The SMC dealt a crippling blow to the dialects within a few years of its launch. This was related to "the construct of a social identity" (Hyltenstam and Stroud, 1996; 572) where language encodes social identity, and speakers decide which language to align themselves with. In this case, the government policy had put Mandarin firmly in the place of the desired language, with positive, shared, connotative values (eg. social cohesion of various dialectal groups within a race) attached to it. In contrast, the dialects or the minority languages had lost their prestige. Mandarin had usurped the traditional position of dialects as emblems of Chinese culture.

Related to the idea of social identity is Smolicz's theory of core values. This refers to "how a specific ethnic group perceives the distinguishing elements of their own culture" (Smolicz, 1981, in Hytenstam & Stroud 1996;573). As seen from the SMC, Mandarin has been vested with positive elements. In certain cases, as is the case for Mandarin, language constitutes such a core value, "a status which it may have come to be accorded for a number of different reasons" (Smolicz, 1981, in Hytenstam & Stroud 1996;573).

Broadly speaking, the SMC may have brought about a language shift, defined as "a process where categorical use of the minority language (the dialects) develops into a phase of alternate use of the two languages (the initial stages of the SMC) which in turn develops into categorical use of the majority language" (arguably the future scenario for Mandarin) (Hyltenstam & Stroud, 1996; 572, italics in brackets mine).

In the past, Mandarin would be considered as another dialect (spoken in Beijing), but the situation in Singapore has developed to the point where English and Mandarin can be considered a language of wider communication, while the other dialects have been relegated to the sidelines as a collective whole. The insistent polarization of Chinese dialects and Mandarin by the SMC led to marginalization of the dialects. Both being variants of a single language, Mandarin was accorded the High (H) status while dialects became the Low (L) variety. As Romaine says of bilingual situations, (nevertheless applicable to the case of dialects and Mandarin) "the separate locations in which L and H are acquired immediately provide them with separate institutional support systems" (Romaine, 1995; 34). Today, they are learnt and used in differing domains. Dialects, which were at first relegated to usage in the household, are today denied even that domain by many young families. This view has also been expressed by BG George Yeo Yong-Boon in a speech at the 1998 SMC where he states that the Government has "succeeded in the historical task of establishing Mandarin as the high language for Chinese Singaporeans over the use of dialects" (Promote Mandarin Council, 2000; 150). Dialect as the most frequently spoken language at home for Primary One Chinese pupils has fallen from 64.4% in 1980 to 5.6% in 1990 to 2.5% in 1999 (Diagram 3, Some useful data).

Despite "dialect use being more persistent than had been realized in the mid-1980s" (Gopinathan, 1999; 26), in 1987, the Minister for Education Tony Tan was able to say that as a result of the campaigns, "Mandarin has overtaken dialect as a home language for Chinese pupils" (Gopinathan, 1999; 26). By 1991, the policy of the SMC had changed tack, because there was "less need to stress the Mandarin-dialect theme" (Gopinathan, 1999; 25). Already, dialects were not considered a threat to the efforts to inculcate Mandarin in the younger generation.

All this is in spite of the fact that a fair percentage of the population initially resisted the promotion of Mandarin, and were outraged at the implication that dialects had no value in transmitting culture. The government initially advocated Mandarin on the basis of its having cultural value. Today, with China as the emerging powerhouse in the global economic arena, the "symbolic capital" (Bourdieu, 1991) associated with Mandarin has appreciated many times over.