I am aware that we are known to be able to adapt to different ways of speaking according to our different audiences. That means we can revert to Mandarin whenever we speak to mainland Chinese who work here, or even Singlish whenever we speak to people who are not so good at speaking proper English. However, this compromises my ability to speak proper English. Now that I am going to London, I am an ambassador of my country and must project a positive image. This to me, means that I must brush up even more on my oral English skills. Sometimes, I do get irritated when I hear improper English being spoken by teachers and journalists.
I am not referring to our local accent but to our lack of speaking grammatically correct English. We can speak proper English in our local accent, as Lee Kwan Yew does in England. Singlish is a unique dialect of ours but its little expressions can render our oral English improper in its sounding. Ironically, I used to be ashamed of our accent and had tried to pick up the accents of the people in UK and US. However, London just had Singapore Day almost a month ago and somehow it made me develop a sense of pride in our local accent. The strange thing is that foreigners actually find our accent intriguing. Thus, as I leave for London tomorrow, I go with the thought that it is our accent that makes us Singaporeans but it is my proper English that should show how proud I am to have it as my first language.
Then again, the environment I am in has a great influence on the way I speak English. Once I came back to Singapore, I reverted to Singlish. When I am with Singaporeans, in another country, I do the same. It takes effort to speak proper English all the time, but for the sake of my students, I will try! I've taken the first step by watching more documentaries, so that I can listen to the narrators speak in their impeccable English :)
My student asked me how I feel when I hear Singaporeans speak Singlish. I feel as if I am with familiar people in a foreign country but at the same time, I feel ashamed of the improper way English is spoken.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Friday, May 08, 2009
Criticism about SG
Some of the comments featured in Sunday's Lifestyle have caused me to be indignant. They came from two foreign ministers, referring to our size. It is extremely unfair to have said what they said, but look how we have proven ourselves to them. Our port, airport and quality of life is world-class! They can't beat that. Hah!
Monday, May 04, 2009
Aware saga
At first, I didn't feel anything worth writing about with reference to this controversy but as the chronology of events was traced, I question the fact that the ousted committee headed by Josie Lau did not bring up their misgivings at the meetings, but rashly staged a coup. I am a Christian, and am against pre-marital sex and homosexuality too, but I feel they were ruled by their emotions, which caused them to do such an uncalled thing like this. Even Irene Ang, who is a member, told them that she was Christian but also opposed their move.
Aware is after all, a secular organization and Singapore, being a multi-racial society with high tolerance for its different cultures and set of beliefs, has alas such overenthusiastic people who were not rational and objective enough to realise the consequences of their action, though well-intentioned. They collaborated as fellow church-goers to overthrow the ruling committee because they strongly disagreed with the sexual education programme implemented for schools. Even their pastor attempted to garner support for them in his congregation. They overlooked the fact that they should not have imposed their religious views on a secular group, despite being members of it.
My further thoughts on the pastor are that his request for prayers for Josie Lau and her husband was a warm gesture but it could have been tweaked towards asking for strength for them to do the right thing. This would have made things more objective.
This move almost further tainted the seemingly negative impression people have of some Christians, as aggressive in converting people to be believers of Christ. However, the stands made by Christan churches of how religion should be kept out of secular affairs, reflect the fact that the ousted committee, made up of a majority of members from the same church, has drawn flak for its move to impose its dogma on a secular organization's dealings. It should have known better than to be such crusaders, which is an unnecessary decision in the first place. Even the other churches are not on its side, even though they are of the same faith. I hope it now understands that it was doing the wrong thing. Obviously, it did this on impulse, since its members weren't adequately prepared to answer questions thrown at them, and had to consult the legal advisers hired. Thank goodness the overwhelming cohort of members stepped in to set things right, and thus the ousted committee agreed to step down for the sake of much needed harmony in our civil society.
I don't know if my timid and passive nature has caused this relief towards this positive turn of events, as some people feel that their courage is to be lauded. The end doesn't actually justify the means though. Was the programme so unethical that a takeover was imminent, without first bringing their views up? The media's presentation of some clauses in the programme that the "feminist mentor" found extremely disturbing, enlightened my mind with the result that there was no such need to conduct such a violent move. It seems that the ousted committee did not trust the ruling committee enough to listen to their misgivings, and decided to immediately stage a coup as well as recruit new members for Aware instead.
Also, being a "feminist mentor" seems to undermine the Biblical teaching of how women should behave. As she is a Christian, she should know what it consists. Eve was to be a helper of Adam, not equal to him. This implies that feminism, which essentially fights for the equal rights of women, is against the teaching. To call herself that, even if it was to cater to the secular world's perception of women, is inappropriate, isn't it? This is my two cents' worth pertaining to such a terminology employed by Dr Thio.
I also deplore the fact that Josie Lau blatantly disregarded DBS's warning not to run for President. Now that she has been ousted, she can finally set out to concentrate on her Vice-president post in the bank, as she should have done instead of accepting the election as AWARE President. She did not want to comment on this public rebuke by her employer, perhaps nursing a guilty conscience? Now that she has been given a new post by DBS, is this the consequence of her earlier stubborn wilfulness?
