CHINESE LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS (Statement by the Deputy Prime Minister)

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, in his National Day Rally speech in 1997, the Prime Minister spoke of the importance of maintaining our Asian heritage, and particularly the challenge faced by the Chinese community in maintaining its roots. He highlighted two issues:

First, reproducing a core group of Singaporeans who are steeped in the Chinese cultural heritage, history, literature and the arts. We need them to be Chinese language teachers, writers, journalists, community leaders, MPs and Ministers; and

Second, setting realistic standards for Chinese Language in schools, standards that students of average ability can achieve with a reasonable effort, especially students from English-speaking home backgrounds.

The Challenge: Achieving two objectives in parallel

Following this, the Ministry of Education has done a comprehensive review of the teaching of Chinese language in our schools. The study involved school principals from both SAP schools and English-language schools, MOE's curriculum development staff, its policy officers, MOE's ministers, and myself. The study covered the following issues:

(a) Encouraging more students to study Higher Chinese (HCL) in schools, and achieve a deeper understanding of Chinese culture;

(b) Developing a few more schools with a stronger Chinese environment;

(c) Reviewing the cultural content of the Chinese language syllabus;

(d) Setting the appropriate standards of Chinese Language (CL) to be expected of the majority of students; and

(e) Addressing the problems of pupils who have difficulty learning Chinese.

The Government has accepted the study's recommendations. The policies on teaching and learning Chinese have long term implications and affect many teachers, pupils, and parents. Before I present the main changes, let me explain our overall approach to the problem.

Constant philosophy; adapting implementation

The Government's long-standing policy on bilingualism and learning of mother tongues in schools remains unchanged. English is and will remain our common working language. It is the language of global business, commerce and technology. But the mother tongue gives us a crucial part of our values, roots and identity. It gives us direct access to our cultural heritage, and a world-view that complements the perspective of the English-speaking world. It provides us the ballast to face adversity and challenges with fortitude, and a sense of quiet confidence about our place in the world. Maintaining our distinctiveness and identity as an Asian society will help us to endure as a nation. This applies to all ethnic groups.

In teaching the Chinese language, we have two objectives:

(a) To develop the pupil's linguistic skills, in terms of listening, speaking, reading and writing; and

(b) To transmit Chinese culture and traditional values through the study of CL.

These twin objectives recognise the importance of CL as a means of transmitting culture and values. The level of language skills we can aim for will vary for different groups of pupils, depending on their aptitudes and abilities. But we want to inculcate these cultural values even in pupils who have difficulty learning CL, if necessary, partly by using English.

While the strategic goals have remained constant, their implementation has changed over time, to adapt to changing circumstances. Most recently, in 1991 a committee chaired by then Deputy Prime Minister Mr Ong Teng Cheong reviewed the Chinese language syllabus. It recommended significant improvements to the teaching and learning of Chinese language in schools. These have since been implemented, including a completely new set of textbooks for all levels, with much improved cultural content.

Emerging trends

However, the situation continues to develop. Several trends affect the learning and teaching of CL in Singapore:

Firstly, the language profile of Singaporean families is changing rapidly. More Singaporean homes are now English-speaking. Younger families are much more likely to be English-speaking than older ones. In 1988, only 20% of the Primary 1 cohort came from English-speaking homes. By 1998, the figure was 40%. In 10 years, the proportion has doubled. In other words, if you look at the children in school today, the `O' level group, only 20% come from English-speaking homes, but the Primary 1 group, which has just started school, 40% come from English-speaking homes. In fact, that was last year's figures. This year, Primary 1 is 43%. The figure will continue to rise. This will have a major impact on the learning and teaching of Chinese language in our schools.

Secondly, globalisation and the knowledge economy are putting a premium on internationally mobile talent. Successful Singaporeans have many opportunities to live and work overseas. This makes it more critical to develop among them a sense of Singaporean identity and belonging through learning the mother tongue. But it also means being more careful to make realistic demands on pupils learning CL, so that parents do not associate a Singaporean education with burdensome CL requirements.

Thirdly, a counterbalancing factor is the continued rapid growth and opening up of China. China will be a major global player in the next century. A command of CL will be a valuable asset for many jobs and careers, even if the person does not live or work in China. This is true of the public service, and will be so in the private sector also. Singaporeans brought up to be bilingual will be at a significant advantage. This gives a practical purpose to learning CL, and will motivate pupils to master the language.

Approach to teaching Chinese

We want every Singaporean to study his mother tongue in school for as long as possible, and to as high a level as he is capable of. The human brain has a finite capacity. Only a minority of people - at most 10-15% of the population - have the IQ and the aptitude for languages to master two languages equally well. Even fewer can think in more than one language. But most people can master one language well, and have a working knowledge of a second.

In our schools, English is the main medium of instruction, and must be learnt at the first language level. For the mother tongue, we want pupils who can also to do it at first language level, or close to it. For the rest of the pupils, mother tongue instruction will have to be at second language level. What this second language level consists of is an empirical question, not a matter of opinion or dogma. It is what pupils of average ability can achieve with a reasonable effort. But whether a pupil learns his mother tongue at first or second language level, we will provide him the support, facilities, and incentives to make the effort.

This approach to teaching the mother tongue, applied to Chinese, will enable us to nurture a Chinese cultural elite, especially from among those who have taken Higher Chinese and studied in SAP schools. It will also help us build a broad base of Chinese Singaporeans who have learnt CL, and will continue to use Chinese beyond the formal education system.

The effort required of pupils to study CL must be comparable to the effort required for other subjects. It cannot be disproportionate. In terms of results at key milestone examinations, there is no major problem with CL. Most pupils score good grades for CL, indeed even better than for English Language. But this is not the full story.

The Ministry of Education commissioned Forbes Research to do a survey of teachers, students and parents on the teaching and learning of CL. The survey found that many pupils are spending more time studying CL than other subjects. Pupils who are strong in other subjects but weak in Chinese spend almost twice as much time outside of school studying Chinese as Mathematics. More surprisingly, even students who are strong in Chinese as well as all other subjects spend almost 40% more time studying Chinese than Mathematics, and 20% more time studying Chinese than English.

The Ministry of Education is working to re-orientate the entire education system to an ability-driven paradigm. It is designing mass customisation models to allow each pupil to proceed as far as he can in the areas in which he excels. This applies to all subjects. We will adopt a more customised strategy to teaching CL in line with this overall approach. We will set different target levels of achievement for pupils of different abilities, based on what pupils of that ability level can attain given a reasonable amount of effort. This will encourage each pupil to strive for the highest standard that he is capable of.

Some pupils are not academically outstanding all-round, but they have a strong aptitude and interest in Chinese. We should provide them with encouragement and opportunities to study HCL. Many academically outstanding pupils do HCL. But they often go on to study subjects like engineering or law, and pursue careers in business or government where they no longer use much Chinese. Fewer take up professional careers centred around Chinese language or culture, for example, in teaching, the media, or the arts. Encouraging more students whose academic results are good but perhaps not quite as outstanding to study HCL will help to build up a functional Chinese elite.

On the other hand, there are also talented pupils who are not able to cope with existing CL standards, even though they have high cognitive ability, do well in all their other subjects, and have good potential to contribute to Singapore when they grow up. We should not turn these pupils against CL. We should encourage them to develop an interest and a basic level of mastery, which they can build on later if they need to.

Pupils who have exceptional difficulties coping with CL are a small minority. But we cannot ignore their problems. They are overwhelmingly male (in fact, three quarters or more are males). Most but not all are from English-speaking homes.

Not all pupils have the same home environment or natural ability in learning CL. We must recognise the large difference which the home language makes to learning CL. A CL syllabus may present no problem to a child who speaks Chinese at home. Chinese is probably his master language. His CL lessons reinforce and formalise words, phrases and grammar which, in fact, he already knows. But the same syllabus can be extremely challenging for a child who speaks English at home, uses Chinese only occasionally outside class, and for whom far from being a master language, Chinese is a totally new language which has to be learnt from scratch.

It is also very significant that most of the pupils who are very weak in Chinese are boys. This shows that the problem of this group is not just lack of motivation, or not trying hard enough. It reflects innate differences between males and females, in brain function and aptitude for learning languages. It is a well established fact that girls are much better at languages than boys. We must acknowledge and allow for this reality. Even in this House, the ladies do very well.

