In my opinion, I think that Gwee Li Sui’s claim is partially correct. Our world is becoming smaller; ideas and cultures are exchanged quicker than ever before, to the point where it would be unimaginable a few decades ago. Social media contributed greatly to this effect, where we do see languages being used, learnt and then spread and become the new trend, after which it became a part of the digital’s vocabulary.

However, I don’t believe that such an extreme case like Singlish will become the new global standard for languages. Despite the aforementioned fact, English still continues to be the predominant language of social media. While words and concepts are being exchanged, English remains mostly the same, with no changing of syntaxes. One problem that I think Gwee Li Sui missed is that although Singlish has great influence on languages that it comes into contact with, its constant changes are problematic to people outside it to essentially get a grasp on the language. For example, a Spanish native speaker whose language is not and likely will never be influenced by Singlish will have a hard time trying to learn Singlish due to the fact that not only do the two languages have nothing in common, but Singlish’s multicultural nature means that there is simply too much to learn and understand its constant changes. 

In conclusion, I understand Gwee Li Sui’s claim will become reality at some point in the future but not to the extent that he believed. Languages like Singlish will be on the main stage of international communication, however traditional languages like English and Chinese will not be overthrown. 

In my view however, Li Sui is overstating Singlish's potential. Singlish, after all, is just a small branch of a whole that is English. Moreover, all of the attributes that he mentioned of Singlish aren't exclusive to the language: so if we're saying that Singlish can become a global language through the aforementioned traits, other languages can too. Also, it stands to reason that lots of language that had shared similar progression to English (as in constant adaptation) didn't become as globalized as it so similar evolution does not necessarily effect similar success. :)

All in all, I think I didn't quite get what he was talking about and was trying to rabble-rouse :)

I think he intends that Singlish embodies traits of the future better than English, more than that it will ultimately become the more dominant language. It’s a reasonable claim in my opinion. The present is constantly changing, and so the future has a certain element of unpredictability and spontaneity. So for a language to be the same it must be reactive to current changes, which English can’t because of its long standing history and now its universality also (it’s already headed in the natural direction a language should and has become “optimal”, plus the large user base would make making significant changes difficult to follow through with). Meanwhile, Singlish is 50 or so years old, being more malleable and open to changes, so we can expect it to resemble whatever “current events” look like in 2124 more. It also happens to be a mishmash of wildly-different cultures of the present. English has homogenized, in a way, the languages that contributes to its creation, and now reflects an independent part of the world. But Singlish accepts both Western and Eastern influence without conforming them, presenting not unity but a kind of cooperation between languages. It preserves diversity, which feels more like an emphasis now that cultures are merging and almost encroaching on and dissolving each other.

After all, we ought to acknowledge that Singapore has overcome the language barrier and the struggle with obsolescence that most Asian countries are facing.

Doing this has some clear advantages, namely easier teaching and grading exams. with only one version of English, students are given a basic understanding of English, allowing them ample communication skills for their future prospect. Besides, by using a Standard English model, teachers have more ease in grading tests and exams, having not to deal with slangs, confusing dialects or uncommon vocabulary and grammar. Additionally, Standard English is one of the most commonly used English in the world, or at least it has the most commonalities with every other Standard Englishes and dialects.

On the contrary, introducing students to only one version of English may discourage them from expressing themselves fully with the new language, dampening their potential improvement. It can give them the false conception that there's only one kind of English and make them less prepared for the real world communication. Furthermore, as the some variety of Standard English, such as Received Pronunciation, begins to have less people speaking them, teaching students this variety can have negative effects on how fellow speakers view them.

To begin with, this standardization of the English language has many advantages. First of which is the convenience it brings when it comes to publishing and finding materials. When choosing RP as the default English pronunciation, educators can easily find the sources needed for Vietnamese learners. For example, when it comes to choosing English books for their students, schools often pick those made by prestigious British universities such as Cambridge or Oxford or use BBC Learning English as listening materials. Along with this convenience is the ability to achieve uniformity among Vietnamese learners. Having RP as the main pronunciation helps them easily navigate through the different varieties of the English and helps the entire education program as a whole run smoothly. While the benefits from this approach are undeniable, there also exists certain drawbacks. Firstly, the use of a single pronunciation will limit the potential for other types of English, which is more useful for future communications such as American or Australian English. Learners may have some difficulties in conveying their ideas to other English speakers like those in Hong Kong or Singapore. Secondly, as English becomes increasingly globalized, there will be lesser demand for standard pronunciations such as RP, thus making it harder for Vietnamese learners to use the English knowledge they use effectively.

