EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)

Column No : 1354

EXEMPTED BUSINESS:

(Motion): Resolved,

That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2. - [Mr Lim Swee Say].

Column No : 1354

Column No : 1354

REVISED CHINESE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM: Debate resumed.

The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Swee Say): ( In Mandarin ): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, recently Yi Jing (Book of Changes) scholars from all over the world held its World Conference in Singapore and I was invited to be the Guest-of-Honour. I consulted Mr Seng Han Thong and sought his help to prepare my speech at the Opening Ceremony. From there, I learnt something about this great classic, Yi Jing or the Book of Changes. In this Book of Changes, it brings forward the theory that everything in the universe is subjected to one of the three very important kinds of changes.

Firstly, bian yi (variance or changes), that is, everything, everybody, every object in this world is subject to changes. Secondly, bu bian (invariance or no change). Although everyone changes, everything changes, certain things remain unchanged. For example, the sky is always the sky; the earth is always the earth, and this is the invariance among the variance. Thirdly, jian bian (simplification). Some have to change while some will not change. So how do we know what has to be totally changed, what does not need to be changed at all? Well, the answer is that if we understand the reason for the change, then embracing change is easier and simple, and life would be easier for us.

In the last few weeks, I have been thinking how I could apply what I have learned from the Book of Changes to this debate in Parliament. This White Paper also brings me to three important points: certain things in the teaching of Mandarin have to change; certain things should not be changed, and the reasons for certain changes must be clearly understood for the changes to be implemented effectively.

I remember when I was a Primary 3 student in the primary section of Catholic High School , I was in the afternoon session. There was a period when every day, at about 12.15 pm , I would have stomachache. So I told my father, "I have stomachache. I cannot go to school." The first time I managed to skip school. The second time I also managed to get through. But on the third time, my father said, "No. It is very serious. Stomachache is all right. But if you have stomachache at 12 o'clock every day, then it is not stomachache; it must be gastric problem. You will have to see a doctor." The doctor examined me and said, "It can't be. Your child is only nine years' old. How could he have gastric problem? I think there must be something in the school that made him not want to go to school." Why was it that I did not want to go to school? Catholic High School was a bilingual school at that time. The standard of English was very high. I could not catch up with the standard of English in the school. Every day, when I attended the English lesson, I would receive corporal punishment for not able to keep up with the lessons, and it was painful, so much so that I dared not go to school.

Why am I telling this story? Because this reminds me that many years ago when I was a student, learning English was very difficult. But, today, the students feel that learning Chinese is difficult. So, which is more difficult? English or Chinese? My conclusion is, no matter whether it is English or Chinese, so long as you are learning a second language, it is going to be difficult. Why? This is because our brain power and our ability to digest our learning is limited. So I think that we have to change our mindset and our expectation of our students in their ability to master two languages. Over the years, we have been pressurising our students. We want everyone to attain a certain level of competence in both the languages. But everybody has different learning abilities. We should not keep on exerting pressures on them.

I remember about 10 years ago, after my two years' posting in the United States , my children attended a primary school in Singapore . Having spent two years in the States, they refused to speak Mandarin at home. I wanted to force them to speak Mandarin, I told them, "From now onwards, every night from 7.00 pm to 8.00 pm , during dinner time, you could only speak Mandarin. No English is allowed. Since you are living in Singapore , as Singaporeans, you have to be bilingual." At that time, my daughter was in Primary 1, but she already had her own mind. She said, "All right. If you force us to speak only Mandarin from 7.00 to 8.00 o'clock every night, then I would keep quiet and not say a word. It is so difficult to speak in Mandarin!" So, when we exert too much pressure on them, I think they will be turned off and repulsive.

I do not agree with the Member for Potong Pasir that if our students have failed in the mother tongue language, they should not be admitted to the university, that we should force them to stay back for one year, and that it would not affect their future. I totally disagree with him. Because if you force our students to stay one more year just because their MTL is no good, it will deal a very heavy blow on them. It would turn them off completely from the MTL and even grow repulsive towards it. I was very fortunate that when I was in Primary 3, when I could not catch up with the English language, Mr Chiam was not the Minister for Education, otherwise I would have to stay back for many years! So, my first point is that we have to change our mindset and accept the varying abilities of individual students to be bilingual.

My next point is that there is one area we cannot change. Since we accept that it is not easy to be bilingual, some people may say why not give up bilingualism altogether and be a monolingual society and monolingual people. This, I do not agree.

A mother mouse brought her children out to look for food one day and they met a cat. They were cornered by the cat and had no means to escape. At that critical moment when the cat was about to catch hold of the baby mice and eat them up, the mother mouse suddenly imitated the barking of the dog. When the cat heard the barking, it became frightened and ran away. So the mother mouse told her children, "All these years, I have been encouraging you to be bilingual. Now, you should know how important and useful to be bilingual."

I think the same applies to us. In this global economy of today, Chinese is used in China and English is used in the United States . If we are monolingual, we will be handicapped. When I was in Shanghai , I met a Singaporean. I asked him, "How is it here?" He said, "It is very good." I asked him, "Why?" He said, "I built up a strong foundation in my Chinese language when I was in primary and secondary school. When I came to China , I was like a fish in the water as I had no difficulty speaking Mandarin. I got along very well with the people here, and my business is very good." So I asked him, "Since you are communicating with the Chinese in Mandarin, which they all know, why are these people attracted to work with you and deal with you? What is so special about you?" He said, "Oh, although I communicated with them in Mandarin, they know that I could also speak and understand English! Because I know English, I would be able to have very direct contacts with the outside world." In other words, we have different strengths from theirs. We complement each other, and it benefits both sides. He is a Singapore fish, but he swims very well in this very great pond in China . He said, "I am a Singapore fish. But I am different from the Chinese fish. That is why the Chinese people find me attractive." So I said, "You are not only a Singapore fish. You are a Singapore frog. You can jump on the land and you can swim in the water. That is why you are doing so well." I think being bilingual is very useful. This is our strong point and this is something we should not easily give up. My second point is therefore this: in a world of change, this is something that should remain unchanged. No matter how we reform our education system, we must maintain our bilingual feature so that as many Singaporeans as possible could still be effectively bilingual, though to varying degrees.

My third point is: having accepted that it is not easy to be bilingual and being monolingual is no good, how should we change our method of learning and teaching? The Member for Potong Pasir said that the recommendation of this White Paper will lead to further decline in the standard of Chinese in Singapore . I do not agree. When my children were young, I wanted them to have a healthy body, and I sent them to a swimming school to learn swimming. Every day, they will go to the swimming pool, change into their swimming costume, do some warming up and then they plunge into the water and swim 20 or 30 laps. It was very boring, and after some time, my children said, "This is very boring. Can we stop the swimming lessons?" I spoke to the coach. I said, "They have learned how to swim. They are very healthy now. But then, they feel that your training method is quite boring." The coach said, "No problem." So the next morning, half way through their swimming, the coach blew the whistle and said, "Let's go to the smaller pool. Let's play water polo there." Since the children found the lap-swimming very boring, he decided to add in water polo, and with water polo, the children became interested. To play water polo well, you need to be able to swim fast. The children now have the incentive to train harder in swimming. By using this water polo method, he managed to enhance the interest of the children in learning swimming. Likewise, if we keep using a boring method to teach our children, sooner or later they will find it boring and lose interest in learning. We have to be innovative so that we can enhance their interest in the learning of the Chinese Language.

Recently, I sought the views of the Chinese teachers' community. I asked them what are the things that they are most concerned with in the teaching of Chinese Language. They told me that they are most concerned that our Singapore students are learning Chinese just for the sake of examination, and the teachers are teaching Chinese because of the school ranking. Because of that, the interest level is getting lower and lower, the effectiveness of learning is getting poorer and poorer, and more students have lost their confidence in the learning of the language. So we must change all these. How do we cultivate their interest, improve the effectiveness and enhance their confidence? I think the recommendations in this White Paper are correct. We have to have more innovative and more flexible use of teaching methods, teaching materials and technology so that our students will have a greater interest in the learning of Chinese. I think this is something that we have to change.

Under the present circumstances of not being easy to practise bilingualism on the one hand, and not being practical to be monolingual on the other hand, we have to make changes to make sure that all the students would sustain the interest to learn. All teachers, parents and students will have to work together to make the teaching and learning of Chinese more interesting and more effective. In Singapore , the overall environment is such that we are using English as our working language. With the rise of China , the opportunity of using Chinese is getting greater and greater in the larger environment of Asia . This means speaking more English in our international dealings, and more Chinese when engaging China . I think the present situation is actually very beneficial to Singapore because Singaporeans can make full use of our English-speaking environment to acquire a good standing in our exchanges with the western world. At the same time, with more opportunities to learn and speak Mandarin in Asia , we will be able to enhance our standards in Mandarin so that we would play a useful role in our engagement with China .

In this respect, I am hopeful that we would be able to strengthen the Chinese Language foundation of our younger generation of Singaporeans, and to make sure that they are better prepared and equipped for the future.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (Hong Kah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the changes proposed by the Review Committee come at a time when the whole education edifice is being reconstructed. Many parents, pupils, principals, administrators and teachers are reeling from the stream of changes the system has undergone over the past 12-18 months, such as through-train, new forms of school ranking, Sports School, Arts School, changes in pedagogical emphasis to continuous and project assessments, and so on and so forth.

This evening, we are here to debate yet more changes. But fundamental issues are at work here, and however unsettling these changes might be, I believe they are vital if we are to survive as a nation. For embedded in our mother tongues are the rich cultural heritage of the vast and ancient civilisations from which our ancestors derived and which anchors us to our Asian identity. If we deny our roots and allow westernisation to totally engulf us, our society would be greatly impoverished.

I, therefore, applaud the spirit of the Committee's recommendations and am in general agreement with the main thrusts to deal with the structural problems hindering Chinese Language learning, especially those from mainly English-speaking homes and, in extreme cases, driving some Singaporeans to migrate.

But I have four concerns which I would like to highlight using the P mnemonic and they are, firstly, pedagogical principles and approaches; secondly, prepping the next generation; thirdly, provision of adequate and appropriate teaching resources and, finally, promoting CL in the wider community.

Pedagogical principles and approaches

The most fundamental change proposed in the current White Paper, in my opinion, is the pedagogical approach to the teaching of Chinese Language. The Report notes that it is important to develop students' reading ability early in order to create and sustain their interest in the language.

The survey conducted by the Committee confirms that an inordinate amount of time is spent on script writing and character stroke memorisation. The Committee recommends that, across all levels, the current emphasis on writing and, in particular, character stroke memorisation for examinations - the cause of much aversion to Chinese Language learning for many children - needs to be changed. The MOE has accepted the Committee's recommendation to shift its teaching approach to "Recognise first, Write later".

These changes in pedagogical approach are welcome as the way Chinese is taught from the time I studied the subject in the 1960s to 1970s and now appears to have remained largely unchanged, except for the introduction of hanyu pinyin and the simplified Chinese characters. All these years, the emphasis remains on spelling, dictation and writing passages from memory even in the lower primary.

I remember my son, when he was in Primary 3 some five years ago, suddenly crying out at 10 pm in the night, as he was still struggling to finish his Chinese writing homework, which can sometimes amount to about 10 pages. He asked me, "Mom, why do I need to do so much writing in Chinese?" A year earlier, my eldest daughter had chicken pox then and could not attend school for two weeks. I had to bring her homework back for her, one of which was Chinese writing. And there were many pages of Chinese writing homework. Taking pity on her as she was still rather sick, I decided to help her write some of the Chinese words. I thought she would write some of the words on each page and I would complete the rest. This way, she would still have an opportunity to learn the words. When I went to school the next time to pick up another set of homework, after having handed in the earlier set, the Chinese teacher made this remark to me in Chinese: "Zhe ge zhen de shi fei chang ji kuai. Wei shen mo zhe ge xie zi, shang ban pian tong tong shi tui de, bu guo xia ban pian tong tong shi cuo de?" She said that it was very funny but you know for this set of homework because my daughter got the strokes right initially, but somehow got them all wrong at the back. That was because mummy wrote it.

I must say that both my older children are not averse to learning Chinese, and they got through the PSLE Chinese examinations reasonably well. In fact, I must confess that they help me now with my Chinese speeches as their command of the language is definitely much better than mine. However, admittedly, they had to spend a disproportionate amount of time learning Chinese Language in order to do well in the examinations. And I believe this story finds echoes in many, many families in Singapore.

Making learning Chinese more interesting through the use of more songs, verses, reading, recitation and other activities with less emphasis on character memorisation for the younger children would help avoid killing the interest in and a joy of learning Chinese for these children. Hopefully, this new approach would, as the Committee envisages in the Report, allow the students to recognise enough characters to read age-appropriate children's literature and thus enthuse them to read at a younger age.

Yet, the Report also seems to imply that the pedadogical approach of "Recognise first, Write later" is not yet conventional wisdom in language learning, even in CL-speaking countries. I wonder if it is then wise to base such a fundamental shift in teaching approach on what seems to be something experimental at this stage. Also, as a substantial number of CL educators will tell us that writing and reading are mutually reinforcing and one should not be emphasised at the expense of the other. How then can we ensure that we will not be dumbing down overall standards, while taking cognisance of the genuine difficulties some pupils face in CL learning? This, in fact, is the de facto primary concern of the Chinese intelligentsia which has led to much public debate and misgivings over the changes made to CL learning through the years.

Each successive change to Chinese Language learning has been largely seen by the Chinese intelligentsia as yielding to populist pressures which will result in lower standards of language learning and, ultimately, a culturally stunted generation of younger people. Even the new pedagogical approach is seen by some as a form of concession to pupils with weaker language aptitude.

Additionally, the CL learning seems to be converging with the learning of the other subjects as schools move towards a more continuous school-based assessment regime. This could well create more stress for pupils who have been drilled by years of emphasis on what the Report calls "high stakes national examinations". I urge the Ministry to promote group-based assignments that can allow mingling of pupils of varying abilities and their project work. Exposure in this way could help the weaker pupils. The stronger ones will still be able to shine in their individual assessments. I also urge that such project work for CL learning be done in classrooms as much as possible to avoid parental assistance, although speaking from personal experience, this is unlikely to be forthcoming even from the English-speaking homes.

I further urge the MOE to monitor the effects that such project-based work have on pupils' stress levels and learning outcomes. The Report also talks about resting of a wider range of skills instead of what is essentially memorisation of Chinese characters. Again, this follows the direction the teaching of non-language subjects are taking. But perhaps we should have graded levels of difficulty and confine such testing of high-order skills to CL and HCL, and not the Bridging or Reinforcement modules, which are essentially coaching classes.

Prepping the next generation

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as part of my personal preparation for this debate, I looked up the Ministerial Statement by then-DPM Lee on the last CL review in 1999. I am struck by the fact that there is an uncanny similarity between the review at that time and what we are now debating. The problems that led to this present review were already highlighted some five years ago, eg, rising percentages of EL-speaking homes, growing economic and political importance of China, and the need for a Chinese elite. The objective of wanting every Singaporean to study his mother tongue for as long as possible and to as high a level as he is capable of was also similar. In fact, the same company, Forbes Research, was also commissioned to do a survey for that review. However, most of the recommendations were then targeted at secondary schools. This present review is now moving the changes upstream, to the primary school levels, in due recognition that it is better to start early and to have a more differentiated and customised approach to allow students to learn as far as their abilities allow.

Sir, should we then not consider shifting these changes even further up the education chain to the pre-primary levels? While I recognise that pre-primary education is not part of the national education system but very much left to the private sector and social sector initiatives, there is implicit recognition that basics count in CL learning, and the earlier we start exposure of the language to our pupils, the better. Given that English-speaking homes are still on the rise, the pre-primary learning environment becomes a crucial bridge for pupils to acquire foundational CL skills. Perhaps the Bridging modules the review spoke of should be developed with a pre-primary orientation in view. I certainly hope that we will not have to debate another review committee's report on CL in pre-primary schools five years from now.

Providing adequate and appropriate resources

I find it quite perplexing and rather ironic but at the same time amusing that, besides the students, many teachers are now also saying that the textbooks and teaching materials are uninteresting and turn off students from wanting to read them. Textbook writers, we are now told, were hitherto constrained in their ability to produce more interesting materials, as they are to stick to five stipulated moral themes and also characters from a prescribed word list. Teachers also blame the current examination format for limiting what they can do to make Chinese lessons lively and interesting. To meet the demands of the curriculum, they say that they have to resort to tried and tested repetitive drilling of students. Yet, I distinctly remember that some three years ago at a dialogue session, I had made the remark that perhaps we can review the teaching method for CL as the emphasis on rote learning on spelling, dictation, etc, does not seem to have changed over the years and this is off-putting to students. Back came the almost immediate retort from a teacher that this is the way Chinese Language ought to be taught, there is no short cut. I was taken aback, but shrugged it off since I am clearly no authority on the language.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I trust there will not be serious resistance to these changes from CL teachers who are themselves the implementors of this new approach to CL learning. Perhaps the sentiment is not shared by all Chinese Language teachers. But I believe that there are Chinese Language teachers who do not necessarily subscribe to the newly advocated approach to teaching and learning CL. Also, if the issues and problems that have been highlighted were known all along by the teachers, why was nothing done about it till now? In fact, it was reported in the press that, when interviewed, a teacher had said that she had heard about the methods emphasising character recognition for a long time now and was eager to try out this new approach. Were there no avenues of feedback to MOE for the teachers? Or, if such feedback were given, why were they not acted upon? What then would trigger follow-up action on feedback received from teachers and principals who are at the ground and have first-hand knowledge of the relevance and effectiveness of MOE's prescribed policies?

Just as the pedagogical approach to teaching CL is the most fundamental change in the current review, the key responsibility of implementing the changes appears to fall on the teachers. Among others, the Report calls for teachers to be trained such that they can identify students who could benefit from the Bridging or Reinforcement modules and advise parents accordingly early on in the school year. Teachers are also called upon to use creative and innovative tools and techniques, including IT project work, etc, to enthuse and sustain children's interest in the learning of CL. Has the Ministry already formulated ideas as to how teachers can be trained adequately to enable them to assess the student's learning abilities and, ultimately, the modules he should take? What diagnostic tools would MOE make available to help the teacher in this task, which may be challenged by the parents?

Clearly, to ensure that the recommended approaches to teaching and learning CL, including the new mantra of "Recognise first, Write later", more innovative teaching methods, etc, yield positive results, existing and new CL teachers must be adequately and appropriately trained and equipped. There is no short cut to this process, and it will take time. Teachers' workload must also be recalibrated so that they will not only have sufficient time to be trained or retrained, but also have time to prepare more creative and interactive lesson projects and tests. Furthermore, even as the slew of sweeping changes are being phased in, and the jury is still out on the success of these changes, the MOE must have built-in mechanisms to monitor and review these changes and gather feedback from the teachers who are implementing the changes, and not hesitate to initiate further changes, if required. Learning from the experiences of the previous review, the MOE clearly does not have a monopoly on wisdom. Therefore, it should develop a dynamic and flexible feedback mechanism to enable it to make timely revisions and refinements to the ambitious changes it is implementing and, hence, ensure its success. This is because we really cannot afford to fail this time, with such fundamental changes and after so many attempts trying to reverse the tide. Otherwise, there are implications on the success of our bilingual policy, with mother tongue learning having seen the most number of changes in the education system to-date.

Promoting the language in the wider community

Sir, the broader problem we face is one of language competition. The rising use of English in homes, and probably the death of Chinese-medium schools close to 20 years ago, stems from its universal acceptance as a global language of commerce and our Singaporean families' well-known pragmatism. If we cast our eyes 20 to 30 years hence, the yuan may become a world currency on par with the US dollar, the Euro and the yen. Chinese may then, likewise, be on par with English or, arguably, even overtake it. There will always be a tension between older Chinese Singaporeans and possibly the Chinese elite and intellectuals on one hand, and the English-speaking folks on the other hand. Some schools are often typecast as " ang mo pai " - English tag, versus " tng nan pai " - Chinese tag, to reflect their pupils' standard of CL ability. This is unfortunate, but perhaps quite unavoidable. I think parents also have their roles to play in this whole equation. They need to make a conscious effort to provide as conducive an environment for their children's CL learning. Of course, that presumes that the parents themselves must attain a certain proficiency in the language and be able to communicate in Chinese to their children in a real-life everyday setting and in a natural way. Perhaps this is the reason why Malays have done better in their mother tongue, as more Malay families speak mother tongue at home.

To assist families, perhaps, our television stations, as my other parliamentary colleagues have alluded to, should re-allocate more prime-time slots to Chinese educational programmes that families can enjoy watching together. We cannot underestimate the power of television and its influence in language acquisition, especially for young minds. My friend's four-year-old daughter thinks that Olinda is better than Sylvester and Taufik any time. Also, the Chinese programming should be less sublimal in content, as some of our Chinese serials are currently perceived as Government propaganda. This can be quite off-putting. Instead, they should be more fun and educational.

In some countries, the learning of second languages is a politically-charged issue, dividing communities and creating much social friction. While we place considerable emphasis on CL learning for reasons of economic survival and national preservation, we must never let our Malay and Indian fellow countrymen feel that their own MTLs are less worthy of such a comprehensive review to strengthen their own ethnic community's social and historical roots. Sir, I am pleased the Ministry will be addressing this issue soon.

With this, Sir, I support the Report's recommendations.

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join in this debate on the White Paper.

Firstly, I must congratulate the Ministry on this initiative to form the Committee to review the Chinese Language curriculum. The recommendations to have a differentiated approach to the learning of the Chinese Language is most welcomed, on the premise that children can now progress in the language at their own ability level and at their own pace, to the best capabilities that the system can allow. Students who develop a love for the language can also opt for the enrichment modules. This is a sound approach, and reading the White Paper also sets one wondering if we could have looked into such changes much earlier.

Nevertheless, what is fulfilling is the Minister's assertion earlier that these changes mean greater flexibility and enjoyment. The word "enjoyment" is precious, because it is great to bring joy as we learn a language. The word "enjoyment" is seldom associated with the acquisition of a second language. So it is my hope that we will not stray from the concept of enjoying the learning of a second language. Speakers before me have already outlined many ways of bringing joy into language learning. All that I will say at this point is that one sure way of taking the fun out is to introduce at too early a stage the rigours of memorising grammar rules and characters, and identifying sentence structures and word type. Children can recoil from the language learning but stay with it out of an obligation to the system an understanding of why it is important to go to school, love for their parents, teachers and tuition teachers. And they have not had fun through a demanding curriculum and workload or perhaps weak teaching techniques. So, enjoyment is very crucial to the learning of a language.

Next, to some concerns that I have. The current bilingual policy is one that limits choice of language by ethnic group. I am asking if we can make it easier for perhaps the Malay and Indian communities to also study Chinese as a second language. Currently, prior approval is needed from the Ministry. While English is our administrative language, Chinese is fast becoming a language of social discourse and for business. In fact, in certain service-oriented industries, being Chinese-speaking has become a pre-requisite for the job.

Let me cite an example of how this phenomenon takes place on the ground. I met an Indian lady from the Women's Executive Committee of a CC at a function, and was intrigued when she told me that their meetings are conducted in Mandarin and she depends on translations from her volunteer colleagues to know what to do as a volunteer. She is not unduly upset. Nevertheless, she is frustrated. If this is the kind of scenario that we have, then as our society is moving, this phenomenon needs both careful moderation and monitoring for social cohesion reasons, as well as we also need to really consider whether we can open up the learning of Mandarin to other ethnic groups and help them along.

I would also like to cite an example of how this can be done. At Alexandra Hospital where I work, up to recently, the President of the Mandarin Toastmasters' Club was our Chief Pharmacist, Ms Fatimah Mohidin Kutty, who is an Indian Muslim and a Malayalee. Tamil is not her mother tongue, but she did Mandarin in school without tuition. She only had tuition for her "O" and "A" levels. Her two sons today, however, do Tamil. Both

parents are not Tamil-speaking. She opted for Tamil because she heard that the Mandarin syllabus has gotten much tougher. Of course now, she does wonder if it was a good choice under this differentiated approach. The point here is that there are parents from other communities who would like to have this option of letting their children study Mandarin.

The other concern that I have is over Tamil as a second language. I was very happy to hear earlier that the Minister has said that there would be a taskforce that would also be set up to look into the issues of what can be done where Tamil is concerned. From what I have gathered, the Tamil standards are considered by some quarters to be too high. There is also a concern about how other Indian languages are being offered, monitored and how the examination processes take place. Perhaps, these could be terms of reference.

Lastly, Singapore's bilingual policy is one step in getting us closer to our cultural roots while we use English for administrative purposes. But with globalisation and markets that can open up in the Arab world, India and South America, we need to be more nimble as we acquire languages. Even as we focus on English and mother tongue, we need to include, in my opinion, a component in the curriculum that deals with multi-culturalism and diversity. Even as we sink roots deeper into our individual cultures, a comprehensive approach to multi-culturalism will make the Singaporean an individual who is ever-ready to appreciate other cultures, who will go into the world, wherever he or she is needed to go, without a trace of cultural imperialism, as Singaporeans whom we can be proud of.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. We shall stop now.

Column No : 1374