>PAP’s Racist MT Policy, Part 2 – PAP is forcing Han Culture, not Chinese Culture, on us

>As promised, here is Part 2.

Don’t get me wrong. It is not that I do not like the Chinese Language. In fact, I think like any language that is not English, I find it exotically beautiful. English is my most proficient language and hence, I use that as a yardstick to compare other languages. To me, the Chinese Language is not only linguistically different, its written form is so vastly different from English, it becomes an exotic form of communication.

As for Chinese Culture, that is OK with me too. All cultures have their own beauty. But the buck stops if a culture is forced on me.

So my bottom line on this MT issue is – Why must anyone (be it the government or fellow Chinese) force Chinese Culture on me, such that if one is Chinese, he is expected to uphold Chinese Culture? So what if I don’t uphold “Chinese Culture”, the way PAP or some Chinese Clans want me to?

The Vast, Rich and Diverse Culture of the Chinese –

To me, to even have an idea that there is such thing as “Chinese Culture” is a misnomer. It gives the idea that Chinese Culture is homogeneous and uniform throughout all the Chinese populations all over the world. But is that so?

The population in China is 1.3 billion, with 1.2 billion being the Han majority – Officially recognised ethnic groups in mainland China – Below is a partial screenshot of the statistics from the above link. The diversity of the ethnic Chinese populations is so huge, my computer screen could not capture it in one screenshot! That goes to show how diverse “Chinese Culture” truly is. Yet, PAP thinks Chinese Culture is homogeneous?

Screenshot

Here is another site showing how diverse Chinese Culture truly is.
Ethnic Minorities in China

From the hinterlands of the north, to the lush jungles in the south, from the mountains of Taiwan in the east, to the top of the world in the west, China serves as home to 56 official ethnic groups. The largest group, the Han, make up over 92% of China’s vast population, and it is the elements of Han civilization that world considers “Chinese culture.” Yet, the 55 ethnic minorities, nestled away on China’s vast frontiers, maintain their own rich traditions and customs, and all are part of Chinese culture.

Note that in China alone, there are 56 ethnic groups and all of them are part of Chinese Culture. It just so happens the the world outside China (especially the West, who always like to pigeonhole other peoples and cultures), that brands “Chinese Culture” to mean Han Chinese, and then proceed to paint everyone, regardless whether he is a Han or non-Han, as a “Han Chinese”.

There lies the fault of trying to homogenize a vast diverse population into a single culture – and the Singapore government, falls for this folly, expecting ALL CHINESE, regardless of their own unique ethnicity and/or culture, as “Han” Chinese.

Do you see the PAP promoting Chinese Culture as how the Uighirs practise Chinese Culture in their own unique way? Or how the Chinese near the Tibetan border practise their culture in their own way? No, you only see Han Chinese Culture being promoted in Singapore’s SAP Schools. As if the Chinese Race is one homogeneous race, with no consideration for the minority ethnic Chinese.

What crap is PAPpy doing, trying to deny the Chinese populations of their vast, rich and diverse culture?

Outside China, the Chinese population spreads around the world. Here’s the statistics for the Chinese population outside China – Chinese population (most recent) by country. Looking at the top 10 countries alone, the Chinese population outside China is about 30 million.

Again, note that the ethnic Chinese in these lands have their own practices, which may differ from other lands, as well as the Mainland Chinese.

So who is the PAPpy, or some Chinese Clans in Singapore, to say that we are Chinese, and hence must uphold Chinese Culture – and expect that culture to be Han Chinese Culture?

So not only PAP and the Chinese Clans are giving scant regard to other races when the tackle the MT issue as a “Chinese” problem, they are also insulting the Chinese who are non-Han by expecting these Chinese to deny their own unique cultures!

The Chinese in Singapore are also not homogeneous! -

So, are you now convinced that Chinese Culture is not homogeneous? That it is highly diverse? What if I say that even in Singapore, the Chinese are not homogeneous because of their differences in culture?

Nope, I am not talking about the Banana Chinese who have been Westernized and have adopted Western culture. I am talking about ethnic Chinese, who are traditional in their ways, practise “Chinese Culture” in every way, yet, very differently from Han Chinese. Can’t think who these people are? Heard of the Peranakans?

Peranakan Chinese are Chinese. But they have their own unique culture, distinct from Han Chinese. The most distinct cultural practice is that they speak (Baba) Malay. Baba Malay is a mixture of Hokkien and Malay, but for the most people, if you understand Malay, you will understand Baba Malay.

Ah, so that makes Malay the MT of the Chinese Peranakans, no? So who is PAPpy to force the Chinese Language on the Peranakans, which actually will erode Peranakan Culture?

Here is a little history on the Peranakans.
History

In the 15th century, the city states of the Malay Peninsula often paid tribute to various kingdoms such as the kingdoms of China and Siam. In return for such tribute, a princess of China was presented as a gift to the Sultan of Malacca at that time. The royalty and servants who accompanied the princess eventually grew into a class of straits-born Chinese known as the Peranakan. The Peranakan retained most of their ethnic and religious origins (ancestor worship), but assimilated the language and culture of the Malays. They developed a unique culture and distinct foods. A lot of sources claim that the early Peranakan inter-married with the local Malay population. However, the lack of physical resemblances have also led many experts to believe that the Peranakan Chinese ethnicity has hardly diluted. The Peranakan often sent their sons and daughters to China to look for spouses. Also, the religion of the local Malay population was Islam which forbids inter-marriage with other religions without conversion first. In the early 1800s, new Chinese immigrants to the Straits Settlements bolstered the Peranakan population.

Note that the Peranakan People are ethnically Chinese. Also note the Peranakans were well-educated, very adaptable, prosperous and were highly respected by the British, Malays and even non-Peranakan Chinese as explained below.

By the middle of the Twentieth century, most Peranakan were English educated, as a result of the British colonisation of Malaya, and the natural propensity of these people who were able to easily embrace new cultures. Because the Peranakans readily embraced English culture and education, administrative and civil service posts were often filled by prominent Straits Chinese. The interaction with the British also caused many in the community to convert to Christianity. The Peranakan community thereby became very influential in Malacca and Singapore and were known also as the King’s Chinese due to their perceived loyalty to the British Crown. Because of the interaction of the different cultures and languages that Peranakans had, up to the mid-1900s, most Peranakans were trilingual, able to converse with Chinese, Malays and the British. Common vocations were as merchants, traders, and general intermediaries between China, Malaya and the West; the latter was especially valued by the British, since the Babas also enjoyed good relations with the Malay community and served as advisors to the royal Malay courts. In fact the term “Baba” is an honorific term in Malay; probably derived from Hindi/Sanskrit .

As a matter of interest, Mr Tan Tock Seng, was a Peranakan. The Tan Tock Seng Hospital was named after him. So was Mr Gan Eng Seng, founder of Gan Eng School. Psst – Did you know MM Lee and the late Dr Goh Keng Swee are Peranakans too?

Note that the Peranakans were a minority within the Chinese race even during the British colonial times. Yet, they held many influential positions in the government service and in the trade and commerce sector. So why are the Peranakans slowly losing their heritage in Singapore today?

The answer is simple. Ever since Singapore became independent, we have always been bias towards Chinese Culture (actually Han Chinese Culture as you know by now). That virtually wipes out about all the influential history the Peranakans had before in this region, before Singapore became independent, didn’t it?

But there are some remnants of Peranakan Culture you still see today in Singapore. The Peranakans are famous for their food. You can do a search to see that there are some Peranakan cuisines being served in Singapore.

A National Icon from Peranakan Culture promoted worldwide, but no recognition given to Peranakan Culture or Heritage -

Another remnant piece of evidence of the influential Peranakan Heritage is found in one of Singapore’s most famous national icon. This icon has been promoted throughout the world for a few decades already – yet it does not mention the origin of that icon, which is from Peranakan Culture.

Want to know what that national icon, which has been made famous around the world? The answer is the Sarong Kebaya, worn by the Singapore Girl.

The Sarong Kebaya, worn by the Singapore Girl, was designed by a French. But that design is from Peranakan Culture. Peranakan women wear the very distinct and unique Nyonya Kebaya. A blouse, with the sarong.

Here are some pictures of the Nyonya Kebaya.
pic 1

pic 2

pic 3

Now compare the Nyonya Kebaya worn by the Peranakan Women, to the modified Sarong Kebaya worn by the Singapore Girl in the picture below.

As we know, the Singapore Girl is an iconic part of SIA, our national carrier, which has made Singaporeans proud. SIA and the Singapore Girl have put Singapore on the map in the Airline and Tourism Industry.

Yet no acknowledgment that the Sarong Kebaya is actually a modification of the Nyonya Kebaya, or a simple tribute to Peranakan Culture?

Why? Because Peranakan Chinese Culture is inferior to Han Chinese Culture and hence, not worth to be mentioned?

Conclusion -

It is sad that the MT appears to be all about Chinese Culture, or more accurately as you know by now, about Han Chinese Culture. The racist policies of PAPpy appears not only to sideline the non-Chinese, but also the Chinese who do not appear to be practising Han Chinese Culture.

It is the West that has pigeonholed other races, Chinese included, and concluded the Chinese are homogeneous, using Han Culture to paint the whole Chinese race as one. Very unfortunately, the PAPpy government is playing that tune too.

The PAPpy and Chinese Clans, whenever they talk about upholding Chinese Culture, they mean Han Chinese Culture. But as we now know, the Chinese is a very big race with a rich diversity of cultures and practices.

The bottom line is, why must the Peranakans or other minority Chinese, be forced to uphold (Han) Chinese Culture? Are not PAPpy and the Chinese Clans, expecting the Peranakan Chinese to erase their history and heritage by promoting Han Culture, instead of allowing the Peranakans to practise and uphold Peranakan Chinese Culture by learning Malay as their MT?

The PAPpy govt, with one stroke of the pen, makes a rule that when you are a Chinese you must take Chinese (same for other races having to take their respective MTs). The Chinese Clans add on by using the MT to promote (Han) Chinese Culture. This effectively wipes out all Chinese minority Cultures.

Isn’t that (Han) Chinese Chauvinism?

So in reality, PAP’s Racist MT Policy, SAP Schools, Speak Mandarin Campaign, and a whole host of other “let’s promote Chinese” policies are not about promoting Chinese Culture.

Instead, it is all about promoting Han Culture by wiping out ethnic Chinese Minority Cultures and sidelining the non-Chinese.

Welcome back to the Dark Days of Emperor Qin Shi Huang aka Monster Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

Related Article:
PAP’s Racist MT Policy, Part 1 – The Sidelining of other Races and Cultures

>PAP’s Racist MT Policy, Part 1 – The Sidelining of other Races and Cultures

>Let’s take a look at the Muddled Tongue, er I mean Mother Tongue issue once again. Now why must this issue take a racist slant in the first place? The answer is simple. Since Day One, the PAPpy govt has made it that way.

Introduction and Snapshot of MT Issue -

Before we had MT, we had Second Language. You could choose that language. Hence, we had many Chinese from English speaking families who took Malay as Second Language. The Indians and Eurasians took that as their Second Language also, since they were more comfortable with Malay, rather than Chinese.

Come MT, and the whole ball game changes. If you are Chinese, you must take Chinese. No ifs or buts. Same goes for Malays and Indians. Too bad if you are Eurasian, because to them, English is truly their MT. So they are forced to take a language which is not their MT, yet they have to call it their MT!

The introduction of the MT was a cleverly disguised racist policy of the PAPpy. Together with the Speak Mandarin Campaign, the PAPpy govt over the last 3 decades, relentlessly reminded Singaporean Chinese that they are Chinese – never mind that other races exist too.

However, forcing MTs on Singaporeans will have adverse effects. Most significantly in numbers, are the English speaking Chinese, who have difficulty in learning Chinese. Of course, there are other groups who may have problems with MT too, but they number far less – like the Eurasians. But the number of Chinese who have difficulty in learning the Chinese Language is large enough to cause concern. Hence, over the years, the PAPpy govt sought to “lower” the standards of Chinese MT for PSLE – to the chagrin of proponents of Chinese Culture.

This tussle between “should we lower standards of MT or not” has been on for years. However, note that the MT issue is always circling around the Chinese language. It is also a tussle between a group of Chinese who feel who should not let go of Chinese Culture and another group of Chinese who feel that the Chinese Language is hindering their children in schools.

Ah, note the absence of the other language MTs and other races. How do you think these people feel?

Chinese Chauvinism, The By-product of PAPpy’s MT -

We have seen that during the last few weeks, the MT issue has always centred on the Chinese Language. It is about how to “preserve Chinese Culture” in us – never mind that there are other races among us.

Now why must MT, a school subject, be slanted towards Chinese Culture? Why must Chinese Culture take precedence to a point that other cultures and languages are sidelined? I am not saying we should not preserve Chinese Culture. I am saying that if there are groups who want to preserve Chinese Culture, they have to do without touching MT. MT after all, is applicable to all races and not just Chinese. That point has been discussed in detailed in this post, and further emphasized in the comments section – Chinese Chauvinism Rampant at Heart of MT Issue

If you think I am imagining the racial slant, (ie to the Chinese, MT is all about Chinese Language and Culture, giving scant consideration it is also about other languages and cultures), all you have to do is to look at the ST Forum (15 May 2010). By the way, the forum the last few weeks also had many posts on MT, but 15 May’s Forum is about the most so far. Here are some excerpts of the forum letters.

Forum Letters Prove MT Issue has been “Chinese-nized” -

Relief and resignation

At the heart of this debate are two separate issues which should not be confused with each other.

Concerns over the efficacy of teaching and learning Chinese should not be allowed to undermine the fundamental value of learning the language.

Singapore is not entirely an English- language environment. Much of the older generation and a substantial part of the populace still view Chinese as their first language.

As Madam Lim herself pointed out, the bilingual policy is a public one, and concerns of the public must be weighed and balanced. While concerned about their own children’s future, parents from both sides must not lose sight of other parents’ concerns.

Mandarin- and English-speaking families should not be blind to the broader national interests embedded in the bilingual policy.

Well said, but unfortunately the writer thinks Singaporeans are only made up of Chinese. Doesn’t she even care how the minorities feel?

Call it…

‘Renaming mother tongue as a ‘national language’ will clear the confusion of English- speaking Singaporeans.’

MR GIN WAH TEOH: ‘Many people must have been relieved on reading Wednesday’s report, ‘No change to PSLE mother tongue weightage’. As Chinese is an official language, we should rename the subject ‘national language’. Hence, pupils must master two national languages: English and the national language of a pupil’s ethnic group. Eurasians and other minorities can have the option to choose a national language. Renaming mother tongue as a ‘national language’ will clear the confusion of English-speaking Singaporeans who argue that their mother tongue is English.‘

This guy is confused himself. The National Language of Singapore is the Malay Language. Doesn’t he know that? No, he doesn’t. Why? Because the PAPpy govt has promoted MT and some Chinese groups have made the Chinese Language so important, it hides the fact from our young generation that Malay is our National Language.

Here are signs that our National Language is Malay. The National Anthem is in Malay. The military commands in the SAF and other uniformed groups – including CCAs in schools, as well as the Flag Raising and Lowering Ceremony before and after school periods, is in Malay.

We hear the familiar command in schools everyday for for 10 to 12 years, “Sekolah, sedia!”, not “School, attention!”

For young Singaporeans not to know that Malay is our National Language is indeed a National Shame – let alone many Singaporeans can’t even speak our National Language, which is Malay!

The next letter drives home the point that MT is not just about Chinese. Notice something? It was written by a non-Chinese. That just about shows that most Chinese just have no empathy for non-Chinese, doesn’t it?
Minorities

Here is another writer who thinks that MT is all about Chinese only – written by another Chinese, what else do you expect?
Fair’s fair…

Finally, yes, at last! An old timer who sees beyond Chinese in the MT issue. This guy knows it, because he has seen that a Second Language in schools is just that – second language, not some cultural ties to some cultural heritage.
Grant parents option to decide on mother tongue

Conclusion -

Although MT is a language, it is used as a platform by some Chinese groups to advance their own agenda – Chinese Culture. This is done with scant consideration that there are other race groups who do not see MT as a Chinese Language, let alone Chinese Culture.

The above shows the insensitivities towards minority races and the racist slant MT has taken. No thanks to PAPpy’s never ending racist attitude that “We are Chinese, and hence, must uphold Chinese Culture”.

