START OF DEBATE

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Column: 1383

REVISED CHINESE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM:

(Motion): Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [24th November, 2004],

"That this House endorses the Report of the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee, contained in Paper Cmd 9 of 2004, and supports a revised Chinese Language (CL) curriculum to: (1) enthuse all CL students and develop in them an abiding interest in the language and culture; (2) provide greater customisation and flexibility at the primary level; (3) place greater emphasis on oral fluency and reading for the majority of the students, and for those with the ability and interest, to develop stronger competence and understanding of the Chinese language and culture." - [Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam].

Question again proposed.

Dr Chong Weng Chiew (Tanjong Pagar): (In Mandarin) : Mr Speaker, Sir, the rapid development of Singapore has a lot to do with our choice of the working language. Using English as the working language for our Government agencies, enterprises and workforce has created a lot of investments and job opportunities for us. However, the ever-changing world has also brought new challenges to Singapore. The emergence of China has provided us with a lot of investment and enterprising opportunities. However, if we are unable to adapt to such changes, then the new environment would turn out to be a threat to us.

There was a young man who was interviewed by Lianhe Zaobao , and he said that young people of Singapore are having a competitive edge over others in the international labour market because they are effectively bilingual. He felt that the level of our English is comparable to

Column: 1384

that in Europe and the United States and we are better than the young people in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. We have some basic level of Chinese and for this, we are stronger than the American Chinese. But what I am worried is that this competitive edge may soon go off in 3-5 years' time. The reason is very simple.

More and more Chinese people are actively learning English. They know very clearly the importance of being bilingual. So competition is inevitable. In order to survive, we have to raise our bilingual standard to maintain our competitive edge. Our only resource in Singapore is human resources. So we have to attract talents, retain them and even encourage our people to create (ie, to procreate) new talents and this is of top priority to the Government. If we want to maintain the standard of Chinese just by depending on the schools, I think it is not good enough and it is impossible. We need to do more than just encouraging the speaking of Mandarin in the school environment. At home, at work and at social gatherings, we need to create the environment conducive to the use of Mandarin. Only then can the standard of the language be enhanced, and Chinese can remain as a lively language.

From the experience gathered over the years, I feel that there is still room for improvement as far as the environment for Mandarin-speaking is concerned. In a survey conducted by the Ministry of Education in May this year, there are more and more parents speaking to their children in languages other than Mandarin and now they use English to learn mathematics, science, history and geography and at their place of work, they also use English. No wonder the standard of Chinese has been dropping. The same applies to me.

In my secondary school days, Chinese was my main language of communication.

Column: 1385

But when I went to the university and at work, I seldom used Chinese or Mandarin. In our daily lives, the ratio for our use of the four language skills, that is, listening, speaking, reading and writing, are of unequal proportions. Undeniably, many of our Singaporeans are using less and less Chinese and this is no good because it is only with more listening, more speaking, more reading and more writing that we can improve our standard of Chinese. There is no short cut to it.

For my primary school and secondary school studies, I was in Catholic High School, where both Chinese and English were our first language. But among all the subjects, the one that I hated most was Chinese because I am not a language expert. Chinese was very difficult to learn and Chinese was consistently my worst subject. But my father insisted that Chinese was important and every Sunday, I had to memorise Chinese texts, otherwise he would pull my ears. Therefore, during my school days, I hated Sundays and my ears were extra large on Sundays because of the punishment. I have to emphasise that Chinese is difficult to learn but if we think that the language is useful to us, we must persist and not relax on our learning of Chinese.

Now, I would like to talk about immersion. Immersion has long-term effects on our learning of the language. Talking about immersion, I fully support this bicultural programme that was proposed recently. Among them, the students could go to colleges in China where they could have the opportunity for immersion learning. Yesterday, my parliamentary colleague, Mr Gan Kim Yong, talked about the arrangement for our students to go for immersion in Chinese. It is not simple and not cheap too. Such opportunities are not easy to come by.

Not long ago, I went with Minister of State, Mr Chan Soo Sen, to dialogue

Column: 1386

sessions with new emigrants from China to Singapore. They suggested to us that our students could have immersion programmes at Chinese clan associations or at their homes and spend time with them there, so that they could have a feel of our lifestyle and get in touch with Chinese culture and Mandarin as spoken by native Mandarin speakers. I hope that the Minister for Education would consider this suggestion.

The rapid development of China's economy has made the world realise the importance of Chinese and Mandarin in the international stage. But in Singapore, where English is the working language, many students and parents do not attach much importance to Chinese because most students, after graduation, will stay in Singapore and they will use mainly English. So if we want to convince our students and their parents that we need to spend more efforts in learning Mandarin, we must, first of all, attach more importance to our bilingual talents, particularly in the Government departments. For promotion and rewards in the Government service, is the proficiency in two languages one of the important factors for consideration? It is only when Government officers who are effectively bilingual are given the respect and recognition, that we can encourage more people to learn Chinese and be effectively bilingual.

Finally, I would like to suggest that the Minister for Education consider using the examination system used by the Associated Board of the Royal School of Music (ABRSM) in Singapore. In Singapore, many students learn music and they go through the graded examination process of the ABRSM examinations. There is neither time limit nor age limit. You take whatever grade of examination you like according to your learning progress, as and when you are ready. It is very flexible. Maybe we can apply this

Column: 1387

kind of system to test our students in Chinese.

I support the reform recommended by the Committee with the hope that future generations of Singaporeans can be effectively bilingual to ensure a good future for Singapore.

Dr Gan See Khem (Nominated Member): Sir, I support the White Paper on changes to the Chinese Language curriculum and pedagogical approach. I applaud the Government's responsiveness to problems that had arisen over the years on the way Chinese as a language has been taught and received by our students in the schools.

As a Chinese-speaking community member, I support the approach of making the learning of the Chinese Language a more fun approach and make it less onerous for our students. I like the new pedagogy where we do not teach the Chinese Language, but we teach the students how to learn the Chinese Language. I hope that the students will develop a more healthy attitude towards learning Chinese and set out for themselves a lifetime interest to acquire more ability with the language later on in their lives.

Singapore is well-placed in Asia with our ability to conduct business and Government in English and this has enhanced our links to the global community. At the same time, our ethnic and cultural links to the great civilisations and economies in Asia will give us a competitive edge as a nation to capitalise on the political, socio-economic resurgence of Asia on the global stage.

For these reasons, the Chinese community had wholeheartedly supported the Government's focus on English as the official language and also the learning of

Column: 1388

the mother tongue as a compulsory subject in schools. The learning of mother tongues has other values to Singaporeans as it transmits values and philosophies inherent in our Asian heritage and provides the moral fibre that enriches our family, community and national fabric. Hence, we have both the pragmatic and intrinsic reasons to continue to promote the dual language policies of the past.

A point I want to note here is that if Chinese is seen now more as a learning language rather than an examination language with Singapore parents and students, will it mean that more of these students will give less priorities to the learning of Chinese and focus their time and resources more to the learning or the preparation for examinations for mathematics, science and other subjects in schools? Does it lead to the eventual decline in our ability to use our mother tongues?

If we are to adopt the new pedagogy successfully, it may mean that some of our students may not make an effort to acquire the learning of Chinese. We have already experienced a generation where ethnic Chinese do not speak, some do not write or some do not read Chinese. In this transition stage, we need to be doubly concerned about the spurious effects of the learning outcomes if we forgo the examination approach towards the learning of the Chinese subject.

What is the solution? There are many approaches towards enhancing the learning of Chinese. I would like to speak this afternoon, Sir, on creating a more Chinese environment where the usage and cultural context of the Chinese language can be appreciated. We need to engage our ethnic Chinese Singaporeans in using the language and we need to assure them that there are some relations of the language to our real life. A tour of China, to any ethnic Chinese, will make it very clear why they need to learn Chinese. The

Column: 1389

immense historical and the immense economic potential of learning and able to communicate in Chinese when they are in China, is a great impetus. We do not need to make Chinese an examination language in order to encourage ethnic Chinese to want to learn Chinese.

I like to propose that the learning of Chinese need not be confined to the period where the students are in school. In fact, the learning of Chinese and other languages continues throughout our lives. I would like a little opportunity to share my own experience. I had six years of Chinese as a language in a Chinese school, from primary one to six. At the secondary level, I switched to an English school and I had taken Malay as a second language, and I continued with English in 'A' levels, in my first degree, my Master, my PhD and the rest of my career. I have not had a chance to ever have to use Chinese. At the age of 44, I had my first brush with Chinese, after an absence of more than 32 years. When I joined the Singapore Gan Clan Association as a member, they elected me promptly as Vice President, and I really felt under privileged because I could not communicate with my clan people in Mandarin. The problem got even more serious when I was elected to the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce where all the meetings are held in Chinese and minutes are written in Chinese. At that stage, I made up my mind that I needed to learn Chinese.

A tour to the Suzhou industrial park, before the Singapore party signed with China, made it even more serious an issue personally to learn Chinese because when I went there, the Chinese side designated a translator for me. When I was in China, they did not think that I could communicate or understand when they spoke in Chinese. All these gave me fuel to rethink my priorities. And in my late 40s, I decided to subscribe seriously and read the Lianhe Zaobao. In fact, I learnt

Column: 1390

more from the Chinese papers and through other Chinese magazines. I seriously took an effort to learn Chinese and I am quite happy that today I am competent to hold a dialogue and to read in Chinese, and I can hold my head high when I am in the Chinese-speaking community in Singapore.

I believe that our Ministry's approach to let the children learn some Chinese when they are young sets the foundation. We cannot force them to want to learn a language if they do not feel that it relates to their lives. But that foundation, when I was between 6 and 12, has set for me in my subconscious level an ability to pick up the language when I really needed it and I am motivated to learn. So the creation of a learning environment at the primary school level is really very important.

The second matter I would like to bring up in this House is that there are already many Chinese community associations in Singapore that continue to promote the Chinese language environment, chief amongst which is the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce. At the prompting of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce organised the first world Chinese Entrepreneurial Convention in 1989, and this has become a bi-annual world event where the top notch in the Chinese business community gather to meet and to network, and Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce plays a very active role and our members are actively involved in the dialogues of business in Chinese.

The Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce also trains adults in Chinese language and has been doing so successfully over the past 17 years. It has organised hundreds of Chinese language events, activities, tours, visits to China, visits from China of officials and business communities and many, many

Column: 1391

more. It is a very rich Chinese speaking and Chinese business speaking environment.

The Singapore Chinese Chamber also organises the hanyu shui ping kao shi , which is the Chinese equivalent of TOEFL . Every year, hundreds of Singapore students make an effort. Even though it is not required by MOE or their schools, they make an effort to go to the Singapore Chinese Chamber to take the hanyu shui ping kao shi, and they all score very well.

The Singapore Chinese Chamber is involved with the Speak Mandarin Campaign and wishes to do more at a higher level.

There are other community Chinese associations, eg, the Char Yong (Da Bu) Association. It has created the Hakka Culture Heritage Museum and organised many activities in Chinese. It has organised young Singaporeans to go to China on study tours. It has donated to schools and it has links to schools historically.

The Gan Clan Association, that I am associated with, has organised the World Gan Clan Congress, a Chinese-speaking environment where Singapore Gan Clan members interact with members from other countries, all in Mandarin. And so does the Hokkien associations where they preserve the Chinese temples where they sponsor schools and they also organise children's cultural classes, and ethnic Chinese students happily join them and learn how to sing and dance in Chinese.

The civil service uses English as the official language, but we hope that the civil service would also promote some correspondence in Chinese, so as to make the use and learning of Chinese more relevant to our lives.

Column: 1392

I want to relate one small incident. The Singapore Chinese Chamber was so pleasantly surprised when we received a letter from the Ministry of Education inviting us to send our representatives to the dialogue with Committee members on the White Paper on Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review, and the letter was written in Chinese. Our members were overwhelmed. They were pleasantly surprised. They were encouraged and they really had a very good feeling. And this little fact is noted in this particular copy of Chinese Enterprise, our monthly magazine. So we hope other civil servants from other Ministries would emulate MOE's approach, where possible, to engage the community with the use of Chinese Language, create a more Chinese Language environment so that Singaporeans can actually see some practical use of Chinese.

Additionally, we would like to see more focus on bilingualism in the Government website, signages for roads, MRT stations, airports, so that we can see English words written, we can also see Chinese words written.

Mr Speaker Sir, I support the proposals set out in the Report of the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee.

Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Report of the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee has recommended very substantial changes in the teaching of the Chinese Language. This is an important review for the Chinese community. It faces serious challenges in ensuring that young Chinese Singaporeans remain proficient in their mother tongue. In the words of the Minister for Education, "Chinese Language learning will also continue to serve the purpose of transmitting culture and values in a natural and engaging way." That, in a

Column: 1393

nutshell, is the raison d'etre for learning our mother tongue. It helps to root us to our history and reinforce our sense of belonging.

Let me, Sir, relate a personal experience. I studied Chinese in the first few years of my primary school education because my school did not offer any other second language. Then, when I was in primary 3, the school introduced Malay and Tamil second languages. Immediately, half of the students in my class dropped Chinese and took up Malay as a second language. As that was a predominantly Chinese school, most of those who switched to Malay were Chinese students who could not cope with the language as they came from non-Chinese speaking homes. I see a repeat of the same problem today and I therefore understand the need for a review if the Chinese community is to remain connected to their roots.

Sir, now that there has been a review of the Chinese Language, the question is whether there will be a review of the Malay and Tamil languages as well. In Parliament yesterday, the Minister for Education had confirmed that a review of the Malay and Tamil mother tongue languages would also be carried out and that a high level committee would be set up for this purpose.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are actually two schools of thought in the Malay community on the need for a review. One school of thought feels that there is no need for a review of the Malay Language. They cited statistics to show that Malay students are faring well in the Malay Language. There is a high rate of pass in the Malay Language at all levels. Furthermore, most Malay students come from homes where Malay continues to be the spoken language. In fact, only 22% of the children in primary schools come from English-speaking homes. This school of thought is concerned that a review may

Column: 1394

result in the dilution of the Malay Language teaching in schools and result in a lowering of standards.

The other school of thought, however, feels that a review is necessary. They pointed out that although there is no problem for Malay students today, they see trends which are similar to the problems faced by the Chinese community. As Malay parents become better educated, English will replace Malay as a language spoken at home. Already, as the Minister had pointed out, among Malay children, if one parent is a graduate, 60% speak English at home.

I agree with the second school of thought. I am not convinced that a review of the Malay Language will result in the lowering of standards. Whilst I agree that we should not be doing a review of the Malay Language just because the Chinese Language has already gone through a review, I believe that the review will provide a great opportunity to strengthen the relevant use and application of the Malay Language among Malay students and, more generally, in the Malay community itself. Hence, I support this review of the Malay Language.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are a few areas which I think the Ministry should look into when reviewing the teaching of Malay Language in our schools. In my view, there should be a greater focus on improving the oral communication skills among Malay students. There is a concern that our students lack strong oral communication skills and this is obvious when you listen to even bright students from the JCs, polytechnics or universities. Although Malay students continue to do well in the examinations, there is a lack of interest in using the Malay Language outside school. This inability to communicate well orally is particularly obvious when conversations require the articulation of more complex ideas and

Column: 1395

thought processes. So the challenge for us is how to make the Malay Language more alive and interesting, particularly to the young, so that they will use it not only in schools but also in their normal everyday life.

Sir, we also need to promote greater interest in the reading of Malay reading materials. I agree that this arises partly because of a lack of interest in the language, but I believe that it is also a chicken and egg problem. There is a dearth of good Malay reading materials, both in the bookshops and in our libraries. Even Malay assessment books are hard to get, the nightmare of many children, but that is a fact. Our libraries do not stock up enough Malay books and the selection is limited. Those interested in buying Malay books often have to cross the Causeway and purchase them from bookshops there. As a result, young Malays today read more English books, magazines and periodicals.

If we accept that books and other reading materials are important in helping to transmit values and culture, then we should be concerned that our children may be picking up a lot of the values and culture that are alien and foreign to us. In my view, the Ministry of Education should explore ways of encouraging and incentivising the publication of more good quality reading materials in Malay, such as books, magazines, periodicals and even comics that are interesting but, at the same time, will capture the shared experiences of Singaporeans and the Malay community here.

A lot of the materials in Malay that are available here are quite unreadable, not just from the language point of view but also in terms of the contents and the messages that are being transmitted. In order to cultivate a greater interest in our mother tongue languages, whether Malay,

Column: 1396

Chinese or Tamil, it is not sufficient to merely look at the school system. We should study the entire eco-system to see how we can create an environment that will make it easier for people to use our mother tongues.

Sir, the Chinese Language Review Committee touched on several key areas in its work. This includes a review of the methodology and the curriculum as well as the training of teachers. I will not repeat those points except to say that the same areas and for the same reasons mentioned in the Report, those should be the focus of review for the Malay Language. The young today live in a multi-media world and traditional methods will no longer appeal to them. Methodology needs to change

through the use of IT or other forms of teaching methods which are lively, interesting and challenging. Malay Language teachers have raised concerns about the opportunities for them to upgrade their skills and improve their career prospects. There have been improvements. But more can be done to help them upgrade their knowledge and skills and therefore be more effective Malay Language teachers.

Sir, the Review Committee has proposed the introduction of the Bicultural Studies Programme to promote a deeper understanding of the Chinese culture and language among Chinese students. I would like to know if the same type of programme will be extended to the Malay and Tamil students as there is a need in the two communities as well for a core group of people who are well versed and understand deeply our language and culture. So I hope that the Minister would also address this point.

Let me now raise two points with regard to teaching of the Tamil Language mother tongue. Some Tamil parents have expressed concern that if the number of Tamil students continues to decline, the Ministry of Education will stop conducting

Column: 1397

Tamil Language classes at certain schools. In line with our efforts, Sir, to promote greater mother tongue proficiency across all the language streams, I would like to ask the Ministry of Education to give an assurance that schools will continue to conduct Tamil Language classes even if the number of Tamil pupils declines.

Secondly, Sir, I would like to ask what the Ministry intends to do for non-Tamil Indian languages. I note that my parliamentary colleague, Mr Inderjit Singh is not here, so I thought it opportune that I should raise it on his behalf as well. Will the Ministry be conducting the same review as it is doing for the Tamil Language? Will it also consider allowing students who are taking non-Tamil Indian languages as their mother tongue to use their marks for the purpose of applying for scholarships and other awards? And for the teachers, when their promotions are being considered. Currently, non-Tamil Indian languages are treated differently from the Tamil Language and they should be reviewed.

In conclusion, Sir, I would like to stress that MOE's efforts to promote greater use of the Chinese Language among the young must be balanced against continued efforts to develop initiatives on multi-culturalism. In today's turbulent world where ethnic and religious strife can be found in almost every part of the world, we have been able to maintain a great deal of sanity and rationality in our inter-ethnic relations. This is not a coincidence, but has been a subject of special nurturing by increasing the common space and developing a common understanding over sometimes very sensitive issues of race and religion. All our races have been able to co-exist in peace because we share the same common values and goals. We need to continue to expand this common space. For the students who are doing the Chinese Bicultural Studies Programme, the aim is to help them develop, and I quote

Column: 1398

from the Report, an "intuitive understanding of history, culture and contemporary developments in China". If these students have a very strong understanding of China but know little about the other races and their cultures and traditions, then the opportunity to develop common grounds will be very much reduced, and this will have repercussions on us.

I want to stress, Sir, that my comments would equally apply to Malay and Tamil students who undergo the Bicultural Studies Programme, if this programme is indeed extended to them as well. So I do hope that in its review process, the Ministry will take into consideration this point as well and will continue to expand on efforts to promote multi-culturalism, both in and outside the school. It may sound odd, Sir, but I must tell you that from Primary 3 to Secondary 4, I was taught the Malay Language by a Singaporean Chinese teacher. That was also something uniquely Singaporean then.

On this note, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): ( In Mandarin ): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee has, under the framework laid down by the Minister for Education, accomplished its task and made recommendations as to what direction the teaching of CL will take in the future. As a member of the Chinese community I thank all members of the Committee for their hard work.

Today, in this august chamber of Parliament, we are lucky to have the opportunity to seriously debate this White Paper. For this, we have to thank another statesman. He is none other than the late Mr Deng Xiao Ping of China. Without Mr Deng, there would not have been China's reform and opening-up. Without China's reform and opening-up, there would not

Column: 1399

have been China's economic resurgence; and without China's economic resurgence there would not have been a chance for the Chinese Language revival in this almost predominantly English environment in Singapore, where the Chinese Language and Chinese culture are languishing even if they are not on the verge of extinction.

Though the Government has on many occasions reiterated that bilingualism is the pillar of our education system, for reasons unknown to us, it has not fully implemented the policy in the true spirit of bilingualism. The balance has all along tilted towards the English Language in the policy and CL has long become a mere embellishment.

In 1966, the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew pointed out that teaching Chinese for two or three periods a week was not enough. One or two other subjects, be it history or geography, could be taught in Chinese. However, after 40 years, the Chinese Language is still taught as a single subject in our school. In 1974, Mr Lee Kuan Yew also said that even at the cost of a lower standard of the English Language at Primary 6 and Secondary 4 levels, the Chinese Language was still worth learning as the standard of English could be picked up when the students continued to read and write in the language after they left school. And today, after 30 years, our policy has been the reverse. This is what we call "to preach one thing and practise another". You hear the footsteps on the staircase but you do not see a person coming down.

For a long time, deviation in the bilingual policy has led to a social mindset that looks down and even being hostile towards the Chinese Language, where the social context for its development is adverse. Today, our economic imperatives

Column: 1400

have made the use of CL a practical need but the gulf between the two has become almost unbridgeable.

To remedy this situation, our so-called far-sighted but indeed short-sighted Government is now trying to fix things up. In order to cover up its short-sightedness, it is trying to put all the blame on the "dull" and "uninteresting" pedagogy used in CL teaching - hence the report on the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review. What motivates the Government is purely economic and not cultural consideration.

Hence, if there is still a ray of hope for the CL to develop in this island state, can we not pay a tribute to Mr Deng Xiao Ping? Of course, MM Lee would emphasise that "Singapore would adjust its language teaching policy according to the trend of language development in the world as a whole and this would not be the last adjustment." The trend in world language development, in fact, means the trend in world economic development. With this basic tune in policy formulation, I think we have to, with joss sticks in hand both in the morning and at night, pray that the Chinese economy would always be at the zenith and continue to prosper to ensure that our Government would continue to attach importance to CL teaching and our future generations will have opportunity in learning their mother tongue and their own culture.

Now, let me touch on the contents of the report. Right from the beginning, the report reaffirmed the Government's bilingual policy, namely, English as the dominant language for survival and MTL as a second language to keep one's root. Is this the Government's policy tenet or constraint self-imposed by the Committee? We have seen the consequences of such a policy. Can we not redress such imbalance in this assumption? Is it true that a student who is weak in English will necessarily be

Column: 1401

lacking in the ability to learn the mother tongue language? Or is it that if one is weak in English, there is no point for him to master the mother tongue?

Given the present linguistic environment, a student whose MTL is better than his English would be quite competent to communicate with other races in English and use the language in his work. The above assumption leads to a restriction that a student must attain a certain standard in English and other subjects before he is allowed to take Higher Chinese. This restriction seems to run counter to the principle in the report that a student should be allowed to study MTL and to excel in it if he has the talent for it.

The Review Committee has obviously bought the complaint that CL is difficult to learn and learning it is time-consuming. But a survey attached to the report says that the proportion of students taking tuition in English Language and Mathematics is higher than that for Chinese Language. What does this show? Is Chinese the only subject that is difficult to learn? The survey does not give figures on the passing rates for the three subjects, but I guess the passing rate for Chinese would not be lower than those for other subjects.

Moreover, one of the tenets in Chinese culture is the spirit to persevere. While we want to inherit the Chinese culture through CL, you have people complaining that Chinese Language is too difficult to learn. Is this not a big contradiction? What we are facing today, I am afraid, is the question of mindset and not necessarily the question of intellect.

With the assumption that Chinese Language is difficult to learn and write, the Committee recommends that in primary schools, students should learn to recognise the characters first before writing them. At the PSLE, the emphasis will be on listening, speaking and reading

Column: 1402

rather than writing. On this, I have some reservations. Listening, speaking, reading and writing represent the two big components of a language, the spoken language and the script. Listening and speaking form the oral part while reading and writing form the written part of the language. As Chinese is not a phonetic language but an ideogram, reading and writing cannot be separated. The close linkage between character recognition and writing reinforces each other in strengthening the memory of the characters.

I understand that in the context of our language environment, learning Chinese is a difficult task and it is not easy to learn the Chinese characters. But to separate the recognition and writing the characters into two parts and thus thinking that taking away the writing would help the students to learn CL faster is amounting to running away from reality. It is like cutting your toes to fit the shoes.

I agree with the modular approach suggested by the report, but the report is silent on the content and objectives of the various modules. Neither does it say when students should start to learn to write. While acknowledging that learning to write would help students to remember the characters and thus learn new words, the Committee felt that students should not be made to learn by rote the vocabulary items. May I know in what subject the students are not required to have repetitive practice in order to master the subject matter? What is absurd is that the report indicated that the objective of learning to write is merely to appreciate Chinese calligraphy!

In the report we find that one of the outcomes of studying Chinese is the ability to write a short composition of 80-100 words with the help of a dictionary at the examination. Furthermore, at the PSLE, pupils will be tested on the knowledge based on the core modules

Column: 1403

which emphasise listening and reading. This means that, first, it would not be necessary for the students to learn how to write, because at the PSLE, emphasis is on listening and speaking; secondly, electronic dictionary can be used for the essay writing at the examination. It is faster to check the characters on the dictionary. Ability to write the characters is not important; thirdly, if the teacher wants to teach the students to write, the teaching objective is to let the students appreciate the Chinese calligraphy. In other words, basically when the students complete their primary school studies, they could only listen and speak Mandarin.

Unless the Government can, in the near future, create a Chinese learning environment where students can immerse in the language I can say for sure that the outcome of this Chinese Language teaching system will be that students are unable to recognise the characters, let alone able to read Chinese. Therefore, "recognise first, write later" will produce the phenomenon that you recognise first, and forget later, leading to the predicament of having able to speak Mandarin but unable to read or write in Chinese.

Many PAP MPs spoke in Mandarin in the House yesterday about their experience in the learning of Chinese, and claimed that despite having neglected the language for a number of years, they would quickly revive their ability to use the language if there is a conducive environment. Hence, they find that the recommendations in this Report are feasible. However, they have forgotten that their proficiency in the Chinese Language is the product of the old pedagogy where, apart from listening and speaking, equal emphasis was placed on reading and writing, and that they belong to a generation where Chinese 'B' was

Column: 1404

not yet available. Had they completed their primary school education with only the listening and speaking abilities in the language, I doubt very much they would be able to use Chinese at ease today.

The Report thinks that in view of the advance in IT technology, students do not have to learn writing as they can easily input their ideas with the help of computers or electronic dictionaries. But they forget that there are many Chinese words with similar sounds and similar shapes. It is not easy to pick the one you look for from among so many characters with similar sounds. I have reservation on the "recognise first, write later" approach. I beg to differ on the committee's recommendation that PSLE examination places emphasis on oral fluency and reading. The focus of this debate in Parliament should be whether pupils should only acquire oral and reading skills at the end of primary education and not "recognise first, write later" approach which is a pedagogy technique. I hope that the education policy makers would reconsider very carefully before implementing this recommendation in the report. Because eventually the students produced by this bilingual policy of ours will be those who can only speak the language but are, in fact, illiterate in Chinese.

If the advance in IT technology obviates the need to learn how to write Chinese characters, why not resort to electronic translating machines to translate English into various languages? So there is no need to study Chinese!

To say that we can use the IT products and therefore not necessary to learn how to write the Chinese characters is a shortsighted policy.

On the other hand, how does the primary school modular approach link up with the secondary school syllabus? Will there be a problem when students

Column: 1405

proceed to secondary school where the requirement at "O" level is for students to write an essay of 250 to 300 words in the Chinese syllabus? The report has not given any details. What worries me is that the PSLE pupils, who are good at understanding and speaking, would not be able to tackle the secondary school's Chinese syllabus and hence opt for syllabus 'B', or some kind of foundation Chinese, so much so that Chinese syllabus 'B' will then become the standard bearer of the Chinese language, resulting in a general shift downward of the standard of Chinese language. Is this what the Committee has already foreseen but has not published in the report? If the outcome of the recommendations in the report would result in pupils being able only to converse in Chinese, then I suggest that it is more appropriate to term it "Mandarin" rather than "Chinese" curriculum.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the MOE's survey suggests that three factors contribute to the difficulty in the learning of Chinese Language: (1) inadequate exposure; (2) the mindset issue (pupils from English speaking homes do not like Chinese); (3) Chinese characters are difficult to write. To redress the fact that people have inadequate exposure to Chinese, the Committee recommends that more speaking Chinese environment be created in the community and that a Committee be set up with the help of the grassroots organisations, the media and the schools to achieve this. Only in this way can we help to create a big and conducive environment to expand the space for learning Chinese. I support this recommendation.

But how do we make sure that we could get the various sectors in our society, who used to be so pragmatic and practical, to cooperate in this effort? For example, students are encouraged to excel in the Chinese language to their highest attainable standard. But some

Column: 1406

schools may balk at this for fear that this may affect their school ranking because school principals are given autonomy in deciding which Chinese module should a student be assigned to. We have a media report recently that a student was barred from taking Higher Chinese just because the school "mistakenly" thought that she was not up to the required marks in certain subjects as laid down by the MOE. Had it not been for the news report, this student would have missed the chance to study and excel in Higher Chinese.

Will these recommendations remain as recommendations eventually? Does the Government have the sincerity and political will to implement these recommendations? Let us wait and see.

As for changing the mindset, the report does not offer any suggestion. The Committee reasons that since pupils find it difficult to learn how to write Chinese, therefore, let us start with word recognition and put off writing till a later stage. But later, should they find Chinese difficult to remember because it is not a phonetic language and each character has very complicated strokes and put off by such difficulty, shall we waive them from reading Chinese character as well? After all we need only the spoken language to communicate.

There was an article in Lianhe Zaobao' s column that related a person who was unable to tell the difference between a doctorate degree holder and a medical doctor when they saw the words "DR" or "doctor". The writer is saddened that if we keep giving way in lowering the standard of the Chinese language and CL is simplified to such an extent that you can use both "doctorate" and "medical doctor" interchangeably, then there is no point in learning Chinese any more.

How do we sort out and solve the present problems?

Column: 1407

The conclusion of the MOE's survey reveals that as one gets older, one loses his interest in learning Chinese and that students like Chinese because they find it comfortable to communicate with each other in Chinese, and not because they like to read in Chinese or write in Chinese. I think this is the crux of the problem. As one gets older, one finds less interest in studying Chinese. Is it because there is less and less opportunity to use the language? Or is it because students do not lay a firm ground in Chinese Language in primary school and so they tend to give up when they find the going difficult? They like to speak in Mandarin to each other even though they do not like the language. Is it because the environment is conducive in speaking Mandarin or is it because they have acquired the competence in speaking? Unfortunately, the Committee did not pursue further to find out the real cause of the issue.

If the problem faced by our students is due to a bottleneck in catching up caused by a weak foundation and if they are comfortable in conversing in Mandarin because they have mastered the skill in speaking the language, then the way to redress the problem is to strengthen the teaching of Chinese in primary schools
so that they will have acquired the ability to listen, speak, read and write the language when they go to secondary schools. For those coming from English-speaking homes, apart from adopting a more suitable teaching method, they should have more time in learning Chinese than English in school.

Second, pre-school education is the period when the learning of languages is at its optimum. The report suggested collaboration between MOE and pre-school education operators to start teaching mother tongues to pre-school kids using the suggested new pedagogy, but gave no details. I think this is an area

Column: 1408

we should explore further. Pre-school children are more flexible by nature, free from any bias and, also, they are free from any examination pressures. They should be exposed more to the mother tongue for consolidating their feelings towards mother tongue and reducing the possibility of disliking the mother tongue at later life. With this emotive foundation laid in pre-schools, they need only to concentrate more on laying a good foundation of the language in primary schools and deepen and strengthen their standard in the secondary schools, and they can then have a solid foundation to enrich their language.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the difficulty in learning a language and that the process of learning is arduous and full of anxiety. Many, like me, who were Chinese educated, can testify to this. I also agree that we should continue to improve the pedagogy of learning with the help of modern IT technology so that pupils find it easy to learn the language. But to believe that advanced IT technology can work wonders in language learning and spare us the effort and hard work in learning is tantamount to blindly believe in the power of science and technology and neglect the function of humanity and culture.

Of course, I would not be so naive as to expect all students to be effectively bilingual. But if we are convinced that bilingualism is the cornerstone of our education system and the root to nation-building and sustained existence of our multi-racial, multi-cultural society, then we must respect our mother tongue language. We must ensure that all our students attain a reasonable level of proficiency in their own mother tongue.

Regrettably, over the years, our political leaders are always linking our important language, cultural and educational policies with economic consideration. No doubt, it is not

Column: 1409

necessarily utilitarian when we analyse issues from the economic perspective in formulating the framework for our policies. However, if we totally disregard the social cost in doing so, and its possible damage to our humanitarian culture and do not strive a balance between economic development and humanitarian development, then it is short-sighted and dangerous.

Mencius said, "To cure a 7-year old illness, you need a 3-year supply of moxa as its cure. If there is no provision and stock for it, this illness will never be cured." The Chinese Language problem in Singapore is like a "7 year-old illness". Now we want to hop on to the bandwagon of China's emerging economy and prescribing a medicine for the next three years. However, if we do not prescribe based on the major cultural premises, do not change the language environment to make it more conducive in using language, do not thoroughly rectify the various mental blocks and bias against the Chinese Language by the Government, society, the parents, and the students, then no matter what prescription we give, including this White Paper, the serious illnesses would never be cured.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): ( In Mandarin ): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hougang has spoken very eloquently and very rapidly. I could understand him. Our interpreter is also interpreting very fast. But I am afraid many of our Members may not be able to grab the essence of his speech. So I would like to tell him, if it is a matter of importance, it should be spoken steadily and confidently. If he is not confident about the arguments he is putting forward, then he should not have spoken at all. It is too early to predict if these recommendations would result in better results, and I would like to rebut his arguments. If he is not happy with my criticism on his arguments, he should tell me so.

Column: 1410

Mr Low said that we had to be grateful to Mr Deng Xiao Ping. If there was no Deng Xiao Ping, there would not be economic reform and opening up in China , then China 's economy would not have emerged and this report would not have been prepared and presented for debate here today. I agree with him so far. But he said that the PAP Government had not practised what it preached, and that we had changed our stand. I do not agree.

Actually, if we do not have our bilingual system from the early days of nation building, we would not have the SAP schools and I would not be able to send my children to a SAP school. I can tell you that both my children are effectively bilingual. They also study Malay as the third language and have scored good results in it. This is the advantage of our bilingual policy.

Mr Low said that if China 's economy had not emerged, then we would not have this report. I do not think so. We have to look at the general trend in the world. Chinese is a very ancient language. China is a very big country. But, unfortunately, in the 60s and 70s, they had the cultural revolution. And in the 90s, they had the Tiananmen event which had very seriously impacted their society. But we could all see that the economy of China has taken off. The giant has awakened and the Chinese language is of substantial economic value now.

Many parents in Singapore send their children to English schools because English is the working language in Singapore . But we still want to maintain our ethnic roots, and hence we want our children to learn Mandarin. Just now, Mr Low said that our Members were able to speak Mandarin because they had benefited from the bilingual system. I came from a Chinese school and many of our Members have narrated their difficulty

Column: 1411

in learning the languages. Mr Ong Ah Heng also told us how the Chinese teachers were afraid that parents would send email to the MOE to complain if they had pressurised the students to complete their homework, so they had to relax their demands on the students. This is a fact.

But English itself is also a difficult language to learn. This reminds me of the hardship I suffered when I was studying English during my school days. I came from a Teochew speaking family. I learned it the hard way. I had to check the dictionary every now and then when I was reading the newspapers. I used to listen to the radio to brush up my English with the hope that I would score good results. I had to learn spelling, dictation and sometimes with just a "t" missing or "d" missing, I would fail my examinations. And I had to study grammar - past tense, present tense, past perfect, present perfect; come, came, come; sing, sang, sung, and so on. We had to learn the pronunciation. I devised my own system by using Chinese characters of similar sound to help in my pronunciation of the English words. Hence, watermelon became wa de mei ren , (my beauty), and the word "English" became yingou liushui (water flowing in the drain).

Half way through my secondary school, all of a sudden, the medium of instruction for mathematics, chemistry, physics lessons was changed from Chinese to English, and we had to use English textbooks. It was hell for me. But, what could I do? It was very difficult, but I just refused to say die. I had to bite the bullet and work harder. I was prepared and willing to work hard because I wanted to have a good command of English for my future endeavours. If you have to suffer, you must suffer it willingly. Then, the suffering is less painful. Otherwise, you are really suffering for your whole life. There are bitterness and sweetness in

Column: 1412

learning a language. If you have the will, you will have the way. Mr Zainudin can speak very good French. I am sure he must have put in a lot of efforts learning it. Dr Ahmad Magad speaks German. He must have sweated and toiled for some time before he could master it. Now, they are reaping the harvest of their hard work.

During my time, I was fortunate to have a very good English teacher in the night school, and I still have the dictionary that was given to me by him. Even now, I keep in contact with him, as I am ever grateful for the patience and guidance he gave to me. Under his tutelage, my English was good enough for me to find a job as a court interpreter.

Recently, a friend of mine gave me a recording of the famous soprano from China , Song Zuying, who gave a performance in Vienna . Among the songs she sang were the well known Chinese folk songs, Moli Hua (Jasmine flower) and Longchuan Diao (Dragon Boat Song). She was accompanied by the world-renowned Vienna National Opera Orchestra and the National Opera Choir whose members were predominantly German or Viennese speakers. But when Song Zuying was singing Moli Hua in Mandarin, the sopranos and altos singers echoed in perfect diction, " hao meili di yi duo moli hua!" (What a pretty Jasmine flower!). When she was singing the Dragon Boat Song, there was a line saying, " Shui gei wo tui yi tui?" (Who can give me a push?) and the tenors and basses responded, "Wo lai gei ni tui!" (I'll push it.) in clearly recognisable Mandarin diction. They were all smiling and enjoying it. I am sure it took them quite some efforts to get the diction right, but so long as they enjoyed doing it, they could do well, and enjoyed the whole process of learning. Nowadays, in our schools, we could also teach our students some latest pop songs or traditional folk songs. I am very happy that MOS Chan Soo Sen will be leading the Steering Committee on the

Column: 1413

implementation of the recommendations in this report. Mr Chan sings very well. I am sure he could introduce some nice songs to the students to enthuse them and develop in them the interest in the Chinese Language and culture.

Over the past 12 years, our Chinese Language curriculum and pedagogy had undergone three reforms. This time, it is a very major reform. It involves the retraining of our teachers, adjustments to our examination system and for the pedagogy to be more flexible. It involved a lot of people. More than 10,000 people were interviewed. In this present reform, apart from the language that we use at home, the emergence of China is also a very important factor, and the advance of new technology is yet another very important factor.

Just now, Mr Low quoted Mencius, saying that you need a three-year-old medicine to cure a 7-year-old illness. We must also not forget that Mencius' mother had to move her home three times so that her son would have an environment conducive to his studies.

We want to improve on the teaching of the Chinese Language in Singapore because we want our people to be effectively bilingual so that they can have a competitive edge in the international arena. We hope that the Ministry of Education would move fast and work hard to make sure that the recommendations of the Review Committee would be implemented successfully and yield the expected results.

I can see three types of reaction from the people in Singapore with regard to this report. First, the Chinese-educated. Generally, the first reaction would be that this talk about reform to the teaching of Chinese Language has been going on for years. It is so tiring. Why do we want to keep on talking about it? But the fact remains that the standard of Chinese has

Column: 1414

been dropping. So, this is a historical baggage we have to tackle. As Mr Low put it, we are just talking about the economic benefits. Should we not also look at it from the cultural aspect? I think culture is important. Yes, we have to look at the cultural side of it.

For the English educated, the reaction is: how do we adapt to the changes? But I feel that, for the past two to three decades, the English-educated families are also changing their mentality. I remember in the 1970s and 1980s, when I was a reporter, I used to ask the people I interviewed, "How do you write your Chinese name?" More often than not, they would tell me that they could not write their Chinese names, and they made no apology about it. In fact, they seemed quite proud that they did not need to know their Chinese names! But nowadays, people are beginning to pay more attention to Chinese. Even foreigners who come to Singapore would want to have a Chinese name. An Italian businessman once gave me a name card and remarked regrettably, "Unfortunately, I do not have a Chinese name. Can you give me a Chinese name?" So, I suggested a Chinese name to him. Two weeks later, he sent me a name card with the Chinese name I gave him on it! Nowadays, our parents want their children to learn Chinese well. The important thing is: how do they change the mentality from discouraging to encouraging their children to learn Chinese?

With regard to non-Chinese families, my colleague Mdm Halimah mentioned just now that they are also concerned about it. In the past, there were misconceptions among the races. Now, we have racial harmony - we could live harmoniously together. So, if we want to look at it from this aspect, that all of us are Singaporeans, we should throw away all our historical baggage and work together for our future. We have to face reality. Now we are reforming the Chinese

Column: 1415

Language curriculum and pedagogy. Soon, we will have a reform for the Malay and Tamil mother tongue languages as well.

Just now, Mr Low mentioned that we had to look at it more from the cultural aspect rather than just the economic part of it. In fact, the Government has already announced that MOE is going to start a bicultural programme for our students so that those with the ability would be able to learn more about China , including its culture. Some people may feel that there is no point being bilingual. Even in the Government departments, those who are bilingual, the Government makes full use of them but does not attach much importance to them. On the bicultural aspect, I feel that culture can be looked at from various angles. Now the Government wants us to attain about 70-80% level in English and maybe 60-70% in Chinese. This is to raise our standard of the language. I think it is something that every one in Singapore should strive to be effectively bilingual. In Singapore , we may not be contented with being bicultural. We could be tri-cultural or even quadri-cultural, because we have Chinese, Malay, Indian and western foods in Singapore . So, if we want to look at the culture, we should look at it from the application side of it. We want to know all about the history of China from the ancient times to the present time.

Mr Low said earlier that he was full of admiration for Mr Deng Xiao Ping. But we all remember Mr Deng Xiao Ping's famous saying, "White cat or black cat, so long as he can catch the mouse, he is a good cat!" We should know where our strength lies, and what our competitive edge is. Build on our strength and we will catch the mouse. What is our competitive edge? That is our bilingual policy.

Column: 1416

English has always been a strong language in the world. It is being used in most developed economies in Europe and the United States . If you have a good command of English, you have the advantage. But if you have Chinese or Malay and Tamil as well, then you have even better advantages. We have Indians speaking English. The Indians in various parts of India speak English, albeit with strong Indian accent. If we know English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil, then we would be at a distinct advantage over others.

Whether we are learning a language, skill or knowledge, the most important thing is the will to learn. I think we are all familiar with the television programme "Yan can Cook". Yes, everybody can cook. The question is whether or not you can cook well. If you want to cook well, of course, you must, first of all, have the will to learn. Of course, life cannot be plain sailing all the way. The learning process also may change from time to time. We have to change the policy, the way we teach and learn the language. So, we do not want to give Singaporeans the wrong impression that from now onwards, with the reform to the Chinese Language, that Chinese will be very easy to learn, you can close one eye and learn Chinese. I think this is not true. If you want to learn anything, you have to put in an effort. Only then can you achieve good results. When you have problems, you must find ways and means to resolve them.

In conclusion, I would like to quote the push-line in a breast-enhancement advertisement that appears frequently in the newspapers which says, "Flat is not the best way; it is only with ups and downs then your life would be enriched."

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin) : Sir, Mr Seng claimed that what I said in my speech was untrue and that the Government did not discourage him from learning Chinese. Regrettably, Mr Seng

Column: 1417

either did not catch what I was saying just now or choose not to understand what I said. What I said was that in 1966, Minister Mentor said that just having a few lessons in Chinese in English medium school is not good enough, and that we should have a few subjects such as History and Geography being taught in Chinese. But, today, in our schools, Chinese is taught only as a single subject. Is this not a fact?

Now, we are talking about English as a first language, Chinese second. So, the learning of English is more important than the learning of Chinese. Mr Seng talked about Mencius' mother moving her house three times to have a better environment for her son. So, is Mr Seng suggesting that all the Chinese in Singapore should move to China to learn Chinese? Can all our parents send their children to China for immersion courses for a certain period of time? Ideally, this is good, but not realistic. Can the parents all afford to do so? This is just day-dreaming.

Mr Seng has also said that some Chinese-educated people are worried about the declining standard of Chinese in Singapore. I think he is right. However, he failed to realise that this is not a matter of emotion, nor an emotional issue. It is a question of what kind of Singaporeans do we want. Do we want our future generation to be like a banana race or do we want people who know their own roots and cultural heritage? This is not just an emotional matter. I am talking about it very rationally, not emotionally. I believe the other races, including the Malays and Indians, have the same problems. But the crux of the problem is: what kind of the next generation of Singaporeans do we want?

He also mentioned that the Government does not disregard culture because we have this bicultural programme. But let us not forget that this is only for a minority of the students. We should look

Column: 1418

at the majority of our students. Eventually, what kind of standard of the language would they have? What level of Chinese would they attain and how much about the Chinese culture would they learn?

Mr Seng Han Thong: (In Mandarin) : Mr Speaker, may I respond? Mr Speaker, Sir, just now, I told Mr Low that he had to tell me if he was not satisfied with my remarks, and he has actually done so.

Now, I want to reply to him. He said, "Are we going to move all the Singapore Chinese to China?" There is also this saying that if the mountain does not come to Mohamed, Mohamed would have to go to the mountain. We have the Phoenix Channel and CCTV on cable TV. Singaporeans today do not have to travel all the way to see and hear about China, the TV programmes have brought China to us.

We do have the learning environment here. The question is whether or not you are interested to learn. If you are not interested, then even if we send you to China, you will not learn to speak Mandarin well. So, if the environment is not good enough, we need to change it. Change it to one that is conducive to our learning of the language and culture. Then, we need to adapt ourselves to the changes, so as to gain optimal benefits from them. As Minister Lim Swee Say said yesterday, there are various kinds of changes.

With regard to the second part regarding the bicultural programme, Mr Low said that it would benefit the minority. This is a fact. Even in China, they are lamenting that the standard of Mandarin has dropped. And even in England, the Queen has lamented that nowadays only very few people could speak the Queen's English well in England.

Column: 1419

As for bilingualism, countries all over the world need people who are bilingual or even multi-lingual. In Japan, even the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has difficulties getting people who are bilingual to be their diplomats. So the people who are bilingual are usually the elites. Not everyone can be effectively bilingual.

This report recommends a core curriculum for all, so that every student could at least be able to listen, speak or read in his or her mother tongue language. Take, for example, my mother. She is a Teochew. She has never had formal education but now, she could watch the Mandarin television programmes. By listening to the Mandarin news, she knows about the current affairs. She could read the newspapers and, of course, she would start with the obituary page to see if any of her friends has gone. At her age, many of her contemporaries are going day by day. But then, she could at least read the newspapers. And now, we want Singaporeans who are effectively bilingual so that they could know what is happening outside.

Mr Low has been quoting MM Lee from what he said in 1966, 1974 and so on. I did not know that he admired Minister Mentor Lee so much that he could remember exactly what MM said at which point of time. Times have changed. The situation then and the situation now are different. Mr Low said that without Deng Xiao Ping, there would be no economic reform in China that drove its phenomenal economic growth. I can tell him likewise that, without Lee Kuan Yew, there will be no Singapore of today and we will not have this debate here today.

The Minister of State for Education (Mr Chan Soo Sen): (In Mandarin) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all my parliamentary colleagues for giving us so many precious suggestions on this reform.

Column: 1420

As Adviser to this Review Committee and also the Chairman of the Committee to Promote Chinese Language Learning (CPCLL), I can assure Members that we will carefully consider all their suggestions. We would also consider the suggestion by Mr Low Thia Khiang, but I would like him to ponder over what Mr Seng has said just now. If we are not sincere about our bilingual policy, there will not be this debate today. If, in the early days, had Mr Lee Kuan Yew not insisted on the bilingual policy, perhaps our standard of English may be higher but we would have lost our Chinese today. I think this is the crux of what he said in 1975.

To me, I give myself 60 marks for my Chinese and for my English, I give myself 50 marks. So if I add these two, I do not know how much I am worth. But at least, I could make use of the two languages. In China , I could speak in Mandarin; in England , I could speak in English. Like me, many Singaporeans can turn west and speak to the westerners in English; and then turn east and speak to the Chinese, to the Malays and the Tamils in mother tongues. This has been our competitive advantage.

Frankly speaking, the economy is a force that will motivate us to learn a language. In the early days, I kept on struggling to learn English. Did I really love English? Not really. I learned it because of its economic value. And now that the economic value of Chinese has gone up, many parents have realised it and they start encouraging their children to learn Chinese. There are changes in the strategic reality, and so we have to adapt to these changes. We want everybody to seize the opportunities arising from this new environment, and we encourage our younger generation of Singaporeans to learn Chinese - and learn it well. This is the main purpose for this Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Reform.

Column: 1421

I am aware of the concern of the Chinese community on the declining standard of Chinese in Singapore . Let us first take a look at the history of China . China has a civilisation that stretches over more than 5,000 years. Throughout the 5,000 years, many beautiful poetries and literary masterworks were produced. But, we must not forget that these were done by just a handful of poets and writers. They were the elite, the absolute minority among the people. In those days, maybe about 90-95% were illiterate and at most 5-10% of the people could appreciate, not to mention compose such masterworks. It was not until the last century or so, when China was defeated by the then major powers in the world, that the intellects in China decided that they had to promote universal education for the people.

The Chinese term for education is jiao yu (teach and nurture). Teach and nurture, this is what education is all about. It is of paramount importance. But is it possible to educate the entire nation of people and make everyone literate? It is not easy.

Towards the end of the Qing Dynasty, and into the founding of the Republic of China, the Chinese intellects then felt that they had to simplify the language to facilitate universal education. They promoted the switch from wen yan wen (classical or literal Chinese) to bai hua wen (modern or vernacular Chinese). There was a scholar, Dr Hu Shi, who wrote an article " Wenxue Gailiang Chuyi " ("My Humble Opinion on Literature Reform") on the " Xin Qingnian " (New Youth) magazine advocating the "8 Nos". He listed out eight points that writers should observe when writing their articles: (1) There should be substance in the writing; (2) Do not imitate the ancients; (3) Be particular about the grammar; (4) Do not pine and whine without cause; (5) Do away with hackneyed and stereotyped expressions; (6) Do not use allusions; (7) Do not be particularly concerned with

Column: 1422

antithesis; (8) Do not avoid popular form of characters and common sayings.

Towards the end of the Qing Dynasty, the Chinese language was undergoing a transitional period. Dr Hu Shi and his company rode on the trend and advocated the use of bai hua wen (modern or vernacular Chinese), resulting in a transition from wen yan wen (ancient or literal Chinese) to bai hua wen (modern or vernacular Chinese).

In this Chinese Language and pedagogy reform, we are not going to carry out a reform to the Chinese Language. While Hu Shi came out with the "8 Nos" , that is, the eight things we should not do, we do not want to be so negative. Let us be more positive. Let us talk about things we want, rather than things we do not want. I am proposing the "8 Dos" with the hope that it will help to implement our reform. (1) Use our ability to evaluate the level of language proficiency; (2) Dare to innovate, be brave to make self-criticism; (3) Create space conducive to the use of the Chinese Language; (4) Enhance the professionalism and boost the morale of our teachers; (5) Conduct more activities which touch participants at emotional and spiritual levels; (6) Work hand-in-hand in close coordination with one another; (7) Be confident of the prospect of the Chinese Language; (8) Respect the feelings of the other races.

First, we must use the ability to use the language to evaluate the standard of the language. In ancient China , only about 5% of the people were literate. This is not assuming we are members of this small group of elites. Since there are so few of us who know the language, we have to use in such a profound way to create an entry barrier so that other people cannot come in. If I write in a very profound and sophisticated manner, I can be deemed to be more educated than you are! So, these few writers will go on

Column: 1423

writing in a more and more profound and sophisticated manner, and does not care much about whether others could understand what they were writing about. Hence during our younger days, whenever we had to study the Chinese classics, we had to put in a lot of efforts. But, does this help to promote universal education for all? No. Do we want universal CL education amongst Chinese Singaporeans? Yes. So we must not let the old thinking influence us. Do we still want to write CL in a very profound language to express ourselves? No.

Let me illustrate. We all know that it is the Chinese custom for a wreath to be sent to the bereaved family whenever someone we know passes away. The language used on the wreath can be very flowery but set-piece. I attended the funeral wake of the late President Ong Teng Cheong. There were a lot of wreaths, each with some writing on it. Among all the writings, the one that really stood out was on the wreath presented by the Chinese Embassy in Singapore . It read, "An old friend of the Chinese people." It was so simple and plain. Even a primary school student could understand and even write it! You do not have to quote all sorts of classical expressions. "An old friend of the people of China " - so simple, yet so touching! The message is conveyed across, simple and clear. When Deng Xiaoping passed away, of course, there were also lots and lots of wreaths and scrolls. The best written one had only four characters on it, "Xiaoping zou hao ", ie, Xiaoping, go peacefully. This is something even our primary school students can read and write, yet again it is so appropriate, so touching. So we do not need to feel uncomfortable just because our children are learning fewer words. If they could use these simple words to carry across profound feelings and messages, that would be what really counts.

Column: 1424

If our requirement today is not like what was expected of the writers in the old days, why do we want to force our children to learn so many idioms, so much so that they feel that it is meaningless, no value, and eventually lose interest in Chinese?

Do not forget that during the old days, in the rural society, if you did not study, what was your alternative? You had to work on the field. No matter how difficult it is, learning Chinese is definitely easier than working on the field. If you do not believe me, just try and pick up a hoe and dig a hole in the ground. The incentive, or disincentive, is so strong that everyone aimed to become a scholar.

But today, if we say you have to learn Chinese the old way, you can say, "I will take English instead." If we say our bilingual policy is such that if you do not pass your Chinese, you cannot go to the university, many may migrate to the West, and we will lose some good talents. This is the reality. We have to face it.

I do not deny that in learning a language, we have to put in a lot of effort. But we must let our children realise why is it that they have to put in these efforts. If they are convinced, they will willingly do it. If they are not sure why they have to work so hard, then faced with so many alternative subjects, they would wonder, "Why waste time on Chinese?"

When we were preparing this White Paper, we communicated with a lot of people in the Chinese community and they told us that even their children or grandchildren were finding it very difficult to learn Chinese. They want them to continue learning Chinese and they want to create the environment for them to learn Chinese well. But if we use the old method to teach the younger generation of Singaporeans to learn Chinese, they will not be interested. We tried for years.

Column: 1425

It is not as if we have not tried. We asked them to read the old classics, the students were turned off. Eventually, they said, "All right, you want me to study, I will study for your sake. But if I don't have to do it, I would not study Chinese."

Many of my friends and I are Chinese educated. We love Chinese. But our children are in a different situation. If we do not adapt to the situation of today and, like Mr Seng Han Thong said, we can change to a new environment conducive to their learning of Chinese, just as Mencius' mother did when she moved her home three times to find a good learning environment for her son who later became a sage.

Secondly, we must dare to be innovative and be brave to make self-criticism. Our situation is unique. In other countries, mother tongue is what the mothers speak. In Japan , the mother tongue is Japanese. In China , it is Chinese. But in Singapore , the mother tongue of a Singaporean Chinese is not necessarily Mandarin. We all know that some 50% of our students come from English-speaking families. So from birth, what they hear is English. Under such circumstances, they have difficulty mastering their mother tongue language. No other country has faced such a problem. So we have to use new methods, maybe paths that have not been taken by others. We have to try. We must dare to be innovative.

We all know that there are risks involved. As Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay has asked, do we stop doing just because there is risk? But we must also be brave enough to make amendments. If we make a mistake, we correct it and we must not be afraid of comments by the Opposition parties.

Now, we want to change the Chinese curriculum and the pedagogy. We do not

Column: 1426

say that we want to change it overnight. We do not want to be reckless, but then we must be courageous when there is a need to change. As many Members have said, there are risks involved. We cannot just copy blindly from China . We are very clear that the language environment of our children is different from that in China . In Singapore , when our children go outside, they do not see so many Chinese characters as the children see in China . But why is it that we have to say we must learn to read first and then write later? Because we want to sustain their interest in CL. We want them to read a lot of story books. And the biggest advantage of Chinese is that it has 5,000 years of civilisation. Hence there are 5,000 years of stories. And with these 5,000 years of stories, we could pick up many, many good ones. We want our children to start reading these books as early as possible. However, because they have to write all the words that they learn, we could only teach them about 300 characters each year. These students can only manage to read a story book by Primary 4 or Primary 5. We hope that by deferring the writing process, perhaps, every year, they can recognise 500-600 characters. Then, hopefully, by Primary 2, they could start reading story books in Chinese. Then they have two more years during their childhood to enjoy the story books. As we know, children pick up languages fastest when young, this would be two more critical years to cultivate their interest in the language.

We are not saying that we learn to recognise first, but do not write. We are saying that we recognise first, and write later. In the beginning, of course, we want them to learn to write the strokes or maybe the radicals of the Chinese characters, although the Chinese characters are full of variations, they were formed by certain radicals together with some standard strokes. So if we know some typical radicals, we can combine

Column: 1427

with the words and then the order of the strokes will not be mistaken. The important thing is that you must have a strong foundation in the Chinese Language early and later on, writing will not be a problem.

I remember when I was in Primary 1, on the first day, two Chinese characters were written on the blackboard: kai xue (school opens), and we were told to copy these two characters 79 times each. In those days, kai xue were in the old traditional characters, not the simplified characters. There were many strokes in each character. It took me past midnight on the first day of P1 before I could finish writing them. The next day, we were told to write kai xue le (school opens already). The character ler is much easier to write. So I could sleep at 10 o'clock that night. But are we telling our children to do this nowadays? No. If we insist, we may be able to force them for a short while. But then they would have lost their interest. They would not know why they have to write all these. So we have to convince them. Otherwise, we would not be able to enhance their interest in learning the language.

Thirdly, we must create an environment or space that is conducive to the use of Chinese. I would say that this is one of the key tasks of the CPCLL committee that I will be leading. To create more space for the use of Chinese, I think we cannot just depend on the Ministry of Education or the Government. We have to join hands with the other committees. Yesterday, Dr Amy Khor and Dr Ong Seh Hong asked whether or not we should use Chinese characters for sub-titling on our TV programmes. We have to work with the media. We want to look at this suggestion very seriously.

On this point on the space for the use of Mandarin, we heard what Dr Gan See

Column: 1428

Khem said about what the Chinese community organisations, such as the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations, had contributed. This is very meaningful work. No matter how the Government supports the use of Chinese, we must always take into consideration the feelings of our Malay and Tamil compatriots. No matter what happens, the Government must not go overboard at the expense of the other communities. But for the Chinese community organisations to promote Chinese, it is natural. So long as the promotions are done in ways that would not hurt the feelings of the other communities, the Chinese community could do a lot for themselves.

We welcome the Chinese community's recent suggestion of setting up a special fund to create more space for the use of Chinese. CPCLL will liaise with the Special Fund Committee to see how we could complement each other to make the best out of it.

In fact, we can create more spaces for the use of Chinese outside the school environment. For example, at the clan associations, we can have reading clubs to encourage people to read. We could encourage young people to organise toastmasters clubs, encouraging them to have public speaking or debates and we could tie up with the school activities to enhance the environment for reading. If the Chinese community wants to pioneer innovative methods of promoting the use of Chinese, MOE would be very grateful if the Chinese community organisations could share their success with us, and we can learn from them.

Many Members had mentioned that the not-so-well-to-do families could not afford to send their children to China for their immersion classes. As Dr Chong Weng Chiew had mentioned, during our visit to a Chinese community organisation,

Column: 1429

they suggested that we should have this immersion programme in Singapore . We have many families who come from China . The idea is Singaporean schools could send our pupils to their families so that they could have a feel of the way the Chinese live. I think this suggestion warrants serious consideration.

Fourthly, we want to raise the professionalism of the teachers and to boost their morale. This is crucial. We agree with Dr Ong Seh Hong that the Ministry of Education should review the promotion prospects of the Chinese teachers so that the good Chinese teachers would have more chances of promotion. And if the teachers of the other subjects can teach Chinese, they should also be given the opportunity to teach Chinese. Then we would have more people teaching Chinese. We would also like to give prizes like the Lianhe Zaobao's award for outstanding Chinese teachers. I think all these endeavours would help to boost the morale or our Chinese teachers.

We also hope that the Chinese community would also provide similar awards to give the Chinese teachers a shot in the arm. Maybe the Chinese teachers could collect some of their writings and publish them for the benefit of their students, and the general public. Maybe the Chinese community could support this. CPCLL would work with our partners to generate more ideas.

Fifthly, we want the use of Chinese to touch the emotional and spiritual levels of our users. So we should organise activities that allow participants to feel emotionally and spiritually involved. In Singapore , we are too rational, and we take pride in being so. The result of being too rational is that we have no fun. If we can have more activities in Chinese that are rich in the X-factors, then we can attract more young people to participate. In fact, we do have some. For example,

Column: 1430

every year, St. Andrew's Junior College holds a "Chinese Songs Composing Contest". The JC and secondary school students write their own songs, compose their own music and present their own works on stage. These have been very successful, and quality of work has been high. I have attended three or four of such competitions. Originally, they held it once every two years. I encouraged them to do it every year, and they are now doing it annually. This is a good example. Singing is a kind of perceptual and intelligent activity.

Yesterday, we talked about this "Popcorn Column" in Lianhe Zaobao , a page devoted to young people. Our young people are particularly interested in pop music. In fact, their compositions are quite good. Honestly speaking, if we want to promote the pop music industry in Singapore , I think the market prospect for Chinese pop songs is much better than for English pop songs.

We can also revamp the traditional essay-writing contests. Can we make it touch emotion and spirit more? What if we allow the writers to choose their own topics and titles, to be more liberal in writing about the admiration for the opposite sex, about dissatisfaction with their teachers, and frustration with their parents. If they can write it in Chinese or can speak in Mandarin to express their inner feelings, naturally they will have good feelings about Chinese Language. They will have strong interests in the use of Chinese and Mandarin. We suggest that our Chinese newspapers can have a special page for the young people to write about their pains, their worries and their troubles in growing up. We can have a good counsellor to answer their questions. Other readers will share in such experiences they could empathise with. All will be engaged in emotional and spiritual levels using Chinese. It is like using others' experience as one's mirror. As the use of Chinese can help to share,

Column: 1431

ease, and solve problems, the readers will have more interest in learning Chinese.

Sixthly, we must have concerted efforts. We do have some efforts among the Chinese community to encourage people to use Chinese and Mandarin. Unfortunately, it is at present quite fragmented. We have many small groups, some do this, some do that. Everybody does something, but all on a small-scale and piecemeal basis. Every organisation has its own target audience and network. Why do we not put them all together and work with a concerted effort? Let us have a few big ones! Do not unnecessarily duplicate the efforts. We can have a festival where some could hold recitals, musical concerts, poem recitation, dances, and what have you. Let a hundred flowers bloom!

Seventhly, we must have confidence in the prospect of Chinese. Yesterday, Mr Ong Ah Heng said that many Chinese teachers still felt that they were "second-class" teachers, they did not get the respect they deserved, and when they pressurised their students for their homework, they were afraid that the parents would email to the Ministry and complain against them. I can give them the assurance. MOE will back teachers, so long as what they are doing is professionally correct. But it worries us when we read in the newspapers that some people are saying that Chinese is the language of the unsuccessful, Chinese has no value, and this is a low tide. I am very surprised! In fact, it pains me to see that people are still having this sort of lamentations. In fact, the opportunities open to Chinese and Mandarin now are unprecedented. During the Tang dynasty and Song dynasty, perhaps only 5% of the Chinese people would be literate. But now, Chinese is generally known by the people. Chinese can be used on the Internet. Even the westerners are eager

Column: 1432

to learn Chinese. I think, apart from English, Chinese is the second most popularly used language on the Internet.

Why is it that people are still saying that this effort of the Government is redundant and of no use, and in the end it would die a natural death? I do not understand. What kind of logic is this? The opportunity for Chinese is here. It is flourishing. The problem is whether or not we have the confidence to capture it and to benefit from it. The purpose of this reform is to encourage our students to seize the opportunity that Chinese can give to us. I hope that all these pessimistic friends can change their mentality. If they can be more forward-looking, they will see that the prospect of Chinese in Singapore is bright and promising.

In fact, we must understand that if we want people to respect us, we must, first of all, respect ourselves. If we want society to pay more attention to Chinese, we as members of the Chinese community must, first of all, pay more attention to Chinese. If we are so pessimistic about the future of Chinese, how can society be optimistic towards Chinese? Even the people outside Singapore are seizing the opportunity that Chinese can bring to them. If we are so pessimistic, we would lose the opportunity to them. It is said that if you are entrepreneurial, you see opportunities in every problem. But there are still people who keep on seeing problems in this great opportunity. Let us change this mentality, and let us see opportunities in problems. We will then face the problems in a much more positive manner.

What we should do is to let the Chinese curriculum be more flexible. We are not only trying to relax the conditions for our students. You can pick Chinese 'B' if you find the going too tough, or if you have the will and the ability, you can also choose to take Higher Chinese. From

Column: 1433

statistics, in fact, more than 300 additional students opted for Higher Chinese and only about 100 opted for Chinese 'B' when we relaxed the conditions for these options. So we relax both sides. More than double the students opted for Higher Chinese and not Chinese 'B'. Why? It is very obvious. Being good in Chinese and Mandarin can bring a lot of new opportunities. So, I am not at all pessimistic about opening up of the Chinese 'B' curriculum, but am most optimistic about the opening up of Higher Chinese and bicultural programmes.

The eighth point. We must respect the feelings of other communities. When the Government puts so much emphasis on the problem of the Chinese Language, we have actually made some fellow countrymen in other communities feel worried. In fact, there was one email to the MOE asking, "Is Singapore going to be handed over to China ? Or are they taking over us?" If I am a Singaporean from a non-Chinese community, I could have a perception that the Chinese population is already in the majority. Now suddenly the top Government leaders have put so much emphasis on Chinese. What is going to happen to me? Will multi-racialism change?

So we must not forget that Singapore is a multi-racial, multi-religious society. One of the foundations of our success is our religious harmony. We must not hurt the feelings of our other communities just because we want to promote the learning of Chinese.

The effect of this reform is very far-reaching. I would not say that it is more important than the New Literary Movement Dr Hu Shi has participated in. However, I do feel that this is a very important landmark in our Chinese curriculum and Chinese pedagogy. As we look at this new century, Chinese will have a lot of opportunities for us economically. So we have, first of all, to

Column: 1434

use the language according to our abilities; secondly, dare to be innovative, be brave to make self-criticism; thirdly, create more space for the use of Chinese; fourthly, raise the professionalism and boost the morale of our Chinese teachers; fifthly, let the use of Chinese touch the emotional and spiritual levels; sixthly, put in concerted and well-coordinated efforts among all the stakeholders; seventhly, be optimistic about the future of Chinese; and, eighthly, respect the feelings of the other communities.

I hope that these "8 Dos" would help us succeed in the implementation of all the recommendations of this White Paper.