1990s
Here is a list of Singapore newspaper articles from 1990 to 1999 that have been coded and analysed
Newspaper Articles
Ho, J. (1994, March 22). She makes the deaf speak. The Straits Times, p. 5. Retrieved from https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19940322-1.2.63.3.3
%20in%20Singapore.jpg)
Themes
Codes
ableism and audism
medical model
stereotypes
language discrimination (linguicism)
benevolence porn
absence of deaf agency
hearing colonialism
Thematic Analysis
Ableism and Audism
The article assumes that speaking is superior to signing. It presents speech as the ideal way for deaf people to communicate and integrate into society.
Examples include:
“The deaf must be taught to speak.”
“This…will get them to fit into a society of hearing people”
“Teaching them speaking and listening skills without reliance on sign language”.
These statements assume spoken language is the preferred and more valuable form of communication. (linguicism)
Deafness is portrayed as something that should be overcome through speech training instead of accepting deaf ways of communication such as sign language.
Medical model
Deafness is treated as an impairment requiring intervention, rehabilitation, and training to make deaf people function like hearing people.
Deafness is seen as something to be fixed through intensive speech training, early intervention, teaching babies to vocalise and measuring success by speech ability.
The focus is changing the deaf child rather than addressing barriers in society. There is no social model framing.
Stereotypes
It challenges one stereotype (“the deaf can enjoy and play music too”), but reinforces another - that successful deaf people are those who speak. Linguicism and audism are prevalent here.
Discrimination (linguicism)
It reflects discrimination by presenting speech and hearing norms as necessary for integration and acceptance in society.
Linguicism or language discrimination is very strongly present. Sign language is portrayed as inferior or unnecessary instead of as one of many options alongside speech training.
The article explicitly states that students are taught “without reliance on sign language” and “The turning point came in 1988 when she went to England’s Birkdale School for the Deaf."
“Seeing every deaf child there being able to speak no matter what his hearing loss is, removed every scrap of scepticism I had in speech for the deaf,” she said.”
However, she is generalising without considering other schools and the spectrum of deaf identities as some deaf are not able to access spoken language or sound. Therefore, she is promoting misconceptions that every deaf child can speak and is not really asking the signing deaf individuals what they want.
Below the photo there is the caption: “Sister Anne Tan believes that the deaf do not have to resort to sign language to communicate”.
Benevolence porn
Sister Anne is portrayed as a compassionate, self-sacrificing figure “devoted” to helping deaf children. The article centres her as the hearing helper, her generosity and selflessness instead of deaf perspectives.
Large portions of the article celebrate Sister Anne herself. For example, her devotion, her sacrifices, her vows, her mission, “my students will be my children”. The emotional focus is on the hearing helper as hero rather than the lives, experiences, or choices of deaf people.
Absence of deaf agency
Hearing people are speaking for deaf people. The article contains no deaf perspectives. Sister Anne who is hearing defines what deaf people need and what success looks like.
The article doesn’t interview deaf students, deaf adults, deaf teachers and deaf parents. Instead, hearing professionals define what deaf people need, how they should communicate and what counts as success. Everything is decided by educators and parents.
Hearing colonialism
Refers to hearing institutions or hearing people imposing hearing norms, spoken language, or oralism while suppressing deaf language and culture.
Hearing colonialism is strongly present because sign language is banned, oralism is promoted, speech training is forced, and deaf culture is rejected.
Overall interpretation
This article strongly reflects an oralist, audist, and medical-model view of deafness. It celebrates speech training, integration into hearing society, and the efforts of a hearing educator, while giving little recognition to sign language, Deaf culture, or Deaf people’s own voices. At the same time, given its historical context in the 1990s, the article reflects educational priorities that were widely promoted in many countries before bilingual–bicultural approaches and greater recognition of deaf leadership became more influential.
Ho, J. (1994, February 18). Recognise sign language, says deaf association. The Straits Times, p. 3. Retrieved from https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19940218-1.2.68.3.1
Themes
Codes
Thematic Analysis
Advocacy
The Singapore Association for the Deaf (SADeaf) actively campaigns for official recognition of sign language, interpreter provision, and greater accessibility such as subtitles and interpreters on TV news telecasts.
Social model of disability
The article frames barriers as arising from society (lack of interpreters, inaccessible TV, untrained bank staff) rather than deafness itself. The solution is addressing barriers in society, not changing deaf people.
Authority/language policing/gatekeeping
SADeaf positions itself as “the only authority” on sign language courses and development. It also speaks on behalf of the deaf community and negotiates with government agencies. The mention that SADeaf is the “only authority” suggests control over what counts as legitimate sign language education and development.
Language recognition/language rights
The central argument is that sign language needs to be given official recognition and deserves equal status with Singapore’s four official languages. This is about language rights and cultural recognition.
However, in reality the four official languages don’t even have equal status due to English dominance. Official recognition would acknowledge deaf people as a linguistic cultural minority instead of simply people with disabilities.
Ableism and audism
Institutional practices exclude deaf people from information and services (e.g. TV news, banking). These barriers reflect ableist/audist assumptions that spoken language is the norm.
SBC’s reasons against sign language interpreters on screen, that it is distracting, shows that they prioritise hearing viewers over deaf viewers. Spoken communication is treated as the norm, illustrating audist attitudes. It is a form of discrimination.
Institutional power
Government agencies (e.g. SBC) determine what forms of accessibility are provided. Institutions decide whose communication needs are prioritised.
Representation
The article discusses how sign language should become more visible on television and in public spaces, increasing representation of deaf people.