      Regarding the benefits, it is undeniably more convenient to teach students using one standard English variety. Specifically, students only have to learn one variety, which reduces their workload, and teachers have a much easier time teaching thanks to the lack of complexity.

       However, there is one major problem with this method, which is obviously the lack of variety. Vietnamese students may not be well-equipped for studying abroad as there are so many different Englishes used around the world.

Let us first bring up some advantages. Having a constant and standardized system of English helps with simpler communication, since everyone uses the same words and speaks the same way. This may minimize confusion, which usually occurs when different dialects and accents clash with each other. Another huge benefit is that the set of grammar and vocabulary is nearly constant*, which means that it is easier to master all the words and tenses. As such, having one single variety of English aids in the progression of learners. In my opinion, if one is not looking to go to lands where English is tremendously different (from what they have learned), then it is sufficient to study and train their English skills on the one English variety taught in Vietnamese schools.

*nearly constant: languages are always evolving, so it is inevitable that one’s English variety includes newer and more modern words, all the while deleting rather obsolete ones. Personally, I do not think these changes are huge in terms of proportion. It is not like one has to relearn English from the ground up.

What about disadvantages ? As I mentioned, there are countries that use some form of English that the average Vietnamese would find hard to comprehend, since only one variety of English is taught in this nation. In fact, these special Englishes are in every corner of the world. To name a few, we have: ‘Singlish’ – the one dialect prevalent in Singapore, ‘Australian English’ – really unique accent and vocabulary, and many more. If English education in Vietnam only makes use of one dialect, then the majority of the time, it is going to be challenging to converse with locals when a Vietnamese goes abroad. Statistics have shown that Singapore and Australia are among the favorite destinations of Vietnamese expatriates. This can only mean one thing: this uniform system of English teaching presents a considerable drawback for a portion of Vietnamese English learners who wish to leave Vietnam later.

Overall, I think it depends on what you plan to do with your English that determines your view on this subject. As an addition, I think schools should try to introduce different dialects of English for students to know more about the diversity and complexity of this language and provide a chance for them to get a deeper understanding of the English variety they actually want to learn.

For the advantages, having one united English variety means fully uniting formal English communication. The key word here is "formal", this means business and "work" English, and using one English varienty will simply mean that there will be more control for dialects and accents within the workplace. Everyone will be using the same accent, and this, will improve understanding between workers as a whole.

However, when looking at the disadvantages, fully transitioning to teaching RP in Vietnam will require great time and effort. Since Vietnam has a huge number of English speakers, it is therefore true that the amount of English speakers using different types of dialects is not small to say the least. Convincing each and every one of those English speakers to re-learn the RP dialect and use it as their "new" way of English communication will be extremely time consuming and difficult.

In my opinion, non-native speakers of the English language should be able to speak the accent and the dialect they desire, and espescially in Vietnam, it will not be a wise idea to fully convert all English into RP English

On the other hand, this “standard” limits our vision for what English could be, and its reputation in modern media is getting worse and worse, and due to globalization, it may not take center stage for much longer. “Standard” English is very formal, and adhering to it 100% might stop us from developing and popularizing a new variant that contains our culture, a Vietlish if you will, that helps us enter the international stage as a more prominent player. Times have also changed, and we need to be more flexible to live with them; if tomorrow, “standard” English is declared to no longer be UK RP, we would be able to adapt to the new variant more easily if we already know some other varieties.

From my experience, the native-ness of NESTS as well as NNESTs has not had much observable impact on my learning experience. From my years of studying Tich Hop with EMG, I see that I'm generally more comfortable and relaxed to learn from NESTs. I think this is largely in part due to the native-ness that shaped their nature: they often are very open & amicable. Even old NESTs were no exception as well. However, the same can't probably be said about NNESTs . While there are some NNESTs that Vietnamese students feel comfortable to learn from/ be with, some others just straight-up put students off (usually owing to their rigidity or strictness). I reckon this somehow stems from the native-ness of Vietnamese where absolute discipline is upheld. Other than that, I don't see much alterations in my learning experience from the "native-ness" of either kinds of teachers.

