensitive, or culturally appreciative. I liked my Asian English teachers. As far as I can tell, they were all pretty proficient and intellectual - but they knew the culture - so they could break into Malay phrases in the middle of class just to *express* a particular sentiment (in this case, why not to slack for examinations when were in P6).
Does this shocking use of another language in English class mean that the teacher isn't proficient? In actuality, it would point out to the greater multilingual diversity (as long as the English standard is maintained, of course). One strengthens his or her existing languages by interacting with another.
After all, any French teacher teaching overseas (even in the United States) tends to be culturally acquainted, knowing the idions of the other language.I fear cold alienation.if one hires teachers purely because they happen to be born in Britain.
But in fact, if they are competent, AND know (or are willing to know and pick up enthusastically) our culture, then by all means hire them, for that's a great asset. (As someone with overseas influence I guess I would be able to identify with both aspects, but I do not want a teacher with only a foreign aspect, treating this aspect as a superior imposition to the other.) That is what I hope gets that done. | |
| | | sandy
June 12, 2006 11:45 AM PDT
Aiyah why u so like dat want?
we understand right away what it meant...yah? | |
| | | agc123
June 12, 2006 11:36 AM PDT
Mr. Mah should take note that they only get "67%" of "YES" which is far reaching the condition set by HDB , a "75%" of "YES". This mean that there is no "upgarding" till GE2011, right ? | |
| | | Just'passin
June 12, 2006 11:33 AM PDT
Bringing in native speakers to teach English? Good in theory only. The children will only be spending at most 4 hours a week with the teacher, and that is not enough to make them more articulate. Besides, I feel that being a confident, opinionated communicator is more of a culture issue rather than a linguistic one.
There has been a shortage of qualified teachers in general, and if they are not hiring good teachers, the fact that they are 'native' is not going to bring much benefit to the students.
I did not see it working in Japan, or Korea, or China. Most of them still speak English with their own local flavors, until they have spent a few years studying in an 'English native' country. | |
| | | soulgroove
June 12, 2006 09:54 AM PDT
Hwa... hi there again "john riemann soong". actually, I totally don't understand your lengthy comment. Erm... OK, I get pieces here and there, but ultimately, what point are you trying to make har? No offense. Haha...
OK, my simpler take on the issue is this. When people vote for the PAP, i.e mark that cross beside the box with the PAP logo, what exactly are they voting for?
Are they voting for upgrading? For jobs? For the IR? For stability of future Singapore? For confidence in government? For the candidates?
I think the truth is, we don't know. We don't know simply because the truth is that there is no one reason why people vote for the PAP. It may be this, it may be that, blah blah blah.
Now, what Mah Bow Tan is trying to imply, is that ALL the people who vote for PAP, WANT/NEED/DESIRE/DEMAND for the lift upgrading. Is that true? Maybe I voted PAP cause I like the candidates more than the opposition one. That does not mean I want upgrading. Of course if you give it to me its a bonus lah!
Also, Mr Mah is implying that ALL people who vote for the opposition reject the upgrading plans. Or I think that's the picture he's trying to paint. That's not true. Some people value the choice of opposition more than upgrading but that does not mean that they don't want upgrading.
So, to me, Mr Mah is drawing inaccurate conclusions from the recent general elections and painting a false picture to justify the "preference for PAP wards" action.
With regards to the "native speakers" to teach english thing, I have no objections.
I have no objections if these other teachers are better than our local teachers. Ultimately, it has to be based on merit.
I for one, can say that I benefitted greatly for having an "Ang-Moh" teacher teach me for my Sec 3 and 4 English, because all the other local English teachers in my school were sucky. | |
| | | john riemann soong
June 12, 2006 03:34 AM PDT
Well there's Manglish, but yeah, we do have shared cultures anyway, even with the racial-political differences. The dialects are really an important part of our cultural diversity, because you notice that all Chinese are naturally not the same - there's a genealogy. I'm sure one could find Arab and Russian genes somewhere too.
Looking from a social contract perspective, the people must be more demanding of the government - for it gives the government its power. The government derives its ability to upgrade from the consent of the governed through funds and cooperation.
