JUNIOR COLLEGE/UPPER SECONDARY EDUCATION

Debate resumed.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to use the following three criteria to evaluate the recommendations of this report.

Firstly, are the recommendations of this report in keeping with the direction of the time? Secondly, of different strengths with opportunities to give full play to their potential? Thirdly, does it result in disadvantages for the weaker students?

As in this motion before the House, this report proposes a general educational direction to better develop the students' thinking, communication skill, and engage students in greater breadth of learning to create greater diversity and to open new pathways in the JC/Upper Secondary education to cater to the different strengths and interests of students.

With the arrival of the era of new knowledge-intensive economy, technology is advancing at a very fast pace, and globalisation has created a lot of challenges for the various economies. Singapore too cannot avoid facing such challenges.

As stated in the Workers' Party's 1994 Manifesto, our educational perspective is that if we educate our people so that they have thinking skills and cultivate their accounting and design capabilities, it would be an impetus for our economic growth. We also feel that the education system should allow for more autonomy, more participation by the teachers and the parents, so that there will be a more creative learning environment in our schools, and the educational content could be more diversified.

The general educational direction in this report and the motion before this House coincide with the educational perspective in our Workers' Party's Manifesto, and is in keeping with the direction of the time. I would, in principle, support the motion.

However, I must ask, "To whom is the educational direction proposed by this Junior College/Upper Secondary Education Review Report targeted at? What are the objectives?"

As the Minister for Education has mentioned, it is targeted at the students. This report proposes a "through-train" system built on the premise that the top 5% students in the PSLE examinations would have no problem getting through the "A" level examinations. In other words, this through-train system is meant for the elite who have obtained excellent results in the PSLE.

We must not neglect the long-term impact brought about by this secondary school through-train system. I am concerned with the following problems. First, by deciding the future of the students merely by their PSLE results will inevitably generate great pressures on the parents, the students and the teachers. Under the present circumstances where so much emphasis is placed on the scores, streaming and ranking, an additional system whereby the PSLE results will decide whether the student would qualify for the best chance to be admitted to the university will certainly intensify the competitive pressure, resulting in a vicious cycle. As parents, if you want your children to board this through-train in order to travel farther ahead, you may have to start educating them even when they are still in their mothers' womb, otherwise they may not make it in time.

Secondly, the reformed junior college curriculum would be even more demanding, as students will have to read more subjects. Those who did not do well in the PSLE, and hence missed the through-train, would have only two years in a junior college to prepare for the "A" level examinations. Would they not be handicapped?

The through-train system enables the better students to have ample time. They are exempted from the "O" level examinations, and have a longer period of time to start early in their preparation for the "A" level examinations. On the other hand, those who did not do well in the PSLE will have just two years to prepare.

In theory, this through-train system will broaden the students' scope of learning and will inspire their creativity and cultivate their independent thinking skills. It also enables the colleges to be more flexible in determining the pace of learning and the arrangement of subject combinations. However, under the present circumstances whereby so much importance is attached examination results, what assurance is there that the colleges, the students, and the parents will not demand and make use of this opportunity to advance the preparation of the students for the "A" level examinations, so that they will score even more As?

Besides, if we set the examination papers based on the standard of the students in the through-train system and their syllabus, then those who have missed the train will be at a distinct disadvantage. Is it fair to them? After all, what is the purpose of this JC curriculum reform? Is it meant to favour those students who did well in their PLSE so that they stand better chances of getting into the university, and to make it even more difficult for those who did not do well in the PSLE?

Thirdly, with the implementation of these recommendations, Singapore will have a new category of integrated high schools. All these integrated schools, which admit only qualified "through-train" students, will become elite schools. Their students will have no opportunity to interact with students in the ordinary schools. This will result in the disintegration of our society.

Fourthly, many of the likely through-train schools, such as ACS and Chinese High School are boys' schools. Would this make it more difficult for the girls to get on board the through-train?

Fifthly, teaching resources. To attain the objectives of the through-train system, a lot of adjustments have to be made on the teaching methods. Our current lot of teachers were trained in the traditional pedagogy. How is MOE going to resolve this problem of teaching resources?

Mr Speaker, Sir, although I agree with the general direction of this motion, and I agree that the through-train system will better develop the potential of the students, I think the problems brought about by the actual implementation of this through-train system will result in more defects than merits. I think MOE should conduct further studies on the solutions so that the implementation of these recommendations would attain the predestined goals.

The report has also recommended the establishment of specialised independent schools to cater to students with talents in specific fields, so that they could be trained to fully develop their special abilities. I agree with this recommendation. As for the setting up of private schools, some people feel that, apart from migration, this may be an avenue to get round the problem of the mother tongue requirement. Although I welcome the setting up of private schools to offer the parents more choices and to facilitate the formulation of creative educational concepts, I must urge MOE to compulsorily require all private schools to comply with the Ministry's bilingual policy. Students in the private schools must also attain the minimum standard in their mother tongue language before they can advance further. The Government must adhere to this policy. Otherwise, there is an absolute possibility that the private schools will become a Pandora's box. The other problem likely to arise with the independent schools is that they may develop into aristocratic schools.

I feel that if the Government recognises that the purpose of education is to enable the people to have a better understanding of the world they live in, so that they would be able to make wise decisions and live better lives, then it should, first of all, change its attitude of giving high priority to the elite in our education system, and change the objective of using education as a means to train and develop the human resources needed for the new economy. The Government should look at the entire education system from a higher angle, to comprehensively raise the educational quality of our people. The entire education package should be reviewed at a macro level.

Although this reform is targeted at the junior college and higher secondary curriculum so that our students will have more broad-based learning to deal with the rapidly changing times, with a recommendation to promote cross-discipline curriculum structure, we should pay even more attention to the fact that providing cross-discipline curriculum alone is not enough to train our students to possess better ability to achieve mastery of the subjects. We need to have also a big environment conducive to this principle of learning, a batch of like-minded educationalists, and a brand-new set of assessment criteria. MOE should proceed to create this kind of environment so that this reform could be implemented effectively.

I think MOE should also consider conducting a review on the primary and secondary school curriculum as well, so that there will be continuity in our entire education system. At the same time, it should also review whether there is a need to carry on with the Primary Four streaming. I would also suggest that MOE study into the possibility of having a through-train from primary school to secondary school.

Finally, the impact of the recommendations of this report on the general student population is not very great, as students who have missed the through-train can still take the 'O' level, proceed to the junior college or upper secondary, and then take the 'A' level examinations after two or three years. This new curriculum will be implemented only in 2006 to give MOE enough time to make the necessary preparation. What I emphasise is that, in any kind of reform, those students who are unable to quickly adapt to the changes will inevitably be affected. We should be sympathetic towards these students and offer them some buffering avenues, so that they will not be sacrificed in this necessary educational reform or be made guinea pigs under the new system.

The Minister of State for Community Development and Sports (Mr Chan Soo Sen): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, like the other colleagues in this House, I support the motion in the name of the Minister for Education for the reform of our education system. I am a member of the Review Committee. When I was working on the review and talking to the various parties, I noticed that everyone we talked to - from the academia, private sector, entrepreneurs themselves and professionals - unanimously supported the idea that we should reform and introduce new changes to our JC/Upper Secondary schools. Everyone knows that the world is changing, the economy is changing. As a Chinese proverb said, before a storm, there will be strong winds blowing. We all feel the wind, and know we must prepare for the rain. We must retool and rebuild. All these will take time. So we must plan and prepare early, and allow time for implementation.

Even the professionals and the educationists, the teachers and principals, the people stand to face the greatest impact with the changes, are also prepared to face the changes, albeit with some apprehension. They unanimously agree that we must change, and change we must, whatever the difficulties.

Therefore, I am very glad to note that Mr Low Thia Khiang too supports this motion, in principle. I believe this motion before the House will get the unanimous support of Members. The main consideration is on its implementation. We must implement it well. The Ministry of Education has given itself 4-5 years to do the important preparatory work, and will not implement the changes hastily. This is an admirable spirit. In fact, our education system has been good and praised by many. We are only talking about adjusting the JC and upper secondary school system to face the challenge of the times. It is essential that the motion gets our strong support, so that our professionals in MOE and the schools and JCs would be able to concentrate on the implementation of these changes in the next 4 to 5 years, without having to look back.

To implement such changes, we will, of course, have to take care of some concerns. For example, will there be too much emphasis on elitism? Will there be an increase in stress on our students? On the first question, I think the Minister of State Dr Ng Eng Hen has already explained very clearly that in the past 20-odd years, under this education system, there were fewer and fewer dropouts, reaching almost zero level. If our education system is tinted towards looking after the elite, then there will not be such an outcome. So we can accept the assurance given by MOE that our educational direction will not be focusing too much on the elitist. Having taken care of the masses, however, we should also give our strongest students the opportunity to give full play to their potential so that they can become more creative, more innovative, to be able to compete better in the new economy.

The next question is on stress and pressure. We must understand what stress is and who generates stress. I feel that the so-called stress is not because you have too much work to do. Too much workload does not necessarily lead to pressure. For some people, the greater the workload the happier they are. If you ask them to sit down and do nothing, that would be the greatest stress. So more work does not necessarily mean greater stress. Stress is a feeling of helplessness, of not knowing what to do. I hope that parents, like many of us, must fully understand this point. We must help our children to handle stress. Is stress generated because we have too high expectations on them, and hence they feel helpless and do not know what to do as they are afraid of letting us down? They cannot do what they want to do, and they have to do what we want them to do. Put ourselves in their shoes, and we can understand the stress they face. So I hope that as parents, we should be rational in handling our expectations on our children so as not to put unreasonable stress on them. Times are different from the past. When I was young, my father asked me to study well, study properly. He told me this, "If you do not study properly you will end up working as a coolie. As a coolie life is very, very tough." During his time, in his village, there were probably only two persons who did not have to work in the paddy field. One was the village head and the other was the village school teacher. Apart from these two, everyone else would have to work in the paddy field. So the choice then was between working in the field and studying hard. Both are hard work, but to many the choice is quite obvious.

But we have more choices than that now. If we cannot jump on the through-train, we can still have other regular channels of education through which you can go to the JC, and then the university. Or, we can go overseas to further your studies. Many of our parliamentary colleagues here have mentioned examples of students who left Singapore to study overseas, and did very well because our good education system had prepared them well. So in our education system, all roads lead to Rome. There are successful role models in every channels. For polytechnic students, they have a model in Sim Wong Hoo. He is a polytechnic, and definitely an elite. He may not have an university education, but his products are well known throughout the world. Everybody knows the name "Creative". Can you say that he is not an elite?

