LITERATURE AS A COMPULSORY SUBJECT IN SCHOOLS

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam asked the Minister for Education based on the merits of Literature as endorsed by the Ministry and the Economic Review Committee, if he will (i) consider making Literature a compulsory subject for all students at the upper primary and lower secondary school levels using a range of books to manage the different linguistic abilities of children; and (ii) introduce a compulsory module of Literature for all polytechnic students to give them an all-rounded education.

The Minister for Education (RAdm Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, currently, all lower secondary students in the Express and Normal (Academic) courses already study Literature. Normal (Technical) students do not study literature as their curriculum is focused on giving them the literacy and numeracy skills as well as a technically-oriented foundation to enable them to benefit from further education and training at an Institute of Technical Education (ITE) after 10 years of formal schooling.

At the primary level, the use of language for literary response and expression is taught as part of the English Language programme. An integral part of the syllabus is the students' exposure to a wide variety of texts appropriate to their needs. This means that our students would have adequate opportunities to read and see how language is used in various texts, including narratives, and to arrive at conclusions about story lines, events and characters. While literature is not a subject in the upper primary curriculum, our children are encouraged to read and such programmes are pervasive in our primary schools and are often conducted in conjunction with our partners in education such as the National Library Board and parent volunteers.

As for the introduction of Literature into the polytechnic curriculum as a compulsory polytechnic curriculum, our polytechnics are geared towards providing a curriculum that prepares their students for employment opportunities in industry. Their curriculum is constantly reviewed and customised to meet the requirements of industry. Besides this focus, the polytechnics do offer a balanced and well-rounded education. This is done through including subject modules in the curriculum that provide their students with a creative outlook and the ability to exercise and apply critical thinking in their work. In addition, students are exposed to programmes that promote national education and community service. They also participate in co-curricular activities, for example, in sports and the arts. There would therefore not be a need for MOE to require the polytechnics to introduce Literature as a compulsory subject in order to provide students in the polytechnics with a well-rounded education.

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam (Nominated Member): Could I ask the Minister how then can we enhance or deepen this reading habit especially among the polytechnic students and upper primary students because there have been reports that the standards of ability to converse and dwell and discuss in English are getting lower? What are the efforts we can take on then?

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I disagree with the Member that our English Language standards are getting lower. I think if you look at the usage of English Language in Singapore and you look at the top 5% of English speakers and you compare them with the top 5% of the population 20 years ago, I think they are comparable. If you go down to 15-20% of the population, they are speaking English today. But probably when you get down to about 20% of the population, they were not speaking English 20 years ago. If you get down to 50% of the population, they are speaking English today, not perfect English, not the way the Member speaks English or the Member would like others to speak English, but they are speaking English. Therefore, the English that we hear today, because it is being spoken by a much wider spectrum of Singaporeans, who might never have spoken English before, on average, may be lower. But the English level in Singapore, I think, is indeed higher than it was 20 years ago. So I disagree with the premise of the Member's question.