Low Thia Khiang’s speech (Debate on President’s Address)

议长先生,

总统在宣读政府施政方针时以继续保持新加坡的独特性为总结。我认为,我们的独特性除了施政方针中所提到的,还应该包括我们的多元语文和文化。我国自独立以来就是一个多元种族的社会,各族的语言和文化也增加了我国多姿多彩的民俗景观。

然而,建国後,随着教育体系和教学媒介语的统一,各族的语言和文化都受到不同层次的冲击。华族的应用语言也在这个过程中产生了巨大的变化。从六十年 代开始,短短在一代人的时间里所施行的各种政策,使方言几乎在华族社群中绝迹,取而代之的是华文、华语。如今,这个趋势又步入另一个“舍华文就英文”的状 态。眼前所见的是,华族社群以英语为家庭用语的学生比例,已经超越了以华语为家庭用语的学生人数。这似乎已成定局,不可扭转。

目前,华文华语在新加坡正处于转变的关键时期。随着外在大环境的改变,中国的崛起,我们越发感受到华文华语的重要。虽然我们坚持实施双语教育多年, 但在这个教育制度下成长的一般年轻人,整体的华英双语能力表现却不突出,这批介于中间地带的所谓双语双文化的年轻人或许还能流利地以华语进行人际沟通,在 进行日常生活交流时并不成问题,在讲的层次上已达到中上水平。但事实是,他们却逐渐丧失了读和写的能力。他们当中有好些人已经无法阅读华文报纸及华文文学 读物。

今天,摆在眼前的是,华文互联网的崛起让这批年轻双语双文化人才面临更大的全新挑战。

是的,诚如沈颖次长所言,华文的生命力的确很强,在互联网的世界里,华文绝对不会因电脑输入法而在互联网的新时代被淘汰。

华文也的确是以更生动活泼的形态在这平台上茁壮成长,网络热词的大量涌现就是例子。网络词语与现实生活词语也在这时代迅速相融合,产生了如富二代、官二代等网络词语及一些生动的现实生活词语。

不少本地年轻人在互联网上建构高素质的英文网站,他们在网络世界里讨论政治、社会、经济、文化等各种议题,但又有多少年轻人进入华文网络世界里呢?我们能听能说,但读写技能却不够水平的双语双文化人才,是否会沦为全球华文网络世界里的文盲呢?

此外,民间看似蓬勃发展的文化活动、语文竞赛及大专学府或各校所开办的华文文化课程,参与和修选的又有多少是新加坡人呢?

我们总是标榜双语双文化是我们在国际舞台上竞争的一大优势, 平心而论,以我们沦为口头语言的华文程度, 在这场竞赛中,我们胜算的机会到底又有多少呢?以目前我们的双语环境和双语能力来看,我们是否只是在吃老本而已?

诚然,要扭转英文为主,母语为次的局势已是不可能。但至少应该做到的是,让学习母语的经验能更深入与更广泛。

既然我们一直强调成功的双语教育带来了巨大的竞争优势,双语政策似乎成为新加坡教育的重要品牌,那为什么随着英文逐渐占据社会主流,成为新加坡的第一语言后,我们学生的母语水平却似乎开始一蹶不振?最令人费解的是,我们的双语教育系统,除了一退再退之外,竟全然无力挽回。

在这样的大趋势下,我认为,双语政策的重心应该适时调整,也就是说是时候从强调英文,过渡到更为关注母语。否则此一时,彼一时,母语教育一旦崩溃,我们的双语政策也必将名存实亡。

我期待在母语比重的考量上和华文教改的落实上,教育部能在母语教学法,或以新媒体互动性教学来教导华文的同时,也注重最根本的文化传承使命;在注重语文的现代功能性与日常实用性时,也增添教导学生对文化的认识与欣赏。

我们这个小红点的语文政策绝对不可能左右全球,不论是华、巫、印的语文环境发展的大格局,但我们的语文政策,尤其是华文的语文政策,则肯定会影响我 们下一代在全球的竞争力。在不久的将来,在华人世界里,包括中港台等地,越来越多的年轻人都能同时掌握流利的英语与华语,而在西方世界里,学习华文华语的 年轻人也将逐年增加。

这些其他国家年轻的一代都因为双语,甚至多语能力的优越而能同时拥有东西方文化的精华与资讯的优势,当然也更能遨游自如地,驰骋在东西方的现实与虚拟世界里。到时,我国年轻一代的人,不但将失去原有的优势,甚至会处于劣势。

我相信这是一个忧国忧民的政府所应该担心的事,也应该是在我们讨论政策的未来方向时所应思索的范围之内。

Mr. Speaker Sir,
In his Address, the President stated that our shared goal is to create a better life for all. Sir, we share this goal.

We also agree that economic growth is basic to improving our lives. I do not think anyone of us here expects money to drop from the sky. Singaporeans are pragmatic and mature enough to understand this.

The Presidential Address also provided a broad outline on achieving a better life for all, from the young to the old, from the lower income to those doing exceptionally well.