I don't subscribe to the idea that the native-ness of teachers plays a critical role in language education at all. If anything, its supposed "role" is hardly noticeable. There is barely a difference between the impact of NEST's native-ness or that of NNESTs's. As the factors that matter in one's language education or in any other education contexts are perception and retention of knowledge (grammar, vocabs,etc), which barely have any connection to a teacher's native-ness (much less one is influenced by the other), I really don't see how native-ness even holds much significance in language education. :0

But I was wrong, of course. As I got into PTNK and recently learned about 'nativespeakerism', I realized that being a native English speaker doesn't align with possessing excellent teaching abilities. All of my English teachers at PTNK are entirely Vietnamese, yet they still successfully convey meaningful lessons and empower me to learn as an English major.

Despite my previous assumptions, I believe that whether or not my instructors are native speakers doesn't affect my learning outcome eventually. What really matters is that they're always inspiring me with their methods and teaching me new things daily.

The aforementioned thoughts do not intentionally blame the IELTS test itself. Indeed, we, as learners of advanced English, still need high results in IELTS. What should be changed is the way people view the IELTS test nowadays. Rather than paying money just to prepare for the test, students should aim for long-term goals and benefits by fostering effective communication and honing other English skills outside of IELTS.

The worship of Ielts among parents and students (as is the case with countries where English is a second language) mainly stem from its global recognition. As the exam is widely accepted around the globe, people would naturally gravitate towards it. However, this does not truly explain the irrational extent of importance people place on the Ielts exam nowadays. A more in-depth analysis will be needed.

The Ielts exam is not only seen as the norm (what is generally accepted) but it is also regarded as something "international" to countries where English is not the first language. That means a possible impetus behind the deification of Ielts would be the innate xenophilia(attraction to anything foreign) of people. Owing to its common association with the "foreign" and "international", parents and students - who are xenophilic in nature- would indubitably be captivated by the Ielts exam, so much so that they would worship it. It is also important to note that with more educational systems integrating the Ielts exam into its workings(usually being the gate to direct admission to unis, etc), parents and students are pretty much bound to be attracted to it. The Ielts in this context serves as a feasible alternative to traditional college admission methods, thus explains the reverence people have towards it.

A detrimental effect the worship of Ielts may have on language acquisition of students is the outcome-based learning that it imprints on students. When people deify the Ielts exam, they are led to believe that what matters is the numerical value that is printed on their scoresheet, not their language acquisition journey that underlies their score. This means that after having reached their desired band score, they may well lose the drive to continue learning English, and their language acquisition progress stagnates there.

IELTS has truly become the holy grail of English learning in the eyes of many parents and students. There are several reasons for this. First, the popularization and marketing of this exam are superior to similar methods of English assessment. Walk through a random public school, and you may see a banner showcasing an IELTS course at some big center. These English centers constantly advertise the vitality and influence of IELTS on a learner’s future education, every time, everywhere. What is worse, they are not the only promoters. Students who achieve outstanding scores are praised all over social media. They are often perceived as ‘top of the English game’, which just pushes the hype and value of the test to obscene heights. The IELTS marketing scheme is no different from a bottomless, ever-expanding pyramid, where IELTS high achievers and teachers on the current floor will recruit more newcomers to join right below them. Another point that should be considered is that other English assessment tests, such as the TOEFL, TOEIC, and many more, are still somewhat obscure to the majority of the public. They are not as ubiquitous or trendy as IELTS. As such, though they serve nearly the same functions in terms of English testing, these exams are seldom considered an alternative to the glorious and well-known IELTS. Finally, most international universities and colleges use IELTS predominantly for the qualification of foreign candidates in terms of their English capability. With globalization, the number of individuals wanting to study abroad, especially in developing countries, keeps on rising at an unprecedented rate. So it is hardly surprising to see people perceiving IELTS as their only shot at getting a spot in a foreign school. There are still many more explanations, but these three have already painted a big picture of why many parents and students regard the IELTS test as some kind of be-all and end-all—the ultimate final boss of the English language.

