HEAD K - MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

Head K - Ministry of Education

The Chairman: Head K - Ministry of Education. Amendment No. (1), Dr Wang.

Education Policy

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head K of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, the Ministry recently changed several long-standing policies such as school ranking, single intake for pre-university and scrapping of SAT for part of the university admission criteria. After many years of debate in this House, it seems that our voices were finally being heard. I would like to congratulate the Acting Minister for his bold and decisive actions. The quick turn-around on SAT requirement is especially dramatic, given the justification of SAT in this House just two years ago. I hope these small changes are reflective of the change in emphasis and focus in MOE towards education in primary and secondary schools. These changes, though minor, went to the heart of the problem. I believe we are doing the right thing, moving away from the over emphasis on grades. Instead, we should focus on the development of our pupils and students to be upright and productive citizens of Singapore - our future citizens who grow up confident of their ability to tackle the challenges of the future, self-assured and well equipped to stand on their feet in a globalised economy in the future. In my mind, Sir, the best way forward is to do so by engaging them in sports and other supervised CCAs.

Another change is the relaxation of mother tongue requirement for university

Column: 2257

admission. My understanding is that in the past, students could still gain enrolment into the university, even if they failed the mother tongue, provided they take remedial lessons in the university. So, in practice, the impact of the change is not that great. Nonetheless, the removal of penalty as a disincentive should address the source of angst in many parents and students regarding mother tongue.

Regarding mother tongue, Sir, the introduction of Chinese B has created heated discussions within the Chinese community regarding the teaching of the Chinese language. They are also concerned about the decline of the Chinese language. Surprisingly, because of two main newspapers - one in English and the other in Chinese - covered the issue from two different perspectives, the issue has even threatened to become a proxy contest of wills between the Chinese educated versus the English educated Singaporeans. Sir, this is unnecessary.

The issue also shifted to focus on the value of the Chinese language with the ascendancy of China as an economic power. I believe that we should all review the issue of mother tongue and ask ourselves why do we insist that our children should learn their mother tongue. Yes, language and culture are as inextricably tied to the economic development of people using the language. Still, for Singaporeans who are descendants of immigrants, I think the most important factor for us must be the issue of our identity. I think it would be tragic if our children growing up in Asia end up completely cut off from our heritage by giving up on their mother tongue. This goes to the core of us being human beings. For Chinese Singaporeans giving up Chinese would be especially regrettable, as we have everything in place to retain proficiency in the language.

Column: 2258

Given this anxiety, I would ask the Minister to reaffirm the Government's resolve towards the commitment of mother tongue education in our schools.

Sir, another topic that is close to our heart is streaming, which is a hot topic judging from the number of cuts.

The Chairman: Dr Wang, we are running out of time.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: With your indulgence, Sir, I would like to raise the issue of criteria used in streaming. In our streaming process, we actually use different criteria. For children selected for the gifted programme, the selection is based on their analytical skills, not so much of their mother tongue proficiency. On the other hand, the emphasis of PSLE is very much on languages, with English and mother tongue carrying two-thirds of the total 300 points. This emphasis has tilted the balance of education towards language rather than learning of knowledge such as Geography, History and Arts. As a result, I found that our P6 pupils are narrowly focused compared to the pupils of other educational systems of comparable standard in the world.

The Chairman: Your time is up, Dr Wang. Mdm Halimah.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, the focus of the Ministry of Education is on fostering the spirit of innovation and enterprise. And in line with this focus, I am glad to note that many changes have been made and that there is a certain amount of vibrancy and verve that one sees in the education scene today. However, the real challenge to me for the Ministry is how to translate its vision into reality. For this, it needs not only good policies but also teachers who believe in the vision and parents and students to respond to the various stimulus that it has put in place.

Column: 2259

From my own observations, there is still disconnect between the vision of the MOE and the reality down the ground. Recently, a JC student told the press that although he got an A2 in his mother tongue language, he would be resitting the examination so that he can get a score sheet that is as perfect as possible. Another student who got a C5 in her MTL will be retaking it for her mum who was worried that it would affect her chances of getting a scholarship.

Sir, the MOE is trying to get Singaporeans to think about innovation and entrepreneurship, but everyone else is thinking about how many As to get so that they can secure scholarships, and thereafter get into the elite Administrative Service as a measure of success. That is what I mean by a disconnect and so long as this exists, I wonder whether we will be able to reach the peaks of excellence that the Minister so often speaks of. Perhaps the problem lies with the way we define excellence itself. It is still very much perceived as being very focused on academic excellence.

I would like to cite the example of the film industry as an example of how others in the Asia Pacific region has surged ahead in terms of achieving excellence. A New Zealand film recently won 11 Oscar nominations, and the New Zealanders were not even well known for film making. Australia has just released another potential blockbuster called "Passion", which I was told is comparable in impact to the "Ten Commandments" which was made in 1956. Thailand had two locally made films which beat the takings for the "Matrix" and "Lord of the Rings" in Bangkok.

We are now operating in a different league where countries, regardless of their level of development, can leapfrog in certain areas if their people have the

Column: 2260

innovation and enterprise. Can our education system translate that vision into reality? Or will we be producing more of the same things? That is the question that I would like to ask the Minister.

My second point, Sir, is on streaming. It is indeed sad that this is one sacred cow that has remained unslaughtered, and which I have also raised in previous budget debates. When we look at the way streaming is done, the lines appear to be rather artificial in some instances. For example, a child may be very good in English and Mathematics but so long as he is poor in the mother tongue language, he ends up in EM2. Now that the MOE has done a complete review of the mother tongue language and one only needs a D7 to enter university, I would like to ask the Minister what is the strong basis for keeping this distinction between EM1 and EM2.

The Chairman: Please wrap up your speech, Mdm Halimah?

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Yes, I will, Sir. As for the EM3, the same problem of stigma and labelling has continued. As I understand, the issue is one of motivation and interest. I would like to ask the Minister whether he will review the streaming policy, and what more can the Ministry do to refine its teaching pedagogy to suit the needs of children from more challenging backgrounds.

The Chairman: Mdm Ho Geok Choo is not here. Mr Zainudin.

Elitism

Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Sir, while we are refining and making improvements to our education system, there are still concerns that our system is still putting emphasis on the high achievers and the academically inclined. We may be seen to have a system that promotes elitism in our education. Schools are recognised based

Column: 2261

on their ability to produce top students, not only in education but also to top the charts in the various sports events. The impressions are that these are the schools which would receive all the attention, all the special grants and privileges and be equipped with new buildings and sports facilities. Thus, it is with great joy that we see many schools being upgraded and improved for the benefit of our students. But, similarly, it is sad to observe that there are some or most of the special schools are still looking the same and remain stagnant in time.

Recently, a Member complained that some of the schools look the same as they were in the 1950s. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what are the plans that MOE has for other sectors of education, such as the Vocational Institutes and schools that cater to the mentally challenged, visually handicapped, hearing impaired and students with learning difficulties. Can MOE do more to assist these schools and improve their infrastructures and facilities?

4.00 pm

Education Structure

Dr Lily Neo: Sir, may I beseech MOE to strive for a less stressful education for our children, especially at primary school level while developing a child's potential.

The study on the Singapore Family by Dr Stella Quah of NUS revealed that the greatest worry for about 45% of families came from the problems associated with their children's education. Singaporean parents have also frequently mentioned children's education as the contributory factor in opting for smaller families. A study of pupils' stress in 1999 showed that pupils' stress, in terms of overload, had increased since 1990.

Could MOE review and effect some changes to reduce this stress? Streaming

Column: 2262

at primary school level should be scrapped to reduce the stress for pupils and parents. This will also address the fact that there are late developers who may be disadvantaged from early streaming. Could our school principals monitor and ensure that teachers do not overload pupils with homework and tests? Could all teachers be equipped with more and better teaching resources to make education in schools interesting? How are schools progressing in parent-teacher rapport? Are all schools now promoting this rapport? Are schools considering all feedback and acting on them, especially on pupils' progress and family stress from education? Do our schools provide teacher-counsellors and professional counsellors for students, teachers and parents, if called for? Could MOE and schools promote and provide guidelines for better supportive parenting and discouraging parents from pushing their children to achieve beyond their abilities? Is there any effort by schools and teachers to identify students or families of students who are stressed?

Sir, I hope that MOE can fine-tune our educational system for the better.

Streaming

Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir many people have asked me why I was the only Member who did not talk about the procreation issue during this year's Budget debate. I think everyone else spoke about it except me. This cut is my contribution to the great baby debate. In my opinion, there are two things that worry and stress Singaporeans when it comes to having children. The first is the stress of the cost of living and the ability of their children to live comfortably in the future in Singapore . The second issue, which in my opinion, is more significant than the first is the stress of our education system.

There are two levels of stresses. The first is the stress of a child going through

Column: 2263

a system which labels and streams them too early and too many times, and the second is the stress on the parents who inevitably worry about the academic success of their children. In fact, many a time, when a child goes through a major examination, it seems as if the parents are sitting for the examination for themselves. So, if we can bring back the joy of being a child, as I experienced when I was a child, and if we can bring back the joy of our education system for our children and parents, we will reduce the unnecessary stresses and make bringing up a family more fun.

Sir, today, I would like to focus on the streaming issue, particularly streaming in our primary schools, which is one of the causes of the stress in our education system. As I mentioned before, while the rationale of allowing each child to progress at his or her own pace seems logical, I have issues in the implementation which has resulted in the wrong measure of success as well as labelling, branding and creating a social class system, including the emergence of some amount of elitism, as some Members have brought up. I truly feel that we can achieve the same objective of letting each child progress at his or her ability and to learn by not segregating the students into clear streams but by perhaps creating a hybrid system, which I brought up before. I also recognise that each child has different learning abilities at different stages of their lives, and we should therefore find other ways of maximising each child's talent and potential, rather than through the streaming systems.

I would like to suggest an alternative to streaming children after Primary 4, where we have a system where students be kept in the same class for as long as possible. In fact, for EM1 and EM2, as has been stated earlier, the only

Column: 2264

difference is the mother tongue, whether they can be kept in the same class and only be separated when it comes to the learning of mother tongue. We could carry this one step further to separate students according to the ability in each of the subjects, ie, in Mathematics, Science, and so on. In fact, I would like to go one step further to suggest that, even for EM3 students, we could integrate them together with the EM1 and EM2 as they are today, and integrating them for Physical Education, like Music and other non-Mathematics or Science subject levels where they may have strengths, as good as the EM1 and EM2 students. My main objective is to allow students to learn from their diversities from each other and also for using peer influence for each child to improve herself or himself . If we can do what I suggest, I am sure it will go a long way in minimising the potential future social problems that we will see as a result of the class system that we are creating.

I hope that the Minister will consider modifying or totally eliminating the streaming system to achieve the same objectives as we are trying to achieve for each student.

Dr Ong Seh Hong (Aljunied): Sir, I have raised the issue of streaming before and I shall not shy away from it in this budget. I would just like to repeat my call to the Ministry to stop streaming at Primary 4. I am not for streaming at Primary 4. While I do not disagree that no man is created of equal ability, some are better and faster learners, some are slower learners, streaming at Primary 4 tends to add stress unnecessarily at a tender young age. The stigma and the stress of streaming have been alluded to in this House by many Members, and I shall not repeat them. But looking purely from the psychological development point of view, streaming at Primary 4 means that the students are streamed between the age of 9 and 10

Column: 2265

years old. According to several psychological theories of development, eg, Piaget's Theory, at this age, the kids are not even capable of abstract thinking yet, and to stream them before they are actually fully developed psychologically is, to me, too premature.

Moreover, streaming at Primary 4 also means that the schools internally will stream their students at P2 or P3, and that, in itself, is another additional source of stress to the kids. So, I do not support streaming at Primary 4 and call on the Ministry to actually move it to a later stage of a student's life.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, the recent changes in education policy - easing of the MTL requirement for university admission, introduction of CLB, broadening the school ranking system - is a breath of fresh air for battered, weary parents and educationists, who have been groaning endlessly about the pressures of our education system. However, one favourite bugbear remains intact, and that is streaming.

Sir, once again, in the new spirit of never say never and with a little bit more hope, I would like to comment briefly on this issue and urge the Ministry to dismantle the system, at least at the fringes where the merits of streaming are no more obvious. In fact, the cause of streaming, such as the negative self-esteem of the child, could far outweigh the benefits, if any, that can be achieved from streaming in these instances.

Sir, at the primary school level, the only major material difference between EM1 and EM2 curriculum is MTL. That being the case, is there any good reason for retaining EM1 and EM2 in the first instance? Students in the present EM1 can take their MTL lessons at a higher level while all the other subjects can be co-mingled with their EM2 counterparts so that there is no necessity to separate

Column: 2266

the students into two streams. This will obviously encourage greater social interaction between the so-called superior and the less endowed ones. Doing away with the EM1 and EM2 classes would effectively mean causing much less stress to close to 90% of the parents since the EM1 and EM2 cohort makes up close to 90% of the cohort. Similarly, EM3 students should be allowed the option to take some EM2 subjects in the same way that Normal (Technical) students are to be permitted to take some Normal (Academic) subjects to provide a route for them to take their 'O' levels. These principals and teachers alike have already said that this should raise the self-esteem and boost the confidence of many of the Normal (Technical) students, and I have no doubt it will do the same for EM3 students.

