1ST APRIL, 2002 TO 31ST MARCH, 2003 (Paper Cmd. 3 of 2002)

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [6th Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head K (cont.) -

Resumption of Debate on Question [20th May, 2002],

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head K of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Dr Wang Kai Yuen].

Question again proposed.

Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to continue. Yesterday, I started my speech and gave my impression that while the streaming system was intended to allow each child to learn and progress at his or her own pace, the problem seems to be in implementing the system. For many reasons, including the pressure of the school ranking system, schools and principals end up putting their best resources to focus on the EM1 and EM2 streams, or the best streams in the school system, so that the overall grades of the school look good. The end effect has been detrimental, both in terms of the failure to let late bloomers bloom at all, and in terms of destroying the self-esteem of our children at such a young age by putting labels on them. The Minister's argument has been that the streaming system has prevented wastage and resulted in very few children dropping out of the school system.

I would like to suggest to the Minister that he would still achieve no dropouts from the education system if he allows every child to be streamed at the Primary 6 level, after the PSLE examinations. There are many ways to skin a cat - to borrow a phrase from the Malaysians - and one of them in the education system is to categorise our children after the PSLE examinations, a bit later, and send weaker children to technical schools to pursue a different route. This one change of streaming children from Primary 4 to Primary 6 level will satisfy many Singaporeans who have a major issue with the current system.

The issues I would like the Minister to address are, firstly, are there any scientific reasons for continuously streaming our children at Primary 2, Primary 4, Primary 6 and Secondary 2 levels? Children are moved every two years depending on their academic results. From what I understand, the selection of the Primary 4 level was an arbitrary decision for lack of scientific information, when the then Education Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee, made the decision on the streaming system. The issues with continuous streaming are: How do we teach children about friendships, building bonds and to help those who have different ability levels compared to themselves when they are moved constantly?

Secondly, can the Ministry do a study on the attitudes of teachers and students towards EM3 students? While the intent of streaming is to allow them to progress at different levels, the real practice is that teachers dread taking EM3 classes when, in fact, they should see it as a challenge. The very fact that this happens means that the system has not been able to achieve very good EM3 to EM2 crossovers. Can the Minister share with the House on the success rate of such crossovers?

Thirdly, does the Ministry have a performance target as to how many crossovers it hopes to achieve every year? Lack of such performance measures means that there is a lack of interest to see many more EM3 students making it back to the higher streams.

If the Ministry wants to take a conservative approach to changing the system, can we implement a hybrid system where children are kept in the same class and share a common curriculum for most of their contact time, and then break up for specific areas to focus, for children of different abilities? Perhaps we can choose a few schools with good PSLE track records to experiment with the hybrid system.

Sir, recently, in the USA, a new law was passed, called the "No Child Left Behind Act" (NCLB Act of 2002). This Act, among other things, places important priority on targeting assistance to society's most disadvantaged students in the hope of closing the learning divide once and for all. A learning divide is what our education system is creating in Singapore, in my opinion.

I feel that this is such an important issue that we perhaps need a whole day session to debate this issue. If I ask the MPs here to put up their hands as to whether they agree - I would not try it - I think many would not. I have spoken to many teachers and principals. Many of them do not agree with this system too, although they are afraid to speak up. Most Singaporeans do not agree with the streaming system, as it is. I hope some changes will be made.

Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong): Sir, this year, the Education Ministry has been allocated the second highest budget. In fact, a total of $6.79 billion has been allocated to the Education Ministry, which is higher than the amount allocated in FY2001. This is a strong indication of the Government's commitment to human capital development. There is no doubt that we have a good education system supported by a dedicated teaching staff and a population that places a high premium on education as a means to uplift itself. But then, Sir, no system is perfect, and a responsive and adaptable system must take into account the changing needs and concerns of those that it is designed to serve. It is in this light that one has to view this on-going debate on streaming. It is not an indictment of the whole system, as our overall educational framework is sound. But some policies clearly need some tweaking as we move along.

What are the desired outcomes of the education system, one may ask? As many see it today, it is to feed the labour market and ensure that everyone has the skill to find a job. There is nothing wrong with this and, in fact, it is something which is very necessary if we do not want to have social problems. Take the example of Malaysia, for instance, where there are university graduates with irrelevant degrees and hence they cannot find jobs. But, then, at the same time, there is also nothing wrong to expect our education system to produce balanced individuals who love education and learning for the sake of itself and who are capable of independent thinking, not mere rote learners, and who are very strongly rooted in our values as a society. The education system must also provide a process of learning that is enjoyable and fun.

Sir, I am sure that many of us remember our own childhood days with fond memories, the simple joys and abandonment of growing up. But what about our children? What do they remember about their childhood - examinations, assessment books, supplementary classes and tuition classes? Is it right, one may ask, to put so much pressure on our children at such a young age? This is precisely what happens with streaming. Within a period of six years that he is in primary school, a child will have to go through two major examinations - one when he is streamed at Primary 4 and the other when he sits for the PSLE - and the two examinations are very close to each other. After a child has finished mugging for the streaming examinations, he has to immediately start ramming up in Primary 5 in preparation for the PSLE. Small wonder then that in a survey of 1,742 children aged 10 and 12, commissioned by SPH last year, students said that they were more afraid of examinations than of their parents dying.

Sir, we also have to ask the question whether it is realistic for us to assess a child's capabilities and later stream him based only on the examination results, which actually measure performance over a very short period of two hours for each subject. Based on this, we then decide that the child should go to the fast, the average or the slow-learning track. Many experts in education are in agreement that at the age of 10 years, a child's cognitive skills are not fully developed yet. So, is it reasonable to start streaming our children at this age?

Sir, of very great concern to parents is the negative effect of labelling - EM1, EM2 and EM2, slightly better than the old system of classifying children as being in the Normal, Express or Monolingual streams. But, nevertheless, it is still streaming. In those days, if you were a "Mono", then you are in deep trouble. People look at you in a certain way as if you are a moron or doomed forever. Although the labels have changed, the implications of this labelling process remain. If you are in EM1, you are first class; EM2, second class; and EM3, sad to say, you are in third class. What is worse is that this labelling could by itself be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead of spurring children to greater heights, those labelled EM3 could very well say that they are useless and a failure, and nothing that they do can change the situation.

Sir, is it fair, reasonable and justifiable to label children at such a young age, and thereby sowing the seeds of elitism and segmentation right from primary school? Have we ever considered the impact and damage that such a system will have on our children's self-esteem and self-confidence, when they are in their crucial years of self-discovery and are in the process of developing emotional and social anchors to guide them as they grow into adults?

Sir, I would therefore like to join my other colleagues, who have spoken before me, to ask the Ministry to revisit the streaming policy. Please consider doing away with streaming at Primary 4. The children's examination results at PSLE are, in my view, sufficient for assessing our children's capabilities and to stream them according to their results. Alternatively, if this is not possible ---

The Chairman: 30 seconds, Mdm Halimah.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, I am finishing. Alternatively, Sir, if this is not possible, I would like to ask the Minister to consider allowing some schools or classes not to have streaming. I would also like to ask the Minister to do away with the first class, second class and third class labels of EM1, EM2 and EM3. It has very serious negative connotations and I am not convinced, just like many parents, that it is good for our society in the long run.

Dr Ong Seh Hong (Aljunied): Sir, I agree with the objective of streaming if it is to maximise the potential and ability of each individual, develop his or her special talents and minimise wastage of our education system. However, I echo the concerns of my hon. colleagues, Mdm Halimah and Mr Inderjit Singh, on the shortfall of our current streaming system. As I see it, there are some areas of our current streaming system that must be addressed before we can really achieve the objective we set out to do. 12.45 pm

First, streaming at Primary 4 is too early, as children at this age are not fully developed psychologically or connectively. And this is the point that I alluded to during the debate on the President's Address, and Mdm Halimah has also just reiterated the point.

Secondly, streaming uses only academic results as the only criteria. This fails to recognise other types of talents in areas such as sports, arts and music. If we do not recognise these talents, how can we maximise and develop them? Is there any surprise that we have not much luck in achieving sports excellence?

Thirdly, using academic criteria alone will also result in a kiasu examination-oriented mentality, and defeats the true purpose of education. It makes study and examination a source of stress, just as Mdm Halimah quoted the SPH survey in 2000, that students were more afraid of examinations and tests than of their parents dying. I would be very sad if, one day, my daughter comes and tells me, "Dad, I would rather you die than I fail the examination." Maybe, at that point of time, I would choose to die!

Fourthly, the present system does not address the need of various groups of students who do not do well at their streaming examination. Under the current system, if a student does not do well in the examination, he is in EM3. That is it! However, we must know that children may have done poorly for a variety of reasons, other than being a slow learner or of lower IQ. First, there may be a group of students who are socially disadvantaged, such as those who come from broken families. This group of children would need social intervention to help them, and not a placement in EM3. The next group of students, who may not do well, are those who may have learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, and, again, they need special education and not EM3. The third group may be those who have just bad luck. This poor kid may be too nervous and did not do well in the examination, or his parents might be quarrelling the night before, therefore affecting his mental readiness for examination. This group of children need a second chance to sit for the examination, and not a placement in EM3 that labels him permanently. Therefore, may I urge the Minister to review the age of streaming, and maybe do it at a much later age.

The Ministry should also put in extra efforts to identify the underlying causes of students who do not do well in the streaming - I have stated earlier the reasons for not doing well - and help them accordingly. Sir, I also urge the Minister to put in appropriate measures to spot and develop talents in non-academic fields.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (Hong Kah): Sir, as I have anticipated, what I wish to say in this House has already been the subject of much passionate debate. But the subject of streaming continues to be a cause of so much anguish that I feel it would be morally irresponsible for me not to speak up, at the risk of repeating what my colleagues have said.

Let me state, at the outset, that I think, overall, we do have a good education system, one that is efficient and focused. And it has succeeded in producing many generations of skilled workers to support our economic thrusts. It has placed Singapore on the world map as a leader in Mathematics and Science education and the application of IT to learning. It has grounded generations of school children in the realities and the joys of multi-racialism and harmonious communal living.

Since 2000, the direction has been towards an ability-driven education to develop and harness the talents of our students. But while a differentiated curriculum for students to suit differing aptitudes is administratively efficient, the question arises whether the gains to the nation from such efficiency is outweighed by the psychological cost this has inflicted on Primary 4 10-year olds and their long suffering parents.

But we must first give credit where it is due. I know of a Singaporean mother who has just come back from Germany for her son's education because she feels that the system in Germany is the other extreme - too relaxed, no home work, everything at one's pace, but usually pegged at the speed of the slowest child. Sir, I submit this is not the outcome I welcome, as soon, we, as a nation, may lose our drive and competitive spirit and that is the sure road to perdition.

But, Sir, there is a yawning gap between parents and the MOE for all its good and noble intentions. I believe many in this House have school-going children, or have interacted with other parents, and therefore will understand where the stress point lies. At a recent feedback session on Education, the subject that occupied the most time and electrified the atmosphere was, as Members will have guessed it, streaming. One participant even objected to the term "gifted children". She asked what does that imply about the other children. Does this mean that they are not gifted?

Parents say streaming is bad for the following reasons: streaming, particularly at the young age of 10 years - Primary 4 - prematurely labels a child as slow, a no-hope case and affects his self-esteem. It demoralises the child and may make it difficult for him to return to mainstream education later on in Express or Normal (Academic) stream. It disadvantages late bloomers, causing him to lose opportunities and also causing the system to lose what may have turned out to be a brilliant scientist or entrepreneur. Einstein, it has been frequently pointed out, was not exactly a top student in school.

Nonetheless, MOE is strongly convinced that streaming is good for the following reasons: streaming allows our children to learn at their own pace, and not suffer unnecessary performance-related stress. The alternative to streaming, to quote the Minister for Education from the Budget 2001 Committee of Supply debate, is that many children will fail and they will drop out of school. No doubt, MOE will again furnish more and updated statistics this time to show the benefits of streaming.

Sir, I am persuaded that there are merits to both sets of arguments. However, I strongly feel that it is time to refine the system, to close this gap between parents and MOE. This is especially critical when we are committed to maximising the potential of every Singaporean and trying to nurture an entrepreneurial spirit in our young. We should not disillusion them by labelling them as no-hope cases at such a young age. As noted by the Prime Minister, "Morale is a very important thing. If we feel demoralised, then we are not in the mood to fight competitively."

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if there are plans to review and modify the current system to mitigate some of these concerns. For a start, may I suggest that the Ministry assure parents that as much attention, if not more, is focused on these "laggard" children to develop their potential as for the other cohorts. The successes of these children should be celebrated as much, if not more than the others, so that parents' concerns are mitigated and children assured that there are many roads to success.

Sir, like my parliamentary colleagues before me, I would like to urge the Ministry to heed the call to send all cows to the vets, for surely this cow needs a thorough check-up and medication, if not a worse fate.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, with the world changing at a fast pace to one that requires future generations to have critical, creative and innovative minds, there is indeed a danger of our young getting lost in our nation building process. I therefore believe it is timely now that the Ministry of Education review the streaming system. There are side effects about streaming of students under the current education system.

First of all, by categorising our young into academically enumerated groupings, this reinforces the view that only children who are academically intelligent are valuable and relevant assets of the future. Those individuals who are talented in other aspects, be it in sports or music, etc, seem to have no niche in this streaming system. Although the recent announcement of setting up of the speciality school can address these problems somewhat, I am of the view that the streaming system should be changed to better reflect the emphasis on individual capability and talent in areas other than just academia.

Secondly, nation building means coagulating a diverse population into one entity. The streaming system does not encourage the recognition and toleration of diversity in terms of talents and capabilities. The streaming system suggests that we are judged purely in terms of academic performance. In other words, only the academically sound are deemed working to be our best pillars of tomorrow. Of course, not all those in the best stream eventually become leaders, and neither will those in the lower stream fall by the wayside. But, as a general trend, what I have suggested - that the system has inculcated important values which, I emphasise again, are academic capabilities - is valid.

Thirdly, Sir, although the purpose of streaming is to help an individual student to develop his or her potential to the fullest, by being able to study in his or her own pace, the question is whether streaming itself is effective enough to develop a child's potential. Earlier, I have mentioned that streaming will reinforce academic ability as the only criterion for judging students. However, the question is: what exactly constitutes academic ability? Some children are better with their mathematical understanding, some better with Science, and some are better with languages.

The current streaming system streams in accordance with the cluster of subjects and determination of academic ability, in totality, in the cluster. Such a system fails to take into account the relative strengths and relative interests of each student based on the individual subjects. This is even more jarring at the Secondary 2 and Secondary 3 levels. For example, a non-Pure Science Express stream, or non-Express stream student, is likely to face a situation that his interest in reading individual Pure Science module, such as Biology, might be hampered as a result of the streaming. Also, for that matter, a Pure Science streamed student might never have the opportunity to pursue technical studies, or arts subject at the "O" level, as a result of the streaming. This is because the current streaming system assumes that students streamed to a particular stream are naturally more inclined to certain subjects offered.

I would therefore ask the Ministry to consider exploring the idea of organising schools based on subjects. This means scrapping the current streaming system based on a cluster of subjects and replacing it with a system based on subjects. Students would be grouped into different classes based on the merit of their individual subject. Although it could be argued that this is still a form of streaming, I am sure such a system of allowing individual students to learn at their own pace is more progressive and is likely to lessen social stigma. This is not to say that schools are to abandon the idea of all-rounded education, but rather the main thrust of the proposal here is the acceptance of the fact that different students have different strengths. Hence, there must be avenues, opportunities and recognition available to allow individual student to "major" in what he or she loves. To allow the above to be implemented, there must be a total revamp, in terms of entire education process, such as grading, protocol, examination systems, admission requirements, etc, to support the new education system paradigm. I do not have specific recommendations for the various components, which require further in-depth studies and analysis for more details. 1.00 pm

Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Sir, I support the principle of streaming in schools, ie, allowing children to study at their own pace and capabilities. However, I would like to appeal to the Ministry to look at the parents' concern. Streaming is not only at Primary 4. I see streaming is done at every year of study. At Primary 5, if a student does not do well, he will have to slide down to EM2 or EM3. This is similarly done in Secondary 1, Secondary 2 and Secondary 3. If the students do not do well, they slide down to the Normal stream. Why do we need to do streaming each year? I would like to propose to do away with streaming at each year as, in the present system, the students are already streamed and their capability of study at certain intervals, after Primary 6 and at Secondary 4. The two stages at Primary 4 and Secondary 2 should just be subject combinations based on the language capability and interest of each child. Remove the threat that goes with each student the possibility of sliding down to the lower stream at each year. We should allow a more flexible stream, give more space and time for the children and the parents in between the years, ie, before the major examinations of PSLE and GCE 'O' Level, to explore and have fun in their studies.

I have included the parents, as I know most parents are studying alongside with their children in Singapore. I did another Primary 6 three years ago. The rush by parents to apply for annual leave before each examination is a common phenomenon. I used to have female colleagues coming to apply for leave, but now we see increasingly more male colleagues coming forward to apply too - a good sign for the ladies in terms of joint parenting.

The argument is always that the students are allowed to jump into the upper stream if they do well. How many students, after being shot at the body, face and heart, would be able to swim well in the upper stream, which requires a faster pace and energy? I chose the face as "mien zi" and the heart as confidence. At the age of 10-15, face and confidence are very important to them. I sincerely believe that if the children are motivated with confidence and pride, they would be able to do well.

Why are our principals so concerned and keen to put the child in the lower stream? Is it the ranking of schools or the actual belief that the child will be better off in the lower stream and could perform better?

My next topic is on ranking of good performing schools. I sincerely appeal to the Ministry to remove the ranking of good performing schools. What is the purpose of ranking? To motivate the schools to perform better?

Let us take two schools, RI and a neighbourhood school, eg, First Toa Payoh Secondary School. The assumption is that we use the RI infrastructure - creative and flexible course content, the support finances and the best-qualified teachers available. Can First Toa Payoh Secondary School be able to be RI, if it accepts students from the top 1% of the PSLE cohort with a score of at least 260 points and above? Yes. I believe most of us would agree that First Toa Payoh Secondary School would rank among the top schools without much effort. Would RI then become First Toa Payoh Secondary School, a neighbourhood school, if they accept students at

180 PSLE scores and above? RI may not be First Toa Payoh Secondary School but would move higher in the ranking, say, perhaps to that of Sin Ming Secondary School, which is a better performing neighbourhood school. This is in view of our basic assumption of using RI's support infrastructure.

Most schools serve different levels of students. We are ranking the schools with different fundamentals, eg, comparing Fuji apples with Australian apples. Both are still apples from the external look, but the taste and crunchiness are very different. Most schools would want to become the top 20 schools to attract the top students of the cohort. It is a cycle. The schools which want to be ranked high to attract high-calibre students would have to perform well in the assessment statistics. For most of the schools, the excuse is that the students would perform better in the Normal stream if they have students who fill the Express stream, but the school does not have a class.

The Chairman: Mdm Phua, can you start winding up your speech, please?

Mdm Cynthia Phua: Why not have the time to nurture these students, as I understand that there is currently a software that could even predict a child's performance, based on PSLE scores? Why not give the children the opportunity to perform better in the schools, as their confidence will not be shattered?

The Chairman: I note that Members' speeches are getting longer and longer by the amendment. Can I remind Members to hold on to the virtue of keeping your speeches short? Dr Lily Neo.

Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Sir, the emphasis of the Ministry of Education thus far has been primarily on the academic achievement of each student and maximising each child's potential to the fullest. The maximum curricula in the name of maximising each child's potential may jeopardise innovative skills and creativity in our children, which we are trying to promote. Today, I would like to beseech the Ministry of Education to regard our students not just academically but in totality, especially the mental well-being of our children.

Last year, psychiatrists at the Institute of Mental Health saw 14,000 children. This could be the tip of the stress iceberg, as psychiatric conditions are still a stigma to many, and many parents do not realise their children need psychiatric help. Suicides accounted for 2.2% of all deaths in 2000. 6% occurred among the 10-19 age group. Although the death rate from suicides has fallen in the past 20 years, suicides for the 10-19 age group have not fallen.

Heavy syllabus, too much homework, enrichment programmes, assessments and examinations have been cited as the cause of stress. Some stress can be useful and positive, but this is only up to a certain optimal level, beyond which a person's performance will deteriorate and may even end up with a breakdown. May I ask the Minister for Education whether studies have been done to look into this and what steps his Ministry would take to rectify policies that are causative factors of stress in our students.

Teachers who are the surrogate parents during most of the day should try to care for the students in totality. They should be alert to pick up those in psychological anguish and refer them for help if necessary. Early referral to counsellors and doctors will help the students de-stress and cope better.

Streaming in schools and ranking of schools stress parents. The students, in turn, feel their stress. This has to be addressed accordingly.

School starting time should be at 8.30 am instead of 7.00 am presently. Many children have to get up at wee hours of the morning, especially for those who need to travel far from their homes.

Classroom learning should be made as interesting as possible, with technical aids whenever possible to facilitate learning for students. This will make learning fun and less stressful.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, there has been a downward trend in the number of students who drop out of school. At the primary level, the number fell from 1,022 or 2.5% of the Primary 1 cohort in 1998, to 183 or 0.4% in 1999. At the secondary level, it fell from 1,844 or 4.3% of the primary cohort to 1,400 or 3.5% over the same period. We should view student drop-out rates with a great deal of concern, as we know that those who drop out will face serious difficulties finding decent jobs or fitting into our society, and will be trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty. If, on average, 2,000 children drop out of school every year, there will be 20,000 in 10 years who will join the pool of the unskilled, and we will then have to put in a lot more resources to remedy the situation.

Sir, from the statistics, I notice that most drop-out cases occur at Primary 6 and at Secondary 3. To me, this is significant as it indicates that part of the problem is because of the serious difficulties that they face in coping with major examinations, such as PSLE and GCE O-level. So I would like to ask the Minister what measures are currently in place to help such students and prevent them from dropping out, and how effective are these measures?

We also know that in most cases, the problems are deep-rooted, such as dysfunctional families, poor foundation or negative peer influence. So the programmes that are put in place must be multi-pronged to reach out to the families as well. Better, in my view, to devote more resources before they drop out, rather than have the problems compounded later on.

Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister what follow-up action has been taken to bring drop-outs back to school, and how successful has the MOE been in this effort?

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Aljunied): (In Mandarin): Sir, the Jack Neo movie "I Not Stupid" was a big hit. On the surface, "I Not Stupid" is a light-hearted story about three boys from different social backgrounds who find themselves branded stupid and lazy all because they are EM3 students. But, through their interactions with their friends and family, we come to see the pressures children and adults face everyday. Many parents who saw the movie identified with the pressures that their own children face in schools.

For me, one of the most emotional scenes of the movie was when Kok Pin, the under-performing student, wanted to commit suicide because he could not cope with academic pressures. It may be an isolated and extreme example, but it has happened in real life.

Are these pressures real? Sir, the Far Eastern Economic Review of 9th August 2001 reported that in the year 2000, our number of new cases of young people visiting psychiatrists at Government clinics was 2,491, and half were of primary school age. The number has doubled compared to 1990.

What can be done to help ease the pressure on students in schools? There are no easy answers. But the Ministry of Education must monitor the situation very closely. We must not wait for any more actual and tragic cases to happen before we spring into action.

Mr Gan Kim Yong (Holland-Bukit Panjang): Sir, we have debated on legislation to protect our children from parental abuse, to protect them against child labour, etc. Maybe, one day, we will need a legislation to protect them from excessive pressure and stress.

Sir, our children do face stress from many directions. Firstly, they face stress from their schools. Teachers and principals are mindful of the results of their schools, because they are ranked every year based on the performance of their students. I believe that some pressure is good to push the children to go an extra mile. But excessive pressure may push them over the limits. I would like to urge the Minister to consider replacing the current school ranking system with the banding system. The ranking system has created substantial tension among the schools as they compete with one another. I believe that the banding system will ease the pressure on the schools and, in turn, ease the pressure on the students, while still having sufficient pressure to encourage the schools and the students to do their best.

Secondly, our children face pressure from their parents. Many young parents today want their children to do well in the schools, yet they spend little time with their children because, very often, both parents are working. They can only send their kids to the best tuition classes and hope that they will outperform their neighbour's kids. This is particularly prevalent in the streaming year.

Many MPs have spoken about streaming and I would not belabour this point. However, I would like to point out that it is true that streaming has created stress. I would like to request the Ministry to be open to alternative ways and explore some of these to see if it could be done with less stress on the students. In this regard, I would like to volunteer myself to participate in any review of the streaming exercise, and explore alternatives to see if we can help our students.

The third area of stress comes from the students themselves, from their own desire to do well. This is good. However, when their results are not up to their expectations or the expectations of their parents, some of them may have problem coping. In this regard, psychological and emotional support for the students is most critical to help them cope. I believe that the problems faced by students are often multi-faceted. It may involve parental problems or problems with their siblings. Sometimes, it may involve financial problems at home or others.

Therefore, I feel that it is crucial to provide a holistic, psychological and emotional support that may be beyond the capability of the non-professional counsellors. Hence, I would like to ask the Minister whether he will consider providing the schools with funds so that they are able to engage professional counsellors rather than retired teachers or, better still, allow them to tie up directly with professional organisations, such as the Family Service Centres, to provide professional and holistic counselling services to the students and, sometimes, to the parents of the students. This will also help ease the load of the teachers, who should really focus on teaching. Direct link-up between the schools and the professional organisations will also help build up rapport and enhance the effectiveness of the support provider. They can also become more pro-active in helping the school to identify students who are potentially at risk, so that problems can be dealt with at an early stage. Sir, once again, children are precious, and all of us will agree that we must remake our education system, where necessary, to ensure that our children can grow up with a balanced character.

I hope that the Minister will take these suggestions into consideration and, hopefully, we will not see the day where we need to introduce a Bill on protection of our children against stress and pressure. 1.15 pm

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, along the line of my colleague who spoke earlier, I would also like to ask for a review of the existing system of providing counselling service in schools, which is currently quite ad-hoc. I would like to suggest that a more formal arrangement be put in place where a trained counsellor is employed by schools or a cluster of schools for the following reasons.

Firstly, MOE has said that its education system is capability-driven. This means that it is now more individualised, more suited to the capability of each student. If we are moving towards this kind of education system, there is, therefore, a greater need for individualised care. The task of a professional counsellor could be to help students manage the problems of stress, coping with school work, relations with peers and even career counselling.

Secondly, students today need more emotional and psychological support, as they are faced with multiple pressures and the development process has become more challenging. A recent newspaper report mentioned that the number of children seeking the help of psychiatrists has increased three-fold in over eight years. The number had increased from 5,600 in 1990 to 20,000 in 1998, and this is based on the Institute of Health Child Psychiatric Clinic figures.

Among the problems faced are anxiety disorders and behavourial problems which range from fear of schools, examinations and, worst of all, failure. In view of this increased pressure on our students, the present ad hoc approach where teachers end up as counsellors is inadequate. Teachers are faced with tremendous time pressures themselves to complete the syllabus and meet certain performance standards. It is, therefore, not practical to expect them to assume more and more non-teaching responsibilities. Also, a recent report in the newspapers involving a school principal shows that there are risks if teachers are involved in counselling, as they are not professionals and thus are not trained on how to handle students in counselling sessions.

Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Sir, as the education system evolves and matures, I am confident that it will continue to offer to our citizens the best options and services to learning and training. Similarly, the rapid changes in the economy and the world stage also pose a myriad of challenges to our students and parents alike.

Sir, through the many interactions that I had with students and parents, I have noted that they need assistance in many non-academic areas like career and course counselling, discipline and also personal problems. In reality, our students are put under a lot of stress on a daily basis. The majority is able to cope, but more and more are facing difficulties. These difficulties are manifested in the form of discipline and personal problems. To top this, many parents are also clueless on the ways to help their children and the avenues to turn to for help.

In view of this, I would like to propose that the Ministry allocate the resources to address the need for more qualified counsellors. I am aware that schools have some form of pastoral programme, but I believe this is not sufficient. We should avoid resorting to ad hoc and short cuts by using teachers as counsellors, but rather strategically plan to increase the pool of qualified and trained professionals. Our students and parents deserve better.

In my recent visits to the schools in my constituency and through my discussion with the staff, I gather that the students and schools could do with some structured assistance in this area. May I propose that the Ministry assigns one or two professional counsellors for each school cluster?

