CHINESE LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS

Debate resumed.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will speak in Bahasa Melayu. But before that, I beg your indulgence to say: (In Mandarin) Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much for allowing me to use Malay to speak here today.

It is definitely not CL3 in pronunciation. But I hope you understand the spirit behind that introduction.

(In Malay) To those who do not understand Mandarin, what I have said just now is "Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to speak in the Malay Language".

This is the uniqueness of a multi-lingual, multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore. Unfortunately, I could not speak the Tamil Language, another official language of Singapore, but the concern that I want to highlight now is also relevant to the Indian community here. However, allow me to say "Wannakam" to complete the spirit of our multi-lingual Singapore.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak not on the aspect of the details of the policy that was put forward by DPM BG Lee but on the spirit behind that policy, especially in the context of the concept of multi-racialism in Singapore.

Not long ago, when the Speak Mandarin Campaign was hotly talked about, I had the opportunity of attending a forum (in English) about multi-racialism in Singapore. On that occasion, a Chinese activist asked me why was the Malay community concerned about the Speak Mandarin Campaign. It is not my purpose here to comment about the question of the Mandarin Campaign, but what the Chinese leader told me is most interesting. He said those from the Chinese stream supported the efforts of the Malays to improve the use of the Malay language, and the Malays should also not harbour any suspicion about the Mandarin Campaign. He further added that those who were from the Chinese stream are in the same predicament as the Malay community, especially the Malay-educated. We are both minorities in Singapore, he said. He supports the campaign to promote the Malay language and the Malays should also support the Speak Mandarin campaign, he said.

I support the Speak Mandarin Campaign for the Chinese community. In fact, for me, if there were Malays who can speak Mandarin fluently, it is an advantage -- an asset for them. But I am confident that it will be done without that Malay man losing his mother tongue and his identity, ie, the Malay language. Obviously, my support is not because I am defending what was said as the fate of these two minority groups.

If we look around in this region, the majority-minority situation is actually subjective. The Chinese community is the majority in Singapore, but they are a minority in this region. The Malay community, on the other hand, is a minority group in Singapore, but they are a majority in this region. Nevertheless, if we look at Singapore in the context of Southeast Asia and East Asia, the Chinese are a big majority if China is taken into account.

What is important, Mr Speaker, is that we should see this aspect of learning of language according to the needs of Singapore. We should have an open mind and be pragmatic. In understanding the approach needed for our language policy, whether in school or generally, avoid sentiments. For example, although the Malay community is concerned about the erosion of the command of the Malay language among the younger generation and Malay students, it did not get the Malays worked on the sentiments of the question of language. The Malay community understands the importance of English for the students.

In fact, the Malay community had taken the initiative to ask the Government to restrict the registration of Malay students in schools up to a maximum of 25%, in order to allow the Malay students to mix with students from other communities so that they can improve their command of the English Language.

When the issue of SAP schools was debated, the concern of the Malay community was not to arouse the sentiment of awry but rather the anxiety as to whether the students in SAP schools will be conscious of the concept of multi-racialism, if they were to be cut-off from the mainstream of the ordinary schools. When the number of PSLE students who were allowed to take ML1 was limited to 10% of the best, the Malay community and their leaders appealed for this figure to be increased. This is because the community felt that the home environment and the ease that the Malays have with the Malay language will help more Malays to master ML1.

The MOE, though concerned about the effect of this change on the overall performance of the students, had moderated the policy on a case-by-case basis.

The question of language education and its deciding factors are not necessarily the same for all the communities in Singapore. If it was felt that the Malay community had better home support than the Chinese or Tamil community with regard to their mother tongue, the situation has also begun to change. Now there are more Malay families using English at home.

For that, Mr Speaker, I value the Government's decision to revise the question of language for all the languages from time to time and to make changes, when necessary. Besides, I also hope that the review made for the learning of Mandarin and the ancillary changes of entry policy for admitting students to JC and university will not place the Malay and Tamil Language students at a disadvantage. This also needs to be reviewed from time to time. If it was to bring about inequitable consequences, it would affect the credibility of the policy of multi-racialism in Singapore.

I support the need for us to facilitate the development of the cultural elite for the Chinese community, and similarly for the Malay and Indian cultural elites. The important thing is that it is carried out with the full understanding to strengthen the basis and the pillar of multi-racialism policy in Singapore.

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in his speech, DPM Lee clearly explained the policy on the teaching of Chinese language in future and the changes involved. He wants more students to take up Higher Chinese and to facilitate that, one more school will become a SAP school, and another junior college will offer Chinese Language Elective Programme. At the same time, he is also trying to reduce the burden on those students who have difficulty in learning Chinese, by making Chinese lessons more streamlined and less difficult while maintaining the standard. For those who are having difficulty coping with CL2, they will be offered a CL `B' course so that they will be able to get through this less difficult paper and proceed to junior college and university, that is, if their results in the other subjects are good.

I think these proposals are very timely because basically, it makes a very important educational objective, that is, to allow the students to learn according to their ability by giving them an option to take a lower-level Chinese paper, so as not to frustrate their efforts in the other subjects. I think this is a very correct decision.

The introduction of CL `B' is very timely and wise. At the moment, some students may be doing reasonably well in other subjects but, for some reasons, just cannot cope with the learning of Chinese. We recognise that the ability to learn the mother tongue language may differ from the aptitude for other subjects. We also understand that it is never easy to learn the Chinese language. For that matter, the language environment is very important for the learning of any language. As we all know, Chinese language is composed of words or characters put together. Every character is an ideograph. So we just have to memorize them, character by character. You have to keep on using these characters repeatedly so that they become embedded in your memory. Only then can you master the use of the Chinese language. If certain words are not used for a long time, out of sight out of mind, they will soon be forgotten. When my children were learning Chinese in school, they have to revise the lessons they learnt in Primary 2 when they were in Primary 3, and Primary 3 lessons at Primary 4, and so on. If they do not do this, they will not be able to build on the word bank they have accumulated in the past years and continue learning new words to add on to their vocabulary.

I know this because I came from a Chinese school and I am speaking from my own personal experience. In 1968, I left River Valley High School and joined the university where everything was taught in English. After my graduation, I worked in a completely English-speaking environment. In 1988, I became a Member of Parliament and I had to use Chinese to communicate with my constituents. I had to speak in Chinese and write in Chinese. It was then that I realised that a lot of Chinese words which I had learnt had been forgotten. When I tried to write Chinese, out of 10 words, I had forgotten at least two. Even today, I am still using the wrong words or writing with the wrong strokes. I think those of us here who have learned Chinese as the first language will also have this similar experience. Students in Singapore come from various language-speaking backgrounds. For those whose parents speak Mandarin, live in a Mandarin-speaking neighbourhood watching Channel 8 and listening to radio programmes on FM95.8, they have a perfect Mandarin-speaking environment. To these students, speaking and listening to Mandarin is of no problem. If you want to talk about the standard and level they would have attained, I think they should have attained the CL1 level. To them, the environment is conducive to their learning of Chinese.

On the other hand, with more and more young parents speaking English at home, the language spoken at home is naturally English. They speak English in school, and when they go out with friends, their friends would be speaking to them in English too. When they turn on the TV, it is Channel 5 that they go for. On radio, it is 95.0 - English channels too! To these students, the opportunity to speak Mandarin or use Chinese is very rare. In other words, they do not have the right environment to learn Mandarin.

According to the survey report, some 10 years ago, among the Primary 1 students, only 20% of their parents spoke English at home. Right now, 10 years later, the number is 40%. It has doubled. The family language background in Singapore has changed. More and more children are coming from non-Mandarin speaking family background. In fact, it has doubled in a decade. As I said, those who come from Chinese-speaking families will not have much difficulty learning Chinese. As for those whose family background is not Chinese-speaking, they will find learning Chinese more difficult. More often than not, they have to spend more time on Chinese than on the other subjects, and yet the result in CL is not satisfactory. Some even give up Chinese completely.

With the introduction of CL B', these students will have an opportunity to tackle Chinese at a basic level which is more attainable by them. They do not have to give up Chinese completely and be disqualified for admission to the JCs or the university. Some people may say that the number of such cases is small. But if you look at the statistics, more and more students are coming under this category. 40% of students in a cohort is certainly not a small number in absolute terms. It is by no means negligible. So the CL B' can be said to be targeting at this reality, as a practical solution to reduce the number of students opting out of the learning of Chinese. In other words, the parents of such students will have a mental relief. They do not have to worry about their children failing to secure a pass in CL2 and a place in the junior college. So this approach is a very good solution to cater for the changes in family language background in the future.

On Chinese as a second language, according to my understanding, even students who have the aptitude to learn CL2 have to spend more time on the subject than on the other subjects. If this is the case, then something must be wrong in the curriculum of the CL subject. Perhaps, the standard of CL2 is higher than necessary.