As regards the GEP students, they should also co-mingle with the other students for non-examinable subjects, such as health education and social studies to foster greater interaction among the students. Also, the teaching methodology used for GEP students, which has been found to be more interactive and train the minds to be more analytical, should also be made available to other students. The primary benefit of streaming has always been said to allow students of different abilities to progress at different pace and, hence, keep all in schools for a longer term. Otherwise, the very weak students may give up and prematurely drop out of school. However, streaming, especially at a very young age, may inevitably penalise the laggard and cause irreparable psychological damage, such as low self-esteem due to the stigma of labelling. With the latest emphasis on different pathways to success, diversity and flexibility, as well as the various changes that have already been made, there is really no need to keep this sacred cow intact. I think it should be sent to the veterinarian once more for thorough re-

Column: 2267

examination.

Mdm Cynthia Phua: Sir, I would like to quote the new changes that the Acting Minister for Education has painted in his interview with Straits Times recently. Many have hailed it as his visionary thought. As a parent and as an MP, I too got excited with the changes he offered. At least, when you hear the grouses on the ground, we now have an answer, "There will be changes coming. Hang on, children and parents!"

I quote, "We are moving towards a more flexible education system that provides more choices for students - new types of schools, alternative school curriculae and more customised approaches to teaching students with different abilities. We have to nurture young Singaporeans who are more willing to ask questions, as they learn to think in original ways and to try out new ways of doing things." I personally believe in streaming for effective teaching, but the present mode of streaming destroys our children's confidence and self-esteem.

The present streaming of learning abilities has resulted in the labelling of students, ie, EM1, EM2 and EM3, Normal , Express, Special and ITE students. MOE had ignored the impact of streaming on the confidence of the students and their self-esteem for far too long a time. Has the Ministry conducted any survey on the emotional and psychological impact of our children due to this labelling of our children?

With the Minister's visionary thought on the diversity of our education system, will there be changes in the way we stream our children in their learning abilities? Can we adopt the model-based approach, like what he introduced for the Chinese Language B, for the other different subjects too? Based on this

Column: 2268

model, the advantages would be, I quote the Minister again, "At the other end of the spectrum, there is no stigma attached to the student who opts for Chinese Language B. If he faces great difficulty in learning Chinese, despite putting in the effort, Chinese Language B can motivate him to sustain an interest in the language and use it. This is similar for the other subjects as well." I would like to implore the Minister to kill this sacred cow and to reconsider the mode of streaming our children for the objective of effective learning.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, during last year's Budget debate, the then Minister for Education announced MOE's intention to launch subject-based pilot classrooms and, in fact, some schools had already embarked, on trial, similar teaching methods. I would like to ask the new Minister for Education what has MOE done since then, and how successful these subject-based pilot classrooms have been.

Sir, I am linking this to my opposition to streaming based on average scores of the subjects, as practised in the present education system. I think we should scrap the streaming system altogether. There are many shortcomings which many Members have spoken about them just now and over the years. I do not think I need to repeat them. If the aim of the current streaming system is a recognition that different individuals have different abilities and talents and thereby customisation of the learning process is needed to bring the best out of every student, then my question is whether the current system of streaming based on aggregate scores of the subjects, as a basis, is the best way to achieve this objective.

MOE should consider subject-based classrooms whereby students are grouped into different classes based on the merit of individual subjects. This would allow

Column: 2269

further customisation of learning and further allow development of individual student's potential, and it does not come with things like social stigma, and all that.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, streaming in our school is educationally bad because it does not take into account late developers. Einstein failed his Mathematics in his Baccalaureate and Winston Churchill did not pass his entrance examination

to Sandhurst. Yet, both of them later became the greatest scientist and war-time Prime Minister of England respectively.

4.15 pm

Our streaming programme, since 1984, must have declared thousands of students as failures and rejects when, in fact, many of them could have developed later to become successful businessmen or outstanding entrepreneurs. Most children at age nine or 10 years old are very sensitive, and can easily be hurt irretrievably. Streaming at such a young age hurt them very badly. When they are branded failures, in that sense, our education system is said to be very stressful. This has caused many Singaporeans to emigrate. Even now, many parents want to emigrate to countries where the education system is more accommodating and less stressful. Yet, in those less stressful education systems, they are able to produce children with equally good results and students who can become good citizens.

The continuation of the streaming policy shall only be divisive. Most of those who pass the streaming examinations, especially those with good results, will become intellectual snobs. On the other hand, those students who did not do well in the streaming examinations will suffer an inferiority complex and live through their lives thinking that they are no good. They may be bitter with society and may even take

Column: 2270

to crime.

Streaming at the fourth and sixth years in our primary schools is indefensible educationally. If the Government persists in its streaming policy, then I should think that students can be streamed at an older age, say, 14 years old. By then, their brains would be better developed and it is fairer to gauge their abilities at such an older age.

I hope the Government will review its 20-year streaming policy in the light of changed circumstances where Singaporeans are encouraged to be creative and entrepreneurial.

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, we have waited till the cows come home for changes to the streaming system. Now, it is time to slaughter the cow. At least, even if we do not want to slaughter the cow, we could dress it up to look like a sheep, because the form is also equally important as the substance. Even if the Minister does not think that the system is fundamentally wrong, at least, as a result of MPs' persistent pestering, he could keep an open mind and carry out a review on the streaming system.

The current system, while effective in channelling students of differing abilities, suffers from the existence of labels. Students and parents resent the labelling, and it imposes additional stress on the students. The concept of streaming is really not new. I remember, even during my time, there was some form of streaming, where the better students were grouped into certain classes, while the slower ones were grouped into other classes so that more attention could be given to them. There was less problem then, as there was no labelling, such as EM1, EM2 or EM3. In fact, it was intentional that the A class was usually not the best, and all of us eventually graduated from the same school with the same PSLE certificate, and no one ever

Column: 2271

asked, "Which class did you come from?" I would like to suggest that the Ministry consider doing away with the labelling of EM1, EM2 or EM3. We can revert to the old system where we simply grouped students into classes according to their ability. We can offer a Higher Mother Tongue language as an option for those who can cope better. This way, we retain the cow but make it look like a sheep.

There are, of course, many other possible models that we should explore. In fact, we could allow selected schools to carry out trials before a final decision is taken. If the Ministry agrees to carry out a review, I would like to urge the Ministry to consult all the stakeholders, eg, teachers, students and parents. This will help us evolve a better system.

Dr Jennifer Lee (Nominated Member): Sir, nine of my hon. colleagues have already spoken about streaming, so I will try to be brief, apart from the fact that my voice might not hold out!

Enough has been said regarding streaming at primary level. At secondary school level, I would not argue against allowing students who needed five years to successfully complete their "O" level. I only want to make the observation that our students in the Normal stream are a full 40% of our students each year. This is very much in that big portion of the Bell Curve of ability. But somewhere along the way in the history of the development of our education system, our elitist tendencies consigned almost half of each cohort of our children who are perfectly normal - "normal" with a lower case, ie, small "n" - to a life of misery by labelling them subnormal, euphemistically "Normal" with an upper case, ie, capital "N".

Column: 2272

I have heard anecdotally that some of the students may be less quiet and well behaved, with the result that their teachers have a much more challenging time coping with the usual class size of 40, possibly leading to expressions of frustration, which do not help the situation at all but add to the students - and, by extension, their parents - and teachers alike viewing being assigned to the Normal stream as a horrible sentence.

We have always directed attention and resources to the cream of the crop. The truth of the matter is that the bright kids are the ones that need our help the least. They will do well anyway. We should direct more attention and resources to how we can give this 40% of our students an environment that is more supportive and that will encourage and facilitate them achieving their potential rather than dampening their spirits. Can we take customisation of the system one step further from streaming as we practise it now and look at how we can teach and assess these students, ie, do it all together in a review of that?

I join my fellow colleagues in expressing the hope that we will see a more enlightened handling of our students in the Normal stream, and a review altogether of this whole concept of streaming at primary school level.

School Ranking

Mr Chew Heng Ching (East Coast): Sir, in the latest release of the 'O' and 'A' level results, I notice that MOE did not publish the ranking of schools based on these academic achievements. I think this is a good move, for I am never in favour of publicly ranking schools in its current form. This usually puts undue pressure on principals and teachers, as well as on parents and students. Hence, the constant complaint about our education system being too stressful. Principals and teachers are often under tremendous pressure to perform for their career

Column: 2273

advancements are dependent, to a large extent, on how their schools fare in the 'O' and 'A' level results. Kiasu parents naturally want their children to get into good schools high up in the ranking order. They often compare notes, and this raises expectations and puts a lot of pressure on our students, resulting in, what Mr Chiam said, many of them suffering from an inferiority complex.

Sir, ranking of schools does have its advantages, if the criteria are broadened to non-academic areas, like achievements in CCA, sports, social services and so on. Indeed, schools should be assessed based not solely on academic results, but on how they train our children to have an all-rounded education. Even then, I would recommend that ranking be based on a band, a cluster or group basis, rather than on an individual basis. If the Ministry sees the need to rank schools individually, I suggest that this be kept internally within the Ministry and not made public. In short, I would like to ask the Minister if he would review the criteria for ranking of schools and whether it is necessary to make the ranking of individual schools public, in the light of his intention to make schooling more interesting and enriching, less stressful and more relevant in the context of a broader-based and all rounded education for our young ones.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, the Minister's recent announcement that the school ranking system would be reviewed is yet another refreshing change taking place in the education system. Since its introduction in 1992, there has been endless gripe in this House and outside that the exercise, which is based heavily on academic performance and ranks schools individually, makes schools even more examination-oriented and leads to unhealthy pressure on principals, teachers, students and parents. All of us must have read reports of schools offering only subjects which students find easier to get good grades, as well as schools

Column: 2274

advising students to drop subjects they are likely to do badly in to avoid pulling down the schools' overall ranking. The system has also been criticised as it does not give a complete picture of the schools' achievement. MOE has, for years, stoutly defended the merits of the ranking system as a benchmarking tool for schools to know how they fare nationally, and for the parents and students to make informed choices when selecting schools.

Partly, to overcome the negative impact of ranking, MOE had, over the years, introduced various awards to recognise the achievements of schools, not only academically. Nonetheless, the school ranking system has continued to be the main focus of the public's attention. The Remaking Singapore Committee had proposed that the current system of ranking be modified into a banded concept instead of individual school rankings. Ranking schools by bands will still give schools an idea of their performance in relation to other schools. But because there is anonymity in the exact ranking within the band, it would eradicate some of the unhealthy competition arising from jostling for a few places. Indeed, the usefulness of the school ranking system will be diminished in future, as many of the current top schools offer integrated and through-train programmes in which students do not sit for the 'O' level examinations.

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

4.25 pm

The Ministry could adopt the Remaking Singapore Committee's banded concept of ranking but, at the same time, also highlight the other awards given to the schools in recognition of their effort to give students an all-rounded education. For instance, the value-added school ranking is a good system that should not only be retained, but more intensely

Column: 2275

publicised. Until now, the public's attention has been focused on school ranking. A Straits Times poll showed that whilst pupils have no trouble recognising the top ranked schools in Singapore, they are in the dark about value-added schools. In fact, a parent noted that it was not even clear about the concept of value added. Hence, besides modifying the ranking system and giving out other non-academic and best practices awards, these other awards should also be widely promoted and publicised, say, on the MOE's website and in the students' guide to secondary schools.

School Admissions

Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, I have two issues to raise. The first is the one on admissions to Secondary 1. Currently, there is a huge advantage given to students of affiliated schools when being posted to secondary schools after their PSLE examinations. The issue is that many students may not get into such an affiliated primary school for various reasons, especially because of different priorities granted when admissions to Primary 1 are done. This disadvantage then remains for such children even if they do well during the PSLE examinations. It is best that such an advantage should end at the primary school level and not be carried forward to the secondary school level during the admission exercise. Such admissions at the secondary school level should be purely on merit, based on the PSLE results.

Currently, affiliated secondary schools are giving too much of an advantage on the cut-off aggregate score for students from an affiliated primary school, and this is unfair for the many students coming from our neighbourhood schools who do well in their PSLE examinations. I suggest that the Ministry relook at this advantage

Column: 2276

and put a cap as to the level of the advantage students from affiliated schools get.