The report in the newspapers on 16th May 2002 concerning the complications as a result of misunderstanding during counselling further illustrates the complexity of the job, and also the acute shortage of these professionals in the school system. The educational institutions need the assistance of MOE in this matter. I hope to get the Minister's position and plan on this issue.

Mdm Cynthia Phua: Sir, in this House, we recognise that in Asian families, man is still responsible for the household. Hence, woman is denied the medical fees for her children.

Similarly, we are talking about Asian families. Most parents would not come forward to seek help for themselves and their children unless the situation is very serious. We would like to urge the Ministry to look into preventive measures to spot high-risk students at a young age and given the resources, to closely guide them through the crucial years of ages 10-15. We need to help these children before they are irrevocably sucked into a life-time of problems, and even crimes.

I would like to propose three recommendations:

(1) A preventive screening of children at age 9. This is at the age when children are able to understand and be aware of the situation at home and in school. They would also have not lost their innocence in telling the truth or become too conscious of their family circumstances.

(2) Have qualified full-time counsellors in the schools. We understand from the Senior Minister of State, Mr Tharman, in his reply speech to Mr Gan Kim Yong's questions, that there are two trained teachers in counselling. I would still like to urge for full-time qualified counsellors in the schools. Counselling needs a lot of time and intervention, especially in seeking family support for these high-risk children, and requires a lot of effort and visitation.

Besides counselling, I am also advocating for these high-risk children to have supervised care. In most of these functional families, the parents are caught within their problems, and they have no time to support their children. The children, unable to defend themselves, would usually suffer in silence until they find their own form of outlets. We should have a supervised student care programme for our students. It could be on a cluster basis, a support for the children, as well as the parents.

I would like to urge the Ministry to give more support to our primary and secondary students in view of the fast and intense pace of our education system. As the British Home Secretary, David Blunkett, was recently succinctly quoted as saying in a Straits Times article titled "Criminals. Spot them at age 3", "Instead of trying to pick up the pieces when things go wrong, it makes a lot more sense to invest resources in prevention."

Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Sir, in the IT vision unveiled by the Education Ministry several years ago, all schools are to be equipped with a student computer ratio 2:1 by the year 2002. We are now in 2002, and I would like to ask the Minister for Education how well this target is being met, in view of the importance of computer literacy in today's globalised world. Also, Sir, there is a natural expectation for students to be conversant and proficient in the use of computers when these students enter into institutions of higher learning, such as the polytechnics and the universities.

Secondly, as part of the overall IT vision, I understand many schools have introduced computer-based home and project assignments. While this is laudable, my concern is for students in the low-income group who cannot afford to have computers in their home environment. Some low-income parents have expressed worry about their children losing out to the many students who have ready access to computers at home, while their children are deprived from such access. Their concern primarily stems from such home assignments which form part of the year-end assessments and examinations.

Sir, I would like to know whether the Education Ministry is directing schools to have supplementary classes for school children in the low-income category, and whether they are permitted to complete such computer-based projects in school outside of their normal curriculum hours.

The Minister for Education (RAdm Teo Chee Hean): First, let me thank Members for contributing their views and suggestions to improve our education system. Allow me to start with a broad overview of the progress we have made, and where we are headed, in order to place this discussion on education within the larger context of what we are working to achieve.

Much has been done over the last five years. We have moved the school system forward in a number of critical areas, including major enhancements to the teaching service through EduPac, trimming the curriculum to allow more time to develop creativity and thinking skills, strengthening citizenship and values education, devolving more authority and responsibility to schools and school clusters, renewing our school buildings, and introducing IT into all our schools.

Mr Magad has just asked for an update on the IT Masterplan. The Ministry is completing its evaluation on the current Masterplan which is nearing completion - it has been 5-6 years - and will unveil its second IT Masterplan for the period 2003-2007 in a few months' time. So, I request Mr Magad to be just a little patient. When we wrap it all up, we will give him a full report.

Sir, we have made much progress, but the Ministry of Education is not resting on its laurels, and I am sure Members of this House would not allow the Ministry of Education to do so. Dr Wang has suggested that the Ministry should leave no stone unturned. Indeed, the previous improvements I have enumerated have merely been made within the existing structure of the education system. And going forward, our emphasis would be on structural issues. We will look at what structures in the education system may need to be changed. The major thrusts in the coming years would be, first, the review of the upper secondary and junior college sector; and second, the restructuring of the university sector.

We will consider a new JC curriculum, better integrated upper secondary and JC programmes, alternative qualifications, and private schools at the secondary and JC levels. We will also consider specialised schools in Science and Mathematics, and in the arts, like the sports school, which will cater to students with different aptitudes and interest, as Mr Low desires. At the tertiary level, the upgrading of the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts and the La Salle-SIA College of the Arts, funded by the Ministry of Education, as well as the establishment of the Music Conservatory in NUS will provide more opportunities for those with the talent and interest in these areas. The polytechnics and ITE will continue to expand, and we will also provide more university places in the relevant fields, and also possibly allow private universities to be established.

Taken together, these initiatives will provide more opportunities and options to our students at the upper secondary and tertiary levels, building on a very strong foundation which we have today, providing a good solid basic education to our children in our primary and secondary schools.

Let me now address some of the specific issues that Members have raised. First, streaming. First of all, I would like to thank Members for agreeing with the principle of streaming. Streaming provides opportunities for educational advancement to all students according to their aptitudes and abilities. It is not that we have not tried a system without streaming before. That was a system I grew up in, and also many of the Members of this House. But that left many members of our society by the wayside, and that is why we have, today, such a large problem in the age group, 40-50, who have not completed their secondary education.

Our streaming differentiates curriculum and the pace and method of learning, so that each student can proceed at his or her own pace and gain a sense of achievement and motivation to learn. Members have emphasised the need for the education system to maximise the potential of our students. This is precisely what streaming attempts to do. This is the strength our system has, and is a major reason for the high achievement levels of our students.

The alternative to streaming is mixed ability classes, where teaching has to be targeted at the average. In such classes, the more academically able will languish as they lose interest in the curriculum, while the less academically able students give up, as they cannot keep pace with the curriculum. This was what we found previously before streaming was introduced. There is a tendency for us to look back in history with rose tinted glasses. We should take an objective look and see whether we are doing better for the broad majority of our students today than we did in the past.

Mdm Halimah has asked how we address the issue of school dropouts. We do so by trying to make sure that as few of them do so as possible in the first place. Through streaming and giving those who need it a lighter curriculum or more time, we have reduced educational wastage and successfully raised the educational attainment of our students. In 1980, before streaming was introduced, only 58% of our Primary 1 cohort completed secondary school. By last year, the proportion had gone up to 93%. This is because we have been able to provide a differentiated curriculum for the students. Through streaming, we have, therefore, been able to sharply reduce dropout rates due to educational reasons. Students may still drop out for a variety of personal, family or social reasons. To address this, we work with the VWOs and MCDS. 1.30 pm

Perhaps the best indicator of the success of streaming is how well it has served our less academically inclined students. Prior to the streaming system, and the articulation of the EM3, normal technical stream and ITE, we really had very few educational opportunities for students like these. They would drop out of school and enter the workforce with no specific skills.

In 1994, we introduced the Normal (Technical) course in secondary schools. These students did not use to go to secondary schools. They would go to primary school, spend a few extra years in primary schools as over-sized students, and then go on to VITB. Those pupils who will do better in a practical rather than academic setting, who previously went to VITB after Primary 6, now have a chance to shoot for secondary education, to develop the foundation for acquiring a higher level of skills at the post-secondary level. Simultaneously, we upgraded the VITB and restructured it to become a post-secondary institution, the ITE, to provide such students with further post-secondary opportunities for education. This has lifted the level of these students. With the expansion of places at junior colleges, polytechnics and ITEs, 8 out of 10 of our students now go on to post-secondary education compared to 1 out of 10 in those rosy days of 1965. This percentage is at least as high, if not higher than even those achieved by the most developed countries today.

Mdm Halimah asked how our less academically inclined students do after they leave school. They do very well. ITE graduates are sought after by employers who pay them very well. Even in the midst of the recession last year, 88% of ITE graduates found employment within three months of graduation. In comparison, there were university graduates who were still looking for jobs after half a year. In particular, the average monthly salary for fresh ITE graduates range from $1,100-$1,400 a month. This compares well with fresh polytechnic graduates, whose monthly salary ranges from $1,500-$1,900 a month.

Mr Singh, Mdm Halimah and others, said that streaming is done too early. Dr Ong asked if streaming could be done later to take into account late-developers. Sir, it is precisely because we have late-developers that we need streaming. Otherwise, what do we do with the late-developers? Whatever the reason for their poorer academic performance at that point in time, forcing them to learn at a pace that they cannot or are not ready to cope with will simply push them out of the system. Streaming allows them to continue to learn at a pace comfortable to them.

Even after students enter a particular stream, there is a well-structured progression route for them through to post-secondary education, and a net of "ladders and bridges", that allows students to go as far as they can, and even across streams. It is wrong to say that our education system provides no chance for late bloomers. It is our previous system, before streaming, that did not provide chances for late bloomers. That, as I said, is a major reason why so many of our 40 and 50-year olds today, people who went to school with you and me, have not completed secondary education. They had no opportunities and, after failing, staying back a few years, they left school, without any specific qualification or skill. In contrast, our system now provides students of all abilities, the opportunity to get a solid foundation of at least 10 years of primary and secondary education, with 8 out of 10 of them, going beyond that, to further education.

Late-developers still have opportunities for self-improvement. Those who do well, and can benefit from going on with their education, can do so. Every year, about 1,000 ITE graduates go on to the polytechnics, and 1,000 polytechnic graduates go on to our universities. Without streaming, late-developers would have been nipped in the bud instead.

I had a discussion with polytechnic students at a Poly Seminar three years ago. One student stood up and lamented that the system did not provide second chances. It turned out that he was 29 years old, and in the Polytechnic. He was in the process of getting his second chance. Last year, the Lee Kuan Yew Award winner in the ITE was a not so young man, called Simon Foo, from the Navy, I am proud to add. He was the top graduate of ITE for the year, and has been offered a place to study in the polytechnic. He is now 27 years old and married. Without the Normal programme and the ITE, he might never have qualified to go to the polytechnic.

Sir, the oldest student doing a full-time diploma in our polytechnics is now 50 years old. The oldest doing a part-time diploma is 68 years old. The ITE is the biggest provider of continuing education programmes in Singapore, with 34,000 students enrolled, and another 20,000 on ITE accredited courses conducted by industry training partners. We should applaud the chances and opportunities that ITE is, in fact, giving to many of our students, to many of our mature Singaporeans, opportunities which they might not otherwise have got.

Finally, a word on streaming. It is important to note that for streaming in schools, at primary level, there is a parental option when students are streamed at the end of Primary 4. Parents have the final say. Parents can choose not to put their child in the EM3 stream at Primary 5, or if they feel that they are too stressed, they can choose not to put their children in EM1. But very few parents opt their children out of EM1 and many parents opt their children from EM2 to EM1.

Mr Singh suggested that we have a hybrid system where children are kept in the same class in primary school, and break up for specific subjects to cater for children of differing abilities. The idea is not a bad one. The issue is one of practicality - whether it will, in practice, achieve the objectives that Mr Singh has stated. In the primary schools, there are basically 4 subjects being taught, mother tongue being one of them, with the children already split up. This means that if we split up children for other subjects, they would be breaking out of their classes, perhaps 75-100% of their time. This would have implications on resources, time-tabling, etc, and, of course, it will mean that the children do not get to spend most of their time together and just split up for some lessons, which is what Mr Singh's objective was. However, if schools wish to pilot or try this out, I have no objection to them trying.

Mr Singh also said that students of different abilities should interact with each other, and I agree that this is important. Students have opportunities to build bonds and friendships outside their classrooms. For instance, CCAs provide avenues for students from different backgrounds to engage in the same activities. The drum-major in the band, the basket ball captain, or the star in the football team may not come from the fastest stream in the school. And they learn to work together and appreciate each other's strengths and weaknesses. It does not have to be, as Members of the House say, only in academic activities. And, in the process, they get to know each other better and learn to support each other in common endeavours. I should add that it is because we have streaming that we pick students from three different queues to enter the same schools, that we have good mixing in our secondary schools. If we did not have streaming, and students were posted to schools based on one linear list, based on their PSLE t-scores, then all the academically weakest students would probably be grouped in, say, 20 or so schools, rather than distributed among more than 120 secondary schools with students from other streams.

Dr Khor mentioned that streaming is unpopular among teachers. I have frank discussions with teachers and principals regularly, several times a month, either during school visits or in dialogue sessions at the Ministry of Education headquarters, in groups of a dozen or so teachers. Teachers generally recognise children learn at different paces, and that it is not helpful for children to be given a curriculum that they cannot cope with. They are supportive of a stream, like the EM3, that caters for slower learners. Contrary to what Mr Singh says, they also do not dread taking on EM3 classes. Some of our most highly motivated teachers derive great satisfaction, and a sense of mission, from teaching less able kids. I think Dr Wang may well have interviewed some of them for the Outstanding Teacher and President's Teacher Awards. But they, like my colleagues in this House, do feel for these kids, and wonder how best to help the kids cope with the issues of labelling and stigmatisation, and to help them build up their self-esteem.

These concerns have been expressed by Dr Khor and Mr Singh. Such labelling is really a social phenomenon. From a purely educational standpoint, I think Members in this House would agree, that streaming is the correct approach, as it tries to maximise the potential of all students by providing them with programmes as well suited to the students as possible, so that as many of them as possible can be successful in their own right. I am not sure really which is more damaging to self-esteem - to consistently fail because the curriculum and pace is so fast, or to perform comfortably well, achieve success in small bites every year, make steady progress in a less demanding stream, and eventually attain a qualification that employers attach value to.

The Ministry has consistently sought to lift the level of all our students. Members, like Dr Ong and Mr Singh, have suggested that there should be additional support for weaker students, and this is being done. At the primary school level, the Ministry has a Learning Support Programme (LSP) and the Encouraging Achievement and Better Learning (ENABLE) programme to give additional support to pupils who are weak in literacy or numeracy skills. At the secondary level, the Normal (Technical) students were among the first to have access to computers in their schools, before students from any other streams, when computer laboratories were specially set up for the teaching of Normal (Technical) subject Computer Applications. At the post-secondary level, the Ministry has devoted great efforts to upgrade technical education. Sir, this is a segment of our education system that I am particularly proud of. Some Members of this House were able to accept my invitation to visit the ITE, after the debate on the President's Address, and I would like to extend an open invitation to other Members of this House, to see ITE for themselves, and how well the students are doing. Come and have a look.

Sir, I have visited many countries in the past five years, basically to study their education systems, to see how we can adapt the good things that they have done, to our system. They all have to deal with the issue of how to cater to the different educational needs of the whole spectrum of students.

The Singapore education system does this better than most. And what is the evidence? In the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (1999), 93% and 80% of our secondary 2 students were above the international average for Mathematics and Science, respectively, for students of that age group. Sir, I am not surprised that the US needs to come up with new initiatives like the one that Mr Inderjit Singh pointed out, because a large proportion of their students fall well behind.

The advantage of a good solid foundation carried through into post-secondary education, which benefits 8 out of 10 of our children, provides them further opportunities in life. And it places a vast majority of our students on the correct side of the knowledge divide that divides this world into the knowledge haves and the knowledge have-nots. And our education system has been able to provide a vast majority of Singaporeans with that leg up for the future, in engineering, bio-sciences and information technology, not just in the universities, but in the polytechnics and in the ITEs.

Sir, ultimately, it is better to recognise that different students have different needs, and to explicitly provide different streams and educational opportunities for them, than to work on the premise, the hope, that they are all the same and fail to provide for their different needs, or provide for them in an ad hoc way, and then lament later when they do not make it.

Parents and schools need to work together so that educational features like streaming and other forms of additional support that are meant to help pupils, do not become a cause of stigmatisation. Ironically, people who oppose streaming are often the same ones who perpetuate the labelling of our students - I do not call them failures, and I am not so sure why so many Members do - by viewing the provision of a more moderately paced curriculum and a sound technical education for students as something desirable, and we can encourage them to achieve their potential. This attitude of labelling and calling them names is something which we should change, and not streaming. I welcome suggestions from Members on how we can encourage these students, and discourage labelling. 1.45 pm

Dr Wang suggested that we should also review school ranking. The introduction of school ranking has had a salutary effect on our schools. It has raised standards and allowed parents to make more informed choices, especially as to which are value-added schools. We only rank the top 50 secondary schools, and not all the secondary schools, nor do we rank the primary schools.

Sir, school ranking is increasingly being adopted in the United States and in the UK, where often all the schools are ranked from top to bottom. And it is often in response to demands from parents to know how well schools are educating their children, because parents want to know. I have no doubt that if we did not have school ranking and did not provide information on how schools are doing, there will be parents who will ask us, and I think it is their right to know. There is nothing to hide.

In the US and the UK, teachers do not like ranking - Dr Wang is quite right - because the teachers are now held accountable to standards when, previously, they were not. But should we hold our schools and teachers accountable for standards? I think the answer is yes. Sir, I am open to ideas on how ranking can be improved, and suggestions from Members of the House are welcome.

Two years ago, I informed Members of this House that we introduced a new appraisal system called the School Excellence Model, where schools do self-evaluation on not just their outputs but also their internal processes. I have given out awards for Best Practice and Sustained Achievements since 1999, to recognise schools for a wide range of areas, from CCA to staff development. However, these awards have not attracted nearly as much attention from the public and the media as school ranking. But I do hope that, over time, the public will learn to recognise that a good school is more than just an absolute ranking, and consists of a whole host of other things.

Mr Yeo has suggested that our system is too stressful and puts too much pressure on students. It is true that our students study hard in school, and that our schools seek to ensure that students do their best. However, the strong foundation that our Singapore children have acquired from the hard work that they put in, and the strong work ethic, are important qualities that will help them to succeed in life.

Incidentally, Members who feel that our children are over loaded should be strong advocates of streaming, as it addresses precisely their concern by differentiating the pacing and content of curriculum according to ability. Mdm Halimah and others have said that children are more concerned about their examinations than they are about their parents dying. Frankly, Sir, I think we are fortunate to live in a country where children are focused on their studies and examinations, and not on their parents dying. I have no doubt that if we live in a war-torn country or a country which is rife with terrorism and so on, then children will be worried about their parents dying everyday, rather than their schools and examinations. I would not like to live in a country like that.

The problem of excessive pressure arises when there is a mismatch between expectations and achievement. Schools, parents and society need to understand that while we want the best for our children, we should not push them beyond their limits. One example is streaming at Primary 4. There is really no point overloading children with higher mother tongue in EM1 if they are unable to cope. Yet, many parents opt in to EM1 stream for their children, and few opt out from it.

The movie, I Not Stupid, reflected quite starkly how some Singaporeans have chosen parochial definitions of success and imposed them on their children. Mr Yeo mentioned a serious moment in the movie where one of the characters wanted to commit suicide. Sir, I happen to think that this is an excellent movie. It provides a mirror for our society and for each of us, and allows each of us to see how we might actually be behaving and how this behaviour may even, with the best of intentions, have a negative effect on our children and on others. It is a useful movie for principals, parents and teachers to watch. I should point out, though, that in the movie, the student wanted to commit suicide, not because he could not cope with his school work, but because he could not live up to his mother's unrealistic expectations that he attain more than 90 marks in his test. We need a broader definition of success. Being all that we can be should be counted as success.

When Mr Singh said that the Ministry should set performance targets on the number of lateral transfers from what he calls a lower stream to a higher stream, he is, in fact, narrowing the definition of what it means to be successful, to whether a student is able to move from EM3 to EM2. The Ministry does not have targets for lateral transfers, because setting such targets means that we will be forcing students to learn at a pace that they cannot cope with. This is not the best thing for them. This may result in pushing them out of the system. It is more meaningful to provide an appropriate programme with adequate and proper support to weaker students to maximise their potential and provide them with avenues of progression. EM3 students can progress through the system. Nobody has given up on them, and this has been our approach.

On counselling, the Ministry has a programme for addressing the social and emotional needs of students. Counselling is available through the entire age range of students. All teachers are given basic training in counselling, and there are teacher counsellors of which there are two in each school, but they are part time. We also have trained some 30 retired education officers as counsellors. And by July this year, they will be deployed to schools and to clusters. But this is an area in which I will be the first to agree that we can do with more assistance. Schools work with VWOs, Family Service Centres and self-help groups. Incidentally, that is one of the reasons why since 1997-1998, the Ministry of Education, together with the Ministry of Health, has been promoting the support services such as those provided by the Institute of Mental Health, resulting in an increase in attendances.

While schools provide support for the pupils, the support from home is of paramount importance in helping students to cope with stress, and when they face distress. Mr Gan suggested that there might also be a need to counsel parents. Yes, that is so, and where there is a need for parents to be counselled, I suggest that they be referred to Family Service Centres for the necessary support. The Ministry and our schools will be happy to work with other agencies and organisations on this issue, as it is an issue which the Ministry itself is not particularly well equipped to undertake.

Sir, education seeks to provide Singaporeans with the opportunity to fulfil their potential. Because the potential of our students is multi-faceted, our education system has to provide opportunities to different programmes and different types of institutions. The way forward is to provide greater diversity in the school system and allowing for more educational routes and models, not just to consider one route or one model as the success paradigm, as many in this House seem to have the orientation towards. Such an approach will allow us to more fully develop the different abilities of our students.

As mentioned earlier, the Ministry is currently carrying out a review of junior college and upper secondary education, and I will ask the Senior Minister of State, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, to update Members on that.

The Senior Minister of State for Education (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): Sir, Dr Wang Kai Yuen has expressed views on the issues under MOE's review of the junior college and upper secondary education system. The Review Committee on JC and Upper Secondary Education, which comprises both educationists as well as people from the people sector, private sector and public sector and which I chair, is looking into two main areas. First, the principles and framework for a revised JC curriculum; and, second, the introduction of greater diversity of programmes within schools.

The current JC curriculum has its strengths. The 'A' levels have served as the standard bearer for the rigour and high standards of our JC and pre-university education for the last 30 years. Over the years, we have continuously improved the JC curriculum, but the basic structure of the 'A' level programme is unchanged from the time we adopted it from the British. It is a system that was designed to provide students at age 17-18 with a strong core of knowledge in a few subjects - 3 or 4 subjects - to prepare them to enter the workplace. It also prepared students to go on to universities in the British mould - universities which require students to complete relatively specialised degrees within three years.

The basic structure is one of specialisation at the 'A' levels after a broad secondary school education leading up to the 'O' levels. It is like the British system, but quite unlike that in the US and most of the European countries, where students undergo a broad-based curriculum throughout their school and pre-university years. Our universities have, however, departed from the British model. They offer 4-year degree programmes in many disciplines, and are now providing a broader education within the first and second years of university.

Further, most students who are now sitting for the 'A' levels go on to university, unlike the situation 20-30 years ago. It is no longer a terminal qualification. Our 'A' level curriculum requires students to narrow their interest after the 'O' levels, before they broaden out again at university. Dr Wang Kai Yuen described the structure as having a Coca Cola bottle shape.

We are reviewing the JC curriculum, not because it has worked badly, but because of the fundamentally different environment which young Singaporeans will have to engage in in future. We have transited to a knowledge-based economy. We have to prepare the young, as Dr Wang says, for uncertainty, in a rapidly changing environment. Flexibility, and an ability to understand and draw on different knowledge disciplines, will be at a premium.

It will be difficult for students to know at age 17, or even when they are at university, what jobs they will do when they enter the workforce, or what new jobs they will take on over the course of their careers. Further, whatever profession they are in, they will have to pick up new knowledge and skills every so often, to stay on top of their jobs and to keep an edge over the competition. More of this knowledge will be drawn from the interconnections between disciplines. Many of the major breakthroughs in knowledge, and the economic opportunities that come with them, are coming out of the spaces between traditional subject disciplines.

We have to prepare our young for this future. An example is bio-engineering, already an area of tremendous opportunity. To groom talent in bio-engineering, we ideally want engineers who know something about biology. But the current JC curriculum, like that in the UK, but unlike that in the United States, grooms future engineers who have no exposure to biology at the JC level, and often even earlier. Within the framework of four 'A' level subjects, those wanting to do engineering at university will typically take two mathematics subjects, physics and chemistry. There is no room to spare for biology. NUS and NTU are now remedying this by requiring engineering students to take biology during their first year at university. But the long-term solution is to give some of our future engineers exposure to biology at JC, without them giving up any of the other subjects that they wish to take. This is an example of why we need a broader and more flexible JC curriculum.

A key part of the work of the Review Committee is public consultation. Over the past two months, we have had dialogue with various groups with a stake in education - parents, employers, entrepreneurs and professionals, academics, principals and teachers, and students themselves.

There has been broad support in the public consultation on the need to broaden the JC curriculum, in a number of respects. First, on the academic component of the curriculum, there is consensus in favour of students acquiring a broader range of knowledge, and for greater emphasis to be given to critical process skills, such as thinking and innovative skills, the ability to make connections across subject disciplines, and communication skills.

Second, there is considerable feedback that there should be adequate emphasis on the non-academic curriculum, so as to develop life skills and enhance the leadership qualities of our JC students. Employers, teachers and parents alike have emphasised the need to nurture strength of character, team spirit, enterprise, and a passion in what the students do. Whatever they choose to do, they must have passion.

The Review Committee is studying various approaches to broaden the academic curriculum in JCs. One of these is a modular approach to the junior college curriculum, that will allow students to offer a core curriculum as well as electives in different areas. The elective subjects would be quite unlike the 'S' papers today, for instance, which drill deeper into subjects that students are taking at the "A" level. The broader JC curriculum could also be shaped to take into account what a student studies in his upper secondary years. All JC students would thus undergo a holistic programme of academic development over four years, in a range of subjects at their "O" and "A" levels, and at varying levels of difficulty. So as not to confuse Members, this is quite distinct from the issue of integrated schools, or through-train schools, which I will come to in a moment. The proposal I have just mentioned is one of those being studied for all JC students as part of the comprehensive review of the JC curriculum. 2.00 pm

There is also support in the Review Committee and in our public consultations for retaining adequate depth in the JC curriculum. The main reason for this is that students have to pursue some subjects to a sufficient level of depth and difficulty in order to train their thinking skills and develop their powers of critical analysis. The traditional reasons for depth are also not irrelevant - the foundations that students acquire at JC in preparation for university cannot be too thin, particularly for those going on to pursue engineering and the sciences.

The changes we introduce to the JC curriculum must therefore achieve an appropriate balance between breadth and depth of coverage, between content mastery and process skills, and between the academic and non-academic components of the curriculum. We must not compromise on the rigour of our JC curriculum. If we adopt a broader or more flexible curriculum, the learning process must remain demanding. We have to broaden the scope of the students' curriculum without lowering standards, the way it has turned out in some countries. But there will have to be trade-offs, so that we do not increase the overall load on students and teachers. There is no slack in our JCs, unlike the situation in the UK, for instance, before they introduced recent reforms requiring students to take more subjects at the "A" levels, or what they called "half-A levels". We cannot inject greater breadth without reducing the scope of content which students learn within the subjects they choose to specialise in. So there are trade-offs.

The Review Committee is also studying whether we can achieve greater diversity in the structure of the upper secondary and JC education system, by allowing some schools to offer new pathways to a university education, new curricula and new assessment methods. We need this diversity in our system because there can be no single formula for preparing our young for an innovation-driven future - and an unpredictable future, a future which Mrs Yu-Foo described as "a change every day".

In our public consultation sessions, there has been positive feedback on the case for specialised independent schools to develop students with special talents and abilities. For instance, an Arts School or a Mathematics and Science School, modelled along the lines of the Sports School, which will be operational in 2004. Dr Wang asked if such schools should not be run by the Ministry of Education. MOE will fund specialised independent schools in the same way it funds other independent schools. However, we prefer to have a specialised school run by a community that is willing to support the school and has an interest in its success, such as the arts community in the case of students with special talents in the arts. This is the best way of ensuring that there is demand for the school, and that the expertise, resources and energy of the community are brought to bear in the running of the school, not just initially but on a continuing basis. The community has to take ownership for the school to succeed.

Another area that has attracted much discussion is the possibility of allowing some schools or Junior Colleges to offer integrated programmes, including both the upper secondary and JC level, within the same school. There is support in our public consultations for this proposal. Integrated programmes could be either four-year programmes beginning in Secondary 3, up to JC 2, or six-year programmes from Secondary 1 to JC 2. They can be offered by a single institution or by a family of institutions.

One of the possibilities that is opened up by an integrated school is for some of its students - those who are confident of doing well in their "A" levels - to skip the "O" levels to free up time to develop their interests and for other broader educational experiences. We are also studying the possibility of allowing students in some schools to work towards different final qualifications, instead of the "A" levels. This could include allowing one or two schools to offer alternative programmes such as the International Baccalaureate, with appropriate local content.

We have to accept that a more diverse education system, including new school structures or schools with different curricula, will carry with it a greater sense of differentiation. However, admission into such programmes has to be open, fair and meritocratic. Dr Wang raised the issue of whether the PSLE was an appropriate point at which students should be selected for integrated programmes leading up to JC. We are studying this carefully. There could be different points of entry for different schools offering integrated programmes, depending on how they structure their integrated programmes. One method being considered is for schools offering an integrated programme to admit students after the PSLE, as they currently do, and to assess after the lower secondary years, whether a student is suited to progressing on the integrated programme. Not all students in such schools will want to skip the "O" levels. The schools offering integrated programmes should also be able to take in a certain number of students at some point after the PSLE entry level. The school could do this by administering its own admission tests.

As we consider freeing up the mainstream state-funded school system to allow for greater choice, the case for schools which are privately run and privately funded has been less compelling. Participants in the public consultation process have placed greater priority on the need for diversity within the state-funded system. However, the Review Committee has kept an open mind on the issue of private schools at this point. We are not ruling out the possibility of recommending that the Government allow for a few private schools who have a particular niche to serve, and who can provide an added source of ideas and innovative practices in education.

Sir, to conclude, the review of the JC and upper secondary education system is an important part of MOE's efforts to meet future challenges. The Review Committee will put up a consultation document for further public comment in a few months' time, and make its final recommendations to the Government within five months.

We are embarking on major innovations in our upper secondary and Junior College system. Any changes that the Government decides to adopt will have to be thought through in detail, and prepared for extensively. Teachers will have to be prepared, and will have to be confident of teaching any new curriculum well. A major change to the JC curriculum will take about five years to develop and implement. If we allow some schools to offer integrated programmes leading to Junior College, those that are conducted within the existing curriculum framework can take off within the next two years.

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines) Sir, a clarification on the Minister's earlier statement. In asking Singaporeans to redefine the definition of success, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government is prepared to set the example by doing away with the distinction in labelling within the civil service itself. It is common perception that within the service, there is a distinction made between ---

The Chairman: Mr Sin, that is not a clarification. That is a question.

Mr Sin Boon Ann: I will ask a question. I am coming to my question soon. Is the Government prepared to set the example ---

The Chairman: I do not think you can ask the question, Mr Sin. I am sorry. Mdm Ho Geok Choo.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Sir, I am indeed heartened by MOS Mr Tharman's enumeration of what is likely to come in the revised syllabus of tertiary students. I would like to take this opportunity though to elaborate on the important economic survival skills that our tertiary students must be equipped with, in order to give them that booster start when they enter their first career.

There is no doubt that the educational institutions train and educate our students well in a broad range of subjects, from Mathematics to computing to the life sciences. This education equips our students with knowledge, skills and abilities which enable them to take up jobs in different sectors and thus contribute to the economic life of the nation. It seems to me, however, that there is a missing link. In as much as they are technically competent to take on employment, they are often relatively less well-prepared to transit into the wider work environment.

By this I mean that graduates need, on the one hand, to have an awareness of trends and happenings in the wider socio-economic and cultural environment and, on the other hand, the ability or, at the very least, an understanding of what it takes to relate and interact with significant others in the workplace.

For example, words like globalisation', the knowledge economy' and `continuous learning' are more than buzzwords - they have an impact on organisations and people who work in them. Do our students actually know what they mean, and what their significance is? How does the economic climate impact on jobs and careers and how should these changes be managed?

In the workplace, for example, how may one conduct interpersonal relations effectively? How does one communicate with one's superiors, peers, subordinates, clients and suppliers? What does it take to work in a team? How does one motivate oneself and others? How does one deal with the `difference' in a workplace that has become increasingly diversified? And as we move to strengthen our service sector of the economy, how much do fresh graduates know about the management of emotions that is inherent in the nature of service work?

All such knowledge constitutes competencies which can influence significantly individual and organisational performance. They also have a role to play in fostering creativity and an innovative frame of mind. On a larger scale, the possession of such competencies can constitute a competitive advantage.

Now, it may be argued that, even without formal learning, employees do, in time, acquire such competencies relating to the wider environment and the conduct of interpersonal relations. I would contend however that rather than waiting for employees to acquire such competencies through what may be painful and costly trial-and-error experiences over time, we can shorten the learning curve considerably by inserting that learning into the curriculum of polytechnic and university graduates.

I have in mind the institutionalisation of a course on the management of human relations in the polytechnic and university curriculum. Could the Minister kindly outline what measures his Ministry will take to prepare our graduates for this transition to the work environment in the knowledge economy?

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Sir, some Singaporeans still perceive Chinese to be dull and difficult to study, and the Chinese teachers to be rigid, inflexible and their teaching methods outdated and uninteresting. In fact, this has improved as new teaching methods were introduced, but image problems appear to persist. Today, more and more Chinese Language teachers, as what we understand, employ creative and lively teaching methods to cater to today's students.

My key concern, however, is that MOE has set too many restrictions on the assessment of the subjects in primary and secondary schools. Some examples of irrelevant and outdated contents, such as standard letter-writing format, unrealistic composition topics, were still enforced by MOE and the schools.

Sir, to enhance the effectiveness of teaching and learning, there is a need to review the assessment methods. For example, in many secondary schools today, "ciyu jieshi" is still a key component of test and CA for Chinese Language, which request the students to write out word by word from memory the meaning of the specific vocabulary. The way we set the test makes learning of Chinese as if memorising by heart the book of vocabulary. This has not only demoralised and made the learning of the Chinese Language tiresome but also hindered the ability of the students to learn the Chinese Language in a more creative and interesting way. Many students end up really hating the Chinese Language.

Sir, today, we also have many principals sitting in the public gallery. I really hope the MOE and the school principals will consider this seriously. The examination and testing formats should be closely linked to the desirable learning outcomes. We need innovative ideas for teaching and learning, but, more importantly, we also need them for testing and assessment. Innovation in learning and teaching of the Chinese Language will not be effective without innovation in the assessment methods.

The Chairman: Mr Sin Boon Ann, you can try and slip in your question now.

Mr Sin Boon Ann: Sir, I will save my question for another day.

Sir, the learning of mother tongue as a second language in our schools has been the subject of much contention, both within and outside this House.

Presumably, the underlying principle of our second language policy is, among other things, to preserve our cultural heritage, since language is the vehicle by which values are transmitted from one generation to another. Sir, in my response during the debate on the President's Address earlier this year in this House, I had said that one major limitation of sending Singaporeans overseas lies in education. In particular, I believe that it is the learning of the second language that discourages many from going overseas to work. There is a genuine concern that when they return from their overseas posting or assignment, their children, having spent time overseas, may not be able to cope with the second language, especially if the posting is to a country that does not provide a proper environment for the learning of the second language. The consequence then is that for Singaporeans who invest overseas, it is difficult for them to find middle or top management to these places, usually it is these people who are the ones with school-going children. 2.15 pm

To a point, the Government recognises this problem. I understand that the children of school-going age who spent sometime overseas are given some dispensation from learning the second language. For instance, a child who is absent from Singapore for some time need not offer a second language if he or she returns to Singapore in his PSLE year.

Sir, in an extremely competitive environment, such as ours, I am not sure if such policies are sufficient to induce Singaporeans to go overseas. While the Ministry has been flexible in its second language policy, I feel that it does not go far enough. To begin with, it does not completely exempt the child from the requirements of the second language altogether. There could be situations where the child may be away too long for him to catch up with his language to a point where he is at a complete disadvantage to his peers. Does this mean therefore that he will perpetually labour under this disadvantage?

Perhaps, the Government can do more. First, our Government should be prepared to be more flexible in the second language requirements if it is clear that the child is unlikely to, within the duration of his school career, effectively attain a measure of competence in the second language that will not put him at a distinct disadvantage with the rest. In such cases, the Ministry should allow perhaps the children the option of doing the second language at a more basic level, such as the CL 'B', as a way of easing the children into the language. Additionally, the Government should be prepared to back its high demands on the language requirements, by investing more resources in the teaching of the second language through the Internet. Sir, using the Internet has the distinct advantage of allowing people to log on to the site wherever they are. It is a virtual classroom that is not constrained by space and perhaps time. With multi-media capability, it would not be difficult for the child to pick up the language skills even in the spoken aspect of it. The Internet may therefore be used to update also the parents on the latest syllabus requirements.

I believe that, to deal with the competing demands of second language and the need to send Singaporeans with young families overseas, we need not solve this by doing away with the requirement to learn the second language altogether. However, if the Government can be flexible in its demands and is prepared to invest more in Internet technology to assist in the learning of the language, I am sure it will go a long way towards encouraging Singaporeans to go overseas.

Dr Ong Seh Hong: (In Mandarin): Sir, let me tell a story. Once upon a time, a pack of wolves were living on a hill. There were black wolves, brown wolves and yellow wolves. At another hill nearby lived a group of monkeys, and they were gorgeous golden monkeys. Among this pack of wolves, there was one yellow wolf who did not like the colour of his fur, and he was also not happy with the sound of his howling. He aspired to become a golden monkey, like those living on the nearby hill. He therefore tried very hard to learn the cries of the monkeys, imitate their postures and even practised the way they climbed the trees.

One day, he thought he had mastered the crying, walking and climbing skills of the monkeys, and decided to go to the other hill to join the monkeys as one of them. But, the moment the monkeys saw this wolf approaching, they surrounded him and attacked him. Fortunately for him, he managed to run away very quickly, but not before he sustained injuries all over his body. Dejectedly, he returned to the pack of wolves. But, when he opened his mouth, he had forgotten how to howl like a wolf, and found himself unable to blend into the pack of wolves.

The moral of this story is that no matter how well the yellow wolf had learnt the language of the monkeys, he should not neglect his own mother tongue, to howl like a wolf. Likewise, no matter how hard you have learnt to acquire proficiency in another language, you must not forget your own mother tongue.

In his memoir, the Senior Minister mentioned that when he and his wife were studying in England, they met a group of Chinese students and from his interaction with them, he began to realise the extent of his cultural loss. He did not learn the Asian culture, and he did not belong to the English culture. He was lost somewhere between the two. For this reason, he subsequently sent all his children to the Chinese school to study their mother tongue.

Another example is former NMP, Dr Lee Tsao Yuan. It was only after the age of 40 that she began to re-discover her own cultural roots. As such, we have a responsibility to help every citizen know and retain his own cultural heritage, and mother tongue is the important key to the preservation of cultural heritage. Therefore, we have a responsibility to help every one of our citizens maintain his own cultural heritage.

Some people may say that you could also learn your own culture through the English language. Is that so? I personally feel that it is impossible for one to go deep into the quintessence of Chinese culture through English, and learn to appreciate the beauty of the Tang Dynasty poems. You cannot really understand your own language and your own culture through another language.

Some people allege that mother tongue is the cause of racial segregation, and are fond of proposing that the mother tongue be abolished. They use incidents such as the September 11, the tudung, etc, as an excuse to advocate the scrapping of the SAP schools and the community-based self-help groups. Some cited the United States as an example and say that in the United States, everybody speaks the same language. It is a big melting pot, and nobody cares about his cultural roots. I do not think this is true. As a matter of fact, a lot of people in the United States are actively searching for their roots. Remember the famous best-seller, Roots by Alex Haley. It gives a vivid account of how the Americans are looking for their lost roots.

Fortunately, our political leaders, including the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Education have repeatedly emphasised the importance of mother tongue to alleviate the doubts of these people.

Sir, we cannot prevent other people from giving up their own mother tongue and culture to accept another language or another culture, like the wolf in my earlier story. But we must try to make sure that every Singaporean, whether Chinese or Malay or Indian, will have the opportunity to learn his mother tongue to know his own roots. Only then, can the various communities feel that their own culture will not be threatened. By learning their own culture, they will be able to build up their pride and respect for their own community. And only with the pride and respect for their own community, can they trust the other groups and to live in harmony with the other communities.

Apart from that, with this globalised new economy, it will certainly bring an impact on our society and culture. The retention and enhancement of our traditional values can help to alleviate some of these adverse impacts.

I hereby urge the Minister for Education to reiterate the status of the mother tongue. I also urge the MOE to attach more importance to the inculcation of culture and values in the contents of our mother tongue education, and thereby enhance the students' knowledge in their own culture and history.

The Chairman: May I remind Members to be short, please.

Mr S. Iswaran (West Coast): Sir, two to three years ago, the Minister chaired the committee to review the teaching of Malay Language in schools. It was part of a general review of the teaching of mother tongue in our schools. Some of the key recommendations were to modify the curriculum and textbooks, also to introduce a third stream, or to give the option to do an examination in Tamil Language B. The other recommendation was to enhance the Umar Pulavar Tamil Language Centre as a place for the learning of Higher Tamil.

Sir, my first question is whether the Minister could give us a progress report on the implementation of those recommendations and, in particular, on how the upgrading and improvement of the Umar Pulavar Tamil Language Centre has progressed and the response of teachers and students to that new facility. The second question I have is, based on feedback, whilst we have modified curriculum and textbooks, there is a perception certainly among many parents, whose children take Tamil as a second language, that the assessment system, whether it is examination or school-based tests, has not reflected the change of the curriculum content adequately. This is quite a systematic feedback and it occurs both at the levels where there are national examinations, like P4, P6, as well as school-based examinations at other levels. Sir, I would like to know whether the Ministry has a process by which the curriculum changes and the textbook changes will feed through to have a material impact on the examinations and assessments that we have for the mother tongue and, in particular, Tamil.

The third aspect, Sir, pertains to access to mother tongue and specifically Tamil Language. Sir, Higher Tamil is offered in, perhaps, two or maybe three secondary schools today - Raffles Institution, RGS, and, possibly, Cedar, I may be wrong there. The other students are required to go to the Tamil Language Centre and take up Higher Tamil. While the facility is well appreciated, it does mean that these students have to take time away from school which means they either miss out on CCA, or they miss out on remedial classes, or other enrichment classes, in order to pursue their interest in Higher Tamil. The question is not perhaps that Higher Tamil should be ubiquitous and offered in all schools. But in additional schools where there might be a critical mass of such students, could we reconsider offering it in situ in the schools itself? One example could be Crescent Girls where I have received feedback that there are at least 20 students who are taking Higher Tamil.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): Sir, Singapore is an immigrant society. The plural ways of life have been part of our living here. Against this background, it is indeed a great challenge for us to preserve the co-existence of the plural ways of life among the ethnic groups while pursuing to build a strong nationhood. To a different extent, the various ethnic groups are facing a common problem, and it is how to preserve and protect their own language and culture in a predominantly English-speaking environment, so that they will not be further eroded and even subjugated.

In form, the Government's policy appears to favour bilingualism, but in substance it is undoubtedly, "English is supreme!" We do admit that the use of English is conducive to the interaction among the ethnic groups and enhances their mutual understanding. But, do we really want to be naturalised by the English language to become a homogenous people? That is an entirely different matter. While projecting our common destiny as Singaporeans, I believe each ethnic group also hopes to preserve and retain its own way of life, its own language and culture. We also agree that English is useful to us in making a living in this highly competitive global economy. However, do we really want to just earn a living and give up our own way of life? What about our cultural characteristics? I believe the various ethnic groups of this generation are unwilling to see our society losing its present multi-cultural flavours, or degenerate into a language and cultural form which is without substance. After all, this is the precious asset of our nation.

We must strike a balance between the nation and the community, and between economic development and cultural heritage. This is a major issue we must explore into. The significance and importance of this kind of soul-searching are not inferior to the review of our economic strategy. I feel that the model of seeking similarity while accommodating diversity, mutual tolerance and understanding, plurality and co-existence is far superior to the singular model of "English-only", and is better able to consolidate our foundation in building up a multi-racial nation. The deeper the understanding of the various ethnic groups in their own language and culture, the more positive effect it will have in the process of our nation building.

In the past, because of political reasons, the Chinese community was not able to comprehensively discuss and resolve the problem of its own language and culture. As a result, the standard of Chinese among the younger generation of Singaporean Chinese is consistently on the decline. They disregard and even despise their own language and culture. This question comes on from time to time. After being left in the doldrums for some time, it resurfaced again recently because of a few incidents of mistakes in the translation of some official publications. It goes to show that the problem does exist. We have to look at it squarely. These incidents of mistakes in translation are certainly not an isolated phenomenon. It reflects our society's typical mindset and style towards the Chinese language. So long as this mindset remains unchanged, I will not be surprised if this sort of "classic jokes" or "national disgrace" are repeated again.

If the problem we are facing is purely the decline in the standard of Chinese language, then the remedy is relatively easy to find. Unfortunately, the problem lies with the mindset or mentality towards the Chinese language, and this kind of mindset is quite common. We should ask, "While some communities in the world are sacrificing their lives to protect and defend their cultural and ethnic identity, why are our young people despising or abandoning their own mother tongue, the most important link to one's cultural and ethnic identity with absolutely no psychological burden at all?"

The Minister for Education said that it would take three generations before a society can truly claim to be proficient in a language. Singapore needs another one-and-a-half generation before English can be extensively used by the entire society. Regrettably in less than one-and-a-half generation, the status of the Chinese language here is already in a very precarious situation. In another one-and-a-half generation's time when English is universally used by the entire society, what will be the position of the Chinese language then? If we do not do something about it, the consequences will be quite obvious. As far as the many intellects who take the destiny of Chinese to heart are concerned, they have already said all that they need to say, and have probably done all that they ought to do. Yet, such individual efforts are incapable of changing the big environment, because this big environment is set by the Government's educational policy and the society's attitude towards the language is influenced by such an educational policy. Moreover, whenever the Chinese community talks about the Chinese language and Chinese culture, it will be labelled as being Chinese chauvinists. We are still living under this kind of shadow.

The Government claims the low standard of Chinese is the result of the parents' own free choice, and is a price we have to pay for our economic development. I am unable to agree with this argument. The crux of the matter undoubtedly lies with the attitude of our people towards their mother tongue. Such an attitude is the result of the PAP Government's social engineering over the past 30-odd years. It has fundamentally altered and even severed the emotional ties between the people and their mother tongue. They are treating the language entirely by a so-called rational and utilitarian principle. Some may call it "pragmatic policy", but I will call it the "rootless policy". It is a policy whereby English reigns supreme. That being the case, why do we not just simply embrace the western civilisation? If in the fields of technology, humanity and culture, we can thoroughly and effectively arrive at the way it is done in the west, then we may well consider it as an alternative. However, if after careful consideration we find that it is not possible for us to embark on such a path, then should we not accord our own mother tongue language and culture the status and respect it deserves? We should not be bashful about it. Otherwise, we may end up "neither fish nor fowl".

There is no point to pinpoint who is to blame for all these. The most important thing is that we must have a clear understanding of what our present situation is. Recognise that this is indeed a problem. Deal with it seriously. Adjust the mindset. Shake off the over-sensitiveness in discussing issues concerning the Chinese language. Then mobilise the resources of the Chinese community, and take advantage of the collective wisdom, and genuinely strive to improve on the present situation.

The Government should discard the adverse effect of the too pragmatic attitude on the choice of culture and language. Recognise the pluralism of our society. Our cultural foundation shall never be built on the English language. The passing on of cultural heritage from generation to generation requires firm mother tongue foundation.

The Chairman: Mr Low, you have taken up your five minutes. Can you finish your speech, please?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): Conclusion, Sir. In the first wave of our nation-building, we rightly put our emphasis on English as the means to plug in to the grid of the western world, and to achieve economic success. In the face of intensified globalisation, the world is becoming smaller, international competition is getting more and more heated up. In the era of rapid changes in information and technology, if we do not attach importance to the transmission of mother tongue and culture in our second wave of nation-building, the next generation of Singaporeans will face a situation of cultural hiatus of our various ethnic groups ---

The Chairman: Mr Low, you must end your speech or I shall ask you to resume your seat.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): --- and Singapore will degenerate into a rootless duckweed floating in the ocean of theworld economy.

The Chairman: Dr Ong Seh Hong. Can you please keep your story short, if you have any, so that the others will have a chance to speak?

Dr Ong Seh Hong: I tell only one story per day, Sir.

(In Mandarin): Sir, the low standard of Chinese is a subject of great concern to the Chinese community in Singapore. In the past two or three months, we have seen a lot of the articles of this nature in the Lianhe Zaobao's editorial and forum pages. In our exchanges with the NUS Chinese Department, the Singapore Chinese Teachers' Association and the media, we keep hearing the same voice of concern. For example, the many mistakes in Chinese translations in some of our official publications have become a laughing stock, and the fact that some undergraduates in the Chinese Department of NUS had to use Hanyu Pinyin in their examination papers because they had forgotten how to write the Chinese characters.

The general feeling is that while most Singapore Chinese could speak simple Chinese in casual conversations, they are completely off the mark where reading and writing are concerned. Many Singapore businessmen find themselves unable to communicate with their business partners in China.

Where does the problem lie? First, it would be the environment. Because in our environment where English is the main working language, there are not many opportunities to speak Chinese, and not much importance is attached to the Chinese language here. Secondly, the curriculum time for the learning of Chinese is reduced. Chinese is regarded as a subject and not a medium of instruction. In Primary 1, the time spent on Chinese is only 1/3, in Primary 4, only 1/5, and in secondary school, it is even less. Thirdly, with the retirement of the older generation of Chinese teachers, we are now short of specialist Chinese teachers who could teach the language well. Fourthly, the mentality of the students. The students are treating Chinese as an examination subject. After graduating, they just throw it aside. Fifthly, the teaching method and curriculum. These were already mentioned by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang earlier on.

Now, the question is how are we going to improve on all these areas.

Firstly, I think the Government leaders should give a very clear instruction and send a clear signal to raise the status of Chinese in our society. For example, more importance should be attached to the official publications in the Chinese language. They should be carefully monitored and vetted before they are sent to the printers.

Secondly, we have to improve the quality of our Chinese teachers. We must have specialist Chinese teachers, starting from primary school onwards. We should also send them to some well-known overseas universities to improve themselves.

Thirdly, they should teach Chinese in a more interesting manner, as mentioned by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang earlier on.

Fourthly, to further raise the standard of Chinese in the SAP schools and encourage the students to learn more profoundly the Chinese culture, history, language and philosophy. We could perhaps cooperate with the NUS Chinese Department to work out something along this line.

Fifthly, we should let the graduates from our NUS Chinese Department play an important role in our society. If we want to benefit from the emerging Chinese economy, we should give the Chinese language in Singapore a boost in the arm.

Mr Ang Mong Seng: (In Mandarin): Sir, the lowering of the standard of Chinese language in Singapore has been a cause for concern among the Chinese community here. Especially of late, when the tourism pamphlet was misinterpreted and has created a joke out of it.

The Speak Mandarin Campaign has been in place for many years. The main objective of this campaign is how to make Mandarin the medium of communication among the various dialect groups in the Chinese community in Singapore.

In our schools, most of the students are able to speak and listen to Mandarin. There is no problem about that. But in terms of writing, they have a lot of problems and difficulties. In order to raise the standard of the Chinese language, much will depend on the Government's effort. The Federation of Chinese Clans Association and the Chinese community itself must also put in more efforts to conduct classes, hold seminars, discussion sessions and workshops for the improvement of the Chinese language in Singapore.

Basically, we must start from the schools. This is a long-term approach to the raising of the Chinese language. In primary schools, there are a lot of opportunities for the learning of English. But in the case of Chinese language, it is only confined to teaching within the subject. We cannot arouse the interest of the students in the learning of the Chinese language. In fact, many students treat the learning of the Chinese language as a chore and feel that it is a very difficult subject to learn. As a result of such attitude, the standard of Chinese remains very low.

We should include some interesting stories, such as how the ancient sage in China, by the name of Sima Guang, broke a large water vat to rescue a boy who had fallen into it, and another boy, by the name of Kong Rong who, being the youngest in the family, was offered the largest of the pears in the tray. He graciously refused the offer and said that since he was the youngest, he should only take the smallest one, and the biggest pear should be given to the eldest brother. Stories like these are interesting and inspiring. They could inculcate in our young the correct values while capturing their attention with the interesting contents. Incidentally, the name of Sima Guang was changed to Ali in our local textbook, but this has since been rectified by MOE. We cannot just change the names of well-known characters in the Chinese history at random. For example, we cannot change the name of Justice Bao to Kumar, or Dr Sun Yat Sen to Robert Sun. This will not reflect the philosophy and the culture that they represent.

Apart from teaching the students how to read and write the language, we must also teach them the culture and philosophy behind the language. Besides the textbooks, the editorials and the feature articles in the newspapers could also be used as materials for discussion in the classroom. Students will then also learn to understand current affairs in the process. They can be encouraged to express their views on these current affairs using the Chinese language. Such application will strengthen their proficiency in the Chinese language. The schools can also encourage students to watch good programmes in the cinemas or on Channel 8. For example, one programme is Who Wants to be a Millionnaire? It is a good programme. It enriches the general knowledge of the students and can also enhance the interest in the learning of the Chinese language. Such programmes will be able to help students to better understand the Chinese language.

We should encourage the students who are better in the Chinese language to take up Higher Chinese. With China opening up successfully, and with strong economic growth, we must encourage our people to jump onto the bandwagon. But if our standard of Chinese is low, then we will not be able to succeed in China. For example, when it comes to signing of agreements in Chinese, we will have problems.

With proper learning of the Chinese language and culture, the students will be better-equipped to take on China as the future engine of growth. The Chinese Department of NUS can play a greater role in this respect.

The Chairman: Mr Ang, finish your speech, please.

Mr Ang Mong Seng: Sir, can I have another two minutes?

The Chairman: Half a minute.

Mr Ang Mong Seng: (In Mandarin): I believe that we must correct the attitude of the students on Chinese language. Give them more training to enhance the value of Chinese. The Chinese community should organise more cultural activities. The various Government departments should emphasise on the use of the Chinese language. MPs who are conversant in Mandarin, should speak more in Mandarin. The TV media should introduce more educational programmes. Through these channels, we will be able to enhance the standard of the Chinese language in Singapore.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Holland-Bukit Panjang): Teachers play significant roles in ensuring that our students receive proper guidance and quality education in schools. Sir, I have proposed in this House before that we need a quality accreditation system, such as the ISO 9000 in the Ministry of Education and our schools. This will provide consistent quality assurance in our education system. It will also benchmark our education services with international standards. We need a quality system to make sure that there are quality policies and procedures in place in our schools and in the Ministry. Sir, we need quality input and quality process to produce quality output.

In recent years, the Ministry has been actively recruiting many new teachers to address the problem of teacher shortage and replacing retiring teachers. I am concerned about the quality of teachers recruited, especially during the recession. Sir, I hope the Minister could update the House on the recruitment process of teachers and what are the quality criteria for teachers. I would also like to ask the Minister the following questions: One, how many teachers were recruited over the last five years, and how many have left the Ministry? Two, what is the long-term strategy to attract good quality teachers?

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, this subject of class size is not a new issue. I have brought up this issue of class size many times in this House. As a former teacher, I know that it is impossible to teach effectively a class size of 40-44 pupils. I am certain the Minister is also aware of this. But, year after year, the Minister adamantly defends the huge class size that we have in our Government schools, except the independent schools where the average class size is much smaller, at about 25 pupils per class. 25 pupils per class is a good class size. But I am only asking for a reduction from the present average of 40 pupils per class to 30 pupils per class. This is a reasonable compromise between an educationally acceptable class size and the cost of building more schools and the problems of recruitment of more teachers.

I believe that much of our problems of low education amongst a large section of our workforce can be traced to our large class size that is still found in our schools. Despite rigorous streaming in our schools, there are still sizeable dropouts from our schools at the Primary 6 and the lower secondary school levels. These children normally come from non-English speaking homes. The English language is a foreign language to them and, due mainly to lack of family support, they just cannot cope with the English language, neither can the teachers in the schools help them because of the large class size. The teachers do not have the time in such a class size to give more individual attention to the slower pupils in the class. They, therefore, year after year, fail badly in their English language tests and other subjects. In fact, English language to these pupils has never really taken root. They will join the pool of dropouts in our schools.

