The Impact and Implications of Language Policy and Its Evolution on

Nation-Building in Singapore

Shaoze Hu

School of Translation Studies, Shandong University, Weihai, Shandong, 264209, China

Keywords: Language Policy, Bilingual Education, Nation-Building, Collective Identity, Mandarin, Linguistic Diversity.

Abstract: Singapore has promoted English as the lingua franca and inter-ethnic language since independence.

Simultaneously, Mandarin has replaced several Chinese dialects as the common language of the Chinese

community to achieve linguistic unity and ethnic identity. This paper explores the evolution of the language

policy of Singapore and its impact on nation-building and analyses the promotion of collective identity by

establishing of a neutral lingua franca to replace other languages. The study also examines how the Speak

Mandarin Campaign influenced ethnic Chinese people’s sense of collective identity, arguing that language

serves as a tool rather than a goal in fostering ethnic identity. The paper mentions that under the premise of

no change in policy and social situation, the shrinking of the space for the use of the weaker languages, and

even the gradual shift from a multilingual society to a monolingual one with the stronger languages, is a

general trend.

1 INTRODUCTION

As a multiracial and multicultural country comprising

of 8% of Indian descent, 14% of Malay descent, and

the majority 77% of Chinese descent as the major

ethnic groups, Singapore reflects great richness and

diversity in its linguistic landscape. The Singaporean

government has designated four official languages

since granting autonomy in 1959: English, Mandarin,

Malay, and Tamil. English is the working language

for interethnic communication, while the other three

are considered the official ‘Mother Tongues’ of each

of the three major ethnic groups (Dixon, 2003). This

is despite the fact that almost all Chinese used their

own Chinese dialects of Hokkien, Teochew, and

Cantonese rather than Mandarin by 1965 and before,

and only 60% of Indians used Tamil as their mother

tongue in 1957 (Afendras & Kuo, 1980; Dixon,

2005).

Since independence in 1965, the emerging nation

has achieved a series of remarkable changes and

successes, including a time-honoured and effective

bilingual policy that has seen English gradually

transformed from a working language and a language

of inter-community communication to the primary

mother tongue of all ethnic groups that dominate its

society. However, some controversial language

policies in history, such as the suppression of Chinese

language education, have also attracted questions and

criticisms. On the other hand, Singapore’s national

identity and the collective identity of ethnic Chinese

have also been significantly impacted by the bilingual

policy that focuses on promoting English and the

Speak Mandarin Campaign. This paper aims to

examine and consider how Singapore's language

policy has changed over time, the effects of

associated political actions on nation-building, and

the fallout from these policies. It seeks to shed light

on how language policy is developed, how national

identity is created, and how to balance the interaction

between ethnic mother tongues and the lingua franca.

2 THE EVOLUTION OF

LANGUAGE POLICY

2.1 The Development of English

Education Policy

Prior to gaining independence in 1965, the majority

of Singaporean pupils attended Chinese schools,

which were mostly separated into Chinese, Malay,

and Tamil-medium schools as well as English-

medium government and parochial schools

(Gopinathan, 1974; Chen, 1984). English, Mandarin,

Malay, and Tamil were the four official languages

408

Hu, S.

The Impact and Implications of Language Policy and Its Evolution on Nation-Building in Singapore.

DOI: 10.5220/0013998400004912

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Innovative Education and Social Development (IESD 2025), pages 408-414

ISBN: 978-989-758-779-5

that parents may choose for their children's education

in 1966, but all students also had to learn another

official language. Students in non-English-speaking

schools were required to acquire English (Yip, 1990).

By 1979, just over 10% of students were enrolled

in Chinese schools, and parents had ceased sending

their kids to Malay and Tamil schools. After that, the

government changed its bilingual education policy,

mandating that all students learn the curriculum in

English and become proficient in their official

‘mother tongue’ as a second language (Dixon, 2003).