I am glad to hear DPM Lee saying that the level of difficulty of the Chinese textbooks will be reduced. After revision, the new textbooks to be published will be less difficult to learn and understand. I think this is a right thing to do. More importantly, if you look at the present textbooks, we must take into consideration the amount of time spent by the students in learning and understanding them. I think it is a very important factor. If the time spent is much more than the time spent on the other subjects, or out of proportion, then we have to consider whether we should make the new textbooks easier to understand, so that the average students will be spared the agony of labouring over them

Just now, it was mentioned to extend the shen guang jiao cai ( ) textbook currently used by the SEED schools to other schools. On the question of quality and quantity, they are all very high. If we were to introduce the shen guang jiao cai ( ) or enrichment materials to the non-SEED schools, or the neighbourhood schools, then we are going to run into big problems. It will most certainly increase the burden of the students. Once the burden is increased, those who could previously manage to just scrape through, will now find a pass in Chinese beyond their reach. We frequently talk about teaching according to the ability of the students, so these enrichment materials should be used very selectively. Only those who are outstanding in their learning of Chinese shall be asked to take on these enrichment materials.

On the other hand, there is a lot of pressure from the Chinese community on the Ministry of Education to raise the standard of Chinese in our schools. They will be very unhappy if the Ministry of Education does not or could not do something about it Among my friends, there are quite a number of graduates from the former Nanyang University or universities in Taiwan. Their command of Chinese is generally stronger than that of English. These people are always very critical of the standard of Chinese in Singapore. They often complain about bad pronunciation by the broadcasters, wrong or misused words in the Chinese newspapers, and students, undergraduates and even graduates being unable to express themselves properly in Chinese. They often lament the decline in the standard of Chinese in Singapore.

In my view, the level or standard of languages is relative. It is not fair for us to complain that the standard of Chinese in Singapore is not as good as the Chinese of China, Taiwan or even Hong Kong. It is not realistic for us to demand that we reach the same standard of these people, because Chinese is their working language. They speak and write Chinese at home, in school, at work and for every purpose. This is their natural environment. For us, even if we have a distinction in Higher Chinese, at first language level, LEP or whatever, we still cannot look at Chinese as our working language. Whatever it may be, the level of Chinese of those students that we are training, the so-called Chinese elite, will never be the same as that of Chinese students in the Chinese schools of the old days. This is a fact, and a reality. Once you understand the reality, you should not be over critical of our system. I think it would not be realistic to do so. I hope the Ministry of Education can resist the pressure to blindly raise the standard of teaching of Chinese in our schools, especially in the Language Elective Programme (LEP). We must allow our students to learn at a pace commensurate with their individual ability to learn. Only those who are competent and have the right aptitude to take on Higher Chinese shall be subjected to a higher standard of Chinese in school.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in strong support of the policies contained in the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister.

I speak as one who has had very little opportunity during my school days in the distant past of learning Chinese. I do remember my Chinese teacher. His primary contract was as a physical education instructor and he was more comfortable in the playing field than in the classroom. His method of teaching Chinese was to get us all to learn the names of each other in written Chinese and then he would set an examination in multiple choice. The questions would have one right answer and the rest he would put down our names so that if we figure out that we knew each other's names, we would be able to pass, even though we did not know what the question actually asked for.

Brought up in this second English-speaking environment, I was never encouraged to take the learning of Chinese seriously. It was no secret that if one were to do well in English, one could have many more opportunities for success. Imbuing Chinese culture and language was regarded as secondary and left to grandparents entirely in dialect. I hasten to add by the way that of course the school I was speaking of is not a Singaporean school. It is so different these days. Given the chance to study Chinese in school, students, including my children, have enjoyed the opportunity to study Chinese in a systematic way. The study of language opens new vistas of experience and knowledge. I confess to feeling extremely inadequate, as some of the other MPs have said, when I have to read Chinese literature and history through English translation, even worse, Chinese poetry translated into English.

Thus, I should like to make my first point, not to Members here but to all students who have been given a chance to study their mother tongue: do not treat that as a chore as any other subject. It is a golden opportunity to understand one's own culture, to participate in it, to live in it. All too often, students think that they need not do well in the language as it does not count. It may not count for so much in terms of points but it does count for a great deal subsequently in life. Now that those who find great difficulty in learning the language have been given a chance to still continue to learn it through CL `B', I would certainly say that that should be warmly welcomed. I know parents who have had to send children overseas to study because Chinese, as it is taught in Singapore, had proved daunting for them. Now, these parents may be persuaded to let their children take the new course without fear. I assume that those Singaporeans whose students are studying abroad may also feel more confident and may allow their children to return to Singapore to take the less difficult option.

This brings me to some issues that I am sure parents may want to know about and quickly. First, how much easier is the CL B' option likely to be as compared to, say, CL2? Second, will all schools offer the CL B' option? Third, will there be an opportunity to upgrade to CL2 if the students do extremely well at CL B'? Fourth, the converse of the third query, how will the school deal with students who choose CL B' instead of CL2 deliberately, even though he or she may be able to cope with CL2? For instance, a student might say, "I can only get a pass grade in CL2 but I may do very well in CL B'. So I prefer to do that." Is this practice acceptable or to be discouraged? Here, another matter of concern is the teaching of CL B'. Are the teachers to be specially trained to appreciate that they may be dealing with a class that has difficulties in coping with the Chinese language? Will the materials also reflect this? Can the Ministry of Education cope with the additional demands for language teachers?

Finally, I should like to say that there may be those who feel that this CL B' is a watered-down version of the language requirements and therefore to be deplored. I prefer to look upon this positively and say to those who take such a view: consider how many more students would now have the chance to learn and use Chinese. I would say that the CL B' is a strong plus policy to be warmly welcome.

Sir, I support the statement.

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Bukit Gombak): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the policy statement by the Deputy Prime Minister. But on his new proposals, I would like to present some of my views.

First of all, our bilingual policy. Singapore is a multi-lingual, multi-racial society. The Government has encouraged the various races to maintain their traditional values and to have a better sense of belonging. In 1966, the Government implemented the bilingual system in our schools. Everybody must study English as the first language, with mother tongue as the second language. For the Chinese, they have to study CL2, the Malay would do ML2, while the Indians do TL2. This bilingual policy has been implemented for 32 years. We have cultivated many bilingual talents, and with good results. Now every one in school can speak two languages. This is good not only for understanding both the western and oriental cultures, but also for better communication with our friends from other countries. This helps in our nation building. I feel that the Government should enhance our bilingual policy and give a better affirmation for the results that we have achieved over the years.

Secondly, the standards of Chinese language in school. According to statistics of the Ministry of Education, 98% of ethnic Chinese students did Chinese either as HCL or CL in secondary schools, and 95% obtained at least a pass for it. Among them, 71% had A1 or A2. In other words, among the students who did Chinese, only 5% failed to secure at least a pass. This result is encouraging and we would like to thank all our Chinese language teachers for their efforts which resulted in such good results.

Yesterday was Hari Raya Aidilfiltri. I visited a Malay grassroots leader's home where I met a group of school teachers, among whom were a number of Chinese teachers. They knew that Parliament would be discussing a new policy on the teaching and learning of Chinese, and showed great concern about it. I had a discussion with them for about half an hour. In our conversation, I gathered that these teachers had realised that nowadays, with most parents speaking in English, it is not easy for them to teach their students to speak good Chinese. The students have to spend double the time to learn the language, and the teachers have to take twice the amount of time to prepare their lessons. They have not only to teach the language but also to make sure that the students would be able to understand and to put to use what they have learnt. These teachers have been working very hard. They deserve our respect. Now, because of these 5% of the students who are unable to pass their CL2, MOE is introducing a new subject, CL `B', so that the students could continue learning Chinese, albeit at a lower level, without fearing that they may not make the grade, and hence denied a place in the junior college and the university. If MOE's intention is to help these 5% students who have difficulty in studying Chinese and to help them so that they would not give up Chinese completely and face elimination from the mainstream of education, I think it is a good thing. It is a move in the right direction and this is a feasible policy.

However, we must ensure that those who have the ability to carry on doing CL or even HCL do not take the easy way out by opting for CL B' in place of CL. This is because, if they do so, it will lower our standard of Chinese and will run contrary to our Prime Minister's appeal to nurture our Chinese elite. We should let the Chinese teachers be the assessors or form a special committee to decide which students should be downgraded to CL B' and who should remain in CL2. I also suggest that in the initial stages, MOE should take this 5% as the target group, because from present statistics, only 5% could not pass their CL2. At the same time, I would suggest that those who do CL `B' and show marked improvement in their standard of Chinese, they should be allowed to go back to CL. In fact, they should be encouraged to do so. Only then can we enhance, or at least maintain, the standard of Chinese in school.

Thirdly, we must groom a group of elite Chinese teachers. In the National Day Rally in 1997, the Prime Minister mentioned that with English being used as the medium of instruction in all our schools, there might come a time in, say, 20 years from now, when we will have no good Chinese scholars to teach Chinese, and this will be a major problem to our preservation of Chinese traditional culture. We should cultivate a group of elite Chinese teachers who would be charged with the responsibility of maintaining our Chinese traditional culture. In order to cultivate a Chinese elite, we must have a group of elite Chinese teachers. If we want to have good martial art exponents, we must have good gungfu masters. If you want to have good athletes, we need to have good coaches. Without them, our skills will never improve.

