Saturday, December 24, 2011

PAP MP Seng Han Thong should do better

PAP Member of Parliament Seng Han Thong has given a twist to the whole MRT fiasco when he gave his opinion to BlogTV. His comment has literally divert the attention from the competency of SMRT management to the racial remarks embedded he made in the show.



You can watch the whole BlogTV show here.

The Online Citizen has put up an article which attracts more than 10,000 likes within 24 hours. TOC has made a couple of updates since then. Cherian George has made the comment that TOC was wrong in its reporting headlines because MP Seng was "just quoting from SMRT sources". At this point of time, the Law Minister Shanmugam has come out to defend MP Seng while the other PAP minority MPs like Halimah and Inderjit have expressed regret that MP Seng has made such comment.

Seng Han Thong (SHT) has initially denied any wrong doing while stressing that he has been quoted "out of context". Subsequently, he came up with an official apology but still insisted that his words have been misconstrued. He finally came up with another press statement to say that he was actually trying to "defend" the SMRT staff but it was TOC which put up the wrong headline. You can read his full statement here.

The magnitude of this issue has inevitably attract the attention of the higher echelon of PAP leadership due to the more than 10,000 likes on TOC article within 24 hours. Debates are going on whether SHT has made a verbal blunder or that TOC has put up "falsehood" on its website.

I am going to dissect on this issue on two fronts. First on whether SHT agreed with SMRT VP assessment that the staff could not handle the situation well because of their deficiency in English language. Secondly, on whether SHT is trying to "defend" the workers.

Some people, including the Minister of Law Shanmugam has claimed that what TOC has put up is falsehood or inappropriate Headline. Let's read the initial article put up by TOC. It says only the following:

"In a BlogTV programme MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC Seng Han Thong admitted that part of the problem with the SMRT breakdowns last week is due to SMRT staffs not being trained in emergency preparedness. He said that because some staffs are “Malay(s), they are Indians, they cannot converse in English good, well enough”. See from 6.12 minutes"

Watch the video again.

1) SHT did not DISAGREE with the quote or rather the misquote he thought he has heard from radio, on what the SMRT VP has said. In fact, he has to agree with whatever quotes he believed he heard in order to make the following comment that the staff should use broken English. He did not disagree the context that the staff cannot or uncomfortable to speak proper English.

So, is it "falsehood" that TOC has made in its article and headline that SHT admits that the SMRT staff cannot converse well in English? Apparently not.

2) If you are still not convinced, roll back and watch the front part. He said the problem should be split into two. SHT has made quite a silly remark about SMRT staff could handle emergency like terrorist attack but could not handle train breakdown. Then he "misquoted" SMRT VP to say that this problem occurs because some SMRT staff because they are Malays or Indians, cannot converse well in English. SHT did not disagree with SMRT VP's assessment but offer a solution, that is to tell the SMRT staff to use broken English instead.

SHT has responded at first instance that he has been quoted out of context and misrepresented by TOC. Apparently he didn't realize or understand that his remark or rather, misquote of SMRT VP, is potentially racial in nature. He blamed it on others like TOC who has misinterpreted him.

Whether SHT is a racist or not, I have no comment on it because I don't really know him personally. I only know him as a public figure, an elected Member of Parliament. Naturally, we would be more demanding on an elected MP, be it PAP or opposition. He is not the Tom, Dick or Harry we meet on the street but a politician who has been elected to represent the constituents.

As a politician, we would expect him to be ultra sensitive to racial connotation inherently. Even if he has quoted SMRT spokesman, it doesn't mean that there is nothing wrong with what he has said. For a politician like him, if he truly believes that SMRT spokesman has said what he has quoted, the first thing in mind is to rebut such racial tag. But SHT didn't do that. He repeated it as a matter of fact, agreed with it and added his own comment that the staff should use broken English instead. If he doesn't agree with what SMRT spokesman has said, why would he suggest using broken English?

SHT may not be racist but at the very least, he has failed quite badly as a politician, a PAP MP to be exact. He lacks racial sensitivity.

SHT tries to defend himself by saying that he was just trying to defend the workers. Did he really do that during that BlogTV program?

He agrees with SMRT assessment that crisis management was compromised due to the workers' lack of linguistic abilities, instead of reprimanding the SMRT of neglect in training the staff in both technical and linguistic aspects.

He wasn't "defending" the staff at all. He was merely telling the staff that they could just use broken English. He seemingly agreed with the blame on the staff's linguistic inadequacy contributed to the bad crisis management during the train breakdown.

I will put up examples on how he could have REALLY DEFENDED the staff:

1) If he has honestly heard wrongly that the SMRT VP was talking about only Indian and Malay workers having problems in speaking English, he should actually say it has nothing to do with their race! That's defending them.

2) He should have said, it is SMRT's responsibility to give adequate training to its workers, including English, so that they could perform their duties more effectively and could handle such emergencies well.

3) He should have said, if their workers cannot handle such situations, it is NOT the workers' fault but the SMRT management which failed to provide all necessary training to them. The SMRT management shouldn't use the lack of linguistic ability of its staff as an excuse of not providing such training.

4) He should have said, you cannot expect the staff to handle the situation if the management, for whatever reasons, didn't provide the necessary training.

It seems to me that SHT was trying to defend the SMRT management rather than the workers. He avoided answering the question posted by the host on whether SMRT management more concerned about profits rather than public service. He even went that far to suggest that SMRT could handle terrorist attacks even though they couldn't handle breakdowns like what we have experienced.

SHT has committed a series of blunders right from the start.

1) Misquoting SMRT spokesman.

2) Didn't even realize at first instance that the misquotes which he has put up is potentially racist.

3) Failed to rebut the racist connotation embedded in his misquotation but instead agreed with it unwittingly to make the other point.

4) Trying to cry foul without realizing that he has misquoted SMRT and what he has done is racially insensitive.

5) Shifting blame unto TOC while "apologizing" which makes him looks bad.

6) Trying to say that he is "defending" workers when the video has shown otherwise.

I have only this to say to PAP MP Seng Han Thong: You failed quite badly as a politician and you should do better than this. Just accept the fact that you have made a series of blunders, just apologize and stop blaming others from "mis-representing" you. You are basically insulting the intelligence of the ten of thousands people who have watched what you say whom come to the conclusion that you have made such inappropriate racially sensitive remarks.

Goh Meng Seng

Monday, December 12, 2011

双语教育的迷思

This is my first Chinese article written for The Online Citizen. I have agreed to take up the task of developing its Chinese section.

这是我给《网络公民》写的第一篇华文稿。我已经答应加盟《网络公民》,肩负起开扩它的华文部的重任。

双语教育的迷思

最近报业控股为李光耀先生出的书,《我一生的挑战——新加坡双语之路》引起了广泛的讨论。

李光耀似乎尝试在这书里为自己“平反”他扼杀方言,大幅度降低华文教育水准的“罪行”。尤其是许多以往受华文教育的国人,对李光耀关闭南洋大学,消灭华校的做法,都只能静悄悄的恨在心里,只等李光耀百年归西才会把那闷在心头的“真心话”大声的说出来。

以李光耀目前的社会和国际地位,其实是无须害怕这一小撮人在他作古后对他的指骂。毕竟他已经把新一代的新加坡人都转变成能以英语通达世界的“环球公民”,还会有谁在意这些“不合时宜”的指骂呢?也许李光耀身体里毕竟是流着华族的血,还是非常在意人们如何为他“盖棺论定”吧!

李光耀的双语政策是建立在两个基本考量:

(一) 政治整合
(二) 经济发展策略

政治整合

李光耀在五十年代是骑着受华文教育的民众反殖民主义的情绪而崛起的。李光耀之所以能成功在1959年夺取政权,全靠这班华校知识分子。

但是一旦夺得政权以后,这批华校知识分子便成为行动党党内分歧的主要原因。最终他们便分裂出来组成社阵。过后在几次的逮捕行动中,几乎所有的社阵领袖都被扣上共产党人的红帽子被关了起来。

自此以后,李光耀所领导的行动党政府就对华校生不再信任。当时的学运大多数都是由华校发起的。南洋大学做为东南亚华文教育的最高等学府就变成被整治的第一号对象。

这政治斗争的历史背景便成为李光耀致力于削弱华文教育的主要原因。行动党便以另一个“名正言顺”的政治理由来把这“以英文为主”的语言政策合理化。理由是新加坡作为一个多元种族的国家,必须有个共同语言平台好让各族都能和谐的沟通。

但是我们要仔细地检视这语言政策的逻辑。我们固然需要建立一个共同的语言平台,但有必要牺牲各族的母语水准吗?有些欧洲国家甚至有四种语言的教育政策。这是为了确保他们能在学习周边各国的语言外,还能继续保持着自己的语文文化程度。他们能做得到,为何我们不能?

经济发展策略

经济发展是另一个李光耀常用来作为偏重英语,削弱母语教育的理由。新加坡经济的发展模式是依靠大量跨国公司来本地的投资。我们为了配合这些跨国公司,也就理所当然把重点放在英文教育上。

但是纵观亚洲四小龙、日本和中国的发展史,唯有新加坡牺牲了各族的语文教育以换取经济发展。对新加坡华社来说,我们不只是牺牲了华文教育水准,而且还赔上了我们各族的方言。行动党一方面说为了加强华文的水准而推行讲华语运动,从而摧毁方言。但是另一方面李光耀和行动党议员又以他们有“精英遗传”的孩子和子孙无法应付华文学科为由,对华文教育一而再,再而三的降低华文教育水平!

香港、台湾和中国虽然都经济发展得非常迅速,但是他们不只保留了方言,并且华文水准更是远远超越了新加坡。李光耀和他的同僚是否让我们新加坡华族付上了不必要的惨痛代价?

失败的双语政策

不管我们从任何角度来看,李光耀最终的目的就是塑造一个以英文为主其他各族语言为次的国家。所谓的“双语政策”根本就不是一个以对等的重要性去实行真正的双语政策。这样长期削弱和牺牲本族文化的双语政策怎么能算是成功的呢?

吴明盛