A child prodigy Johann Loh had posted on his Facebook page:
“8 Reasons Why Singlish Needs To Be Cancelled”
And many had mixed views in regards to his post, as many have grown up speaking or even taking Singlish as part of our lives and even regarding it as our ‘national language’.
Iyeshi Gary commented:
“Just one reason why Singlish is here to stay.
1. We love it lor, and it brings us closer as one SGUnited mah. Why want to step one particular race when we can be ourselves leh? Uniquely Singapore, you dont know meh.”
Another Lim Xin Hwee posted:
“you know that Singlish is a legitimate language/dialect/what have you when you know that there are wrong usages of the aforementioned discourse particles. stop embarrassing singaporeans and just diam la. want step good english then don’t even know that you shouldn’t be starting sentences with conjunctions. go back primary sch learn how, to, use, comma, pls. first 2 sentences already syntactically v clumsy based on standard english. heck, even in Singlish it sounds awkward.”
His full post is as below:
“8 Reasons Why Singlish Needs To Be Cancelled
1. Singlish is fundamentally derived from bad English. Its grammar and syntax, from an inability to master English tenses and grammar. It’s a direct translation from Chinese most of the time. Even particles like “one” are derived from a misapplication of the translation of 的 = one (for instance, compare “His one” = 他的 and “Why you so like that one” = 你为什么这样的). It’s a mausoleum to our former inability to master English and in many respects, an extended satire of our former shame.
2. Particles like “ah” or “lah” or “lor” signify the usual beginner’s use of various sounds and gestures to replace complex vocabulary. Due to a lack of vocabulary.
3. Singlish is almost always used to differentiate class background, with the ability to code switch an extended form of performativity. What is the relationship of the elite Singaporean performing Singlish to a working class Singaporean? Is Singlish in this case authentic or merely a means to perform solidarity or achieve some kind of effect, usually manipulative?
4. Singlish is exaggerated for comical purposes. We have all seen the videos. But where does this comedic effect come from? Isn’t it a form of exaggerated satire which derives its humour from mocking the gracelessness or awkwardness of those who do use Singlish?
5. If Singaporean culture can be reduced to a mere performance of our former inability to master English as a way of differentiating us from our former colonial masters, this culture is inherently negative. And I don’t see it either as “reclaiming” a formerly negative stereotype for reasons 6 and 7 stated below.
6. If codeswitching to Singlish is used as a tool by elite Singaporeans to perform solidarity with working class Singaporeans, it is manipulative. It reifies and reinforces class structures at the level of language itself. It is also condescending. It is metaphorically and literally a form of doublespeak. It hides class differences and social inequality under a shroud of false cameraderie.
7. If Singlish is an extended satire that relies on its not acknowledging the class differences that create humorous effects, all the while quietly mocking these mannerisms, it’s not really that funny when you think about it. I will not go into further detail out of respect to various economically disadvantaged groups. But my personal view is that performing Singlish is oftentimes a form of reverse classism or even… classface.
8. If Singaporean culture is so impoverished that it is fundamentally dependent upon the continued performance of historical and class vulnerabilities, then our vision of what Singaporean culture constitutes needs to be reformulated and move forward in a more wholesome manner.“
Some of the comments are as below:
