English in Singapore and Malaysia 27
and languages was achieved through an ideology of instrumentalism in
language management in which both the economic as well as symbolic
value of the official languages were recognized. Thus, although the different
languages were regarded as equal, and protected by law to be so, they
were not equally valued. The languages were instead measured in terms
of their usefulness in ensuring Singapore’s social and economic well-
being. Clearly, its choice of English as the primary working language was
motivated by the economic advantages that English offered. However, the
government was always careful to show that equity among the languages
was at all times maintained.
Singapore has also not had cause to alter its language policy — it has
slowly and carefully created a coherent narrative about the place and value
of each of the official languages. It has nurtured English as necessary to
Singapore’s future, but played down its importance in the building of
cultural identity. Ostensibly, Singapore’s language policies have, as can be
seen, served Singapore well economically — enabling the country to enjoy
phenomenal economic growth as well as social stability. Singapore seems
to have fared much better than Malaysia, which has had seemingly less
stability in its language policies. Singapore has ranked consistently among
the top-performing countries in a range of internationally benchmarked
tests such as TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science
Study), PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) and PISA;
Malaysia, on the other hand, ranks in the bottom third, and appears to
have suffered from the flip-flopping of its language policies, first in 1967
to have moved from English to Malay, and then back to English in 2003
only to have this reversed in 2012 to having the medium of instruction
back as Malay.
Yet, I would argue, Malaysia’s language policies in its orientation to the
notion of language as right (Ruiz 1984) has more aptly acknowledged the
close link between language and identity. The argument made by Malay
nationalist leaders, for example, that Malay should be established as the
sole medium of instruction was one motivated by the need to build a
national identity. Argued to be a lingua franca that would promote unity
amongst the ethnic groups, Malay was constructed as a marker of identity
shared by all Malaysians; hence it was deemed necessary to learn it in
order to be considered Malaysian. The renaming, in 1969, of Malay from
Bahasa Melayu, literally, the language of the Malays to Bahasa Malaysia,
the language of Malaysia, signalled the way in which Malaysia’s language