VISIT OF DEPUTY SPEAKER, DR IBOLYA DAVID, OF THE HUNGARIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY (Presence in Gallery)

Column: 1434

VISIT OF DEPUTY SPEAKER, DR IBOLYA DAVID, OF THE HUNGARIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY:

(Presence in Gallery) Mr Speaker: Order. On behalf of hon. Members, I welcome Deputy Speaker, Dr Ibolya David, of the Hungarian National Assembly, who is present in our Gallery today. [ Applause. ]

Column: 1434

REVISED CHINESE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM: Debate resumed.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue of Chinese Language instruction in Singapore is always an emotive issue. Paradoxically, whenever we discuss this topic, it is always with a sense of angst, a sense of anxiety, never in a sense of joy or in a sense of living the language. I can ask a simple question. After all these years of compulsory mother tongue education, is the standard of Chinese Language in Singapore lower or higher than before? A very simple question, but I believe the answer can be different depending on your perspective.

Column: 1435

One could argue that, based on average achievement, the standard is higher. Why should I say so, Sir? I say so because the penetration of Mandarin, both in the spoken form as well as in the written form among Singaporeans, has indeed reached the highest level ever as most of our school-going children have close to 10 years of Chinese instruction. Whereas in the past, when Singapore had distinct language stream schools, a much lower percentage of our students had similar exposure. The standard of the spoken language is also much better than before, as our children now have the benefit of pinyin and better trained teachers. Sir, on the other hand, based on the peak achievements attained by our better students, I believe the peaks are now much lower than those of earlier times. The school system is producing very few outstanding individuals with strong command of the language, like Mr Low Thia Khiang, and, more importantly, people who want to pursue the love of the language as a long-term career. In this important aspect, the standard of Chinese Language in Singapore has dropped.

However, Sir, in the context of our bilingual policy, perhaps having high peaks of excellence is not really sustainable. What is more important in sustaining our bilingual policy is the attitude of our students towards the Chinese Language after they have gone through the education system. In this respect, it is lamentable that more and more students study the language simply because it is required of them. The love for the language seems to be missing. It is not used by the students as a language to explore new knowledge or new frontiers. In school or outside, it is a language of not much high practical use for them. Furthermore, many students got completely turned off, despite much effort, and developed a strong dislike for

Column: 1436

the language, some intensely. This is indeed a very undesirable outcome of our education system.

Sir, I believe the instruction of Chinese Language in our schools is at a crossroad. We could leave everything alone and do nothing, as urged by some Members. The situation will then just deteriorate further and 10-20 years down the road, our education system in Chinese Language will, I believe, collapse under its own weight. Alternatively, we could grab the bull by the horns and make the necessary changes.

In this respect, Sir, I must compliment the Minister for coming to grips with the situation soon after taking over the Ministry and setting up the Review Committee in February 2004. Credit should be given to the Review Committee for its cogent analysis and appropriate recommendations. Reading the Report, Sir, I conclude that the Committee has gotten to the root of the problems facing Chinese Language pedagogy in Singapore.

Sir, prior to commenting on the various recommendations, allow me to give my observations about the current problems. In making these observations, I am not trying to find faults. I understand the Chinese teachers got rather disheartened by the Report of this Committee. They were already very disappointed that the requirement of Chinese Language was removed as an entry requirement in computing the mark into university last year. And in his speech, Mr Chiam was probably catering to this sentiment when he made a complete U-turn regarding Chinese Language Studies and called for the reinstatement of this requirement. Collectively, our Chinese Language teachers feel responsible for the state of Chinese Language instruction in our country. Perhaps, they feel that the future of Chinese Language will become even dimmer when the recommendations in this

Column: 1437

Report are implemented. In my view, our Chinese Language teachers had done a most admirable job under the circumstances. They tirelessly encourage their charges, many of whom are reluctant learners, to keep up with the effort to learn the language. They operate under the constraints of the curriculum imposed by the MOE Curriculum Planning and Development Division, even though many of them are aware that many of their students have different abilities in mastering the syllabus. So, if anyone is at fault, even though I said I was not finding fault, it is MOE. It is appropriate that MOE today takes the initiative and leads in making the changes.

Sir, the teaching of the Chinese Mother Tongue Language has remained unchanged since I learned it almost 50 years ago. Other than the introduction of simplified Chinese characters and hanyu pinyin , there have been very little changes over the years in this half century. On the other hand, over the same period, the world has changed. Technology has advanced by leaps and bounds. Yet, the ways we had learned the language by ting xie, mo xie, remain the burden of our children today.