All these are aimed at achieving a happy and fulfilling life for all Singaporeans. It is therefore puzzling that some PAP MPs made a fuss when Sylvia Lim said that the government should bear in mind that happiness should be the ultimate aim of its policy goals. Besides normal economic indicators, we should consider other indicators reflecting the happiness and well-being of a society, as articulated in the United Nations resolution initiated by Bhutan and supported by Singapore. In Bhutan’s case, they use Gross National Happiness (GNH).

The President described the situation after the general elections as a ‘new normal’. Should the government not view indicators such as GNH as a ‘new normal’ in addition to GDP & GNP? I hope that this is not a sign that the government’s memory of the people’s reactions to its policies during the General Election is fading.

In the Presidential Address, a promise was made to our senior citizens that “you can spend your silver years with peace of mind” – a promise which I take to heart. Yes, this is what our senior citizens deserve. It is only fair that those who have contributed to the progress of the nation, who have moved Singapore from the Third World to the First World, should be recognized and treated accordingly. This is what a responsive and responsible government should do.

To ensure that our senior citizens will live with peace of mind and dignity, the government must provide affordable health care and adequate housing as well as appropriate retirement financing. This will require more government expenditure.

When MPs from the Workers’ Party raised questions related to these issues in this House, they were met with criticisms from the PAP. We were often warned about the dangers of a ‘welfare state’. We were reminded that there is always a trade-off in any policy. This makes me wonder whether the promise to our senior citizens in the Presidential Address will remain as a promise worth less than the paper on which it is given – until the next general election.

While I agree that we should be mindful of the pitfalls of a welfare state, I think it is high time that the PAP MPs refrain from using this as a ‘red herring’ to kill debate on alternative solutions and mechanisms to those proposed by the Government.

In this regard, I was glad to hear the Prime Minister yesterday make the commitment to strengthen our social safety nets in healthcare, housing and CPF. I hope our senior citizens will see the Prime Minister fulfill his pledges to make a real difference to their lives.

Sir, indeed, we should be fully aware of potential trade-offs in policy. We should also be on guard against viewing trade-offs only from the Government’s perspective. We should always assess trade-offs from the people’s perspective, especially those who are severely affected by the policy. However, the Government has often used ‘trade-offs’ as and when it suited them.

When the Government allowed two casinos to be built here, it highlighted the benefits to our economy over related gaming and social ills – never mind the trade-offs. When the Government decided to go ahead with hospitalization means testing without a transparent safety net for the sandwiched “not too poor, not too rich” group, it spoke about subsidizing those who needed it most.

To shorten the long queue for subsidized rental flats, the Government’s expedient solution was to disqualify more people from applying. They were told to live with their children regardless of how that could affect family relationships and as a result, some elderly people suffer emotionally. The Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday that the issue of higher demand for subsidized rental housing was not straight-forward, but it needed attention.

However, Sir, the general feeling among Singaporeans during the General Elections and even now is that the Government is more concerned with paying its Ministers well than about the welfare of the people. I think that the government must ask itself why Singaporeans feel and think this way.

I believe, Sir, the answer lies in the policy “trade-offs” expounded by a member on the government bench. It seems to me that more often than not, the policy trade-off was biased against the people, especially those who are adversely affected.

The policy “trade-off” is nothing more than a political assessment by the govt. The assessment is whether people can withstand – or as we say in Malay, ‘boleh tahan’ – the impact of the policy. But when the people ‘tak boleh tahan’, the govt will ‘kena’ and get hit during the election. This is what happened during the recent election in May.

The government should thank the opposition parties for making tremendous efforts despite the lack of resources to allow Singaporeans to exercise their right to vote and express their views. The opposition parties have also enabled the government to awaken to the problems on the ground that it had thought were manageable.

I am happy to note that the PAP has done some reflection on the ground reactions and the Government has responded to some of the concerns of the people.

We have seen a spectrum of policy changes since the election in May even before the opening of Parliament. We also saw various Ministers at work – including the Minister for Transport taking public transport – and the swift response from the Minister for MND on the usage of railway land. I am also happy to note the shift in the focus of our education philosophy. In this regard, the announcement in this House that the MCYS is now not only looking after the “In Risk Group”, but will also be focusing on “At Risk Group” is a positive step. I am of the view that this proactive approach in social services is the right direction.

Sir, all these developments after the GE augur well for the future of Singapore. They reflect the dynamism of Singapore as a nation.

I am also pleased to note that although the political system is not a level playing field for opposition parties, the political will and maturity of the voters mitigated this unfair system.

Here we are, in this House, the 12th Parliament, which we hope is the beginning of a “First World Parliament” befitting a First World nation, Singapore.

While the lack of resources and information may hamper the Workers’ Party from developing alternative policies, it will not deter us from doing our best to contribute to the debate in parliament on behalf of our electorate and the people of Singapore. We will scrutinize policies for any loopholes and gaps that are likely to affect our people adversely. We will be the voice of the people in the House so that the government will also consider their concerns and needs in any policy trade off.

I urge the PAP to step out of the shadow of the doom and gloom of certain pitfalls of western liberal democracy and work towards a First World Parliament in our own way. The Singapore way, to build a better life for all Singaporeans and a prosperous Singapore, based on justice, equality and happiness for our people.