The fact that she could not fathom why people are against a group of Christians from the same church taking over a secular organization to cause it to have the same belief as their church's, shows her lack of depth in understanding the full consequences of her action. She wanted to see only the result she aimed to achieve, which stemmed from her own set of beliefs, but not the other results like the move incurring the wrath of people and her disrespect for the secular nature of the organization, by imposing her faith's teachings on its agenda.
As AWARE strives to move on, via the leadership of Dana Lam, her committee has decided not to press charges against the ousted committee for spending $80K more than the amount the constitution allows them to. This is an act of graciousness and humility to the ousted committee. She gives them the benefit of the doubt by attributing their total expenses to the lack of experience and stress in running the group. Her committee has also managed to recover the expenses through donations, membership fees and discounts off the bills, earning a profit in the process. They can definitely run AWARE better and the ousted committee knows this. They have not offered to help in its programmes.
The present committee has also submitted some new rules for their constitution, so as to prevent another irreverent tussle of leadership. One of them is that members must have been in the organization for at least two years before running for election. It makes perfect sense.
Aware is after all, a secular organization and Singapore, being a multi-racial society with high tolerance for its different cultures and set of beliefs, has alas such overenthusiastic people who were not rational and objective enough to realise the consequences of their action, though well-intentioned. They collaborated as fellow church-goers to overthrow the ruling committee because they strongly disagreed with the sexual education programme implemented for schools. Even their pastor attempted to garner support for them in his congregation. They overlooked the fact that they should not have imposed their religious views on a secular group, despite being members of it.
My further thoughts on the pastor are that his request for prayers for Josie Lau and her husband was a warm gesture but it could have been tweaked towards asking for strength for them to do the right thing. This would have made things more objective.
This move almost further tainted the seemingly negative impression people have of some Christians, as aggressive in converting people to be believers of Christ. However, the stands made by Christan churches of how religion should be kept out of secular affairs, reflect the fact that the ousted committee, made up of a majority of members from the same church, has drawn flak for its move to impose its dogma on a secular organization's dealings. It should have known better than to be such crusaders, which is an unnecessary decision in the first place. Even the other churches are not on its side, even though they are of the same faith. I hope it now understands that it was doing the wrong thing. Obviously, it did this on impulse, since its members weren't adequately prepared to answer questions thrown at them, and had to consult the legal advisers hired. Thank goodness the overwhelming cohort of members stepped in to set things right, and thus the ousted committee agreed to step down for the sake of much needed harmony in our civil society.
I don't know if my timid and passive nature has caused this relief towards this positive turn of events, as some people feel that their courage is to be lauded. The end doesn't actually justify the means though. Was the programme so unethical that a takeover was imminent, without first bringing their views up? The media's presentation of some clauses in the programme that the "feminist mentor" found extremely disturbing, enlightened my mind with the result that there was no such need to conduct such a violent move. It seems that the ousted committee did not trust the ruling committee enough to listen to their misgivings, and decided to immediately stage a coup as well as recruit new members for Aware instead.
Also, being a "feminist mentor" seems to undermine the Biblical teaching of how women should behave. As she is a Christian, she should know what it consists. Eve was to be a helper of Adam, not equal to him. This implies that feminism, which essentially fights for the equal rights of women, is against the teaching. To call herself that, even if it was to cater to the secular world's perception of women, is inappropriate, isn't it? This is my two cents' worth pertaining to such a terminology employed by Dr Thio.
I also deplore the fact that Josie Lau blatantly disregarded DBS's warning not to run for President. Now that she has been ousted, she can finally set out to concentrate on her Vice-president post in the bank, as she should have done instead of accepting the election as AWARE President. She did not want to comment on this public rebuke by her employer, perhaps nursing a guilty conscience? Now that she has been given a new post by DBS, is this the consequence of her earlier stubborn wilfulness?
The fact that she could not fathom why people are against a group of Christians from the same church taking over a secular organization to cause it to have the same belief as their church's, shows her lack of depth in understanding the full consequences of her action. She wanted to see only the result she aimed to achieve, which stemmed from her own set of beliefs, but not the other results like the move incurring the wrath of people and her disrespect for the secular nature of the organization, by imposing her faith's teachings on its agenda.
As AWARE strives to move on, via the leadership of Dana Lam, her committee has decided not to press charges against the ousted committee for spending $80K more than the amount the constitution allows them to. This is an act of graciousness and humility to the ousted committee. She gives them the benefit of the doubt by attributing their total expenses to the lack of experience and stress in running the group. Her committee has also managed to recover the expenses through donations, membership fees and discounts off the bills, earning a profit in the process. They can definitely run AWARE better and the ousted committee knows this. They have not offered to help in its programmes.
The present committee has also submitted some new rules for their constitution, so as to prevent another irreverent tussle of leadership. One of them is that members must have been in the organization for at least two years before running for election. It makes perfect sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)