In 1987, due to the decrease in students, mother-

tongue schools were closed one after another, and

since then, English has taken centre stage in the

educational system (Tan, 2007). The Speak Good

English Movement was started in 2001 by the

Singaporean government with the goal of raising the

general level of English in Singaporean society and

promoting standard English there.

Singapore’s English education has been widely

recognised as a major success. In the 2024 EF English

Proficiency Index report by Education First,

Singapore was ranked third globally and awarded a

‘very high proficiency’ rating (First, 2004).

2.2 Conflict Between English and

Chinese Education

In a 1953 white paper titled ‘Chinese Schools

Bilingual Education and Increased Aid’, the colonial

government of Singapore suggested that in exchange

for more funding, bilingual education be

implemented in Chinese-medium schools,

introducing English and teaching science and math

(Singapore, 1953). This policy was criticised by

Chinese-medium schools, which argued that the

increased use of English would undermine the

importance of Mandarin and harm the language and

Chinese community’s cultural identity.

The conflict between the Singapore government’s

promotion of English as the medium of bilingual

education and Mandarin education was particularly

evident in the reform of Nanyang University.

Following the People's Republic of China’s

establishment in 1949, the British colonial

government severed ties between Singapore and

Malaysia and mainland China, while promoting an

‘English-first’ policy and marginalising Mandarin

education. Nanyang University was established in

1955, becoming the sole university outside of China

to use Chinese as its instructional medium. However,

the university’s Mandarin education conflicted with

the government’s bilingual policy, leading to a series

of confrontations (Wong, 2000). Between 1963 and

1964, the government, supported by military and

police forces, forcibly closed Nanyang University and

arrested students, sparking student protests. In 1965,

the Wang Gungwu Curriculum Review Committee

pushed for educational reforms. In 1975, Minister of

Education and Chancellor Lee Chiaw Meng led a

thorough restructuring of Nanyang University, with

all subjects, except for Chinese language courses,

being taught in English. The National University of

Singapore was created in 1980 by the merger of

Nanyang University and the University of Singapore,

and the original campus of Nanyang University later

became Nanyang Technological Institute, which was

renamed Nanyang Technological University in 1992

(Ku, 2003).

2.3 Promotion of the Speak Mandarin

Campaign

The Chinese community in Singapore, with diverse

ancestral origins, used various Chinese dialects

before 1965 (Afendras & Kuo, 1980). Mandarin was

officially recognized as the Chinese population’s

‘mother tongue’ by the Singaporean government in

1966 (McCarty, 2011). Researchers have identified

that the various Chinese dialects, which served as the

factual mother tongues of many, hindered the

promotion of Mandarin among Singaporean Chinese

(Man-Fat, 2005). Consequently, the Lee Kuan Yew

government launched the Speak Mandarin Campaign

in 1979 to encourage the replacement of dialects with

Mandarin as the common language for Singaporean

Chinese (Yew, 2012). Mandarin education underwent

three reforms between 1992 and 2004 (Wu, 2010).

The Speak Mandarin Campaign’s original goal

was to replace dialects with Mandarin to reduce

communication barriers and promote unity within the

Chinese community. However, with the dominant

status and growing influence of English in

Singaporean society, many young people began to

reduce or abandon the use of Mandarin. Similarly, the

proficiency in official mother tongues among the

younger generations of other ethnic groups also

declined (Curdt-Christiansen & Sun, 2020). As a

result, the target audience of the Speak Mandarin

Campaign gradually shifted from dialect speakers to

young people (Khiun, 2003).

The encouragement of Mandarin by organizations

such as the Promote Mandarin Council, coupled with

China’s rapid rise, has to some extent increased

Singaporean society’s positivity toward Mandarin.

However, the dominant position of English in

Singapore remains unshakable, and Mandarin is

likely to remain in a subordinate position in the long

The Impact and Implications of Language Policy and Its Evolution on Nation-Building in Singapore

409

term. This indicates that adjustments to Mandarin

language policies are more about refinement rather

than fundamental changes (Wu, 2010). Overall,

English’s supremacy in the linguistic landscape and

the shift of Mandarin’s value from communicative to

symbolic remains unchanged (Zhang, Tupas &

Norhaida, 2020).

3 LANGUAGE POLICY AND THE

FORMATION OF COLLECTIVE

IDENTITY

At the time of its founding, Singapore was a typical

immigrant country with a diverse and complex social

structure. The different ethnic groups were distinctly

separate, with no common language or culture, nor a

shared historical memory. Therefore, in terms of

nation-building, the Singaporean government chose

to focus on institutional recognition, with cultural

recognition as a secondary factor. In its early

development, Singapore leaned towards pragmatism

and a comprehensive Westernization, aiming to gain

recognition and support from major Western

countries.

The old colonial language is regarded as

ethnically neutral in many post-colonial African

nations. Its economic benefits and relative neutrality

are often the reasons it is adopted as one of the de

facto national languages (Madumulla, Bertoncini &

Blommaert, 1999). At the time of Singapore’s

founding, the country could be largely divided into

three main ethnic groups: Chinese, Indian, and

Malay. Each group had its own distinct language,

culture, customs, and traditions, with many smaller

subgroups that differed significantly in language and

cultural practices. In this context, English played a

relatively neutral role between the various ethnic

groups. Using English as a lingua franca not only

facilitated diplomatic and economic engagement for

the newly established nation but also reflected the

government’s neutrality and fairness on ethnic issues.

Additionally, Singapore was surrounded by Malaysia

and Indonesia, two countries predominantly

composed of Muslim populations and Malay

speakers. Within Singapore, however, the Chinese

community was the majority, and its main economic

and political partners were Western capitalist

countries. To ensure national security and diplomatic

interests, Singapore’s leaders had to be cautious in

issues of language, ethnicity, and culture, so as to

shape the country’s image on the world stage. Using

English as a common language across many sectors

was one of Singapore’s ways to differentiate itself

from China and assert its Southeast Asian identity

(Bokhorst-Heng, 1999). Thus, Singapore ultimately

chose to promote English as the de facto national

language, while, due to geopolitical and historical

reasons, Malay was established as the de jure

‘national language’ — reflecting the language of

Malaysia, from which Singapore had gained

independence.

Apart from the considerations of complete

Westernization, economic benefits, demonstrating

policy fairness, and presenting a ‘non-Chinese’ image

to the international community, Singapore’s strong

promotion of English as an inter-ethnic lingua franca

also serves the purpose of reducing ethnic divisions

and constructing a unified Singaporean national

identity (Chua, 2020). In contemporary Singaporean

society, the division between the three major ethnic

groups—Chinese, Indian, and Malay—remains quite

distinct (Frost, 2020). There are significant

differences in language, script, cultural traditions, and

even appearance among these groups. English, with

its neutrality and fairness, is widely accepted by all

ethnic groups in Singapore, helping to reduce

conflicts and friction between them. Since its

independence in 1965, Singapore has achieved

remarkable successes in many fields, including the

economy and technology. These achievements have

greatly boosted national confidence and contributed

to the growth of Singapore's sense of national

identity. In this wave of economic and technological

rise, English has played a role in maintaining mutual

tolerance and understanding among the various ethnic

groups in Singapore. As English has become more

firmly established as the dominant language in

Singapore and the space for ethnic languages has

been squeezed, the unity and national identity of the

people have been objectively promoted and

deepened.

The Chinese community itself is made up of

different ethnic groups, each speaking a variety of

Chinese dialects (Zhang, Su, Zhang & Jin, 2007).