Besides customising the CL requirements to suit pupils of different abilities, in teaching CL we need to achieve an appropriate balance among the language skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing, what they call in Chinese ( ) (ting, shuo, du, xie). In adult life, most Singaporeans will more often speak and hear Chinese than read Chinese, and more often read than write Chinese. So CL teaching, and CL examinations, should emphasise more on listening and speaking skills, and also on reading skills. For Higher Chinese, the present emphasis on all four skills, including writing, should be maintained.

To support this approach to CL, we need appropriate markers, signals and incentives. We need to encourage students through many ways to make the effort to take CL seriously and do their best. We already have schemes to recognise and reward those who excel in CL. We must build on these. We will maintain key requirements, such as requiring students to meet a certain minimum standard in CL at O' and A' levels to proceed on to junior college and university.

Key Proposals

Now, let me highlight the specific changes to Higher Chinese and Chinese teaching following from the review: Encouraging More Students to Study Higher Chinese Presently, Higher Chinese is offered by 22% of upper primary school pupils and 12% of secondary school students. We will encourage more students to study Higher Chinese, as this will be the source of the future Chinese elite.

In primary schools we will relax the criteria for allowing pupils to take Higher Chinese. They can do so provided at Primary 4 streaming they score Band 1 in Chinese Language, and at least Band 2 in English and Mathematics.

Admission to SAP Schools

We will be more liberal in allowing pupils to take Higher Chinese, at both primary and secondary levels. In secondary schools, currently only students who score in the top 10% of PSLE, or who score within the next 10% and show their ability to handle both English and Chinese are allowed to do Higher Chinese. We will broaden this to the top 30% of PSLE students, subject to similar conditions.

Currently, the top 10% of PSLE students are offered a second chance to opt for SAP schools after the PSLE results are published. This is called the "Second Option". We will broaden this "Second Option" to the top 30% of PSLE students who are eligible to offer Higher Chinese.

Next, these changes should increase the proportion of pupils studying Higher Chinese, especially at secondary school. How many actually opt for Higher Chinese will depend on the pupils' choices, but we hope to raise the proportion in secondary schools from the current 12% to perhaps 15-20%. Admission to Junior College

Currently, all students who obtain a pass in Higher Chinese are given two bonus points for JC admission. To encourage more students to take up the Chinese Language Elective Programme (LEP), we will award two additional bonus points for admission into JC to students who enrol in the LEP programme.

University

At university, we will follow through to encourage more students to continue doing Chinese at the polytechnic and university. The number majoring in Chinese Language or Chinese Studies is unlikely to be large. But our tertiary institutions offer other courses where Chinese is useful, and ECAs related to Chinese language and culture.

NUS has undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in Chinese Language and Chinese Studies. It runs two popular MBA programmes in Mandarin which cater to the needs of Chinese-speaking Singaporeans and foreigners. NTU offers Chinese electives to balance the mainly technological orientation of its undergraduate courses, and to broaden its undergraduate education. The polytechnics offer electives and modules on Chinese language and culture. Some polytechnic courses contain modules conducted in Chinese. There are active Chinese dance and drama groups and Chinese orchestras on university and polytechnic campuses. A small number of students visit China as exchange students on study tours.

MOE is exploring with the universities the possibility of introducing bonus points for entry into Chinese Studies in NUS for those strong in Chinese. It is also exploring offering bonus points for those who enter Communications Studies in NTU for those strong in mother tongue, not just Chinese but any mother tongue, at the AO- and A-Level.

The universities and polytechnics will strive to expand the range of options available, so that even those students who do not focus on Chinese language and culture can keep up their interest in Chinese and use it to valuable advantage in their careers.

Developing More Schools with a Stronger Chinese Environment

Next, we will develop more schools with a stronger Chinese environment. We will enhance the SAP programme to improve its effectiveness and reach. Both good academic performance and a rich Chinese environment are important attributes of SAP schools. The nine schools were chosen in 1979, 20 years ago. They have helped to preserve the best of the old Chinese schools. But the list of nine schools has not been updated since, although the geographical distribution of the population has shifted, and the schools have developed at different paces.

We have reviewed the nine SAP schools. Most are doing well, both academically and in terms of cultural enrichment. However, a few of them have rather low proportions of students qualifying to take Higher Chinese, and have fallen in their academic rankings. MOE has discussed the problem with these SAP schools, and will work with them to help them improve their standards.

We will therefore retain all nine existing SAP schools on the programme. But in addition, we will make Nan Hua Secondary a 10th SAP school. Nan Hua will help to cater for the additional PSLE students who will now be given a Second Option to apply for a SAP secondary school, but who may not be admitted into the most popular SAP schools. Nan Hua is also in Clementi, in the Western part of the island, whereas most existing SAP schools are in the Eastern half of Singapore.

At the Junior College level, we will set up a third centre for the Chinese Language Elective Programme (LEP), at Nanyang Junior College, as the Minister for Education announced last week. There are two existing LEP programmes which are in Hwa Chong JC and Temasek JC. However, Nanyang JC will continue to accept non-Chinese students. Indeed it has vibrant non-Chinese cultural programmes. It organises a dikir barat competition and an Indian drama festival every year, and I hope it will continue to do so.

Cultural Content of Chinese Syllabus

As the purpose of teaching Chinese is not purely utilitarian, but to transmit heritage and values, the cultural content of the textbooks is important. While learning the language, we want the pupils to pick up stories and fables, learn about historical characters, and imbibe lessons for life.

We have reviewed the contents of the CL and Higher Chinese textbooks. Compared to the textbooks which they replaced, the present ones are far richer and more interesting.

However, we can improve the cultural content of the textbooks further. MOE will do so progressively as part of its curriculum review process. In addition, we will introduce an enrichment course, "Introduction to Appreciation of Chinese", for all lower secondary students in SAP schools, that means, Secondary 1 and 2.

But we have to be mindful to maintain a balance between including more cultural material, and helping students to master the basics of the language. For example, we explored the possibility of reintroducing a few passages of classical Chinese or wen yen into the HCL textbooks. But the advice of the teachers and professionals was that the students today would have difficulty coping with them. We also cannot make the contents so dense with cultural messages and historical facts that pupils cease to relate to them. We must teach Chinese as a living language to be used in our daily lives, and not something from the past of antiquarian interest that is no longer relevant to the present.

Achievable CL Standards

The new textbooks for CL were written after the Committee chaired by Mr Ong Teng Cheong had completed work and published their report. Since their introduction of these new textbooks in schools, MOE has received feedback from parents and teachers that the new textbooks are significantly harder than the old ones which they replaced. This had not been the intention of the Committee. Its aim had been to improve the cultural content of the textbooks, and not to raise their difficulty level. We therefore convened a panel of professional educators to review the level of the new textbooks, and specifically to compare them with old ones.

The panel confirmed unambiguously that the new CL textbooks were significantly harder, in terms of words and phrases, grammar, content, length of passages, and overall workload on students.

This has to be remedied. We will revise the primary and secondary CL textbooks. We will rewrite them to preserve the cultural content, but pitched at a level of difficulty that is realistically achievable by the majority of students with reasonable effort. Simplifying the language of the textbooks will make their content more accessible to students. This will lighten their load, and restore the CL standard to roughly what it was before the present textbooks were introduced.

Rewriting the CL textbooks will take some time. Meanwhile, as an interim measure, schools will continue to use the present textbooks, but will skip certain of the more difficult passages. MOE has identified the passages to be excised, and will brief schools and parents and pupils on the details.

As for HCL textbooks, the panel has found that the new textbooks are also more difficult than the ones they replaced. However, feedback from schools is that HCL students are generally coping with them. We will therefore not be rewriting the HCL textbooks to reduce their level of difficulty.

This problem of textbooks having become harder raises the question whether examination standards have similarly crept up. Pupils and parents will be reassured to learn that CL examinations have not become harder. We have verified that examination standards have remained constant, especially the key PSLE and `O' level examinations, as indeed was the intention all along.

