Speak Mandarin Campaign/Hansard excerpts
This page collects Hansard excerpts relevant to the Speak Mandarin Campaign (SMC), reproducing the Parliament of Singapore Official Report passages cited in the main article. It exists as a primary-source companion so the full exchanges can be checked against the summarised prose on the main page, per the wiki's primary-source-first editorial approach.
25 March 1981: Budget, Ministry of Culture
Parliament No. 5, Session No. 1, Vol. 40, Sitting No. 14, 25 March 1981 · Section: Budget · Full title: "Budget, Ministry of Culture"
During the Committee of Supply debate on the Ministry of Culture's budget, MP Ho See Beng (Khe Bong) moved an amendment concerning Subhead JD-01 and spoke, in Mandarin, on the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation's practice of dubbing Cantonese television serials into Mandarin as part of the Speak Mandarin Campaign (col. 1198):
Sir, since our Government began this campaign of Speak More Mandarin, all of us reacted very enthusiastically, especially the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation. This is a very good sign. However, in proceeding towards this aim, I think the SBC might have gone a bit too far, and that is, dubbing some of the TV Cantonese serials into Mandarin. Their aim is to make Chinese Singaporeans take more interest in Mandarin and promote the use of Mandarin. This is a correct aim, but I think they are mistaken, because learning to speak Mandarin is not something that one can do in a day. This needs a long time before there can be any result. So on this campaign of Speak Mandarin instead of dialects, I hope the Government will not use pressure to achieve this aim, but leave the dialects to sink or swim by themselves. Otherwise, we may be unfair to those who are older, like myself, who are no longer able to learn to speak more Mandarin.
If SBC does not want to screen these Cantonese serials, then it might as well not import any of them, and import only Mandarin serials instead. In this way, it saves them the trouble of dubbing and also the expense. The cultural and artistic standards of these shows might be too high for the ordinary family audience. And if SBC dubs them into Mandarin, very often the dialogue just does not synchronize with the movement of the lips, and so the poor dubbing technique becomes too evident. I hope the Minister will pay attention to this fault.
I would like to point out that Rome was not built in one day.
The Senior Minister of State for Culture, Chai Chong Yii, replied (col. 1199):
Sir, I agree with the hon. Member that there is room for improvement in our dubbing technique of the Cantonese films. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with his comment that we might as well not import these programmes. But I agree with him that the habit of speaking dialects can only be removed after a long period of sustained efforts. However, I am sure hon. Members will agree with me that the national policy of encouraging Chinese Singaporeans to speak Mandarin, wherever possible, is a correct policy. In fact, he has said so himself just now. I am aware that removing dialect films from the TV screen in the home will mean that those elderly Singaporeans who speak only dialects will enjoy somewhat less. However, this is only a small price they are paying for the long-term benefit of their children. Unless we are courageous enough to take such drastic measures as, eventually, to exclude dialect programmes from our TV completely, we will not be able to drive home the point that Mandarin is to be made the common language of the younger generation of Chinese Singaporeans. Those youngsters who have yet to master the language should learn it seriously.
Ho See Beng then withdrew his amendment (col. 1199–1200):
Sir, the Hon. Senior Minister of State agrees with me on one point but disagrees with me on another point. So I cannot help but to withdraw my amendment.
23 October 1981: Chinese Members of Parliament (Names in Hanyu Pinyin)
Parliament No. 5, Session No. 1, Vol. 41, Sitting No. 5, 23 October 1981 · Section: Oral Answers to Questions · Full title: "Chinese Members of Parliament (Names in Hanyu Pinyin)"
Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah) asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Culture whether, in line with the policy of promoting Mandarin and the use of Hanyu Pinyin names, it would not be appropriate for Chinese Members of Parliament to have their names in Hanyu Pinyin. The Minister of State for Culture, Fong Sip Chee, replied (cols. 260–261):
Sir, let me restate the rationale of the Speak Mandarin Campaign.
Human resource is our premium asset. A population reasonably proficient in at least two languages is an advantage which nobody can deny. However, we must take care that raw emotions should never be allowed to cloud the issue and steer the campaign away from its declared objective.
This is a campaign aimed at the Chinese Singaporean community. Hon. Members must be aware that the multi-dialect-speaking environment among the Chinese community has been a serious hindrance to the study of the language by our pupils, including pupils in the Chinese schools.
The widespread use of numerous dialects has already led to the emergence of a Chinese patois, frequently incomprehensible even to those who unconsciously indulge in it. It compounds the difficulty in the study of the language and its proper usage and has, to a large extent, negated the Government's efforts in teaching the language.
It is for this reason that Hanyu Pinyin has been used to standardize the spelling of Chinese names as it will help to make the language environment more conducive for the use of Mandarin. A start has already been made in the schools.
Members of Parliament of Chinese descent, and indeed all Chinese Singaporean adults, are free to adopt Hanyu Pinyin names if they so wish. Those who have sentimental attachments to their names may want to continue using their dialect-transliterated names. Unlike children, they are more established in life or have been known by their dialect names for decades. They may not want to change them.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock followed up, and Mr Fong Sip Chee clarified (col. 261):
Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Sir, I asked a very simple question but I got a very complicated answer, Is the Minister of State for Culture aware that he has given the Members of Parliament an option, and may I ask whether this option can be extended to others? Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, a long answer is unavoidable to a heavily loaded question. It is not a simple question as such. The option has always been open. Anybody who wishes to change his name into Hanyu Pinyin may do so. All he needs to do is a deed poll.
Parliament No. 7, Session No. 2, Vol. 56, Sitting No. 13, 15 January 1991 · Section: Motions · Full title: "Shared Values (Motion)"
This sitting resumed debate on the White Paper on Shared Values (Cmd. 1 of 1991), not on the SMC itself. The campaign was invoked twice, in passing, as an example in the wider debate over communitarian versus individual values and racial policy.
Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir), opposing the "Racial and religious harmony" value as inconsistently applied by the government, said (col. 885):
The fifth value is "Racial and religious harmony". Maintaining racial and religious harmony has been always a way of life of Singaporeans from the day Sir Stamford Raffles stepped foot on Singapore soil. It is the Government, by its recent policies, namely, the formation of group representation constituencies, racial enclaves, promoting separate cultural months, highlighting the clan associations, Speak Mandarin Campaigns, encouraging one racial group to solve its own problems instead of getting all Singaporeans to do so, that have, in fact, heightened racial awareness in Singapore. Many participants in the seminar organised by the Institute of Policy Studies held on 11th January have expressed their concern of this fact.
Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua), speaking in Mandarin, responded directly to this characterisation (col. 911):
Mr Chiam See Tong, just now, criticised that the Speak Mandarin campaign was a mistake. When we had a dialogue session at the Feedback Unit, I was pleased to note that our Malay colleagues, our Malay compatriots and Indian compatriots, also understood that we should discard dialects in favour of Mandarin. But now as an ethnic Chinese, he does not seem to understand. So we must appreciate that when a community tries its efforts to retain its own cultures and traditions, we should not regard such behaviour as chauvinistic.