In the early days, we had the Nanyang University where many good quality Chinese teachers were trained and they formed the core of Chinese teachers. But nowadays, we do not have a Nanyang University to cultivate these Chinese teachers. So 10 or 20 years down the road, are we able to train up a group of elite Chinese teachers in order to train up this group of Chinese elite students? So this may be the appropriate time for us to consider opening a Chinese university to cater for the needs of the 21st century. To learn traditional values and to have a sense of belonging, by just taking a Chinese subject is not enough. If we want to learn the Chinese traditional values and sense of belonging, we have to study from all aspects, like History, Geography, Economics, Literature, Arts so that we can have a comprehensive view of the Chinese culture. Only then can we be able to inculcate in our students the traditional Chinese culture, Chinese values and a sense of belonging. This is a critical moment. I suggest that we cultivate a group of elite Chinese students who are not only proficient in the Chinese language but also good in the other subjects, to be trained as Chinese language teachers so that later on when they teach Chinese, they can introduce a variety of subject matters relevant to our modern world during the Chinese lessons.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Marine Parade): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, having listened carefully to the policy statement by DPM Lee, I feel that the proposed policy to change some aspects of the teaching of Chinese in Singapore schools is a very balanced one. On the one hand, it tries to strengthen the nurturing of a Chinese elite, by opening one more SAP school and by providing more opportunities for Chinese students to take on Higher Chinese (HCL). On the other hand, it also tries to look after the very small minority of students who have difficulties in learning Chinese, even as a second language. A new CL `B' course will be offered to them. This is a very realistic approach. The whole series of new measures can be said to be a flexible and comprehensive approach which is in keeping with the principle of teaching according to the student's ability.

Sir, we have been implementing the bilingual policy for some 30 years. I have been working as a journalist in the Chinese newspapers for more than 20 years. I have on-hand experience in the implementation of this policy, and also some experience in the use of computers.

The human brain is not unlike the computer, which the Chinese described as dian nao (electronic brain). When I was first asked to use the Chinese word-processing software, my computer was a 386, which was basically meant for software in the English language only. At that time the Chinese software was just still in its infancy stage of development. Because the nature of our work in the Chinese newspaper office required us to use Chinese word-processing technology, we were told to install the Chinese software into our English-environment computers. Disaster struck. The 386 did not have enough memory and capability to support the additional Chinese software. The computer "hanged" all the time.

The same goes with the human brain. Just like the `electronic brain', the absorption power, retention power and the power to accommodate data and operations differ from person to person. Some people are born 286s or 386s. But some are born 486s, and the exception ones may be born Pentiums. Some of us may be able to say, "I am proficient in one language and have some working knowledge of another language. But nobody can truthfully swear that he or she is perfectly bilingual. No one dares to lay claim to that. This is because we are constrained by our endowed capability, our learning capacity.

The maximum capacity of the hardware of a computer is finite and fixed, while its software may have certain operational capacity. These two factors together constrain its application. The same applies to the human brain. If you want to insist on one model of language policy for all students and fix a uniform standard for all, it will not work. After implementing our bilingual policy for some three decades, we have learnt to be flexible and sensitive to the different capacities of the students. This is to reduce the attrition rate in our education system because if the policy is too rigid, certain people will be sacrificed. With this new policy, I believe we will be able to encourage all students to learn their mother tongue according to their aptitude and ability. This is the advantage of this new policy.

A good policy is one that is realistic and capable of adapting to the different situations. At the same time, I would like to point out that the Government must adopt a more positive approach to ensure that our society will not suffer in the long run. In other words, our bilingual policy will be able to continue unshaken for a long time to come. From the policy statement of DPM Lee, it is noted that the Government has already paid attention to the fact that a small group of students have difficulty in learning Chinese.

On the other hand, it is noteworthy that more and more Chinese families are switching to English as the language spoken at home, unlike in the past when dialects or Mandarin was predominant. In other words, for children born into such families, their mother tongue is English and not Mandarin or any of the Chinese dialects. The emergence of such a situation has a very serious effect on our language policy. It is a great challenge to us. It will possibly give rise to the following situations:

(1) Parents of English-speaking families, because of their prejudice against the Chinese language, will resist it.

(2) Parents themselves realise the importance of their children learning Chinese. Subjectively, they hope that their children will learn and master the Chinese language. But the students themselves encounter difficulties in the process of learning Chinese in school. There is a sort of psychological pressure on the parents. The parents will then turn the pressure on the Government to lighten their children's burden on the study of Chinese language.

I am worried about the second situation because children from the purely English-speaking families tend to find learning Chinese more difficult because they have to start from zero, unlike those who come from Chinese-speaking families who must certainly enjoy a head-start. In these circumstances, does it mean that the bilingual education policy will one day face such great pressure from the anxious English-speaking parents that the Government will be forced to lower the standard of Chinese in school. Even at this present moment when we are having an established bilingual education policy in place, we are finding the grounds more and more difficult to defend. In future, we may even succumb to pressure and go into a monolingual society. I believe we do not like to see such a situation arising.

Now we are introducing CL B' for students who have difficulty in learning Chinese. According to the present estimate, the number of such students is not significant. But, with the transformation of the language background of the younger families, the number of such students is bound to increase in future, that is to say, there may be more and more students opting for CL B' in future. If this happens, we can foresee that by that time, these students and their parents will be putting pressure on the Ministry of Education to recognise the result of CL B' at O' level examination for admission to the junior college, and at `A' level examination for university matriculation. I certainly do not wish to see this situation arising. However, we must be psychologically prepared for such a situation to arise in the future. In the interest of our nation, apart from taking preventive measures, we must also take positive and proactive measures to strengthen the overall environment for the development of bilingualism in our society. In other word, we must continue to insist on making Mandarin work in our society.

Some people say we have been very successful in our Speak Mandarin campaign. I do not think so. I think the future challenge is even greater, especially in the Chinese community. The promotion of Mandarin-speaking is still a very big task to accomplish. The Chinese community should recognise the transformation of language background of the ethnic Chinese families in Singapore. The Chinese community should put in more efforts to promote the use of Mandarin in our society. Chinese should not be treated merely as a subject to be learnt in school. It should be promoted as a useful tool of communication in our society. It is only then that we will be able to effectively preserve our bilingual education policy. It is in the long-term interest of our country that the bilingual education policy be maintained.

Sir, I support the policy statement.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): (In Mandarin): Sir, I have three regrets. The first regret is that we have to debate such an important issue in Parliament without due notice in advance. There are so much materials for us to absorb and analyse, yet these materials were distributed to us only when DPM Lee was making his speech in Parliament. We have no time to digest all these materials.

Secondly, I heard Mr Kenneth Chen talking about his son who was denied a place in our local university because he could not pass his CL2, and had to send him overseas to get his degree. In my generation, many of my classmates could not gain admission to university because their English was no good, and they did not have the means to go overseas for further study. This is my second regret.

Thirdly, we need to bring this issue on the standard and learning of Chinese in our schools to this House for discussion. I have never heard of the Japanese complaining about their children having problems coping with the Japanese language in school, or the children in Germany having difficulty coping with the learning of their own language. I think the Chinese in Singapore should ponder over this question: why does this problem arise at all? Perhaps our situation is unique. This is something that we need to think about seriously.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the language policy is a very important policy of the nation. It is not just a superficial policy that involves just the application of a language in our education system. It actually involves our people's ability of expression, their upbringing, and the differences in our values. What is the direction in which our language policy is heading? Shall we use Chinese as a mainstream language or English as a mainstream language, or any other language as a mainstream language? Of course, the value will become the mainstream value of our society. So the direction we take will eventually decide what type of society we will develop into. So I feel that the language policy is not just an education policy. It is a national policy of great importance.

In Singapore, we have been implementing the so-called bilingual education system for the past few decades. The question is: what is the definition of a bilingual system? In the old days, students in the Chinese schools used Chinese as a first language and English as a second language. For those in the English language schools, English was the first language and Chinese was promoted as one of the second languages or not promoted at all. Now we do not have the so-called "Chinese stream" or "English stream". The first language is English and apart from those taking Higher Chinese, mother tongue is basically a second language. So, is our so-called bilingual education a misnomer? It gives people the misconception that we are bilingual. But, in fact, the levels of our languages are vastly lopsided. So we should not call it a bilingual system. It should be more appropriately known as a mother tongue system where Malay, Tamil or Chinese is a second language. Actually, what we should be concerned with is the effect of the introduction of CL `B' on the future development of our society.

I am more worried about the ability of expression of our people. For English-speaking people, they may not be able to speak Chinese because their standard of Chinese is no good. But most of the time, they will be able to absorb the essence of the English language. They will be able to express themselves fairly well in English. But, on the other hand, for those who come from Chinese-speaking families, they cannot speak English well, and because of the second language system in our school, their standard of Chinese is also not good enough for them to express themselves well. So it results in neither here nor there. In the end, their Chinese is no good and their English is also no good. From the younger generation that I know, I have already noticed that this problem is very serious. In their conversation, they mix Chinese with English. They are unable to speak and express eloquently in one language. This is something that we should be worried about.

With regard to the standard of Chinese language, first of all, the Government has to decide what is the bottomline for its desired level of the Chinese language. Is the bottomline such that Chinese, being one of the official languages in Singapore, will continue to be used in Singapore or do you want to promote Chinese as a gateway to understanding Chinese culture or to use it as a means to train the so-called Chinese elite? I think the different purposes will decide what will be the appropriate standard of Chinese language we want to have. If Chinese is just to be regarded as an official language so that it could continue to be used in Singapore, then very simply, a lower standard would suffice to serve the Government's policy. As long as you can speak and understand it, that is enough.

But if you want to use Chinese as a means to enhance our understanding of the Chinese culture, what standard do you need? If you want to cultivate a Chinese elite, what would be the appropriate standard we must achieve? If we want to train a Chinese elite, do we not want to have more ethnic Chinese students attaining a certain level of proficiency in their Chinese, or just a handful of elite who can attain a higher level of Chinese language proficiency? I think the Government should look into it, because different people may have different needs. If you say you require our students to learn only up to primary school level or, say, 1,000 words, then so be it. But let everybody be very clear about it. Let us know what is the bottomline, what is the requirement. On the other hand, for those who are very keen to learn the Chinese language, let them know the limits that can be offered in our schools, so that they will not have false hope. The Chinese language teachers will also have a good idea of the standard they must achieve.

Another problem is, like what Mr Goh Choon Kang has said just now, the proposed CL B'. There would be some inherent problems that come with the introduction of CL B'. Would this be a new standard of requirement of the Government? Would this bottomline be further lowered because of pressure from certain quarters? If we look at the background of the students, they have this problem because they come from an English-speaking family. This is something that is inevitable, but it is a vicious cycle. Now, just because these students come from such a background, we provide a lower level CL B' to suit them. Eventually, it would come a time when there are more and more students opting to go into CL B'. Later on in life, when these students get married, have children of their own, the language of communication will again be English, and more and more families will be speaking English. So this becomes a vicious cycle.

According to the survey report, when the students grow older, their interest in learning Chinese becomes more and more minimal. In Primary 2, 51.3% of students say they like Chinese very much. But when it comes to junior college, only 5% of students are very interested in Chinese. Why is there such a situation? I think we should look into this matter from liking, very fond of the language, until a point where they do not like the language, or even hate the language. We should find out what is the reason for this. If we want to cultivate a so-called Chinese elite or to enhance the standard of Chinese, it is not only just to speak Chinese but to attain such a standard where you will be able to read, understand and analyse some articles in Chinese. Teaching Chinese as a subsidiary subject in school is just not enough.

The Government should consider having some other examination subjects, eg, history or literature, being taught in Chinese, and examined in Chinese. Through the learning of these subjects in Chinese, those students who are interested in Chinese would be able to attain a certain standard in the language that will enable them to read Chinese as a major subject in the university.

Generally speaking, the crux of the matter is, basically, people who have very little contact with Chinese will have great difficulty learning it. I must admit that Chinese is not an easy language to learn because it is a very different system from English and the other western languages. The Chinese word, or character, is an ideograph, unlike romanised spelling like in English. Chinese is more difficult to learn, but then we should not emphasise on the economic value of Chinese all the time. I think we should ask ourselves this question: As an ethnic Chinese, should I not know Chinese? This is a basic question. It is not a question of whether it has any economic value or not. The correct attitude should be: I need to, at least, have a basic understanding, a basic level of competence, in handling the language. I think the question of level, how to adjust, to fine-tune and to adapt to the needs of the students from the different backgrounds, is secondary. Most importantly, we must cultivate the correct attitude.

There are a few things that we have to pay attention to. First, the Government's stand on Chinese. What is the Government's stand? What is the Government's expectation of Chinese in Singapore? What is the basic requirement? Will this bottomline be changing all the time, and eventually it will come to a point where you may or may not have Chinese at all. So I think the Government should take a very clear stand on its required standard that is expected of the Chinese students in Singapore.

Secondly, the Chinese language teachers are also a very important factor. Traditionally, Chinese teachers are more serious in nature. But it is common knowledge that when a student does not like the teacher, he or she will also hate the subject he teaches. So if you want the students to enjoy learning Chinese, the Chinese language teachers should also try to be more relaxed in their teaching. They should not be so stern all the time. They should introduce more lively materials. I think the Chinese language teachers should seriously look into this matter.

Thirdly, for the people who work in the Chinese educational, cultural and journalistic fields, we should try to tell the stories from ancient China in a more lively mood, so that they can be accepted by the younger generation. We all know that the animated movie Mulan, which is a Walt Disney production in the USA, was taken from a traditional Chinese story. But it was translated and produced as a full-length Walt Disney animated movie. Students from Chinese-speaking background or English-speaking environment alike fall for the repackaged story. It is the new packaging that makes the difference!

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me these few moments. I just want to seek a few points of clarification and make some suggestions.

Already there is a certain degree of stigmatisation amongst students in CL1 and those in CL2. By creating another syllabus B' and category of students, will we create another stigma and risk overall demoralisation? I hope the Minister will comment on this. As I read here, he said that while a pass in CL B' syllabus at the O' and A' level examinations will qualify students to enter JC and university, 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. Are we having another ranking order as to who is good and who is not good enough?

Another point I would like to raise is: could the Ministry of Education take the lead in reviewing the methodology in teaching language in schools and commit resources for retraining of teachers and new pedagogic equipment to make learning more interesting? I suggest that the Review Committee involve student bodies to give their reflections and suggestions on their experience of learning Chinese. Take my own example. My children learn Chinese better with songs and by watching of Chinese TV programmes. Maybe we should encourage some watching of TV programmes in schools at certain hours and use that as a basis for discussion.

The third point I would like to bring up is that I do not disagree about Chinese classics being important, as brought up by Mr Peh Chin Hua on Shui Hu Zhuan ( ) and Hong Lou Meng ( ). But I urge the Education Committee not to stress the messages in the stories but instead focus on the literary interest of the stories because it is very boring and, from the way I do it with my children, it is a hard uphill struggle. We need creative approaches and I think Mr Low Thia Khiang's suggestion like Hua Mu Lan ( ) is a very good one. We need new packaging. We need to review the whole lot of materials and find creative pedagogic materials for teaching this.

The last point I would like to try and disentangle is the notion of a language and culture. When does learning or stressing a language become divisive? I feel learning a language is just another tool towards understanding one's culture. It only becomes divisive if we use language to exclude segments of Singaporeans from the mainstream agenda and programmes. I do not think this is what we set out to do. But I like to say that we need to be a little relaxed about language and culture. We can learn about Chinese culture without knowing Chinese, through translation. It will be better if we can learn a culture through the language. But today, in the newspapers, we learn of a whole group of scholars talking about Mencius. And they are Americans. Yes, some of them speak Chinese language but a lot of them do not. But they learn it. So I am saying that, besides looking at the language barrier, maybe we should look at our own interest. And I would like to echo Mr Low Thia Khiang's call just now that we need to develop that interest first even for those English educated. If we have that interest, we will get to any culture. Like all of us know a lot about English Literature, we are not English. Some of us know a lot of French Literature, but we do not speak French. So I think we need to disentangle that. Having said that, I must say learning a language does create the intimacy and depth for learning the culture.

My point is we must first define ourselves as Singaporeans, besides being Chinese, or Malay, or Indian. And I think being Singaporean is more than speaking a specific language. So on the concerns raised by Mr Simon Tay earlier on, I feel that if we all share in a common identity and try to hone that, specialising in a language is not a threat. And here, I would like to take up Dr Tan Cheng Bock's point on the Chinese elite. I am uncomfortable with the word as well because it reeks of class status. And I have in other occasions suggested the words "Chinese specialist", "Malay specialist", "Tamil specialist" instead of using the word "elite". My vision for Singapore is really a multi-cultural and multi-lingual Singapore characterised by all these specialists, who standing on their own cultural heritage, are able to appraise the world and the other cultures around them and help to nourish a Singapore identity that can be shared.

Take my own example. I grew up in Little India. I was in a Chinese language school and my parents, being kiasu, pulled me out from Nan Hua and put me in Raffles where I learned English. I had wished that I had continued with a Chinese language school so that I will be steeped in one language because it is easy to pick up English. So I hope this policy is one step towards redressing some of the challenges we faced decades earlier by creating cultural or language specialists that will be good in one language and reasonably and acceptably good in another, but first and foremost, they use the language to express themselves as Singaporeans.

Mr Zulkifli bin Baharudin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am personally delighted by the changes contained in the Ministerial Statement. I am assured by the spirit and commitment to bilingual policy. It has served us well.

Sir, the problems confronting the Chinese community which necessitate these changes are not peculiar to the Chinese community. It is a nationwide phenomenon affecting both the Indian and Malay communities although these communities have been far more successful in insulating themselves from otherwise negative consequences to their culture, language and tradition. And I think this is how other communities should see these changes. However, I hope that references to China as a dominant economic power does not detract from the fact that Malaysia and Indonesia today remain one of the largest trading partners, that Malay and Tamil still possess strong economic value so that Malay students and Indian students are not unnecessarily tempted to learn Chinese for the wrong reasons. It is just that businesses with these countries are concluded in English, especially among MNCs, and in Chinese among the smaller SMEs simply because Chinese businessmen are still the predominant business community in the region. The Malay community, for example, should feel assured that proficiency in Malay language is not only important for culture and tradition but has important economic implications and value to Singapore. They must continue in their stride to excel in these languages.

Plans to better accommodate non-Chinese students in SAP schools are indeed very reassuring. I am therefore encouraged by the assurance given by DPM that similar reviews would be done for the learning of Malay and Tamil because the issues of language are also important and sensitive to the Malay, Indian and Eurasian communities. The communities would indeed be interested to know how different these students are compared to Chinese students in coping with, say, Malay or English.

This brings me to another point about the peculiar problems of children from mixed marriages. They, like me, do not have the benefit of having both parents competent in the same second language. These students need a scheme similar to CL B' in Malay and Tamil - a development, Sir, which I personally wait most eagerly. As mixed marriages become more prevalent, a multi-racial and multi-cultural family is a natural phenomenon of our society. CL B' and, hopefully, ML B' or TL B' should be seen and be made part of this phenomenon.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. I have to mention that I regret that the Opposition was not informed of this important debate prior to the announcement. I believe Mr Low and I come unprepared for this important debate. So far, it has taken almost the whole day to show the interest it has generated.

Sir, I am basically monolingual and even my dialect, Teochew, is rather weak. I have gone through four elections and I managed to win four elections. But, please, I tell the younger Singaporeans, do not take me as an example. They should learn their second language or their mother tongue because it will widen their horizon and open new vistas, as other speakers have said. I remember in the 60s, after Stalin had died, there was one Mr Khruschev who took over from Stalin. He visited America and of course he was remembered for banging the shoes at the UN meeting. But I remember him saying, when the reporter asked him, "Do you understand, or can you speak English?" He said, "Not yet." He said, "Why bother? I have always got interpreters to do it for me." That may be good for leaders. But for the ordinary person, we cannot have an interpreter moving with us all the time. We must know the language. If we want to communicate with somebody, it is better to speak their language. We have to know the language. Languages are important. In fact, we should not only learn one mother tongue, but if given the opportunity, we should learn other languages as well.

I have just visited Japan. Fortunately, I have already taken up learning of Mandarin and I do not understand a word of Japanese. But I managed to get around because I could recognise the Chinese characters which they use. They call it Kanji. So language is important. There is no doubt about that.

The message that I want to make is: do not leave it until it is too late, like in my case. I find it a big struggle learning Mandarin because our muscles, especially around the jaw, are already sagged and it is difficult for me to pronounce some Mandarin words like si shi, jue de, jian kang. There is no equivalent in English. Even at my age, I have got to go through these lessons. If I read for half an hour, my jaw is all tired after pronouncing the words. So do not leave it until it is too late. What should we do then if we really want to teach our children the language? I would say, start them off as early as possible, even at 2 1/2 years old. Of course, the best way to teach a child or a person a language is what they call "total immersion". If you want to learn a language, if you are already an adult, the best place is to go and stay in that country for 3 months, 6 months or one year, and you will master the language.

In the case of a child, those from English-speaking background, I would advise that they send their children to a Chinese-speaking kindergarten, if there is any, and put them through a Chinese-speaking kindergarten, if possible, through Chinese primary school. By the time they come out from primary school, they can already speak Chinese for sure. And at home, of course, if they speak English, they will have no problem with English. I think that is the best solution. But I do not know whether we have this kind of system in Singapore. Actually, Mr Goh Choon Kang said just now that the Speak Mandarin Campaign is not going on too well. The statistics show it. In 1998, 20%; 10 years later, 40% English-speaking homes.

I am afraid that the Government is losing the battle as far as promotion of Mandarin speaking is concerned. So what must it do? As Mdm Claire Chiang has rightly pointed out, they should make the language more interesting. Look at the methodology and, above all, you must make the child love the language. Once he has got a love for the language, it will be much easier. It is of course good for adults if we tell them that it will be useful if they are going to China to do business. But if you tell a six-year old child that if he can speak Chinese, it will be useful next time if he goes to China where he can earn a lot of money, he will not understand. So you must find a way to make the language or subject more interesting, and make them love it. This was what I was taught when I was in the Teachers' Training College. Whether it is Mathematics, Science or language, these are the more difficult subjects.

The message is that you must alter our methodology rather than use a popular policy to lower the standard of Chinese. I do not think that will be a solution. In fact, our standard must be maintained. If the children cannot attain that standard, we have to look at the educational reasons why they cannot reach that standard, rather than to take a convenient route out and lower the standard. How low can we go? CL2, CL B' and then what, CL C'? I do not think that is the correct way. No doubt it is a popular method of lowering the standard and say, "Look, my child has passed Chinese, but do not say "B"." I think the solution is to find a good methodology, make it interesting, make the children love the subject. That is the way. And of course, if you can have total immersion when they are young, that would be even better still.

Like myself, I come from an English-speaking background and my daughter managed to go through a Chinese-speaking kindergarten and a SAP primary school. And when she took Chinese, there was no problem. Maybe she is a female, I do not know. Anyway, she got through her Chinese and she did rather well at it, and she is also learning French and other languages. I think it is the motivation. As for myself, I was in school when Singapore was still a colony and I went to a well-known mission school which did not seem to encourage the study of Chinese. In fact, it was not prestigious at all when I was in school to study Chinese. It was more prestigious to study Latin and of course I managed to get through Latin which I am very proud. But if I had spent the same time and effort studying Chinese, I think I would be very much better off.

Being a monolingual person, I do not think that is a very good thing. We should study Chinese and being in a multi-lingual place like Singapore, our children should also be encouraged to study Malay. I know DPM has said that our brain is finite and we cannot study too many languages, but if it is possible, we should master a little bit of Malay. I am surprised that when young Singaporeans today, going across the Causeway, see a notice in Malay, they are completely at a loss. They cannot recognise even a few words. That is very bad.

If we are serious about promoting the Chinese language, I agree with Mr Ang Mong Seng who said that we should have another university, a Chinese university. If that is not possible, then we should enlarge the Chinese Department at NUS, make it a bigger department to train the necessary journalists, teachers, broadcasters and the like.

I think these are all the points I want to make.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Mr Yatiman Yusof) (In Malay): Mr Speaker, after listening to the speeches on the Chinese language in Singapore, and the supportive speeches made by my friends in this House, I would like to contribute my views.

Mr Speaker, the question of language is important because it is a matter related to the teaching, absorption and efforts to learn a language. It is important because language is an important factor in developing the mind. It is important because our attitude towards language will help the development of our community - either it is very close in its outlook or very open. Thirdly, the question of language policy requires long-term consideration. An example is when we introduced the multi-lingual policy in 1959, where the schools were encouraged to teach in various languages - Malay, Tamil, English and Chinese - it produced people like Mr Opposition here and myself. As a result of this multi-lingual education system, we have Singaporeans with different viewpoints but at the same time sharing what is fundamental to Singapore.

The question of language is important in that it is closely related to the thinking process and culture. Language taught us the norms and what is culturally acceptable. Our ability to command a language will reflect our views on development from the perspective of the culture of our upbringing. That is why we should find ways now to provide the solutions to questions of language that we face in schools. We have, at some early time, introduced a language policy. The language policy of 1959 and its emphasis was meant to achieve political objective as part of our merger plan with Malaysia and in 1965 when we got out from Malaysia, we changed the language policy because Singapore would have to face reality as an independent state. We introduced the bilingualism policy in order to achieve a city state of excellence and at the same time, created our own special identity. As a country in the East, we use the English language as the working language and mother tongue as a bridge to our cultural values. This is important because we do not want to be like the people in the Caribbean or in South Africa where English is the main language - an important language in the countries and that their local culture and language ties are completely removed.

Singapore learns from the experience of these foreign communities and we are confident that we can always avoid this division of monolingualism becoming relative by upholding the policy of bilingualism. Our problem now is not only to cater for the different abilities to learn the language among the children in schools, but to fulfil our aspirations and to encourage efforts from parents and the community at large. We have to accept the different attitudes towards and the ability to learn the language. And I see the statement by the DPM as the way to achieve this basic objective - a community that is multi-racial yet united, one that can understand the situation surrounding ourselves and, at the same time, able to acquire the latest technology.

