From: u907736@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Edmund Chia)
Subject: Re: Was [China/Chua, An open letter] Now:- COVERT ETHNIC CLEANSING
Organization: University of Tasmania
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 08:16:37 GMT

In article <ges.27.0@boris.net.com>, ges@boris.net.com (G.E. Song) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug25.043905.26232@newsroom.utas.edu.au> u907736@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Edmund Chia) writes:
> >From: u907736@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Edmund Chia)
> >Subject: Re: China/Chua, KhengHwa/Re: An open letter to Emperor Akihito of Japan
> >Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 04:39:05 GMT
> 
> >In article <1992Aug21.204232.14121@leland.Stanford.EDU>, underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
> >> 
> >> In article <1992Aug21.100302.3508@idacom.hp.com> russil@idacom.hp.com
> >> (Russil Wvong) writes:
> >> >underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
> 
> (stuff deleted)
> 
> 
> >Singaporeans have the right to retain their ethnic identity regardless
> >of whether or not they are Malay, Indian, Chinese, Jew, Greek, or whatever.
> >We do not need a bill of rights to allow us to call observe our diverse
> >cultures and to have our diverse cultures respected by the law. Therefore,
> >I can be a Singaporean and be loyal to my country as well as call myself a
> >Chinese - observing Chinese culture and customs(which do not include 
> >strangling baby girls), albeit a variant stream of Chinese culture strongly
> >influenced by contact with other races/ethnic groups. I was under the 
> >impression that the U.S.A. also respected cultural diversity but it does
> >appear that at least ONE American believes otherwise.
> 
> >(stuff deleted)
> 
> >> There's no need to lecture me about seeing people as individuals
> >> and supporting individual rights and liberties.  As an American,
> >> I support those views totally.  I have repeatedly criticized the
> >> Chinese view that Chinese-ge = Chinese-cu = Chinese-ci.  It is
> >> in direct contraction to what I believe.
> 
> >If Chinese-cu is not equal to Chinese-ci
> >Then there is not reason why
> >Singapore-ci = Chinese-cu + Malay-cu + Indian-cu + Japanese-cu, .........
> 
> I think the above equation is becoming incorrect!
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^
> A more accurate equation is
> 
> Singapore-ci = Chinese-cu+Malay-cu+Indian-cu+etc... = Chinese-cu

Look, my equation was based on one used by Sharon Shiddique who is
a Malay Sociologist who used the equation to describe Singapore's
inter-ethnic relations. If you are really interested in how an
academic sees ethnic relations, read his articles. However, if you
are only interested in misrepresenting Singapore as a Chinese-cu/ci
country, then be prepared for some spirited arguments. The last person,
a Chinese from Malaysia who called Singapore a 'Chinese country' at
a National day celebration was booed-off the mike. You insult the 
non-Chinese citizens of Singapore by suggesting that they would submit
to cultural subordination.

 
> If you are from singapore, you will know what I am talking about.
> The govt. is emphasing speak mandrin for all chinese. It is importing
> foreign chinese into the country to make up for the low reproduction
> rate of the chinese in singapore. 

>From the above, it appears that Mr/Miss(?) Hong has a limited knowledge
of Singaporean(and Malaysian) history. The issue of 'numbers' of the
different races in Sinagpore and Malaysia has always been a sensitive
issue. It was the issue which politicised the Malays in Malaya(of which
Singapore was a part at the time), and it was the issue which brought
East Malaysia(Sabah and Sarawak) into the Federation, it was the issue
which determined the terms of independence for both Malaysia and Singapore.
Any change in the ethnic composition of Malaysia or Singapore will inevitably 
have an effect on the other. Ethnicity is no longer an issue in that a
race riot while possible is no longer likely, and the different races in
Singapore have come to know much more about each other and inter-ethnic
friendships are much stronger than ever before. Unfortunately, it remains
an issue in that such inter-ethnic harmony cannot be taken for granted.
The conservative approach would be to stick to the status quo in the hopes
that what has worked for so long would continue to work. Any change which
unsettles any ethnic group in Singapore is likely to unsettle those in
Malaysia and vice versa.

As for the 'speak Mandrin' campaign, what's your point? So Mandrin is the
official language/ common tongue of the Chinese in Singapore - so what -
Hong Kong movies sound funny, easier to teach only Mandrin as second language
than 4 or 5 different Chinese dilects. It is not often raised but Tamil is
taught to Indian students in Singapore even though there are 16 official
languages in India - is Singapore tobe considered Indian-cu because the
govt emphasizes Tamil instead of Punjabi or Hindi?

One thing often unconsidered by people who label Singapore a Chinese-cu
society is the fact that many believe that many Singaporean Chinese are
not particularly interested in things Chinese. One reason for the emphasis
on the Chinese with regards to language policy is perhaps the fact that
many Singaporean Chinese are not competent in Mandrin whereas their Malay/Indian/
etc counter-parts have less problems with their second language. Note the
lowering standards for second-language competence required to enter NUS.
Initially, it was a 50% pass, then it became a 45% pass, and when that did
not work, 'second-language camps' were set up to help. I believe all the
camps were "Mandrin-camps" to help under-grads meet the language requirement
to graduate - NUS could be discriminating against the other races by not
setting up language work-shops for them - it also could be due to the fact
that they were not necessary.

> Edmund, dear boy, when was the last
> time you were in singapore? Did you ever watch programmes on the govt's
> tv station? If you have been in singapore and watched the programmes
> you would have noticed that english programmes are usually sub-titled.
> Entertainment programmes get subtitled in any one of the non-english 
> official languages. A movie may be sub-titled in chinese and the next movie
> may sub-titled in some other language. I did not notice any one language
> predominating over any other language. English documentaries are always
>                                                                  ^^^^^^
> sub-titled in chinese. The chinese characters are so big that they obstruct
> a large portion of the bottom of the screen. I have found this to be most
> infuriating.

I can't be too sure about the sub-titles because when I watch English
programmes, I do not read the sub-titles, nor do I know why the Chinese
characters are so big. If I was to hazard a guess, I would say that was
because a lot of Singaporeans are short-sighted - That helps because I
DO read subtitles when I watch Chinese or Malay or Indian movies.

 
> I have never seen a documentary sub-titled in other ethnic language.
> Is this because the other ethnic groups are not interested
> in documentaries or is it because the govt. believes that the other
> ethnic groups need not be educated to the same extent as the chinese?


I am pretty sure the other languages are represented in terms of subtitles.
Singapore tends to be very careful in these matters.
 
> Singapore had a non-chinese senior minister. Now that senior minister has
> been replaced by a chinaman (reminds me of what happened to Gorby in the
> Soviet Union when it collapsed.)

Actually, I did not know that Singapore had a senior minister before Lee sr.
Nor do I understand how Gorby or the Soviet collapse fits into all this. 

> Every where you go in singpore you find the speak mandarin signs. The govt.
> claims that it is trying to unite all the chinese people. Why? The English
> language can be used everyone in the coutry: the chinese and the non-chinese.
> The chinese make up over two-thirds of the people in singapore. The other 
> races need to interact with the chinese in singpore to survive. If the 
> chinese form one group linked by a common exclusive language, what chance is
> there for the minority groups in singapore to survive. The chinese can refuse
> to interact with the minority groups and what do think will happen then. If
> the govt. wanted to unite everyone then english would be a better language
> to use. Then no ethnic group can claim that the language of another ethnic
> group was given priority over theirs. I wonder sometimes where the money for
> the speak mandarin campaign is coming from. Is it the tax-payers who are 
> funding this campaign. This would mean that non-chinese tax-payers are 
> funding something which will be deterimental to themselves.

The above again shows that you do not understand much about Singapore. English
is and has always been the lingua franca of Singapore. English is the medium of
instruction in school. Ethnic schools, in particular Chinese ethnic schools
were closed down sometime in the 60s - 70s. Speak Mandrin campaigns urge Singaporean
Chinese to use Mandrin as opposed to Hokkien, Cantonese, Teochew, Hakka, Foochow, etc,
Speak Mandrin does not urge Singaporean Chinese to speak Mandrin as opposed to
English as the lingua france. Again I stress, Government is conducted in English
(with the exception of the odd speech given in Mandrin, Malay or Tamil), government
bureaus have signs in all four languages though most of the business is conducted in
English, Banks conduct their business in English, Schools teach in English, Courts are
heard in English(though translators are provided).

WHY then does Singapore not go the whole hog and drop the speak Mandrin campaign?
The main reason is because while we are an English speaking nation, we are NOT an
English nation. We have no wish to forsake our past. We value our Chinese/Malay/Indian/etc
heritage and wish to see it perpetuated. This issue is not without controversy in
Singapore. Many Singaporeans look 'West' for their values - that is their perogative.
Others(e.g. the govt) prefer to maintain the diverse strands of culture which make up
Singapore, i.e. for Chinese to be Chinese, Malays to be Malays, etc. My preference
is for the evolution of a Singaporean 'superculture' which comprises these 'base cultures' 
in present day Singapore. I doubt if it is possible for cultural purism
in Singapore and would oppose it anyway. I am a Singaporean Chinese - Chinese because my
ancestors originated from China three generations ago.
I am not ashamed of that fact nor of the Chinese culture.
However, I am aware that Chinese culture as it exists in Singapore is significantly
different from that which exists in China, Taiwan or Hong Kong. The basis of Chinese
culture, its language(Mandrin in the case of Singapore), diet, dress, values, etc
is derived from China. However, the influences from Singaporean non-Chinese ethnic
groups has altered the China-derived culture of the Singaporean Chinese. Curry has
never been a Chinese dish though it is a staple of many Singaporean Chinese. Moreover,
the geo-political interests of Singaporean Chinese are very much different from those
in China.

As for the money used to fund speak mandrin campaigns, yes it does come from
tax-payers, same as the funds used to fund the SDU campaigns, the have more
kids campaigns, the save water campaigns, the how-to-use-toilet-seats campaigns,
the flush toilet campaigns, etc.

Chinese are prominent in Singapore because 76% of the population ARE Chinese.
The govt of Singapore has a Chinese majority for the same reason. A country
in which the minority rule the majority would probably look something like
South Africa. However, the minorities are protected by law and custom. I say
custom because most Singaporeans are aware that race relations are important
and act accordingly. In many ways, Malaysia is similar, only there Malays are
the majority ethnic group.
 
> 
> Do you want me to carry on?  If you don't believe what I am saying, why don't
> you go back to singapore and find out for yourself. Don't start getting 
> defensive and posting the singapore govt's propoganda on the net. I really
> prefer a propoganda free net.

Please don't carry on - not until you've read something positive on Singapore
anyway. I believe that there is a great deal in Singapore open to criticism,
however, it is my country and I am not the sort to sit by and see it abused
without very good reasons. Finally, I am not in the habit of defending govt
policy - not unless I'm hired to do so anyway. However, there are times when
my views and theirs coincide.

Edmund