Perhaps, what could be done is to revert MT back to Second Language, where pupils and parents are allowed to choose the language they are comfortable with. Why force a language on someone who is not keen in it?

In part two, I will discuss how even some Chinese are up in arms, being forced to accept Chinese Culture, when that is not what they want. Well, at least the minority races can take heart that while their culture is being neglected and given scant consideration, Chinese who have no love for Chinese Culture are being forced to accept that culture.

More of that coming up in – PAP’s Racist MT Policy, Part 2 – PAP is forcing Han Culture, not Chinese Culture, on us

>Chinese Chauvinism Rampant at Heart of MT Issue

>Notice the very heavy Chinese bias in the PSLE Mother Tongue (MT) Issue? No, I don’t mean the govt’s bias this time. I mean the chauvinism from some Chinese groups.

Mother Tongue is not just Chinese. It also covers Malay, Tamil and other languages. Ever since MOE suggested reducing the MT weightage for PSLE, the uproar has been tremendous. And note that the uproar is always about Chinese MT.

What about the other languages? As if they don’t exist.

I am against reducing the MT weightage for PSLE. But my reason is nothing near the chauvinistic reason that “we are Chinese” and hence, must “preserve our heritage”. That reason is nothing short of chauvinism and arrogance, with scant regard that there are other races who are just as Singaporeans as the us.

My reason is that, why must we reduce just MT weightage at all? What about students who are weak in English or Maths? Why not reduce that too? By reducing MT weightage, are we not favouring just one group of students? Why the special privilege?

Here are two articles that show the Chinese Community is dead worried about the MT issue. Again, note the harping of “let’s save the Chinese Language because that’s our culture” tone. And yet again, note the scant regard for the other races who take other languages for their MT.

Is MT just about Chinese? Or it looks just like it is only about Chinese, because there are chauvinists who play up the Chinese card, disregarding the other races?

PS – I bolded the points below to stress the chauvinistic parts.

PM Lee: Mother tongue education still vital
(Full Story Here.)

THE teaching of mother tongue languages remains a vital feature of Singapore’s education system, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday.

He issued a brief statement in the wake of strong reactions to Education Minister Ng Eng Hen’s recent comments that the weighting given to mother tongue languages in the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) may be cut.

Mr Lee said: ‘I know many Singaporeans, including pupils, parents and teachers, are concerned about the Government’s plans for the teaching of mother tongues in schools, and especially at PSLE.

‘Emphasis on mother tongues is a vital feature of our education system, and the Government is determined to progressively strengthen and update its teaching and examination.

‘We have noted public responses to Minister Ng Eng Hen’s recent comments on the mother tongue review for PSLE, and are studying the issue.’

He said that he and Dr Ng would meet the press soon to address the concerns raised, and set out the Government’s thinking.The meeting is likely to be held next week.

Mother tongue languages are now given the same weighting – 25 per cent – as English language, mathematics and science at the PSLE. The combined aggregate score from a pupil’s grades in the four subjects is used for entry to secondary school.

For years, a vocal and potentially growing group of English-speaking parents has argued that the weighting given to mother tongue penalises pupils who excel in all subjects except mother tongue.

As a result, some fail to get places in top secondary schools.

Dr Ng’s remarks, in an interview two weeks ago, questioned the pedagogical soundness of mother tongue counting for so much at Primary 6.

While tentative, his suggestion has received strongly adverse reactions, not just from Chinese-educated community leaders who have long bemoaned declining Chinese language standards, but also from young bilingual professionals who have benefited from the emphasis on both English and the mother tongue.

The Straits Times has received 80 letters on the subject since last week. Most writers argued against a cut in the mother tongue weighting, saying it would cause students to take the subject less seriously. It would also discriminate against those who are strong in the language.

Chinese-language daily Lianhe Zaobao has been inundated with letters from readers protesting against what they see as a further dilution of the importance of Chinese.

‘The passing rate of the PSLE Chinese language subject has been above 90 per cent over the years,’ noted Zaobao columnist Goh Choon Kang, implying that the Government would be giving in to a minority if it changed the weighting.

De-emphasising the mother tongue in primary school is a short-sighted move that will undermine Singapore’s bilingual edge, critics say.

But Dr Ng thinks that it will actually strengthen bilingualism in that fewer students will be pressured and turned off by the subject at a young age.

His ministry is currently reviewing how the mother tongue is taught and examined, and will devise customised approaches for children of the growing number of families that now speak more English at home. The review will be completed by the end of the year.

Noting that very few education systems worldwide place such a high language load at primary level, Dr Ng said in an interview with this newspaper last month: ‘We have to ask ourselves why. What is the educational value of that?’

Parents of schoolgoing children interviewed by The Straits Times were divided on the issue. They agreed on one thing: Any change to the mother tongue weighting should not send out the message that the language no longer matters.

Housewife C. K. Quah, 43, who has a son in Primary 3, said: ‘I can accept it if the reduction is not too extreme. Somewhere between 5 per cent and 10 per cent would be acceptable.’

Her family is Mandarin-speaking, but her son struggles with Chinese in school. Nonetheless, she added: ‘Our mother tongue is an important part of our culture, so I think it is inappropriate for the weighting to be reduced too much.’

Another article here.
Chinese clans to petition Govt on language weighting

May 4, 2010

LEADERS of Chinese clan associations in Singapore want the Government to reconsider any plan to reduce the weighting given to mother tongue languages in Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) scores.

They fear such a move will discourage the young from learning the Chinese language even at the primary school level.

Mother tongue now gets a 25 per cent weighting at PSLE, equal to that of the other three examination subjects – English, mathematics and science.
More than 80 leaders and members of the Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations (SFCCA) met last Saturday in an emotionally charged two-hour session at the federation’s premises in Toa Payoh.

The SFCCA is an umbrella body for 188 Chinese clans and community groups.

SFCCA secretary-general Lim Fang Hua, 63, told The Straits Times yesterday that leaders from all member clans and groups were invited to voice their opinions on the issue.

The controversy over language weighting was prompted by Education Minister Ng Eng Hen’s remarks in a press interview a fortnight ago.

Mr Lim, who is also president of the Singapore Futsing Association, said: ‘We are still gathering feedback from members and will write to the Government on the matter soon.’

In his interview, Dr Ng said his ministry was looking into whether mother tongue language performance at PSLE should count so much because of the worry that ‘it could exclude someone from progressing in his educational pathway even if he did well in other subjects’.

Clan leaders at last Saturday’s meeting were not convinced by that argument.

The president of the Sam Kiang Huay Kwan, Mr Lee Peng Shu, 60, who is also SFCCA’s deputy secretary-general, said equal emphasis on English and Chinese for ethnic Chinese pupils should not be changed because it had been effective in ensuring the success of Singapore’s bilingual education policy.

‘We should not change according to how well our pupils do in the other subjects, or whether they like their mother tongue languages or not, because our future and our competitiveness are at stake,’ he said.

The president of the Singapore Amoy Association, Madam Lin Deng Li, 61, felt that the best time to lay a strong foundation and encourage pupils to master the mother tongue language would be when they are in primary school.

Agreeing, the president of Singapore Kwangtung Hui Kuan, Mr Ho Kwok Choi, 70, and SFCCA’s treasurer, noted that the standard of Chinese taught in Singapore schools was already low.

‘If it dropped further, I suggest we might as well not teach the language any more,’ he lamented.

Singapore’s efforts to promote bilingualism and encourage more business with a rising China would fail if students were not taught the importance of learning the language when young, he noted.

He asked: ‘Do we want to see our students picking up Chinese, going to China to learn Mandarin, only when they are about to retire?’

Once again, note the very heavy Chinese bias in the MT issue. As if other languages exist not.

So why must the objection to the reduction of MT weightage be because of the Chinese who want Chinese Language preserved? Is that not appeasing a sectarian group, the very reason these chauvinists pointed out that English speaking Chinese families (also a sectarian group) should not push their own agenda?

So while these Chinese Chauvinists who lambast English speaking families for lobbying to reduce MT weightage for selfish reasons (ie ignoring those who want MT weightage untouched), they themselves are pushing a status quo for selfish reasons (ie preserving Chinese which has nothing to do with other MT languages).

Putting in a nutshell, why must the Malays, Indians and other races have THEIR MT be subjected to the whims of these chauvinists? If there is any decision to be made on MT, it has to cover all languages and not just Chinese.

My reason for keeping a status quo is uniformly applied to all languages. There is no Chinese or other language bias. If we reduce MT weightage because we want to help those weak in MT, why not reduce English or Maths to help those too? Why favour just one group?

That would be a saner reason to preserve a status quo. But then again, we all know that the stress on the preservation of MT, like the Speak Mandarin Campaign, is about all Chinese Chauvinism, isn’t it?

>Reducing weightage of Mother Tongue in PSLE will help students: MOE

>From Channel News Asia

By Jessica Yeo | Posted: 26 April 2010 2228 hrs

SINGAPORE: The Education Ministry said reducing the weightage for Mother Tongue in the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) can help students whose scores border between the normal and express stream.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Masagos Zulkifli said this can help when streaming students to secondary schools.

It will allow those stronger in mother tongues, but weaker in other subjects, to go into streams that are more suitable for them.

Some primary schools recognise that building up a student’s confidence and team spirit are just as important as grades, and they are organising more camps and activities in this regard.

- CNA/yb

With the above report, it now appears clearer what the purpose of the reduction of the weightage of Mother Tongue (MT) for PSLE is supposed to achieve.

The ones who have problems with MT most are the Chinese. The Malays and Indians are doing fine. In view of what is said above, we can take that the reduction of the weightage in MT is targeted at:

1. The average student who borders along the bottom end of the express stream and the top of normal stream. Many Malay students are at this area.

2. It allows those who are strong in MT, but weak in other subjects to go into streams that are “more suitable” for them.

It now becomes obvious to me that because many Malays are strong in MT, but weak in other subjects, we see them in express streams rather than in normal streams. At the same time, many Chinese who are weak in MT and average in other subjects get to be in the normal stream. The reduction in weightage will hence see more Malay students ending up in normal stream, while more Chinese in express stream.

Well, that is what the above appears to be implied, at least. Note that the above is said by a Malay minister. As if it was to tone down the racist slant in the content.

>Resistance against PSLE MT Change – It’s all about Chinese Chauvinism, isn’t it?

>Parents of school going children must be having a headache. Every few years, the MOE will come up with policy changes that affect school children – and their parents. But the one policy that will create sparks is the one that touches the Mother Tongue (MT) subject.

MT weighting could be cut

THE high weighting given to mother tongue languages in the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) is now under review and could be reduced.

Education Minister Ng Eng Hen says his ministry is studying whether it is educationally sound for mother tongue language performance to count for so much at the Primary 6 level.

‘The worry is whether it could exclude someone from progressing in his educational pathway even if he did well in other subjects,’ said Dr Ng in an interview with The Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao.

Mother tongue languages now carry the same weight – 25 per cent – as the three other examinable subjects, English, mathematics and science. The combined aggregate score taken from the grades of the four subjects is used for entry into secondary school.

For years, parents have complained their children who excelled in all other subjects except mother tongue have lost out on a place in top secondary schools. Some have even ended up in the Normal stream for academically weaker pupils.

A mother tongue language review is now under way that will take into account the prior backgrounds of pupils and devise customised approaches. It will be completed by the end of the year.

There are some issues to this. Since the minister has made it clear in the media that there would be changes to the MT, the implications are:

1. An admission that MOE’s method of calculating the PSLE Aggregate Score may not be “suitable” after all.

2. A willingness to appease a specific group (those who find MT difficult). So why not appease those who find English or Maths difficult? Why the bias?

3. There is a hint of racism here. Note that any MT policy change is always based on the Chinese Language – not other MT Languages.

Before I touch on the above, let’s take a quick look at the comments section of the above article.
http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=32692

While the MOE is more concerned about the “under performance” of MT among PSLE students, the majority of those who are against any change to the MT weightage feel that the issue is one of knowing and keeping your roots as a Chinese. There is an air of chauvinism, an air of arrogance and an air of elitism, that we should keep to our Chinese roots in their tone. To these resisters of change, they are taking the MT as a sacred right to a passage of preserving Chinese Culture.