Standard Mandarin belongs to the Mandarin dialect

of Chinese, which is mainly spoken in northern China

and accounts for the majority of the population, thus

often being regarded as the representative of the

Chinese language. However, the Chinese in

Singapore primarily come from China’s southern

provinces, including the Hokkien (Taiwanese),

Cantonese, and Hakka ethnic groups (Department of

Statistics, 2010). During the period of nation-

building, very few people in the Chinese community

spoke Mandarin as their first language. The majority

used their native dialects such as Taiwanese,

IESD 2025 - International Conference on Innovative Education and Social Development

410

Teochew, and Cantonese as their first language.

Although these dialects can all be written in Chinese

characters, their phonology, vocabulary, and

grammar differ greatly, making them mutually

unintelligible.

Mandarin was positioned as the mother tongue of

the Chinese community to facilitate the establishment

of a clear language education system. In contrast,

choosing a specific Chinese dialect might lead to

dissatisfaction and even division among different

Chinese groups. To promote internal unity within the

Chinese community, save educational resources, and

ensure that the language policy was as neutral as

possible to all groups within the Chinese community,

the government ultimately chose Mandarin as the

official mother tongue for the whole Chinese

populace.

As early as the founding of Singapore, Mandarin

had already been established as the official mother

tongue of the Chinese community. In the early stages

of promoting Mandarin, the government did not

deliberately restrict or suppress the use of Chinese

dialects. However, in the 1970s, Singapore’s leader

Lee Kuan Yew believed that if both English and

Mandarin were emphasized in education, the result

would be that both languages would be difficult to

master. Therefore, in 1978, the government began

evaluating the previous bilingual policy related to the

Chinese community and, in the 1979 ‘Goh Keng

Swee Education Report,’ concluded that Singapore’s

earlier bilingual education policy had been partially

unsuccessful. It decided that future bilingual

education would focus on English as the primary

language and Mandarin as the secondary language,

with students being divided into different proficiency

levels, where weaker students could only learn

English. The Speak Mandarin Campaign officially

began during this period, and the government’s

attitude towards Chinese dialects gradually shifted

from being relatively tolerant to intentionally

suppressing them to make way for the promotion of

Mandarin. Early publicity in the campaign also

intentionally positioned dialects in opposition to

Mandarin, using the suppression of dialects to enforce

the promotion of Mandarin. Official slogans over the

years, such as ‘Speak More Mandarin, Speak Less

Dialects’ (1979), ‘Mandarin In, Dialects Out’ (1983),

‘Start With Mandarin, Not Dialects’ (1986), ‘Better

With More Mandarin, Less Dialects’ (1988), and

‘More Mandarin, Less Dialects. Make It a Way of

Life’ (1989), directly reflected that reducing dialect

usage was part of the campaign’s goal. Although, as

Mandarin’s position relative to dialects became more

stable in the Chinese community and English posed a

threat to Mandarin’s status as the ethnic language of

the Chinese community, the target audience of the

Speak Mandarin Campaign gradually shifted to

young people who were accustomed to speaking

English, the core policy of promoting Mandarin and

suppressing or even eliminating dialects remained

central to the campaign (Bokhorst-Heng, 1999).

In Goh Chok Tong’s 1991 speech ‘Mandarin Is

More Than Just a Language’, he argued that if the

Chinese community were to maintain the coexistence

of more than ten dialects without adopting Mandarin

as the common mother tongue of the ethnic group,

English might take its place as the inter-ethnic

language of communication (Tong, 1991). This

reflects that the purpose of the Speak Mandarin

Campaign was not merely to replace various dialects,

with Mandarin serving as the primary language used

by the Chinese population. Instead, it sought to

preempt the rise of English— a socially dominant

language—as the natural common language within

the Chinese community, by positioning Mandarin as

the lingua franca. By establishing a shared language,

the campaign aimed to shape a collective identity for

the Chinese community. If English, rather than any

Chinese dialect, became the common language within

the Chinese community, it would likely weaken the

sense of unity among the group. Members would

instead tend to divide themselves along the lines of

their respective dialect groups, corresponding to their

ethnic subgroups. In other words, the collective

Chinese identity could be supplanted by distinct

identities tied to different Chinese subgroups. Thus,

Mandarin served as a barrier against English

becoming the community’s common language.

