Hu Yilin on language policy, the revival of dialects, and the boundaries of freedom
Introduction
A Chinese film led mainly in Teochew, Dear You, has recently sparked discussion in Singapore. The film was originally released in Singapore mainly with Mandarin dubbing, but after audiences responded enthusiastically to screenings of the original Teochew version, Golden Village added Teochew showings and continued to apply to IMDA for more screenings. The Straits Times reported that some Teochew screenings quickly sold out, and the cinema chain is seeking approval to add more original-language screenings.
Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/golden-village-seeking-imda-approval-for-up-to-50-screenings-of-dear-you-in-teochew
This controversy is worth paying attention to not only because of a film’s screening choices, but because it once again touches on a core issue in Singapore’s long-standing language governance: between English, Mandarin, and dialects, how should the state arrange public life? In the period of nation-building, language unity was emphasized; today, should there be more room left for cultural expression?
Singapore’s “Speak Mandarin Campaign” began in 1979. According to the National Library Board of Singapore, the campaign originally aimed to simplify the Chinese-language environment, improve communication among different dialect groups, and support bilingual education policy. In other words, promoting Mandarin was never merely a cultural initiative from the beginning, but a nation-building project.
Source: https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=226f348a-2170-4719-9f45-ef57755e8cb8
In Hu Yilin’s view, evaluating Singapore’s language policy cannot simply rely on the narrative of “the state suppresses folk languages.” The Mandarin policy had its historical significance, and it also has practical benefits today; but in the present, both policy tools and cultural boundaries should be reconsidered.
The Mandarin policy made Singapore’s Chinese community into a shared collective
Hu Yilin first stresses that the positive significance of Singapore’s Mandarin policy must be acknowledged.
“Singapore’s Mandarin policy is beneficial to me,” he said. After moving from China to Singapore, it was precisely because Singapore retained a considerable Mandarin-language environment that he was able to integrate into local life relatively smoothly.
In his view, the Mandarin policy not only made things easier for new migrants from China, but also helped integrate Singapore’s Chinese community internally. Singapore’s Chinese originally came from different dialect groups—Fujian, Teochew, Guangdong, Hakka, Hainan, and so on. Without a common language, it would have been very easy for the Chinese community to remain long divided into native-place and dialect-based subgroups. The role Mandarin played here was to re-organize multi-dialect Chinese people into a larger Mandarin-speaking community.
This common language also enabled Singapore to continue maintaining ties with China and with Chinese communities around the world. For a small country that uses English as its principal public language and sits in a multiethnic Southeast Asian environment, such ties are by no means dispensable.
“The Mandarin policy is not only beneficial to the internal integration of Singapore’s Chinese community, but also to Singapore’s close ties with China and with Chinese communities worldwide,” Hu Yilin said. “This has historical and practical significance.”
The problem today has changed: dialects may no longer be Mandarin’s enemy
However, acknowledging historical significance does not mean policy can remain unchanged forever.
Hu Yilin believes that Singapore’s early promotion of Mandarin and downgrading of dialects had its specific historical background. At that time, dialect divisions among the Chinese were pronounced, and the state needed to rapidly establish a unified education system and a modern administrative order; the policy goal of “speaking more Mandarin and less dialect” was understandable.
But today’s language landscape is different. The main problem Singapore faces may no longer be that dialects are too strong, but rather that the dominance of English is becoming ever more obvious, while the Mandarin ability and Chinese cultural experience of the younger generation are both at risk of decline.
Against this backdrop, dialects may no longer be competitors to Mandarin; instead, they may become a complement to the cultural ecology of Chinese-language life. Teochew, Hokkien, Cantonese, and other dialects carry family memory, local experience, folk humor, and intergenerational feeling. Their revival would not necessarily weaken Chinese community integration; on the contrary, it may allow younger generations to rediscover the lived texture of Chinese culture.
“In Singapore today, where Mandarin is declining and English is dominant, the revival of dialects may in fact be more conducive to Chinese community integration,” Hu Yilin said.
In other words, the main contradiction in the early period was “dialects are too strong, Mandarin too weak”; today, the main contradiction may be “English is too strong, and the whole Chinese-language cultural ecology is weakening.” If one continues to use the old logic to squeeze out dialects, policy inertia may be the result.