At first glance, it appears of "reward the PAP voters first" fulfills that social contract. After all, its the PAP voters who were the majority who consented to the contract.
But there is a greater contract - the social contract of citizenship, not to the PAP, but to the political system (consenting to elections to determine a government in itself). A third greater kind encompassing the whole nation. The kind where you don't leave Singapore because the benefits that it offers you outweigh the detriments (that you want to remove).
After all, there were many candidates for the contract, many parties. Since the whole contract for the Singaporean system only allows one ruling party at the moment, then that means some might be turned down. It might not mean hatred - just preference. In essence, they might still consent to the greater system.
The PAP has overstepped the contract. It does not see it is contracted for a task, to achieve a certain objective. We shouldn't talk about "defeats and victories" in terms of elections - not running again is not a defeat. After all, if you're strong in the area of say, recovering after a recession, one might run for that purpose only, and after recovery, not run again. Purpose-driven running.
But by revisiting the spoils sytem and punishing "disloyal" voters, a sort of majoritarianism, it undermines the whole principle. After all, the voters who voted for the PAP (one contract), who consented to the system (second contract) and are Singaporeans as a whole (third social contract) chose the PAP to do a certain job, to run the country well.
Thus, preferring to upgrade one constituency over another is nearly violating all three contracts (if we continue the social contract analogy) ... the PAP voters should wake up and realise it's not merely "oh, it benefits us, we're content with the contract". But rather, the PAP has chosen to cement its power with majoritarianism, by taking YOUR ability for an alternate government should it come up in the future.
Even if voters are purely self-interested, it's a disturbing undermining of a principle because it's giving up long-term power for short-term gain. What if YOU (assuming you voted for the PAP) wanted to choose another party in the future if you don't like the PAP anymore? With this step, what stops them from going back against their word to stop benefitting you?
After all, is this not a dangerous slippery slope. If the ruling party you voted for, because you thought it benefitted you, could sacrifice some Singaporeans to satisfy the majority, what is to say that you won't be the one sacrificed in the future?
It is in essence, like killing a parent's child and then giving them a million dollars for it, as part of a contract. Some things are priceless.
Thus, even if both sides were purely self-interested, the voter and the government, this violates the voter's self-interest on all counts. If the government is willing to exclude some Singaporeans, what stops it from excluding you, even if you don't live in Potong Pasir or Hougang, or you didn't vote for the opposition?
The PAP voters haven't been affected yet, but since it only serves to cement their power, it will be a detriment in the future.
The fact that the government is supposed to serve ALL Singaporeans, and not merely the ones who gave it power by voting for it, only serves to cement the case even more. | |
| | | Meepokman
June 12, 2006 02:54 AM PDT
what is uniquely singapore ?
Las Vegas Sands ? or Chindia or Oxbridge, Cambridge ..never mind, lah, can also be woodbridge...
I would say, it is Singlish...
where else can you find singlish ? | |
|
|
 |
gayle goh
profile
Recommended Posts
Do We Owe Our Existence to the PAP?
A Message From a Media Insider
The Bilahari Kausikan Post
Bilahari Kausikan's Reply
Money in Politics, Politics in Money
Workers' Party, PAP or My Living Room Armchair?
My Vision for Singapore
Democracy is Dangerous!
Singapore's Midlife Crisis
Smile, Singapore! WB and IMF Meetings a Scam
Chees' Rally & March; Interview with Gandhi Ambalam
worthy reads
xenoboy sg
students' sketchpad
singabloodypore
singapore mind
young republic
i-do-not-speak
friends
kwee boon
brendan
ben teh
2sa3
gecko
shameless advertising
if you're looking for air compressors and ancillary parts (vane, rotary, screw, etc), my dad sells them! ;)
disclaimer
the author of this site has based all her personal opinions on what is known to her as fact. any error is made of ignorance, not malice, and is accordingly apologized for. any views and opinions expressed by other persons on this site are not the responsibility of the author, nor does she claim to espouse them.
|
|
|