Through linguistic unification with Mandarin, the

campaign sought to foster a cohesive Chinese

identity, preventing the internal fragmentation of the

Chinese community into smaller subgroups with

shared dialects, while relying on English as the inter-

ethnic lingua franca.

4 EXPERIENCES, LESSONS AND

INSIGHTS

4.1 Constructing Collective

Consciousness Through Linguistic

Unity

In Singaporean society, English plays a role similar

to that of Mandarin within the Chinese community.

Both function as relatively neutral foreign languages

within their respective social groups, reflecting the

The Impact and Implications of Language Policy and Its Evolution on Nation-Building in Singapore

411

neutrality and fairness of the language policies. By

gradually replacing the existing intra-group

languages used for communication among smaller

subgroups, they have become the common languages

for the larger groups as a whole, thereby fostering

collective identity. Whether it is Singapore’s

bilingual education policy, which primarily aims to

promote English, or the Speak Mandarin Campaign

implemented within the Chinese community, the

underlying behavioural logic remains consistent:

introducing an external, neutral language to replace

the various internal languages and dialects of the

group, thereby quickly unifying the group’s identity

and advancing the construction of collective

consciousness by promoting linguistic uniformity

while suppressing or even eliminating linguistic

diversity.

On the other hand, precisely because English and

Mandarin possess ‘neutrality’ within their respective

audiences, the government’s promotion of these

language policies avoids exacerbating conflicts

between different ethnic groups or communities. This

minimises the risk of the policies being perceived as

favouring a particular group. Therefore, when

promoting a common language (or similar unifying

measures) within a collective that encompasses

groups with internal conflicts, attention must be paid

to whether the common language itself could

influence or aggravate internal tensions and whether

it can effectively contribute to the cohesion of

collective consciousness.

4.2 Language as a Means of Shaping

Collective Identity

People must also acknowledge that the dominance of

English as a powerful language across all sectors of

Singaporean society has not fundamentally changed.

With the continued implementation of English

education policies, the increasing proficiency in

English among successive generations of young

people entering various fields, and the growing

number of people using English as their first

language, the linguistic landscape of Singapore has

been steadily shifting. The space for Mandarin, other

official mother tongues, and various dialects has been

progressively diminished, highlighting the trend of

Singapore moving from a multilingual nation towards

a predominantly monolingual one.

In Singapore's Chinese community, an important

component of the broader society, there is a similar

shift in the intra-ethnic lingua franca from Mandarin

to English. From a long-term historical perspective,

the common language of the Chinese community in

Singapore may evolve through a trajectory that begins

with various Chinese dialects and ends with English.

The historical period in which Mandarin was the

common tongue of the Chinese population is what

makes the Speak Mandarin Campaign significant.

Without the campaign and the shared historical period

of utilizing Mandarin as the common language, the

construction of collective consciousness and the

shaping of cultural identity among the Chinese

community might have been difficult to achieve.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to argue that the

ultimate goal of the campaign was not Mandarin

itself, but rather the use of Mandarin as a means to

shape ethnic identity. Although Mandarin may

eventually be replaced as the common language

within the community, the role it played in fostering

a collective identity for the Chinese community

remains an unchangeable historical fact. This

illustrates that the promotion of a language within a

community to shape collective identity is not an end

in itself, but a means to achieve the goal of fostering

that identity.

4.3 Creating New Native Speakers

Through Educational Transmission

It is also worth mentioning that before Singapore

began to promote Mandarin, almost no one in the

Chinese community used it as their mother tongue.

However, more than forty years after the Speak

Mandarin Campaign, there are now Chinese people in

the community who communicate in Mandarin and

even use it as their first language. This seems to prove

that when a language is spread within a society, even

if the language originally used in that society is quite

different from the promoted language and there are no

native speakers of the promoted language, as long as

it is forcibly promoted through means such as

educational courses and media dissemination, and

applied in all aspects of society, the language may

gradually be used and even transformed into the main

means of communication by the collective of that

society, giving rise to new native speakers.