The government can regulate education, but should not overregulate film and publishing
Hu Yilin’s reservations about Singapore’s language policy are not focused on its aims, but on the boundaries of its means.
He believes it is reasonable and lawful for the government to standardize Mandarin instruction in public education. The state certainly has the right to design the public education system, especially in a multiethnic society like Singapore, where language education itself has the character of public policy. Having Chinese students learn Mandarin also accords with the needs of cultural inheritance and ethnic communication.
But television, film, and publishing are different. They are not merely educational tools; they also belong to the domain of freedom of speech and cultural expression. If the government excessively restricts dialect films, dialect programs, or dialect publications, that is no longer just curriculum planning, but an administrative shaping of the visible boundaries of public culture.
“Government power should have boundaries,” he said. “The main focus should be the guiding principles of public education: standardizing Mandarin instruction in Chinese-language courses is reasonable and lawful. But television, film, and publications essentially fall within the realm of freedom of speech, and the government should not interfere too much.”
This is also where the public significance of the Dear You incident lies. The fact that audiences were willing to buy tickets for the original Teochew version shows that dialect is not merely a nostalgic symbol; there is still a real cultural demand for it. If policy can respond to this with flexibility, that itself is a sign of social maturity.
Singapore is not the American model, but it must respect freedom and diversity
Hu Yilin does not simply reduce Singapore’s problems to “not enough freedom.” On the contrary, he acknowledges that Singapore’s political system has its own civilizational significance.
“Singapore’s government is paternalistic and has Eastern characteristics; this is a good thing. It shows diversity among political systems, and modern civilization is not measured only by the American model,” he said.
In his view, Singapore’s language policy, ethnic policy, and style of governance have indeed helped this small country gain a foothold in a complex geopolitical environment. The Mandarin policy helps Singapore’s Chinese community preserve its own culture, while not replacing English as the national common platform with Mandarin; this too is an important part of Singapore’s distinctive political system.
In this sense, Singapore is not the opposite of diversity. A modern city-state that differs from the United States, Europe, or mainland China is itself an embodiment of the diversity of modern civilization.
But Hu Yilin also emphasizes that modern civilization still has some basic values that transcend East and West, left and right, and institutional differences, including respect for freedom and the pursuit of diversity. Singapore may have its own style of governance, but it should not therefore turn cultural expression entirely into an administrative project.
“Policies such as Mandarin promotion help Singapore’s various ethnic groups come together and establish themselves in the world as a distinctive political system, which promotes diversity,” he said. “And after it has already established itself, further protecting and developing the diversity within ethnic groups is also something that ought to be done.”
Conclusion: use Mandarin as the platform, and dialects to restore cultural layers
Hu Yilin’s view can be summarized as a stage-based theory: during the nation-building period, emphasis can be placed on a common language and on the efficiency of integration; but once society has become stable and mature, more space should be given to internal differences.
Singapore’s early promotion of Mandarin was meant to help the Chinese community cross the barriers of dialect and form a shared platform; today, protecting dialects may be a way of preventing the entire Chinese-language cultural ecology from being diluted by the English-language environment. The two are not necessarily contradictory. Mandarin can continue to serve as the common language, while dialects can function as a supplement for cultural memory and everyday expression.
What truly needs to be avoided is the permanent institutionalization of the administrative means of an earlier stage of modernization. The education system can continue to teach Mandarin, but film, television, publishing, and folk cultural activities should have greater freedom of expression. The more mature a society is, the less it needs to fear internal diversity.
The reason Dear You’s Teochew screenings drew attention is precisely that they made this issue concrete: when audiences are willing to buy tickets for the dialect original, when young people begin to rediscover the cultural texture of dialects, does the government still need, as in the past, to decide for society which form of Chinese is more suitable to appear?
Hu Yilin’s answer is not to deny the Mandarin policy, but to advocate a policy shift: use Mandarin to maintain a common platform, and use dialects to restore cultural layers; use education to ensure basic competence, and use freedom of expression to release folk vitality.
This may well be the key to the next stage of Singapore’s language policy: not choosing between Mandarin and dialects, but, after national integration has been achieved, once again recognizing the complexity within the Chinese community.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply