32 Lubna Alsagoff
such intractable challenges can be addressed in a globalized world of
intensely compressed time and place.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Although sprung from common roots, the nations of Singapore and
Malaysia have taken vastly different pathways in their language planning.
In this chapter, our primary thesis has been to demonstrate the different
ideologies in language planning that have been adopted by the two nations.
In its quest to ensure linguistic harmony and economic success, Singapore
has chosen an instrumental model, heavily laced with pragmatism.
Malaysia, in contrast, has chosen to place a stronger emphasis on linguistic
rights. Both countries will face challenges, albeit different ones, based on
their pathways. The common roots have thus borne different fruits, both
present and future.
Notes
- The term “first language” in Singapore education policy does not refer to the
status of the individual’s native tongue, but rather reflects the primacy of the
English language as the medium of education in which all subjects, except for
the Mother Tongue and Civics and Moral education, are taught in. - This statistic is derived from the 0.54 million permanent residents and the 1.31
million foreign workers who make up the immigrant population residing in
Singapore (Singapore Department of Statistics 2010c, p. 1).
References
All-Party Committee on Chinese Education. Report of the All-Party Committee of
the Singapore legislative Assembly on Chinese education. Singapore: Government
Printing Office, 1956.
Alsagoff, L. “The commodification of Malay: Trading in futures”. In Language
as commodity: Global structures, local marketplaces, edited by Tan P.K.W. and
R. Rubdy, pp. 44–56. London and New York: Continuum, 2008.
———. “The development of English in Singapore: Language policy and planning
in nation building”. In English in Southeast Asia: Features, policy and language
in use, edited by Low E.L. and A. Hashim, pp. 137–54. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 2012.
Asmah, H.O. “The language policy of Malaysia: A formula for balanced pluralism”.