So we must understand that in Singapore's education system, all roads lead to Rome. If you want to become an elite there are many, many roads for you to take. So long as you are prepared to work hard, try it out, you do not necessarily need to go on the through-train. Will our children who cannot go on the through-train be called a non-elite, and have to till the land, work the farm? There is no such thing. There are other routes to take. They can still succeed by other routes. So I hope that parents like us must be rational in looking at this matter.

We must understand that, with the proposed changes in our JC/Upper Secondary education system, MOE is introducing more channels, more routes for us to choose from. Of course, if there are many choices, it may also lead to some stress, because there can be a feeling of helplessness arising from not knowing which road to take. I remember when I first went to the US, I wanted to install a telephone-line. I was told that I have three sets of numbers to choose from. Back home, in the 1980s, we had no freedom to choose the telephone number you wanted. So, I felt a little stressed then. So too many choices could lead to stress, that is when we do not know how to choose. But in reality, having more choices is good. It is having no choice that is really stressful. The many options open to the children will give them opportunities to do even better for their future. If they are unable to go on the through-train, we should not force them. They need not be on the through-train. There are other ways.

The JCs may want to have their own characteristics. They all try to be creative. They want to emphasise on culture, the arts, etc. So they offer more choices. We must learn how to make choices, and we can benefit from the advantage of having many options. If you say I do not care how many roads there are, I just want to take one particular road, then when you find that you cannot make it, you will be very stressed. The stress can be quite unbearable and it is a self-generated kind of stress.

I hope that through these changes which would bring about creativity and innovation, Singapore would gradually evolve into a really gracious metropolitan, where all the flowers bloom.

We have now a population of 3 million. If tomorrow, Singapore suddenly disappears, what would the world have missed? Perhaps Singapore Airlines, and perhaps Creative Technology. That is about all. I cannot think of anything else which the world would feel have lost. But, if tomorrow, Scotland disappears, what would the world miss? Scotland has a population of about 5 million, less than twice of ours. They would miss the game of golf, the biscuit called shortbread, the unique kilts and bagpipers, it's the song of Auld Lang Syne, and the drink of whiskey. So there are many things which the world would miss if Scotland were to disappear. And these are the products of their culture and marketing skills. We have not reached that level of culture. But through our continuous efforts to go up, to diversify, to be flexible in all other fields of arts and culture, I think one day we will also reach the stage that despite our small 3 million population, we contribute to the world in such a way that if Singapore should disappear, the world would miss something important.

I know that of late, the morale of our people is generally not very high. We worry about retrenchment, we are concerned with unemployment. But, we have to remember the big picture, and be bold enough to plan for necessary changes, and have the drive to bring about the changes.

Once again, I reaffirm my support to this motion. I also hope all of us in this House give it our strong support, so that the professionals, the principals, and the teachers will go full steam ahead without worries to do a good job. This will be a new chapter in the development of education in Singapore.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Clarification from the Minister of State.

(In Mandarin): The Minister of State referred to the question of pressure and said that we should look at it rationally and take it easy. I would like to tell him that it is always easier said that done. He said that those who cannot go on the through-train can go overseas for their studies. This is not easy. To go overseas, you need money, lots of money. If you have no money, you cannot even cross a river, how do you go overseas. He also mentioned that Sim Wong Hoo was a polytechnic graduate. But he must not forget that Sim Wong Hoo's success is ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Low, what is the clarification you are seeking?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): I am seeking clarification on what the Minister of State has said. Does he not agree that the opportunity given to Mr Sim for the breakaway success was when he was in the United States and not in Singapore? He also mentioned that with too many options, he was troubled and it became a pressure to him. I think Mr Chan should consider himself lucky that he has the opportunity to be presented with many choices. To me, it is having no option that presents the greatest pressure.

Mr Chan Soo Sen: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that Mr Low Thia Khiang will not look down on the polytechnic students. When I was working on the Singapore 21 project, I had the opportunity to speak to many young people. I observed that the polytechnic graduates were very aggressive. They were entrepreneurial, strong in their spirit, even stronger than the University graduates. I asked some of the polytechnic graduates why this was so. They told me that they had two options after their graduation. One was to fight it out like Sim Wong Hoo who was their idol and role model. The other option was to be contented with a $3,000-$4,000 salary job and live in a 5-room flat. So, if you want to strike it big, you fight for it. I hope that Mr Low Thia Khiang will not look down on the polytechnic graduates. As for the so-called pressure, let me tell him a story.

I encouraged my son to take up a third language, the Malay language. When he was in Secondary 3, he said that it was too much pressure for him and he wanted to drop it. I asked him why. He said that the teacher was not good, and that it was likely that he would fail his oral examination. I told him not to worry, and that by acquiring one additional language he would have another passport, one more path to take. I told him that it was not necessary to strive for an A1, just manage a pass, a C6 would do. Maybe it is a smaller passport but it is one extra passport. He said, "Let me try." In the end, he succeeded. So one extra path, a little bit more pressure, but it is worth it!

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, may I clarify because the Minister of State has misunderstood what I said?

(In Mandarin): I would like to clarify that I am not looking down at the polytechnic graduates. I actually respect our polytechnic graduates. They may be our enterpreneurs in future. What I am saying is that in the case of Sim Wong Hoo, did Singapore really provide opportunities for development of the polytechnic graduates in the past? Sim Wong Hoo had to go to US because there was hardly any opportunity available to him here. In order to say that if we have more options for development, we must give opportunity to everyone, including non-graduates, to develop and upgrade.

Mr Chan Soo Sen: (In Mandarin): I believe that if we were to implement these recommendations proposed by the Minister for Education, in five to 10 years' time, our values would be changed. This is something which is a long term endeavour. We may not yield immediate results. But I think we should support this motion so that there will be better opportunities for our future generations.

Mr Speaker: I think we have enough of clarifications. Next, Miss Penny Low, please. 4.17 pm

Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.

The recommendations of the Education Review Committee attempt to prepare our students to face the challenges in the changing global economy. The global economy today is heavily driven by technology and innovation - which has revolutionised the way we learn, the way we live and the way we think. These innovations will continue to change our lifestyles as well as life's demands. The future ahead is both uncertain, and yet filled with opportunities.

Therefore, education must, in short, prepare our young to face the future. In fact, it should aim to give our future generation a competitive edge in the increasingly integrated world. This is possible with not just economic relevance or consciousness, but also the virtue of a good value system and community spiritedness built into the programme.

Education must help students to become more efficient and effective, be able to think creatively and critically, so that when they are given a series of choices, they can make critical decisions and make the choices, and equip our younger generation with lifelong skills. As demands on specific skills and job types change at unprecedented rates, it will no longer be sufficient to train our youths in specific skill sets that are narrowly defined.

As such, I am heartened to know that the proposed changes aim at a broad-based education which includes the introduction of subjects like Knowledge and Inquiry skills. I am also heartened to know that a more diverse landscape with at least three new routes will be introduced. I am, however, not so heartened to learn that the three new routes as well as the Knowledge and Inquiry skills will only be made available to the regular group of creme de la creme. If it is good, why not engineer it into the mainstream education? Why stop at the top 10% for the Integrated Programme Schools which may also benefit the not so examination-savvy type? Does this imply that the proposed changes will only benefit those who qualify for JC, ie, 25% of each cohort, and the 10% that qualify for the Integrated Programme Schools? If so, then there is really no significant overhaul in the curricula for the majority of students undergoing secondary education. In other words, despite all the good intentions of the changes, the majority of each cohort will still be 'stuck' in the current education system which may not prepare them sufficiently for the new challenges ahead. It will be difficult to battle new grounds with old weapons.

I hope MOE would perhaps run that 10% as a pilot scheme with the intention of incorporating the Integrated Programme School system into the mainstream structure, if found to be suitable. I also hope that, for a start, the schools elected in the IP School system would comprise a good mix of schools from both the elites and the neighbourhood schools. I think the demonstration effect of such a scheme would be far reaching.

Since many of my colleagues in this House have spoken extensively on the possible social effects of the proposed changes, especially on the topic of adding more stress into the current system and even possible elitism, I shall refrain from repeating the arguments here. I will, however, add that any attempt at creating a level playing field or creating a totally egalitarian society may be an uphill task, as each individual is differently gifted. Hence, a good education system must aim to bring out the best in the individual, and allow room for them to blossom according to their gifts. The focus should then be on whether the proposed changes retard or improve an individual's potential to be the best that he/she can be. My sense is, on paper, the proposed changes will improve the current system, provided more flexibility is exercised in the implementation. The devil, I am afraid, may lie in the implementation.

At the crux would be whether we are ready for these changes. To quote William Shakespeare, "All things are ready, if our minds be so." The proposed changes are significant and constitute a paradigm shift in the established education system. However, for any change to take place, there must be a certain amount of belief in the changes and a momentum that is built up. The speed of change is directly correlated to the momentum of change.

Corollary, the better convinced and prepared the various players in this equation are, and that will include the principals, teachers, MOE personnel, parents, students and the society at large, then the faster and higher the chances of success would be. As such, I would like the Minister to comment on the current state of readiness of these various players, especially the principals, teachers, and even MOE personnel and also whether the parents and students have been told about the changes and explained to them.

Teacher readiness is pivotal to the success of the proposed changes. In the new economy, the teachers' role has shifted from that of a content provider to that of a facilitator. Today, with easy access to the Internet and other media, there is information overload even at the school level. Therefore, a teacher plays a vital role in helping students direct and manage the content available on the Internet and other media. As aptly put by a John Naisbitt, "We are drowning in information but starved for knowledge".

Equally important, a teacher should be able to groom, inspire and spot talent and further help develop and guide these talented students to maximise their potential. It has been said that it is harder to teach old dogs new tricks. So while the students may adapt faster to the changes, the teachers may find it difficult to acquire some new teaching techniques and habits, let alone exercise them. Hence, I would like MOE to comment on what measures are in the pipeline to help teachers plug into this new system and whether MOE would consider the 'external consultant' approach to jump start the shift in thinking and habits.

Next, I would like to move my focus to an area which is somewhat less talked about, that is, of a value system. Education which stops short at economics and efficiency may prove to be the greatest menace of society. In the words of Martin Luther King Junior, "the most dangerous criminal may be the men gifted with reason but with no morals".

