The purpose of the present study is to examine how the input rate affects student interpreters’ SI output and whether there are interactive effects between English proficiency and input rate. To answer the research questions specified in Chapter One, our findings indicate that there was no significant interactive effect of English proficiency and input rate.
On the nine aspects of the output investigated in this study, the two English groups seemed to be equally affected by the variance of the input rate. Nevertheless, the high and low
proficiency groups did show different patterns in the use of linearity strategy and in the output rate under the influence of slow to high input rates.
The main effect of input rate was significant on all aspects of the output, except for substitutions of segments. However, many of the effects were contrary to our expectations and to the results from previous studies. Students made more omissions and substitutions of words at the rate of 100 wpm, but they started to omit more segments when the rate increased to 130 wpm and 160 wpm. Possibly due to more omissions of recurring words in the source speech, their lexical diversity was unexpectedly higher at the fastest input rate. With regard to the processing of critical structures, it was found that they tended to produce more sentences with syntactic interference at the rate 100 wpm given that reordering in the output induced higher memory load. Therefore, the general assumption in interpreting literature that interpreters would take a more formed-based approach at faster input rates is not
substantiated by the empirical evidence of the present study. In terms of student interpreters’
temporal management of the output, as the input rate increased beyond 130 wpm, their EVS and output rate remained constant, but they did manage to follow the patterns of the speaker by pausing less frequently as the input rate increased.
151
These results suggest that students’ SI performance was susceptible to the changes of input rate. A slow input rate could impose higher memory load, especially for linguistically different structures between English and Chinese. A fast input rate could lead to the depletion of cognitive resources, which resulted in inferior comprehension and less efficient production.
To better cope with input rate variations, students need to better coordinate their processing capacity by adopting proper strategies of chunking and waiting as well as by speeding up certain sub-processes, such as word recognition, lexical retrieval or access to translation equivalents. Although English proficiency did not affect the effects of the input rate on the output, it had a significant main effect on a number of aspects of the output. Students with higher L2 proficiency showed fewer omissions of segments. They also displayed more effective processing of the critical sentences and faster production. It is possible that some of the sub-processes in SI (e.g., word recognition and lexical retrieval) became more efficient with higher language proficiency. These findings help clarify the role of input rate and English proficiency in SI performance and deepen our understanding of the complex phenomenon of SI.
152
References
Ahrens, B. (2005). Prosodic phenomena in simultaneous interpreting: A conceptual approach and its practical application. Interpreting, 7(1), 51–76.
Anderson, L. (1994). Simultaneous interpretation: Contextual and translation aspects. In S.
Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in
simultaneous interpretation (pp. 101–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559.
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of
Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189–208.
Barghout, A., Rosendo, L. R., & García, M. V. (2015). The influence of speed on omissions in simultaneous interpretation: An experimental study. Babel, 61(3), 305–334.
Barik, H. C. (1971). A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 16(4), 199–210.
Barik, H. C. (1973). Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data. Language
& Speech, 16(3), 237–270.
Barik, H. C. (1975). Simultaneous interpretation: Qualitative and linguistic data. Language &
Speech, 18(3), 272–297.
Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2013). From language-specific to shared syntactic representations: The influence of second language proficiency on syntactic sharing in bilinguals. Cognition, 127(3), 287–306.
Cecot, M. (2001). Pauses in simultaneous interpretation: A contrastive analysis of professional interpreters’ performances. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 11, 63–85.
Chang, A. L. (2009). Ear-voice-span and target language rendition in Chinese to English simultaneous interpretation. Studies of Translation and Interpretation, 12, 177–217.
Chen, C. (2012). Ear-voice span and performance in English to Chinese simultaneous
153
interpretation (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Changhwa University of
Education, Changhwa, Taiwan.Chernov, G. V. (1979). Semantic aspects of psycholinguistic research in simultaneous interpretation. Language & Speech, 22(3), 277–295.
Cheung, A. K. (2008). Simultaneous interpreting of numbers. Forum, 6(2), 23–38.
Christoffels, I. (2006). Listening while talking: The retention of prose under articulatory suppression in relation to simultaneous interpreting. European Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, 18(2), 206–220.
Christoffels, I. K., & De Groot, A. M. B. (2005). Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive perspective. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism:
Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 434–479). New York: Oxford University Press.
Christoffels, I. K., De Groot, A. M. B., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency. Journal of
Memory and Language, 54(3), 324–345.
Christoffels, I. K., De Groot, A. M. B., & Waldorp, L. J. (2003). Basic skills in a complex task: A graphical model relating memory and lexical retrieval to simultaneous interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(03), 201–211.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97
Cowan, N. (2000). Processing limits of selective attention and working memory: Potential implications for interpreting. Interpreting, 5(2), 117–146.
Dam, H. V. (1998). Lexical similarity vs. lexical dissimilarity in consecutive interpreting. The
Translator, 4(1), 49–68.
Dam, H. V. (2001). On the option between form-based and meaning-based interpreting: The effect of source text difficulty on lexical target text form in simultaneous interpreting.
154
The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 11, 27–55.
De Groot, A. M. B. (1997). The cognitive study of translation and interpretation: Three approaches. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath (Eds.),
Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting (pp. 25–56). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
De Groot, A. M. B. (2000). A Complex-skill approach to translation and interpreting. In S.
Tirkkonen-Condit & R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.), Tapping and mapping the processes of
translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research (pp. 53–68). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
De Groot, A. M. B. (2011). Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilinguals: An
introduction. New York: Psychology Press.
Déjean Le Féal, K. (1982). Why impromptu speech is easy to understand. In N. E. Enkvist (Ed.), Impromptu speech: A symposium (pp. 221–239). Å bo: Å bo Akademi.
Díaz-Galaz, S., Padilla, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2015). The role of advance preparation in
simultaneous interpreting: A comparison of professional interpreters and interpreting students. Interpreting, 17(1), 1–25.
Dong, Y., & Lin, J. (2013). Parallel processing of the target language during source language comprehension in interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(03), 682–692.
Fabbro, F., Gran, B., & Gran, L. (1991). Hemispheric specialization for semantic and
syntactic components of language in simultaneous interpreters. Brain and Language,
41, 1–42.
Fabbro, F., & Gran, L. (1994). Neurological and neuropsychological aspects of polyglossia and simultaneous interpretation. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging
the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 273–317).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
155
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233.
Galli, C. (1989). Simultaneous interpretation in medical conferences: A case-study. In L.
Gran & C. Taylor (Eds.), Aspects of applied experimental research on conference
interpretation (pp. 162–184). Udine: Campanotto Editore.
Gerver, D. (1969). The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters. In E. Foulke (Ed.), Proceedings of the second
Lousiville conference on rate and/or frequency-controlled speech (pp. 162–184).
Kentucky: Center for Rate-Controlled Recordings, University of Louisville.
Gerver, D. (1974). Simultaneous listening and speaking and retention of prose. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26(3), 337–341.
Gerver, D. (1975). A psychological approach to simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 20(2), 119–128.
Gerver, D. (1976). Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Application and research (pp. 165–207). New York:
Gardner Press.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (1st ed.).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (1997). Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in
translation and interpreting (pp. 196–214). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gile, D. (1999). Testing the effort models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting - A contribution. Hermes, 23, 153–172.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. (Rev. ed.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. London:
156
Academic Press.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1972). Segmentation of input in simultaneous translation. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 1(2), 127–140.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Gumul, E., & Łyda, A. (2007). The time constraint in conference interpreting: Simultaneous vs. consecutive. Research in Language, 5, 165–183.
Isham, W. P. (1994). Memory for sentence form after simultaneous interpretation: Evidence both for and against deverbalization. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.),
Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 191–211).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Johansson, V. (2009). Lexical diversity and lexical density in speech and writing: A developmental perspective. Working Papers in Linguistics, 53, 61–79.
Kim, H.-R. (2005). Linguistic characteristics and interpretation strategy based on EVS analysis of Korean-Chinese, Korean-Japanese interpretation. Meta, 50(4), 1492-1421.
Kirchhoff, H. (1976/2002). Simultaneous interpreting: Interdependence of variables in the interpreting process, interpreting models and interpreting strategies. In F. Pöchhacker
& M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (pp. 111–119). New York:
Routledge.
Kohn, K., & Kalina, S. (1996). The strategic dimension of interpreting. Meta, 41(1), 118–138.
https://doi.org/10.7202/003333ar
Korpal, P. (2012). Omission in simultaneous interpreting as a deliberate act. In A. Pym & D.
Orrego-Carmona (Eds.), Translation research project 4 (pp. 103–111). Tarragona:
Intercultural Studies Group.
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming:
Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations.
157
Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 149–174.
Lamberger-Felber, H. (2001). Text-oriented research into interpreting. Examples from a case-study. Hermes, 26, 39–63.
Lamberger-Felber, H., & Schneider, J. (2008). Linguistic interference in simultaneous interpreting with text. In H. Gyde, C. Andrew, & G.-A. Heidrun (Eds.), Efforts and
models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel Gile (pp.
215–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lambert, Sylvie. (1988). Information processing among conference interpreters: A test of the depth-of-processing hypothesis. Meta, 33(3), 377–387.
Lee, T.-H. (1999a). Simultaneous listening and speaking in English into Korean simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 44(4), 560–572.
Lee, T.-H. (1999b). Speech proportion and accuracy in simultaneous interpretation from English into Korean. Meta, 44(2), 260–267.
Lee, T.-H. (2002). Ear voice span in English into Korean simultaneous interpretation. Meta,
47(4), 596–606.
Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (2003). A communicative grammar of English (3rd ed.). London:
Routledge.
Liu, M. (2001). Expertise in simultaneous interpreting: A working memory analysis.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, US.
Liu, M., Schallert, D. L., & Carroll, P. J. (2004). Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 6(1), 19–42.
Massaro, D. W. (1975). Experimental psychology and information processing. Chicago:
Rand McNally College.
Massaro, D. W., & Shlesinger, M. (1997). Information processing and a computational approach to the study of simultaneous interpretation. Interpreting, 2(1–2), 13–53.
Mead, P. (2000). Control of pauses by trainee interpreters in their A and B languages. The
158
Interpreters’ Newsletter, 10, 89–102.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.
Moser, B. (1978). Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its practical application. In D. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and
communication (pp. 353–368). New York: Plenum Press.
Moser-Mercer, B. (1997). Beyond curiosity: Can interpreter research meet the challenge? In J.
H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive
processes in translation and interpreting (pp. 176–195). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Oléron, P., & Nanpon, H. (1965/2002). Research into simultaneous translation. In F.
Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (pp. 43–50).
London: Routledge.
Paneth, E. (1957/2002). An investigation into conference interpreting. In F. Pöchhacker & M.
Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (pp. 31–40). London: Routledge.
Piccaluga, M., Nespoulous, J., Harmegnies, B., & Mons-hainaut, U. D. (2005). Disfluencies as a window on cognitive processing: An analysis of silent pauses in simultaneous interpreting. Proceedings of DiSS’05 Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech Workshop, 151–155.
Pio, S. (2003). The relation between ST delivery rate and quality in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 12, 69–100.
Plevoets, K., & Defrancq, B. (2016). The effect of informational load on disfluencies in interpreting: A corpus-based regression analysis. Translation and Interpreting Studies,
11(2), 202–224.
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. London: Routledge.
Pradas Macías, M. (2006). Probing quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: The role of silent pauses in fluency. Interpreting, 8(1), 25–43.
159
Rennert, S. (2010). The impact of fluency on the subjective assessment of interpreting quality.
The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 15, 101–115.
Ruiz, C., Paredes, N., Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2008). Activation of lexical and syntactic target language properties in translation. Acta Psychologica, 128(3), 490–500.
Seleskovitch, D. (1976). Interpretation: A psychological approach to translating. In R. D.
Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research (pp. 92–116). New York:
Gardner Press.
Shlesinger, M. (2000). Interpreting as a cognitive process: How can we know what really happens? In S. Tirkkonen-Condit & R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.), Tapping and mapping the
processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research (pp. 3–15).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shlesinger, M. (2003). Effects of presentation rate on working memory in simultaneous interpreting. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 12, 37–49.
Shreve, G. M., & Diamond, B. J. (1997). Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting:
Critical issues. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath (Eds.),
Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting (pp. 233–251). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, T.-H., Lin, W.-C., Hsieh, K.-S., & Chang, K.-E. (2016). CRIE: An
automated analyzer for Chinese texts. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1238–1251.
Taylor, C. (1989). Primary and secondary orality in teaching interpreting technique. In T. M.
Dodds (Ed.), Aspects of English: Miscellaneous papers for English teachers and
specialists (pp. 93–102). Udine, Italy: Companotto Editore.
Timarová, Š., Čeňková, I., & Meylaerts, R. (2015). Simultaneous interpreting and working memory capacity. In A. Ferreira & J. W. Schwieter (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and
cognitive inquiries into translation and interpreting (pp. 101–126). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.160
Timarová, Š., Čeňková, I., Meylaerts, R., Hertog, E., Szmalec, A., & Duyck, W. (2014).
Simultaneous interpreting and working memory executive control. Interpreting, 16(2), 139–168.
Timarová, S., Dragsted, B., & Hansen, I. G. (2011). Time lag in translation and interpreting:
A methodological exploration. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods
and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies (pp.
121–146). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tissi, B. (2000). Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A descriptive analysis. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 10, 103–127.
Tommola, J. (2003). Establishing the transfer of semantic information interpreting. In Á . Collados, M. M. Fernández Sánchez, & D. Gile (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en
interpretación: Investigación (pp. 125–146). Granada: Comares.
Treisman, A. M. (1965). The effects of redundancy and familiarity on translating and
repeating back a foreign and a native language. British Journal of Psychology, 56(4), 369–379.
Tseng, A. M., Chang, L.-Y., & Tokowicz, N. (2014). Translation ambiguity between English and Mandarin Chinese: The role of proficiency and word characteristics. In J. W.
Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The development of translation competence (pp.
106–165). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars.
Tzou, Y.-Z., Eslami, Z. R., Chen, H.-C., & Vaid, J. (2012). Effect of language proficiency and degree of formal training in simultaneous interpreting on working memory and interpreting performance: Evidence from Mandarin–English speakers. International
Journal of Bilingualism, 16(2), 213–227.
Yagi, S. M. (2000). Studying style in simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 45(3), 520–547.
Yip, P.-C., & Rimmington, D. (2004). Chinese: A comprehensive grammar. London:
Routledge.
161
Zhang, Q. (2010). Mechanisms of deverbalization in consecutive interpreting: An
experimental study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Guangdong University of
Foreign Studies, Guangdong, China.162
Appendix A
語言背景與口譯學習問卷 一、基本資料
姓名： 性別： 年齡：
二、英語學習背景
1. 請問你從幾歲開始學習英語？__________
2. 請問你學習英語的方式有哪些？（可複選）
□學校教育 □英語補習班 □英語家教 □其他，請說明 __________
3. 請問你是否曾在英語系國家留學或居住？
□是，留學多久？__________，居住多久？__________
□否
4. 請問你參加過哪些英語能力檢定測驗？（可複選）
□TOFEL，__________分 □TOEIC，__________分
□IELTS，Overall Band __________ □GEPT，通過級數 __________
□其他，請說明 __________
三、口譯學習背景
1. 請問你每週練習同步口譯英譯中的時間？__________小時。
2. 請問你每週練習同步口譯中譯英的時間？__________小時。
3. 請問你每週練習逐步口譯英譯中的時間？__________小時。
4. 請問你每週練習逐步口譯中譯英的時間？__________小時。
5. 請問你是否曾有實際會議口譯的經驗？
□是，□同步口譯，______場；□逐步口譯，_____場；□隨行口譯_____場（可複選）
□否
四、中、英文能力自我評估
請評估自己的中英文聽說讀寫能力，從 1 到 7 分的範圍裡圈選一個分數。
1 分為略懂或不流利，7 分為精通或非常流利
163
中文 聽
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 說
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 讀
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 寫
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 英文
聽
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 說
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 讀
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 寫
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 五、口譯能力自我評估
請評估自己的口譯能力，從 1 到 7 分的範圍裡圈選一個分數。
1 分為不擅長，7 分為十分擅長。
英譯中同步口譯
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 中譯英同步口譯
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
164
英譯中逐步口譯
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 中譯英逐步口譯
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
165
English version
Questionnaire for Language Learning Background and Interpreting Experience
A. Basic Information
Name: Gender: Age:
B. English learning background
1. When did you start learning English? _________
2. How did you learn English? (Multiple answers)
□ schooling □ cram school □ tutoring □ others, please explain _______
3. Have you ever studied abroad or lived in an English-speaking country?
□ Yes, how long did you study abroad? _________; how long did you live? _________
□ No
4. What kind of English proficiency tests have you ever taken? (Multiple answers)
□ TOFEL, ________ (scores) □ TOEIC, ________ (scores)
□ IELTS, Overall band _________ □ GEPT, _________ (passing level)
□ others, please explain ________
C. Interpreting learning background
1. How long do you practice SI English to Chinese every week? ___________hours 2. How long do you practice SI Chinese to English every week? ___________hours 3. How long do you practice CI English to Chinese every week? ___________hours 4. How long do you practice CI Chinese to English every week? ___________hours 5. Have you had real-life experiences of being an interpreter?
□ Yes, □ SI _______(days); □ CI _______(days); □ Escort_______(days)
□ No
D. Self-assessment of Chinese and English language skills
Please evaluate your Chinese and English language skills and circle one point from the range of 1 to 7; 1 means having little knowledge or not fluent and 7 means mastery or very fluent Chinese
Listening
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Speaking
166
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reading
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Writing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 English
Listening
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Speaking
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reading
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Writing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
E. Self-assessment of interpreting skills
Please evaluate your interpreting skills and circle one point from the range of 1 to 7; 1 means unskilled and 7 means mastery
SI English to Chinese
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SI Chinese to English
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CI English to Chinese
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CI Chinese to English
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
167
Appendix B The Source Speeches
Critical sentences are underlined.Speech A: Smart Cities
Opening remarks by Minister for National Development, Mr. Lawrence Wong, at the World Cities Summit Mayors Forum
10 July, 2016, Singapore
Distinguished friends from around the world, Welcome back to Singapore!
Year by year, cities have grown in importance in countries around the world. Urbanization is proceeding at an unprecedented scale. In the two years since our last summit here, more than 100 million people have moved into cities from the countryside. We can expect another 2.5 billion people to move from the countryside into the cities by 2050. So managing urban areas becomes one of those important challenges of our time.
At the same time, new challenges have emerged. Climate change is causing unpredictable consequences, including extreme weather like the first snowfall in Cairo in a hundred years, or flooding in London. So we must continue to improve our cities and to give our people a high quality environment to live, work and play.
While each of our cities may have its unique context and challenges, I think all of us face very similar issues. One common objective is to enhance city management and the livelihood of the residents through sustainable and environmentally responsible developments. In addition, we all want to generate vibrant economies, create good jobs and provide a safe and secure environment for our residents.
For Singapore, the issues on sustainability and liveability have always been important considerations for us because we are a small city-state with a land area of only 700 square kilometers. I will share in my opening remarks, three considerations that have been in our minds in our course of urban planning.
First is the need for long-term planning. City planning is really long-term work, and the results do not happen overnight. It takes systematic implementation over many terms of government and many decades. A good example is Marina Bay, where this conference is being held. It used to be the mouth of a dirty river, dotted with pollutive industries. Now it is
168
a jewel in our city landscape, a place all of us are very proud of. Our efforts have gained Singapore recognition internationally.
Another example is how Singapore became a Garden City. Our founding Prime Minister Mr.
Lee Kuan Yew felt that becoming a garden city was a priority. It was about creating a sense of equality in society so that everyone can enjoy a sense of well-being from green spaces in Singapore regardless of one’s background or living conditions. Since fifty years ago, we have started to protect our natural areas and build parks and gardens in our housing estates. Today, we enjoy the fruits of systematic implementation over many decades.
Second is the need for constant innovation and R&D. A lot of this is driven by the necessity to overcome our constraints. That is, we have limited land and no natural resources.
Necessity has motivated us to innovate, and to turn our vulnerabilities into strength. We have developed new water technologies which allow us to re-use water so that every drop can be circulated more than once. In addition, we are looking at new energy solutions such as carbon capture and hydrogen power. We will continue to invest significant amounts of R&D funds in order to find new breakthroughs for the future.
Necessity has motivated us to innovate, and to turn our vulnerabilities into strength. We have developed new water technologies which allow us to re-use water so that every drop can be circulated more than once. In addition, we are looking at new energy solutions such as carbon capture and hydrogen power. We will continue to invest significant amounts of R&D funds in order to find new breakthroughs for the future.