Sorry to say this, but I think that is nothing short of Chinese Chauvinism because of the following reasons.

Firstly, The MT is one of four subjects in the PSLE. If these Chinese Chauvinists want to preserve Chinese Culture, that is their right. But the moment they feel that they can dictate the school syllabus, that is going over the line. MT is not only about Chinese. You have the Malay Language, Tamil Language and many other languages too. Using MT to preserve Chinese Culture is nothing short of Chinese Chauvinism, especially when there is scant regard for those who do not take MT Chinese.

Secondly, there are many English speaking Chinese (like myself) who are not very fluent in Mandarin. To listen to the ever non-stop barrage of my fellow Chinese repeating that we should stick to “our roots” is at best an irritation. At worst, it is like creating a class of Chinese Elites that cut off those who are non-Chinese fluent even amongst the Chinese, not to mention those who are not Chinese at all. Isn’t that racism?

If there is any resistance to MOE’s suggestion to lessen the weightage of the MT in PSLE, it should not have anything to do with preserving culture, but for fairness and equity. Why should it even ever be anything to do with a culture? As if MT was designed for the Chinese only.

Here are some valid reasons to resist MOE’s change in policy for the MT, for those who insist on no change.

1. If the MT weightage of MT is lessened because there are students who find MT difficult, what about those who find other subjects difficult? Why not English Language? Why not Maths? Why specifically MT? Isn’t this unfair for those who have a flair for MT?

2. There is a system that “evens out” all scores in the PSLE score. That system is the PSLE Aggregate Score, which uses the T-Score system. Quite a technical system, but this system actually pegs a student’s performance against the whole cohort. It is because of recognition that many students don’t do as well in MT as compared other subjects, that this T-Score system is in place. This system has been around, if I am not mistaken, for nearlhy 20 years. A change in MOE’s policy would be an admission that the T-Score isn’t working – and MOE has been sleeping on it for nearly 20 years!

My View on Mother Tongue

Putting aside the weightage for MT, perhaps, we should revert to the old system of Second Language. Under the MT system, you take Chinese, Malay, Tamil or any other non-English subject according to your race. Hence, if you are Chinese, you take Chinese. If you are Malay, you take Malay. You can’t take Chinese if you are non-Chinese.

Under the Second Language system, you are free to take whatever you like. The advantage is that this system is fairer because you can choose what you want for your child, rather than being forced. This would mean non-Chinese are able to take up Chinese Language and then qualify for SAP schools – the much sought after institutions which non-Chinese MT students are being deprived of.

The Chinese Language should also be seen as a practical language. A language that helps you in life, bearing in mind that China is now a booming economy. Hence, being proficient in Mandarin would be a big boost. Again, this would give non-Chinese students a headstart if they were to choose Chinese as their Second Language.

The Chinese Language should NOT be seen as a language that is bridging our young with their Chinese roots – at least not in schools. If there are Chinese who feel that the Chinese Language should be tied to culture, they can always set up an association that promotes Chinese Language with Chinese Culture.

The reason for the above is to focus the attention that the Chinese Language is a practical language today, and students regardless of race, should have equal opportunity to gain access to be proficient in that language, which would ultimately affect their economic adult life.

Conclusion

Personally, I feel that there should not be any change in the weightage of MT in PSLE. But my reasons are not anywhere near the reasons cited by Chinese Chauvinists, who feel that the MT is their god given right, so much so that they do not even think that MT also includes non-Chinese Languages. It is also nowhere near the Chinese Chauvinistic reason that the MT be used to remind us of our Chinese roots, giving scant regard that the non-Chinese can hardly see that as a valid reason for a no change in MT.

My reasons for a no change in summary are:

1. There is already a system that evens out all levels of difficulty in different subjects – The T-Score. A change now would be an admission that the T-Score did not serve our education system well, meaning all the past cohorts of secondary students graded, have been graded wrongly.

2. Why only the concern with students who are weak in MT? What about those weak in other subjects? Won’t this be unfair to students who are strong in MT?

Finally, we really should revert to the old system of Second Language and dump the MT system into the dustbin. MT has created a sense of elitism among the Chinese Chauvinists who feel that they are a class above the rest.