However, we will be revising the design and format of the PSLE CL examinations, to give greater weighting to listening and speaking skills, and to test the skills that we want the children to learn. The type and nature of examination items will be revised. There should be a core of questions that most reasonably proficient students will be able to answer, and a number of more difficult questions to discriminate students who are above average and those who are outstanding from those who are average. The overall standard expected of pupils will be maintained at the present level.

The Ministry will also review the `O' level CL examination format, but our preliminary conclusion is that the changes will be fewer than for the PSLE CL examination.

The changes in examination and textbooks will be introduced and implemented with sufficient notice to pupils, parents and teachers to make the necessary adjustments.

Pupils Weak in CL

The adjustment to the CL standard will mean the vast majority of pupils should be able to cope with CL. However, it will not solve the problem of the minority of pupils who find it very difficult to cope with CL even though they have no difficulty with other subjects in school. Their number is still quite small, but the proportion of English speaking families is growing. If we ignore the real problems these children have in learning Chinese, they are likely to develop a lasting aversion to the language and culture, which will be counter productive. Worse, public support for the CL policy from parents will weaken, and the Government will come under pressure to lower CL standards across the board.

To address this problem, we will introduce an alternative CL `B' syllabus, at the secondary and JC levels, for these pupils to take. This should help them to attain a basic level of proficiency in CL, and hopefully instil in them a positive interest in Chinese culture, traditions and values. At the same time, it will enable us to maintain a higher standard for the majority of pupils who have no difficulty coping with the Higher Chinese and CL syllabi.

The CL B' syllabus will be similar in teaching and content to CL, but with simpler texts and a smaller word list. The examination format will give greater weightage to listening to and speaking Chinese, as these are skills that are likely to be of most use to this group of pupils later on in life. A pass in CL B' syllabus at the O' and A' level examinations will qualify students to enter JC and university. However, the CL B' syllabus result cannot be used to compute the O' level aggregate for admission into JC, or earn any `A' level points used for university admission.

We decided against introducing CL `B' syllabus at the primary level. We want to encourage all Chinese pupils to strive to do well in CL and not give up easily, as our policy objective is to have all Chinese Singaporeans learn CL for as long as possible and to as high a level as possible. Currently, weak pupils are putting in extra effort at the PSLE, and the results show that the vast majority are coping. MOE will monitor the situation in primary schools and re-consider this if a problem develops later.

CL B' syllabus is not intended as a soft option in lieu of CL. MOE will work out safeguards and incentives to ensure that students who are able to cope with CL will continue to offer CL, and not opt for CL B' syllabus. MOE estimates that 80-90% of each cohort should be capable of doing Higher Chinese or CL, so only a minority will need to do CL `B' syllabus.

MOE will work out the implementation details for this new syllabus. CL B' can be made available to pupils sitting for their GCE O' and `A' level examinations in 2001, at the earliest. Other Mother Tongues

Although our review has focused on Chinese Language, the philosophy and approach behind the CL policy framework also applies, with suitable modifications, to the teaching and learning of other mother tongue languages.

MOE has started to review the Tamil Language syllabus to ensure that the standard is appropriate and not too difficult. We will introduce `B' syllabus for Tamil and Malay, if this proves necessary.

Conclusion

The policies I have outlined are a refinement and updating of the existing framework, not a dramatic change. They will guide the teaching and learning of Chinese Language in schools. They will provide pupils and parents, teachers and curriculum specialists a clear understanding of the principles and rationale behind the Government's policies on Chinese Language.

These changes will help to maintain a Chinese cultural elite as one important component to our multi-racial society. They will also give all Chinese Singaporeans enough mastery of CL to acquire the cultural values and heritage that are part of our social DNA.

The shift in language patterns among Singaporeans reflects the broader changes in Singapore society. We have undergone a momentous transformation in one generation and the transformation is far from over. Singapore society must continue to adapt, to stay abreast and relevant to the global economy.

We will need to review our mother tongue policies regularly, to take into account the continuing evolution of our society, changes in the external environment, as well as new research into language learning. A flexible and realistic approach to teaching and learning mother tongues will keep them alive and flourishing in Singapore and help us to maintain our Asian heritage and identity in a rapidly changing world.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that some Members would like to debate my statement and in accordance with Standing Order No. 42, I beg to move,

That Parliament do now adjourn.

Question proposed.

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam): Mr Speaker, Sir, after hearing Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, I fully support the view taken in the shift that the Government is to make with regard to the teaching and learning of the Chinese Language. I think the conditions are right for the Education Ministry to set the minimum attainable standards in Chinese Language and to allow parents the choice to decide the pace and level of Chinese proficiency for their children without impacting their overall educational attainment.

Sir, today parents need no persuasion to have their children learn the Chinese Language. I think all of us understand the value, the usefulness and importance of learning the Chinese Language. I am glad that the Education Ministry has taken, as what DPM has mentioned, the ability driven approach in the learning of all subjects, including the Chinese Language, and the ability for the Education Ministry to want to customise learning to match the pace and capability of the child. This is a very laudable move and it is not going to be easy. But the fact that the Ministry is emboldened to make this ambitious step is laudable.

Sir, the other interesting development, as I heard DPM Lee, is the use of incentives for students. I think we are trying to remove the need to use disincentives or, in fact, penalties, if students do not do well and instead take the approach of giving incentives or, what we heard just now, bonus points for students who have done well in language. This is a right approach because if we were to provide incentives, there would be the commitment on the children and parents in wanting to do well. I am very sure that this will encourage and motivate the students to strive for even a higher level of attainment. This also recognises that every child has got different aptitudes and different talents and it is important for us in our educational policies and system to allow for a variety of fields that can accommodate the different talents, capabilities and aptitudes of our children.

Sir, language learning is a life-long effort and what is very important is not to kill the interest of our children and to develop an aversion to language learning. To allow a child to learn a language at his own pace and to give him the time to do it is important because later on in adult life, when he sees a need in wanting to polish and brush up the language, it will not be difficult for him to do so. I am glad that while laying the foundation of the children for primary education, we allow them the pace to attain the level necessary later on in adult life.

The other point is that resources and time are limited, and we have to be very focused in the kind of outcomes we want to achieve in the teaching and learning of the Chinese Language. We have heard just now how students have spent an inordinate amount of time in Chinese with little beneficial result and, worse, at the expense of other subjects. And we have heard that what is important in the Chinese Language is for us to achieve listening, speaking and reading skills first, and later on, if they do better, to move on to writing skills. These are generally the usefulness and the value of Chinese Language for the majority of Singaporeans and it is important that we look at the needs and usefulness to the average Singaporeans. I fully support this move because it is very realistic and practical.

Sir, lastly, if I may add, one of the difficulties with regard to the learning of the Chinese Language by students is really the delivery, ie, the teaching methodology. It is here that the teachers can play their part to make their lessons interesting, the subject content relevant, and encourage the children to learn the language. And I hope that the teachers in the Chinese Language will do their best in this regard.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Dr Ow Chin Hock): (In Mandarin): Singa- pore has pursued the bilingual policy for more than 30 years. How many bilingual talents have we nurtured? The population census in the year 2000 will be able to give us the statistical figures with regard to bilingual Singaporeans.

I suggest that in the Education Ministry's survey on the students' background, other than "English", "Mother Tongue" and "Dialect", an additional category of "Bilingual" be placed under "Language Used at Home". I believe that there are many families nowadays who use two languages at home.

For the survival and development of our country and society, the bilingual policy should stay. This direction must not change. However, at present there are two trends that affect the implementation of the bilingual policy. The first trend is the rise of China. As China's international stature grows with each passing day, and as it becomes an economic power, the practical value of spoken and written Chinese is greatly enhanced, and the status of Chinese culture is also raised. The result of this is that more parents are willing to let their children learn Chinese, even Higher Chinese.

At present, the vast majority of parents agree that by learning Chinese, their children can at the same time absorb Chinese culture and traditional values. Moreover, Chinese also has practical value in economics, the media and Cyberspace. Whatever the motives or intentions for learning Chinese may be, this external trend will have a positive effect on the learning and the usage of Chinese.

Yet another trend is the change in the linguistic profile in Singapore homes. In 1988, 15 per cent of the Chinese students came from English-speaking families. In 1998, this number has increased to 33 per cent. If we consider only the Primary One students, the percentage of students who are of English-speaking family background increased from 20 per cent to 40 per cent over the past ten years. This figure will continue to grow with each passing year.