Inclusion
the goal is equal participation in media, banking, education, courts and public events
Policy reform - official language recognition and institutional changes require changes in government and organisational policy
Deaf identity/deaf culture - the article notes the deaf community uses “native sign language,” implying sign language is part of deaf identity instead of merely an accommodation. This was before "SgSL" was coined.
Overall, the article has a social model and a rights-based framing. It frames exclusion as the result of inaccessible institutions rather than deafness itself. It challenges ableist/audist assumptions embedded in public services and media. The article also foregrounds advocacy, language rights, authority, and institutional change, while avoiding narratives of pity, charity or inspiration. It is a somewhat progressive representation of deaf issues for its time although elements such as the reference to “speech training” at SADeaf in the photo reflect the continued influence of the medical model.
Certificates for sign interpreters in 3 years. (1994, February 18). The Straits Times, p. 3. Retrieved from https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19940218-1.2.68.3.2
Themes
Codes
Linguistic prescriptivism
-
Organisational language policing/institutional authority
Professionalisation
Recognition of sign language as a legitimate language
Audism
Medical model
Social model
Protection of the interests of the SgSL communities
Linguistic prescriptivism
The article says “must be sufficiently trained, qualified and skilled” and “to a standard acceptable to the deaf”. Instead of saying any form of signing is acceptable, SADeaf explicitly says there is a proper standard instructors should meet as determined by the association (language policing).
-
Organisational language policing/Institutional authority/language ownership
The Singapore Association for the Deaf (SADeaf) is asserting authority over who is allowed to teach and interpret sign language.
Evidence:
-
It claims to be “sole authority” for sign language courses and interpretation.
-
It warns against unaffiliated instructors.
-
It wants to be able to certify interpreters and instructors.
-
It claims copyright over teaching materials on SgSL, sign language interpretation and curriculum development.
These are examples of language policing or language governance as they are attempts to regulate who has the legitimacy to teach and use the language professionally. This implies that instructors or interpreters outside of SADeaf may not be qualified or may be lacking quality in their work.
However, the policing may not necessarily be negative. The motivation appears to be protecting language quality, ensuring interpreters are competent and protecting deaf people’s access to accurate communication.
This reflects institutional control as much as language itself. It could be a form of language policing.
Professionalisation
The association wants:
-
Certified interpreters
-
Certified instructors
-
Recognised qualifications
-
Standardised training
-
Recognised curricula - they want people outside SADeaf to approach them for advice on training and syllabus
Recognition of sign language as a legitimate language
The article emphasises that sign language requires qualified teachers, linguistic standards and specialised interpretation.
This helps position sign language as a legitimate language instead of merely gestures.
Audism
The sentence “The Canossian School for the Hearing Impaired teaches spoken language” and “Its emphasis on spoken language is to re-integrate the deaf back into society.”
This reflects an oralist philosophy. Oralism has historically been associated with audism because it privileges speech over sign language. The article does not explicitly endorse oralism. It merely reports the school’s position. Therefore, audism is not a dominant theme.
Medical model
The Canossian School says “spoken language is to re-integrate the deaf back into society.” This reflects aspects of the medical model because deafness is seen as something that requires rehabilitation and spoken language facilitates integration into the hearing world.
The emphasis is on adapting deaf people to mainstream society
Social model
SADeaf’s concern about qualified interpreters suggests removing communication barriers.
Good interpreting improves accessibility, enables participation, and mitigates social barriers to allow for integration. These ideas align with the social model.
Protection of the interests of the SgSL communities
SADeaf argues that poor interpreters could be harmful to deaf people.
The certification proposal is to:
-
Protecting deaf clients
-
Ensuring quality of interpretation
-
Preventing misinformation or miscommunication
-
Safeguarding language access
Helping hand for deaf friend. (1996, July 26). The Straits Times, p. 45. Retrieved July 1, 2026, from https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19960726-1.2.53.17.2
Thematic Analysis
Codes:
Benevolence Porn
Benevolence Porn
A disabled person’s success is strongly attributed to the kindness or heroic actions of a non-disabled person.
The narrative is structured around “helping” and “sacrifice” rather than systemic barriers or mutual support.
Framed as admiration for the helper (“big-hearted people… sought as volunteers”).
Here, Miss Lim is repeatedly positioned as the central driver of Miss Low’s academic success (“As a result of this help…”). This phrasing is important as it compresses the deaf student’s own effort, adaptation, and competence into the background.
The agency of the deaf person is backgrounded or underdeveloped.
The deaf person is described more as:
- someone “helped”
- someone who “coped well as a result”
- someone whose success is mediated through Miss Lim
There is no mention of:
- how Miss Low actively navigated accessibility barriers herself
- what strategies she used independently or initiated
- how she may have directed or shaped the support arrangement
Even the quote about Miss Lim “reading her mind” subtly reinforces the idea of exceptional assistance rather than a structured communication method or mutual understanding developed between peers.
The hearing person is largely being centred.
The narrative focus is disproportionately on:
- Miss Lim learning sign language
- Miss Lim speaking up for her friend
- Miss Lim being a “big-hearted" volunteer
Miss Low is portrayed more as the recipient of care rather than an equal participant in a reciprocal relationship.
Even the closing line about volunteer campaigns shifts the moral focus outward to hearing volunteers, rather than centring deaf lived experiences or systemic barriers and accessibility issues.
This isn’t purely exploitative or negative. There is genuine mutual friendship described (“both women graduated” and “learned sign language from each other”).
The framing typical of older institutional or media writing tends to:
- individualise disability support
- moralise assistance such as the good-hearted helper narrative)
- downplays structural accessibility such as interpreters, institutional responsibility, etc.
Overall, the article has strong “benevolence porn” framing. It downplays the deaf person's agency and leans toward centering the hearing helper as the narrative hero.