   
 65th IFLA Council and General Conference
Bangkok, Thailand, August 20 - August 28, 1999
Inter-generational cultural transmission in Singapore: A brief discussion.
Chong Ching Liang
Oral History Centre
National Archives of Singapore
Abstract:
Singapore is noted for its economic competitiveness and
educated workforce but its elevation to a near developed
economy status sometimes masks the fact that it became an
independent sovereign nation only 34 years ago. During the
last three and half decades, Government Policies on education
have always been directed towards developing Singapore
economically and sometimes this narrow focus had unwittingly
bring about the neglect of the non-economic and non-material
aspects of Singapore's development. Consequently, the
citizenry in the pursuit of material wealth had forsaken the
cultural and artistic aspects. Times have changed. It is a
nation that is beginning to look beyond the material
developments of dollars and cents to developments of other
kinds, such as those within cultural and civic spheres. It
will also highlight the important role that the National
Archives of Singapore (NAS) has as the custodian of the
corporate memory of the government and the communities of
Singapore. In addition, it also discusses the important role
that the Oral History Centre (OHC), a unit within the
NAS has to play in helping to collect and promote the
collection of history and myths of the oral traditions. OHC's
role is to collect records which fill in the gaps in written
records, add colour and life to the understanding/learning of
history. It will also discuss how oral history projects in
schools when appropriately conceived could provide a bridge
for the Singaporean Chinese community where the young may
speak no dialect and the old may speak no Mandarin.
Paper:
2. HISTORY: An Introduction
2.1 A Union That Failed
Year Zero for modern day Singapore Republic fell on August 9,
1965. Hitherto, the Singaporean political elite had always
envisioned Singapore as part of the Malay peninsula. In 1963,
Singapore had entered into what she had felt was the natural
union with Malaya and the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak
to form Malaysia. It was a tumultuous two and a half years.
When the Separation occurred swiftly and suddenly, it was an
act that left lasting effects on both the external and
internal policies of Singapore. Externally,
Singapore-Malaysia relations entered a new phase of
country-to-country relations as opposed to operating within a
federation of states. Internally, Singaporean leaders faced
the harsh realities of rebuilding a nation without the rest
of Malaysia as a hinterland. Swampy and virtually devoid of
natural resources, the pioneering PAP government had to
quickly formulate a series of policies that would enable
Singapore to stand on its own.
2.2 Taking Stock
The post-independence government quickly realised that the
only resource that Singapore had to fall back on was its
population. This sole resource would be continuously
developed and tweaked by the government via the various
adjustments to the education until it could perform optimally
to aid the economic development of the young nation. Fourteen
years later, in 1979, Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee
presented his landmark Education Report that resulted in a
complete overhaul of the education system in Singapore, he
said:
There is a wider perspective to this (acquiring competency in
English). This relates to our competitive position, both in
Southeast Asia and in relation to countries like South Korea,
Hong Kong and Taiwan. Among the ASEAN states, as our wages
increase year by year, we cannot remain competitive in
labour-intensive industries for very much longer. But the
edge that we have over all of them, except for the
Philippines, is the large number of Singaporeans who can
understand and use the English language. This would give us
advantage in the service and high technology industries which
we shall retain for a long time.
Goh Keng Swee (DPM/Minister of Education, In Parliament,
27-03-1979)
3. BUILDING THE COMPETITIVENESS: The Push for Bilingualism
3.1 The Need for A Mother Tongue:
It has always been crystal clear to any political economist
analysing Singapore that its survival must reside in its
ability to leap frog into the post-industrial era ahead of
everyone else in the region. Helping a large portion of its
near English-illiterate population acquire competency in
functional English had always been the main thrust of the
education policy. But, a problem is foreseen.
However, a more difficult problem is arising in the schools.
As we move into more English language at the secondary stage,
the more will be the influence of the Western ideas and
Western values carried in English-language publications. A
child does not grow up in isolation. His views, his
attitudes, are shaped by his family, his teachers, his
friends, by what he reads. The more his friends absorb of
Western values, the more these Western values will influence
him. Somehow we must abstract and distil the essence of our
Asian culture and values so that English may be used for
supplementary instruction in moral education.