The stress on such a policy is a practical way in securing our economic interest, and we have got an excellent and balanced approach. And this balanced approach is the provision of full opportunity to learn English as the first language and the mother tongue (Mandarin, Malay and Tamil) as a second language to satisfy their cultural, language and heritage requirements. It is not easy to produce an efficient bilingualist. Mr Goh Choon Kang has explained that efficient bilingualism can only be practised by a small section of our community. To be efficiently bilingual, one not only can fluently speak the language, ie, speak in both languages but, at the same time, is able to think quickly in both languages and is able to relate on matters of in-depth cultural heritage. Such efficient bilingualists are able to understand the deep, intricate philosophical issues in two languages as well. That is why they are rare a breed of people and because of this, professionalism in the study of language, as proposed by DPM, is the best way out and should be supported.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, I am happy that the bilingualism policy gives equal opportunity to learn not only Mandarin, but Malay and Tamil as well, through what they call, the possibility of E/ML2, E/ML2B, TL2 and TL2B, and in this connection, I understand the problem has not arisen yet. The results of Malay language students show that Malay students have got a good command and performance of their language compared to the other students. At the same time, there are already increased signs of problems facing the second and third generation of the Malay community and this trend is also at present faced by the Chinese community. In future, it is better that we have flexibility for Malay and Tamil students as well.

Sir, I support the statement by the DPM. 5.30 pm

The Minister for Education (RAdm Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, allow me to address some of the issues that have been raised by Members today before the Deputy Prime Minister rounds up the debate.

First of all, what is our language policy and what is the standard we strive for in Chinese? Sir, we live in a multi-racial society. Bilingualism is the cornerstone of our education system. Our policy is for English as the first language and the main language of instruction in our schools. This policy has served us well. It has given us access to technology in the world. It has served us well in business and in foreign relations. It has also been a unifying factor among all the races in Singapore.

Our policy for the mother tongue, Chinese as well as Malay and Tamil, and the other non-Tamil Indian languages, is for every child to learn his mother tongue for as long as possible and to as high a level as possible. There is therefore no one standard that we can apply to the learning of the mother tongue. We are not a homogenous society, like Germany or Japan. We are a multi-racial society. Perhaps, if our society were homogenous and we were several degrees of latitude further north and several degrees of longitude further east, we might be able to achieve the aspirations that Mr Low Thia Khiang talks about of having Chinese as the language in Singapore. Instead, we need to set standards that are appropriate. Therefore, we have the standard bearer (we are talking about the Chinese language now) and the standard bearer is Higher Chinese, then a level which is suitable for the vast majority of Chinese Singaporeans, which is CL, and for those who despite putting in a considerable effort are unable to make it, CL `B'. This set of principles will also apply to the other mother tongue languages in Singapore.

Let me now address the specific issues that have been raised within this context and this structure of the language policy in Singapore. First, CL B'. Dr Ow Chin Hock, Dr Ker Sin Tze, Mr Peh Chin Hua and others have asked whether or not CL B' will become a soft option. There is a remarkably strong desire among Chinese Singaporeans today to study Chinese. For example, at the PSLE, at the streaming at Primary 4, something like 13-14% of students qualify to do Higher Chinese in the EM1 stream, but in fact many parents opt for their children to study Higher Chinese, so that something like 22-23% opt to do Higher Chinese. This is one illustration of the strength of the desire for students in Singapore and for parents in Singapore to want their children to study Higher Chinese.

The only incentive that they have for this is really a couple of bonus points if they do decide to go to one of the nine, now 10, SAP schools. Otherwise, studying Higher Chinese in primary school gives them no other benefit beyond taking standard CL in primary school. So even relatively small incentives do encourage parents to want to have their children do Higher Chinese and also there is a strong desire, other than incentive reasons, that parents want their children to do Higher Chinese. In fact, it would seem to me that the desire is so strong that even Mr Chiam is trying to crack his jaws to learn Chinese at his age. It shows that the Speak Mandarin campaign does work, Mr Chiam, if you too are struggling to learn Chinese. When we implement CL B', we will still continue to encourage students to go as far as they can in Chinese. We have put in a number of incentives for students to study Higher Chinese. Similarly, there will be incentives for students to study CL as opposed to CL B'. Let me give Members a few examples.

What we would do is to implement CL B' from Secondary 3 upwards, which means that students from Primary 1 to Secondary 2 will study CL or HCL, and only if they are unable to cope, the teachers will of course be involved with this assessment, will they be given the option of taking CL B'. CL B' will also only meet the qualification requirements for JC and university, which means that students give up something quite considerable when they take CL B'. This means that for JCs, they are unable to count their CL scores for admission to JC, and for university they do not get any point in the calculation of those 76 points for admission to university. So when a student takes up CL B' at Secondary 3, he knows that there are implications along the way. The benefit for him is that he will be able to do the language at the level which he can probably cope with and would get a pass that would qualify him to JC or university, but he will not get points which will give him an advantage over other students. So these are already fairly strong incentives, and disincentives, if you like, for taking CL as opposed to CL B'.

Prof. Chin has asked what schools would offer CL B'. Our intention is that CL B' would be available in all schools where there is a demand for it. Of course, the SAP schools will not be offering CL `B', as that would be running quite counter to what the SAP schools are there for.

Mdm Chiang talks about stigmatisation and whether or not we would be creating even more groups of students by introducing a CL `B'. I would urge Mdm Chiang and all parents not to treat streaming and grouping of students in this rather, I would say, old-fashioned way. What we are trying to build in our education system is an ability-driven system where we will try and customise the courses and the programmes that the students take, according to their ability in those particular subjects. I would rather move away from this idea of stigmatisation and to look at it from the point of view of providing opportunities for students to play to their strength and still learn a basic level of other subjects where they are not as strong.

Let me move now to the opposite set of issues from CL `B', which is whether or not we can re-create Chinese schools of the past. I am surprised that Mr Chiam is advocating such a policy. As I said, the bilingual policy has been in place for many years in Singapore and has served us well. I do not see us going back on that. In fact, when given a choice today, parents opt to put their children in English stream and to study as much English as possible. In fact, that is one of the major concerns of parents. We do have a stream called ME3, which is the complement of the EM3 stream in primary school. I am not surprised that most Members have not heard of this, but it has been in existence since 1991. In the ME3 stream, students can offer mother tongue at first language level and basic English at a lower level. But since it was introduced in 1991, no one has opted for this stream.

So what we can do and what we will do is to create a strong environment for learning Chinese, for promoting Chinese culture and values in our 10 SAP schools. We will continue to strengthen these schools. We have also opened up the Language Elective Programme in another junior college, Nanyang Junior College, and I am quite optimistic that this junior college will be able to generate the functional specialists, if you prefer, that we would desire in our society. In fact, quite at random, I asked two students whom I met when I visited the Nanyang Junior College what they would like to do after they have finished. Both of them told me: to teach. I was very heartened by this. Three of the nine journalists who were there on that day for the press conference came from Nanyang Junior College. I was quite heartened.

Another set of issues was with regard to whether or not we could take other subjects in Chinese as this would provide a broader range of experiences and a broader range in which the language is used beyond just studying it as a language. Mr Peh Chin Hua, Dr Ow Chin Hock and others raised this. Chinese Literature is already available in our schools. We are going to make an Introduction to Appreciation of Chinese as an enrichment course in the SAP schools for all the lower secondary students. We hope that with this more of the students in the SAP schools will be encouraged to take Chinese Literature. We also have, at the junior college level, General Studies in Chinese. This is like GP, but in Chinese. Those students who have a particular love for Chinese and a facility with the language do take General Studies in Chinese. We hope that with the encouragement of a broader band of students taking CL in secondary schools and at junior college more students will be motivated to take up these subjects as well.

The third type of issue that I would like to raise is on teacher and teaching methodology. Mr Loh Meng See, Mr Kenneth Chen, Prof. Chin and Mdm Claire Chiang, among others, raised this issue. I particularly welcome Mr Ang Mong Seng's encouragement to our CL teachers. They work very hard. They have a difficult job to do and they try very hard to do it well. I have spoken to the Teachers' Unions and I have spoken to many of the teachers, and they are putting in a lot of effort to improve the teaching methodologies in the school. The Ministry is doing its best to recruit good Chinese teachers and for that matter, good mother tongue teachers in all the mother tongue languages. Again, we hope that with this regeneration of specialists in Chinese we will be able to have a bigger pool to draw upon in order to recruit our Chinese language teachers. In fact, when I visit the schools, I see both young and enthusiastic Chinese teachers, and I see also old and enthusiastic Chinese teachers. It is the approach that they take and not their age, which is a major factor. And in this area, both the Ministry and the Teachers' Unions have been quite proactive in getting the teachers to be trained and re-trained, in teaching methodologies, as well as in teaching technologies, for example, in the use of information technology and computers.

The Ministry of Education, as you know, is putting in computers and information technology in schools in a major way, and we are also developing a lot of software for use in the mother tongue languages. This, I hope, will help to make the teaching and the learning of mother tongue more interesting. I am not sure if all the CD-ROMs will turn out like Mulan, but I hope that the interactive nature and the fact that students can learn on their own, at their own pace, do revision, and look at the things again and again if they want to, will help them to learn better and to improve their standards.

