Bilingualism in politics
By Murray Bourne, 18 Aug 2007
We should take bilingualism in politics more seriously. On this issue, Singapore may have some lessons for the US.
After September 11, the Americans realised there was a chronic shortage of Arabic speakers in the CIA, FBI and in most arms of government. In a 2003 abc.com article, quoted in campus-watch.org: Lack of Arabic Translators Hurting U.S., it says:
Despite an aggressive effort to recruit Arabic speakers in the two years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. government still suffers from a shortage that is hampering military, diplomatic and intelligence operations in the Middle East.
The story continues:
The State Department has fewer than 60 employees fluent in Arabic, out of a total of 279 Arabic speakers. Only five have the skills to go toe-to-toe with commentators on Middle Eastern television programs, according to an advisory commission Djerejian headed.
Robert Bryce (author of the book "Cronies") in The Arabic Speaker Deficit: The Language Barrier, says:
... the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, which, by the way, is the largest U.S. embassy on the planet, has some 1,000 State Department personnel. (That number does not include all of the service workers and security providers.)
But of that 1,000 people, just 33 speak Arabic and only six are fluent in Arabic.
The Singapore Bilingual Situation
Cut now to Singapore. There are 4 official languages in Singapore:
Ever since Lee Kuan Yew found himself in the position of prime minister of a newly independent state some 42 years ago, Singapore has been staunchly meritocratic. Whoever is best for the job, no matter what the person's race or religion, should get that job. (Well, it's not that simple of course, but Singapore's situation is better than that of neighboring Malaysia, where there is positive discrimination towards Malays, such that it is difficult for the minority Chinese and Indians to get very far.)
So the Singapore government is an interesting racial mix. While predominantly Chinese (no problem with that, since the country itself is predominantly Chinese), there is a fair smattering of Malay and Indians in the dominant political party, the Peoples Action Party. It is difficult to ascertain whether the proportion of races in the PAP reflects that of the wider community, but at least it is not a one-race party.
There appears to be a good working relationship between the government and MUIS (Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura), the Islamic Religious Council, a statutory body set up in 1968. This relationship was tested after September 11, especially when terrorists were arrested while plotting bomb attacks in the Republic.
Bilingualism in Singapore
Early on, Lee Kuan Yew realised that Singapore would need to be an English-speaking country to survive. However, to ensure that each ethnic group did not get swamped, the PAP introduced a "mother tongue" policy in schools. So students would get most of their education in English, but would also attend lessons delivered in their mother tongue (Chinese, Malay or Tamil) as appropriate.
The result is that most of the population is comfortable (not necessarily competent) in at least 2 languages.
Now to the bilingualism in politics part.
The politicians in Singapore conduct parliament in English. However, when they are in "the heartlands", talking with their constituents, they will most likely need to use their mother tongue and possibly will need to be able to understand one or two other languages.
The Lee Family and Bilingualism
Lee Kuan Yew was embarrassed as a young man when he arrived in England to complete his law degree, because of his lack of Chinese language ability.
He decided when he became prime minister of Singapore to push for bilingualism in school, bilingualism in society and bilingualism in politics. He put his language where his mouth was, and proceeded to study Chinese and Malay.
Lee made sure that his own son, Lee Hsien Loong (the current prime minister) learned Chinese and Malay, as well as English. Many of the PM's speeches are in all 3 languages.
I can't help feeling that the US would be in a lot less hot water if it had made much better use of the Arabic speakers in its midst, long before September 11. Cultural sensitivity is bound to improve with knowledge of others' languages and culture. I hope it's not too late.
See the 6 Comments below.
19 Aug 2007 at 2:08 pm [Comment permalink]
There are a lot of Arabic speakers in the US believe me. The problem is no one wants to work for the State Department- OR- their background would not be able to stand the scrutiny.
It's completely different from what Singapore is facing in terms of growing a nation of bilingual speakers. There are millions of Arab-Americans, they are just not trusted by the US government.
The issue here is far deeper than that of language. It is a lack of, and in fact, a refusal, to understand a culture other than one's own.
10 Feb 2008 at 9:33 pm [Comment permalink]
How will the Arabic speakers vote in this year's US election?
Will it be a majority going for the Democrats? I can't imagine too many of them supporting the Replublicans.
They, like me, probably can't wait for Bush's term to end.
16 Jan 2010 at 7:28 am [Comment permalink]
You could not wait for Bush's term to end. Now that Obama has been in office for a while are you happy with what we have now? Go ahead I will wait............. Bush did a fine job the last year he was in office the economy started declining well what goes up must come down it was just timing. ?He kept us safe not only did he keep our country safe he kept others safe and no he did not finish what his dad started he did what he had to do and I support him. Obama has lied several times in speeches about not adding to our deficit and he has added a trillion in a year and if his health care bill goes through it is projected to add 3-5 trillion in the next 20 years. Honestlymost politicians are crooks the problem is finding out who is lieing the least.
27 Mar 2010 at 11:51 am [Comment permalink]
Actually Tim, though I'm not the biggest fan of Obama, or anybody except Ron Paul for that matter, Bush didn't have a good enough grasp on certain aspects of the country and how it should be taken of just as much as Obama lacks the same, just different aspects. And he has not added a trillion in a year, our debt has REACHED a trillion, and his health plan will not cost 3-5 trillion, they said something like roughly 34. some odd million over the next 10 years, and I got this from what I'm sure is your "beloved" fox news.
3 Dec 2010 at 12:18 pm [Comment permalink]
Say there Timmy, how many planes hit buildings while any other president was in office??
That is not what I would call safe.
Obama is an idiot as well, but we haven't been attacked so far. I can not remember when there were so many wars that did not amount to anything. Bush senior spent 12 years in the White House, and junior spent 8. Count the wars and divide by 20!!!
31 Mar 2011 at 9:21 pm [Comment permalink]
Charley...........seriously, you should learn facts before answering....first, you cannot blame Bush Jr for Sept 11 as he had only 9 months in office. It takes about a 1 1/2 to 2 years for a president to fully grasp the true state of the country and enact real policies. Second, don't give Obama any credit for not being attacked as we are far more aware of dangers then prior to Sept 11 which may be reducing such attacks. Just watch the news and hear about all the attempts that have been made or were in planning stages. Second, since when did Bush Sr spend 12 years in office? He had one term from '88 to '92. That seems like only four years to me. Maybe my math is off.