The second is the issue of the integrated programme. Many junior colleges have now started offering the integrated programme, taking students either at the Secondary 1 or the Secondary 3 levels. I worry that when we do this, we would be limiting the number of spaces available in the good junior colleges for students who do well at their 'O' level examinations. Again, most of them will be coming from our neighbourhood schools. How does the Ministry plan to address this issue? I feel that many students who do well in their later ages may be disadvantaged by the current system of getting students started at the integrated programmes at Secondary 1 and Secondary 3. Can the Minister assure us that students who do well will still have an equally good chance of getting into good junior colleges, as it was done in the past?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, again, I am pleased that the MOE has accepted the notion that educational attainment can be broad-based and need not focus on academic results alone. Hence, the university admission criteria have been changed, such that the universities now have the flexibility to use their own discretion to admit up to 10% of the annual intake. In fact, the Remaking Singapore Committee had also noted in its report that ranking students based on the single aggregate score, including languages as a compulsory component, may be too rigid a way of determining admission to schools and universities.

Sir, in line with this new mantra of education, which is diversity and flexibility in order to allow students to pursue their passions and develop special talents, I would like to ask the Minister if the admission system for secondary schools would be modified in line with the many

Column: 2277

changes at the post-secondary and tertiary levels. Presently, the autonomous and independent schools can admit up to 5% to 10% of their student intake who, they believe, will boost the schools' niche area of expertise but whose PSLE aggregate scores do not meet the schools' cut-off point. For instance, Tanjong Katong Girls' School's niche is in music, and Bukit Panjang Government High School's special areas are in Science and the Malay language. Such a scheme allows schools to look at the summary indicators, consider abilities not fully assessed in the PSLE system, and admit singularly talented students or students who have reached proficiency in most of the relevant subjects but whose aggregate scores may be dragged down by one or two subjects. It will also reinforce the signal that we are trying to send out now to parents and students

of the importance of an all-rounded balanced education, not fixated solely on examination scores.

4.30 pm

I would like to ask the Minister if this special scheme can be expanded and also extended to neighbourhood schools which have also built up some niche areas that they would like to promote, such as the Arts and Science. This will enable our education system to allow more students to pursue their individual passions and develop special talents in our quest to broaden the students' exceptional experience and as the Minister has said, to achieve not just high averages, but many peaks of excellence. Of course, the principle of meritocracy should still remain the key pillar of our admission system, even while the schools are given flexibility, so that overall fairness and transparency prevails. Hence, the students admitted based on these special abilities should be interviewed and perhaps be subjected to some proficiency tests. Additionally, the school admission system could be subject to some audit, at least in the initial years of the

Column: 2278

implementation of the special admission scheme if this is taken up.

Holistic Education

Dr Lily Neo: Sir, may I beseech MOE to strive for schools that are more family-friendly. In Singapore, 40% of all married couples are dual-earners. Many dual-income earners have difficulty in balancing work and family and find it stressful to juggle between inflexible work schedules and family, given that both roles are equally intensive and time-consuming.

Many parents turn to private tuition to help their children cope better. It will be a good idea if our schools can provide tutorial classes after normal school hours, not giving the children extra work, but for helping them cope with their "homework" to free the children to spend quality time at home with their parents. Another way to help parents, especially working parents, is to organise the extra-curricular pursuits, like learning drama, piano and ballet and so on, collectively in the schools after normal classes. This will save parents from having to ferry their children to and from different places for these hobbies, and this will also help Singaporean parents save much time, effort and money. Let us make our schools more holistic and comprehensive in nature.

The criteria for the ranking of schools need to be expanded to lessen the emphasis on academic achievements and grade scores. More weightage should be on other markers relevant to the present time. Thus, ranking should take attainments in developing the potentials of students in information technology, sports and the arts into consideration. Like my previous speakers, Mr Chew Heng Ching and Dr Amy Khor, I would like to ask whether MOE will start ranking of schools by bands rather than individually.

Having flexibility in secondary school entry criteria, such as consideration for

Column: 2279

non-academic abilities, will lessen the stress for many students and parents. Parents can then be at ease to let their children develop their own unique potentials, some of which may not conform to the norm. Sir, schools should not be too fixated on accepting students with high grades, but should be more flexible and be open-minded in student admissions. I hope the Ministry of Education will continue reviewing and expanding favourable criteria for our school entry.

The Chairman: Mdm Ho is not here. Mr Zainudin.

NUS High School

Mr Zainudin Nordin: Sir, the introduction of NUS High School is a positive development as it will help to enrich our education system. Together with the Singapore Sports School and the future of the Arts School, these are progressive steps that call for celebration. In this respect, Sir, may I ask the Minister to update the House on the NUS High School, its focus and objectives and, lastly, its enrolment criteria.

Sir, the Singapore education landscape is changing rapidly. Parents and students alike are constantly bombarded with information and updates in bits and pieces of the latest changes and developments in our education system. I believe, as mentioned by Mdm Cynthia Phua, it is now timely for the Minister to give a consolidated summary of the sweeping changes that have taken place in the last few years. It will be useful for parents and students to digest and understand the impact of these changes in their lives.

The Acting Minister for Education (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): I would like to thank Members for their views and suggestions in the debate so far on the

Column: 2280

MOE budget. I must admit that it was with a feeling of sublime joy that the Ministry received the news that there were 104 cuts on education this year. I hope Members will understand that it may not be possible for my colleagues and I to answer each and every point adequately. We will endeavour to respond to the main themes and to reply on specific questions where time permits.

Sir, we have a robust education system. At each level and in each course, our students aim high. They do well, by any international reckoning.

We have been repositioning the education system in recent years to help our young meet the challenges of a very different future, a much more competitive future. We will be moving from a focus of quantity - in other words, on producing graduates of sufficient numbers from our various post-secondary institutions - to a focus on quality, from primary schools all the way up.

We have introduced improvements and innovations in curriculum, and in the use of technology. We are moving towards single session primary schools, and smaller classes in the first two years of primary education, as announced in last year's COS debate. And we have made substantial improvements in the teaching service and school management. We have a well-trained teaching force, and a service that provides teachers and principals with considerable opportunities to develop themselves professionally and to occasionally retool and re-gear.

More broadly, we have been moving in recent years towards a more flexible and broad-based education system. We are providing for more choices in schooling, and in the tertiary sector. We want to help students to develop themselves in diverse areas, in more varied intellectual pursuits as well as in sports and arts. We

Column: 2281

want to nurture students with all-round strengths, while providing space for those with special talents in a single area to go as far as they can.

We are therefore moving towards a more flexible education system - new types of schools and programmes, alternative curricula, and more flexible or customised approaches to teaching students with different abilities. We are expanding university enrolment, providing the state-funded universities with greater autonomy, and opening up the sector to greater competition. We are also redoubling our efforts to provide students with a broad-based, holistic education, focused on more than examination performance. We have recently introduced more flexible criteria for admitting students to our universities, and will do the same for schools and junior colleges as I will elaborate on shortly. We will also revise the school ranking system to support and encourage schools in their efforts to provide an all-round education.

We are able to make these changes because our education system is strong. The fundamentals are strong. It is, in fact, this confidence in the system that allows us to keep looking ahead, to review what we do, and make adjustments and changes in good time.

Members are familiar with the new educational pathways that we are putting in place. Integrated Programmes, spanning secondary and JC education have been introduced in selected schools from this year, and a few more are coming onstream. Specialised independent schools are being established, in sports from this year, in Mathematics and Science from next year, the NUS High School, and as announced last week by Minister Lee Boon Yang, a School for the Arts from 2007. Alternative curricula and qualifications like the International Baccalaureate are now allowed in our schools. We will soon also allow for a

Column: 2282

few privately-funded secondary schools, which can provide their own models of education.

Mr Inderjit Singh asked if access to the JCs offering the Integrated Programmes - these are the top JCs - would be reduced. The implementation of Integrated Programmes will not reduce access for deserving students to the top JCs. Their overall enrolment will remain close to existing levels.

Mr Zainudin asked about the NUS High School. The School will provide a new type of programme to develop students with a special aptitude for Mathematics or the sciences. It will have a different and enriched curriculum - special projects, research and programmes for their senior students that will be linked to university modules offered by NUS. Students will have access to NUS facilities and interact with NUS academics. They may even sit in on some university classes. Admission, which will be for next year, will be based on merit. The NUS High School will consider students on the basis of their academic performance, aptitude in science competitions and projects, and other special attributes.

The next important change we have to introduce, as part of a more flexible and broad-based education system, is in school admissions. Dr Amy Khor, Dr Lily Neo and Mdm Halimah spoke of the need for a more flexible admission system. MOE agrees with this.

We select students for secondary schools and JCs based on merit. However, the criteria for selection are quite narrowly defined. As Mdm Halimah has highlighted, they focus on single measures of academic merit - PSLE T-score for placement in secondary schools and 'O' level aggregate score (L1R5) for junior college admission. To achieve our objectives in our next phase of education, we will give schools greater flexibility in

Column: 2283

student admission, to allow them to recognise a more diverse range of intellectual achievements and other talents.

By giving schools greater flexibility in how they select students, we will be reinforcing the changes that we have recently allowed in the university admission system - with NUS and NTU being able to admit up to 10% of their students on the basis of their own, independent criteria. It will encourage students who wish to put effort into activities they have a special interest or talent in, to take them seriously and not give them up early because they do not count for admission.

MOE has, for some years now, allowed Independent Schools (IS) and Autonomous Schools (AS) to look at wider criteria when they admit a proportion of their students - up to 10% of intake in the case of the Independent Schools, and up to 5% for the Autonomous Schools. This was introduced under tightly controlled conditions, to see whether the schools could manage the process, and to enable the public to understand that admission into these top schools is still based on merit, but using wider criteria. The system has worked well, and can now be expanded.

MOE has studied this carefully and sought the views of a large number of parents, teachers and ex-students of schools - over 1,200 people in all. Based on a survey we conducted earlier this year, over 90% of each of these groups felt that we should send stronger signals to students on the importance of all-round development. The vast majority supported broadening schools' admission criteria to recognise special skills and talents aside from academic scores.

Column: 2284

There are several ways in which broader and more flexible school admissions can work. A secondary school may want to select students with intellectual abilities that are not reflected in their PSLE aggregate, eg, a student with a special ability in Mathematics or Higher Mother Tongue Language (HMTL). Or it may want to attract students with other non-academic talents that it wishes to develop. Likewise, a junior college may want to select a student who has done consistently well in his school assessments, or has done outstanding community service. There will be other examples of students who may not meet the school's or junior college's usual cut-off scores for admission, but whom the school feels have special talents and will strengthen the school community.

This is also how the best schools abroad, in countries like the US, UK and elsewhere, select their students. These are mainly private schools, which are free to set their own entry requirements. Many have rigorous entry procedures, but are usually not focused on results in a single examination. The measures we will take in Singapore, to introduce broader and more flexible criteria for admission to certain schools, will have some similarities with these best practices abroad. But what sets us apart is that we are doing this in a

Column: 2285

publicly-funded school system, with admission open to all rather than based on the ability to pay.

Our approach is to introduce greater flexibility, choice and diversity in education by providing our publicly-funded schools with greater autonomy,

rather than by opening up a large private school sector that is based principally on ability to pay. That is the fundamental choice we have made.

4.45 pm

Even as we allow for a few private secondary schools from next year, the publicly-funded sector will remain dominant, and very likely remain at the pinnacle of the education system. And there is no reason why our top schools cannot be amongst the best in the world.

Some of the top Chinese schools, which operate within a state-funded and meritocratic national system like ours, are moving in the same direction. For example, Beijing University's Affiliated Middle School admits 30% of its students on the basis of achievement in sports and the arts. When I visited them last year, I was told by the principal that they did this in order to achieve a more diverse school environment. The diversity benefited all students and produced more rounded students in general.

Starting this year, we have allowed the new Integrated Programme (IP) schools and Specialised Schools to have full discretion on admissions. NJC, for instance, which selected secondary school students this year for admission into Secondary 3 did so on the basis of a General Ability Test, PSLE scores, school-based assessments, personal essays, references from principals and teachers, CCA achievements and, finally, interviews with all shortlisted students. The NUS High School for Mathematics and Science, as I mentioned earlier, will adopt a somewhat similar framework.

The next steps concern the Independent Schools (IS) and the Autonomous Schools (AS). As I have mentioned, these schools are currently able to admit their own students, outside of the central posting system, up to a cap of 10% and 5% of their respective Secondary 1 enrolments. This discretion that we provide the Independent Schools and Autonomous Schools is, however, subject to certain strict conditions.

We will phase in greater autonomy for the Independent Schools and Autonomous Schools in two steps. First, for admission

Column: 2286

into Secondary 1 in 2005, in other words, at the end of this year. We will lift the existing MOE conditions on how the Independent Schools and Autonomous Schools admit their own students, while retaining the existing 10% and 5% caps. They will be free to consider students on their own admission criteria, whether on intellectual or other attributes. Second, for admission from 2006 onwards, in other words, end of next year, we will double the level of discretionary places available to the Independent Schools and Autonomous Schools to 20% and 10% of their Secondary 1 enrolment respectively.

MOE will also provide some measure of autonomy to other mainstream secondary schools that want to develop niche programmes of their own. Schools that receive MOE approval will be allowed to admit 5% of their intake based on their own criteria. We will allow for this from 2006 as well. This broadening of autonomy to more schools will allow for more and different peaks of excellence in the school landscape, for example, in the arts or sports, besides the new specialised schools, Independent Schools and Autonomous Schools. It should be a richer landscape.

We will also extend autonomy at the Junior College level. The Junior Colleges that are part of the new Integrated Programmes will, like the secondary schools in these programme, have full discretion to admit students based on their own criteria. The top five JCs will be offering the Integrated Programmes by 2005. They will have full discretion. The remaining 12 JCs will be given discretion to admit 10% of their declared capacity, outside the central posting system, from 2006. This is similar to the discretion that we will grant the Autonomous Schools at the secondary level.

The changes we are taking in school admission procedures are significant, and

Column: 2287

will have to be implemented carefully. Schools will put in place processes to ensure that selection continues to be based on merit. The schools have their reputations to protect. However, MOE will, as Dr Khor has also suggested, audit the admission practices of the schools. We will not undermine the meritocratic nature of the Singapore education system.

Dr Amy Khor, Mr Chew Heng Ching, Dr Lily Neo, have spoken on the need to refine school ranking. MOE has studied this and consulted widely amongst schools and parents. We will broaden and loosen the school ranking system. By changing the way we measure the performance of schools publicly, we hope to support schools in their efforts to deliver a holistic education to their students.

MOE does not intend to do away with school ranking. It continues to serve as a useful benchmarking tool for schools to assess their performance, and allows parents and students to make informed choices. In fact, in our survey of parents, a majority of them still expected that we will continue with some system of school ranking because it provided them information that they needed. However, the ranking system, in its present form, may have led to an over-emphasis on examination performance, at the expense of other important things we want to do in education. It also has the risk of entrenching conventional teaching approaches, and inhibiting schools from exploring approaches which may help develop their students, eg, in innovation or in creative thinking, but which have no assurance of producing superior examination results. We will therefore revise the school ranking system to provide more room for schools to experiment and to offer their students a broad range of learning experiences.

Column: 2288

The new rankings cannot be too precise an exercise. There is broad consensus that it will not be advantageous to compare schools on the basis of small differences in performance. We cannot measure the things that matter in education with precision. The new 'school achievement tables' that MOE will release later this year will, therefore, band schools instead of ranking them on their exact academic scores. Instead of showing the top 50 secondary schools ranked individually based on the average 'O' level performances of their students, they will be divided into 12 or so bands.

The second change will be to provide a broader picture of schools' performance in various academic and non-academic domains. There is again strong consensus amongst parents and teachers in favour of this. Over 90% of parents favoured us doing so. The new school achievement tables will seek to provide this broader picture in a simple, digestible form. The tables will reflect schools' achievements under the existing Masterplan of Awards, which we have refined for the purpose. This will show schools that have received awards for academic value-added, sports and other areas of physical health, and in the aesthetics. They will also reflect the schools with best practices in the internal processes they have put in place to achieve those outcomes.

Character development will be a new area under which schools' efforts will be recognised. We will give recognition to schools that have adopted an integrated approach to developing students in Enterprise, Citizenship and Personal and Social Lifeskills. We will, however, give emphasis to schools' processes and programmes, rather than short-term outcomes, as it is difficult to measure outcomes in character development.

In recognising schools for their achievements in physical health, we will place renewed emphasis on the

Column: 2289

participation of students in sports and games, besides outstanding performance in national competitions. Mdm Cynthia Phua spoke passionately about this during the debate on MCDS yesterday. The revised criteria for excellence in physical health will recognise schools that allow a broad base of students to take a sports CCA for recreation, even if they are not of exceptional ability and are unable to represent the school. This will dovetail with the efforts of MOH and MCDS to provide an active, sporting lifestyle amongst Singaporeans as a passport to good health.

To help parents make the most practical use of the information, MOE will also provide a web-based interactive system to allow them to generate comparative lists of schools based on the features they consider important, eg, schools in a certain vicinity, within a certain academic band or with a strength in, say, rugby. We will also continue to provide detailed individual school profiles for each and every school.

The proposed changes to the public presentation of school achievements are targeted for implementation from September this year. Some of the new and revised awards, such as for Excellence in Physical Health and Character Development, will be introduced progressively from 2005.

Sir, the initiatives that the Ministry has embarked on in recent years will enable us to bring out the best in every child. Taken as a whole, the greater flexibility and diversity that we are introducing in education will help us groom young Singaporeans with diverse talents, and open to diverse ways of thinking and approaching problems. We need this diversity, both amongst Singaporeans, and through an infusion of people from around the world, if we are to develop the innovative capabilities that Singapore needs, and if we are to make it as a

Column: 2290

leading world city. The changes will also help us develop strength of character amongst our young, and the desire to serve others and improve society, in each new generation. I agree with Dr Wang and others who have spoken about the importance of leadership and character development. We want to develop a mental toughness in our young, the ability to withstand shocks, come out of difficulty and thrive. These are attributes that will help young Singaporeans do well in the future, and help Singapore do well.

I note that several Members have spoken on the subject of streaming, and some others are scheduled to speak on the subject of the Normal Course. Sir, we will address these issues, together with the other issues which Members have brought up, in subsequent interventions.

Normal Course

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir one of MOE's strategic thrust is to have a flexible and broad based education system. The Minister has just confirmed that. The key objective of this strategy is to provide diverse educational pathways. Indeed, while the MOE tries to have peaks of excellence, the words of Mr Ngiam Tong Dow resonates with many people when he said that we also need "high national averages". Mr Ngiam was, of course, citing the views of the former President of Matsushita Corporation of Japan, Mr Yamashita, who had made the same point. Mr Ngiam's statement resonates because many would agree that having peaks of excellence alone are not sufficient. We need a good critical mass of competent and capable school leavers who can man the industries and run the offices. In fact, this is critical, Sir, if we want to ensure that our workforce remains No. 1 on the BERI ranking, so that we can continue to attract investments and create more jobs for all Singaporeans.

Column: 2291

Sir, in last year's debate, I had made calls, together with other parliamentary colleagues, to ask for a review of the "N" level education, to make sure that the syllabus is much more meaningful and useful to the students in terms of either preparing them for their "O" levels or for vocational training that will help them to secure employment. Sir, I am glad to note that in January this year, the MOE announced about reforms to the Normal (Academic) stream. Normal (Academic) students can now sit for two "O" level papers one year earlier than they would otherwise do. I would like to ask the Minister whether there are any other reforms with regard to the Normal (Academic) students. My question to the Minister is also whether there has been a review of the Normal (Technical) syllabus and, if so, when will it be completed and whether the Minister can share with this House the key components of that review.

Finally, Sir, I would also like to ask what is the overall strategic objective that the MOE intends to achieve when it conducts the review of the "N" level syllabus. Will the review result in the students in the "N" level stream being better prepared for either the "O" levels or for the job market? Also, does the review include a review of the teaching methods and approaches, because an important consideration for students in the Normal stream is that they do need an environment which is much more motivating and interesting?

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam: Sir, I look forward to more exciting announcements from the Education Minister, especially with regard to ranking.

Sir, I would like to ask the Ministry to consider doing away with the Secondary 4 academic examinations, and allowing all Secondary 4 Normal (Academic) students

Column: 2292

to sit for the Secondary 5 "N" examinations at the end of three years, the reason being four out of five of the 10,000 students who get into the Normal (Academic) stream already qualify for the Secondary 5 "N" examination. A check with the Ministry's top 40 schools for the Normal course in 2003 - shows that in almost all of the 40 schools, about 80-90% of the students obtained three "O" levels and 65% of them went on to obtaining five "O" levels. These are very healthy trends. While four out of five go on to Secondary 5, their Secondary 5 results show that our Secondary 4 Normal (Academic) students are capable of producing good results. So, if this is the trend then I hardly see, unless the Ministry can convince otherwise, the necessity to prepare our Secondary 4 Normal (Academic) students for a two-step progression - a Secondary 4 Normal examination and then followed by a Secondary 5 examination. If we look at the original intent of introducing the Secondary 4 Normal (Academic) stream, it was to allow the students to reach "O" levels at a pace that they can move along with. So, if this is already happening naturally over three years, why not we just do away with the Secondary 4 Normal (Academic) examinations?

I anticipate the Ministry's reservation on this point. "Why are we over-emphasising the "O" level?", was the answer I got last year. My counter to that would be that if we look at nursing right now, students without "O" levels enter Certificate in Nursing, students with "O" levels enter a Diploma in Nursing course. So "O" levels are still crucial and if so many of our Secondary 4 Normal (Academic) students can make it to Secondary 5, I would like to know why the Ministry still sees it as a necessity.

5.00 pm

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, the many changes that are being made to upper

Column: 2293

secondary, JC as well as university education - have largely been welcomed by Singaporeans but will essentially benefit only the top 20% or so of the secondary schools, leading to the feeling of elitism by some. In contrast, time seem to have stood still for the Normal (Technical) education programme, as its curriculum has remained essentially the same for the past 10 years. In fact, a teacher in the Normal (Technical) stream recently told me that there is only one Mathematics text book for this stream - the very same one since streaming started. The Normal (Technical) students seem to be poor forgotten cousins in the grand edifice of our world-class education system.

I understand that some teachers have been asking that the textbooks for the Normal (Technical) stream be rewritten, and they were recently told by MOE officials that the earliest the changes can be made is only in 2006, some three years later. With due respect, I do not understand why the Ministry needs three years to implement these changes.

The Ministry's recent announcement that the syllabus and teaching methods for the Normal (Technical) stream will be reviewed has come none too soon. Allowing the better Normal (Technical) students to take up to two subjects, like Science and Mathematics, at the higher level, similar to their counterparts in the Normal (Academic) stream, is clearly welcomed. As noted by the Principal of Hai Sing Catholic School, Mrs Mary Koh, these changes would have far-reaching effects. But, more importantly, it will raise the self-esteem of these pupils and boost their confidence.

Recent interviews and feedback from teachers of these pupils are that many of these students, if given a chance, can be motivated to work hard and even take on leadership roles. Labelling these students as Normal and, by inference, not as good

Column: 2294

as their peers in the Express and other streams could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The students may internalise this negative perception of themselves that they are weak, ill-disciplined students and, therefore, behave exactly as they are perceived.

Sir, I urge the Ministry to speed up its review of the curriculum and teaching methods for this group of students on an urgent basis, as change is sorely needed here if we want to ensure that every student's potential is developed to the fullest. Further, the criteria for lateral transfer between Normal (Technical) and Normal (Academic) streams should be reviewed in conjunction with the syllabus, as it has been reported that making the transition from Normal (Technical) to Normal (Academic) is extremely difficult, because of the big gulf between the syllabi of the two streams. Moreover, since the stream started 10 years ago, no Normal (Technical) student has ever made it to Secondary 5, as the criteria required to go up the ladder are just too difficult to meet for the Normal (Technical) students. This, again, could be a demotivational factor for Normal (Technical) students, as they see the hurdle placed before them as being extremely difficult to cross, even if they have a dream to pursue.

Mother Tongue

* *Dr Wang Kai Yuen: ( In Mandarin ): From the time when I was in the primary school to the present time, the way the Chinese language has been taught in school remains unchanged, except for the use of Hanyu Pinyin and the simplified Chinese characters to replace the traditional characters. In this period of 50 years, great changes have taken place in the world economy and society, but dictation and writing passages from memory remain the baggage of students. This is a problem not only in Singapore , but also in China and Taiwan , where the learning of Chinese characters is not a

Column: 2295

simple matter. In the bilingual environment of Singapore , I think the teaching methods should be innovated.

We have not explored new methods probably because of the compulsory Mother Tongue policy. Since it is compulsory, there is no need to innovate. If students do not get admitted into the premier schools, then the implication is that they have not worked hard enough, hence they could not score well in examinations. In the circumstances, students take up the Mother Tongue for the sake of the examinations, and not for the love of it. Those who cannot cope, will hate it even more. I can see from my own four children, especially my 9-year old child. With his standard of English, he can read interesting story books, such as Harry Potter. But with his meagre standard of Chinese, he is unable to read books which are likely to interest him, while the only books he could read and understand are probably too elementary to arouse his interest.

With modern technology, even the handphone has a dictionary. Therefore, I think word recognition is more important than writing. If you forget how to write, we can always look it up.

I have recently read a report about some kindergartens in the Henan Province using some new teaching materials. These were written by Professor Guo Baohua of Zhengzhou University , entitled "Chinese characters classic". There are 1,000 sentences that rhyme. Each sentence contains four characters, and no one character is used twice. The first few lines are:

乾 坤 有 序, 宇 宙 无 疆

星 辰 密 布, 斗 柄 指 航

昼 白 夜 黑, 日 明 月 亮

风 驰 云 舞, 电 闪 雷 响

Column: 2296

"Heaven and Earth move in order;

The universe has no border;

Stars are dispersed densely in the night sky;

The Great Dipper guides sailors in sea so high;

The bright day follows the dark night;

As sure as the sun is bright and the moon shiny;

Clouds dance with winds blowing;

In tune with rumbling thunder and flashing lightning.

Is this what kindergarten students are capable of learning? Prof. Guo said that he was merely emulating the ancient "1,000-Character Classic" or "Three-Character Canon". By the use of his teaching materials, the 5 to 6 year-old children can pick up about 1,000 characters, facilitating them with the capability to read books and newspapers.

I think MOE needs to study this set of teaching materials. It may not be the panacea, but there may be quite a lot of things that we could learn from.

Dr Ong Seh Hong: (In Mandarin) : Sir, the extinction or weakening of a nation's mother tongue can be due to, firstly, the total destruction of the nation followed by the disappearance of its language and culture; and, secondly, the invasion by enemies or ruled by another nation for a long period of time, resulting in the foreign language becoming the mainstream language and the mother tongue relegating to that of a secondary language. This phenomenon appears in many former colonies.

Singapore is now a sovereign and independent Republic. The Government has retained the languages of the various major ethnic groups and designated them as our official languages. In addition, the mother tongue policy has allowed the various ethnic groups to retain their own mother tongue and preserve their own culture. This is something we should be glad of.

Column: 2297

However, a small group of people in Singapore hold different opinions on the mother tongue policy. Like what Prof. Koo Tsai Kee said, they exaggerated the difficulties of learning Chinese. They have continually presented arguments to demand that the Government abolish the mother tongue policy. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Education could not stand firm and has been giving way again and again. Its recent "action" of relaxing the mother tongue requirement for university admission has brought much delight to this small group of people. A columnist of an English newspaper even declared that this is "the most gratifying news in many, many years."

Sir, I must stress that I do not oppose the idea of helping students with difficulty in learning the mother tongue or any other subject. However, I am profoundly worried about this extremely hostile attitude of this small group of people against the mother tongue. To this group of people, even if the Government is to give way again and again, they will not be contented. They will be testing the Government's bottom-line. What is next? Are we going to take out Mother Tongue from the PSLE aggregate? And are we then going to follow the suggestion of Mr Giam Meng Tuck of Lianhe Zaobao , by allowing the parents to opt their children out of the mother tongue language, and stop the young children from learning it?.

With the emergence of China, India and other Asian countries, I am not worried about the long-term development of mother tongue in Singapore.

However, if the Government does not affirm the status of mother tongue, and keep on giving way, we will polarise our society, with the masses supporting the mother tongue on one side and the minority, whose voice is also the loudest, on the other. The development of this kind of polarisation will do harm but no good to our social cohesion. As such, I

Column: 2298

hope that the Government should be mindful of the long-term implications in making any adjustment to the mother tongue policy. We should not slaughter the sacred cow just because we want to slaughter a cow. Mother tongue is the dignity of a nation which we should not kill wrongly. I think we should look carefully into the matter.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, in response to feedback from parents and students who are less linguistically gifted in their mother tongue but who do well in other subjects, MOE has liberalised its rules on MTL for JC and university admission. MTL is now also taught experimentally using English. It is different strokes for different folks approach to tailor-make the programme to suit the learning abilities of the child to go as far or as near as their aptitude allows. Many students taking Higher Chinese have opted to continue to do so, even if they can switch to the lower CLB standard if they wanted to. Furthermore, some students taking CL syllabus have also sought to switch to Higher Chinese, perhaps out of interest.

This change of policy has led to very opposing views. The Straits Times, in an editorial of 26th January, quite rightly, called this "a tale of two camps - the English-speaking camp and the Chinese intelligentsia". Many English-speaking parents whose home environments are not the most conducive to the learning of Chinese have warmly welcomed this move to reduce the struggles their children face. Those who favour the liberalisation move argue that the cultural bias inherent in language learning should be Singaporean rather than Chinese. Therefore, it is okay to under achieve in Chinese, even if one is a Chinese by ancestry. Because one is first and foremost a Singaporean who happens to be Chinese by race. Chinese intellectuals, however, argue that this move is

Column: 2299

capitulation to populist pressures and will result in lower standards of language learning and, ultimately, a culturally stunted generation of younger people whose learning of Chinese is purely functional, so as to gain an advantage in doing business in China. Allowing CLB is, therefore, a cop-out.

They further argue that the bias inherent in CLB or learning Chinese using English leans towards westernisation, not so much Singaporeanisation. And the best antidote is a higher standard of Chinese language as an anchor to one's cultural and not really national roots. I think between these two sides of the debate, those most affected, the students themselves including my children, have often complained about the way in which Chinese is taught, principally through memorisation of characters and phrases, which kills the joy of learning. By contrast, some schools have successfully used a variety of creative methods to instill interest - comic strips to learn idioms, singing Stephany and pop songs, discussing characters and plots in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". Teaching method is therefore one of the important keys to effective Chinese learning.

I urge the Ministry to research further how Chinese can be taught in such a way as to sustain the interest of our students. Perhaps, for their pupils' sake, MOE might even have to conduct some for the Chinese appreciation courses of parents to raise their level of understanding and competency. This is a necessary, though not a sufficient, condition for effective MTL.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: ( In Mandarin) : Sir, I want to emphasise that we need to maintain a more balanced bilingual policy between the mother tongue and English, so as to stay competitive in the global

Column: 2300

economy. We want to have a bigger space for our Singaporeans to survive.

According to a survey in USA , by the year 2050, the people speaking English in the world would be reduced to just 5% of the population. In another study conducted by the " Science " journal of USA , more and more people are learning Chinese, and Chinese would be the "most learnt" language in the world in the next decade. So we should be more far-sighted and consider the benefits of all our students to learn and master the Chinese language. The Government should avoid conveying wrong messages to the public and causing unnecessary worries and misunderstanding.

I have eight points to raise regarding the teaching of mother tongue:

(1) After the implementation of the new university admission criteria, what has changed in the role of the mother tongue teaching in junior colleges?

(2) By implementing the new university admission criteria, we have conveyed the message to the students and the public that mother tongue is "no longer important". This will weaken our competitive edge in the changing global economic climate. What measures has the Government taken to rectify this misconception?

(3) What measures does the Government have to encourage students to continue learning mother tongue at pre-university level? If a large number of students should drop mother tongue in junior college, the situation is certainly unfavourable to our intention to nurture the bilingual elites or Chinese elites. Is the Government going to ignore this implication?

(4) If the teaching and learning of mother tongue is moving towards using multi-approaches, are we able to ensure

Column: 2301

that our mother tongue teachers are well trained?

(5) With China emerging as an economic power, the younger generation of Singaporeans needs to have a greater understanding of the history of China . Has the Government any plan to offer the study of "History of China" at 'A' level or 'AO' level to students taking Chinese as a second language? I am sure we still have the resources to teach this subject.

(6) The Government has not consulted any professional group when adjusting its mother tongue policy. This is not in line with the consultative position the Government usually takes.

(7) Some teachers complain that they have difficulty teaching students from English speaking background whose foundation in the Chinese language is very weak. Perhaps MOE should consider a "Language Support Programme" for this group of students, so that they could be looked after by teachers who are specially trained for the programme. This will free the regular teachers from this extra burden, and they can concentrate on nurturing the other students.

(8) For students who are reluctant to learn their mother tongue, could MOE allow them to be exempted from offering the language so that the mother tongue teachers can concentrate on helping those who are really interested in learning the language?

In the refinement of the mother tongue policy, the curriculum design, teaching strategies and assessment modes should be reviewed thoroughly. We should not review only the teaching strategies because that is not enough. It will not solve the problem. Let me give you an example. If today, we still base the testing on ting xie , that is, dictation, and learning of vocabulary, I think this is against the general trend.

Column: 2302

We should have a full review on why the students find it so difficult, and have to spend so much more time in preparing for the tests in Chinese. From primary school to Pre-U, after 12 years, 90% of the stduents passed the Chinese examination, but they are not proficient in Chinese. They cannot even speak proper Mandarin, not to mention the writing or reading of the classics.

Under the present climate, I think Chinese has a very bright future. Our Chinese teachers should not feel despondent because Chinese has a very bright future in the changing global economic climate. Those who do not want to learn Chinese, we should let them go. We should not force them to learn so that our teachers can concentrate their efforts on teaching those who are willing to learn Chinese, and learn it well.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: (In Malay) : Sir, the Ministry of Education has taken a new approach in the teaching of mother tongue. The approach takes into account the ability of every student. With this, we have a syllabus for most students - higher MTL for those with the ability and aptitude and MTLB for those who are having problem with the language.

Sir, in my view, this is a useful approach. As stated by one school principal, the pressure these days is not just to disseminate the necessary information to assist students in passing their examinations, but also to teach the students in a manner that they will be able to use the language learned in their daily life later. However, the changes carried out currently have been limited to only the Chinese mother tongue language. The Minister has said that he may make the same changes to the other mother tongue languages. I would like to ask the Minister if this will be done because currently although we do not have a major problem with Malay students passing their

Column: 2303

mother tongue language, I can however see that a growing number of Malay students will be facing problem because the quality of the Malay language has also risen.

I would like to move on to another topic, which is the use of standardised pronunciation in Malay language or Bahasa Baku in Singapore . This is the result of a joint agreement involving countries in the region, including Singapore , Malaysia , Indonesia , Brunei . I can see that in Malaysia , for instance, they no longer use the Bahasa Baku . But we in Singapore continue to use the Bahasa Baku . My question to the Minister is: do we still need to use Bahasa Baku in schools and do we need to reassess this policy?

Mr Ang Mong Seng: (In Mandarin) : Sir, the economic rise of China has plucked up a crave for the learning of Chinese in the world. The recently revised university admission criteria which exclude the grade of Chinese seem to run counter to the current world trend. The Chinese community here is very concerned. The new policy may perhaps be intended to mitigate the difficulty in learning Chinese, so as to relieve the pressure on the students. However, if consultation has been made with the Chinese community and feedback sought from the public, misunderstanding and dissatisfaction may be minimised.

Chinese language is the root of the Chinese culture. It is because of Chinese language that the Chinese culture can be transmitted from generation to generation. It is therefore unwise to give up the language just for immediate convenience. English educated parents often complain about the difficulty in learning Chinese. They want MOE to lower the standard of the Chinese Language in school so that it could be easier for their children to pass

Column: 2304

the examinations. During my school days, almost all our parents were dialect- speaking. But when we complained to our parents of the burden of learning Chinese and English at the same time, they would say, "If you do not study hard, you will not be able to make a living and end up as a beggar." To our present students, may I urge them to work hard, to read more, study more and write more in both the English and the Chinese languages so as to be effectively bilingual.

On the other hand, parents nowadays who do not know Chinese or are unwilling to learn Chinese, often give the wrong ideas to their children, resulting in the children developing a phobia for Chinese. Worse still, some ethnic Chinese parents even treat English as their mother tongue and relegate their own mother tongue as a secondary language to be ignored. As ethnic Chinese, they do not know Chinese and even want to discard their own Chinese culture. They will regret in their later life. A survey by the Lianhe Zaobao showed that 83% of our students regard Chinese as their mother tongue. But there are still some 17% who regard Chinese as an alien language. This is a matter of grave concern.

Fortunately, in our society, the majority of ethnic Chinese do not discard their own culture and values although they do not know the Chinese Language. For example, in an interview by Lianhe Zaobao, Mr Liew Woon Leong, the CEO of Capitaland remarked that his biggest regret in life was not to have learned Chinese. He would not let his children make the same mistake. Instead he encouraged them to value the learning of Chinese. He even took them to China to learn about Chinese culture. This spirit of upholding Chinese cultural value and encouraging his children to learn Chinese is a good example to be emulated by other Chinese parents who do not know Chinese.

Column: 2305

Chinese Language

Dr Ong Seh Hong: ( In Mandarin ): Sir, I read this story on the Internet

.: A young man from Columbia was encouraged by his father to take up a foreign language. He heard about the emergence of China and thought maybe he should take up Chinese as there was hardly anyone in his country who knew how to speak Chinese. Knowing nothing about China and wanting to know about China and its history and culture before embarking on the study of the language, he posted a message on the Internet to seek more information about China and whether he should learn Chinese. ****

One month later, he received a letter from a young lady in China saying (presumably in English) , "I understand that you want to learn Chinese. Learning Chinese is not difficult. All you need to do is to put your heart and soul in it. I am sending you two Chinese words: one expresses joy, while the other represents sadness. If you take a good look at these two words, I am sure you can tell which is which." The two Chinese words were 哭 ku (meaning cry), and 笑 xiao (meaning laughter). This young Columbian took a good look at the two words and he had no difficulty making out which word was "laughter", and which word was "cry". Thus he received a confidence booster to start the learning of Chinese.

Many westerners learn Chinese as an adult and the environment in which they learn Chinese may not be as good as that in Singapore , yet they could learn Chinese very well. In the newspapers, we read that some westerners came to Singapore to perform the "cross talk" with impeccable Mandarin. They are successful because they worked hard in their learning, and put their heart and soul in the process. Of course, their love for Chinese culture also helps.

In order that our students could learn

Column: 2306

Chinese well, we should not be lowering the standard of Chinese because this is like putting the cart before the horse. When the standard of Chinese is very low, even if you get an 'A', the 'A' means nothing. Most importantly, as Mr Ang Mong Seng has said, we need to change the mentality and attitude of the parents and the students in the learning of Chinese. There are many ways that parents could do to help their children to learn Chinese and create more opportunities for them to practise using Chinese. As Prof. Koo Tsai Kee has said, they could send their children to the PCF kindergartens and let them watch Chinese TV programmes. They could also buy more Chinese newspapers and magazines for them to read, so that they have more opportunity to come into contact with Chinese. Of course, I would support the suggestion by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang that we have to improve on the teaching method of Chinese. I do not think I need to repeat this.

I am hoping that the teaching of Chinese would be linked to our daily life and our culture so that the students will get to learn a lively language and not a deadpan subject. Only with this multi-faceted approach, can we genuinely raise the standard of Chinese in Singapore .

Chinese Teachers

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, I read from the Hansard that MOE needs to recruit around 300 Chinese teachers every year to replace those who have resigned or retired. Many of these new Chinese teachers are from China and are here on MOE's teaching scholarship programme - where they are given a monthly stipend and have to serve a six-year bond upon graduation from NIE.

Sir, I am concerned with this high turnover and replacement of experienced Chinese teachers with new recruits who have just graduated. I ask because I note

Column: 2307

that the standard of Chinese, as a second language, has been falling and that it has also been dropped as an admission requirement for our local university. Is this an acknowledgement of the failure of our education system to boost the standard of Chinese among our students? Why is it that our younger students are getting weaker and weaker in the Chinese language? When our students do not do well in their studies, I question the teachers as much as I would question the ability of the students. Has MOE evaluated the effectiveness of this programme to know whether it has been effective?

Sir, either the new teachers are not very effective in the teaching of Chinese to our students or we do not have a good system of teaching Chinese to our students, or both. It is either way. I want to emphasise that there is an urgent need to re-evaluate both the teachers or the methods the teachers use to teach Chinese so as to improve on our declining standards.

5.30 pm

Sir, China's economy is taking off. Our students cannot afford not to master the Chinese language for their own sake. MOE needs to look into ways to make the learning of Chinese language more fun and interesting than what is practised today. Our young students need to be encouraged to take a greater interest in mastering the Chinese language.

English Language

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam: Sir, I would like to appeal to the Ministry that the teaching of English language be made more interactive in the lower primary classes. While we may have a good command of the written language, it may not always be true for the spoken form.

Column: 2308

A check with some primary school teachers shows that there is still too much emphasis on the written form in terms of composition, comprehension and structured answers, and this is quite a routinised process. Teachers also say that there is too little time within the current classroom situation to engage in discussions that involve processing information as well as having fun with the use of the language. Moreover, the indicators used to see whether successful learning is taking place within the classroom still go back to the conventional form, often in terms of composition, comprehension and written exercises.

My fear is that we have boxed the English language into something that is perhaps too functional, with little room left for having just pure fun. Developing a love for the language has to begin early which, I think, happens in many homes. But at the end of the day, it is the school that continues to nurture that interest. In this respect, I have two questions or suggestions to make.

Firstly, the teachers who teach English language, especially in the primary schools, could I ask who they are, what are their qualifications, and whether they are individuals who have specialised in either English Language or Literature at university. After all, for mother tongue, we do bring in specialists.

Secondly, we could also do with introducing an oral component in the examinations, and this oral component could carry a stronger emphasis than the current form, so that we encourage our young children to speak and we also hear their voices.

Lastly, as we continue with this discussion on mother tongue, may I also urge that we keep an eye on the command of our English language where our students are concerned, so that we

Column: 2309

know that we are moving perhaps a little bit more beyond Phua Chu Kang .

Language Education

Mrs Fang Ai Lian (Nominated Member): Sir, sorry for the lack of voice, it is the same orchestra!

Many have said that there have been a lot of reviews and changes made to the education system but, generally, I would say that I endorse the direction it is taking. Personally, I would also like to applaud the changes made to accommodate the weaker students in terms of Chinese, with the introduction of Chinese B, because my son happens to be in that category. So I am extremely grateful for little mercies.

That said, I would like to champion the learning of more languages. We live and operate in a globalised world. So, language has become very important. If we look at the Dutch, we should be impressed by them. They speak Dutch, of course, but, amongst the Europeans, they are the most proficient in terms of English. Not only that, they are also able to master two other languages, eg, German, French, and so on. We are surrounded by some 300 million people who speak Malay. But many Singaporeans, especially the younger ones, cannot venture beyond a few words of Malay. Likewise, other countries, such as Vietnam and Thailand, are also up and coming. And languages really help us to do business, because languages simply build relationship. So, rather than take the attitude that the learning of languages is difficult, it should be made for all to feel that it is important and, therefore, it should be made fun, enjoyable as well as relevant.

My Dutch friends tell me that it is not stressful at all for them to learn so many languages in school. Maybe one reason is because it is not examinable to start with.

Column: 2310

The Dutch have been global citizens for a long time. The Chinese are new in this game, but they are really plugging ferociously into the global network in terms of English proficiency. So, I would urge the Ministry of Education to perhaps look at these winning models and see how we could adopt some of the changes or factors that they have introduced into their system.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Sir, several Members have spoken on the issue of mother tongue language - Dr Wang Kai Yuen, Dr Ong Seh Hong, Dr Amy Khor, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Mdm Halimah, Mr Ang Mong Seng, Mr Steve Chia and Mrs Fang Ai Lian. This is an important issue. I will first explain MOE's policy perspective on the issues raised, before MOS Chan Soo Sen also replies on this subject, and Mr Hawazi explains our position on the issue of Baku .

Our policies on the learning of the mother tongue languages are founded on a basic fact. It is not in Singapore's interests to allow the mother tongue languages to wither. It is not in our interest to allow new generations of Singaporeans to lose their competence in the mother tongue languages, or lose an instinctive sense of affiliation with the cultures that they represent.

There are two reasons for this. The first has to do with how the world is changing, especially economically. Our competence in the mother tongue languages, together with our English-speaking capabilities, are critical to how we stay competitive in the coming decades. Together, they help us to stay relevant to Asia, and stay relevant to the West. China especially is reshaping the world, and will reshape Singapore's economic future. As Members have pointed out in this debate, and as others like Senior Parliamentary Secretary Koo Tsai Kee and Mr Ng Ser Miang pointed out during the Budget debate, that is also

Column: 2311

why people around the world are learning Mandarin. Mr Ang Mong Seng had referred to this as well. The numbers will grow geometrically over the next two decades. Every Chinese Singaporean student should be encouraged to learn the Chinese language to as high a level as he can manage. Those who acquire a deep understanding of Chinese language and culture, including contemporary China, will be a major asset for Singapore. They will help us to engage China, economically and socially.

The second reason why the mother tongue languages are integral to education has to do with the type of society we want to be. Dr Wang had mentioned this in his remarks. We lose more than the mother tongue languages if we allow them to wither. We lose our sense of distinctiveness as a society, our sense of being part of a larger Asian history, and of the unfolding Asian story. We lose our identity and confidence as a people.

We must, therefore, apply ourselves to sustaining the mother tongue languages in Singapore. We must do what we can in schools to sustain and deepen our capabilities in the mother tongue languages. There is no easy way of doing so. There is no switch to turn on, no rheostat to turn the lights up. Because English is the main language of instruction in education for our young, it is a complex challenge. Many of our students lack the home or social environment that allows them to immerse themselves in the mother tongue. We have to take account of these realities and find effective ways to develop our students' capabilities in the mother tongue languages.

We know that we will not succeed unless students are motivated to learn the language. Motivation is at the heart of whether you learn something successfully. It is at the heart of whether

Column: 2312

you learn the mother tongue in a way that gives you confidence to use it when you leave school.

We have sought to motivate students to learn the mother tongue languages by providing them incentives to do so, eg, entry requirements to the next stage of their education, and bonus points if they pass or do well in Higher Mother Tongue. It is a pragmatic approach, and remains a useful and effective way of motivating young students, who will not immediately understand why competence in the mother tongue will give them advantage in life. This approach helps to ensure that our students take mother tongue seriously, put in effort, and achieve at least a basic proficiency in the language. But these incentives will not in themselves be sufficient to motivate students to deepen their knowledge, go beyond the examinations, and take a lasting interest in mother tongue after they leave school. There has to be something more. There has to be a love for the language and an appreciation of the richness of culture that the language opens the doors to. And, as students get older, an appreciation of the advantages and opportunities that will come with knowing the language. We will have to help students develop this love for the language and help them recognise the opportunities that they can open for themselves by learning the language well.

Our efforts to sustain and enhance interest in the mother tongue languages must therefore involve a balance of several strategies. It will be simplistic to assume that we can maintain an interest in the mother tongue languages by doing away with the incentives we provide and hoping students will become motivated on their own. But if we rely solely on educational incentives or rewards to motivate students to take the language seriously, we will be losing the battle. For language learning to be effective, we need more than this. We need a curriculum,

Column: 2313

teaching methods and assessment methods that will help bring the language to life. We have to provide students the opportunities and experiences that will spur a passion for the language and help them discover the positive reasons why they should learn the language well. And the student's motivation to learn the language in school will have to be supported at home.

The balance of strategies we adopt will depend on a student's abilities, and what stage of education he is at. We cannot adopt the same strategies for tertiary education as we do in schools. At the tertiary level, the Government recently agreed to the proposals of the University Admissions Committee for NUS and NTU to do away with mandatory counting of mother tongue language scores for university admission. There were sound reasons for this. First, as the committee had rightly pointed out, it is not appropriate for a student's choice of university, what course he takes and what career he eventually pursues to be determined by his mother tongue language grades in school.

There is a second reason which is also important. NUS and NTU have entered a more competitive university landscape. We are opening up to one or two private universities, with the first intakes expected from as early as 2006. They will have their own admission requirements, just like SMU today, which does not take mother tongue into consideration as an entry requirement. Adding to this, NUS and NTU are increasingly competing with good overseas universities for Singapore students. For our universities to thrive in this more competitive university environment, they must be able to select the best students for each course. It is no longer tenable for the Government to impose requirements on NUS and NTU that hamper their ability to attract and select the best students.

Column: 2314

These are the reasons why we agreed that NUS and NTU need not require every student to include his Mother Tongue grade in the admissions score. However, students will still be required to have a passing grade in the Mother Tongue to gain admission. Those who do well in the Mother Tongue can still choose to use it in their university admission scores. And those who take the Mother Tongue or the Higher Mother Tongue Language as a full 'A' level subject, will still be able to include it in their admission scores, as one of their 'A' level subjects. But the Mother Tongue grade will no longer be a mandatory component of the scores, just as it is not a mandatory component for junior college or polytechnic admission.

In the school system, MOE will retain incentives for students to offer Mother Tongue to as high a level as they can manage. Bilingualism remains a cornerstone of school education. All students will continue to do mother tongue for 10 years of general education; 12 years if they carry on through junior college. It may be worth reminding Members of the incentives we have in place to encourage students to take Mother Tongue seriously in school. The

MTL is part of students' PSLE scores for admission to secondary school. Even with the greater flexibility that some schools will have in their admissions, which I have mentioned earlier, the MTL will remain a fundamental feature of progression requirements. Those who pass Higher Mother Tongue Language (HMTL) also get bonus points for admission to SAP schools.

At the junior college level, students going to junior colleges have to pass Mother Tongue Language (MTL) - at least a D7. Those who do well in mother tongue can include it in their scores for JC admission - 50% of our JC1 students, in fact, do so when they apply for admission to the junior colleges. Those who do well in HMTL can use the subject instead of

Column: 2315

English in their JC admission score - 10% of our students already do so. Those who obtain at least a C6 grade in HMTL get bonus points for JC admission.

5.45 pm

These are significant incentives. Few other countries, perhaps no other country, provide similar incentives for school admission. But our language environment is unique and the fact that these are not just second languages but mother tongue languages requires that we give them additional emphasis in our schools.

Our real challenge is to go beyond these incentives, to nurture a passion in our students for the languages, an interest that they carry with them after they have completed their examinations and leave school.

This is a major priority for MOE. That is why we are undertaking a comprehensive review of our Chinese Language (CL) teaching and learning methods. The Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee, chaired by Mr Wee Heng Tin, currently the Director-General of Education, will study how we can improve the Chinese Language curriculum and teaching approaches to better motivate and interest students in the language as they progress through school. The Committee will see how we can introduce innovative Chinese Language teaching and assessment approaches in our schools, as Dr Wang and several others have suggested. They will study the appropriate level of emphasis that should be given to the various language skills - listening, speaking, reading and writing. Dr Wang has also commented on this. The Committee will also study the extent to which we need a differentiated approach to teaching Chinese Language to different students, in primary and

Column: 2316

secondary schools, so as to best sustain every student's interest in the language.

It will also explore possibilities to enrich Chinese Language learning at the junior college level. The new junior college curriculum framework from 2006 will have the flexibility to allow for new elective subjects, including those relating to China. MOE will be exploring with the universities and JCs on how we can develop a 'China studies' elective in the new curriculum, which can focus on Chinese history and the contemporary Chinese economy and society. It can be part of the range of subjects that students can choose from, as part of the broader curriculum that they will take in future. We will study this.

However, improvements to the curriculum and innovations in teaching will not be enough. We have to provide more opportunities for students to pursue their interests in mother tongue outside the classroom. We are re-doubling our efforts to give our students exposure to China, through schools' linkages and exchange programmes with their counterparts in China. Currently, about 1,200 students go to China each year on exchange or immersion programmes. We will have to scale up this number.

We are also exposing our school leaders to China. We have begun sending principals to the Tsinghua Executive Programme which is coordinated in Singapore by MTI. This and other opportunities have to be used to give school leaders a clear sense of the challenge and excitement of an unfolding China, so that they can impart the same to our teachers and students.

The schools and JCs which are part of the new integrated programmes will now have additional scope to provide an informal curriculum to raise their students' exposure to the Chinese Language and to China. Those with LEP centres, like Hwa

Column: 2317

Chong and Temasek JC, can do more.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang had asked if the refinements in MTL policy would have an impact on the role of MTL teachers in the junior colleges and centralised institutes (CIs). We do not intend currently to redeploy MTL teachers out of JCs and CIs. There will be some reduction in teaching requirements as students choose not to retake their MTL examinations in their second year of junior college after sitting for the examinations in the first year. However, the JCs and CIs will have ample need for their MTL teachers, if we are to make the most of the opportunities for learning that I mentioned earlier, including the informal curriculum. There will also be a need for teaching resources if we introduce a China studies elective in the JC curriculum in future. MOE is however also mindful of the fact that there is a shortage of senior teachers who can teach Higher Chinese Language (HCL) at the secondary level, especially as more students offer the subject with our recent liberalisation of the eligibility criteria. We will therefore not rule out deploying a few JC/CI teachers to senior teaching positions at the secondary level. Such deployment takes place regularly in our system, as a matter of course.

The universities are also doing more to spur their students' interest in the study of CL. NUS, NTU and SMU are promoting student awareness of China through exchange programmes with Chinese universities. NUS has established a Shanghai Overseas College in Fudan University to provide a one-year internship programme to NUS students, that will include Fudan-taught entrepreneurship courses. NTU is offering CL as a major next year for undergraduates at its School of Humanities and Social Sciences.

We will work on these initiatives in education, to sustain and raise the interest in the MTLs amongst young Singaporeans and ensure a vibrant future for the

Column: 2318

languages, as Mr Yeo said, a bright future for our languages. We can achieve that. It has to be a multi-faceted strategy, not focused on incentives and rewards alone. It will continue to be founded on sound educational precepts and the best interests of Singapore. We have not shaped our MTL policies for political expediency, and we will not do so now. I am not sure if Dr Ong Seh Hong seriously believes that the recent changes in university admission requirements were in response to pressures from those who dislike the language, but that is wrong and quite misleading. We do not shape MTL policies to balance constituencies.

We will also address the different needs and capabilities of our students. Every student must be encouraged to take an interest in the MTL, even if not every student goes the same distance in school. I do not agree with Mr Yeo Guat Kwang that we let those who have difficulties with the MTL drop the subject altogether. We should avoid thinking along 'all or nothing' lines in education, whether in mother tongue or any other subjects. I do not think Members will suggest, for instance, that if an EM3 or Normal (Technical) student is having difficulty in Mathematics, we stop teaching him the subject, or if he becomes discouraged, we do not find a new way of creating an interest in the subject on the part of the student. Let us help every student take his mother tongue, go as far as he can, take pride in doing so, and when he leaves school, carry an interest in the language with him. Those who are able to go further, to master the language and take a deep interest in the culture need not fear that they will be held back by others who may not be able to go beyond a basic competence.

Last December, when I took my family to Beijing for a holiday, I met Christopher Yap, an old schoolmate. He is SIA's Station Manager in Beijing. When he was in school, he barely passed his CL at

Column: 2319

Secondary 4. It was an easier subject in those days, but in the school he came from, many boys did no better than scrape through in the language. In those days, there was no need to take CL at the pre-university level either. So, he stopped at Secondary 4. He now speaks CL fluently - fluently enough to do the job well and live comfortably in China. I asked him how he had been able to do this. He said he picked it up when he was posted to Shanghai for three years, then Kunming and Xiamen, another five years. Now in Beijing, he has been in China for eight years. And he is still learning. He told me he is learning the language all the time, even at home watching TV every night. Could he have picked it up as easily if he was not taught the basics in school? He told me it would have been much more difficult. There are many others like him in China - Singaporeans who did not do very well in the language when in school, but have taken the plunge in China, improved their language ability and are doing well. And there will be others like him in future.

We will not be helping them, or helping Singapore, if we tell them that if they cannot do the language well in school, they better not try at all. We should help every young Singaporean take the MTL as far as he can in school, and to sustain an interest in the language after he leaves school. What matters is not just how many laps of the pool you swim while in school but whether you take a liking for it, and whether you are able to make the most of a huge ocean of opportunities that await you after you leave school.

I will now ask the Minister of State, Mr Chan Soo Sen, to speak on the issues that have been raised, as well as address some of the other points that have been brought up by Members. Mr Hawazi would then clarify the issues concerning

Column: 2320

Sebutan Baku .

The Minister of State for Education (Mr Chan Soo Sen): Sir, what I propose to do is to supplement what my Minister has said with regard to the teaching of the Chinese Language. For this part, I will present in Mandarin. I will also address the other issues raised by the other Members and, for that part, I will address in English. I will not mix the languages in the respective parts.

( In Mandarin ): Sir, first of all, I would like to share with you a story on the learning of languages. This is my own story on how I learned the English language. It happened more than 40 years ago.

I was learning English, frankly speaking, in quite a difficult way. In those days, among the subjects that I was learning, English posed the most difficulties to me. In fact, at that time, most families of my class spoke no English. Even our English teachers were sometimes forced to speak to us in Mandarin when they really could not communicate with us. However, a number of teachers in our school were Indian, so it was not possible for us to converse with them in Mandarin. Maybe they knew Chinese but they pretended not to know! Most importantly, we somehow managed to understand one another, and I improved my English in the process.

The economic value of English was without doubt. That was 40 years ago. Although I was in a Chinese school, my future prospects would be discounted if I had not learnt English well. I wanted to apply for a scholarship to study overseas, so if my English was not good or if I had failed my Senior Cambridge Examinations, then my dream of an overseas scholarship would remain just a dream, never to be realized. I was taking my Senior Cambridge Examinations in the year when I was in Pre-U 1, and I realised that I had

Column: 2321

to brush up on my English if I wanted to have some meaningful results. I forced myself to read the Straits Times . I forced myself to listen to radio broadcasts. If I could not understand the news in English, I would listen to the news in Chinese first, and then tune on to the English news later, because the contents of the Chinese and English news were more or less the same. After some time, I began to understand the English news better. When I read the Straits Times , I had to underline the words which I did not understand and check the dictionary. Sometimes, after checking the dictionary, I would forget the meaning of the words again. Then, I would have to recheck again. In the process, the number of words which I could not understand became fewer, and I have gradually built up a bigger vocabulary. It was not easy.

Why am I sharing this story? There are a few important points in this story. The first important point is that learning a language is never easy. We cannot just give up the moment we encounter some difficulties.

Secondly, the economic value of the language is a very important motivating factor, particularly to the students. We often say, if you want to learn a language, you cannot just look at the economic value. I agree. But as an ancient sage said, sanshi er li , sishi er buhuo , wushi er zhi tianming, meaning at 30, a man should be able to be independent; at 40, a man begins to be wise; and at 50, he begins to know his destiny in life. So, during school days, the students are not even 20, not to mention 30. They only want to be independent, and hence the motivating power of economic value. Having the command of another language is certainly a great asset. Had I not had the command of Chinese and English when I was in Suzhou Industrial Park , it would not be possible for me to negotiate with the Chinese people, using subtle and

Column: 2322

indirect style which communicate clearly in Chinese. When it comes to dealing with the local Chinese, certain things keyi yihui buke yuanchuan (可以意会不可言传), meaning can be understood but cannot be expressed or are beyond words. So, such informal manners of communications can carry you far and wide. At the same time, I was able to communicate with the westerners, urging them to come and invest in Suzhou . On the left, I could face the Chinese; on the right, I could face the westerners. This is what they say, zuoyou feng yuan ( 左右逢源), meaning to be successful both sides, or to have the best of both worlds.

Zuoyou feng yuan is an advantage we have been leveraging on. It has been a key competitive edge in our economy. So, on the east we can face Asia , on the west we can face Europe and the United States . We can face east and face west, and we can bring the east and the west together, with us acting as a middleman or a bridge. This type of relationship has been a competitive edge in our economic development. Without our bilingual policy, it is not possible for us to have this competitive edge. So, under the present situation, particularly at the time when the competition is even more intense, it will be foolish of us to give up the bilingual policy and give away this competitive edge.

We know that China is emerging and the economic value of Chinese language is entirely different from that of 40 years ago. Forty years ago, when I had just left school, if I were asked the economic value of the Chinese Language 30 years later, I am afraid I would not have been able to confidently say it would be brighter than present. But, today, if I were asked the same question, I would very confidently say Chinese Language would be more important and its prospects brighter 30 years from now, since we know China will be an even more important country politically and

Column: 2323

economically than what it is today.

Singaporeans are very pragmatic. So I am sure this factor will be able to motivate our students to work hard in the learning of the Chinese language, and also to inspire the parents to persuade their children to learn Chinese well. I know that some parents have written to the newspapers, saying that Chinese is very difficult to learn. It has wasted a lot of the children's time and efforts, and they could not learn it well. I believe these parents are in the minority. Maybe, they are about my age, but studied in the English stream. During their younger days, they did not appreciate the importance of Chinese, and thought it had nothing to do with their future prospects. So, they did not put in much effort to master the language. Hence, they have this misconception that Chinese is not of value to them and is irrelevant to their future development. They feel that learning the Chinese language is a burden and an obstacle to their children's studies. Hence, it is not worth putting in all the efforts to master it.

Having heard my parliamentary colleagues' speeches, I think we have come to a consensus that the Chinese language does have real economic value. It is something that is worthwhile for us to learn it well. I believe these parents will, one day, eventually come to this realisation too. In fact, I know some real cases amongst my friends and colleagues, who were from the English schools and had conveniently dropped Chinese during their school days, becoming lovers of Chinese language and culture today. I often find them going to Beijing operas, dialect operas, appreciating Chinese movies and singing songs in Chinese at karaoke sessions. Perhaps they have come to the age of 40 and 50, and hence have become wise and begin to know their destinations. So, they begin to

Column: 2324

search their souls, and feel that they have to go and find their roots.

To know another language is like holding another key. You can open another treasure trove and enjoy all the good things in it. We know that Singaporeans are pragmatic and even kiasu . So, if we can provide them with a good environment to earn another key, why would they refuse? If Singaporeans realise that the target is important, they will work very hard towards it. Even if they have to suffer some hardship, they are prepared to do it.

Now, we have a group of people who are steadfast in their role, and are prepared to make valuable contributions. These are our Chinese teachers. On 9th March, I spoke to a group of Heads of Chinese Department in Junior Colleges. I asked them about the feelings of our Chinese teachers in the junior colleges, now that Chinese Language results was no longer mandatory for the computation of university admission scores. Although, a little disappointed, the teachers are not despondent. In fact, they are determined to do their job well. During the meeting, they offered many, many suggestions on how to improve Chinese language teaching. Some of their suggestions were also raised by Members of this House. The Chinese Language Review Committee will look into all these suggestions. Therefore, our JC Chinese teachers need not be despondent.

The Singapore Chinese Teachers' Union recently issued an 8-point statement, as was mentioned by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, and I am particularly encouraged and moved when I read the last few sentences which said: "A multi-language era has arrived. All the developed countries are attaching more importance to the learning of Chinese. Under such a climate, our mother tongue teachers should not be desperate or despondent. We have to mould the

Column: 2325

character of our next generation of Singaporeans. If we don't, who will?" It is upbeat, forthright, confident, even heroic, much like the expressions often used by the northern Chinese. The northern Chinese are normally more forthright and heroic in their style of expressions. Hence, "If we don't, who will?" They understand their mission and are determined to achieve. I would like to salute our Chinese teachers. With this dedicated spirit of our Chinese teachers, I am sure that the review on the teaching methods will bear good and plentiful fruits. Our Chinese teachers will put in their heart and soul, and lift the teaching and learning of Chinese language to a higher peak.

If our Chinese teachers are not despondent, I hope our Chinese community would not feel too negative. I understand that, of late, the feelings of the Chinese community have been like a roller coaster, springing up and down. When the Mother Tongue B and Higher Chinese admission criteria were relaxed together, generally, the spirit was lifted especially when they heard that more students were applying to read Higher Chinese. In fact, there were many more students opting to do Higher Chinese than those going for Chinese B. So, their spirit was up. When the Lianhe Zaobao survey , which concluded that out of 10 students, at least eight of them were determined to learn Chinese well, the spirit was even higher. At that time, some even felt so confident about the prospects of Chinese Language that they commented that for those who did not want to learn Chinese, "So be it! Do not drag the cow up the tree and make life difficult for everybody."

But then when we announced a small movement, that is, Chinese language is not compulsory for the computation of university admission score, the spirit sank. Mind you, students still have to secure a minimum CL score, and they could still use Chinese to compute university

Column: 2326

admission score if this makes his score higher. Hence CL score is still important. But then the spirit did not sink to the bottom. A friend of mine told me that he has been getting feedback from the Chinese community, and the score outside and the score now is 60-40. 60% are downhearted, while 40% are upbeat. I hope that after the assurance given by the Acting Minister that Chinese is still part of the national spirit that cannot be alienated, there will be a swing around to 40-60, or better still, 30-70 and even 20-80.

We should see the big picture. Under our school system, mother tongue is still a very important factor in our examination aggregate results. This will not change. The economic value of Chinese is now beyond doubt. We do not have to force people by policy to learn Chinese Language. Indeed we have been talking about education programmes emphasising in creativity, innovation and more autonomy to empower people. If we need to have a policy to force people to learn the mother tongue, then I am afraid it will not be convincing. Our students will just say, "If I don't learn Chinese, I cannot go further, so I will just hang on with it." Down in their hearts they are not happy. They hate Chinese. Some students are having this mentality; my own children included. The ancient Chinese classic said, zi bu jiao, fu zhi guo (子不教, 父之过) meaning "if a son is not properly taught, the father is at fault." To this, I agree and I plead guilty. My son told me, "I am learning this Chinese for you, for your sake, because you want me to learn, and so I learn. I will work hard to get a good grade. But, once I have cleared my hurdle of Higher Chinese, don't force me to learn Chinese again." Now he has cleared his Higher Chinese and he is not doing Chinese anymore in the junior college. His learning of Chinese was not motivated from the heart. I hope that maybe one day, he would be like Christopher Yap and rediscover the importance of the Chinese

Column: 2327

language. He should be able to build on the existing foundation that he has and go further. So now, the future of Chinese is settled.

The Ministry of Education has set up a Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review, and for the first time it is going to be chaired by the Director-General of Education. In the past, whenever we wanted to review the standard of Chinese, we always had a Minister or some political leaders to lead the committee. But, on this occasion, we are getting the Director-General of Education to lead the committee which comprises senior school leaders, Chinese language subject heads and experts in the academic field. I am sure they will be able to come up with some holistic and multi-dimensional approach to review the curriculum design.

Just now, many of my colleagues suggested that the teaching of the Chinese language should be more interesting and more lively, with singing, comics and all sorts of methods, or even like what the Columbian used to learn Chinese. We will look into all these suggestions very carefully. If Members have any other suggestions, please do not hesitate to give them to me. You can write in English or Chinese, it does not matter. You can also criticise the present practice - no problem. I think it is better to have people showing concern and criticising than nobody showing any concern at all. Now the teaching of Chinese is something which everyone is concerned about, I think the Chinese community should feel empowered. I fully agree with Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Dr Ong Seh Hong and even Mr Steve Chia that we have to have a holistic review of the teaching of Chinese. I hope that by August or September when this review committee completes its work, we will be able to share the results of this review

Column: 2328

with Members.

Now, our situation is such that parents support the learning of Chinese. Our students also want to learn Chinese. The teachers are determined to teach Chinese and teach it well. Our parliamentary colleagues are all saying that mother tongue is important. We have to learn it with our heart and soul. Now I would like to call upon our Chinese community to make more efforts to cooperate with us.

For Chinese to be a lively language, we have to create space for the use of Chinese. We have to use it in a creative way with feelings and be realistic. Only then can our Chinese be like a stream of living water. I believe that the Chinese community can contribute more in this respect. They could organise more activities or competitions and allow our young people to express their feelings in Chinese.

I notice that in St. Andrew's Junior College, they had an inter-school Chinese songs composition contest. The students wrote the lyrics, composed the tunes and then performed. The Chinese that they used was, to me, a very conservative person, not exactly perfect. In some parts, the grammar was wrong. Sometimes they mixed in some English. But that does not matter. We look at the passion, the expressions, the feelings that manifested in their songs - they sang about their worry for the future, their passion for friends of the opposite sex and the dissatisfaction with the generation gap. This is the feeling of our young people. They want to express it in Chinese, and this is an affirmation for the Chinese language.

If we can have more opportunities to express our hearts in Chinese, it will become a lively language. We will rediscover that Chinese language is passionate, dynamic, creative and also practical. If our Chinese newspapers can

Column: 2329

have a forum page for the young people to discuss matters which concern them like, for example, falling in love, their worries, their loneliness and their fear, with someone experienced in youth matters, that could be a best seller. Such exchanges would benefit the youth readers and their parents. Also expressing their feelings in Chinese, our young people would feel a sense of attachment to their mother tongue. If we can also have more Chinese toastmaster exercises in our schools and society, they could have more opportunities to use Chinese to express themselves, and I think it will raise the standard of Chinese. There can also be more activities like operas and musicals. We have been talking to and encouraging the Chinese community organisations to do more. I know they will support us.

The question now is not whether Chinese is good or English is good, or whether Chinese is strong or English is strong. We want to grab both with both our hands. As Mrs Fang Ai Lian has mentioned, we want to be like the Dutch people. They can speak all sorts of languages. They can speak German, French, Dutch and English. In Scandinavia , it is the same thing. As I have said, with one more key, you can open one more treasure trove. Even if the key is small, you can still have a small treasure, but it is still worth looking for it.

As a former student from the Chinese stream, of course, I am very concerned with the future of Chinese. But I feel that under the present macro environment, we do not need to worry. What we need to worry is how to rally the teachers, students, the Chinese community, the parents and the people of all stations of life to put in a concerted effort, to seize the opportunity and to hold this very important key to open this very big treasure trove.

Column: 2330

At this juncture, I would like to thank all the Members for their suggestions in the teaching of the Chinese language. If they have other suggestions, please pass them to me and I will present them to the Review Committee so that they can do an even better job.

(In English) Sir, there are other subjects which have been raised. Mr Steve Chia asked about the success of the MOE teaching scholarship programme for Chinese teachers. The PRC undergraduate teaching scholarship scheme was started in 1998 and has helped to widen the pool of Chinese language teachers in our local primary schools. The first batch of teachers was posted to schools in June 2003. But the scholarship scheme has been discontinued from 2002, because the Ministry of Education was able to meet the demand for CL primary school teachers through local recruitment and targeted teacher recruitment in the PRC. I would like to assure Mr Steve Chia that all our Chinese Language teachers are properly trained in the National Institute of Education.

Mdm Halimah asked whether we have similar plans for a review of ML and TL. I would like to say that the Ministry of Education is willing to see how the teaching and learning of our other mother tongue languages can be enhanced, and to see if changes are necessary. As for the specific question about sebutan baku , I will leave it to Mr Hawazi who is more qualified to answer.

Mrs Fang Ai Lian called for further evolution of language education to prepare Singaporeans for greater regional and global roles. I agree with Mrs Fang that Singaporeans who are able to speak a language apart from English and their mother tongue will find it economically useful in accessing markets in the region and beyond. As I have said, an additional language is like an additional key to another treasure trove.

Column: 2331

Some opinion leaders have indeed said that the age of multi-lingualism has arrived. Currently, students can offer a foreign language such as French, Japanese and German or a non-native mother tongue as a third language. An example of the latter is the Malay special programme which, like our other non-native MTL programmes, is now offered to the top 30% of the PSLE cohort. We have 435 students in the Malay special programme. The Ministry of Education will look into how we can provide greater opportunities for students who have the capacity and interest to take up a non-native mother tongue language as a third language. But I would like to advise Members that speaking with the personal experience of a parent whose son has done Malay special programme, it is not easy to learn three languages. They spend two afternoons a week on classes, and they need a lot of support. At one stage, my son was about to give up. Then I told him about this treasure trove analogy. He was not moved. Then I said, "Son, can we say that you only need to get a P6 for your third language? That will be good enough for me." He said, "Really, ah! Just a P6 will satisfy you?" I said, "Sure." He said, "But I am not going to pass my oral." I said, "I have not seen somebody who is a non-Malay and attends the Malay oral exam, tries his best and still fails." Sure enough, he passed. So, do not put too much pressure. Treat this as an additional bonus and try your best.

As Mrs Fang suggested, students can also benefit from non-examinable language learning experiences that are fun and engaging. I find it encouraging that four of our primary schools and 14 secondary schools have offered students non-native mother tongue language enrichment programmes. One example is Chinese High School which requires all Secondary 2 pupils to take a two-term

Column: 2332

course on conversational Malay and Malay customs and culture without the need for examination. This is good enrichment experience.

Ms Braema spoke on the importance of English language skills for enhanced social interaction. We agree. In fact, even as we refine our Mother Tongue provisions, we will continue to strengthen our English Language teaching. Subjects, such as project work, also provide a useful platform to practise social interaction in both formal and informal settings, eg, in group communication and making presentations. Visiting schools nowadays, I do see students staging plays in the classroom as part of learning. In some of the schools, they also have speakers' corners which are quite well used, unlike our Speakers' Corner.

Sir, I think I have addressed all the questions related to language studies.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Acting Minister for Education (Mr Hawazi Daipi): Sir, on behalf of my Minister, I would like to respond to Mdm Halimah who spoke and commented on sebutan baku , and I would like to speak in sebutan baku .

(In Malay) In the early 1990s, MOE supported the proposal made by the Malay Language Council of Singapore (MLCS) to adopt the standardised pronunciation in Malay language or sebutan baku . MOE did so because the pronunciation system does not change the spelling of the Malay words and does not pose any difficulty in the writing of ML, as each vowel or consonant will have only one sound associated with it. The system provides greater consistency between scripts and the sound. This consistency facilitates the learning of the Malay language for our students who are less exposed to the language at home, including non-Malay students who offer ML in school.

Column: 2333

Sebutan baku was implemented in primary schools in 1993 and in secondary schools, centralised institutes and junior colleges in 1994. To facilitate the teaching and learning of sebutan baku , a section on sebutan baku was included in the new instructional materials based on the revised syllabus that was implemented in the same year as the implementation of sebutan baku , and it was used in the same year.

The audio CD, ETV, E-VIDEO and CD-ROMs were also produced using sebutan baku . Subsequently, sebutan baku was incorporated into the oral and listening comprehension examinations at the national level in 1997 for the GCE 'N','O' and 'A' levels, and in 1998 for PSLE.

MOE had prepared well the ground in the implementation of sebutan baku in schools. MOE had organised training sessions in the form of seminars and workshops for teachers, and deployed project officers to monitor closely and guide the teachers on the use of sebutan baku from 1995 to 1998. The result showed that teachers had responded positively to the implementation of sebutan baku . Examination results and feedback provided by teachers on the students' performance in oral examinations in schools had also been positive.

For the small Malay community in Singapore , it would be better to have a common language policy for the schools and the general community that guides the use of the Malay language led by MLCS. If MOE drops the use of sebutan baku in schools, there will be no uniformity between the spoken language used in schools and in public at formal occasions. This does not support the objectives of MLCS.

The aim of MLCS in adopting sebutan baku is to position Singapore with its Malay-speaking neighbouring countries to

Column: 2334

share a common identity within the language and cultural contexts.

The adoption of sebutan baku is not to replace the existence of the Malay Johore-Riau pronunciation. Historically, Malays in Singapore, owing to our proximity to Johore and Riau, have been using the Johore-Riau pronunciation system in their formal and informal exchanges. While the bazaar-form of Johore-Riau pronunciation is still widely used in daily interactions in informal situations, the use of sebutan baku is encouraged in formal occasions, such as in classroom teaching and learning, delivery of speeches, at seminars, forums, formal meetings, interviews, debates, etc.

A major difference between Singapore and our neighbouring countries in the use of sebutan baku is the presence of various dialects in the latter. In Indonesia, for example, there are more than 250 dialects which, to some extent, may cause linguistic interference that hinders students from acquiring the desired standard pronunciation. The sebutan baku in Indonesia is much influenced by Javanese dialect and words. It is because of this that we do not choose Indonesia as our model, although it has adopted sebutan baku since 1928.

As for Negara Brunei Darussalam, the sebutan baku that is used among the people infuses the Brunei dialect and words into the pronunciation system. However, the students are able to speak in sebutan baku effectively at formal occasions, such as the 'Titian Minda' (Bridging Minds) debate involving Brunei and Singapore pre-university students.

The Chairman: We will stop here. We will continue tomorrow.

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

Column: 2335

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2004/2005, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.