Let us learn some lessons from the United States. The recent scandals in the corporate America are lessons in which our education system can draw upon. As highly intelligent men conspire to cheat, there can be severe repercussions on the whole capitalist system in which the global economy operates. We saw how Arthur Anderson, Enron, WorldCom, amongst the others, fell from grace globally within a few months, wiping some US$5 trillion in market value. This cost is equivalent to an average of US$60,000, or S$106,200, in losses. These huge losses are caused only by a handful of people.

Hence, apart from good institutions and laws in our country, we need most of all good people. People with good values and ethics, people with integrity. As part of the total education, our education system should be broad-based enough to encompass these teachings. The report, I feel, does not sufficiently address how it will focus on such teachings or even include this value system consideration into the system.

As the ERC, not the Economic Restructuring Committee, but the Education Review Committee, gathered insights from top schools in the UK, US, Hong Kong and China, it would also be useful to note that, in Thailand, a ministerial committee is developing a system to record the "goodness" of high school students. Colleges and universities country-wide will take the goodness records into account when deciding whom to admit. They have realised that to admit students with high morals would also be one way of eradicating corruption in the country.

Although we do not face serious corruption problems in our country, this system nonetheless encourages students to be good and maintain moral integrity. I am not suggesting that we adopt exactly the same system. I am saying that these are important components. We, in a multi-racial Singapore, have shared and common values and if we can inculcate some of these values into the education system, we can then benefit our society at large.

Education on our shared values can also do greater good in highlighting common traits amongst us, although being people of diverse cultures and religions, to come together as one people, one nation and one Singapore caring for each other, crossing all boundaries. This I feel should be part of the total education in which we impart to our students.

The education system in the country can also play a role in nation building by inculcating a sense of civic consciousness, ie, a sense of community and rootedness and promote the spirit of active citizenry with an objective of bringing about a gracious society.

Schools can play an important role in building a gracious community and promoting active citizenry through active participation and engagement in community activities. Currently, most links between the schools and the community are at best loose and ad hoc. There is more that can be done. We should devise ways, schemes to engage and tap on the energy of students and expose them in a more meaningful fashion through the community. Instead of one-off projects with "term" engagement, we should prolong this "engagement process" which can continuously take place from primary school to university, thereby cultivating a lifelong relationship between the community and the individual.

I have some suggestions here:

(1) Schools can work with grassroots organisations (GROs) to contribute and improve the neighbourhood or community that they are situated in. The objective is to get the students integrated into the GRO. One possible example would be to link the NPCC or NCC to the CDEC, so that students get real world experience in their weekly drills and simultaneously learn more about the community that they live in or serve. This process of engagement between community could be built into the school's curriculum on "Life Skills".

(2) They could link project works directly to community - research work. For example, students can be asked to research on how the community operates, ie, the functions, the impact and the importance of each organism in the community eco-system. This could include the role of community centres, town councils, business organisations, VWOs, and so on, and so forth.

Project works can further incorporate hands-on participation where, in such activities, students would be given the experience and exposure to work with these various organisms. This way, they would also learn the skills of communication beyond that of their peers and their school environment. They would have what we call experiential learning built into the school system.

(3) They could also learn and suggest solutions to current real-life challenges that are faced by the community. Student task forces can be formed to tackle the common issues on transportation, environmental problems, crime prevention, or even finding ways and means to help the needy within the community. They can then present their findings, either in a written or oral presentation, and such presentations should be looked at seriously and given a certain amount of weightage. In other words, they should not be seen purely as ECA that is not relevant to their overall academic performance. It should, however, not add stress to the system by giving them an examination at the end of it.

If we are able to incorporate some of these schemes, I believe that most students will then be able to learn to think out of the box, to think creatively and critically, because when they are doing syllabus and subject matters that are close to their heart where they are living in or in the community that they live in, chances are it would help them to identify with the problems.

When people become interested in the events and happenings in the community and society, and where they have made efforts to improve the community they live in, in the long run, we will be able to build a sense of belonging, of rootedness and we will have a population that is not being accused of being bo-chap, which means they do not care. Perhaps we will have citizens who will always care for the community that they live in.

This would be the kind of heartstrings that we want to form, that will tie us to our friends, neighbours and the community that we belong to. These will be the stayers who will have a bond with Singapore wherever they may be in this world. For many years, our education system and our society have focused on building economic strings, job strings and asset strings. We must now realise that in this age and time of a highly mobile population, where our citizens possess the language and the passport to the world, it is only the heartstrings that will continue to bond us to Singapore and make us feel like sons and What better place to start than with the education system?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the changes recommended will prepare students as leaders, innovators and citizens of tomorrow. For it to work well, all the partners in the education system must come together and work together to provide our students with this total education to help them to attain not just academic excellence but also life-long skills.

Obviously, the greatest impact that these changes will have will be on our young and on Singapore's future. As such, I think it would be good for us to know who they are, what they are like and how they think, to gauge the suitability of the proposed changes.

It will be useful to note from none other than the man in touch with youth culture, the President of MTV Asia, Mr Frank Brown. He refers to today's young, today's 3G, as the "Dual Passport Generation". He notes that Asia's 3G these days value their individuality and are completely comfortable with modern consumerist experience. He said:

'They can multi-task - watch more TV, do more on the computer and read more magazines - all at the same time. They can be both local and cosmopolitan simultaneously - there is no identity crisis.'

Interestingly, he goes further to disagree with Harvard don Robert Putnam's term "blowing alone", referring to the 3G as people who prefer to remain passively disengaged, rather than join any clubs of a grassroots, commercial, industrial, moral or serious nature.

Young people today, says Frank Brown, are more active than any previous generation in terms of social communication and community. If Frank Brown's observations are correct, then the proposed changes which we seek to implement, which encourage a diverse broad-based education, and if we can incorporate community spiritedness value system into the system, then I think it will be suitable for the type of people whom we seek to provide this education to.

Let us then, as Members of this House and leaders of today, capitalise on this spirit and vibrancy of our youth in designing for our students an education system that will equip them with a blend of academic and non-academic skills coupled with moral values and civic consciousness, thereby making them good leaders and citizens of tomorrow. Only then can we ensure the survival of our country, our nation, our Singapore.

On that note, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to speak on this motion. I wish to speak in support of this motion standing in the name of the Minister for Education.

I have no quarrel with the intention of the Report to develop thinking and communication skills for our students in upper secondary and junior colleges, as well as to provide a wider range of subjects and areas of learning for our students. The diversity we require in knowledge and thinking processes cannot be doubted. The mark of our Ministry of Education's mandate as well as the slogan of "Thinking Schools and Learning Nation", as first articulated in 1997, can be said to be milestones in the development of our education system.

The Report essentially proposes a wider gradation of the education system to give depth and width to a larger group of our students. There will be new subjects at H3 level, and new subjects of learning for the new system of examinations. This is good. After all, any old system of examination developed decades ago, having served us well, should give way to newer ones, more suitable, more relevant to the time. The world after all is not quite the same, and knowledge has exploded in this period.

Going through the Report, we are introduced to new areas of enquiry, communication skills, language and knowledge skills, humanities and the Arts, mathematics and science. An Integrated Programme Structure of six years through to complete pre-university will replace the present 4-2 system. How can we quarrel with learning more things, learning deeper about things, talking and discussing about them in an intelligent way? How can we dispute about the importance of greater diversity in learning for our students?

A famous philosopher - I think it was Wittgenstein - once said: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one does not know." I wonder whether the fact that our students are found to be poor in expressing their thoughts is really due to their language difficulties, ie, the complexity of learning languages in Singapore, as mentioned in the Report, or is it because they have not quite really learnt the subject properly. Is it because the way our subjects are currently being taught and the way we assess them that do not give them much chance for discussion and expression in order for them to clarify their thoughts? In ancient Greek culture, the learning process centres on dialogue. One has to refer to Socrates and Plato. I suspect teaching in Singapore is more monologue than anything. This new system proposes to make changes to the current system to give more skills at learning or on knowledge acquisition. I welcome the proposal, but I hope we will do it right. It is quite a change.

We can cram our students with content, but what are they going to do with these contents? Have they understood the facts and how the facts stand in relation, in order to adequately express what they think about those facts and the contents they learn? Do they know what they are talking about? And if they do not talk, maybe they do not know. When will the magic moment strike in thinking when the facts are resolved into a recognition of pattern that can be expressed to be something meaningful to the persons listening to you?

Learning more about content, while good, cannot lead to the act of creation in engendering a new way of looking at the causal relationship or the pattern of occurrence of events. This capacity for creative imagination springs not just from the analytical process of the human mind. It has to do with perception as much as conception. It has to do with what the mind can see than what the mind can think.

Learning about facts alone will not necessarily prepare our kids for the future. It is the way we relate the facts and the content that will determine whether these facts are going to be meaningful to the students learning about them.

Creative thinking is important. New ways of looking at things or even inducing facts from observation, hypothesising anew and challenging sacred cows require a new frame of mind. It is important to teach our children to be creative, to give them room for creative thinking and imagination. Project work can be a basis for allowing creative imagination, but it depends on how we conduct the project. Time must be given to explore and challenge the usual frame of reference of our current thoughts. To do this requires a new frame of mind. The school children should be given not the syllabus as important as the environment.

At the end of the day, it is not by saying that we allow for wider and deeper subject learning that the creative impulse will come. There must be time and space allowed for the students' imagination to fallow, incubate and envision. It depends on the way we teach or communicate the wonderment of the subject. It depends on how we test or evaluate them. We must give them time to explore and express. Perhaps the way we evaluate their competence ought to be varied.

It is not the new facts or content we learn or know that will determine whether they are of any use. It is the way we interpret or relate these facts that will lead to a new discovery, new process, new product or a new solution to an age-old problem. Hence, the new programme structure, while commendable, is only half the story. It is in the things and the ways we teach that will be more critical. The curriculum we develop for this structure and the way we teach and evaluate them are equally, if not more, important.

What do I mean? When we study a subject in school in Singapore, I dare say we often do not bother or know about the history of a subject - whether it is a science subject, the history of some scientific theory on a subject, or the history of economic thought or theories.

We are interested to learn the current vocabulary and not bother about the background of how these theories or concepts came about. Yet, understanding how these current ideas came about is most important, to know the underlying assumptions, the beliefs, the biases, the prejudices sometimes behind many of our ideas. The great economist Keynes once said, "We are often the slaves to the ideas of some defunct economists." Great discoveries are often made by challenging assumptions, and the assumptions lie embedded like fossils in the old stone. Unless we know the history of the subject or the history of the theory, we may well be heading the wrong path, or not aware of why we think the way we are thinking. I am concerned about this as I see limitations in our current curriculum development.

To properly cater to the diversity of strength and interest of our students, we must give them the space to learn and share. It means more time to cover and dwell on the subject, more time to explore and discuss, to think around the topic. As long as the system tries to jam too many things, the time and space available will be constrained, and defeats the whole purpose of what it may be hoping to achieve.

There will always be the bright students who will manage to score best in the test or the key performance indices, but the output may not be the ones we should be looking for, if addressing the challenges of the future in education is what we are trying to do.

The average pre-university student today will, in all probability, know more facts about the world or the solar system than Galileo in his time. But we would be kidding ourselves if we think they are all little Galileos, because the creative genius is not about knowing facts and mastering content alone, but new ways of imaginatively thinking about them.

With this, Sir, I would like to support this motion. 4.45 pm

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate.

Much has been said on the motion before the House since yesterday. The fact that 33 Members have indicated interest in speaking on the motion speaks volumes of the importance of the topic. Education policies have been in the hearts and minds of many Singaporeans. Yesterday, we heard eloquent speeches from Members, some defending the education system, others presenting their well-argued criticisms of some parts of the system.

Sir, indeed education is so dear to all our hearts. The changes proposed have far reaching implications for our children. True to the intent it was set out to serve, the operative words in the proposed changes are flexibility, diversity, creativity - ingredients necessary to survive in a new innovation-driven global economy. Indeed, each talent needs to be enhanced. The proposed changes seek to prepare and develop these diverse talents through paths that best suit each individual's abilities.

Sir, as a lecturer at the university, I find the proposed changes to the JC curriculum indeed very long overdue. I guess the frustration faced by teachers like myself is epitomised by the offer made by NUS to run its own secondary school to overcome the problem of students coming to NUS expecting to be spoon-fed. Till today, I still have difficulty getting students to open up and present their own ideas. Many are still tongue-tied, expecting me to give them the "answers" to the discussion topics. If ever they spoke, many will be guarded, often trying to say what I want to hear rather than what they actually think. Are they thinking individuals? Well, some are, but most are not thinking of their response to the topics discussed, but rather thinking of what the teacher wants to hear.

There is a gross lack of self-confidence in many of them. I am not sure how the proposed changes will address this lack of confidence among the students that come to the university. They are the products of the current JC system. Yes, there will be the few who will display confidence naturally. But, by and large, many that we see do not.

The proposed changes are touted to produce students who have better thinking and other knowledge skills including communication skills. The recent changes in the way the "A" level examinations are being designed test students' thinking skills where students are encouraged to offer personal views and bring higher-order skills of analysis, synthesis and knowledge application to their reading and writing. All these are well and good. But I wonder what aspect of the proposed curriculum changes will develop the confidence in the students to express their own independent thoughts, independent of what they think the teachers are thinking. These students must be taught to question the question. Perhaps these skills are not taught but rather are outcomes from processes that recognise individuals for who they are and for their own abilities. It goes back to the values that are transmitted within the system itself, to what extent do we value individual opinions, no matter how insignificant they may be. Our students are afraid to speak out because they are afraid that what they will say may be wrong or they may be saying the wrong thing. In the complex new world, right or wrong are in themselves complex concepts. One's opinion may lead to the right decision today but wrong tomorrow. Successful entrepreneurs make many wrong decisions and fail before they succeed. The point is: do we dare to speak up, make a mistake and learn from the mistake? These are important processes that must be part of the new system.

What is critical is the extent to which we develop this culture of valuing individual ideas and opinions in and of themselves. We should not value the ideas because the ideas bring economic value. We should value them because they come from an individual who is willing to share his thoughts. We value them because we value each individual. Such processes will go a long way in developing self-esteem and confidence of our students.

Sir, pedagogically, it is a new way of looking at education. Education is more than just the transmission of knowledge, often assessed through the outcome of examinations. Education is about processes. We should indeed pay equal attention to the processes as we do the outcomes. We should be conscious of the processes for the best learning is often done through processing the processes. Assessment should thus not merely focus on the outcomes but the processes that students go through in their learning. Sir, I urge MOE to pay attention to this aspect of education as it implements the proposed changes to the JC curriculum, including training the teachers with new teaching methods.

Sir, I applaud the recommendations of the Review Committee which calls for greater flexibility in the subject combinations that students are able to take. My question is how flexible can the JCs be. I hope we do not end up in a situation where, because of limitations of space, time, manpower, it prevents students from taking the subjects of their choice. Sir, I am not sure the extent to which the range of subjects offered by the different JCs isimilar. It is not surprising to find one JC developing a course on biochemistry and another offering theatre studies. If we are to think out of the box for a moment, in the name of flexibility, will the Ministry consider allowing students to take courses across JCs?

Sir, this point is important if we analyse the potential fate of the students in the 3-year Centralised Institutes. Yes, their numbers are small. And because their numbers are small, it will not be a surprise to find that the range of subjects offered will be lesser than those in the JCs, simply because there are no economies of scale. What is the extent of flexibility that they would have then? Will their subject combination be limited to the subjects offered by their respective institutions? Can the system be flexible enough to allow these students to take a subject or two in a JC? Impossible? Why not? Just as the ERC Sub-committee on Enhancing Human Capital proposed that Normal students be allowed to take one or two "O" level subjects, why should we not allow the Centralised Institute students to take one or two subjects in the JCs and to take their "A" levels for these subjects earlier? Certainly, the interaction with the JC students will facilitate further cross fertilisation of ideas and experiences between the students. It would foster interaction between institutions and help bring down artificial social barriers between the supposedly brighter JC students and their country cousin from the CIs. Yes, it may be an administrative nightmare. But since we are remaking almost everything around us, why not reconsider this too? These "A" level institutions, the JCs and CIs can be clustered such that each cluster provides the widest range of subjects to encourage flexibility in subject combinations. It is indeed a test of our own system's ability to be flexible and adaptable - values that the changes hope to inculcate in the beneficiaries of the new system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard much about the proposed Integrated Programme or the through-train programme. Sir, just before setting off, the conductor of an actual train will usually invite all passengers to come on board. He will shout, "All aboard." But sorry to say, this particular train is only for the top few.

Sir, notably, this proposal has drawn the most attention in the present debate. Somehow, we often react at the slightest indication of a policy that will result in differentiating people. We have heard arguments justifying streaming from the Ministry for the umpteenth time. Yesterday, Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee eloquently argued that labelling or stigmatising need not be present, if only society stops doing so. He is right that labelling and stigmatising are mere social constructions. They are man-made and can be deconstructed. But he must remember that these are systemic processes that take place in any society. The social construction is dependent on the social structures that exist and the values that prevail in any society. These structures include the very policies that we are talking about today. Unless we deconstruct our value systems and social structures, we cannot escape from the natural processes of constructing labels. The challenge is to continuously manage this complex process and evaluate the costs and benefits to society.

Sir, I think we cannot deny that the proposed through-train programme is yet another streaming exercise. Some Members have labelled it as the extension of the Gifted Education Programme. The GEP targets 1% of a cohort, approximately about 500 students per year. The through-train programme targets 10% of a cohort - about 5,000 per year. Sir, in the report, schools like RI, RGS, ACS, Chinese High School are slated and set to roll their through-trains on the fast tracks. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to provide the socio-economic profiles of students in these schools who will board the through-train. What proportions of these students come from middle and upper-class backgrounds?

My worry is that we are perpetuating further the already existing differentiation. One may argue that these schools are already in operation all this while and the students have been differentiated from the students of neighbourhood schools at present already. So what is the problem? The problem is that with the new programme, they will be further advantaged, compared to the students in the neighbourhood schools. At this time, we are not informed of how much resources will be allocated to the through-train programme but I will be surprised if the resources are not significantly increased. Otherwise, why talk about investing in their talents? They will go even faster and even further from the rest of their counterparts.

Sir, I do acknowledge that the social divisions due to our meritocractic principles are inevitable and have, in fact, been accepted here as a fact of life. We are always separating the bright from the less bright in the name of giving each child the potential to develop at his or her own pace. It is the fundamental nature of our system. Certainly it serves the needs of the nation and the individual. Why hold someone back when he can go faster than the other? But have we stopped for a while and asked what is the cost that we may incur if our top performers are not interacting with the less bright? If we factor in socio-economic status (SES) into the equation, we will potentially be in a position where the haves are not sufficiently mixing with the have-nots. I hope the Minister can provide the House with the socio-economic background of this top 10% students to ensure the House that the SES is indeed not a factor in the equation. If the top 10% students are indeed predominantly middle and upper class children, I urge the Ministry to put in place programmes that will facilitate greater exchanges and mixing between these students and the rest of their cohorts. Let us not widen the gap any further.

Sir, indeed, the digital divide has been one of the contentious outcomes of the streaming processes. Some researchers in Britain have argued that low ability pupils who are grouped homogenously compared to those who are in mixed ability groups are less likely to participate in school activities, exhibit lower expectations, experience more disciplinary problems and have higher levels of absenteeism and non-completion. Sir, I do not have the figures, but anecdotal experience suggests that this is not too far away from the case here. Perhaps, MCDS can enlighten the House but my sense is that the higher proportions of juvenile offenders, for example, are from the academically weaker streams. As we focus our attention on the cream on the top, let us not forget the residue at the bottom. My experience as a social worker also suggests that many of them are not able to fit into the structured nature of the educational system. While flexibility has been argued to benefit the top fliers, have we studied the possibility of providing the under-achievers with greater flexibility too? Are our secondary schools equipped with the same level of flexibility? I encourage MOE to pay attention to this group of Singaporeans whose survival will ensure that we are able to consciously narrow the gap.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister said yesterday that the through-train programme is targetted to allow students who can do well with less structured environment. As the target is the top 10%, he thus alluded to the fact that the higher performers will do better in less structured environment compared to the not so high performers. I am not sure what the basis of such a conclusion is. I would appreciate it if the Minister can elaborate on that.

Sir, the report indicated that on average, 25% of a Primary One cohort will do their "A" levels. If the through-train programme is targetted at the top 10%, it means that there are still 15% of students who will go on to do their "A" levels, albeit after going through their "O" levels. This works out to about 7,500 students per year.

The report identified that one of the criteria for the through-train programme is that it "must add value to the education of the students by developing their capacities for creative and critical thinking, and by offering special leadership development and other co-curricular programmes. It must optimise the use of students' time to provide them with opportunities to develop their intellectual curiosity and to ensure they acquire a broad-based education."

Sir, these are indeed qualities that are relevant and critical to the new economy. Indeed, they are very much in line with the objectives of the changes in the new JC curriculum. But what it means is that these top 10% of the students will be prepared with the skills and knowledge that will help them do well in their "A" levels and beyond. Going by the records, these students will do well in their "A" levels even without the through-train programme. The programme will probably enhance their performance at the "A" levels, perhaps just marginally. If these skills are critical for the 'A' levels examinations and for the new economy, why are we not extending them to the other 15% who will end up doing their 'A' levels anyway? I have argued earlier about the problem we face today on the transition from 'A' levels to university education, and the changes to the JC curriculum aim to address this. But what about the transition from 'O' levels to 'A' levels? Would these students not benefit from it even more? Why should they be deprived of something that will benefit them? Unless the skills are academic performance dependent, which I do not think they are, I urge the Ministry to reconsider and actually extend it to the other students at the upper secondary level. I believe it will greatly enhance their performance at the 'A' levels.

Sir, this brings me to my last point. The report is supposed to look at the JC and upper secondary education. As far as I understand, upper secondary refers to secondary 3 and 4, focusing on preparing students for the 'O' levels, while the JCs are the post secondary educational institutions where students take their 'A' level examinations.

Sir, the changes in the JC curriculum is certainly in line with the current system in the universities, local and abroad. This is rightfully so since the path is clear for these students to move from JC to university. Of course, the skills to be acquired will be useful for the new economy.

Sir, the through train programme seemingly aims at providing this seamless progression from PSLE to the 'A" levels. What is missing in the report is thus the transition from 'O' levels to 'A' levels or the other routes. The skills like creative and independent thinking, etc, will also be applicable even if the students do not go to JC and take the polytechnic route instead. As I mentioned earlier, what is even more important is that those 15% students who are JC bound too, are the ones who will need the extra help in blending into the JC curriculum. My question is: what is the extent of the upper secondary curriculum, as it stands now, which is in line with the proposed changes in the JC curriculum? I believe these skills are important for those who are polytechnic bound. The report fails to address this transition from 'O' levels to the other paths. I urge the Ministry to study this gap and address it concurrently, as failure to do so will only disadvantage these groups of students further.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we acknowledge that we are living in very difficult and uncertain times. The Minister of State for Education, Dr Ng Eng Hen, has been quoted as saying that the "education roadmap needs to move from uniformity to diversity, rigidity to flexibility, from conformity to resilience, and from moulding to empowering." These are indeed excellent targets to work towards. We must, however, ensure that as we develop the social structures through our policies to achieve these, that we do not inevitably divide our society further. Social stratification is part of society, but policy makers must be conscious of the extent to which policies perpetuate social stratification. In the long run, we know that whatever we are doing is best for Singapore and Singaporeans. Singaporeans must be made to understand and own this process. Indeed, the nation is learning as much as the schools are thinking. We now want our students also to think as much, as they learn to acquire the requisite skills to ensure their own survival.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Hawazi Daipi): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me, first, address one point raised by Mr Low Thia Khiang. He asked whether we really provide opportunities for our polytechnic students to study in our universities.

Our polytechnics are developed as institutions in their own right. They are not pre-university centres or institutions. Therefore, our students in the polytechnics are trained to be employable, relevant to the industry. The Member will find that our polytechnic students and graduates are relevant and employable. Indeed, the top 10% of our polytechnic graduates enter our universities annually, and I believe that as we revamp the university sector, more would have the opportunity to enter our universities.

Sir, I rise to address specific queries from some Members on National Education, values education and character development. I would like to thank Members - Ms Penny Low, Mr Wee Siew Kim, Ms Irene Ng and Dr John Chen - for their support for the increased importance given to the co-curricular activities (CCA) and Ms Indranee Rajah for supporting MOE's efforts in developing the character of our students. However, listening to Ms Indranee earlier, one would have the impression that the poor manners of some motorists on our roads have been due to the weaknesses of our education system.

Let me take through some of the things we have done in our schools as far as National Education, values education and character development are concerned.

In October this year, I gave the House an update on the National Education (NE) activities, the Civics and Moral Education (CME) programme, co-curricular activities (CCA) and other learning activities conducted in our schools to imbibe sound values in our students.

Character Development through Co-Curricular Activities

Our schools place great emphasis on developing the character of their students through a wide range of activities and programmes. Besides CME lessons, there is a variety of co-curricular activities (CCA) such as uniformed groups, sports or games which inculcate desirable traits in our students.

Sports and games are an excellent way to promote friendship and bonding. Students learn to work together in the pursuit of a common goal. Strong friendships emerge from sharing in the joys of winning or the dejection of defeat. It also helps to promote bonding, understanding and teamwork amongst participants. The uniformed groups are another means by which students are introduced to the ethos and values of being part of a team. Through various activities, students develop positive traits such as perseverance, resilience and adaptability.

CCAs expose students to real world problems where they need to understand that solutions to the problems they face are not cast in stone. It will put our students' capacity to think to the test.

Our students are also actively engaged in community involvement projects (CIP) that give them an opportunity to contribute their efforts to the good of others. The CIP was introduced in 1988 to nurture our pupils to be socially responsible and to help them understand that every Singaporean has a role to play in enhancing the well-being of the community and the country. In participating in community work, the members also learn, from a young age, the value of service and of developing enduring friendships with one another. All students do a minimum of six hours of CIP. In fact, in some schools, as I reported in October, students clock in more than 20 hours a year. Since year 2000, schools have also been introduced to the concept of Service-Learning. Service-Learning is an approach where the CIP participants not only serve the community but also learn to identify the needs of the community and to reflect on their community involvement process so that they can better appreciate it.

Our students have partnered with various grassroots and community organisations in carrying out CIP. Through these partnerships, they also learn to work with adults in the community. Sir, I appreciate the views given by Miss Low and I would like her to know that our schools are expanding the opportunities with the community, only as far as the community wants to partner with the schools. If community organisations and community leaders take the opportunity to work the schools, I am very sure our schools will also extend a hand. In the process, both our students and our community will learn together to appreciate each other's contributions.

National Education

Sir, with increasing globalisation and mobility, a person's sense of identity is less tied to the place where he was born. The sense of belonging to Singapore could weaken. National Education is necessary to reinforce national instincts and citizenship values so that our students remain rooted to the country as they spread their economic wings overseas.

National Education aims to develop national cohesion, the instinct to fight for Singapore's survival and instil confidence in its future. It aims to foster a sense of identity, pride and self-respect as Singaporeans, to understand Singapore's unique challenges, constraints and vulnerability.

Mr Wee Siew Kim suggested that National Education be emphasised through Project Work and perhaps the new `Knowledge and Inquiry' subject. I would like to thank Mr Wee for his suggestion. He would be pleased to know that schools already infuse National Education across the formal curriculum and non-academic programmes.

At the JC level, National Education is integrated into the General Paper whose aim is to enable students to appreciate the inter-relationship of ideas from across disciplines and broaden their global outlook while remaining mindful of shared historical and social experiences, both within Singapore and regionally. Essay topics could, therefore, be set that allow students to consider issues from an NE perspective. The comprehension passage could deal with topics of concern to Singaporeans. Both Project Work (PW) and the new elective subject `Knowledge and Inquiry' require students to explore a range of issues and ideas, which could include getting students to consider NE-related perspectives. There is sufficient scope for PW projects as well as KI topics to deal with National Education issues.

At the secondary level, NE is delivered through subjects such as Social Studies where students learn about Singapore's arduous road to nationhood. Through case studies, they are introduced to the principles of good governance, and the dangers that befall those who are divided by racial and religious strife. Students understand the importance of racial and religious harmony.

Schools also conduct a wide variety of programmes to enable students to internalise the NE values. For example, schools celebrate the different ethnic festivals to raise students' awareness and consciousness and understanding of multi-racialism and its importance.

There is also the Learning Journey Programme, which was launched in 1998. Students visit key Government institutions like the Parliament House, URA, and also important facilities like the PSA. Through these visits, students come to grips with the constraints Singapore faces in terms of size and resources. They also begin to appreciate how Singaporeans have succeeded against the odds by standing together, and working creatively to overcome the physical limits that the size of our land has imposed on us.

However, a child's experiences in school form only part of the efforts in cultivating a sense of love, loyalty and belonging to Singapore. The family, community and the society play no less critical role in shaping the values of our young. On its part, the Ministry of Education will continue with its efforts to improve its National Education programme in all our schools to ensure all our pupils are imbued and instilled with a greater sense of love, loyalty and belonging to Singapore.

Added Emphasis on Values Education in Revised JC curriculum

The new revised JC curriculum reinforces our efforts on values education and character development. To underscore our commitment to provide a holistic education to our students, the Committee has recommended that more emphasis be given to the non-academic domain.

There will be more opportunities, inside and outside of schools, for students to engage in projects and ventures that will help develop initiative, independence, and an entrepreneurial mindset.

Students will be required to meet minimum requirements in co-curricular activities and character development programme in order to graduate from junior college. A holistic certification will also be introduced whereby the CCA achievements and academic grades of students are reflected in a single `A' level certificate.

However, schools cannot shoulder this responsibility of shaping young hearts and minds alone. The family is key to bringing up our children with the right moral values and sound character. As we strive to develop our students' talents and equip them with the skills and knowledge to tackle the challenges in a knowledge-based economy, parents and teachers cannot neglect the softer aspects of our children's education. Values like loyalty to the country, compassion for the community and friends, perseverance and moral integrity, will stand our youths in good stead. For in the end, Singapore will have won the battle but lost the war if the next generation of Singaporeans grow up smarter in the head but weaker in the heart.

Sir, I would like to assure Members that as we embark to revamp the JC and Upper Secondary Education, the MOE does not neglect character development, values education and National Education. Our schools are focusing on the pursuit of what I called the 3Cs, two less than the pursuit of average Singaporeans. The schools may use different terms, but the 3Cs I mean cover these things: Competency, Change-Management Capabilities, and Character Development. But I must add that the inculcation of desirable values cannot just be the job of MOE. The Government, parents and the community must also play their part.

Dr Warren Lee (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate on the motion, standing in the name of the Minister for Education.

As I thought about the motion, I thought back about the entering cohort of medical students who started in university with me. One has become a very good musician, one a playwright, a few have become bankers, a few have become good businessmen, real estate developers - not all finished their medical course - but all became successful in their own ways.

And in thinking of these people, I thought about the second part of this motion, which endorses a greater diversity and opening of new pathways in JC and Upper Secondary Education, to cater to different strengths and interests of students. Twenty years ago, and I am sure this strikes a chord with many Members, many of us and parents would have said that the route to advancement lies in the professions, therefore, get yourself a good "A" levels, go into one of the professional courses and after that you can think about it. I think this new set of reforms sends a strong signal that we mean what we say in wanting to show people that there are many, many ways of achieving success, that Singapore needs a broader definition of success if we are to face the world ahead.

We are an unashamedly meritocratic and competitive society. No matter what MOE reforms are put in place, many Singaporean parents and Singaporean kids themselves will always strive for excellence, and subject themselves and their children to perhaps a little too much pressure to succeed. These reforms will not change this because it is an ingrained habit, and perhaps not such a bad thing. But what I think we would need to change is this broadening of the Singaporean mind. And I think this is very, very important because it is the broad minds, the agile minds, succeed in the new economy, even though that itself is a cliche by now.

What we do hope to achieve is a long term shift in society's attitudes and direction towards a more thinking and creative nation - a nation of leaders and not followers alone. We need a couple of Thomas Edisons, not a couple of thousand of candle-makers. Yet the biggest impediment to the success of these proposed changes is, I think, fear. And I think these fears are two-fold. Firstly, a fear of change. Some have expressed fears that our teachers are not used to the system. Others fear that their children would not be able to cope with this new system. Secondly, a fear of missing the boat - a lack of bridges between the EM3, EM2 and EM1 segments of society, so to speak. Many of those who have talked about the through-train approach also fear that some of these young people might fall between the stools in the through-train system. Many have expressed the fear that in households where English is not the main language spoken at home, there will be children who would not be able to cope and not be able to benefit from these new reforms. But I think we can actually deal with these fears separately, and indeed some of these issues are very important, but they should be dealt with separately.

The crux of the matter before us today is that we need to give our brightest and best new routes to success because the "A" level education model that has served us so well in the past is perhaps no longer the most suitable model for Singapore's future needs. Yet, I am glad that the report has recognised the great value of the brand name of the Singapore "A" levels and that we must not only provide for the acquisition of technical knowledge, but also for the development of the spirit of inquiry and creativity, and the development of morals and character.

The issue is really also about the best way to use the time available to prepare Singaporeans who will benefit from a university education, to be qualified for competitive admission to local and foreign universities. With the proposed changes, individuals can reach a university education by either proof of achieving academic excellence, or through proof of academic competence, accompanied by proof of excellence in some other fields, such as the arts or in sports. Is it perfect? Perhaps not. Because just as there are limitations in designing, say, a car or a military tank, where one has to balance fire-power, protection and mobility in one fighting vehicle, there are also only 24 hours in a day, and there is only so much that one can cram into a young mind in a week. Instead of fire-power, protection and mobility, therefore, we have to balance breadth of knowledge, depth of knowledge and the ability to apply knowledge. I believe there are no easy solutions, and there is no perfect design - only the possibility of a design which is best able to suit our particular needs and our particular point in history.

The Singapore of the future will have more and more people with degrees. In fact, if you look around world-wide trends, the tendency for many of the developed countries is for the majority of the so-called educated workforce to have some degree or other. The issue then is: what will a degree be worth? And, if everybody has a degree, why would then people fight to get a degree? We are familiar with what has been happening in the United Kingdom, where there is a move towards getting everybody to have some sort of university experience. We need to ask ourselves if the aim of our system is to make it possible for all people to go to university. I believe it is not. And, if not, what will then be the value of a university degree?

Our system aims to ensure that all Singaporeans will have the skills to earn a living, to understand the world around them, after a fashion, and to understand the society they live in and their own place in the society. I believe this has been very well stated through the Ministry of Education's goals in education. But we are also unique in that we do this through a variety of institutions, culminating in the ITE, polytechnics and university education routes.

While we recognise these different routes to success, we are focused today on the route that leads towards university education. We need to recognise that there is a bell curve for academic excellence and there is no getting around that bell curve - you are either at the beginning, the middle, or the end of it. But we can recognise the existence of other bell curves, and that we can recognise that some of the people who are otherwise just competent, to benefit from a university education, may be actually the excellent end of the bell curves for some other skills. And I think it is a societal choice whether we should be allowing them the chance to enter university. I personally believe that it would be a good thing for us to recognise this type of excellence and allow these people to enter university because in Singapore, university education, like it or not, is one of the big prizes of our system.

We realise that not everyone would know what he wants to do later in life at the age of 16 or 18. This new system will make it easier for young people to make better choices and prevent premature shunting into fields which one may not have wanted to go into. In thinking of that, I think of my friends, some of whom were asked to go into certain professional fields, even though their own hearts say otherwise. Also, not everyone will have the benefit of a family that values exposing their children to a wide range of general knowledge topics, or to the opportunity to travel. But again, these new JC and Upper Secondary reforms will make it easier for children, even from less privileged backgrounds, to have their worlds opened up to different experiences.

Turning to another point, I believe we should aim to reduce the wastage of potential. Currently, while one in four of our Primary One cohort will sit for their "A" levels, only 80% of these candidates will be able to qualify for admission to a local university. I am particularly heartened by the news that even with this new system, the 3-year pre-university centres will still be retained, to allow those who need to develop at a But, as with other speakers before me, I think that we should be dealing with the problem perhaps a little bit earlier. I think we really need to be finding ways to support those who come from households where English is not widely spoken, where the children actually already turn up in lower primary school and upper primary school with significant disadvantages, vis-a-vis language. Because with this new system, where you have to defend your thoughts and learn to present your ideas, if you have got a language difficulty, you have a double difficulty. Yet, I think the answer is not about levelling everybody down, but it is about levelling everybody up, and trying to narrow the gap where possible. I think that the introduction of specialised schools for sports and people who are talented in the arts, as well as the introduction of this through-train system, with the potential of not having to sit for the "O" level is wonderful, because we have been talking for so long about the lack of flexibility in our school system. And I think many of us would have heard from our friends that, "Well, we have decided to send so-and-so abroad because he could not cope with the lack of flexibility." Well, we are now going to have flexibility in our local school system. Let us see whether these children can cope. Yet the challenge, I believe, is not so much in setting up these schools, but in getting parents to buy into the idea of an alternative path to success.

I am heartened by the new emphasis on socialisation and on learning of social skills in our new curriculum. This is very important. I would also argue that we should perhaps include some learning about cultural sensitivity, perhaps even religious sensitivity. Much has been said about learning how to be outspoken, but you know we live in Asia, and perhaps some of our English-stream students also need to learn a little bit more about the cultures in the countries around us, where it pays sometimes to be a little bit quiet at certain times - part of doing business, right?

I am heartened by the introduction of this new subject called Knowledge and Inquiry, which will train students to evaluate the validity and relevance of new observations in theories and teach them how to defend their arguments, to apply their theories to present-day realities. We know, at a time when so many people claim to have a university degree, what makes people stand out is how well they can deal with changes, and actually apply knowledge, and also evaluate a statement that has been put forward to them. Prof Low Seow Chay actually pointed out that perhaps if one were to use this business of practical work or project, that soon there will be a whole industry, perhaps of people wanting to sell project work. But I believe there are new computer systems, smart systems, that can detect plagiarism of this nature. And it is not such a bad thing because, I think the Bible says that there are not that many new things under the sun. The challenge for us is actually to make use of the available knowledge that is out there on the web, everywhere, to rehash it, to look at ways to present it, so that it becomes something new. If our kids can learn to do that with commercial term papers, maybe that is not such a bad thing. That is called synthesis of knowledge.

I think we also should consider teaching our JC students about basic statistical concepts, even if they are not headed for statistics as a course. We should teach them about circular arguments and concepts of management. This is about teaching our young to be educated consumers - educated consumers of information, of advertisements, of goods and services. Teaching them, as it were, to be a bit more street-smart in a structured Singapore way.

I am also heartened that these changes will be implemented only in the year 2006. I am confident that this would give MOE the time to refine the syllabi and train the necessary teachers to undertake the new JC curriculum. I am confident that people described as old workhorses and old teachers actually will be able to meet the challenges. Because after all, we are trying to remake the whole of Singapore, why not the teachers? What I am perhaps a little less confident about is whether we can change parental attitudes.

I think we should tell parents and students who are now in Secondary 1 or Secondary 2 that these changes would soon affect them. We can pilot some of these concepts now, maybe we do not have to make it an examination subject. We can also ensure that we will not inadvertently increase the tendency for people to take subjects that score more As by devising some sort of thinking skills type of questions so that, even in Science-based subjects, only those who can show independent thinking or higher order of thinking and deeper understanding can get this 'A'. That would perhaps balance the field for those who are taking the Arts type courses.

In closing, we recognise the multiplicity of educational models out there in the world, and that this multiplicity of educational models suggests that there are either many ways to achieve excellence in education, or none of the methods out there really is foolproof. Therefore, we should choose the best model for our nation's needs and not be ashamed about it.

I would also echo the call for a second chance to be made available for children who are brave enough to try this something new and who have made a mistake in perhaps making their first choice. It has been said that Singapore could not afford to give people a second chance in education because of scarce educational resources in the early days. This would have been true a generation ago. But what is scarce now is our young people. Our young people's innate potential should and must not be wasted. If we do not make some form of a second chance the cornerstone of these reforms, I fear that we would only perpetuate the tendency of Singaporeans to take only the safe route to success. We would then have failed in one of our most important tasks, that of nurturing the creative, entrepreneurial and 'never say die' spirit that we so much admire and strive for.

I do not agree with those who say that we should not start off with the top 10%. We must not fear failure as a nation when we are changing the system. But I think, as Singaporeans, we are cautious. And it is perfectly reasonable to start off with the top 10% because these are probably the very people who are most likely to be able to cope and deal with change successfully. I am sure that MOE will make use of these experiences to make the changes down the line. As someone else has said, "Look, I understand what it is like to help my little girl with the project work in primary school."