4.4 Generally Irreversible Loss of

Linguistic Diversity

With the evolution of Singaporean society,

changes in the linguistic environment, and the

continuous rise of English’s status, the

Singaporean government’s bilingual policy of

promoting English has also been constantly

evolving and adjusting. The shift of the

IESD 2025 - International Conference on Innovative Education and Social Development

412

Campaign from originally targeting mainly

dialect speakers to primarily focusing on young

people who use English as their first language

reflects the government’s awareness of the

extrusion of the survival space of other

languages in society by English as a dominant

language, and its intention to maintain the status

of Mandarin and other ethnic mother tongues.

However, under the premise that the overall

direction of English dominance remains

unchanged, the loss of linguistic and cultural

diversity is largely irreversible.

Although the Singaporean government has

been taking measures to teach and protect the

mother tongues of various ethnic groups, the

strong position of English, along with its

economic and political value, has led to an

increasing dominance of English in Singaporean

society. The overall trend of weakening mother

tongue proficiency among the younger

generations of various ethnicities has not

changed, and there is a tendency for Singapore

to move from a multilingual society to an

English-dominated society, or even a

monolingual society.

It can be inferred that without fundamental

changes in policy or in the power dynamics

between dominant and subordinate languages,

the suppression and gradual replacement of

subordinate languages by the dominant lingua

franca in society is an inevitable trend. The

impact of long-term language policies is far-

reaching and profound, making it difficult to

change or reverse the situation in the short term.

5 CONCLUSION

Singapore’s language policy, in the context of a

multilingual and multi-ethnic society, has

undertaken the historical mission of building the

nation and promoting development both

internally and externally during special historical

periods. The language policy has revolved

around the promotion of English as an inter-

ethnic communication language and a social

working language, ultimately achieving

remarkable success. The successful promotion

of English as a lingua franca has not only

facilitated national construction and ethnic unity,

but also laid the foundation for Singapore’s

cultural prosperity and economic rise.

The Speak Mandarin Campaign, which was

primarily implemented within the Chinese

community, shares the same logic as the

bilingual policy of promoting English. The

campaign aimed to replace Chinese dialects with

Mandarin in order to promote unity and ethnic

identity among the Chinese community. It also

served as a barrier to prevent English from

replacing Mandarin as the internal

communication language of the Chinese

community. However, the promotion of

Mandarin has not reversed the dominant position

of English and its impact on the mother tongues

of various ethnic groups. The trend of English

becoming the first language and, in effect, the

mother tongue among the younger generation is

an inevitable fact.

The Singaporean government’s choice of

English and Mandarin as languages with

relatively strong neutrality in its language policy

is a correct strategy for reducing internal

conflicts and enhancing collective identity. This

experience indicates that when multi-language

and multi-ethnic countries determine their

language policies, they should focus on selecting

languages that are ‘neutral’, ‘fair’ and easily

accepted by all parties. It is necessary to promote

language unification while balancing its

relationship with language diversity and cultural

identity.

Overall, the evolution of Singapore’s

language policy provides valuable experience

for multi-ethnic countries. Its successful practice

also reminds us that language policy

encompasses more than just language selection

for communication and economic construction,

but can also be an effective way to promote

collective identity and shape ideology. In the

wave of future development, how to maintain

national identity while preserving language

diversity in the context of globalisation, and how

to achieve a balance between the social

dominance of strong languages like English and

relatively weak multicultural languages, will be

a continuous exploration for Singapore and other

multilingual societies.

The Impact and Implications of Language Policy and Its Evolution on Nation-Building in Singapore

413

REFERENCES

Afendras, E. A., & Kuo, E. C. (Eds.). 1980. Language and

society in Singapore. NUS Press.