As I said again, Sir, the basic principle upon which the language policy in our schools is founded is quite clear. There is no doubt that we have bilingualism - English as the main language, mother tongue to as high a level as possible. We live in a multi-racial society. These are the facts that we have in Singapore and these are the factors upon which we have to try to build both a modern society open to the world, as well as a society that is well-rooted in its traditions and its values.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: May I seek a clarification from the Minister? The Minister has mentioned in his speech that there is a standard bearer of the Chinese language. I would like to know from him what is the basic standard of Chinese that will be attainable, let us say, under the new scheme of CL `B'.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just explained that we have to customise education in Singapore to students of different ability levels. So Higher Chinese is a standard bearer, CL is a level which the vast majority of students can reach, and CL B' will be a basic level which students who face difficulties and have put in a lot of effort should be able to reach. We expect that the CL B' standard will be somewhere about the Secondary (Normal) standard for Chinese, but with a heavier emphasis on aural and oral skills.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, Admiral Teo has addressed most of the points raised by the Members. I would like to sum up in Mandarin. But before I do that, I just want to take up one important point which Admiral Teo did not cover, and this was the remark by Dr Tan Cheng Bock that we should not talk about Chinese elite, and this was picked up by Mdm Claire Chiang.

We can change the word, if you find another word more convenient. But I think the argument is not about vocabulary but about a very important concept, which is this - Singapore society is not homogenous. It is multi-racial; it is multi-religious; it is multi-cultural. And indeed even within the Chinese society, there is quite a clear differentiation between the Chinese language group and the English-speaking group. This diversity, this variation, is in fact one of the sources of our strength. It is like a rope with many fibres in it, wound together, and therefore deriving strength from one another. If we were homogenous as one Chinese-speaking society amongst the Chinese, I think we will be weaker as a country, because I think the link between the Chinese community and the minority communities will he harder to establish without English as a common ground. If we were completely English-speaking amongst the Chinese community, or minimally Chinese literate and mainly English-speaking, I think we would also be weaker, because we would not have that cultural anchor, that root, that strength, which hold us in time of difficulty. The people who come out from the different streams come out in different moulds. They are different. You look at him, you watch him walk a few metres, and you say, "This one is a Hwa Chong child or Hwa Chong alumnus." Or that is RI, and that one looks very much like ACS - Mr Chiam. You can tell, they are different. ACS is a very good school; RI is an even better school. Probably so, but if all of Singapore were ACSians and Rafflesians, I think we would be the poorer for it, because we would be without the Chinese schools, we would be without the people with the Islamic culture, we would be without the Hindu culture. And you would lose that ballast and that sense of continuity and Asian roots, which are important to our survival as a nation.

I do not think in the future that Chinese component of our society will be exactly the same as it was in the past. Because the historical past is different, the circumstances are different, the situation which made the Chinese elite and establishment what it was before and after the world and in the 1960s has changed. We are in the 1990s, about to go into the 21st century. So the challenges are different. But to want to maintain that, so that you not only have individuals who are very proficient in Chinese and can make speeches; not only teachers, journalists and Ministers but also a certain sub-segment of our society with a certain cohesion of itself, and with the individuals to be at the top of that segment to be teachers, to be principals, to be in the clans, to be in the Chambers of Commerce, to be in the literary arena to write, to paint, to put on drama; I think that is something extra and different. If you do not like the word "elite", you think it is elitist, change it to something else - Top of the Pyramid, those who are natural leaders of the community, if you will - but that is what we want to preserve and it goes beyond Chinese language, and it is a very important motivation for what we do.

So, let me summarise in Mandarin, because I think the points which MPs have raised have already mainly been met and also because the MPs have been supportive and understanding of the purpose of this exercise.

(In Mandarin) Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Members who have spoken in support of the Government's policy on the teaching of Chinese language. The response from the MPs is very encouraging. Teaching and learning of Chinese is a very important issue in Singapore. Before deciding on the changes, we have requested for and received feedback from the various quarters. I have personally spoken to the editors and journalists of the Chinese newspapers, the Chinese-educated MPs and listened to their views. Admiral Teo has also spoken and discussed with the Chinese Teachers' Union and their leaders on this issue. They all know where the crux of the matter is, where the question lies, where the problem is. Therefore, they also agree that it is necessary to revise the contents of the Chinese curricula and our policy on Chinese language. Of course, the Chinese community is very concerned about the adjustments to the level of Chinese language in our schools, and the proposed introduction of the CL `B' paper, and the impact, possibly negative impact, thereof. This concern is valid and quite understandable.

We are making this adjustment to the level of Chinese language with two objectives. First, to nurture a group of Chinese elite, and secondly, to provide all students, especially those from the English-speaking families, a realistic level of Chinese for them to study and pass the examination set at this level.

The bilingual education policy and the policy to learn mother tongue in schools will remain unchanged. The main policy will remain unchanged, but the details can be adjusted. In implementing this policy, we must do so in keeping with the changes of times and circumstances. We are a multi-lingual, multi-racial and multi-religious society. A Chinese cultural elite in this kind of a society has got a very important role to play. The spirit, the outlook in life and the social and political values of the Chinese-educated and Chinese elite are different from those of the English-educated. But, nevertheless, they complement one another. For example, the Chinese High School and RI are both excellent schools. Yet, the students they produce possess different characteristics and dispositions. We will be so much poorer if we have one without the other, and it will be a great loss.

Therefore, in this regard, I agree with Dr Ker Sin Tze. We are not Japan. We cannot use Japanese as our national language. We are not Germany, we are not France. We are a multi-racial Singapore situated in Southeast Asia. Our working language is English and our international environment is also quite westernised. Therefore, it is not an easy thing to nurture a group of Chinese cultural elite here, but we are making efforts to make some changes to our education policy, and these are some of the examples. I think to increase the number of SAP schools and through other changes and all that I have announced, we can have positive results. I am confident of that.

But we cannot go back to the old ways of the 1950s and 1960s. The Chinese schools then and the Chinese elites were products of certain historical circumstances. At that time we were a colony. The Chinese students were anti-colonialism and a mainstay in the fight for independence. Contributions from the English-educated in those days were relatively little. Amongst the Chinese-educated students, some were communists, some were not. After the merger with Malaysia, in the drive against communalism, the Chinese community also played a very important role. Because had the Chinese community bowed to the political pressure then, Singapore would be finished. But, now, that sort of situation has already passed us, it must therefore be put behind us.

We all know that even in China or Hong Kong or Taiwan, values and traditions do not remain unchanged. So under certain political, social and cultural conditions, there are three different developments. The Chinese in Taiwan become "Taiwanised", even the Mandarin they speak is contaminated with the local Taiwanese dialects. In Hong Kong, you have a very strong local indigenous culture - the Cantonese culture with a very strong commercial flavour. This was because Hong Kong was a colony, an economy but not a sovereign nation. Now that it has become a Special Autonomy Region of China, it is also in the process of transformation. China has been opening up after the cultural revolution. With the economic reform and open-door policy, their culture and values are also evolving and changing. Therefore, the Chinese elite cannot remain unchanged. Our Chinese elite should move with the development of the Chinese culture and play an active role to promote and shape Singapore into a metropolitan city and economy in the 21st century.

Our mother tongue policy must be realistic with the standard level of teaching and learning set at a level relevant to our students. Because of the limitations to our human brains, not many people have the capability to master two languages effectively, just as our computer does not necessarily have the capability to run every type of software, and if you overload it, things do not work out so well. So this is a question of brain, not a question of mouth and jaw.

Mr Low Thia Khiang asked what is the bottomline for our Chinese education. He seems to imply that the Government has been too accommodating and has fixed too low a bottomline. My answer is that our bottomline is one that is achieveable by our average students with reasonable efforts in learning. This is our bottomline. We all have children. Most of us have children. We all know there are children who may be strong in certain subjects, and not so strong in some other subjects. I believe that the children of Mr Low Thia Khiang are also studying in our schools. But what are their results? What kind of problems do they face? Can you keep on applying pressure on them, just like the way you pump up the balloons? Your blood pressure will rise too.

Many of our Members of Parliament learn through their own personal experiences that it is not easy for our children to master both English and Chinese at the same time. Even those who were educated in Chinese and who speak Mandarin at home also discover that the standard of Chinese of their children is lower than the good old days. Mr Peh Chin Hua has expressed regrets that although his children have been doing well in their Chinese examinations, their standard was still not to his satisfaction. Just imagine, what will be the level of Chinese in Singapore at the time of our grandchildren. What kind of problems will they face? Although we have not come to that stage, the time will come. So we have to face this reality.

For the primary schools, I do not think there is much problem. But when you come to the secondary schools, it is more difficult. Let me tell you my personal experience. I spent 13 years learning Chinese, six years in a primary school, six years in a secondary school, and one year in the Junior College. They were all Chinese schools: Nanyang Primary School, Catholic High School and National Junior College. At home, I spoke Mandarin to my father. I learned Chinese, and he was also learning Chinese. But when I reached the secondary school level, I began to find it difficult. For the primary school level, I had no problem passing my Chinese examinations. At the Secondary Four `O' level examination, I worked very hard, but I managed only a C4. I was dissatisfied with myself. I worked harder. When I was in junior college, I had tuition and worked even harder. For the General Paper, known as Comprehension and Essay Writing, I had only a 6. Comprehension, no problem! Essay writing, there were problems. In a Chinese school, a "6", almost failed! If I had failed, there would be no scholarship for me. Fortunately, I passed.

After that, one year, I went to NJC. I was not satisfied with my "6". I wanted to improve my Chinese. So I decided to take Chinese as a principal subject, or "A" level. For principal level Chinese, we had to learn classical Chinese (wen yen wen) and Chinese literature. After a few months, my teacher told me, "Your Chinese is not so good. Your lines of thoughts expressed in your essays are very messy." But I never had that kind of problem with my English essay writing. Why should I have this problem when I wrote in Chinese? It was not a question of content, but a question of language. However, the content and the language are closely linked because your brain has only a limited capacity. You are unable to express the idea clearly because you are too handicapped in your command of the language. So after a few months, I gave up. I did not take the principal Chinese paper in my `A' level examination.

So I am convinced that learning Chinese is not an easy task. Even now, I read Lianhe Zaobao every day, and listen to news over Channel 8 every night. Yet, every time when I want to make a major speech in Mandarin or to be interviewed, I would still have to spend some time to prepare and practise in Mandarin. Otherwise, my expression, my sentences will not run smoothly and fluently. Expressions in English, and even English grammar will seep in, even the words I utter may not be in English. So I think it is not an easy problem to solve. Some students are learning their languages better than I do. I always admire those students who score distinctions in both languages, because I failed to do it. But I also know that there are many other students who are just like me, finding it difficult to learn Chinese.

Our teachers have already known this as a fact. When I studied this problem, I asked some teachers, some Ministry of Education officials to introduce articles from the ancient Chinese classics in the curriculum of Higher Chinese. I told them that some of these Chinese classics were very meaningful and could have great impact on the students. If we can expose our students to these articles, this essence of Chinese literature will be of great benefit to them. But the teachers told me that this was not realistic, not quite possible. The simple reason is that the students may be taking Higher Chinese but if you want them to study classical Chinese, they just cannot cope with it. In formulating the curricula for our Higher Chinese, we face this restriction and constraint.

Therefore, we must fix the level of Chinese at an appropriate and suitable level. This level cannot be decided by our likes or dislikes. It must go according to our experience and the level that is attainable by the students. If we can incorporate advanced technology into our teaching methods, then the level can be enhanced. If you tell me that you want to raise the standard of teaching, improve the quality of teachers without adjusting the difficult level of the Chinese paper, I think it cannot be accepted. We have tried to improve the teaching method. Yes, we must do that, but it is not the panacea to all our problems.

Many Chinese-educated Members of Parliament also show their concerns about the curricula of the Chinese Language for EL `B' in that it should not be regarded as a "soft option". I agree with their views and we will pay specific attention to this aspect. But with our past experience in handling the level of Chinese teaching and learning in Singapore, we are confident that the situation will improve, because the parents are supportive of the idea of their children learning Chinese, albeit some may wish that the burden would not be too heavy. But, as the Minister has mentioned, according to our guidelines, at the Primary 4 streaming, about 13% to 14% of the cohort of students should qualify to take Higher Chinese. But because of the insistence of the parents, there are about 22% of ethnic Chinese students actually taking Higher Chinese, and most of them can cope with it.

Parents encourage the students to take EM1 because they believe that it is better for their children to learn more. Moreover, most parents feel that their children are intelligent and should be encouraged to do EM1. I think this is some good social pressure which is acceptable.

In our recent survey, 88% of parents feel that Chinese is an important subject. Students may or may not like Chinese but 80% to 90% recognise that it is an important subject. They may not know that they have to use Chinese to make big money in China. But they share the views of their parents, teachers, and the whole society. So we must take Chinese. If we do not do Chinese or do not do Chinese well, although you may not be denied a place, you will feel a little uncomfortable or rather ashamed.

Why do more than 90% of the parents endorse the values from the Chinese culture? All these facts prove that the parents know that a knowledge of Chinese is an important and helpful thing to their children. They also know they want their children to learn Chinese. They are using all kinds of methods to supervise and encourage their children to master the Chinese language. They may engage a tuition teacher, even two or three tuition teachers, to coach their children. Some even send their children to Taiwan or China for "immersion courses". They offer all kinds of incentives and rewards - score 90 marks in your Chinese dictation, and I will buy you a Chinese software. They use all kinds of incentives, ways and means to encourage their children to learn Chinese. But if the pressure is too great, I think the children's attitude may change or their parents' attitude may change. Although they say they support, the feasibility must be studied. We cannot overlook or neglect the feedback from such parents.

Today, the changes that we are making to the Chinese curriculum will help maintain our mother tongue education policy in the ever-changing circumstances. We must frequently discuss and review our mother tongue policy. This debate will not be the last one in this House. But so long as we continue to adjust our policy according to objective circumstances and make realistic approaches, we will be able to maintain the Chinese culture, Chinese traditions and Chinese values in us.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): Sir, could I seek some clarifications from the Deputy Prime Minister? According to DPM Lee, under the new policy, the Government will allow children from an English speaking home who have encountered difficulties in coping with Chinese to opt for a new CL B' paper. So long as they pass the Chinese paper at this level, it will be good enough and they can carry on with their studies in a junior college. I would like to know whether the Government would also consider allowing those children from Chinese speaking families, and who encounter difficulties coping with English, to sit for an English paper, such as EL B', at a lower level so that they could pass English at a basic level and proceed to a junior college?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, actually the question has already been answered by the Minister just now. The answer is quite straightforward. The Government does not have any particular view on it. But, I believe it is the parents who are more concerned with the matter.

As the Minister has said, we do have a ME3 course where the students can take his mother tongue as the first language and English as a second language. We offer this option, but there is no taker. For students who cannot get through the normal streaming, then they can opt to to do ME3 - take mother tongue as the first language and English as a second language. We let the parents have a free choice. However, it has been eight years since 1991 when we introduced this option, and the number of enrolment is still zero. Nobody has enrolled for this type of course.

We are looking for a realistic approach. What are the expectations of the parents? What can we teach the students? If we put all these together, we would be able to settle on an appropriate level. This is an objective fact of life. We have looked at the quality of our students. We know their abilities, we can assess them and say that they can more or less attain this level. We are not taking the weakest student as a benchmark. We are looking at those students who are weak in Chinese but whose other academic results are not too bad.

Chinese is not the only second language subject our students are taking for their examinations. Some students are doing German, French, Japanese and Malay as a second or third language. They have to reach a certain level of competence to pass their examinations. There must be a certain level which is attainable by them. I feel that we would be able to set a level that is reasonably attainable.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): Perhaps the DPM did not quite understand my question. In the past, for Chinese school students to go from Secondary 4 to Pre-University, they had to score a credit in the Chinese Language, otherwise they did not even qualify for a full certificate. In those days, even the ordinary Chinese language paper was of a much higher standard than the so-called Higher Chinese paper today.

My question was: what about those students who come from Chinese-speaking families? If their English is no good, they are disqualified from enrolment in a junior college. Will the Government also consider setting a English `B' paper for these students to pass at a less demanding level for admission to a junior college?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: (In Mandarin): If you have a junior college where all the subjects are taught in Chinese, then such a policy would be feasible. But now, in all the junior colleges and Pre-U centres, the medium of instruction is English. If your English is no good, then it will be difficult for you to cope with the learning of the various subjects. This is a basic principle that we must accept.

As to whether it is fair or unfair to allow those who pass their CL B' to go further in their studies, we must first of all understand that there is a price to pay for these students. This is because the CL B' result cannot be taken to calculate their aggregate. This will affect their chances of getting into the more popular junior colleges because they lose one subject for consideration. Likewise, in the A' level results, CL B' result cannot be included in the score for entry to the university, and they may have difficulty getting places in the more popular disciplines. We are giving some incentives and some disincentives to discourage the students from taking the CL `B' as a "soft option", or an easy way out.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): However, I would like to seek clarification from the DPM. According to him, in principle, our language policy is such that the level of Chinese can be lowered but the standard of English cannot be lowered. Is that what he meant?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: (In Mandarin): Our policy is that the level of any language should be determined by the ability of our students. Whether our standard of English language should be lowered or not, it is for the parents to decide. Do you want to lower the standard of English and maintain the standard of Chinese by cutting the English periods and transferring them to the Chinese periods? Alternatively, should we offer a Chinese paper at a realistic level to alleviate the burden of those who have real problems with their learning of Chinese? Let the parents decide, and I believe we can have a very clear answer from them.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to withdraw my motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn. 6.22 pm