Finally, if these reforms succeed, I am confident that we can sell the product, call it the "Singaporean JC education", to paying students from around the region and, in doing so, enlarge our potential immigrant and talent pool.

Mr Speaker, I support the motion.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.

Being the 21st speaker, I think it is extremely difficult at this late hour also to enthuse anybody to continue to focus on what anybody has to say after this. But I do beg your indulgence.

[Mr Deputy Speaker(Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair]

5.35 pm

Mdm Halimah Yacob: This report, Sir, on reforms to our junior college and upper secondary education is indeed timely and necessary. Moving this debate to a broader plane, this is not just about how we educate our students in secondary schools and junior colleges. More importantly to me, it is about how we develop our human resources to fully benefit from a global economy that is, today, highly integrated, and when the key differentiating factor is no longer technology and capital but keyboard. Those with the right education, skill sets, aptitudes and capabilities will be able to fully maximise opportunities.

In many countries, the income gap is widening. Singapore is no exception, although our situation may not be as bad as other countries. Increasingly, a clear and distinct line is drawn between those with education and skills and those without. Indeed, it is our obligation and duty to ensure that everyone can aspire to a higher income and a better life.

I see education and training as critical factors, not only in achieving economic efficiency but also in ensuring social equity. In fact, education has been the greatest social leveller in our society. In Singapore, it does not matter what social background one comes from as opportunities are provided for all to transcend social barriers and climb up the ladder. This is one major contributing factor for the high level of social cohesion that we enjoy in Singapore today. And this is something that we must continue to emphasise and propagate.

Let me elaborate, Sir, a bit about how job segmentation has taken place based on education and skills. This is really a global and not just a local issue, and why we have to pay close attention to the education system if we do not want to perpetuate the problem of unemployment among the unskilled or low skilled.

The US Department of Labour, Sir, estimated that in the 1990s, occupations that required a college degree were growing twice as fast as others. At the European Union level, the 1995 White Paper on Education and Training had identified the need for all citizens to develop a knowledge base that would help them find their way in the information society. It warned against the danger of social exclusion among some groups in society based on lack of knowledge.

In developed countries, the patterns of employment have changed dramatically. Within firms in such countries, the labour market has become more and more segmented. Employers have reorganised their work into two categories - core and non-core work. Core workers are those with high skills and non-core workers are those with little or no education, or possess obsolete skills. Needless to say, core workers receive better pay and have greater stability of employment. Whereas non-core workers treated as the peripheral workforce enjoy low status, low pay, and absolutely no security of employment.

As multinational companies operate across borders, we cannot isolate ourselves against such employment practices. I see the role of our education system as ensuring that our workers remain as core workers. Otherwise, we may end up as non-core workers and the foreign talents become core workers on our own shores. In this regard, it is therefore important that our school reforms also adequately focus on the need of the majority, and not just increasingly the small band of students at the top.

A key question I would like to ask is whether the reforms have gone far enough and fundamentally examine the way we have structured our primary, secondary and JC education. Although this Report is meant to initiate reforms to upper secondary education, I note that it has basically left upper secondary education intact. In fact, the only reform to upper secondary education will affect only the top 10% of each cohort who qualifies for the Integrated Programme where seamless upper secondary and JC education is provided for them.

Sir, in the present system, students are streamed into different streams after their PSLE examination results. Those who are academically inclined go to the four-year Express Stream. Whereas those who are less academically inclined, or need more time, are streamed into the five-year Normal (Technical) or Normal (Academic) programme.

Some countries have integrated general and vocational education in unique ways and, in this way, better prepare students for either an academic or vocational path. An example is Norway, where the first two years of education are given at school. The students in Norway must choose different, more specialised courses during the second year. These are provided in schools, whilst others are workplace-based. The academic track entails three-year courses. Under the vocational track, students have two years of school-based education and another two years of apprenticeship training. The concluding specialised training takes place in the workplace. In total, there will be 190 different craft or journey-man certificates. I have been told that some of these have been collapsed to about a broad band of 15 to 20 categories of certificates and skills.

I am not saying, Sir, that the Norwegian system is a better alternative. They revamped their education system in 1994. But I certainly think that there is scope for us to rethink the way in which our secondary education is structured and ask the question whether it really meets the needs of the students and the economy. In our case, although a Normal (Technical) student would have spent five years in secondary school, at the age of 17 years, he would still have insufficient basic skills and be inadequately prepared for a job. Only when he has gone through another two years in ITE, then would he acquire basic skills and a certificate to enter the workforce.

I really think that there is greater scope for the MOE to examine this issue. It can perhaps look into how to better integrate the Normal (Technical) education with ITE education so as to ensure a progressive and consistent build up of skills and competency. I frankly do not see much of that continuous flow now. I would like to suggest that MOE examine this aspect and consider the feasibility of creating better pathways from the Normal (Technical) education with ITE.

Sir, we are currently spending a lot of resources, time and effort to re-skill and find jobs for our lower-end workers who are retrenched or unemployed. We have to ensure that 10 to 20 years down the road, this pattern is not repeated. The answer to that, of course, lies in our present education system and, in particular, the education for those who are less academically inclined. Based on what I have said earlier, I think we need to pay some attention to this issue and critically examine whether the existing system, in particular, our secondary education, meets the needs of these students and adequately prepare them with the necessary skills.

On a related point, Sir, I would also like to join other colleagues in asking that not only JC students and those in the top 10% of the upper secondary cohort be equipped with thinking skills. There is, in my view, a certain amount of over emphasis on preparing students for university education. It is as if only those who are clearly demarcated for university education need to have thinking, communicating and other process skills when one would argue that all students who come out of our education system need such skills, if they are to meet the needs of an innovation driven economy. For example, Sir, if we have a technician who has no university education, do we not want him to have the same abilities to think, apply and communicate as the engineer with whom he is working? I would argue that all who enter the workforce would need such skills. And there is therefore a need to review the entire school curriculum from primary school onwards.

Although the Minister of State for Education has said that such core skills are already being taught in primary and secondary schools, the fact that we are now reforming our JC curriculum clearly shows that there is insufficient focus placed on such skills. The importance of having foundation basic core skills cannot be over emphasised. In the 1990s, Sir, a US Commission on achieving necessary skills defined the role of education and identified the kind of core skills that should be taught in American schools. It described the role of general education as providing individuals with the minimum requirements to function productively in the workplace. The focus should be on basic skills, including the ability to identify, analyse and solve problems, the capacity to learn new skills in order to adapt to new work tasks, the ability to communicate with others and use information independently, planning skills, computer literacy and a grasp of simple scientific knowledge and technology.

Sir, the World Bank research has shown that, in some countries, workers who have completed secondary school have a 50% greater chance of receiving on-the-job training than those with a primary school education alone. The World Bank also suggests that training in specific skills is more effective when trainees are already literate and numerate and have problem-solving skills that they can build upon.

In this regard, Sir, the reform of the JC curriculum and those at the top 10% of the cohort would better place such students to acquire higher skills and integrate effectively into our economy. In order to allow students of all achievement levels to benefit, I would also ask that the Ministry of Education look into the curriculum of the whole secondary school.

Sir, there are two other brief points that I wish to touch on. I would like to ask that the Ministry of Education also pay adequate attention to the needs and training of our teachers. In this regard, I am not sure whether 2004 will give us sufficient time to prepare the teachers for the Integrated Programme, and I do ask that the Ministry review regularly the staffing requirements, so that teachers would not be overloaded and will be able to deliver the changes in the education system effectively.

I appreciate, Sir, that in recent years, attempts have been made to reduce the workload in the non-teaching areas for our teachers, but I believe that more could be done to help teachers prepare for the new methodologies and concepts that they are now required to teach.

I also hope, Sir, that the Ministry of Education will come out with effective communication materials, so that parents understand these reforms and will not be so bewildered. Some parents I have spoken to do not quite understand what is going on. This is because there have been many changes to our education system. This has caused a certain amount of confusion and concern among parents. I would like to suggest that schools work through their PTAs to reach out to parents, particularly those who have children in secondary schools.

In conclusion, Sir, our education system has served Singapore well. It has brought us to the present level of development and helped us overcome several crises. The path ahead is fraught with uncertainties, both for the economy and the labour market. People have asked what do we hope to get out of our education system. My hope, Sir, is very simple - that we will continue to provide students of all social backgrounds and capabilities with the opportunity to develop their potential to the fullest and, at the end of the day, have the skills and capacity to weather change, remain employed and live a good life. I believe, Sir, that the current reforms will contribute towards that outcome.

On that note, Sir, I support the motion.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Holland-Bukit Panjang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion as proposed by the Minister for Education.

As Singapore enters into the global economy, we must equip our people to develop niches to stay competitive economically and lead a higher quality of life. The impact of information technology and the changing landscape of the global economy have posed new demands on our economy and workforce. While the Government is working on remaking Singapore, we must also retrain our present workforce and prepare our future generations to face these new challenges.

We need a different set of skills and mindsets to compete and excel in a knowledge-based economy. To be a successful global player, we must have a workforce that is creative, innovative and full of passion to excel. At the same time, our education system must equip our people with skills to lead a meaningful and happy life.

Sir, the revamp of the JC and upper secondary education curriculum is a step in the right direction to nurture our students for a globalised future. I support the change from efficiency to diversity, focusing on broad-based skills training. But I am concerned about giving students more flexibility to decide on the scope of content of a subject they wish to take.

In Singapore, our students are very practical and may not be well informed to make good decisions when choosing subjects. Thus, many will take the easy options, ie, choosing subjects which are easy to pass, easy to score and are taught by easy-going teachers. This may affect the desired outcomes of the revamped curriculum.

Sir, I wish to highlight three areas of concern in the proposal by the Education Review Committee:

1. Holistic approach to revamp our education system;

2. Quality assurance system to ensure sustainable quality output; and

3. Creative and innovative learning environment for our students.

Holistic approach to education

Sir, we should adopt a holistic approach to revamp the entire education system, and not just the JC and upper secondary curriculum. As stated in Annex J of the Report, the desired outcomes of each level of education have undue influence on the succeeding levels of education.

To be effective in nurturing our future generations, we must also revamp the curriculum of the primary, secondary and tertiary institutions. Thus, I would urge the Minister to consider making the necessary changes to the other levels of education.