Some of these Chinese students from English-speaking families face great difficulties when they learn Chinese because they lack the support of a Chinese-speaking background at home. This trend has negative effects on the learning of Chinese in Singapore.

Different students have different abilities

In the short run, we cannot determine the net result of the convergence of these two different trends. But the undeniable reality is: different students will have different abilities, interests and motives in learning the different subjects. The aptitude for mathematics and science is often quite different from the aptitude for learning languages. Moreover, the language spoken at home and the environment at school also affect the students' interest and ability in learning a language. Therefore, it is impractical to demand that all students attain similar results in all their various subjects.

Thus, the focus of Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's proposed framework for Chinese education is on having a more flexible approach in teaching Chinese. This puts into effect Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's proposal for a Chinese elite, suggested in his 1997 National Day Rally. This also solves the problem of the difficulties faced by some students from English-speaking homes in learning Chinese, referred to in PM's speech.

The Ministry of Education will allow and encourage more Chinese students to opt for Higher Chinese. It is setting up another Special Assistance Plan (SAP) school, and starting the third Language Elective Programme (LEP) at Nanyang Junior College. It is also giving these students more incentives and rewards as they enter junior colleges and even tertiary educational institutions. For those students who are interested in and have the aptitude for Chinese, this package will provide them with more opportunities to improve the standards of their Chinese. This package should be welcomed by the Chinese-speaking community. It also satisfies the need for nurturing a Chinese elite for the next generation.

Fewer candidates for Chinese Literature

The Ministry of Education should also encourage those students with the interest and the ability to take up Chinese Literature besides Higher Chinese. During the opening ceremony for the 1997 Speak Mandarin Campaign, DPM Lee mentioned that out of 28,000 Chinese students taking the `O' Levels, only 2,500 took the Higher Chinese paper. The number of candidates for Chinese Literature was even more dismal - a mere 500. However, the number of English Literature candidates was 11,000. The Chinese elite ought to have some knowledge of Chinese Literature.

On the other hand, we cannot ignore those students who have special problems in learning Chinese. In the announced framework for teaching CL, they will be allowed to opt for the Chinese "B" Syllabus paper (CLB), so as to reduce the pressure they face when they learn Chinese. I believe that this policy will be welcomed by the parents of these students.

However, the worry of the Chinese-speaking community is this: if the choice were to be entirely left to the parents, the number of students who opt for CLB would increase in tandem with the increasing number of English-speaking households in the years to come. Will CLB become a "soft-option" subject? Whether these students should become part of a "soft-option" syndrome? There are causes for worry.

Therefore, the Ministry of Education should lay down a clear set of rules to prevent such an occurrence. For instance, the school will have to assess and decide whether the student who does well for all other subjects except Chinese is unable and not unwilling ( ) to improve his or her Chinese grades. Only then can he or she opt for CLB. Students opting for CLB must also consider that they will have to continue taking it in junior colleges. Their schools will not allow them to switch to taking Chinese as a Second Language (CL2) as and when they like it. In a nutshell, the framework for teaching CL not only encourages students to take up Higher Chinese and CL2, it must also set certain restrictions on students taking the CLB option.

Under present circumstances, I believe most Chinese students will still choose CL2. When the Education Ministry revised the CL2 syllabus, its guiding principle was to simplify the language to make it easier to learn, without changing the cultural content. On the whole, this can be achieved.

Zaobao's language more accessible

There was a precedent. Years ago, the Ministry of Culture requested that the Chinese newspapers simplify their language. After years of effort, Lianhe Zaobao's language has become more accessible and readable, and its contents varied and informative. It is also one of the more authoritative newspapers in the region.

I believe that the setting of the syllabus must be guided by two important principles. The first is to transmit culture and the right values. The other is to make the lessons interesting. We need not be too insistent in other areas. In 1997, I went through eight Higher Chinese textbooks (a total of 160 lessons) in two days. I really have to take my hat off to the people who compile these textbooks.

Not only do these lessons have to transmit cultural content and values, the lessons themselves aim to be as diversified as possible in literary form. Besides poetry, novels and essays, they also include formatted writing such as notices and letters. In terms of subject matter, these lessons also aim to divesify to meet different needs, and they include issues ranging from ASEAN economic cooperation and Southeast Asia non-nuclear proliferation zone, to environmentalism and trade protectionism. But this is a thankless task. The end result is that some of the lessons are boring and are not likely to stir the student's interest.

In the compilation of Chinese lessons, there is actually a wide range to choose from . Besides Chinese idioms and popular poems, excerpts from vernacular novels of the Ming and Qing Dynasties, Jin Yong's kungfu novels, the translations of "Aesop's Fables" and Edmondo De Amicis' "Cuore" can be included, as well as works by Yu Qiuyu, Cai Zhizhong, Li Lien Fung, You Jin, Ng Wai Choy and so on. The question is deciding which ones to use and how to get the students interested. Most of the lessons must also include cultural content and transmit values.

The hope of the Chinese-speaking community is that all Chinese students can achieve the highest achievable standards in CL. All the Education Ministry can do is to encourage the majority of the Chinese students to try their best to achieve the highest standards they can possibly achieve. But the ministry can also encourage the more able students to aim for higher standards, while at the same time enabling the less able students to grasp the most basic Chinese.

Using such a flexible method to teach Chinese will not only make learning Chinese in schools more effective and interesting, more importantly, it can make them use Chinese even after they leave their schools and make Chinese a living language.

Dr Ker Sin Tze (Aljunied): (In Mandarin): Sir, in 1979 the Government officially merged all the schools into one national stream, with mother tongue listed as a compulsory subject in the school's curriculum. The Government also appointed a number of traditional Chinese schools to become Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools to preserve the fine Chinese culture and values. This bilingual policy has been in implementation for 20 years. Today, more people are speaking Mandarin than before. In terms of quantum, the usage of Chinese has indeed increased. However, with the retirement of the older generation of Chinese-speaking intellects who had worked in the cultural and educational fields, there seems to be a situation of the "the new crop is still in the blade while the old one is all consumed". Despite the increase in quantity, the quality standard of Chinese may not be maintained. On the other hand, some students have encountered many difficulties in learning Chinese language, it is therefore necessary to review and adjust Chinese curriculum.

In his policy statement today, DPM Lee points out that although some students spend more time learning Chinese than in other subjects, the result is not satisfactory. In fact, some students could not even attain the lowest passing grade, but may be quite good in other subjects such as Mathematics, Science and English. This is an illustration that the ability to learn Chinese does not completely coincide with the ability to learn other subjects. In order to prevent having the students spending too much time on Chinese at the expense of other subjects, and to avoid the less-than-ideal results in Chinese hampering the academic future of some good students, DPM Lee proposed:

(1) Revise the Chinese course curriculum to lighten the burden of learning; and

(2) Introduce a new CL `B' paper for those students who could not cope with the learning of the ordinary CL course.

These proposals warrant our careful consideration.

Many students are having difficulty learning Chinese, and sometimes the parents do complain about it. This is a fact. Therefore, we must prescribe the right medicine for the ailment. Making the appropriate revision and adjustment is a necessity. The question is how to revise the curriculum without lowering the standard of Chinese. Will the introduction of CL `B' make it too convenient for the students to swamp into opting for this easy way out in place of CL? Then, it will actually lower the standard of Chinese! Therefore, I hope that when the Ministry of Education is revising the curriculum they will make Chinese easy to learn, easy to understand, and yet at the same time maintain the present standard.

I agree with Dr Ow that the revision must be carried out with caution. The conditions for switching to CL `B' should be restrictive and not too relaxed, so that there will not be too many students attracted to it. If the Ministry of Education can provide more incentives for those who stay on to do CL, then the number of students who want to shirk hard work and take an easy one will naturally be less.

As to whether it is necessary to maintain the standard of Chinese, different people may have different views. Some feel that Chinese is not an administrative or business language. So learning Chinese is of no practical use. That being the case, why should we force all the ethnic Chinese students in Singapore to learn Chinese? If you go to China to do business, you may need to use Chinese. But they are only the minority. Such a reasoning is not entirely groundless. As a matter of fact, in Singapore, using English alone, you can still carry on with your career development. However, the choices before us are:

(1) Continue to implement our bilingual policy; or

(2) Let it be gradually transformed into a monolingual policy.

If we are to develop into a monolingual society where everyone speaks only English, then our whole spiritual outlook and characteristics will be changed. It will be more difficult for us to maintain our cultural traditions and to inculcate traditional values. Our linkage with the ethnic Chinese people all over the world will be weakened. It will be a great loss to our personal development and collectively it will not be good for the long term benefit of Singapore.

In the Chinese community there may be some people who are still worried that this policy adjustment may result in a lowering of the standard of the Chinese language. This is surely not the intent and purpose of the new measures. DPM Lee has just announced that the Government will be encouraging more students to take Higher Chinese, and the Chinese Language Elective Programme (LEP) will be introduced at the Nanyang Junior College. These new measures will be conducive to the maintenance of the standard of Chinese, and have a positive impact on the nurturing of a Chinese elite. Therefore, the worry is unnecessary. As for 30 years from now, would the status of the Chinese language remain the same as it is now in Singapore? That would depend on how our next generation evaluate the value of Chinese.

Sir, under the revised policy annonced today, we would enable the students to learn their mother tongue according to their abilities, bearing in mind that at least a basic level must be maintained. This is a sensible and flexible policy, and it is worthy of our support.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the policy statement by the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome and support the policy statement by DPM Lee in nurturing a new generation of Chinese elite.

The revised mother tongue policy will, on the one hand, give more students the opportunity to study Higher Chinese in order that a group of Chinese elite may be nurtured in Singapore, and on the other hand, continue to look after the interest of the majority of students who are taking CL so that they will, in the process of learning Chinese, generate certain interest in Mandarin Chinese, let them appreciate the connotative meanings of the Chinese culture, and thereby moulding their integrity and fine cultivation. This is indeed commendable!

As for those who have special difficulty in learning Chinese, we have also made special arrangement for them to take a simpler CL `B' paper, to lighten their burden of learning, and to encourage them to continue to keep in contact with their mother tongue. I think this is also something that cannot be faulted. As such, I support the policy.

But in implementing this new policy, I have the following suggestions for the Ministry of Education to study and consider: In the Higher Chinese lessons, students should be appropriately taught the poli- tical, economic, cultural and historical background of China. This will help the Chinese elite have a fuller understanding of China by simultaneously adopting the Oriental and Western perspectives. To a certain degree, they will be able to look at things Chinese - China's social formation, the Chinese way of thinking, the Chinese way of doing things from the viewpoint of the Chinese people, and not just make comments or pass judgement from the angle of Singaporeans or Westerners.

From my experience in investing in China, I truly understand that the Chinese-educated from Singapore have a distinct advantage over others in China. They are like fish in the water. They have created many business opportunities and interests beneficial to Singapore. But, for those English-educated from Singapore, they do not understand the actual conditions in Singapore, and tried to apply the Singapore and western management model and investment style in China. In the end, they run into a lot of trouble and problems.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the adaptability of the Chinese-educated and the English-educated in the China market and the reading of the investment environment in China are closely linked to their educational background. The Chinese-educated are in a better position to understand the Chinese culture, language, thinking and way of doing things, and make flexible adjustment and coordination to deal with the problems encountered in their investment projects. I feel that for Singaporeans to work, invest or do business in China, they must, first of all, spend some time to study the four "Great Classics" in the Chinese literature:

1. Dream of the Red Chamber. This thick book of a few thousand pages paints a picture of the complexity of the huge extended family in ancient China. The story evolves around a big family compound known as Dai Guan Yuan and talks about the conflicts and struggle among the clans within the family, and the intricacies in coordinating and resolving these problems;

2. The Water Margin. It enables you to understand the meaning of yi qi (righteousness), and learn how 108 heroes' vastly different backgrounds could come together and be united like brothers.

3. Journey To the West. It tells you how imaginative the Chinese people were, even some centuries ago. The Monkey God could pluck a few hairs from his body, give them a blow and hundreds of little monkeys were cloned. As far back as a few thousand years ago, the Chinese people had already had this imagination of human-cloning.

4. Romance of the Three Kingdoms. By reading this book, you will appreciate the high intelligence and clever strategies of the Chinese people in their struggle for power, and arm yourself with the proper tools to do business with the people in China.

If we can enhance our students' knowledge of the Chinese culture through our Higher Chinese lessons, this will be of great help to our grooming of Chinese elite. We can also choose to publish simplified versions of all these four books suitable for children and teenagers, make them easier for our students to study them and thereby enhancing their interest.

The second approach is to find out the real reason why our students are having problems learning Chinese. Today, Singaporeans who learn Chinese basically have no problem in listening and speaking. Most of them can understand and speak some simple Mandarin. But in reading and writing, they face a lot of difficulties. This is mainly because they do not have too many opportunities to get in contact with the Chinese language but have generally more exposure to English language. When I discussed the problem of the learning of the Chinese language with my children, they told me that their standard of English is much higher than that of their Chinese. Even then, compared to other students, my children are more fortunate, because in school, they have ample opportunities to be exposed to English. So the standard of their English is quite good. However, they were born in a Chinese-speaking family which is rich in Chinese cultural atmosphere. Apart from good English, they also have quite a lot of exposure to Chinese (although I often criticize their writing in Chinese as being unreadable rubbish). Their classmates always feel that they are at a disadvantage when they come to the learning of Chinese, because they were not born in a Chinese-speaking family, and they therefore claim that it is not fair to them.

Therefore, I would like to urge the Government not to make it too easy for students from English-speaking families to drop the learning of their mother tongue. Unless it is absolutely necessary, the Government should not allow the parents to withdraw their children from the normal CL course and switch them over to the lower CL `B' course. At the same time, the Government should prescribe the medicine according to the ailment and find out the reasons for these students' difficulty in learning Chinese. Is it the textbook, the teaching method and environment, or the attitude of the parents themselves?

Apart from that, I would like to raise another point concerning the teaching of functional words, grammar, word discrimination and rhetoric in Chinese. I feel that we should not rigidly teach these things in our teaching materials. As a matter of fact, even after my graduation from the senior middle school, I did not know there were such things as functional words, grammar, word discrimination or rhetoric in Chinese. But after I graduated, I could write Chinese, I could read Chinese, I could understand Chinese, and I could speak Chinese. Therefore, in the teaching of Chinese, all materials which unnecessarily add on to the burden of the students should be expunged from the textbooks.

The Chinese word is an ideograph. Chinese is not a romanised language. One has to learn the individual Chinese characters to build up his vocabulary. There must be some ways to make the learning of Chinese characters interesting. This is something that is lacking in our Chinese textbooks. Perhaps we should set up a committee to oversee the preparation of textbooks, particularly their contents. The Government should not just formulate the policy and let the writers have a free hand to write whatever they like.

My third suggestion is that we should not let the Chinese community feel that the standard of Chinese will be lowered. The Chinese community is most concerned about the Chinese culture, Chinese values and the Chinese language, and they have been working very painstakingly and faithfully in helping the Government preserve the Chinese cultural heritage. Therefore, when we promote Higher Chinese, we must also look after the small minority of students who have difficulty in learning Chinese. That is why the Ministry is setting a simpler CL `B' paper for these students. We should assure the Chinese community that the standard of mother tongue in Singapore will not be lowered.

In view of this, we must restrict the number of students opting for CL B', as suggested by Dr Ow Chin Hock. Only students who have good learning ability for other subjects, but for some reasons could not cope with the learning of Chinese, shall be allowed to opt for CL B'. It is only with the recommendation of the teachers that they are allowed to take CL B' in place of CL. Otherwise, many ethnic Chinese students will use the excuse of having come from English-speaking families to readily give up CL and switch to CL B'.

Fourthly, I feel that the contact time should not be reduced for the learning of Chinese. I was educated in the Chinese stream. During my school days, Chinese was the medium of instruction for all the subjects, such as history, geography, science, etc. Only EL2 was taught in English. Consequently, no matter how much time I spent, how much efforts I made to learn, I was unable to master my English. This was because I did not have a really good environment to be in contact with English

Today, the situation in Singapore is just the reverse. Other than the subject "Chinese", the textbooks and the teaching of all the other subjects are in English. English is the medium of instruction. In the circumstances, with only one subject, Chinese, how can you expect the students to master the Chinese language? It is certainly not easy! More importantly, the Government must ensure that the students have enough time and opportunity to learn Chinese. Therefore, I suggest that, whether it is Higher Chinese, CL2, or CL `B', the exposure time should not be reduced. The teaching periods should not be reduced for diverting to the other subjects. If any school wishes to reduce the Chinese periods, its principal must first seek the approval of the Ministry of Education, stating very valid grounds, before it can be done. The opportunity to learn Chinese must not be sacrificed in order for the school to strive for higher ranking.

Fifthly, we must place more emphasis on the economic value of Chinese language. Over the past few decades, the Government has been doing a lot for Chinese Language and this is for all to see. We often emphasise that the importance of learning Chinese is in the preservation of our Chinese culture, Chinese values, Chinese tradition and Chinese heritage. However, today, we should go one step further to emphasise the economic value of the Chinese language, and the impact it may have on the individuals, the society, and the nation.

I always feel that during our past 30 years of nation-building, if we did not have English, we would not be able to achieve the sort of economic development we have today. Our people would not be able to enjoy such a high standard of living. But in the next 30 years, if we do not add in the Chinese language to the English Language, there will be great obstacles to our future prosperity and progress. We may find it very difficult to move one step higher in our economic development, and there will not be good years, year after year. This is because the Chinese language will play a very important economic role in the 21st century. If our parents and students today only recognise the economic value of English, and neglect the economic value of the Chinese language in the Asia-Pacific region, we will be lagging behind others in the economic environment.

I therefore suggest that, apart from emphasising on the intrinsic values of the Chinese language in preserving cultural and traditional values, the Government should also emphasise the economic value and importance of the Chinese language so that students will be more pro-active in taking a positive attitude towards the learning of Chinese, just as the way they learn their English, rather than taking a passive and negative attitude.

Finally, review and re-study the possibility of reviving the Chinese school. Some 20 to 30 years ago, because of the poor employment prospects for the graduates of Chinese schools, parents sent their children to English schools, resulting in the survival of the Chinese schools being threatened. The Chinese schools were facing extinction. Fortunately, with the Government's strong defence of the Chinese language to preserve the excellent heritage of the Chinese culture and the fine traditional values, the Chinese language has been able to grow steadily and healthily in Singapore.

With the economic reform and open-door policy of China, the economic value of the Chinese language has become higher and higher. Learning better and more Chinese is very important to the future economic development of Singapore. In the circumstances, this may be an appropriate time to re-open the case for us to re-study and review the feasibility of establishing one or two Chinese schools in Singapore. For those who excel in Chinese Language, they can concentrate on majoring their CL1, with EL2 being offered as an optional subject. This is to deal with the changes in the economic development of the Asia-Pacific region.

Ten years ago, if I were to make this suggestion, I would be accused of turning back the wheel of history or following the beaten track. But today, if we can coolly and objectively study and review this matter, it will be of benefit to the future economic development of Singapore. I urge the Ministry of Education to consider this suggestion of mine.

I support the policy statement of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr Simon Tay: Mr Speaker, I would like to join the debate to welcome the policy, not as the Members who have spoken before me, as a bilingual person, but as, practically, a monolingual Singaporean. I come from a family where for three generations, they have spoken English in the home and this has disarmed me for bilingualism, especially in Chinese. But I had, in my own life time, come to appreciate Chinese literature in translation as well as to feel, over the last years, a certain disadvantage in simply having ordinary discourse and discussions and dealings with my fellow Singaporeans. So I found myself in America trying to learn Chinese because there they start from ground zero.

So I welcome the policy, in the sense that the future will be better for people like me. Not that we will take easy options. Recently, my wife and I have had a child and the idea of putting the child through the rigorous Chinese Language, which is now required in school, was of great concern to us as with all parents in Singapore. Coming from a purely English-speaking background, the effort of the child would be quite tremendous as the report suggests sometimes is the case. More than that, we are concerned that the child will be a drag on his fellow students. Being a teacher myself, we know how the slowest child sometimes holds back the whole class. We have also come to find from our friends that parents themselves make an effort, in the sense that they too have to relearn the basic Chinese to pass it on to their children. And after this, we thought perhaps the only happy person in this whole exercise was the private tutor who would be well employed for many years with my child.

There have been unintended consequences of a very good bilingual policy. There have been concerns that people might think of migration because of the Chinese Language requirements. And there has been concern that the increasing emphasis on Chinese would create some unintended divisions between the Chinese Singaporeans and other non-Chinese or non-Chinese speaking Singaporeans and I think the new policy must be welcomed in attending to these unintended consequences. I think that it is correct also that the Deputy Prime Minister has spoken straightaway of disincentives so that Singaporeans will not opt for soft options. There must be sufficient incentives to study Chinese and sufficient disincentives to make sure none give up without sufficient effort. In other words, I am cognisant, as I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister is, that this is not the start of a monolingual Singapore, which I will not welcome. But I think similarly, it should not be too much on the other side, that it cannot be too hard to opt for the CL `B'. And so, this will require a fine balance by the Government and the Ministry concerned.

I think there are two things, if I may suggest. The first is that in CL `B', the question of cultural content must be looked at using English or bilingual text. The second is that this new policy may be a good opportunity to reassure Singaporeans that in the same school, we can cater to different needs, that in addition to the SAP schools, which are predominantly Chinese pupils of Chinese-speaking backgrounds, in the same school, we can accommodate many more Singaporeans of different language abilities.

To the Chinese elite, I, as an English-speaking Singaporean, would hold out a reassurance that there are incentives and a growing social importance to speak English, which is why I tried to learn Chinese at my late age. And similarly, that is why I would like my child to learn to speak Chinese. People want to speak Mandarin and Chinese. The rise of China, which is foretold by many people, will not mean just an economic incentive to speak Chinese. The rise of China will lead to a rise in soft power, that is power in terms of the politics and economics will translate to a growing importance attached to the language, to the culture, and not just to the traditional culture, but new popular cultures emerging from East Asia.

The social preference in Singapore for bilingualism and for Chinese-speaking exists and should continue. But what I welcome in the new policy is a reduction of compulsion. As for my little son, I want him, like all good Singaporeans, to try to succeed despite whatever disadvantage my unfortunate upbringing has given him. And, therefore, I welcome the new policy. We will reward him for his efforts but I think we will not punish him for his background. We will allow him to try his best but will give him a chance to succeed when he cannot be among the very best in Chinese.

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think that many Singaporeans will argue against the bilingual policy adopted in our current education system. The objective of such a policy is very clear. It is necessary for a multiracial society to possess a common language that will bridge cultural differences and ensure a mode of communication between ourselves and the rest of the world. Yet, at the same time, our roots and Asian heritage should not be sacrificed in lieu of this practical necessity. But while we are very certain that our objective and goal is to achieve an acceptable bilingual ability in all our students, the implementation of this goal and objective may not be as straightforward a task as one may assume. In fact, it has proven to be the most complex and difficult task for the Ministry of Education.

Everchanging circumstances in this world call for a dynamic and fluid education system which our population can benefit from. Language has always been a very emotive issue to tackle in a multiracial society like ours. I must compliment the Ministry for its tenacity and single-mindedness in pursuing the best solution towards the attainment of our national objectives. But such is the immense nature of this mammoth task that the results of its effort may sometimes turn out to be less than perfect. What is comforting to note is that the Ministry has not been afraid of changing course when the situation has called for it. The change that is being proposed by the DPM's Ministerial Statement is therefore another effort in fine-tuning the existing bilingual system in order that some of the problems can be addressed.

It recognises that not all students can be proficient in two languages and these include even some of the more academically above average students. The proposal to increase the percentage of students in taking up Higher Chinese should be welcomed as it offers more opportunities to those who have proven to be competent and have the inclination and interest to take up the challenge of learning the Chinese Language in greater depth. Here, I do not want to elaborate on the benefits from being able to study Chinese at a higher level.

The introduction of CL `B' to those less endowed with this special skill will enable them to have at least the opportunity to acquire a certain working knowledge of the language without being pressurised, to study something which they perceive for whatever reasons they are incapable of. This would ensure that they can concentrate their best effort on other subjects of their choice. This basic working knowledge will also be able to provide them a foundation that will allow them to improve their proficiency in the language at a later stage in their life should a need arise.

At this point of time, I would like to share a personal experience regarding the study of Chinese Language. My son's academic achievement in school had been quite good, but, for some inexplicable reason, he developed a mental block towards the learning of Chinese. I do not think it is because of his family background because both my wife and I are more or less effectively bilingual and our daughter has managed to get through the O' level Chinese without much problem. But after much effort and frustration, we tried to remove this mental block. With great regret, we had to advise him to drop the subject during the O' level examination in order that he could concentrate on other subjects as it was obvious that in no way he could obtain a pass in Chinese in the `O' level at that time when the Chinese syllabus was quite heavy, the teaching method very rigid and the examination process uncompromising.

But the greater consideration was that we had to ensure that he would not be unduly pressurised into doing something that would have an adverse effect on the progress of his other subjects. It has proven to be the right decision as after being released of the unnecessary pressure, he managed to obtain fairly good results in all his other subjects. Unfortunately, because of the lack of a pass in Chinese, he was unable to be admitted to a junior college. Until today, he still carries a certain amount of bitterness in him and an anger towards us. Because at that time, he just could not accept the unfairness of it all that some of his classmates were admitted into JC with 15 or 16 points, whereas a 8 pointer like him was refused admission and deprived of his chance of going into a local university, all because he could not master a subject which he considers of no apparent relevance to his future career. I must say that he was lucky because we were in a position to send him overseas to complete his higher education. He is now a qualified professional with a Masters degree in architecture.

I wonder how many less fortunate bright students have missed out the opportunity to further their education because of this. However, the twist of the whole story is that now my son has to go to China to do business. How he had wished that he has at least some basic working knowledge to build upon in acquiring a higher proficiency in the very important communication tool in order to help him in dealing with his counterparts in China. I am sure now he has a torrid time to make himself understood or to understand his counterparts in China when he is over there doing business. I suppose now he will have to find a way to re-immerse himself into the task of studying this very complex language. How? I do not know. Therefore, I think the latest move by the Ministry will definitely improve greatly the chance of us achieving our national objective, and at the same time, ensuring maximum opportunity in giving to each student to exploit his potential to the fullest according to his ability and pace of learning the Chinese language.

I would like to conclude by sounding a word of caution. One can have a perfectly correct policy and a very clear objective and even a well worked out system in reaching our goal, but without the correct implementation programme and a team of highly efficient teachers to carry out the task, all the effort and time spent in drawing up the blueprint will be wasted. The teaching of Chinese, more than any other subject, needs creativity and flexibility. How to sustain the interest in learning this very complex and difficult subject is a challenge in the Education administration and the teaching profession. I hope that with the latest improvements made, it will bring us nearer to our goal of achieving a truly bilingual education system that can carry us towards the next millennium.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, every time when we talk about the language issue, particularly the Chinese language, people will say it is a very sensitive issue.

Whenever we talk about revising the curriculum for the teaching of Chinese, the Chinese-educated would say that the Government is going to lower the standard of Chinese again. As for the English-educated parents, their concern is whether the standard of Chinese is too high for their children to pass. But after some 20 years of fine-tuning, some 80% to 90% of our students seem to be quite comfortable with the present standard of the Chinese language in our schools.

Just now, Dr Ow mentioned that in Chinese, we learn to talk, listen, write and read. But there are many Singaporeans who never studied Chinese in school. They may not speak Mandarin well, but they can certainly sing well in Chinese during karaoke sessions! Our MP for Potong Pasir, Mr Chiam See Tong who is a typical English-educated, may not speak Mandrain well, but we all know that he sings the famous Chinese song, Rong Shu Xia (Under the Banyan Tree) very well and raised a lot of funds in the process. To sing this song well, you need not only a lot of stamina but also a good understanding of the lyrics (in Chinese) in order that you may express your feelings in your singing.

So, on the whole, we have catered to the needs of the majority of Singaporeans. Perhaps many Singaporeans are still having difficulties learning Chinese and do not have the necessary breakthrough in their mentality. So this announcement by DPM is very timely. In other words, it will not only be able to cater for the majority of Singaporeans, but in fact, everyone in Singapore. Yet, many people are still worried that under the new policy CL `B' may result in the standard of the Chinese language being lowered once again. On the other hand, many Singaporeans are worried because more and more youngsters are speaking Mandarin. You hear people speaking Mandarin everywhere - in the buses, in shopping complexes, and even in the university campus. They fear that the standard of English may be lowered. This is characteristic of our Singapore society.

If you look around the other countries, lowering of the standard of languages is a universal problem. In China, the parents are complaining that their children are not learning Chinese well enough, while the English people are worried that their children do not speak good English. This is a general trend. When we go into the 21st century, what is the challenge for Singapore? We want to compete in the market. We want to compete for talents. We want to attract foreign talents.

Just now, a few Members have spoken about the emergence of China as a new economic power. The situations all over the world are different. We want to develop a Chinese elite, a Malay elite, a Tamil elite. We want talents. Whether they are the elites in the field of language or in the field of science and technology, we want these talents.

DPM Lee mentioned that we are going to have one more SAP school. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? I think it is a good thing, in terms of quantity and geographical distribution. We feel that the SAP school is a pillar for the Chinese community. I think we should not allow this pillar to lose its significance. Just now, DPM has said that some SAP schools are not doing well academically. This is a matter of great concern to the Chinese community. For those schools which are not doing well, they should ask the Board of Governors and their Old Boys Association to find some ways to bring up the standard, and ranking, of these schools, so that the Chinese community will not feel that they are losing this pillar.

Mr Speaker, Sir, within the last two to three decades, we have already evolved into a bilingual society. This is a good thing because in such an environment, we would be able to develop multi-lingualism. I think Singaporeans should help our fellow Singaporeans. We should support fellow Singaporeans so that everyone would be able to develop our own potentials. For those who may be weak in the language, we should find some ways to help them clear their obstacles, so that their future development will not be hampered.

I support the policy statement.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the mother tongue language policy.

I agree that the Singapore students have done very well. The more able ones who are good in Chinese should be encouraged to do Chinese. In other words, they should be given opportunities to study Higher Chinese at our SAP schools and at junior college, these students should be enrolled into the Language Elective Programme. They will then be able to continue to teach and promote our Chinese language and culture. Moreover, they should be able to conduct businesses in China with a knowledge of Chinese.

I have listened to Dr Ow Chin Hock and I think Mr Peh Chin Hua and also DPM and the words "Chinese elite" kept cropping up. In fact, we should avoid labelling such group as Chinese elite group. Being proficient in Chinese do not qualify them as elite Chinese. What do we call those Singaporeans later on who do CL `B'? For that matter, what type of Chinese am I? I am a Singapore born Chinese, educated in English, I speak Hokkien, Malay and a few words of Mandarin. I do not belong to this elitist group. So what type of Chinese am I? I therefore am not comfortable with the words "Chinese elite". I think it is a very divisive term and we should in fact do away with this term and just continue with what we intend to do, that is, to get able Chinese students to do Higher Chinese so that we can have a group of good Chinese educated Singaporeans to help us to teach our next generation of Chinese better and also to encourage our Singaporean Chinese who have to do business in China to do well. I think that should be it. I do not think we should use such words like "elitist" But when we make this call to improve Chinese teaching among our Chinese, I think we should also be aware that in a multi-racial country like Singapore, we must not give the non-Chinese the impression that we are doing it at their expense. Therefore, I agree with DPM that those Malay and Tamil students who do well should also be given equal opportunities to pursue their course of study in Tamil or Malay. If there should be sufficient numbers, like DPM said, we should actually form a class to take them in.

With regard to Singaporean English-educated Chinese whose children are not very good in Chinese, I welcome the DPM's call that we should have another syllabus, CL B'. But I also agree with some of the Members who have called for caution that we must not allow these English-educated Chinese to let their children do this softer option of CL B'. As an English-educated Chinese, I realise that I am at a terrible disadvantage. If I had not known Hokkien, I do not think I can harness the number of votes in Ayer Rajah. But that also is not a consolation. I would really encourage Singaporeans, especially the English-educated Singaporeans, to continue to strive hard to ask their children to do Mandarin well. Mr Simon Tay is an English-educated Chinese and, he, like me, would want our Singaporeans to continue to do Chinese as well as their English.

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the DPM's timely announcement on the change of the teaching of the second language in our schools. I support the proposal.

Sir, it has been nearly 20 years since this House last considered any major policy announcement which affected the teaching of the second language in our schools. If you will recall Sir, the then Education Minister Dr Goh Keng Swee and his team of systems engineers went about reviewing our strategies to streamline our efforts to bring about an efficient and effective education policy for the country. While the Goh Report brought about many changes, the one major impact which left a deep impression in our schools relates to streaming and the teaching of the second language. The report had laid the foundation today for the teaching of the second language at the two levels as we know it.

Underlying the report is the assumption that students must know their mother tongue to preserve their cultural roots. The fear, as I understand then, was that we did not want our society to become a loose limb calypso society speaking a pidgin form of Chinese, Tamil or Malay and without any real cultural link to the countries of origin. Certainly, we did not want to be a West Indies of the East. However, because we appreciated the different learning abilities of our students, we allowed them to learn the second language according to their ability. The objective then was to let the children know enough of their second language so that they should be able to read a newspaper published in the second language. Indeed, the object was ambitious, to say the least.

Twenty years on, and I am glad to note that the Minister has announced that the Government intends to change some of the existing policies relating to the teaching of the second language. After 20 years, I would say that the review is timely as we would have had sufficient experience from our implementation of the second language policy to fine tune its application.

How have we fared thus far? Overall, I believe that had we not embarked on the policy of learning the second language, a whole generation of school children would have lost the opportunity to imbibe the inherent cultural values that came with the mother tongue. Indeed, it is my observation that we have been so successful at the teaching of the second language that in the case of Chinese we have wide acceptance and use of the second language among Singaporeans today. In fact, we find more students using Mandarin as the lingua franca in schools and in the universities. Even in schools which traditionally used English as the spoken language, Mandarin is increasingly being spoken freely. Among the HDB heartlanders, Mandarin is often used as a main language of communication. I know because when I go on my house visits, I find myself using Mandarin to communicate with my residents more than I use English.

While we may have achieved some degree of success in getting the second language across to the students, we have to ask ourselves, as indeed we are now asking ourselves, the price which we have to pay in order to get there. For many students, especially those whose parents speak Mandarin at home, the learning of the second language does not appear to be a problem. You see, exposure to a bilingual education is not evenly placed. The student has, in the case of one who comes from a Mandarin-speaking background, every opportunity to learn a second language at home and to brush up his English in school. For this child, learning Chinese, as our DPM has said, is merely a matter of formalising what he already learns at home.

On the other hand, a child coming from an English-speaking environment suffers the distinct disadvantage of treating Chinese as a new language, a language that is perhaps no different than if you were to take up Tamil or Thai. To him, the Chinese language may be a totally new language and his exposure to the language may be confined to just what has been taught in the classroom. Unless the child has the discipline and makes a conscious effort to retain and to practise the language in order to master it, and I can assure you, Sir, for a hyperactive 10-year old is almost an impossible undertaking, he will not be able to master Chinese as well as his classmates from a Mandarin-speaking environment is able to master his English. In other words, the child from an English-speaking environment operates under a real handicap when it comes to learning of the Chinese language. This is not helped by the fact that the Chinese language is one of the most difficult languages to master. After all, the Chinese ideogram requires more rote learning than romanised languages, like the English language.

Sir, Singapore, as it is, is already a very competitive society. Our values reflect the virtues of meritocracy and equality. Education has long since been recognised as a principal means by which social mobility and success is attained. For many Singaporeans, being a parent of a child winning a President's scholarship and succeeding through his own sheer effort and talent afterwards in life is a natural thing to wish for. Because of the emphasis on excellence in education, schooling becomes an extremely competitive undertaking for most students and parents. Many parents will be anxious to put their children nearer the top of education success, and would logically not spare any effort to ensure that their children do not suffer from any disadvantage. This includes ensuring that the relative disadvantage that comes from learning Chinese as a second language is overcome. This may be attempted through tuition and remedial classes in Chinese. For many, this may be a desperate act as the small difference in marks can well mean a great difference in ranking in class and in school. Such is the extent of the competition in our schools today. This concern is certainly not helped by the fact that Chinese and English as language subjects carry the same weightage. So for a child struggling with his Chinese, attaining a mere pass for his Chinese, will inevitably pull down his overall average marks, even if he is good in his other subjects. I am told that this is the case with many ACS boys. The sad truth is that these boys, while they may have done well in the other subjects, have their overall average marks pulled down because of the Chinese language. As a result, they do not qualify for ACS (Independent) which is widely seen as a better school but have to settle for ACS at Barker Road.

Many students know this and in order that they do not suffer from the fate of a lower average because of Chinese, parents and students invariably spend an inordinate amount of time learning the language, and often times at the expense of the other more useful and fruitful pursuits. In other words, the students do not have a life as a result; and for many parents, this is an additional contribution to stressful living in Singapore.

The emphasis on the second language also means that students may have less time for the other subjects, particularly the English language. Sir, I have heard many times the comment that the quality of the written and spoken English among younger Singaporeans today has dropped. In fact, in terms of the technical command of the language, the younger Singaporeans on average do not seem to have as adequate a grasp of the English language as those who had gone to school perhaps 10 years earlier.

We need to learn our mother tongue in order that we can preserve our roots and our values. As it is, our present policy is fundamentally sound. Requiring our students to learn the mother tongue has the effect of achieving our principal objectives. The effort that some of our children have to go through seems tremendous. One might ask whether a sledgehammer has been employed to kill an ant. It is right that we should now stand back and ask ourselves whether this policy should stand and whether it should not be refined further.

Sir, in reviewing the teaching of our second language and our language policy, in particular, we should ask ourselves the basic question of what we want our society to be in the next millennium. I think we have to accept the fact that we can never replicate, in the case of the teaching of Chinese as a second language, the full extent of Chinese civilisation and culture in Singapore for posterity, and should we?

We are an independent country. Our people may have come from many lands. Whether we are here by choice or by circumstance, we have to decide on our own common destiny. We have to build a multi-racial nation that is uniquely and distinctly Singapore. While we may each retain our distinct ethnic grouping, there is an overarching need to subordinate this to the higher need of forging common bonds among the different races, which transcend ethnic ties. Our language policy must therefore serve that purpose.

In our case, we need to understand that our cultural values are evolving all the time. As a fourth generation Chinese in Singapore, I am proud of my Chinese heritage and culture. I went to an English school and learnt Chinese as a second language, although I cannot say I am very good at it. Yet, as a fourth generation Chinese in Singapore, I cannot say that I am as much a Chinese as my fellow Chinese in China, Taiwan or Hong Kong are. I am not sure whether I want to be. While we make every effort to preserve our heritage with our children, we cannot fight against the tide of change, especially when we are cut off from our roots. I wonder sometimes whether practices like the mid-Autumn festival, wherein we tell our children that in China this is a time when the harvest is gathered, will continue to have the same significance for us three generations or four generations down the road.

Language must serve the purpose of nation building. There are inherent values which we should seek to promote that will preserve our East Asian way of life. These include, for instance, our communitarian values, respect for authority and care and concern for the family. These values may be distilled from the language and be imparted to our children. Through the teaching of the second language in our schools, these values are reinforced and in the process help to promote our nation building efforts. Therefore, not just the case of the teaching of the Chinese language alone, the teaching of the other mother tongues such as Malay and Tamil in our schools should work towards the goal of building and reinforcing our common national values.

If we should preserve our Chinese values and roots for its own sake, we may run into the danger of raising language chauvinists. This will not be in our national interest. Therefore, in looking at the issue of the teaching of the Chinese language, we should look at it from the context and the purpose which it intends to serve. We should accept the basic proposition that our second language should seek to reinforce our nation building efforts and incidental to that, to preserve our cultural heritage while recognising that our heritage will continue to evolve in a way that makes it uniquely Singaporean. For this reason, the changes to our policy on the teaching of Chinese as a second language is welcome and I support it.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.50 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.25 pm until 3.50 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm