Language & Politics: Singapore

 

Ch 3

Language, argument and interaction

 

“Violence is what people do when they run out of good ideas. It’s attractive because it’s simple, it’s direct, it’s almost always available as an option. When you can’t think of a good rebuttal for your opponent’s argument, you can always punch them in the face.”¹

3.1 Argument and debate :  winners and losers

When making  a claim, folk ask for time and attention to their view on an issue. But is the claim stated clearly? What responses are they looking for? And what do we expect of their claim?

    We make claims because we feel we need to. Going by gut feeling, we try to translate feeling into hard fact. Some present a claim and want acceptance and support; others seek approval. But what values are thrown into the request? And what’s the source of those values? Do we identify these nuances when we share thoughts? 

   In formal settings, organized arguments will often use selective terms of discourse supported by their assertions of knowledge and information; in informal settings, folk can just as effectively use terms that may not be specialized, but that can be shared and built on.²  We don’t need a formal occasion or an expert to help us figure out the solutions we need. We are already working towards that in our everyday conversations!

     The issues we encounter are part of our life situation and provide opportunities for hard thinking and thoughtful and reasonable exchanges with others. Some folk may not be up for this, and so we encounter those who seem neither thoughtful nor reasonable. But meaningful progress requires the participation of everyone and their investment of patience, energy and time. It is part of the struggle to make life better for all. We have to talk about what we may not want to! Disagreeable persons and their accompanying personalities are part of the mix that we all belong to. Once we have reached out to others, we’ve done our part. Participation in joint effort cannot be forced. Hence the need to focus on productive discussion and positive argument i.e. stuff that gets us somewhere!

     This is why the key words of ‘inviting’ and ‘allowing’ one another’s perspectives ask us to agree that a claim is always acceptable as it is; but it is always contestable, because such an openness respects the authenticity of the other person! We begin well when we invite others to put their notions and ideas on the table, amongst a gathering of equals. The invitation to participate and to listen to another side is always an opportunity to share in the mutual investment that we are trying to make. Our daily encounters and conversations provide opportunities to share and examine the thinking and the claims that dominate the issues. Such sharing can help us work towards building reasonable foundations. 

      In history, parliamentary practice determined the results of debate by deciding on winners and losers. Participants working through debate and argument decided who would benefit in matters of power and profit.³ Such practices forged the strategy of investment, how it would be protected, and who would gain. But the modern persona needs to grow beyond archaic notions of winners and losers, good and bad, I’m worth more than you…….and get beyond them. Our sense of what it means to be human continues to struggle in the face of ‘I’ve got more = I’m better’…..

     The historical practice of argument grew out of such origins, always manifesting a combative and even aggressive character. One side wins, the other side loses.⁴ Winners enjoyed benefits while losers got nothing and were laughed at. And participants or ‘combatants’ were very often unable to recognize mutual objectives, interests and consequences. Division would always reign.

    Why have we allowed such styles and ‘traditions’ to continue? Our ability to listen with empathy and our willingness to work together are easily lost when we think in such ways. While arguments emerge out of our need to resolve issues that affect community, a win/lose mentality sets us up for situations of intense polarity. Individual perspectives quickly become ‘our side versus their side’, and opportunities for collaboration are ignored. A cause requires that we are to be issue oriented. We must be able to see the big picture and argue for the most productive action.

     We may have inherited the style of incumbent versus opposition, but some inheritances are not worth much and perpetuate power struggles rooted in vested interests. We need a process of questioning and of being questioned, of sharing doubts and weaknesses, of working together in a search for mutually beneficial conclusions. We need to move away from archaic and destructive forms that encourage competition, vested interests, manipulation, and even deceit.⁵  

      The goal of argument is to exchange and test claims about solving shared problems and creating joint effort at finding, funding, and testing solutions that serve the common cause. Bad arguments divide, but constructive arguments strengthen the fabric of our societies. We become stronger as we work through the issues, share the results, understand where we and the other are coming from, and begin to resolve the problems.

     As mutual understanding improves, we can reach levels of commitment that build cohesion. The useful pragmatic argument clarifies and justifies the best thinking and the most effective actions. Clearly framed, such an argument will show what we need to work on, even if we don’t get it right. The effectively constructed argument, even when it fails, will serve to plant a seed, or create a shift in a listener’s mind.

     While historical practices may have shaped how we approach the reality of argument, the need for rationality and mutual understanding remains central to resolving modern conflict and building community. In the context of an argument, being rational is more than being factual, logical, or intelligent. Rationality requires reflection, reasoning, and a self-control that includes the willingness to be accommodating.⁶ It is an aspect of shared control in an experience of shared competence – first in mutual discovery in investigation and exploration, and then in going forward together. It is the courage and integrity of keeping an open mind and the willingness to change it as needed. Such willingness is more of a strength than a weakness.

     Suppose we ask what defining experiences and struggles of individual growth and maturity a person needs to encounter, endure and overcome, to be able to see a thing for what it is and approach it correctly and fairly, on behalf of others? In our world’s leadership scenarios, vested interests have encouraged self-centered intent. We need to relearn and practice values like honesty, integrity and placing service to the country before service to self. In a word – sacrifice. You can’t call it sacrifice when you engage in trade-offs for personal reward. 

     And we don’t need preconceived authoritarian conclusions. We need to gather information from research, observation, and experience. Then we can reason our way to a conclusion. And in that process, test our own reasoning and look for evidence that might contradict our position. Such an approach requires flexibility, confidence, self-awareness and an open mind with a willingness to grow. When evidence contradicts a position, or when reasoning is flawed, it is time to re-examine and possibly change that position. But if we are invested in said position, such change may not be easy. It will come at a cost, and we may be unwilling to pay up. Our interests almost always take first place, and the way ahead is usually a predetermined conclusion. There is only ‘my’ individual greater good, at the expense of community wellbeing. It’s plain old-fashioned selfishness. And as events become contentious, folk shy away from participating and limit their interactions.

     We must always challenge our motives and reasoning, and seek to identify and question our assumptions, our inconsistencies, and our contradictions, without fear of the consequences. This doesn’t come easily. Hard thinking of this sort needs disciplined effort – a sharp focus of consistent effort and integrity. And it cannot be based on feeling. When such thinking is not present, or when it fails, the entire process easily becomes a theatrical presentation or ‘wayang.⁷ Then opinions are offered in place of rational argument. And the more comfortable we are with a specialized area and its terms of discourse, the easier it is to make an opinion sound like informed rational thinking! Everyone has an opinion. But how does the accuracy of the source and the strength of the argument rate?

     Engaging in argument effectively also requires a good degree of self-understanding. This comes at us both ways, when folk agree with us and when they don’t. Being a good listener is important to the work of effective discussion. Some are quick to judge and may be closed-minded, aggressive, even abusive. They won’t achieve much for community. But the honest, considerate, open-minded, and confident person is able to engender trust. And a request for trust can only be justified by the actions that precede such a request. That which will be dependable and trustworthy is that which has proved to be dependable and trustworthy. Otherwise, it may often come down to no more than bad investment and ambiguous hope. 