Lee Kuan Yew, The Importance And The Limits Of
Bilingualism, 05-01-1979
One cannot simply replace the mother tongue with English
without any danger. As Lee Kuan Yew noted while he was Prime
Minister:
And it is not just learning the language (mother tongue).
With language goes the fables and proverbs. It is the
learning of a whole value system, a whole philosophy of life,
that can maintain the fabric of our society intact, in spite
of exposure to all the current madness around the world.
Lee Kuan Yew, (Prime Minister, Speech at the Singapore
Teacher Union's 26th Anniversary Dinner,
05-11-1972)
In support, former President, C.V.Devan Nair when he was a
Member of Parliament said:
I agree with the Prime Minister's observation that the
principal value of teaching the second language is the
imparting of moral values and understanding of cultural
traditions. Chinese, Malay, and Indian stories, myths,
mythology and folklore are the stuff and substance of the
cultural traditions which we rightly seek to make part of the
mental and spiritual makeup of our young people.
C.V. Devan Nair (MP for Anson, In Parliament, 27-03-1979)
Hence, opting completely out of the mother tongue is
untenable and ultimately not feasible. For political and
cultural reasons, the mother tongue must be retained so that
"moral pillars" of society may be continuously present to
support the social structure. Thus, the education policy must
aggressively pursue a "bilingual" emphasis. The reason being
that we should not being completely westernised because we
have to retain our Asian culture and values but yet learn the
best of the west (i.e. the scientific inquiry etc.). The
thrust of these arguments could be seen from the previous
three quotes by Dr Goh Keng Swee, Lee Kuan Yew, and Devan
Nair that argued persuasively for the implementation of the
English language but cautioned against the jettison of the
"mother tongue".
3.2 Making the Separates Whole: Uniting Singaporean Chinese
Via the Education Policy
With the Singaporean Chinese, the bilingual education policy
is difficult to pursue as Mandarin, the chosen mother tongue,
is not native to the Singaporean Chinese community. Like all
human social groupings, the Singaporean Chinese are not
homogenous. They are segregated into different clans and
dialect groups. At the time of Singapore's independence in
1965, most of the Singaporean Chinese did not speak Mandarin
but one of the various dialects. As Lee noted:
And for the Chinese, it is particularly hard because it's a
completely different language, it's a completely different
script and worse, many speak dialect at home. So, in fact, it
is not bilingualism, it's trilingualism or two-and-a-half,
and it's a very complicated business.
Lee Kuan Yew, (PM, Prime Minister's National Day Rally
Speech, 15-08-1976)
The dialect-speaking environment that enveloped the
Singaporean Chinese students in the early days of the
bilingual education policy is detailed below:
The average Chinese boy who goes to an English school is
really learning two non-mother languages. He learns English,
which is not his mother tongue. He learns Mandarin as a
second language. It is also not his mother tongue because
often the dialect is the language of the home. This presents
us with a very grave challenge.
Lee Kuan Yew, The Singapore Teachers Union's 26th
Anniversary Dinner, 05-11-1972
Just exactly how many dialect groups are we talking about?
More than 10 major dialect groups. In the government census
of 1957, the components of the Singaporean Chinese were
reflected as follows:
The Chinese by Specific Community (1957)
|
Specific Community
|
Number
|
Percentage
|
All Communities
|
1,090,596
|
100.0
|
Hokkien
|
442,707
|
40.6
|
Teochow
|
245,190
|
22.5
|
Cantonese
|
205,773
|
18.9
|
Hainanese
|
78,081
|
7.2
|
Hakka (Kheh)
|
73,072
|
6.7
|
Foochow (Hokchiu)
|
16,828
|
1.5
|
Henghua
|
8,757
|
0.8
|
Hokchia
|
7,614
|
0.7
|
Kwongsia
|
292
|
0.0
|
Shanghainese
|
11,034
|
1.0
|
Other and Indeterminate
|
1,248
|
0.1
|
Report on the Census of Population of Singapore 1957-
Summary Table 12-2
It was not an easy task. But from the government's point of
view, it had to be done because the speaking of dialects in
the public and at home would interfere with the acquisition
of Mandarin in schools. However, in the early days, the
thrust of the government to push for Mandarin as an imposed
mother tongue was because the Chinese population had to be
united under a common language from which the education
policy could be formulated. Many of the Chinese dialects do
not have written scripts congruent to modern day Chinese
language. For instance, Lee Kuan Yew when he spoke on Hokkien
instead of Mandarin becoming a dominant Chinese dialect in
Singapore society said:
This would be sad, not because Hokkien is an inferior
dialect, but because it is a dialect. It is not congruent
with the written Chinese script. Present-day written Chinese
is Mandarin reduced into script. Spoken Hokkien cannot be put
into "bai-hua". If Hokkien prevails, then the standard of
written Chinese will go down.
(Lee Kuan Yew, Address To The Historical Society, Nanyang
University, 10 February 1978)
But the marginalising of dialects amongst the Singaporean
Chinese community was an onerous task as then PM Lee Kuan Yew
would admit:
It is an enormous task to get Chinese Singaporeans, whose
mother tongues are some 12 Chinese dialects, to make Mandarin
their mother tongue. It is probably the most difficult task
we have embarked upon the last 22 years of PAP government.
Yet without making Mandarin the mother tongue in place of
dialects, our policy of bilingualism will not succeed.
Dialects will be crossed and mixed into a Singapore Creole or
pidgin.
Lee Kuan Yew, (PM, Speech at the Mandarin Proficiency
Certificates Presentation Ceremony, 25-10-1981)
It was difficult. Sometimes, the self-discipline of the
Singaporean Chinese was called for. Families were exhorted to
impose the use of Mandarin instead of dialect so that their
younger generation could "advance" in their academic pursuits
and procure better employment. Then Prime Minister Lee Kuan
Yew stressed to the Singaporean Chinese of:
.... how important it was that parents should try and
minimise the burden, the load on their children by switching
or encouraging them to switch either into Mandarin or into
English when they speak to their friends and even to their
parents at home. You take off the load, an unnecessary load.
Lee Kuan Yew, (PM, Prime Minister's National Day Rally
Speech, 15-08-1976)
So it was, with self-discipline and perceived benefits, that
the speaking of dialects was gradually cast off by the
Singaporean Chinese community in the Eighties. This was
parallel to the Seventies when Chinese-medium education was
jettisoned by Singaporean Chinese for an English-medium
education. The initial process to replace dialects with
Mandarin was sluggish and the government had to launch a
major initiative by launching the "Speak Mandarin" Campaign
and removing dialect radio and television broadcast to
support its implemented education and language policy. It has
succeeded somewhat. By the late Eighties, it was apparent
that in public places, such as restaurants and public
transports etc, Mandarin had to some extent replaced the
Chinese dialects as the mode of communication. The following
table shows the numbers:
Sample Survey on the Percentage Distribution of
Languages Spoken at Housing Development Board Markets
and Food Centres
|
|
Dialect
|
Mandarin
|
English
|
Year
|
By Customers
|
By Hawkers
|
By Customers
|
By Hawkers
|
By Customers
|
By Hawkers
|
Aug 86
|
77.8
|
78.2
|
18.7
|
18.3
|
0.7
|
0.8
|
May 87
|
74.1
|
74.2
|
21.9
|
21.9
|
0.9
|
0.8
|
Jun 88
|
57.7
|
54.7
|
36.2
|
42.2
|
3.7
|
0.7
|
May 89
|
48.6
|
43.1
|
42.7
|
48.7
|
4.8
|
4.4
|
Source: Housing and Development Board, 1989
At the home of Chinese Singaporeans one sees almost the same
startling trend. Within a decade after the bilingual
education policy had been aided by the costly yet efficient
"Speak Mandarin" campaign. The following figures attest to
the effectiveness and efficiency:
Most Frequently Spoken Language at Home for Years 1980-1989
Year
|
Dialect
|
Mandarin
|
English
|
Others
|
1980
|
64.4
|
25.9
|
9.3
|
0.3
|
1982
|
42.7
|
44.7
|
12.0
|
0.5
|
1984
|
26.9
|
58.7
|
13.9
|
0.4
|
1986
|
16.1
|
67.1
|
16.5
|
0.3
|
1988
|
9.5
|
69.0
|
21.0
|
0.5
|
1989
|
7.2
|
69.1
|
23.3
|
0.4
|
Source: Ministry of Education, 1989
Thus, at the 10th anniversary of the launch of the
"Speak Mandarin" campaign, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew could
look back and announce that:
We have made progress.... The percentage of new primary one
pupils from predominantly Mandarin-speaking families has
increased from 26 in 1980 to 59 in 1984. Within the same
period, pupils from mainly dialect-speaking families have
dropped from 64 to 27. Parents are responding because they
are more aware of the benefits to their children.
Lee Kuan Yew, (PM, Speech at the Launching Ceremony of the
"Speak Mandarin Campaign",03-10-1989)
The numbers and figures had finally heralded the success of
the "Speak Mandarin" campaign and education policy in
promulgating bilingualism in the Singaporean Chinese
population without the interference of the dialects as an
additional language. But whither the opportunity costs?
4. BILINGUALISM: Its Main Cost
Achieving bilingualism within the Singaporean Chinese
population is not without its costs given the fact that the
English/Mandarin combination could not possibly replace the
dialects. Devan Nair probably touched rather close to the
tender nerve when he said that:
If at all there is any unease, it is certainly not about the
proposals on education policy (Goh Keng Swee Report on
Education, 1979), but rather a barely perceptible, an almost
secret and gnawing unease, about whether or not the policy of
bilingualism will effectively enable our children to preserve
the best of their cultural past, and to continue to draw
nourishment from their ancient cultural roots.
C.V. Devan Nair (MP for Anson, In Parliament, 27-03-1979)
In fact, aware that bilingualism could not be unilaterally
imposed on the Singaporean Chinese population, Lee Kuan Yew
said that:
We can solve this problem (of ensuring the proper acquisition
of Mandarin) without throwing any dialect away. But we must
limit the vocabulary of dialect from only home needs, and
only in homes where parents cannot speak Mandarin or English.
Lee Kuan Yew, (PM, Speech at Tanjong Pagar Community Centre
Scholarship Presentation, 04-03-1978)
However, it must be noted that the vocabulary of the dialect
is whittled down to a small functional amount so as to supply
a bridge between generations who could only communicate in a
pure dialect-speaking environment and those who had been
immersed in the government bilingual education policy.
Let's revisit the costs. We shall focus on the main cost
which is that of the loss of cultural transmission between
generations. With a younger generation that is no longer
competent or proficient in dialects, cultural transmission
from the older generations (whose main competency is only in
the dialect) becomes problematic. While it is certain that
generation gaps occur in all civilisations and cultures,
perhaps Singaporean Chinese's experience is unique in that
within a generation, the language of communication became a
barrier between the grand-parents' generation and the
grandchildren as a result of direct and conscious government
policy making.
Yet, this situation arose because it was imperative and
necessary that such bilingual education policy initiatives be
carried out. Thus we now have the inseparable twins of nation
building, Economy and Culture, colliding. Both are essential
to a small, resourceless country like Singapore. Without a
healthy economy, Singapore would not survive; without
culture, Singaporeans would be characterless and transient in
nature.
5. BRIEF DIGRESSION: Oral History Centre
At this point, this paper seeks a little digression. While
scarcely known, the OHC is twenty years old. Oral history
gained its first formal foothold in Singapore in 1979. A
department then known as the Oral History Unit (OHU) was set
up and placed within the domain of the National Archives. For
the first time, there was a department devoted to the
gathering of historical accounts via the recorded voice. Then
DPM, Dr. Goh Keng Swee felt that it was necessary to record
the struggles of the Fifties and Sixties so that future
generations of Singaporeans would know of the rigours of
nation-building. It began with a few researchers working on
three projects but that has since grown from a single project
to multiple projects. The three oral history projects are
namely Pioneers of Singapore Rags to Riches; Political
Developments of Singapore 1945 - 1963 and the Japanese
Occupation. The other projects were added later. The most
outstanding of which must surely be the Japanese Occupation
where there is decidedly a lack of written documentation. The
British were not here to keep records and the Japanese
military administration did not leave any either. The bulk of
this project consists of dialect recordings, not Mandarin
recordings. In addition, the OHC has also collected nursery
rhymes from Malay, Tamil and some of the Chinese dialects.
Oral history helped to plug in the gaps when numerous
surfaced.
Administratively, we have gone through many changes. This
small department was functioning under the National Archives
from 1979. Oral History Unit started in 1979 with It was then
detached from the National Archives and set up on its own as
the Oral History Department (OHD) in 1985. The OHD later
returned to the fold of the National Archives in 1993 when
the National Heritage Board was formed. The new name for the
OHD is the Oral History Centre. While the name changed, the
corporate mission remained the same: that is, to collect a
people's history of Singapore. To date, we have amassed over
2000 interviews and some 10,000 recorded hours across a
spectrum of language and subject groupings. The interviewees
come from all walks of life.
6. The FUTURE
Fortuitously or ironically, the OHC's mandate was decided
when it birthed in the same year as the "Speak Mandarin"
Campaign. Its destiny is decided. The task is clear: OHC
would have to collect a series of oral documents that would
capture the nuances and intricacies of the Chinese dialects
that are quickly dying. Hence, the voice of the past is
captured. At twenty, a vibrant youth, OHC must do more.
Collecting oral historical documents and keeping them safe
will not help the vast majority of Singaporean Chinese who
might not (might not be aware of the oral history collections
or are not inclined to use the NAS reference room) have the
chance to use OHC's archival holdings. This is for the simple
reason that while Library connotes an invitation to users to
borrow books and imbibe knowledge, the Archives connotes an
alternative image of custodians and safe keeping. The
Archives thereby presented an inherently unfriendly image of
being a place where things were kept under locks and keys
rather than borrowed out. Thus, the archival collections in
Singapore would remain inherently foreign to the public
unless they are aggressively disseminated. These
dissemination initiatives must also be pro-active in nature,
so that oral history could actively attract more believers
and practitioners. In order for a rich and diverse collection
of oral history recordings to flourish in Singapore, the
methods of oral history and its product, the oral history
interview tapes, need to be disseminated via non-traditional
means such as oral history materials are used for television
docu-dramas, period dramas shown over the broadcast
television, web-pages in the world wide web (eg.
www.knowledgenet.com.sg) , or recorded compact discs of vocal
collages or educational CD-ROMs.
If the researchers and general public accept the oral history
archives as a good source of historical knowledge, and do
come to accept/adopt oral history, they would be more likely
to support us in what we are doing. That way, oral history
would be indirectly seen as a progressive rather than a
retrograde methodology. As such, the OHC must reach out to
the public and push for the public to share in OHC's role and
duty. The logical place to start would be in the schools.
6.1 The Oral History Centre and Schools
Schools are an obvious choice for dissemination. If the
students can be convinced that history can be interesting and
is valuable, then it will remain with them when they grow up.
The teaching of history will also be easier as now, students
of history will have a practical arena to test their
knowledge. The biology students have their dissections,
history students will have their interviews.
However, this is not entirely a one way flow of benefits. As
much as schools may be able to derive some benefit from the
use of oral history, the OHC will also benefit greatly from a
tie-up with the schools. The school children would have
acquired an alternative mode of inquiry known as oral history
and could possibly be more sensitised to a need for a
paradigm shift beyond paper research to accommodate oral
historical research as well. For over a decade, the main
focus of the OHC has always been the collection of
materials. The OHC is re-evaluating its position.
It is now necessary to initiate contact with schools. In
1997, the OHC conducted a mail survey of all the schools in
Singapore and the data collected was as follows:
|
Primary
|
Secondary
|
Post-Secondary
|
"Yes" to seminar
|
40.3%
|
49.0%
|
61.1%
|
"No" to seminar
|
7.7%
|
4.1%
|
11.1%
|
Did not respond
|
52.0%
|
46.9%
|
27.8%
|
|
Total Survey Sent Out
|
196
|
147
|
18
|
Total Surveys Returned
|
94
|
78
|
13
|
Response Rate
|
47.96%
|
53.06%
|
72.22%
|
Source: Oral History Centre, 1997
The information that came with the survey ascertained a
couple of things, chief of which were:
-
there was enough interest to hold a seminar as more than a
hundred school teachers replied that they would attend an
oral history seminar if the OHC were to organise it. This
roughly translates into around 45% of all the schools
surveyed (see above table)
-
teachers were willing to employ oral history in the
classrooms if they could work it into the curriculum.
The survey response was encouraging enough for the OHC to
organise an oral history seminar for teachers in March 1997.
The seminar has since gone annual. The OHC is now able to
maintain an annual link with the schools. Hopefully, teachers
would be able to learn about oral history and its
applications in school during these seminars. As of the
present, a primary school, under its own initiatives, with a
project team of 10-12 year olds has successfully completed an
oral history project on the topic of "what makes a
Singaporean Singaporean". Likewise, a secondary school had
also started an oral history project on school identity with
project teams of 15 year olds. Two schools and a humble
beginnings. But with the future, the OHC hopes that schools
will expand into the areas of myths, legends and oral history
projects beyond mere school and academic concerns.
6.2 OHC's Work Plan
In order for the above to succeed, dissemination must be
flawlessly executed and new converts to oral history be
found. It is here where the title of this conference,
"Preserving Oral Traditions", intrigues me. In Singapore, the
OHC actively pursues the task of collecting a social history
recounted through voices via the traditional method of
question and answer. Oral tradition vis-a-vis myths and
legends had somewhat hit a road block in the first three
decades of Singapore's existence because of the general
populace emphasis on, and preoccupation with, material and
pragmatic pursuits.
In recent times, there has been a much-needed re-emphasis on
history by the government who realised that nation building
must extend beyond mere economics. With this, the education
policy is slowly shifting to ensuring that the humanities
(particularly in the subjects of history and social
education) are re-emphasised. In this current climate of
change, it is an opportune time for the OHC to work in
partnership with schools on a series of projects to collect
oral history and orally transmitted legends, myths, folklores
and nursery rhymes.
A project that can be launched to reacquaint students with
the older non-Mandarin generation in order to draw out the
rich store of folk tales, myths and legends would be to
employ parents who are still competent in dialect to act as
the bridge (or translators) between generations. Since the
parents would be recruited as translators, the children
interviewers need not have competency in dialect although the
ability to understand would be a great asset. That way, the
locked stories of the old can be passed on to the young.
7. CONCLUSION
To recap: The situation in Singapore is critical with regards
to oral traditions. Hitherto, there has always been an
imbalance between cultural and economic survival. For the
period of economic nation building, education and language
policies are formulated for the sole purpose of gaining
economic independence for Singapore. However, with the
maturing of the economy, there is a growing re-emphasis on
the other non-economic aspects of nation building such as
cultural preservation via historical lessons. Hitherto, while
the nation orientated it self from a mainly mother-tongue
speaking population to a mainly English speaking nation, oral
traditions had been going through a slow and invisible
atrophy. Oral traditions slipped into the background and the
only official centres in which oral traditions are actively
pursued is the Oral History Centre within the National
Archives of Singapore and the Military Heritage Branch of the
Ministry of Defence.
In reality, there is only one national centre that actively
and systematically collects and maintain an oral history
archives of Singapore and this is the Oral History Centre.
There are no other formal or informal organisations or
individuals that seek actively to retain an oral record from
the past.
The main barrier could be a mere problem of the mindset.
Perhaps, with enough exposure of the younger generations to
the realm of oral traditions, it would force the coming
generations of Singaporeans into a paradigm shift where
cultural history will be deemed important. In that climate,
perhaps oral history would be accepted as a methodology that
is seen to be as important as scientific inquiry.
Our long term goal is to have a sizable group of Singapore's
population collecting oral history of their own pet topics.
We would like to see community, social, commercial
organisations augment their archives with oral history
recordings so that ultimately, the history of Singapore will
live forever more, in a more colourful canvas of voice and
emotion. It is hoped that the brief interruption in the
inter-generational transmission of oral traditions would
remain just that: a brief interruption.
(This article reflects the viewpoint of the officer in
question and does not necessarily reflect the views of the
National Archives of Singapore.)
|