ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR - 1ST APRIL, 1992 TO 31ST MARCH, 1993
Sir, we do promote the courtesy campaign in the schools and it has been a multi-faceted comprehensive approach. The idea of a campaign is to give it a special emphasis for a short period of time so that it will eventually become a way of life. That is the objective, to make it a way of life. How do we get there? By campaigns. So the two are not in contradiction. In fact, our idea should be to get the message not just to the schools, but in the end to the homes, which means to the parents. The parents themselves might not have had the training or the education in their own times. Let me now move on to the Speak Mandarin Campaign. I would like here to report that good progress has been made. A survey conducted last year showed that for last year, in markets and hawker centres, 24% of Chinese Singaporeans used Mandarin as compared to 1% in 1979. A survey conducted by SPH recently showed that, compared to six years ago, among family members, the use of Mandarin had doubled. These are again rough indicators, but it shows that we have made progress and I think this is confirmed by our own subjective impression when we go around. I assure Mr Goh Choon Kang that Government's commitment to the Speak Mandarin Campaign remains unchanged, and I would go so far as to say -- I mentioned this in the House last year -- that the problem now is not so much dialect versus Mandarin, but mother tongue versus English. It becomes so convenient to use English in our place of work, in Government, in the shopping centres, that there is a danger that we may give less emphasis to the mother tongue, which would be wrong because that will deprive us of the life blood of our cultural heritage. So we should continue to promote Mandarin, we should continue to promote the other mother tongues. Concerning the recent spate of articles in the Straits Times about dialects being the mother tongue, I think those views are mistaken and lack a historical understanding of the promotion of Mandarin in the whole movement of Chinese nationalism. The first Speak Mandarin Campaign in Singapore was not 10 years or 12 years ago, it was in the 1920s. Someone sent me an article the other day showing that as early as the 1920s, we had Speak Mandarin Campaigns in Singapore. And this is not surprising because it was an integral part of the Chinese Republican revolution. In 1911, when they threw out the Manchus, a Chinese nation had to be forged, big debate at that time in Canton as to which would be the national language of China. Should it be Cantonese or should it be Mandarin? In the end, they decided on Mandarin because Mandarin was the kuan hua. Mandarin was the official language in imperial China. Mandarin is from the word man da ren, the Manchu big shot, the Manchu official. So by a narrow margin, they decided on Mandarin as the unifying language of China. And naturally, this was also promoted among the overseas Chinese communities in South East Asia, including Singapore. No traditional dialect speaker disputes this. The older Singaporeans who speak only dialects, no Mandarin, they will readily concede that Mandarin must be the common language of all Chinese. And if you are able to speak good Mandarin, it is the mark of an educated person. So I found the views expressed in the Straits Times recently rather puzzling and rather sadly lacking in a historical understanding of the progress of Chinese culture and the Chinese nation. The question then is: should we also support dialects? I say it is very difficult. We already have four official languages and if we also support dialects - and there are so many of them, six or seven - where do we start, where do we end? So it is not possible for the state or the Government to promote dialects. Having said that, should we suppress dialects? Should we make it so uncomfortable for people to use dialects that those who use it feel suppressed? Actually, that is also wrong. In Taiwan, for years, they kept down dialects. And when the political system there was loosened, as part of the campaign against the mainlanders, Hokkien , min nan hua, became a big issue, because min nan hua was promoted and politicians had to use min nan hua. So ke jia, Hakka, also came to the fore. I think about 15% of the Taiwanese are Hakkas. Whether or not Singaporeans will continue to use dialects does not depend on developments in Singapore alone. I say it depends on developments in East Asia, in South China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, because if those large population centres continue to use dialects, then it is natural that Singaporeans who do business there, who have cultural contacts there, will also want to use dialects. Because if they speak it and you speak it to a greater or lesser extent, it creates a certain empathy. As Parliamentarians, as MPs, when you go down to the ground, from time to time, you use dialects to show that we are one. This is a long historical process. How it will evolve, we do not know. In China itself, it is an issue. Recently, they are trying to promote the use of Mandarin in the south, because today in the southern cities, virtually only dialect is spoken. Last year, when I visited Swatow University, I called on the President and the first thing he did -- he is a Shanghainese -- was to apologise for speaking to me in Mandarin and not in Teochew, because there was social pressure on him. In China, in Hong Kong, in Taiwan, the debate is still going on. When we have to send someone to Hong Kong, we find a Cantonese speaker. When Dr Aline Wong went there to open a twinning conference a few months ago, she spoke in Cantonese. When we have to find a representative in Taipei, we make sure that, in addition to Mandarin, he speaks Hokkien. But these are necessities. We speak dialect in the same way as we have also to learn Japanese, German or Malay when we go out and trade, to make a living, to establish cultural contacts. We cannot make it an official language, we cannot promote it officially. So I would put it like this. In the long-term, Mandarin will become established as a common language of all Chinese Singaporeans. And some Chinese Singaporeans will know dialects to a greater or lesser degree because they find that it makes it useful for them to carry out their business, cultural or political activities. I would now like to turn to the question of the role of the press in upholding moral standards in our society, the point raised by Mr Ho Peng Kee. I think the media does play a very important role. It is not the only player, but it does play a very important role. The role of Government really is to draw the outer limits. So we can draw the outer limit at R or R(A) or whatever. But within these limits, I think it is for different groups in our community to exert influence, to take moral high ground. It is very difficult for Government to say, "Look, see this film, not that film, because this film is more edifying than the other film." But parents can do it, religious leaders can do it, school teachers can do it, community leaders can do it, and that is fine. And I think this is how we should approach this problem. It is right that as a society, we are continuously vexed by concerns about moral standards, because like courtesy, the moment we show no concern, that is the surest sign of decline. It is because we are worried, we are anxious all the time, that standards are held up and maintained. But at the same time, we are not a Victorian society. We cannot be. Every year, we get over 5 million visitors through Changi airport, plus millions more down the Causeway. Every year, over a million Singaporeans travel overseas. We are a society utterly ventilated. Our trade is so many times our GNP. So there is no way we can put up a cordon sanitaire around Singapore and say, "Ok, within this area, it is hermetically sealed." And the technology will not allow us to exercise these controls in the future. Yesterday, I talked about satellite broadcasting. Then you have CDs, laser discs. Now we go through the motion of checking every video cassette that comes in. We say, you declare, you pay a fee. We have a small platoon of censors who will go through fast-forward every video cassette. I do not think it does their eyes any good. Anyway, they have to go through, it is their job. That is possible with video cassettes. But how do we do a 100% check of optical discs? It is not possible. You can put the text of the whole Encyclopedia Britannica on a video disc. Furthermore, some parts may be locked by passwords and if you are scanning through, you may not even know that there are secret sections which you have not been accessing. So we have to take a practical approach that whatever we do, there will be leakages into our society. But what we do not want is for it to become blatant, for it to be sold in the shops, for it to be promoted in our media, particularly the establishment media, by which I refer to the Straits Times, Lianhe Zaobao, Berita Harian, Tamil Murasu and the television stations. They must maintain certain standards. Our schools also and the universities. They define what is respectable. In any society, there is the seedier, seamier, side. I think that can never be fully solved. It is like prostitution. You can control prostitution, but you cannot stop it. I would say we must maintain moral standards and the press plays a very important role but, at the same time, we must recognise the way we have been influenced by the world outside in which we live and from which we cannot be completely insulated. We have to take a realistic and practical approach, recognise that we are not, and we do not want to be, a Victorian society, but we want to maintain certain standards in our home, so that it may be dirty outside, but when you come back home, remove your shoes, wear your slippers, come in. A society where it is safe to bring up children, a society which keeps up with changes in the world without compromising on the wholesome quality of civic life.