Sir, with the implementation of compulsory education, all students will spend a number of years in our educational institutions. Inadvertently, some will only be able to complete their education up to a certain level. Therefore, we must re-look into the desired outcomes of the different levels of education and consider embedding thinking skills into the content-based subjects of primary and secondary school curricula too. In this way, the nurturing of our students will be more complete, and students who complete different levels of education will be equipped with different skills to fit into our global workforce and lead a reasonable quality of life.

Quality assurance system

Sir, to achieve consistent desired outcomes in our education system, we need to develop a quality assurance system which is internationally recognised. We must ensure that the key quality processes in our education system are in place, and devise a regular check-and-balance mechanism to achieve sustainable quality. We must have quality input and quality processes in order to produce quality output at every educational level. The quality of students, curriculum and teachers will play significant roles in determining the desired outcomes of our education system.

We must change the mindsets of both our educators and parents that school curriculum will have to be reviewed at certain regular intervals, eg, every five years. These reviews are necessary so as to update our curriculum to cope with the dynamic changes in the global economy. If possible, a panel of education and industry experts should be formed to guide the continual development of our school curriculum.

We should also have an accreditation system which will make our school curriculum internationally recognised. This will provide additional impetus to make Singapore an education hub, and facilitate students who wish to study overseas.

In addition, we must provide adequate training to our existing and future pool of teachers and principals to be creative and innovative. In particular, the leadership skills and passion of our principals will make a great difference to the desired outcomes of our education system. To achieve this, we must first ensure that our educators are equipped with thinking skills before even considering revising our curriculum. Thus, quality control in the recruitment of principals and teachers is crucial in achieving the desired outcomes.

Ideally, principals and teachers should be rotated every five or six years, both horizontally and vertically, among different levels of educational institutions. This will provide good exposure for them to understand the different needs and aspirations of different groups of students and parents. Where possible, JC and upper secondary school teachers should be given the opportunity to lecture or tutor at our tertiary institutions. This will provide them with first-hand experience in understanding the quality of students entering the tertiary institutions.

Sir, how can we measure the desired outcomes of our education system? The existing criteria are rather broad and difficult to measure. We should develop some quantitative tools to measure the output.

There must also be a mechanism where employers, alumni, tertiary institution lecturers, principals and teachers can provide regular feedback to our educational institutions to further improve our quality processes. Both the industry and our educational institutions must share the same vision of nurturing our future generations.

Creative and innovative learning environment

Sir, Singapore has provided one of the best education infrastructures for our students. Schools and educational institutions are well equipped with abundant resources to facilitate teaching and learning. What is lacking is the development of a creative and innovative learning culture in our institutions. To emphasise on hardware alone may not produce the desired results of encouraging our students to be creative and innovative.

We need a more supportive learning environment where schools, parents, employers and students can work closely together to nurture our students. There must be effective communication among principals, teachers, employers, parents and students.

Constant engagement of all parties involved will provide useful information for all to better support and guide our students to develop their potentials. With a better-educated population in the future, I am confident that communication will improve for all concerned in nurturing our future generations. This will strengthen the partnerships of all stakeholders, thus spearheading our education system to greater heights.

To further facilitate learning, I would propose that the JC and upper secondary school curriculum be taught using a modular system. In our examination-oriented education system, using a modular teaching approach will provide more opportunities for students to interact and work on projects. Students will only need to study two or three subjects per semester for examination purposes. This will reduce much stress and facilitate more creative learning among students.

Sir, I support the motion. 5.55 pm

Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion in the name of the Minister for Education on the recommendations put forward by the JC/Upper Secondary Education Review Committee.

Sir, when we compel our children to go to school, we assume collectively an overwhelming responsibility. For a period of 10 years or more, the children are conscripts, and there are youths who mitigated the seriousness of this fact.

The school experience is a gift. It is for the children's own good, so we say, with genuine intentions. Do we realise that the school experience is as good as we make it to be? In the same breath, I ask: is it good enough for the society that will come into being when the present one is gone? Would our children have become people who rejoice in the exercise of creative intelligence, equipped for what lies ahead? This question needs to be asked and asked again, and reconsidered, as knowledge and circumstances change.

In short, the educational enterprise needs to be managed. It needs to be managed effectively, and this is precisely what we are attempting to do. Singapore has travelled a long way in our short history. We are evolving from an industrial-based economy to a knowledge-based one. The engines of growth are knowledge and innovation. Likewise, our education system has been subject to multiple changes in accordance with the needs of nation-building. It has generally served us well.

But the time has come to revisit the core beliefs and review them. The rationale for a review is very clear. Our children need to be better prepared for the knowledge age. Secondly, diversity needs to be injected into the system to cater to the different needs and talents of our students.

The proposed changes will revolve around two central ideas. Firstly, the need to develop thinking skills through a revised JC curriculum. I wonder whether we can actually teach creativity. Perhaps, an atmosphere of spontaneity is a natural way to encourage one to explore, discover and create. Secondly, students with different talents and aptitudes will have alternative routes to embark upon. The proposed changes will cater to their needs.

Sir, it is felt that the JC curriculum seriously needs to change its focus. In the past, it was obsessed with content. Today, the emphasis must be on developing knowledge skills that are increasingly in demand. Tools of reasoning and interpretation would be the building blocks of independent research. A re-look at the scope and content of JC subjects would be imperative, if indeed we are to provide students with more breadth and flexibility. Curriculum content may need to be downsized to accommodate the introduction of new subjects and the increased emphasis on the non-academic curriculum.

My concern, Sir, stems from parents' expectations. We have to allay their worries and make them understand. Changes, to some of them, may be radical and unjustified. JC subjects will be redefined to keep up with the latest advancements in science, technology and information technology. It is also proposed that any subject that cuts across traditional disciplines and adopts an integrative approach can and should be introduced. Take a subject like bio-chemistry, for example, it has become a must for anybody who wishes to embark on the field of life sciences. I think it is good that MOE is exploring introducing this subject.

The non-academic area also deserves much attention if we are serious about developing more wholesome and well-rounded students. It is good to know that the co-curricular activities would be allocated a high percentage for university education. Until now, I must say that it all sounds well and good but have we considered the serious ramifications of this approach of learning? For example, the changes in the curriculum structure may be matched by changes in assessment. As suggested in the report, we may need to go beyond the traditional pen and paper test and introduce new methods of testing critical thinking if we can indeed assess critical thinking and creativity effectively.

Consequently, the assessment system may be complex in nature, even subjective. How will students and parents alike react to this? We can expect that different teaching approaches become possible as students are encouraged to experiment, explore and discover. This is surely a step forward for all. We must keep in mind that the proposed changes can only work with the full cooperation of teachers and staff. Will they then be adequately trained? Implementation definitely will have some teething issues and we will need to prepare ourselves for this.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am in full support of the seamless upper secondary/ JC education proposal. The reason is obvious. Students that are especially ready for universities need not be subjected to two examinations over a period of three years. The through-train period will undoubtedly remove the elements of interruption and wasted opportunities. I know for a fact that, as it is now, the JC 1 students resent having to pass yet another examination to get to JC 2 where in fact, the examination that matters is the GCE "A" levels. Theoretically, the through-train system sounds simple but how do we prove that the GCE "O" levels is unnecessary to some? What happens to these students if they fail their GCE "A" levels or the International Baccalaureate?

Sir, the Committee proposed that the IP schools that do not offer "O" levels will continue to have school-based assessments to measure the students' progress. Will under-performing students have to transfer to another school? Will the employment industry adapt quickly to the new types of qualifications that they may come across or will the students have to bear the painful cost of convincing the would-be employers? Old habits die hard, so they say. More often than not, policy-makers may not always be able to see the unexpected results of these changes. IP schools can also be viewed as a disguised form of streaming, as mentioned by my earlier colleagues. Elitists, as it is called, to some. How do you manage these concerns?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Committee highlighted the pertinent issues of privately-funded schools. What can they contribute? How do we position them? One important advantage with private schools is to allow families who have been away to come home and educate their children in Singapore. Providing this alternative is a sensible move. I personally know of a family who returned and was compelled to emigrate again when their children simply could not cope with the constraints and the requirements of our national schools. The language issue and the different curriculum can be overwhelming for both children and parents alike. Exposing young Singaporeans to foreign students within these private schools can also be beneficial to them.

There are, however, some concerns with regard to such private entities. If we are not cautious, a different model may ultimately emerge, positive or negative, one incongruous to our fairly homogenous education landscape. While we should provide greater variety and choice for Singapore students, we have to take steps to ensure that the desired standards are maintained. Also, the national education policy should be adhered to.

My final concern pertaining to the private school initiative is the exclusive nature of such establishments. Should they grow in popularity and become relatively costly, what will happen to the less endowed or the have-nots? Will they be denied entry? The proposal to set up specialised independent schools could not have come at a better time. It is an urgent response to the diverse needs and aspirations of our students. This diversity will be our pillar of strength as we face the very challenges of the future. These schools will offer support to students with talents in the specific fields like arts, sports, Mathematics and Science. May I suggest that perhaps more areas of specialisation could be considered. As opposed to the privately-funded schools, this category of schools will complement, if not, enhance our education landscape. Success is almost certain as the relevant agencies will be encouraged to take the lead in this initiative, naturally with the support of MOE. We already have agencies with the appropriate expertise, networks and specialised resources that can be mobilised to support this endeavour. Also, if I may add, in the long-term, the related industries must be developed to ensure that these students have fruitful careers and can contribute positively to the economy.

As I take one last look at the sweeping reforms we intend to carry out, I envisage the challenge that awaits us and, that is, to skilfully strike a balance between the objectives that are in fact contradictory. On one hand, we need to engage students in greater breadth of learning, on the other, we must maintain the depth of our JC subjects. We speak of importance of flexibility, yet we will not want to compromise the present rigour of our education system. Hence, balancing such opposing objectives will be a challenge for all stakeholders. Only then will reforms be successful.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the recommended changes and reforms may be unsettling but they will certainly add colour to our education landscape. It is indeed encouraging to note that we presently recognise the need to teach our young different life skills and we are bent on acting upon this realisation. Perhaps sometime soon, we will realise that developing such abilities may need to begin at a younger age. The impressionable years are precious and time may not be on our side. Hence, it will be worthwhile for the Ministry to consider making comparable changes for the foundation years. Like many of my fellow colleagues before me, I would like to add, and I cannot emphasise this enough, that at the end of the day, all the beautiful plans and instructional objectives will mean very little if they are not implemented properly. Hence, I earnestly hope that the Ministry will give full support in terms of resources to the teachers and principals to ensure that our true objectives are met.