CHICKEN RICE OR RICE FOR THE CHICKENS?

Language, both oral and written, is one of the key defining features of a culture’s identity. And identity, for Singaporeans, is a matter of utmost importance, as we struggle with the dilemma of wanting to be recognized in our own rights as an individual nation with individual characteristics, while at the same time, needing to be able to blend in with the other key players who hold such influence literally over our lives and deaths.

There was an article some time back by Mr Janadas Devan regarding the meanings and proper use of certain words (“A Question of Great Enormity”, The Straits Times, Oct 12, 2009). A reader later wrote to the paper discussing the evolution of languages and words with common and colloquial use, technology and societal development etc and suggested that languages do move with the times, and when appropriate, the users must do so. I agree.

There was a very interesting article in today’s Lianhe Zaobao Weekly (早报周刊) by Mr He Luo Lang (河洛郎), regarding the use of the phrases 海南鸡饭 (Hainanese chicken rice) and 肉骨茶 (Bak kut teh – a rich broth made from pork ribs) respectively for Singapore’s best-known and best-beloved local dishes.

It appeared that a certain Chinese scholar had made the disparaging comment that 鸡饭 (Chicken rice) is an inappropriate phrase to use, as it refers to 鸡吃的饭 (Rice eaten by chickens) and instead should be more appropriately named 鸡肉饭 (Chicken meat rice), just like how we would call beef or mutton with rice 牛肉饭 and 羊肉饭 respectively and not 牛饭 or 羊饭.

The writer goes on to argue that in the first place, it is uncommon to refer to animal feed as 饭 (Rice). Instead the word 食 (Feed) is the word used, as in 猪食 (pig feed), 牛食(cow feed) instead of 猪饭 and牛饭. There is therefore extremely low likelihood that 鸡饭 would be misunderstood as referring to chicken feed instead of the chicken with rice that people eat. In addition, for small domestic animals such as chickens and ducks, and also seafood, it is typical not to use the word 肉 (meat) in the noun, as in 吃鱼, 吃虾, 吃鸭. Likewise, there is little possibility of misunderstand that local food such as 鱼粥 (Fish Porridge) or 虾面 (prawn noodles) will be misunderstood as 鱼吃的粥 (Porridge eaten by fish) or 虾吃的面 (noodles eaten by prawns) simply because the word 肉 (meat) is not used.

The writer then mentions that the phrase 海南鸡饭 is easier and smoother to pick up, compared with the more bulky 海南鸡肉饭, and has a certain kick that is missing in the latter. As such, 海南鸡饭 is more easily accepted at the layman level instead of 海南鸡肉饭. The evolution of the phrase 海南鸡饭 is therefore more colloquial and situational, rather than from any real scholastic reasoning of meaning and phrase structures.

The next example given of colloquial development of the vocabulary is 肉骨茶 (Bak kut teh). The question always asked: Where is the 茶 (tea) in 肉骨茶 (literally - meat bone tea)?

The dish consists of meaty pork ribs simmered in a complex broth of herbs and spices, introduced by early Hokkien and Teochew immigrants to boost their health. The dish was usually accompanied by 工夫茶 or Chinese “gongfu” tea to get rid the oiliness of the dish after consumption. As such, 肉骨茶 is actually formed from the abbreviation of two phrases 肉骨汤 (pork ribs broth) and 工夫茶，a Chinese acronym of sorts, if you will.

The moral of the story then (or as far as I can interpret), is that when it comes to words and phrases, there is really no absolute right or wrong. The use of 海南鸡饭 and 肉骨茶 does not necessarily point to a poor command of the Chinese language on Singaporeans’ parts if one considers the local development and colloquial context. China herself likewise abounds with abbreviated phrases that are totally meaningless and sometimes ridiculous if taken out of context.

Interestingly, not so long ago, some friends were discussing the use of the phrase “Bak kut teh” in Malaysia for their newly created halal version of the original dish, using chicken meat instead of pork ribs. Muslims in Malaysia objected to using the name as they inferred that the phrase “Bak kut” refers to pig bones and may give the impression that it is acceptable for muslims to partake in pork.

A friend felt that, strictly speaking, the words “Bak kut” or its Chinese equivalent 肉骨 (literally – meat bone) makes no reference to pork as being the meat source. It could therefore be interpreted that other sources of meat, such as chicken, could also be used for the dish without any change to the name, and hence there was no real reason for the objection.

However, if we consider the traditional use of the word 肉 (meat) in the context of Chinese cuisine, 肉 is almost synonymous with pork (肉圆, 肉脞面, 烧肉 etc). This can be explained by the fact that pork has traditionally been the main meat source for the Chinese race. This point was also observed in the Lianhe Zaobao article. If we consider the phrase 肉骨茶 or “bak kut teh” in this context, it appears that the Malaysian muslims may have a point, after all.

Anyway, the evolution of the names may not be academic in nature, but this discussion definitely is. In the meantime, whether it be chicken rice or rice for the chickens, I am sure the accuracy, or lack thereof, in the naming of our most famous dish will not prevent anyone, local or otherwise, from enjoying the dish for its own goodness.