1980s
Here is a list of Singapore newspaper articles from 1980 to 1989 that have been coded and analysed.
Newspaper Articles
Breakthrough for a deaf girl. (1981, January 6). The Straits Times, p. 7. Retrieved from https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19810106-1.2.25.1
.jpg)
Themes
Codes:
Medical model
Social model
Ableism and audism
Linguicism
Inspiration porn
benevolence porn/charity narrative
deficit language
internalised audism
stereotypes
Thematic Analysis
Medical model of disability
Examples:
Frames deafness as a personal tragedy.
“Becoming deaf was…the most unforgettable experience in her life.”
“The first years of deafness were hell.”
“Today – 13 years and many doctors later – Anna doubts she will hear again.”
The focus is on her illness (mumps), doctors, recovery, irreversible loss and accepting impairment.
The sub-heading “Coming to terms with a silent world” suggests that the challenge lies in adapting to deafness itself.
There is considerable time explaining how Anna became deaf, how devastating it was and how she emotionally adjusted instead of focusing on societal barriers and what changes need to be made.
Social model of disability
Anna identifies attitudes in society, not deafness, as the real problem.
Specific examples are:
“People are prejudiced against the deaf”
“People bullied me”
“They made me feel unwanted.”
“I want to be treated as a hearing person.”
When asked what she misses most, she says: “Being treated as a normal person”.
Also evidence of “Othering” because she refers to hearing people as “normal” and deaf people as not.
Ableism and Audism
Examples:
Employment discrimination
Anna hides her deafness during interviews because employees may reject her.
Later, “when they found out she was deaf, she was made to feel unwanted.”
There are signs of everyday discrimination:
“People avoid me.”
“People are prejudiced”
“People stared” at them for signing
“People shouted ‘dumb’”
Low expectations - Many people assume deaf people cannot work. Anna said “By working, I can show that the deaf can work.” The fact that she feels she must prove basic competence indicates evidence of audism.
Linguicism
People judge Anna because “They think I am odd because of my voice”
She also says “Unless I sign.” Once she signs, people suddenly treat her differently. The stigma is attached not only to deafness but to signing, different speech and different communication modalities.
Her family lacked patience when communication became difficult. Communication barriers are treated as her problem instead of a shared responsibility.
Inspiration porn
There are hints of this. The title “Breakthrough for a deaf girl” already positions Anna as exceptional for doing ordinary everyday things that hearing people do. The article highlights overcoming hardship, succeeding despite disability, and proving herself. Readers are invited to admire her perseverance.
However, this is not 100% inspiration porn because Anna herself speaks extensively about discrimination and injustice. The article gives her substantial agency.
Benevolence porn/charity narrative
Praises employers for giving disabled people opportunities. For example, Miss Leong is portrayed almost like a rescuer. She said “the handicapped are generally very local employees”. This indicates a charity narrative. It hints at the message that good employers give handicapped people a chance. Instead of discussing equal employment opportunities, it emphasises the employer’s generosity and benevolence.
Deficit language
Deafness is framed negatively as “handicap”, “disabled”, “hard step”, “irreversibly altered”, “without hope of hearing again”, “silent world”. These words focus on loss.
Internalised audism
Some of Anna’s comments can be interpreted as internalised audism or a desire to assimilate into hearing society. She said:
“Most of my friends are hearing people. I am better off with them. I can learn from them”.
With hearing people, I can improve myself.”
She also wants “to be treated as a hearing person”.
When asked what she misses most, she says: “Being treated as a normal person”.
Subtly, these statements may indicate she looks down on deaf people. However, she says “With hearing people, I can show them that deaf people are not something dirty. I don’t want deaf people to be treated that way. By working, I can show that the deaf can work. I can make a breakthrough”.
The complexities of these statements may:
-
reflect her survival strategies
-
genuine preference
-
pressure to conform to hearing cultural norms
-
limited opportunities within the deaf community
Stereotypes
There are a few stereotypes in the article although some are presented with the purpose of challenging them instead of endorsing them.
I note two differences:
(1) stereotypes that the article reports
versus
(2) stereotypes that the article itself reinforces through its framing.
The most obvious stereotype is that deaf people are incapable or less competent.
For example:
-
Anna fears disclosing her deafness at job interviews because she expects employees won’t hire her.
-
She feels the need to prove to hearing people: “By working, I can show that the deaf can work.”
This implies a widespread assumption that deaf people are not capable employees. The article challenges this stereotype by showing Anna as educated, articulate and hardworking.
Anna resists stereotypes by saying “The deaf should speak for themselves.” This is empowering because she is arguing that deaf people can think, deaf people can work, deaf people deserve respect and deaf people should represent themselves.
Supportive Parents. (1985, February 13). Let the deaf into normal schools. The Straits Times, p. 19. Retrieved from https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19850213-1.2.38.2
Themes
Codes
Othering
Ableism and audism
Educational inclusion - segregation versus mainstreaming
Equality and citizenship
social model of disability
marginalisation
collective identity
government responsibility
spatial inequality
scarcity of resources
discrimination and stereotypes
Thematic Analysis
This article reveals how disability, deafness, education and citizenship were understood in Singapore in the 1980s.
The language reflects advocacy for greater inclusion and underlying ableist and audist assumptions.
Othering
The article consistently constructs deaf children as different from the assumed norm
Examples:
“Normal schools”
“Normal children”
“Deaf children”
“The deaf”
There are binaries of “us” (normal children) versus “them” (deaf children), government schools versus school for the deaf, other citizens vs parents of deaf children.
Instead of using the word “mainstream schools,” the repeated use of “normal” positions hearing children as the default and deaf children who deviate from the norm. “Hearing” becomes the invisible standard and “deaf” becomes a marker of difference.
Ableism and audism
The article reflects an ableist and audist perspective in many ways
Audism
Examples include:
-
“Hearing(“normal”) schools are assumed to be the standard.
-
Normal children - hearing is the default
-
Deaf education is separated geographically
-
Deaf children have limited educational choices.
The issue is not simply being deaf, but unequal access because of hearing status.
Underlying assumption is that success means adapting to existing norms in hearing institutions instead of making changes to those schools so that deaf children can have an accessible education.
Educational inclusion - segregation vs mainstreaming
The parents argued that deaf children should not automatically be separated.
Integration into government schools is possible. Evidence exists because some deaf children attend a mainstream primary school.
Equality and citizenship
“We deserve the right to enjoy the same privileges as other citizens.” The letter repeatedly frames the issue as one of equal rights. This language shifts the issue away from charity or sympathy.
Instead the parents frame education as a citizenship right, equal access to public services and fairness.
Social model of disability
The parents’ argument aligns closely with the social model of disability. They do not complain that deafness itself is the problem. Instead they attribute the problem to distance, lack of schools, lack of government provision, and institutional barriers.
Marginalisation
The parents portray themselves as marginalised.
For example, “the most unfortunate parents”. This identity is constructed through social disadvantage instead of disability.
Their hardship is created by exhausting travel, limited educational options and unequal treatment, waking children at 4:45am, children’s exhaustion after school and daily sacrifice.
There is much emotional labour and parental advocacy.
-
Details build an emotional appeal while demonstrating responsible parenting. Parents become advocates speaking collectively for children who are largely absent from public debate.
Collective Identity
There is the repeated use of “we”, “our children”, “our plea”. The parents construct themselves as a collective instead of as isolated individuals.
This collective voice strengthens their legitimacy and presents the issue as systemic instead of an individual problem.
Government responsibility
The parents assume that the government should provide equal education
They ask “Can’t a government primary school be made available for deaf children staying in the western part of Singapore?”
This reflects expectations of state responsibility and public accountability. The issue is presented as a failure of public policy instead of personal misfortune.
Spatial inequality
Location is an important theme.
The letter contrasts Jurong (west) and Mountbatten (east).
The geography illustrates unequal distribution of educational resources.
Children spend hours travelling because services are based elsewhere. This highlights how disability intersects with access to public infrastructure.
Scarcity of resources
Limited education provision. There are only two schools and one is already full (Canossian School for the Deaf).
Scarcity reinforces exclusion because families have virtually no choice.
Discrimination and stereotypes
The most interesting contradiction is that the parents simultaneously challenge exclusion but reproduce audist/ableist language through the use of “normal” children.
-
This demonstrates how marginalised groups may internalise the ideologies of the dominant society while resisting unequal treatment.
The parents reject segregation but still accept the hierarchy between “normal” and “deaf”. They reinforce stereotypes, stigma and discrimination through the use of those words.
‘Deaf children not getting the best education.’ (1983, February 5). The Straits Times, p. 17. Retrieved from https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/straitstimes19830205-1.2.63
Themes
Codes
Lack of resources
Charity model
Medical model/deficit view
Social model of disability
Ableism and audism
Government responsibility
Institutional neglect
Challenging stereotypes
Thematic Analysis
Lack of resources
The association explicitly says it lacks the government’s resources and facilities to provide the best education.
“Leaving education of our deaf children to the association is not the answer.”
The association argues that although it cares deeply about deaf children, goodwill cannot replace proper funding, trained teachers, or state infrastructure.
Charity model
The article criticises the reliance on a charitable association to provide education for deaf children instead of the government because they don’t have the same resources that government schools provide.
“We are now beginning to wonder if by showing concern and compassion for our deaf children we have deprived them of the best education possible,” the editorial of the association’s latest newsletter said.
Medical model/deficit view
Frames deafness as a “problem” and refers to “the problem of the handicapped”, even though it also challenges deficit assumptions in the system of deaf education.
Social model
Barriers are created by government policy and institutional barriers instead of deafness itself, although there are traces of deafness as a “problem”
Ableism and Audism
The Ministry is portrayed as assuming deaf children cannot benefit from academic education or treating them as a social problem.
Examples:
“Officials felt that deaf children were not capable of academic education”. This reflects ableist/audist assumptions that disability limits education potential.
“Deaf children constituted a social problem, not an educational one.” This shows discrimination in the way people who work in institutions or government sectors think.
The article argues for government responsibility, educational rights, institutional neglect, lack of resources and disability policy.
Government responsibility
The editorial criticises the Ministry of Education for refusing responsibility.
“Leaving education of our deaf children to the association is not the answer for the association does not have the resources or facilities that the government has, to give every Singapore child the best education that he or she is capable of mastering.”
“The editorial said this problem was made more acute when the Ministry of Education informed them that it was the responsibility of the Ministry of Social Affairs.”
The association argues education should be a state responsibility instead of something outsourced to voluntary organisations.
Institutional neglect
The article portrays government agencies as failing deaf children by shifting responsibility, misunderstanding deafness and failing to support deaf education
Challenging stereotypes
The editorial rejects assumptions that deaf children cannot succeed academically. It points to “determined deaf citizens today who had successfully attained tertiary education”. This is an explicit rejection of deficit-based stereotypes.
The article is a criticism of how deaf education was organised in Singapore during the 1980s. Instead of accepting charity as the solution, the Singapore Association for the Deaf argues that the government has an obligation to provide equitable education. While it uses some medical-model vocabulary typical of the period such as “the handicapped”, its overall argument aligns more closely with the social model of disability, emphasising that institutional decisions and inadequate state support, and not deafness itself, are the main barriers to educational opportunity.