One important question is: Will this ‘deification’ of IELTS have a detrimental effect on the learners? Personally, there may be some harmful issues, but they are not too severe. One, the test has had a consistent format throughout the years, tempting students to resort to neat tricks to bypass the difficulty. I have seen some “IELTS reading tips” from “IELTS professionals",  and one of them is along the lines of “only read the first and last sentence to find the main idea of a paragraph”. This might work “95% of the time” (at least according to these tutors), but outside the IELTS domain, it is basically useless. Abusing these techniques creates a bad habit for learners, particularly those who desire a high IELTS score but have yet to reach that proficiency level. Two, the ‘deification’ may put too much weight on the scores of learners, not the general improvement in skills. This could lead to a stressful environment that is counterproductive for someone who wants to hone their language ability. Thankfully, if one has diligence and the right mindset, these troubles can be slowly alleviated. In conclusion, there are concerning but curable effects that stem from the consecration of the IELTS test.

IELTS is a standardized English test that is widely accepted in many universities, colleges and companies around the world. Additionally to being a requirement, a higher IELTS score will give you better chances of acceptance than others. As a matter of fact, its popularity is much higher than other standardized tests such as the SAT, the TOEFL, and many more. Its accessibility is also a side effect of its popularity, as there are centers of English teaching focusing heavily, even entirely, on the IELTS test. 

It’s easy to understand why parents and students “deify” and attach much importance to getting a high IELTS score. Studying abroad and getting scholarships are things that rely partially on the IELTS test being high. These are things that can greatly determine a person’s future career and any parents would want to give their children the best chances. Similarly for students, they are looking for opportunities to achieve a better resume, of which a high IELTS test score is a must. Another aspect that greatly contributes to the IELTS test’s popularity is the centers’ marketing, of which the main aim is money. Although most would say the reason for the IELTS’s deification is that English is an international language, I would hardly disagree. With the way the English teaching center is teaching students how to pass the IELTS test specifically, English is hardly the main focus here. It’s an overgeneralization for sure, but it is still based on some reality. 

The shifting focus from English to the IELTS test is quite frankly scary to me. People are completely missing the point of the IELTS test. It is supposed to test the English capabilities, not to be a stepping stone for future success. I hope that this abuse of the IELTS test will be recognized in the future, as I don’t think that this is only happening in Viet Nam. I think the importance of English is much more than just a test. The generalization of English into a single test will create a community of people with extremely specialized English skills that can hardly be applied in other fields

So the 'deification' of IELTS doesn't just appear out of thin air - it stems from the fact that our educational system is lacking the means to correctly evaluate and reflect students' English proficiency. Under circumstances where recruiters or admissions offices can't trust the English grade report from high school, IELTS serves as the 'accurate' measurement of one's English level. However, this exclusivity in assessment results in parents and other stakeholders neglecting the actual process of learning English. Grinding for the IELTS test (mostly involving learning strategies for a specific set of questions) is equivalent to learning English, while learning English the 'traditional' way is considered to reap rather elusive results. The truth is, however hard the students prepare for the questions their score bands won't increase if their actual English proficiency doesn't improve.

That said, the IELTS exam still works as a temporary solution to our educational crisis: More people are given opportunities through this (highly) accessible test. It is educators', the government's, and especially our responsibility to modify the current stereotype and steer towards a better evaluative method of English proficiency.

However, this is due to the fact that the education system never introduced more complex English knowledge to students. This also meant that aside from standardised tests, IELTS scores have been used to assess the students' "true ability" in English. However, with a presence of more than 3 decades, people would have obviously figured out gimmicks, tricks and tips to solve the IELTS. Unfortunately, in many "IELTS training centres", these "strategies" are what is being taught to those who decided to study there. Since, given how parents and students want to get high IELTS scores, they would usually submit themselves to these centres, in hopes of being able to "level up" their English skills and ensure better future prospects. This would mean that the true purpose of the IELTS test- English proficiency assessment- has mostly been defeated, the students ratings are almost certainly inaccurate, and their actual ability may very well be underwhelming. The deification of IELTS, therefore, although stemming out from good intentions, may result in an unwanted and, personally speaking, infuriating outcome.

This conception of IELTS has created tremendous consequences for students' language acquisition in terms short-term and long-term effectiveness. A cult-like attitude towards may be brutally exploited by poor-quality English centers for massive profit, making it not only academically ineffective but also financially detrimental, especially those with struggling incomes. The IELTS test is also meant to last for a short time, which means candidates must do the test again for a renewal of certificate, which renders all hard-working efforts useless and creates a vicious circle of harsh work and certificate termination. Therefor, the deification of IELTS paradoxically hampers potential language acquisition for students by wasting time needed to acquire the necessary linguistic skills needed for English proficiency tests like IELTS.