I hope that at least this year, the Minister will say that he recognises that large class size is a problem in our schools and the Ministry shall start to look into this problem, rather than brushing it off year after year and hope that this problem shall go away. Unfortunately, it shall not go away unless the Ministry does something about it. 2.45 pm

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Mr Chairman, Sir, I understand the Ministry's problem in wanting to recruit more teachers and to double the number of schools if they are to reduce the class size. We are not talking about doubling or reducing a class size by 50%. I also understand that the Minister actually understands that certain subjects like English would be most beneficial if the class size is smaller. I would like to urge the Ministry to consider reducing class size for this subject in particular.

Having a small class size is the first step in the right direction. It gives more individual attention to the students in their learning and practice of this language and, also at the same time, reduces the workload and demands on the teachers. The learning of English is very much a practice subject and individual attention of the teachers would be there to help spot grammar mistakes and correct pronunciation errors.

Where there is a shortage of good English teachers in Singapore, I will support the Ministry in its overseas recruitment for more qualified native-speaking English teachers to come and teach our children. In view of the importance of good English language in our society, and the generally weaker English language foundation of our students entering the neighbourhood schools, I hope the Ministry can start and put more emphasis on the reduction of class size for this particular subject.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, before the PAP came to power, nearly all Chinese schools were private schools. They were known as private schools because they were all privately funded and administered. Nowadays, all schools in Singapore are Government schools except for the foreign schools which are all private schools.

All Government schools are centrally controlled and supervised by the Ministry of Education. Our so-called Independent schools are really not independent at all. They are very much controlled and regulated by the Ministry of Education. Since our schools are centrally controlled, one would expect that there is uniformity in all Government schools in Singapore. All our children wear uniforms in our schools up to the level of junior colleges and the curriculum and syllabuses of all Government schools, as one would expect, are fairly narrow, restricted and uniform.

Sir, in all developed countries like England and America, private schools blossom in those countries. Those schools are privately run, and are dynamic and vibrant. They produce outstanding students who serve their countries well. I think we should also encourage private schools to be built in our country in the light of Singapore wanting to encourage entrepreneurship. The Government must change its attitude and be more liberal. The Education Act must be amended, together with its related laws, to make it easier for enlightened Singaporeans, who wish to set up private schools to do so.

I think funds are not the real problem. The obstacle is the reluctance of the Government to encourage private schools. All private schools we see in Singapore are set up by the foreign communities here. If funds are not an obstacle to foreigners building their own private schools in Singapore, why should funds be a problem to local Singaporeans who outnumber the foreigners?

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman (Sembawang): Mr Chairman, our national schools provide excellent opportunities for our children to mix and integrate. They are the common grounds for our children to experience and explore our commonalties and, at the same time, appreciate our apparent differences.

However, the natural reaction is for our children to gravitate among their own kind. Children's minds are most impressionable when they are still in school. Value systems and social behaviours are often shaped through such early experiences in schools. Given the backdrop of September 11, and the increasing need to enhance inter-ethnic understanding and appreciation among our people, we must ensure that our schools continue to provide a conducive environment for students to mix, and mix well. To this end, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister the following questions:

(1) What in the Minister's assessment is the current level of inter-ethnic integration in our schools today? From a scale of 1 to 10, where are we? What would be some of his criteria in making such an assessment?

(2) Are there differences in the levels of inter-ethnic integration in the different types of schools, eg, the Independent schools, neighbourhood schools, autonomous schools and the SAP schools? If there are differences, what are the Ministry's plans to improve the situation?

(3) What does the Ministry plan to do with the schools that have a lower proportion of ethnic minorities? How can inter-ethnic integration be enhanced in these schools? I think more needs to be done than merely expecting them to mix through the school cluster system, where students in the cluster of schools get to mix through some joint events or functions. There must be a concerted effort that ensures the process is continuous.

(4) What are the programmes that have been put in place to ensure better inter-ethnic integration in our schools? We have to go beyond the programmes that see our children put on each other's ethnic costumes during Racial Harmony Day. If there are such programmes, what are the outcome indicators of these programmes, ie, how would the Ministry determine the success of these programmes? Where are we today in terms of these indicators? What do we hope to achieve in the immediate and the long-term future?

(5) Have there been studies that document the level of inter-ethnic integration in our schools to date? If yes, what are the findings? And if no, is the Ministry planning to conduct one such study?

Sir, we certainly cannot take our inter-ethnic relationship for granted. This relationship, like our children, is the cornerstone of our future. Our children's formative years in school will have significant influence on their attitudes and perceptions in their adult lives. I have come across many university undergraduates, who know very little about the top cultural values and practices of the different ethnic groups. When given an assignment to interview people who are ethnically different from them, many have difficulties, even when the assignment allows them to interview people who they already know. This seems to suggest that these undergraduates do not know people who are ethnically different from them as part of their network. Sir, I hope this is not a result of what happened in their earlier schooling years. These undergraduates are our future leaders. We must ensure that such trends are not perpetuated.

Sir, indeed, we must invest in the formative years of our children to ensure that their experiences are positive and meaningful, thereby guaranteeing a future generation of socially conscious and inter-ethnically networking individuals.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, Sir, schools, no doubt, play a key role to instill racial harmony. Understanding what multi-racialism is about in Singapore is critical, if we are serious about integration. Despite over 36 years of our efforts at nation-building, there are still serious gaps of understanding and misunderstanding about what it takes to make a success of multi-racialism.

What is MOE's experience in tackling this problem and at promoting integration?

The Malay MPs, sometime back, had taken the initiative to request that there be a cap of 25% admission to Primary One intake, the purpose being to encourage better inter-racial mixing and to facilitate more Malay students to use English rather than just Malay language among themselves. I realise that there are practical problems, including convenience and transportation, that made parents request for more admission despite the cap. What is MOE's position on that cap now? I think, as far as possible, that cap should be encouraged for better performance and integration.

Recently, it was brought to our attention that certain schools, for example, Siglap Secondary School, had Malay students reaching 60% of the student population. This, I believe, was because of the post-PSLE posting and choice made by the students themselves. I gather too that in certain classes in such schools, the number of Malay students even reached 90%. I was also told that once such schools attain such an image, non-Malay students, especially Chinese students, even refrain from choosing such schools for posting. Is this true, Sir? What effect does such a situation have on our efforts at integration? Will MOE try to have a better spread of students to make the schools more multiracial and thus, facilitate integration?

I would like to urge MOE to view the matter seriously and not allow expediency, eg, convenience of language classes or transport consideration, to deter them from efforts to forge a better integrated society.

The Chairman: Order. I propose to take the break now.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.57 pm until 3.20 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head K (cont.) -

The Chairman: Dr Teo Ho Pin, you have got two cuts. You can take them together.

Dr Teo Ho Pin: Sir, the planning of schools, especially neighbourhood schools, has a tremendous impact on the quality of life of families. The mismatch of supply and demand of school placement often causes much anxiety among parents, who will thereafter make numerous appeals to the school. With fluctuating child births yearly, and rapid population shifts, it is difficult for the Ministry to forecast the demand of school placements in schools. As such, we need to review the planning process of schools to better cope with this fluctuating demand.

Sir, I wish to ask the Minister the following questions:

(1) What are the measures taken by the Ministry to ensure that students staying within 1 kilometre of a neighbourhood school can have a place? (2) Can schools be planned and built based on actual school placement demand data obtained through an early school registration system? (3) Will the Ministry consider increasing the capacity of schools so as to cope with the yearly fluctuating demands for school placements?

On school design, the development expenditure of $1.48 billion in the building programme of schools and educational institutions must be carefully monitored to ensure that money is appropriately spent to provide a conducive and functional learning environment for our students. I wish to highlight some concerns regarding the design of schools, especially the new generation schools, and those under the PRIME programme.

Too much emphasis may have been placed by the architects to create unique design features for schools. These features may be unnecessary and unfunctional. It may pose durability and maintainability problems. It will also increase the cost of construction and subsequent maintenance. Thus, I wish to ask the Minister the following questions:

(1) What is the average durable score of schools built over the last five years? (2) Does the Ministry conduct any design audit to check on the durability and maintainability of schools? (3) Is design-and-build an appropriate procurement method for schools?

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Singh, Dr Wang, and Mrs Yu-Foo spoke on the importance of a well-rounded education, and I agree with them.

Curriculum content has been cut by up to 30% to provide time for the infusion of thinking skills. Strong moral values are promoted through the Civics and Moral Education programme. Last year, we also announced a set of initiatives to develop and enhance arts education in our schools. In addition, the changes to the University Admission System in 2003 will include bonus points for CCA. So that will reinforce other measures of ability and make CCA count.

Mr Singh and Mdm Ho had spoken about the need to expose our students to entrepreneurship, financial planning and starting up businesses, for the new economy. While the specific skills of financial planning and starting up a business are not an integral part of the programme in schools, students do learn useful practical life-skills, such as self-management, social and cooperative skills, communication, and information skills.

In co-curricular activities in particular, students have the opportunity to organise challenging activities involving managing people, time and money. Some schools have their own cooperatives, for example, Ping Yi. And Anderson Junior College's Enterprise runs a gift shop in the college and has a link-up with One.99 shops. Students acquire experience running a company and even raising business capital. Temasek Junior College, Mr Singh's alma mater, has an Entrepreneurs' Club with 50 members learning about product marketing and risk management from external instructors and mentors, and they are trying to put their skills to work on some projects. We encourage schools to provide such opportunities for students, but we leave it to schools to decide whether such activities fit into their overall programme and priorities.

Our main focus is really at the post secondary level, where much has already been done. At ITE, entrepreneurship training is now part of the core training programme for all students, as it is in the polytechnics, particularly for the engineering, IT and life sciences, the non-business courses. NTU has the Nanyang Technopreneurship Centre hosted by the Nanyang Business School, and NUS has the NUS Enterprise office.

Members have also asked about the mother tongue policy. On one end of the spectrum, we have Mr Sin suggesting a relaxation of mother tongue requirements, on the other end, we have Dr Ong and others, highlighting the importance of mother tongue and that it cannot be over-emphasised. Bilingualism will remain a cornerstone of our education system. English is needed for the globalised, knowledge-based world, and as a common language to communicate with each other across ethnic boundaries, and the mother tongue to imbibe values and appreciate our cultural heritage. This is our policy.

Our policy is to encourage every Singaporean to study his mother tongue in school for as long as possible, and to as high a level as he is capable of.

Dr Wang asked for a review of our mother tongue policy, to turn over this stone. It was indeed reviewed in 1999 by a high level committee chaired by DPM Lee. The 1999 mother tongue language review made several recommendations to achieve our objectives. The recommendations were carefully calibrated, and we are just implementing them.

We recognised that not all pupils have the same natural ability, home background and motivation. We needed a more customised approach, where we aim for different levels of achievements for pupils of different abilities.

As Dr Wang has said, the growing proportion of English-speaking families, and the large difference home language background makes, means that we cannot ignore the real problems some children have learning the mother tongue. That is why we introduced the Mother Tongue B syllabus. This syllabus focuses more on speaking and listening aspects, and is designed to make the attainment of a basic level of competency in mother tongue to proceed to the next educational level less of a hurdle for students who face exceptional difficulties in learning their mother tongue.

At the same time, we also sought to enlarge the pool of students studying Higher Mother Tongue, so as to broaden the base for a literary elite. I agree with Dr Ong and Mr Ang that we should have high standards for the mother tongue language. Higher Mother Tongue is the standard bearer for mother tongue in Singapore, and incentives are given to encourage students who are strong in mother tongue to offer Higher Mother Tongue. And these incentives include:

(1) Relaxing the eligibility criteria to allow more students to offer their Higher Mother Tongue, from what was 10% to now the top 30% of a cohort; (2) Providing 2 bonus points for Higher Mother Tongue for admission to junior colleges, and bonus points for students who perform well in mother tongue, or Higher Mother Tongue at A-level for admission to courses related to mother tongue languages in our local universities;

(3) Increasing the number of Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools from 9 to 10, and introducing a special programme called "Elective Programme in Malay Language for Secondary Schools (EMAS)" at Bukit Panjang Government High School as well as upgrading the Umar Pulavar Tamil Language Centre for the teaching of Higher Tamil and Tamil Language. This Centre which is now open - Mr Iswaran asked about this - also serves as a national resource centre for the teaching and learning of Tamil Language. 3.30 pm

We have also set up the third centre for the Chinese Language elective programme at Nanyang JC, and introduced the Malay elective programme at Tampines JC. Outstanding students are awarded the language elective programme scholarships. This more customised approach at both ends of the spectrum - the lower achiever end mother tongue and higher achiever end mother tongue - has allowed us to maintain the standard of mother tongue that can be attained by the majority of students with reasonable effort. And we will review our mother tongue policies regularly to ensure that our policy objectives continue to be met.

Mr Yeo and Mr Ang spoke on Chinese language teaching and learning. We agree with them that it is important to make the learning of mother tongue languages, including the Chinese language, not only effective but also interesting. Following the Mother Tongue Reviews, Chinese Language syllabuses were revised, and new textbooks have been phased in by level from the year 2002. Training courses and workshops on the use of the new materials and creative strategies on the teaching of Chinese Language have been conducted for teachers. As Mr Yeo has said, today, more and more Chinese language teachers employ creative and lively teaching methods to cater to the needs of their students, and we want to encourage this.

We will be reviewing the modes of assessment and the examination formats to ensure that curriculum and assessment are aligned and geared to achieving the learning outcomes of the new syllabi.

With regard to Mr Yeo's comment that the Ministry sets too many restrictions on the teaching of the subject, I like to clarify that students are not required to memorise the content of the text or the meanings of words. In fact, teachers are encouraged to exercise flexibility in determining the modes of assessment when setting school-based examinations for their students.

Mr Iswaran asked if the Ministry could allow a school with 20 Indian students taking Higher Tamil to have school-based Higher Tamil classes. I fully understand the aspirations of parents who want to see Tamil instruction offered in as many schools as possible, and the Ministry will strive to do this. But if a school has only 20 students offering Higher Tamil across Secondary 1 to Secondary 4, it means there will be, on average, only five students per level offering Higher Tamil. I think this is too small a number to justify starting Higher Tamil classes in that school.

Mr Singh asked about non-Tamil Indian languages. At present, the Ministry conducts examinations for these languages at PSLE, N levels, 'O' and 'A' levels. And grades obtained at these national examinations are treated on the same basis as the other official mother tongue languages. I am aware that the non-Tamil Indian speaking communities have made commendable efforts to improve the teaching of their languages, and that they hope to persuade the Ministry to recognise non-Tamil Indian language marks in the five different languages - Hindi, Punjabi, Gujarati, Urdu and Bengali - for various purposes, on a comparable basis with students taking the three official mother tongue languages.

Sir, I should say from the outset that those taking non-Tamil Indian languages have a dispensation that no other group of Singaporeans have. Chinese Singaporeans are not allowed to offer Cantonese or Hokkien nor Singaporeans of Javanese extraction, Javanese. All other Singaporeans are required to offer one of our three official mother tongue languages of Singapore. Schools will place students taking non-Tamil Indian languages in the appropriate classes, and assess their eligibility for Edusave and other awards, based on their ability demonstrated by the students in their other subjects. Students are therefore not unduly advantaged nor disadvantaged by this. Though we allow non-Tamil Indian languages to be offered in lieu of the official mother tongues, we can make accommodations and arrangements only up to a point. I will ask my officials to work with the various groups offering these five different non-Tamil Indian languages to discuss what can be done.

On the important subject of teachers, Mr Chiam and Mr Chia have raised the subject of pupil-teacher ratios and smaller class sizes. The issue of smaller class sizes is not new. It was something I discussed at length at last year's debate. Mr Chia was not in this House then, and I am not sure if Mr Chiam was present when I gave a comprehensive response on this matter. Nevertheless, this is a matter on which Mr Chiam crows as often as the sun rises!

Ideally, we should have small classes, every one of which would be taught by good teachers. But, as I explained last year, there is a real trade-off between quality and quantity of teachers - and this is a problem which every country faces, not just us, in the United States and the UK, which is coming to us and trying to recruit our teachers - especially when we take the desire to have smaller class sizes over the teacher numbers required for the entire school system. It is actually not too difficult to double the size of the teaching force. All I have to do is to lower the standards that we require of our teachers. There is no shortage of applicants if we lower standards. The choice is not between 40 students taught by a good teacher and two classes of 20, each taught by an equally good teacher; but having 20 of these 40 students who is perhaps not fit to teach by today's standards for a teacher.

Sir, our approach to building up our teaching force is to recruit as many teachers that we can who meet our standards. We take this issue of teacher-student ratios very seriously and we do not brush it aside. We have not limited the numbers that we can recruit. Through EduPac, we have made a career in teaching more attractive and rewarding. We have been able to expand the size of our teaching force, especially in the last five years with some help from the economy.

Dr Teo asked how many teachers we have recruited and our attrition rates. In the last five years, the Ministry has been able to recruit more than 2,000 teachers per year into the Education Service. This is more than 10,000 teachers in the last five years in the teaching force of about 25,000. The resignation rate of teachers has been fairly constant and low, between 2% and 3% per year in the last five years. However, our retirement rates have gone up, as the large number of teachers recruited in the 1960s reach retirement. Over the next five years, 3,500 teachers will retire, or 700 teachers a year. On the whole, however, as a result of the higher recruitment numbers, the size of the teaching service has increased from about 22,500 teachers in 1997 to 24,500 in 2001, a 9% increase. In fact, there has been some improvement of pupil-teacher ratios - not large, but some. But because our target is to recruit our teachers from the top one-third of each cohort, there is a limit to how far we can reduce pupil-teacher ratios without compromising on teacher quality. At the recruitment rate of 2,000 per year, we are already recruiting 1 out of every 8 of the top third of each cohort. And these new recruits have to stay, on average, 12.5 years in order to maintain the teaching force at the current level of about 25,000 teachers. I believe that this is achievable, but I am not confident that we can have a dramatic increase in the size of our teaching force without a significantly lowering of quality.

Given these constraints, our position on deploying our teacher resources is to do so where the additional teachers can contribute most toward the learning of students. Mr Chia said that the Ministry should at least reduce class size for some subjects, such as English, so that students can get better attention and learn better. This is indeed what we are doing. One good example is the Learning Support Programme (LSP) where Primary 1 and 2 pupils with difficulties in basic literacy skills are taught in small group sizes of 8-12. Using teacher resources for targeted programmes, like the LSP, which may mean smaller class sizes for specific subjects or periods for specific students, is more effective than to try to reduce class sizes across the board.

On private schools, Mr Tharman's committee is studying this subject already, and I shall ask him to take special note that Mr Chiam supports the introduction of privately funded private schools, like the exclusive schools in the UK and the US.

Sir, I shall now ask my Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Hawazi, to address issues on ethnic integration and school planning.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Hawazi Daipi): Sir, Dr Mohamad Maliki asked about programmes to promote ethnic integration and their effectiveness. Mr Zainul Abidin asked whether students appreciate the constraints and value the opportunities of a multi-racial society.

MOE actively promotes social cohesion among students of different races and different ability groups. Our education system and our school programmes foster social cohesion among the different races at every opportunity.

I would like to inform Dr Maliki that we have achieved a high level of acceptance and appreciation of ethnic diversity in schools. This is based on the National Education Study which MOE has been conducting annually since 1997. Findings, since the 1997 baseline study, also show that students generally have a better appreciation of racial harmony, as they proceed to the next higher level of their education. We will continue to strengthen inter-racial understanding and mixing in schools through the curriculum, co-curricular activities (CCA) and other programmes.

Through subjects like Civics and Moral Education, Social Studies and History, the formal school curriculum emphasises appreciation and respect for the cultures, customs and traditions of the various ethnic communities in Singapore.

MOE has also developed and implemented the National Education (NE) programme since 1997, which aims to build national cohesion and inculcate the instinct for survival and confidence in the future. It reinforces the important message that Singapore is a multi-racial society. As part of NE, schools set aside one day in the year - 21st July, to be precise - to commemorate Racial Harmony Day. This is the day when students reflect on and celebrate our success as a harmonious nation built on a rich diversity of cultures. Since its inception, this commemorative event has proven to be effective in promoting inter-racial understanding among our students. By learning about Singapore's strengths as well as constraints and vulnerabilities, through subjects such as Social Studies, History and Geography, as part of National Education and through other National Education activities, we are able to deepen understanding, foster comradeship and bonding among students, both inside and outside the classroom.

The Co-Curricular Activities programme also promotes social integration, by providing avenues for students from different social and racial backgrounds to engage in the same activities. Students train side by side in sports, organise club activities in committees, and participate actively in house competitions. In the process, they get to know one another better and learn to support one another in their common endeavour. This enriches students' social experiences and enables them to have a better understanding of the spectrum of our society.

Schools on their own have also embarked on various initiatives to knock down barriers between students of different races. Last year, for example, Ngee Ann Primary School set up a multi-racial "gamelan" Malay Cultural Ensemble Group. Nan Chiau Secondary School, which is a Hokkien Huay Kuan school, encourages its Secondary 1 Malay and Indian students to learn Chinese calligraphy and Chinese painting. There are numerous examples of how our schools have been able to foster comradeship, and to foster closer rapport among students of various ethnic backgrounds. Schools within the same cluster can also come together to organise joint projects and activities.

At our national schools, students of different races and religions go through a common curriculum, share a common experience of growing up together, studying together, playing together, and singing the National Anthem together, and reciting the Pledge together. These are invaluable life experiences, which help in building emotional ties, identification, and a sense of commitment to one another as fellow citizens.

Sir, on strengthening of racial harmony in schools, we have been successful in having an easy and relaxed relationship among our communities in Singapore. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the United States, and the heightened sensitivities to race and religion that have followed, we need to further enhance racial and religious harmony in our schools. Let me highlight two major initiatives.

One change that MOE is effecting that can enhance cross-cultural interaction is in the extension of its Third Language programme. PM announced recently that, starting from 2004, MOE will offer Chinese as a third language to non-Chinese students with the aptitude for it, in the same way that Malay is now available as a third language to non-Malay students.

MOE will also be relaxing the eligibility criteria for the existing Malay as a Third Language programme, so that more non-Malay students can qualify. The relaxed criteria will also apply to Chinese as a Third Language programme.

MOE has also set up the Committee on Strengthening Racial Harmony in Schools to enhance inter-racial understanding and mixing in schools, and organise activities to strengthen racial harmony in schools. The Committee, which I chair, comprises representatives from schools, parent support groups, and the community.

Mr Zainul asked for an update on the Committee's work. The Committee aims to broaden and deepen inter-racial understanding and mixing in schools through articulating desirable programmes and strategies, seeding initiatives and raising the profile of Racial Harmony activities, such as the celebration of Racial Harmony Day. The Committee will also consider how the impact of racial harmony initiatives in school could be assessed. 3.45 pm

The Committee has come out with several preliminary ideas to deepen understanding and mixing among students. One way is to raise the profile of the Racial Harmony Day by organising an annual symbolic event for all schools to participate in. This year, the event will be known as a Racial Harmony Games Day, to be celebrated on Saturday, 20th July, to promote inter-racial interaction through enjoyable games. Another initiative is through the sharing of good practices and useful resources from schools and external organisations.

Mr Zainul also shared with this House efforts by the Community Development Councils to promote racial harmony. The Committee has noted that external organisations such as CDCs and Parent Support Groups have a key role to play in promoting racial harmony and suggests that schools leverage on these organisations to maximise efforts in promoting racial harmony.

The Committee will be meeting community leaders, parents, teachers and principals in focus group discussions to gather their views on how to broaden and deepen further inter-racial understanding and interaction.

Sir, Mr Zainul asked about racial quotas for Primary One intake in schools. We tried implementing in 1987 a Primary One racial quota where Primary One Malay student intake in each school was limited to 25%. However, there were many implementation problems. The HDB's housing quota, introduced in 1989, has helped to reduce the problem and maintain certain balance in our primary schools. We will continue to monitor the situation and, if necessary, see what action needs to be taken. For secondary schools, streaming has helped us to ensure a better mix of students in our schools.

Sir, to conclude on this point, let me just say that we try to integrate students of various ethnic communities through cultural activities and traditions of the different communities as well as through better mixing. This can be done through the curriculum, through outside the classroom activities, CCA, and enrichment programmes as well as through the National Education programme. We celebrate four major events in a year in school - Racial Harmony Day, International Friendship Day, Youth Festival and National Day. These are all activities which can prove to be useful in strengthening further racial cohesion among our students.

Sir, Dr Teo Ho Pin asked about school planning and the design of schools. MOE plans the provision of school places such that no child in Singapore will be denied a school place. We ensure that every Primary One-going child will have a place in a school in the town where he lives. However, it is not possible to ensure that every child will be placed in a primary school located no further than one kilometre from where he lives. To do this, we would need to build many more primary schools.

In planning for the building of new schools, MOE takes into account the actual number of school-going children living in a town and potential demand due to new residents moving in, based on data from the Housing and Development Board. MOE does not just look at total demand for school places, but ensures that there will be enough Primary One places each year to cater to projected demand.

To assist students who move house and need a school place nearer their new home, MOE conducts what we will call a Student Transfer Exercise for Primary School Children, or STEPS, every year, to facilitate their transfer. These students should be able to get a school place nearer their home, provided they have no specific choice of schools.

While there are sufficient vacancies for all, MOE recognises that parental demand for places in popular schools will always exceed available vacancies. Where demand for places exceeds available vacancies, balloting will be conducted. Allowing parents to register for Primary One two years ahead of actual intake would not remove the need for balloting, as parents would still continue to opt for popular schools, but two years earlier. Hence, the "Build-to-Order" approach is not likely to work for the provision of school places since parents would still not be guaranteed of a school place for their children in the more popular schools.

Sir, on school design, school development projects are constantly guided by design criteria that are crafted to ensure value for money and that they meet users' functional requirements such as safety, flexibility and maintainability. School designs are rigorously checked at various stages to ensure compliance with our design parameters and standard specifications. Features that are not functional or costly to build and maintain will be rejected. Our schools are functional, and yet aesthetically pleasing, with each having a unique identity.

I agree with Dr Teo that durability and maintainability are two key design considerations in the development of schools. Over the past five years, the buildability scores of our schools have ranged from 72 to 77. This is higher than the requirement of 64 for schools set by the Code of Practice on Buildable Design under the Building Control Act. Based on the records of our managing agent, the maintenance cost of our schools is generally lower, at $9.40 per square metre per year, as compared with about $15 per square metre per year for other low-rise buildings maintained by them.

"Design and Build" (D&B) is one of the contract procurement methods used by both public and private sectors, and MOE has called a number of D&B contracts in the past for school projects. When used, we will ensure overall control of the design.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Sir, on this cut, I would like to talk about the development in National University of Singapore (NUS). Many of us are alumni of the University and we have very fond memories of our time as students. As such, the continued development of NUS is of great interest to us.

Even to the casual onlooker, one can discern that a reform is being implemented in NUS, which goes beyond the change of the title of Vice-Chancellor to President. There was a newspaper report carried by Today, dated 19th February 2002, commenting on certain aspects of the changes currently ongoing, under the title "The Plain and the Gain". The paper later apologised, retracted the article in full and without reservations on 2nd May. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the attrition of the faculties has been high in year 2002, and many from these faculties are well-known names in the academic circle in the Asia Pacific region. This NUS reform was also described by an article that appeared in Times, Higher Education Supplement, dated 3rd May 2002, as "Americanization".

As Feedback Unit Chairman, Sir, I too got an earful. I gained the impression that the morale of the staff in the University is low, as established norms of employment are turned upside down. I hesitate to give some of the comments I heard, but I thought that perhaps I should do so, to give a depth of the emotion of the undercurrent that is going on. But I would like to disassociate myself from any innuendoes associated with them. For instance, a number of staff reaching 50 years old were given short-term 2-3 year contracts, which is very upsetting to the staff who have committed their working life to the University. On the other hand, the President has recruited advisers and consultants from US universities, many of them 60 years old or above, to advise him on various development programmes. It seems that we are forsaking younger staff for older staff. Of course, I understand that reform that impacts established norms is always unwelcome and discomforting to the incumbents.

Sir, there is disquiet on the NUS campus. The public is uncertain of what is going on. I would like the Minister to lift this veil off the reform in the University, and to elaborate on the goals and objectives of the reform currently being implemented. For instance, what are the desired outcomes? What is the progress to-date and how would the proposed setup of another campus for the NUS tie in with the proposed plan of a fourth university that we earlier talked about?