Bokhorst-Heng, W. 1999. Singapore's Speak Mandarin

Campaign: Language ideological debates in the imag-

ining of the nation. In J. Blommaert (Ed.), Language

Ideological Debates (pp. 235-266). Berlin, New York:

De Gruyter Mouton.

Chen, P. S. 1984. Social change and planning in Singapore.

Singapore: Twenty-five Years of Development, Nan

Yang Xing Zhou Lianhe Zaobao, Singapore, 315-338.

Chinese Schools - Bilingual Education and Increased Aid.

(1953). Singapore.

Chua, S. K. C. 2010. Singapore’s language policy and its

globalised concept of Bi(tri)lingualism. Current Issues

in Language Planning, 11(4), 413–429.

Curdt-Christiansen, X. L., & Sun, B. 2020. Nurturing bilin-

gual learners: Challenges and concerns in Singapore. In

21st Century Pre-school Bilingual Education (pp. 87-

103). Routledge.

Department of Statistics. 2010. Census of Population 2010

statistical release 1: Demographic characteristics, edu-

cation, language and religion.

Dixon, L. Q. 2003. The Bilingual Education Policy in Sin-

gapore: Implications for Second Language Acquisition.

Dixon, L. Q. 2005. Bilingual education policy in Singapore:

An analysis of its sociohistorical roots and current aca-

demic outcomes. International Journal of Bilingual Ed-

ucation and Bilingualism, 8(1), 25-47.

First, E. 2024. The world’s largest ranking of countries and

regions by English skills. Received from https://www.

ef. com/wwen/epi.

Frost, M. R. 2020. An unsettled majority: immigration and

the racial “balance” in multicultural Singapore. Journal

of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 1–23.

Gopinathan, S. 1974. Towards a national system of educa-

tion in Singapore, 1945-1973. (No Title).

Khiun, L. K. 2003. Limited pidgin-type patois? Policy, lan-

guage, technology, identity and the experience of

Canto-pop in Singapore. Popular Music, 22(2), 217-

233.

Ku, H. 2003. Reform and closure of Nanyang University in

Singapore. Southeast Asian Affairs, (1), 1-30.

Madumulla, J., Bertoncini, E., & Blommaert, J. 1999. Pol-

itics, ideology and poetic form: The literary debate in

Tanzania (p. 307). na.

Man-Fat, M. W. 2005. A critical evaluation of Singapore's

language policy and its implications for English teach-

ing. Karen’s Linguistics issues.

McCarty, Teresa 2011. Ethnography of Language Policy.

New York: Routledge. p. 8.

Tan, J. 2007. Schooling in Singapore. Going to school in

East Asia, 301-319.

Tong, G. C. 1991. Mandarin is more than a language

[Speech].

Wong, T. H. 2000. State formation, hegemony, and Nan-

yang University in Singapore, 1953 to 1965. Formosan

Education and Society, 1(1), 59-85.

Wu, Y. C. 2010. Evolution of Singapore's Bilingual Educa-

tion Policy and New Opportunities. Journal of Taiwan-

ese Languages and Literature. Vol. 5, No. 2, 63-80.

Yew, L. K. 2012. From Third World to first: The Singapore

story, 1965-2000. Marshall Cavendish International

Asia Pte Ltd.

Yip, J. S. K. 1990. Evolution of Educational Excellence: 25

Years of Education in the Republic of Singapore.

Zhang, F., Su, B., Zhang, Y. P., & Jin, L. 2007. Genetic

studies of human diversity in East Asia. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B,

Biological sciences, 362(1482), 987–995.

Zhang, H., Tupas, R. & Norhaida, A. 2020. English-domi-

nated Chinatown: A quantitative investigation of the

linguistic landscape of Chinatown in Singapore. Jour-

nal of Asian Pacific Communication, Volume 30, Issue

1-2, p. 273 - 289.

IESD 2025 - International Conference on Innovative Education and Social Development

414