Choose a useful language

Kor, K. B. (2009). Choose a useful language, The Straits Times. Retrieved April 11, 2009, from http://www.straitstimes.com/Prime+News/Story/STIStory_362109.html?sunwMethod=GET

AT 25, after graduation, I packed my bags and headed for Thailand.

I made my way to a small town near the northern city of Chiang Mai, where I taught English to students and helped out at a varsity Christian club, as part of a church missions stint.

Few spoke English there, making it difficult for me to communicate, despite daily Thai lessons for three months.

But when I returned to Singapore after eight months, I was able to speak and read Thai fairly well - thanks to the 'full immersion' experience.

Memories of my Thai days flooded back as I listened to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew at the launch of the Speak Mandarin Campaign recently.

Defending his decision to promote Mandarin over dialects when he introduced the campaign as Prime Minister in 1979, he said the value of a language lies in its usefulness, not just in Singapore, but also in the wider world.

He said: 'If you speak Hokkien or Cantonese, you reach some 60 million in Fujian and Taiwan, or about 100 million in Guangdong and Hong Kong. With Mandarin, you can speak to 1,300 million Chinese from all provinces in China.'

His comments struck a chord with me.

Languages open doors to new opportunities.

Because I speak Thai, I have been sent to Thailand on various reporting assignments. I covered the violence in southern Thailand in October 2004, the Asian tsunami in December 2004, the military coup in September 2006 and the Thai elections in December 2007.

Or take English as another example.

Born into a Chinese-speaking family, I encountered culture shock of sorts when I went to a mission school where most of my classmates spoke English.

I managed only C and D grades for English in the first two years.

An argument with some classmates in Secondary Two drove me to work hard at my English.
I was sworn at in English by one classmate, but all I could muster were some profanities in Hokkien, which elicited sniggers from him.

Shortly after the incident, I accompanied my elder sister to an English service in a church, in the hope that I would be able to pick up better English.

It wasn't easy but soon my English grades climbed - eventually to A grades at both the O and A Levels.

I went on to study journalism at Nanyang Technological University.

But there has been a cost. My proficiency in Mandarin has suffered in my push towards English.

Up to my junior college days, I was able to pen Chinese essays with ease. But now the only Chinese I can write confidently are my own name and some simple words, though I can read Chinese newspapers and conduct interviews in Mandarin.

I have also lost much of my proficiency in Hokkien. I can barely speak it now with my maternal grandparents.

This is a loss for me, as I am less able to connect with the older generation and to appreciate the culture and history relating to the dialect group.

The same can be said of my less than perfect mastery of Mandarin.
Call me overly pragmatic but I believe that one has to take a big-picture look at all things, yes, including languages.

My Mandarin and Hokkien proficiency might have suffered, but I believe I have chosen the better path in picking English, given its status as the working language in Singapore and worldwide.
My foundation in Mandarin could come in useful if I work in China some day, while the little Hokkien that I can still muster comes in handy when I have to interview Hokkien-speaking folks.

But what if Singapore had not started the Speak Mandarin Campaign, and I had continued developing my Hokkien?

I would connect better with my grandparents, watch Hokkien opera and perhaps even do business with Fujian businessmen.

But then what?

I probably wouldn't have been able to get a good job in Singapore.

So, as of now, I'm happy with the languages that I speak and the levels of proficiency that I possess.
Yes, I know there are others who place importance on other combinations of languages, but this just goes to show that the value of languages varies for different people in different circumstances.

Similarly, the value of languages was also a key consideration for many parents whom I spoke to about how they decide on the dominant language they use at home.

At the launch of this year's Speak Mandarin campaign, MM Lee had urged parents to speak more Mandarin, instead of English, with their children at home. His reasoning was that their children will have no problems picking up English given its dominance in society here.

Some parents who had found their careers hampered by their deficiency in English chose it as their home language, because they did not want their children to follow in their footsteps.
Others, casting an eye on China, picked Mandarin in the hope that their children would benefit from being able to connect with 1.3 billion Chinese.

Whichever they choose, can we blame them? I wouldn't. These parents are just doing what they think will reap the maximum yield for their children.

Some people think that a language should not be measured in terms of its economic worth. It cheapens the learning process and deprives one of the pleasure of delving deeper into the culture and history relating to each language.

My question is: Does Singapore have a choice?

Given our lack of natural resources, porous economy and fluid population flows, I feel that the Government has no choice but to focus on English and Mandarin for Chinese Singaporeans.

But while the Government decides the key languages on a national scale, it's not saying that dialects cannot be learnt. It's just being pragmatic when it says that most people cannot cope with more than two key languages. Let those who can go beyond.

My parting shot? Each one of us has to decide for himself or herself the languages that will be most useful.