     We meet people, we build networks, we discuss work related issues, we create impressions. How we come across, through our self-understanding and self-presentation, can make all the difference. Argument is part of the lifeblood of human community. We create discussions and participate in arguments to determine solutions to all areas of our lives, from the conceptual notions that challenge us to the pragmatic issues of professional and family life and the many circumstantial issues therein. And as our world becomes increasingly complicated, we must understand the value of both the conceptual notion and the pragmatic response. We cannot afford leaders who are one-dimensional adventurers.⁸

      These days we are inundated by rapidly moving information streams that require sharp analysis and quick responses. The ability to assess the quality of both information and argument that comes to us has become a critical life-skill. Argument that is not managed well results in discord. Participants become offended and angry. Combative argument is never worth it. And leaders who think they can bully others only succeed in displaying their own insecurity, and their inability to lead and care for the well-being of all. Someone wins, someone loses, and it becomes the same old, same old, all over again. That will never build strong community. Effective argument is a relational exercise, and this is especially critical in multiracial and multicultural societies. Such societies are the shape of things to come, whether some of us like it or not. Their ultimate identity is as it should be, for where no one group is supreme, all may be equal.⁹

     Aspects of culture and ethnicity that appear different from ‘ours’ may appear hard to understand, but they are of great value to the folk of that aspect. In societies of diverse cultures and religions, we must respect and seek to understand the views of others. Only from such a position can we develop amiable and civil ways of working towards common needs and values. Then, in sound and fair discussion, we can reach an understanding of where the current limits are, and of the goals we need to address. From such a perspective, argument is an essential tool for maintaining the fabric of any society that both accepts and celebrates its diversity, which is part of what it means to be human.

 3.2 How thinking and writing reflect perspective

Look at the following:

Youth who watch lots of violent entertainment tend to adopt violent lifestyle responses because they slowly lose their ability to distinguish between reality and fiction.

The claim is underlined, the reason is italicized. But turn the structured positions around and the focus shifts...

Violence on television and in video games should be moderated because youth who watch lots of violent entertainment tend to use violence in their lifestyle responses.¹⁰

While we all make claims and have reasons, the narrative we end up using emerges out of our motivation, our perspective and the structure we use. It comes down to

i.the story we want to tell

ii.the action or concept we are proposing,

iii. what or whom we intend to present and argue for as the main actor, the main cause, or the dominant reason!

An argument aims to address the ‘how to fix it’ of a life situation that we want to resolve. When people talk about notions, ideas, concepts, philosophies and policies, they always sound impressive. But giving something a name only serves to identify it. That’s all. A resolution is needed. The key questions we must pursue are: What is the end-result? Is it beneficial?

In any socio-political context, argument quickly becomes a dangerous game when the people in authority define criticism of their actions as a threat to national wellbeing and harmony. That’s a very old ploy, but it’s still being used today! Declaring an emergency can be very convenient for political leadership. The weaknesses of those whom criticism is levelled at suddenly becomes the town, the city, the nation’s weakness and vulnerability. Neat projection.  Any discourse thus identified becomes a threat that is real and dangerous, except that neither threat nor danger exists. Just a possibility. Maybe. Or an imagined one. And where an issue is not separated from a person, the person is responsible? As with a man holding a poster with a smiley face emoticon on it that says ‘save the innocent!’ or something to that effect?¹¹ 

   No.  We must know when to call a spade a spade, and when to call the elephant holding the spade an elephant. Or a donkey. Such is the courage, intelligence, and determination that personal integrity requires of each of us. With every sentence we write, we decide what to use as the subject. In doing so, we choose that which is to be the main character of the sentence, thereby presenting to our readers and our audience our point of view – the story as I see it - through everything we think, write and say. 

Look at the following pairs, noting that both have the same referent:

1. Free speech has strengthened democracy throughout history.
2. History teaches us that democracy grows stronger through free speech.¹²

1. Ah Ter defrauded the bank in the Pork Shoulder Affair by using a document prepared by Ah Siao.
2. Ah Siao prepared a document that Ah Ter used to defraud the bank in the Pork Shoulder Affair.¹³

The sentences represent the same facts, but each one has assigned responsibility to a different character, providing us with a different point of view about who’s responsible. Note how marvelously the concept of active and passive voice in English grammar has always had a political reach! A similar take:

1. Reporters grilled the Ang Sa Li Mayor until they finally got the information that they sought: Companies owned by friends who had contracts with the town had contributed more than $100,000 to his campaign.
2. The Ang Sa Li Mayor was grilled by reporters until he finally admitted to what he had tried not to reveal: he had accepted more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from friends’ companies that had contracts with the town.

Note that the first sentence focuses on the Press, while the second focuses on the Mayor.¹⁴ And which is the true statement? Both. The presentation differs because word order has shifted and a different subject occupies the topic position. And this is how the message is received! This is the logic behind placement and structure! It is not our reservoir of words nor our use of popular phrases and words like “in terms of” and “sustainable” that makes our writing effective. It’s our control of structure. The topic position is the first item a reader sees in a sentence – and the character or theme holding that position takes the role of subject and chief actor. As topic shifts occur, the reader is led to new conclusions. 

 3.3 Inherent value

The words we use in conversation are instinctive and reflect the values we hold. We use them in discussion and argument to share what we feel about something. Their choice is determined by our individual identity, which carries both cultural, accepted and learned values. Human personality is the sum of many factors, and it is never value free. The claim to be neutral - to be neither for nor against a position or an issue, is disingenuous. It exhibits a clear value - that of intentional disengagement. And that is neither a caring nor an involved option. It is more a refusal to get involved. As has been said – always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.¹⁵ This is why accommodation towards a person or a cause must always be tempered. If not, it too easily becomes assent.

    When a vote is taken – if we are not there in order to avoid showing where our loyalties lie - what is it that we did not want to face or reveal? Feelings invoke values, and they color and shape position and argument. And in any argument, it is never enough to be able to argue ‘well’. What are we arguing for? And whom are we arguing against? And in both cases, why? What are the motives and the interests on both sides? We must discipline ourselves to listen so that we understand what the other party is saying and why. Then, our responses may move towards resolution!

     Can we take the value laden language out of an argument? We can try. But then we also become deceptive and manipulative, hiding our true feelings and our real agenda from our readers and listeners. We may seek to come across as neutral, but what do we really intend? What are we really for or against? Integrity requires that we state what the position is and where it comes from, acknowledging potential flaws and possible weaknesses. A win-win solution may seem like a wonderful achievement, an attempt to move away from win/lose thinking. But it is often nothing more than a compromise, and a compromise is never a lasting solution.

 3.4 Polarization

When we frame an issue, we hope to get others to accept it. If they do, we might be halfway through to the result we want and maybe we can avoid getting into polarized camps. If not, we end up with two different sides, discussing the same issue from different perspectives and values. Same referent, different conclusions. Consider:

 Lee is a reckless daydreamer!  No, he’s a daring visionary!

 And so, sides are taken and battle lines are drawn. Animosity rears its head and then creates acrimony. False allegations are raised! But this need not be the case. It is important to ask pertinent and revealing questions. And it is fair and honest to use value laden language in an argument to elicit feelings from our listeners and readers, so long as the argument is sound. We may appeal to our deepest feelings, but not at the expense of our best thinking.¹⁶

     The real danger of emotion lies in its inherent ability to cloud judgement, making it harder to think clearly and objectively. It gives energy for motivation, without doubt. But motivation can be suspect. Emotion can be like alcohol, and it can cloud the brain and affect our responses. It may promote relaxed ‘good feelings’, or even inspire passion, but it can equally promote poor judgement, unless carefully controlled. The emotionally based argument is always convinced of its ‘rightness’ and ‘accuracy’ by the degree of feeling that it possesses. It seeks to share this conviction.

     And then, there will always be the use of polarizing language, where the terms we use in describing the other position are always cast in negative phrasing. We will present our views as being sincere, normal and reasoned, implying that those who disagree with us are cynical, abnormal, even irrational. And with that approach, the other side of any argument is quickly characterized - with the others always being either liberals or conservatives, liars, extremists, radicals, corrupted, hypocritical, and if need be, sinful! We, on the other hand, are pioneers with vision, morals and integrity, dedicated to principles of truth and courage, and all the good stuff!

     What’s happened here? We’ve demonized the opposition! It’s nothing but a ‘how dare you disagree with me?’ So it gets intentionally characterized as a matter of ‘good guys vs bad guys’!  Cowboys and Indians? Cat Stevens (now Yusof Islam) singing ‘I’m Gonna Get Me A Gun, I don’t want people to put me down, you better get ready to run….¹⁷ Like the words that the song shares, working together towards peaceful resolution has been going downhill for a long time. And Cat Stevens doesn’t seem to have a single violent bone in him, as evidenced by his poetry, his music and his philosophy of life!’ But he was perhaps reflecting on what he was seeing and experiencing. These days it even amounts to thinking that if I can make the other side look bad, I’ve already won half the battle. And what happens when leaders start thinking that they can lie their way through a process, consequences be damned?

     Intense feeling and value laden language can undermine sound thinking, and even betray the ethical duty that a writer owes readers, or a speaker owes an audience. We need to look sharply at methods that appeal to feelings. The side effect of such methods is that we begin to distrust socio-political discourse, where language aimed at discrediting both reader and audience ends up negating how we might work out an issue! What can we do?

     Well, for starters, we can give some consideration to constructive imperatives like Rapoport’s Rules.¹⁸ The first three ‘rules’ seek to engender trust in approaching the other party. The final one builds on these and is the opportunity to address the position of the other side. Essentially, what Rapoport suggests is that arguments can be an opportunity to build trust, even in the face of disagreement, by affirming the other’s position before uttering a word of criticism. Doing so helps build the trust necessary to make arguments productive, whether or not agreement is reached.

 1. Explain the other person’s position clearly, vividly, accurately and justly.

this shows that you take them and their ideas seriously.

2. Point out what you have learned from the other side’s position;

seek to affirm something that is not trivial, that you find meaningful.

3. List the points on which both parties agree.

Points of agreement defuse the situation, bring the tension down, reduce the ‘winner takes all’ mentality.

4. Having gotten through these stages, it is now possible to offer a counterpoint, a critique, a refutation.

 To flesh these out, let’s examine them a little. For starters,

1.Is about the effort of getting the other position right; in doing so, we show that we respect them enough to do this; we take where they are coming from seriously, and want to assure them that we understand what it means to them; so, before stating your case, you show that you understand the other side’s case as they see it; and if you get it right they will tell you so.

 2. is about saying what you have learned from them – about them, their position, their situation; what has it taught you? that’s what you tell them; and it is affirmation, a gesture of validation that recognizes the value in the position that the other side has; further, what you offer has to be substantial and not trivial; starkly different from the malicious routine that is commonly practiced of invalidating and undermining the other position by whatever means available.

 3. is to identify and state the common points of agreement; if you can do this, you are halfway to resolution; it becomes a discussion of mutuality because we both are seeking a solution and want to work out what that means and how we can go about it.

Interestingly enough, other sources have added a little more, in their own presentation of Rapoport’s ideas.  Open to Debate, originally called Intelligence Squared US Debates, has abandoned the win/lose construct because it hinders the mission of promoting dialogue.¹⁹

Others, from professional negotiators to academics, have noted that articulating what the other side feels is transformative for the parties involved in the negotiation process; and that one-sided resentment is not conducive to ongoing long-term relationships.

Lincoln believed that you succeed (in a democracy) when you treat others as friends and not as enemies: “If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what he will, is the great high road to his reason.”

   The effort made here is not so much to support or substantiate the other’s position as it is that of stating your recognition of the value of the person behind the position. And we can add in the Greater Good (U Cal, Berkeley) piece which says that trust engendered results in an oxytocin ‘feel good’ experience i.e. the more trust is shown to you the more of an oxytocin rush you get. ²⁰  Interesting. Perhaps the assumption in applying this comes down to our wanting to do ‘feel good’ actions; except that there is the other side of feel good – when it comes from the revenge quarter; and is not the least concerned about oxytocin because it runs off a different source.

   I’m sure readers will have different responses to all this. What it means is that until we learn how to think and feel as the other person, we will continue to impose our judgements on them; and peace between persons, groups, ethnicities, nations – will continue to be an illusion. Thus far, conflict is still very much a part of the human condition, and a hefty challenge for our children’s children.  

3.5 Practical and conceptual problems

In conversational argument there are three perspectives that identify and shape the discussion of a problem.²¹ There are conceptual problems, pragmatic problems, and a combination that involves conceptual-pragmatic problems. We face the small ones everyday, like an unexpected work issue that requires rearranging the evening and finding someone to pick up the little one. Then the problems grow: finding a good tutor for the child who needs help with schoolwork; or falling profits in a family business; and then come the life-threatening ones that create dark clouds that follow you. Health issues that don’t seem to have easy or effective resolution. Marriage difficulties that will disrupt the lives of the family …and take your time and energy every day. And the effect of all these? The more serious they are, the more they leave us frustrated, anxious, fearful, discouraged, and depressed.

 Pragmatic problems

We solve a pragmatic problem only when a cause-and-effect link is broken. And that is how the argument should be structured – it must attack and break the chain of causality. And not attack the people involved. We may have different perspectives on every condition and issue, but we must frame the argument to support the solution we are pursuing. Consider:

 You’re in college with an end-of-term exam coming up and you are not fully prepared. You could have done that work last night. But you went out, and now you don’t feel as ready as you could be. This is your final term before graduation, and you might have messed it up. To make matters worse, one of the stations on your route develops a problem and your train is halted. Now you won’t make it on time to even take the exam. You’re not going to graduate on time! But then you notice, at the other end of the train car, the instructor who is giving the exam this morning – your Instructor. He’s not going to make it either! The train breakdown has saved you! Problem solved! You’ve got a chance to fix this! All of it is to your benefit. And the problem is solved at no cost.²³

 Describing a pragmatic problem

Every pragmatic problem has two parts, and sometimes, even more. Search, discover, identify. Then determine an order that works for you. That order will consist of

 

1. an event, condition or set of circumstances that have destabilized your life situation. (eg.

                you’ve lost your job, and you are now in transitional distress)

2. a destabilizing condition i.e. one that affects you or someone you care about, and leaves you mentally depressed, emotionally weak. It brings you down. This is the cost of the problem. Then you must ask, what’s the dollar cost of such a situation - one in which you’re steadily losing self-worth and suffering increased mental, emotional and physical stress?? What will it cost to maintain your health?

When you create a structure, ensure that this format is clear. Identify the problem, its cause, and the resulting condition. Then describe and quantify the final end-result. That result always carries a cost. How to calculate that cost? Describe, evaluate, measure i.e. quantify. Make sure the end-result is described in measurable terms. The more burdensome the cost is shown to be , the greater will be the weight and strength of the argument.

As with:

You break up with your fiancee…..

Result 1: You’re depressed. Leads into

Result 2: You drink. But then

Result 3: you drive, although you shouldn’t, and you end up hitting a pedestrian and maiming him for life.

Alamak!²³ That’s terrible. What a tragedy! How would you describe the cost – to the victim, their family, and finally……to yourself? This is how the argument against drunk driving runs, and the penalties are formulated accordingly.

Now change perspectives and talk about global warming and its effects. Industrial emissions are creating a hole in the ozone layer. And less ozone = more ultra-violet light. And ultra-violet light can cause skin cancer. Oh, I get it. Right…..! More skin cancer means higher health care costs. That’s going to affect all of us. Yikes! Yup…… and some of us are going to die. The cost is always measurable. Do the math on it.

Conceptual Problems

A conceptual problem is a question that needs an answer. It is theoretical, often sounds philosophical, and seems to have no immediate consequence. But it almost always has consequences, down the road. Pursuing the question reveals more questions and a need for answers that have practical application. Sometimes we might have to solve a problem conceptually before we can go on to its pragmatic aspect. As with 

 Politicians may know what to do to fix a savings system like the CPF retirement (central provident fund) system, but research must handle the conceptual issue of understanding how people’s lives are affected when access and withdrawal is allowed at age A, or age B, or age C. Hence the ‘why’ of applied research is crucial. It provides essential information that feeds into the work of formulating public policy. If this step is bypassed, public policy becomes a game of chance, of irresponsible and whimsical intention, with dire consequences.

In creating effective argument, we must be able to handle the conceptual and the pragmatic and use both in sequence. And we must consider how they differ and how we may construct an argument for each. Finally, we must first determine and then argue for the cost involved.

Describing a conceptual problem 

Again, we begin by identifying the destabilizing condition and its cost. It’s a question raised because a conclusion doesn’t seem to add up. And it leaves you wondering. But the cost seems annoyingly intangible. You can’t determine it because of a gap in your knowledge. Because of this unknown factor, the end-result is commonly referred to as a consequence. And we don’t know exactly what that will cost us because we have not been able to quantify it.

There are two questions that are important here:

1. You have a situation or a condition, but a piece of information is missing in your understanding of it.
2. You have no real sense of what consequence and cost might be.

The question really is, what larger issue does this situation connect to? When we consider an issue that involves a concept, we should start by examining the history of interpretation of the events that describe and involve that concept - where it began, how it began, what it meant at the time, what motive and intent was involved, and how that meaning has changed over time. This approach pays dividends.

     It’s like starting with a text like The Dynamics of One-Party Dominance, written back in 1976, by a Singaporean writing for Singaporeans.²⁴ If you pursue it, the train of thought that you take will get you back to the conditions that enabled a fledgling political entity to claim democratic character, system and form, while justifying the use of differing variables. Then research the terms of political discourse at that time and what they meant. Is the concept of democracy ambiguous? No, it’s not. Was there a social compact or contract? Not really. Ok. Then how do terms of discourse work to create change for the better? There are conceptual issues here. Engage in search and discovery, on the notion of democracy in a small East Asian historically colonial state. How is it to be a democratic entity? What is needed to develop and maintain its political integrity? How will fair and effective public policy be created? Where and what are the cutoffs?  What is to prevent the stated rule of law from being applied as rule by law? And what really happened, or began to happen, back then? All of this requires research, hard thinking and a strong focus on accurate interpretation that must be worked out in detail and with clarity.

     Or consider the question of how ethnicity has been determined by identity card protocols? In a mixed marriage, the paternal side predetermines ethnicity, and the maternal side is discounted. Why? No one has ever asked, much less complained about it. Perhaps no one thought about it until recently, when it became an issue of selective Presidential ethnicity, over a candidate that was more Indian than Malay, but was ‘officially identified’ against the norm. (see Ch 11 on this!) What is important is thinking through the issue in its entirety, not just on a single aspect that currently applies. And when you consider the history of it, there have been many Muslim converts who have retained their ethnic and cultural identity, especially with non-Muslim men who have married Malay/Muslim women, and so converted to Islam, just as non-Catholic men have converted pre-marriage to Catholicism! And the implications?

      Pragmatic problems require working solutions, but knee jerk responses are often treated as acceptable. As such, it is also easy for a pragmatic approach to shift position according to the problem presented, with the pseudo-logic of ‘if it works, it’s okay.’ The long-term result remains in a conceptual and often nebulous world – yet to be thought through! And possibly very dangerous in the long term. And the cost?

    Take the example of drunk driving, mentioned earlier. A costly problem. How do we deal with it? It often starts with fun (thank God it’s Friday…) then crosses the line into risky behavior and finally bottoms out when someone gets hurt. What statistics do we have on this issue? Over what period of time? How recent? And out of these, which incidents would we choose as effective examples that demonstrate the condition and its costs?

In conceptual problems, both condition and consequence are unclear. We need to spell them out. Take the example of online classes: 

Online classes may sound great, but to what degree do they deliver? Can we learn effectively without being part of a physically present group, where point and counterpoint, interpersonal dynamics and body language challenge us to new perspectives? And if we can, what happens when we reach a level of diminishing returns? On the other hand, those who are shy or lack confidence are now set free from the social competitiveness generated by their colleagues and classmates and may now respond with alacrity. While it is true that my take on any issue always results from the sum of my experience and the accumulated knowledge bank that I have, in practice, it is also a matter of how comfortable I need to feel before I am able to present it.

     Finally, in any argument, written or otherwise, resist using pejorative terms, no matter how justifiable they might seem. Focus on the issue, never on the person. It is an opinion, and it does not necessarily constitute identity. At least, it does not have to. Some will disagree and hold on to a ‘your opinion is you’ approach, arguing that these are aspects that cannot be separated. But they can be. Or there is no hope for personal growth, ever. We grow, and as we grow, we change. It is easy when you are talking in written form to someone whom you know personally. You know what you mean, and they know what you mean. When you attempt to engage someone whom you’ve never met, the rules of the game are not the same. You can easily be misunderstood. Or vice versa, taking offence for no reason. You just didn’t get what the other writer or speaker meant. So, thinking about what you want to say and how you are going to say it goes a long way. And in an increasingly polarized world, the ability to engage in thoughtful, respectful dialogue is now more important than ever. By moving beyond win-lose mentalities and embracing rationality and empathy, we can build stronger communities and find solutions to the challenges we face.

 

 

 

Ch 2

Tools, not rules

The ability to simplify means to eliminate the unnecessary, so that the necessary may speak. – H Hofman

The reader expectation method utilizes areas of psycholinguistics, textual linguistics, functional sentence perspective, and more. Along those lines of research, Joseph M. Williams, Professor of English at Chicago University, created the Little Red Schoolhouse project many years ago, to facilitate advanced academic and professional writing, and so wrote the first edition of Style.¹   On a line of parallel interests, George D. Gopen, with both an English & Law background, developed his approach at Harvard University, taught it there, and then brought it to Duke University as Director of Writing Programs, and continued working on structure from the reader’s perspective.²  The sum total of the work that both these scholars created in the business of analyzing and producing effective writing, created a conceptual shift in how we understand and teach effective business and academic writing. As folk who taught in the English Department at Duke University, we used a combination of both Williams and Gopen in bringing the skills of Reader Expectation to our students.

Joseph Williams has always held that³

1.      Writers have principles at their disposal that allow them to reliably predict reader responses, so they can revise their work accordingly;

2.      His questions in sentence analysis have been:

a.      What is it in a sentence that makes readers judge it as they do?

b.      How do we diagnose our own prose to anticipate reader’s judgments?

c.       How do we revise a sentence so that readers will think better of it?

3.      And as he put his thoughts down on defining such a style, key concepts began to take shape. We will consider four of them – clarity, concision, coherence and cohesion.

And for George Gopen, it has always been the perspective that⁴

1.      There are recognizable patterns in the interpretive process of readers of English…these patterns help us make sense of what we read. It is not the words you use but where you place them in a sentence that is critical.

2.      This takes us from word choice to word placement.

3.      And his questions in sentence analysis have been:

a.      What’s going on here?

b.      Whose story is this?

c.       What needs to be most emphasized in this sentence?

d.      How does this sentence link to the sentence before, and the sentence after?

Working along these lines, George created tools and not rules, in defining reader expectation’s skillset: agency and action, topic and stress, old information and new information, and issue and point.⁵ Alongside these, he identified habits of style such as metadiscourse, noun strings, ineffective comma use, interruptions and others.  Some of these - like pronoun misuse, are extremely common to our local context.

     As we work through the examples before us, we will understand the weaknesses in local writing styles and see how the tools of reader expectation can help resolve the presenting issues. Everyone who reads and writes must deal with information streams from diverse sources of information. We often find ourselves struggling when we need to share specialized information that ordinary folk need to know about – in law, medicine, public policy and so many other areas where specialization has created specific terms of subject discourse. How may these be effectively and clearly shared? We do the best we can. We try to choose our words carefully. And if they seem right, we go with it and leave it at that. But in a time of information overload, such a habit often proves inadequate and frustrating to readers.

   The status quo in written communication is not acceptable. Effective writing in the business and professional world must speak briefly and clearly, so that everyone can learn about the matters that affect them, figure out the implications, and then decide how they wish to respond. That is being both fair and just. And readers must be able to respond concisely and clearly with their concerns and questions. If they cannot, they are severely hamstrung. If the sender doesn’t send with clarity, the receiver cannot figure out the message and may draw the wrong conclusion! And if the receiver is unable to respond with clear and strong inquiry, they stand a good chance of being ignored. The goal is not achieved, and the results are not satisfying. How do we go forward? Do we carry on as is and hope for the best? Or use an available method that enables readers to identify problems and respond?

     This is where the work of Joe Williams and George Gopen breaks new ground – for when the skills of clarity, concision, coherence and cohesion are applied to writing, together with the structural tools of agency and action, topic and stress, old information and new information, and issue and point, it becomes possible to produce structured and efficient clarity in writing that is easily understandable. Let’s continue with an overview of how this idea plays out.

1.Clarity, agency and action; how we make the meaning of a sentence clear.

In writing, the first challenge is to control the location of subject and verb. Writing doesn’t just ‘happen.’ We make it happen. And we can control that.

British grammar has always taught that a subject (a noun or naming word) is followed by a verb  (an action word). An agent or actor is named and an action carried out by the actor is then described. The one follows the other, and the transition is clear. We know who did what. But the implications of and the rationale for this rule have never been effectively maintained. Over time, idiosyncrasies in individual style have tweaked the rule in varying directions, and now when readers don’t get what’s being said, it is often assumed that the reader has failed to grasp the agency and action that was intended.

But take a sentence like the following – and ask how clear the meaning is?

 

1.1  There was a fear that there would be a recommendation for a GST increase.

                                                      And, as revised:

1.2  We were concerned that the Government would increase the Goods and Services Tax.

 

Compare the two. Does the first example show effective writing? Neither agency nor action is clear. ‘There was a fear….’Whose fear? Why is it not identified? Agency refers to the main character of the sentence - the main actor. Action is seen through the effective use of verbs describing the action or actions of the main actor.  But where is the subject? And what is the subject? A fear? Well, that’s all that the reader gets in the first eight words! And where’s the action?  Well, the action lies in a verb that has been used as a noun, which makes the verb a nominalization. Is that effective? No, because the verb then loses its action and becomes descriptive. There is no such thing as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ writing – only effective or ineffective communication. This is one reason why Singlish in Singapore continues to be popular - because it uses forms that communicate quickly, easily, and accurately. It works! I have always loved our local ‘Come we go!’ (no comma/pause after ‘come’) for the neat way in which it juxtaposes opposites.⁶ Effective, but only for use by locals in a local context. They know the style of it. The discerning reader will note that throughout this text, my tone will shift as needed from formal academic discourse to a conversational Singapore style, simply to drive the point home quickly. This text is focused on and for Singaporeans. The English writing academic enterprise here already has all of the good stuff they need from Joe Williams and George Gopen et al.

     In writing, motive and circumstance are always important. Behind a statement, there is always intention, and readers must either know or learn to expect this. Ambiguity, especially in political discourse, is very often deliberate. When actors are not named, they cannot be identified. No liability can be read into the statement! The reader then faces one of the following possibilities: the writer does not know; the writer does not wish to say; or the writer does not want to get involved. In such instances, a little ‘distance-creating’ ambiguity is useful. Hence, with any piece of writing, a reader must always ask who wrote it and why. A sentence like this example demonstrates non-informative communication. Perhaps intentionally so.

   Is this a step away from misinformation, or disinformation? It is not apolitical but very political. Writers cause problems for readers when they fail to provide character and agency. When you encounter such writing and need to discover actions and actors, you might have to do a little checking. Find out when and why it was written, by whom, and in what context. Once this is done, the actors, their actions, and the implications of the statement are seen and recognized! 

    Let’s take an example and consider how agency, action, topic and stress apply, starting with the old structure of subject, verb and object in a sentence. The subject of a sentence is what the sentence is about. It should always be up front, at or near to the beginning of the sentence, so that the reader sees it right away. Reader Expectation calls this ‘the topic position’ in a sentence. The stress position, by contrast, is the point being made about the subject. It is the point of emphasis, or stress, and occurs at the end of the sentence. Every sentence then, has a single stress position:

 

1.3 Moreover, it is incumbent upon a constitutionally established democratic state to ensure that its officers in the exercise of its laws are consistently and transparently applied.

Look at the topic position – can you find the subject there? No. It does not appear until some 20 or so words into the sentence, in the word ‘laws!’ Look at the stress position at the end of the sentence. Is the most important information about the subject to be found there? No. ‘consistently and transparently applied’ is a weak ending with no clear emphasis that the reader can take away. At best, we could say that both topic and stress elements have been lumped together at the end of the sentence. But written that way, the point is not clear! What can we determine from ‘consistently and transparently applied’? Nothing. What’s the key word that applies here? It’s ‘justice’ i.e. laws that are justly applied, and that isn’t in the sentence at all. Remember, bad laws can also be consistently and transparently applied! And that’s not what the writer is aiming at! Unfortunately, the way the second clause is written, it actually says that officers should be applied consistently and transparently! Obviously unintended. Read it again if you missed that. Quite humorous! The writer wants to say that

1.4 The laws of a constitutionally established democratic state must be justly applied by its Officers.

Compare the two. Now, the actors have been clearly identified – Officers. And the sentence is about – Laws. In such a style, this is what needs to be fixed.  How can we present the issues before us if we cannot state them clearly? And how can listeners respond with constructive criticism? 

2.Concision: topic and stress, brevity and emphasis – short, simple and strong; writing that is free of superfluous detail and gets to the point quickly. An example:

 

2.1 In my personal opinion, it is necessary that we should not ignore the opportunity to think over each and every suggestion offered.

The sentence says too little, in too much! Opinion is personal, so why say personal opinion? That is neither needed nor helpful. It’s just a preface, or at the least, a weak habit of style. Trouble is, few have pointed it out. Nor has the use of the personal pronoun any value or purpose, since we all know that the writer is speaking. This is overkill - what I call a historical and very British ‘pronouncement’ that says, ‘I am now speaking.’ Opinion may be wonderful and varied, but most of the time it is not the product of hard thinking, but of emotion. Then consider ‘think over’ and ‘not ignore’. Both mean ‘Consider!’  Same goes for ‘each and every’. So, what do we have here? A repetitive sentence, with little substance. Keep this in mind, because as we go through our examples, you will see this style repeatedly. In writing, repetition is a poor strategy. In persuasive speech, repetition is an excellent tool that serves to drive the point home!

Place the original against a structurally improved version, and we get:

 

2.1 In my personal opinion it is necessary that we should not ignore the opportunity to                           think over each and every suggestion offered.

                                           Revised form:

   2.2 We should consider every suggestion.

 

Look over both. We now have a clear and effective sentence. Less time needed to read and process content, for it is short, sharp, and to the point. Less energy spent in delivering and understanding the message. Weak writing makes poor use of reader energy! If we can say a thing more effectively, we should make every effort to do so.

3.Cohesion, old information and new information.

These have to do with consistent connectivity! Cohesion is about sticking together, so that the parts of a statement are not separated easily and constitute a cohesive unit, while coherence indicates that there is also a logical thread that functions to facilitate an inherent cohesiveness! Both are important in creating effective argument. Cohesion is created when we bring separate strands of information together, as with different colored threads, and then tie them together in logical form, using their common or shared presuppositions and properties, into a single thick strand. When we have tied the strands together, they need to stay together, supportive of a shared goal and purpose. Then they gain strength and can carry the weight of a strong statement. This notion has considerable depth and is a great analogy for the forward movement of community! In the Chinese movie ‘Red Cliff’, there is a comment in one scene about weak single strands that when bound together, become effective and strong.⁷ To do this effectively, a writer must control cohesion and coherence in structure and sequence. This may seem easy enough when we work with a sentence or two, but when we get into three or more sentences or have a paragraph on our hands, it requires disciplined skill. An example:

 

3.1 While our Government has managed our economy and daily essentials well, it has sometimes been too focused on maintaining our economic edge that it heaves stress on people. Espousing self-reliance and the need to keep businesses here, it has adopted policies grounded in financial prudence and economic competitiveness. In the process, some people have fallen through the cracks, and the social safety net is not wide enough. The fallout is from allowing the foreign inflow without first persuading firms to train locals for the jobs and ensuring that education and industrial needs match.

Consider the intent and see how it has played out in its written expression. I have italicized the verbs, and underlined subjects as they appear. The writer intends a fair and accurate criticism but fails to get it off the ground. Why?

In the first sentence, the distinction between ‘economy’ and ‘economic edge’ is not clear. The reader gets the impression that the economy is being handled well but that the economic ‘edge’, is causing stress. The writer wants to compliment the Government but also wants to identify flaws. However, ‘policies’ grounded in ‘financial prudence’ and ‘economic competitiveness’ do not tell the reader what has gone wrong. If anything, they can also be read as positive! When we get to ‘process’, nothing is clear. And when the claim is made that this ‘process’ has caused folk to fall through the cracks, there is no connection to show why and how such a turn of events has occurred. The ‘social safety net’ does not relate. The reader needs to know how policy and process has affected the people. But these have not been linked and no causality established. The writer has switched from Government to social structure, wants to show that the two are related, but has not shown how.

By the time the reader reaches ‘fallout’, the meaning has become ambiguous. We remain unclear as to what the intention is because the point has not been made.  Anyone seeking to make a legal claim based on such an argument would have the case thrown out. A lot has been said, but it has not come together cohesively and coherently to create a single powerful conclusion! Much has been said, but nothing is clear. The case has not been made. Allegations have been made but not substantiated. The reader remains unconvinced, and all because of a lack of coherence and cohesion. 

    The writer intends something and wants to go somewhere with it but makes unrelated statements. He does not hold them together, maintain coherent focus, discuss the issue, and establish the point. If we string words together because we like how they sound and then claim that we have an argument, we fail. We have done very little thinking about what we are saying.  So, what exactly is being taught in our ‘world class educational’ system? Certainly not the ability to think hard, write well, and act decisively, whatever else may be taught. OECD can claim what it will, but it does not deal with thinking, writing or speaking effectively.  So why are we taking its findings seriously? Is the electorate too accepting of what it is told? It’s like the phrase ‘plausible deniability’. Or perhaps the OECD claim provides the credibility needed to support a narrative that the MOE has espoused in favor of Government position?  Here, the statement shows little or no thinking over how these issues relate. Coherence fails, the paragraph rambles and presents as a series of random thoughts. 

     Four unrelated claims stand out because of the writer’s lack of cohesion and coherence – the Government is causing stress for people; policy and process have created stress; some folk fall through cracks that should not be there; finally, education does not sufficiently serve economic needs. Let’s try rewriting and see what happens:

3.2 Our Government has handled our economy well, but its primary focus on economic competitiveness has had consequences. It has failed to notice the stress caused to the people. Nor has it seen the tears in our social safety net. Some folk have fallen through, and this is disturbing. It may sound great to speak of financial prudence and economic competitiveness, but at what price to the lives of the people? That question has not been asked. Instead, we have adopted a quick-fix approach, from bringing in more foreign workers to not sufficiently training our folk to meet the needs of a growing economy. 

 

Does it make better sense now? Yes. Why? Because the reader can see the logical sequence that runs through, from sentence to sentence. In the original, the train of thought gets derailed in the second sentence because the writer uses misleading terms, confusing the reader. Is it cohesive now? Yes, because we can see the connections. And is it coherent now? Yes, for the argument is clear and strong? This is the desired result.

 

The old information - new information transition, and the challenge of continuity

This is where the Williams-Gopen approach to writing makes such a difference. This is a tool that teaches both cohesion and coherence. It is easily overdone and may be just as easily oversimplified, and that makes it a little difficult to put to work effectively. The idea is not to repeat identical words, but to make sure that the point you emphasize in the stress position at the end of a sentence is picked up through a key word or phrase in the topic position of the next sentence so that the thought stream is continued. Then you do the same for the next sentence. And then you proceed through the paragraph. In this example, word use makes a difference. Get it right, and your reader will follow your train of thought easily and clearly as it runs through the paragraph! This is the only way to avoid lateral thinking in writing. In conversation, the tendency to think and speak in lateral streams is hard enough to follow, coming across as random most of the time.  It is almost never linear, and listeners have difficulty because the one who listens is not in the mind of the speaker, who adopts a branching logic not easy to follow. When a speaker’s thought stream branches off, the hearer loses track of it! And such a style does not help when we need to be focused and clear in our writing! An example:

 

4.1 Political analysts noted that independent hopefuls face an uphill battle given the crowded electoral landscape and their historically poor track record. Singapore’s political system has, from the outset, been party based. Over the years, the PAP government has sought to mould a political system in which elections are not only about choosing a representative for the legislation, but also about electing a Government. Independent candidates do not quite fit into this political paradigm.

Each sentence starts off with a different topic. Could this have been because of the instruction many of us heard in school about varying your sentence beginnings? If so, is it effective? Obviously not, from a reader’s perspective! Note the lack of continuity between each sentence. The paragraph starts off with ‘political analysts noted’ – not useful reporting, since it does not tell you exactly who said what!

But analyze for continuity, and you find that

‘poor track record, end of sentence 1(stress/emphasis) does not link to ‘Singapore’s political system (topic/subject)’beginning of sentence 2…and so on

‘party based’(stress/emphasis) does not link to ‘over the years’(topic/subject)

‘electing a Government’ (stress/emphasis) does not link to ‘independent candidates’ (topic/subject)

Are the connections clear? No. just a bunch of unlinked sentences. Rambling? Perhaps.

Each sentence has started off on a different topic. So how exactly is the reader to get a sense of continuity and flow? The reader must deconstruct and then reconstruct…a frustrating waste of time and energy! Read it a couple of times, and you get the idea that this story is about independent candidates. Because of the Government’s methods, such candidate’s chances of success are dead from the start, for in the government argument, single Independent candidates simply lack the numbers to form a government!  

 Further, word choice can also make a difference, especially when used in the stress position.  There is no paradigm here.⁸ The word is used wrongly. It sounds impressive and this pleases local writers, who have made it popular. What would you replace it with, that would bring the meaning out –  ‘format/framework/concept/system/interpretive tradition, even? What changes would you make to help the reader see the train of thought running through the writer’s mind? Is there a train of thought moving along, or is the train being driven at all? For now, just a quick rewrite that keeps much of the original content but maintains continuity and keeps the end in sight, viz:

 

4.2 Political analysts noted that independent hopefuls face an uphill battle given the crowded electoral landscape, their historically poor track record, and a PAP defined electoral system. This system, designed and tightened over the years, frames the electoral process as an opportunity to select the party which will form the next government. In such a construct, individuals cannot succeed.

The next part of our effort to create and maintain coherence and cohesion has much to do with how we sustain meaning in a paragraph as we discuss an issue we are presenting.

 

Issue and point: from sentence to paragraph

Just as topic and stress deals with sentences, issue and point deals with paragraphs: an example…

 

5.1 The danger is that people will fail to fully understand, much less appreciate, the totality of the many separate schemes now in place, and yet to come in the next fifty years, and may be perplexed by the State’s role in ensuring retirement adequacy. Should that happen, a creeping cynicism may start to undermine the social contract which the CPF in its simple boldness represented. It may be appropriate then, at this critical juncture of Singapore’s history, during which the Government’s budget has implicitly embraced a model of co-responsibility for what was previously a self-funded model of retirement savings, to explicitly create an integrated, unified platform for all future schemes to supplement the CPF.   

 

What can we say about this paragraph?

Both topic and stress positions have not been effectively used. The paragraph is certainly not about danger. Where is the subject? Some nineteen words into the sentence! Coherence is not there. Which comes first – the self- funded model or the co-founded model? Why has the writer reversed chronological order here? There seems to be no reason other than that of style. Punctuation is not effective, and there are commas and interruptions where there need not be. The result – truncated meaning, no clear sense of what the issue really is, and certainly not about what the point is.

The issue is about adequate funds for retirement. The point is that the current system that ensures adequate funding for retirement needs to be clearly understood. Not very clear, is it?

Try an experiment. Read it to a friend or two. Ask them how it sounds. Then ask them what it means. They will probably say it sounds great, but….; so, cleared up and revised, we get:

5.2 The current savings scheme may not be clearly understood. A lack of understanding can cause uncertainty over the government’s ability to ensure that people have adequate funds for retirement. It could lead to folk questioning government commitment towards fulfilling the existing social contract. But the government has now adopted a model of shared responsibility for retirement savings. It would help to bring all supplemental savings schemes under a single CPF umbrella. This would show citizens how the combined system functions and that savings accrued will be sufficient for their needs.

Editing and revising requires effort and is essential to all effective writing. It is difficult to get any statement effectively correct at the first attempt. To do that, you have to be well equipped in language, writing and cognition. And if we are disciplined, this can gradually become second nature. Do the examples we have worked on thus far result from a ‘just write, lah!’ approach?  If the needed thinking had gone into them, would we see what we have seen and are seeing? And the other side - is this the result of what we perceive to be good writing?  And if so, how did it get that way? We were educated to think so? However, this is not an exercise in the history of local English teaching, so we won’t go there. We will simply take the current set of problems in writing and work at fixing them.

 

 

 

Part I Ch 1 Language & Politics: Singapore

 

PART I: SETTING THE FRAMEWORK

Ch 1

Context and rationale

 

Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly; everything that can be said can be said clearly” – L. Wittgenstein

 

     Back in the eighties, I was teaching Reader Expectation Methodology (REM) to Duke University’s undergraduates. Our undergrads were part of the best of the High School graduating class throughout the country – they found it hard to accept that they had to deal with a required writing course. It fell to us to show them that REM made a difference. And we were able to. Throughout that effort, I observed the limits of good college level writing in the US and the difference that REM could make. That difference stayed with me, while the methodology worked its way through the Country’s Universities and colleges.

    Years later, as I sought to address the perception amongst Singaporeans that Singapore had a ‘world class education system’ I began to work on this text. This effort started as sheer curiosity on my part. I was back home in Singapore at the time, having been away for many years. That last phrase is a story in itself, and the reader can find that adventure elsewhere, which tells you how I ended up in the USA. But the claim led me into examining business, academic, domestic and professional writing from local sources, looking for confirmation of such great news! What I found was disappointing. How had such a conclusion been reached?

   Well, somewhere around 2007, the Singapore government’s Ministry of Education had started to use PISA - the Program for International Student Assessment, created by the Organization for Economic Development. (OECD).¹ Ch 11 explains PISA’s mission and claims in sufficient detail. OECD had advertised PISA as a testing method to measure the potential economic strength of fifteen-year-olds. The conclusions were based on student performance in the areas of math and science, while areas like writing were ignored. But that and other omissions did not prevent developing countries from accepting OECD’s claims. 

   Singapore’s students did well in PISA’s math and science assessments. Result? An OECD ‘high five’ that said, ‘You’re the best!’ But math and science skills don’t produce sharp thinking and effective communication.  They use given formulas, an approach that does not teach nor train the mind to analyze arguments and understand perspectives. Nor do they help build the strength of character that enables personal integrity. 

   I found that much of our domestic, business, academic and professional writing was neither clear nor concise. And this had implications. Leadership presented issues, they sounded good, but they didn’t seem to resolve the real problems. Why? So I pursued these questions, and gathered writing examples over a wide range, from the ordinary to the professional. And in most if not all, the arguments presented were weak.

Here’s one example, from Mr. Ong Ye Kung, the current Health Minister:

 

“A government that has its own set of checks and balances is one that is accountable and functions well, which is why the Singapore government’s ability to ‘ownself check ownself’ is a virtue.”²

 

Accountable, the man says. Sure, but to whom? One’s own self? This is acceptable? Incredible. Given Singapore’s political climate of authoritarian paternalism, there is always an inherent importance attributed to statements from anyone in authority. Here, accountability to the electorate is comfortably rendered invalid and nonexistent. My research kept uncovering comments like this, and each one raised disturbing questions. Interesting examples, accompanied by inaccurate and even misleading interpretive descriptions. And the political impact of it all is significant.   

   Place this discovery against Singapore’s educational history. Start with the decision to remove the study of English Literature from school curriculum. True, the sources used may not have had much historical relevance, as with studying Shakespeare in a Southeast Asian setting. But there are always moral lessons to be learned and political insight to be gained. Even more, South-East Asia is rich in literature, and covers several interwoven cultures, as with Singapore, Malaya, Srivijaya, and even colonial Portuguese and Dutch influence. Except that ASEAN countries have never come to terms with using such resources. Then again, it has also been recognized that the effective use of language deteriorates as a result of authoritarian control, implying that the decay of cognitive ability goes hand in hand with the decay of political conditions and political freedom.³ Why? Because inhibited political maturity does not support intellectual participation and moral contribution. Makes sense. If you are not allowed to learn to assess events from a critical perspective and speak your mind and see how it can create change, then you end up unable to see anything wrong, and you accept whatever you’re told. Your mind moves along predetermined lines, like a horse with blinkers on. Your responses are predictable, as you rationalize your denial of everything happening. You do not question events nor seek explanations. You live in denial, and do not resist authoritarianism in any way, shape, or form, other than grumbling a great deal about it! Since it is the authority, it must be right. Scary? Yup. At least one local Editor has struggled with this.⁴

    As I continued my initial discovery, the need for local folk to think hard, write well and act decisively kept presenting itself as a citizen imperative - an opportunity for individual and community growth. While this applies to most places, in Singapore’s context, it is critical. Singapore is a small place, so centralized control is easy. But then again, change is not a far- flung geographical challenge! Local writing styles demonstrate an ineffectiveness that reflects an inability to control the political use of the English Language.

   So, what we shall do is to look at how folk think and argue, how they organize and put down their thoughts in writing, and then look at some of the issues that require involved decision. In selecting writing examples, I took the quickest route possible by using everything I encountered that provided something to work with. Our folk need to express their thinking clearly and strongly. The ability to catch what is being said, and then to respond in strong and clear terms is a powerful asset. It is a skill that needs to be taught effectively. That has not been done! I just want to encourage folk to think clearly and accurately and develop a critical mindset. The challenge for Singaporeans is to create a positive way forward, and this is a small contribution towards that goal.

    When it comes to thinking freely, Singapore’s people have grown up within the grasp of a reinforced cotton glove that retains rigid control, the results of which are now clear. Such control serves no purpose other than to support those who exercise it. So, I propose taking the Reader Expectation Method of analyzing writing and allowing it to work in the Singaporean context. This helps identify dominant writing styles that began in the colonies with the use of British English and its rhetorical style as the approved form of written communication. And then continued, in Singapore’s case, through a single party dominated society for many years.

   But the British legacy of phrasing and flair is no longer effective. Its expression and style will always be beautiful but is only effective within its historical and literary context. These days, the requirement that technocratic society places upon the writing task – to create content that is concise, clear, and quickly created, cannot be met by such a style. The old method of taking a scenic and descriptive route with marvelous words that meander through a long and winding road no longer works. It takes too long to get to the point! And the awareness of this challenge is another demand. When we try placing all that needs to be said into a single sentence, we sacrifice clarity and cohesion. When we speak briefly in a single sentence, we run the risk of losing context, which is always critical to understanding meaning.

     So, in Singapore’s written and political context, we get this odd state of contrasts – a very modern technological society that has moved its economic status from 3^rd world to 1^st world in my lifetime, and on the other hand, a ridiculously limited scope when it comes to the ability of its people to think hard, write well, and act decisively. What Reader Expectation can do is to help us reinvent our inherited but archaic colonial thinking and writing styles so that they match our technological progress. Of course, as long as the leadership is satisfied with the status quo, and is not encouraging criticism, there is not much demand for such a cause.

   Archaic colonial idiomatic form continues to be used in much of today’s writing in most places, for want of better alternatives. Hence the usefulness of the work by Williams and Gopen in the US. Reader Expectation provides a daring and innovative solution, demonstrating that effective writing does not depend on our use of knowledge and of vocabulary, but on our use of structure. By using structure effectively, we don’t need to struggle with English grammar, its polyvalent and often extremely nuanced vocabulary and phrasing, and its historically correct forms, in order to achieve the goal of writing well.

 As Dr. George Gopen once said,

 

“Any rule, however, runs the risk of going too far. That is, in order for it to be a rule, it has to state general guidelines and restrictions that will govern any possible situation. Sooner or later, a situation will arise in which the rule will produce a difficulty, an awkwardness, or even an impossibility. Obeying the rule then will only serve the purpose of keeping the rule inviolable; it will not necessarily produce the best solution to the reading/writing problem at hand. “⁵

 

Traditional pedagogy has always concluded that readers are responsible for understanding a written statement. But reader expectation turns that on its head. It says that it is the writer who needs to take responsibility. Sure, writers know what they intend, but this ‘knowing’ often translates into an assumption that ‘because I know, you know’. And that is never the case.

The day of ‘I didn’t understand him, so I guess he must be good’ in Singapore thinking is over. Like Caesar, it has been stabbed to death by multiple wounds. I have no desire to be Marc Antony. But if I must, I would be Brutus. Historically, word choice has been the way to go. The old understanding has been that the larger your vocabulary, the more you will impress your readers with words that they don’t know. Thus it has been taught to most of us. But research has shown that word choice amounts to 15% of communicative ability, while word order amounts to 85%.

From the perspective of the reader, Government policy affects us more than anything else, for it is people consequenced. And it is an irresponsible avowedly democratic government that does not make the effort to communicate clearly with its citizens. For the citizens part, they run the risk of not being meaningfully informed. The politics of the English language, its political terms of discourse, and our struggles therein, once again limit us.

   While the chapters in the book are set in logical sequence, each chapter offers its own perspective. The section on argument demonstrates the need for hard thinking because there are no easy answers to difficult issues. The material on writing identifies the issues common to Singaporean writing style. The final chapters bring up some of the issues that folk talk, write and struggle with, and that require follow-up and resolution.

   The process of working through the issues will allow the reader to frame the arguments that apply. Finally, this is both an interesting and challenging read, because it is not an abstract grammar text on rules, but a structural and contextualized approach that offers political empowerment as skills are honed.

What I have tried to do is provide a sharp look at how the way in which we think and write helps us to approach the issues that concern us; and then come to grips with what is needed for resolution. Whether this might serve as a catalyst for personal growth and empowerment is for the reader to discover.