Sir, some might ask: what is the problem? They would point out that this traditional method of teaching Chinese is common in all Chinese communities in the world. The same approach is now used in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. So, why would we change when the other major Chinese school systems in the world are not changing? Sir, in my mind, if we were to continue unchanged, we would be ignoring two significant changes that have taken place in Singapore. First, our language environment has changed. Many of us have already spoken on this topic. The language used in our homes is increasingly English. And English is a language of knowledge acquisition and the knowledge of new and interesting things for children like science and

Column: 1438

technology. It is the language of the latest creative work sweeping the world that appeals to our young; movies, such as "The Lord of the Rings" and books, such as "Harry Potter". Thus, from the perspective of a typical Chinese Singaporean child, there are two languages out there competing for his attention, competing for his effort. One is English - fun, lively, easy to learn, easy to grasp, the key to knowledge and entertainment. The other is Chinese - arcane, difficult, boring and, to him, of not much practical use.

I have observed the behaviour of my 10-year old son who is currently in P4. In English, he has mastered the language enough to be able to read interesting novels of very enticing plots. He is able to pick up new vocabulary on his own through reading. He would surf the Net to find out new information and knowledge through Yahoo and Google . On the other hand, the Chinese texts he would be able to read are so simple that he finds them boring, dull and uninteresting.

Sir, we would have to ask ourselves what would motivate our children to learn Chinese in school. Today, I believe our answer is simply "Because I said so". For parents amongst us, we all knew that using "Because I said so" would ultimately fail in inculcating desirable behaviour in our children. You must want to learn the language. Therein lies the key problem. Do we see the issue as a contest between two languages for the interest of a young mind when it comes to learning Chinese by our children?

Perhaps, our stance on the mother tongue policy does not help the matter. As learning Chinese mother tongue is compulsory, the onus is actually on the child to make the effort to learn the language or face the consequences. As a result, innovation in the teaching of language, by and large, ceases. We are

Column: 1439

all aware that many of our students might score "A" in the subject but actually the command of their language is rather poor. I said earlier, worse, many have developed a dislike of the language. As more and more of our children carry this dislike into adulthood, what would happen to our mother tongue policy some time down the road?

Sir, the second major trend that the Chinese Language pedagogy in our school did not take advantage of is the high penetration of IT in our society. We should have noticed how Chinese in the written form is being used in the real world by adults today as IT technology becomes ubiquitous. We write our speeches or letters using Chinese word processing on the PC. We send SMS to each other on our mobile phone, which is already becoming an indispensable and constant companion. Parents are already giving mobile phone to their children at a younger and younger age. And many of these mobile phones are highly intelligent that have a complete Chinese dictionary in them and they also have the frequency of use of Chinese characters encoded in their memories. So the question is: why do we not take advantage of this development and why do we not take advantage of mobile phones in our Chinese Language instructions?

As adults, we could actually function perfectly well today in Chinese without having to write the characters by hand. What is more important is the correct use of the Chinese characters and the correct use of the phrases in our communication, a fact already pointed out by Low Thia Khiang. Therefore, we need to ask ourselves whether our existing method of teaching Chinese, which we have inherited from China, unchanged perhaps for generations, is still the best way for today.

Column: 1440

Sir, at this juncture, may I seek your indulgence to give a short discourse on the Chinese Language. In the oral form, Mandarin is a member of the family of tonal languages in China. In a monolingual environment, every human being is endowed with the ability to speak one language. Chinese Language is no different. In fact, compared to western languages - like English, German - Chinese is simpler to learn as there are no singular or plural words, no present tense or past tense.

In the written form, Sir, the Chinese script is a logographical language, derived from pictorial language, tracing its roots to the oracle bones script found in the excavation of ancient Shang Dynasty archaeological sites. Of the two major forms of human languages that we know of, linguistic languages and pictorial languages, history has already shown that pictorial languages ultimately become too cumbersome to learn, too difficult to use and many have become extinct. We can find examples of them when we visit museums, like the one I just visited this year in Mexico City where they do have the ancient Mexican pictorial languages in display, or if we go to Lijiang, you will find some of the existing pictorial languages in use, but mostly on tourist souvenirs. In fact, the Chinese script is perhaps the only one single surviving pictorial language in major use in the world today. Therefore, we must accept that the Chinese script is inherently difficult to learn.

Sir, like all pictorial languages, since its emergence several thousand years ago, as MOS Chan has mentioned, the Chinese script has always been only mastered by a very small elite class at the top of the social hierarchy. And to achieve that, students were grilled from very young to become basically walking dictionary, memorising the sound, the stroke of every character. The script was not meant to be learned by everyone in the population

Column: 1441

as universal education was only attained in recent times in China. In fact, the difficulty of learning the Chinese script has always been an ancient curse in the Chinese society. Prior to the establishment of the People's Republic of China, the Chinese communists have viewed the Chinese script as a historical baggage designed by the scholars to suppress the proletariat. Therefore, the first thing they had done, when the PRC was established, was to introduce the simplified characters in an attempt to make the script easier to learn. If you remember, in fact, a second set of simplified characters was introduced but it was later withdrawn because of unfavourable response. There was also an attempt to replace the written form altogether by using pinyin . And for those of us who remember, from time to time, we can still see Chinese products with pinyin characters on it, a continuous stream of syllabus that makes no sense to anyone that is not initiated. It also did not go very far and peter out after a while. In fact, the future of the written form is still being debated in the scholarly circle as to whether the language ultimately would be replaced by pinyin as more and more Chinese become conversant with it.

Sir, even today, learning Chinese in China is not without problems, though most of the Chinese today speak putonghua . This could be observed from the many attempts to introduce new innovations in learning the language in China, the experiments that Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay talked about in Parliament yesterday. If there is a need to find new ways to teach the language in China, what more in a multi-lingual environment in Singapore?

Sir, I found the work by a Chinese scholar, Prof. Guo Bao Hua of ZhengZhou University, very interesting. Prof. Guo made several observations. First, he observed, which is a well-known fact, that

Column: 1442

Chinese is a tonal language. The learner would have to exert much greater effort if the teaching of the language does not take advantage of this fact. In other words, if you can teach Chinese through songs, for instance, like MOS Chan mentioned, maybe the effort of learning the language could be simpler. Second, he observed how Chinese was taught before the establishment of modern schools in China after the Qing Dynasty, another fact mentioned by MOS Chan. He observed that from ancient time until then, Chinese at that time was taught in wen yan wen. In private schools, pupils learned to recite ancient texts like qian zhi wen or san zhi jin . I wonder whether Members also recall seeing old paintings depicting schools in old China where the tutor would be holding a cane and the students would be bent over books but, if you observe carefully, the students would be reciting verse, reading books. Very few such paintings would depict pupils holding brushes learning how to write. Sir, therefore the recommendation of the Report to promote "recognition first, and writing later" is not a new experiment,

as Prof. Low suggested. It rests on past practices and perhaps very sound principles.

Indeed, Prof. Guo asked the very simple question: why were there reports in ancient times of geniuses in China who would be able to recite lengthy texts at a very young age and yet, in modern China today, despite universal education and a much larger population, there is no such occurrence. I do not think the Chinese have become dumber or the genes have changed that much that geniuses are not produced. His conclusion is that what we considered as a traditional approach of teaching the language was indeed introduced recently about 100 years ago by the Chinese nationalist government after the overthrow of the Qing dynasty. As a result, we are now teaching Chinese, learning the characters one at a time, learning the strokes and the sound,

Column: 1443

completely out of context. In other words, we learn a word, and it will be out of context.

Prof. Guo used an analogy in describing this way of learning Chinese characters. The end goal of learning a language can be viewed as preparing a blank wall for a budding artist to draw a painting. By learning a character one at a time, it is like building a wall, starting with individual bricks. Thus, before one can even paint anything meaningful, one has to build the wall first. This is a slow approach, making a basic assumption that human learning is a linear function, and that is why in our current curriculum we learn 300 characters a year and it goes linearly. But this is not how human learning takes place. Those of us who have observed how young children learn to walk and talk will notice that when kids first learn a few words and sounds, they are tentative, uncertain and slow. But, before we knew it, the child could suddenly start to walk and talk. Actually, human learning is not linear. It is actually slow in the beginning and, suddenly, it takes off exponentially. Therefore, Prof. Guo recommended a return to the classical approach. It is similar to teaching the students to paint first without having to first learn how to build a wall.

Based on his findings, he spent three years to come up with a 4,000-character prose, with no word repeating itself but which rhymes much like a song. In other words, his students can actually learn how to sing this prose and, in the process, recognise close to 4,000 characters, starting from kindergarten. The results have been very impressive. His students of five to six years old, after two years in kindergarten, could easily read up to 1,000 characters, which would enable them to read books and newspaper reports. I would recommend that the Committee headed by Mr Wee tap into

Column: 1444

the expertise of Prof. Guo in coming up with a new curriculum.

Sir, as regards the recommendations, the key ones that would address some of the current shortcomings are:

(1) more emphasis on the practical use of Chinese Language;

(2) engaging and relevant instructional materials; and

(3) enhancing Chinese Language learning through IT, including giving each child an electronic dictionary.

To succeed, Sir, I hope Mr Wee's committee would jettison the old mindset and adopt a completely new one. In this area, I hope we can teach old dogs some new tricks. If not, maybe an infusion of new blood into the relevant Curriculum Planning and Development Division is necessary.

Sir, I am positive about these changes. If Singapore could successfully develop a new pedagogy of Chinese Language instruction for children, combining understanding of how language is learned and the use of IT, it would open up a new phase of education in Singapore. We might even become the forefront of a new era where the use of IT would negate the disadvantages of a logographical language like Chinese, and make learning such a language a lively and enriching experience. We could, indeed, as the Minister of State, Mr Chan Soo Sen, has hinted, become a centre for the learning of Chinese as a foreign language for the world.

Sir, I have not touched on the economic value of the Chinese Language nor do I intend to do so. It is not that economic value is not important. It is. As China continues to grow, its patronage will continue to be felt in far corners of the world. The announcements of Chinese

Column: 1445

investments in Cuba and Argentina are just some recent examples.

Sir, ultimately, learning a language is more than just learning how to speak, read or write the language. It is learning about the value system, the culture of our ancestors and, to a great extent, understanding our own sense of place as an individual in the universe. Like it or not, our language ability is also in our genes. Here, I mean more than the mental faculty to master one or more languages. Just as our genes dictate our physical features, the colour of our hair, eyes and skin, genes also influence the development of our ancestors' oral language in the way that they influence our voice boxes and our tongues, how they are constructed. This might sound chauvinistic, but some Korean parents actually believe in this and go to great lengths to send their children for painful surgical operations to lengthen their tongues so that they could speak better English.

Sir, I also heard a programme over BBC recently reporting a study that demonstrated the intimate linkages between a language and the music created by a native speaker of the language. This study just covered two languages: the English language and English classical music; and the French language and French classical music. It showed that the pitch changes in the classical music mimic closely the pitch change of the spoken language. So, one could find the pitch jumping up and down the scale much more frequently in English classical music, compared to that of French classical music. I am not sure about modern rock music but, definitely, in classical music, that was the case.

Sir, if the spoken language influences creative works like music, it is also highly probable that the spoken language would influence other mental processes. I believe language influences the thought processes

Column: 1446

and, by extension, our behaviour as a person. In this area, I am not an authority. Nonetheless, let me use a few examples. For instance, the Chinese prefer to use double negatives. For example, when someone asks "How are you?", the Chinese would typically respond, "Not bad." Not so commonly do they say "Good". If you go to China today, a lot of people will tell you wen ti pu da , ie, no big problem, instead of saying "It is a small problem."

Mr Speaker: Dr Wang, you have three minutes left.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Thank you, Sir.

An hon. Member: Wen ti pu da!

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Wen ti pu da!

Mr Speaker: Two and a half minutes now!

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Sir, I was schooled in Chinese as a boy, and converted to English as a primary language in secondary school. Nonetheless, I value my Chinese education. I believe it moulded me into the person that I am today. I want my children to have the same experience, the same learning process, and the ability to benefit from the best of both worlds - the Oriental and the Western world.

Sir, this Report is very timely. It identifies the problems facing Chinese Language instruction and anticipates the worsening of the situation as English becomes the "mother tongue". So, I am very heartened that this Report, while proposing a new review of the Chinese Language curriculum and a new approach to Chinese Language pedagogy, reaffirms in no uncertain terms the importance of bilingualism in our society.

Column: 1447

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.56 pm until 4.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Column: 1447

REVISED CHINESE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM: Debate resumed.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Sir, I support the move to revise the Chinese Language curriculum to allow children of different language backgrounds and abilities to achieve their fullest potential in Chinese Language. But if I may, I would like to take a step back from the details and to approach this discussion from first principles.

First fundamental principle - of national self-determination: that we are Singaporeans, building a unique multi-racial nation with our own values and national culture, and bound by a common destiny. Our motherland is Singapore. Our roots are in Singapore. Our identity is anchored on being Singaporean, or at least, that must be the ideal. Sir, if we accept this principle, several things flow from this.

We may be Chinese, but we are not overseas Chinese, with China as our motherland. We are Singaporean Chinese. We may even be steeped in Chinese culture and history and have links with China, but we are different from the Chinese in China. They are not family, the way that our Singaporean Malays and Singaporean Indians are family.

Column: 1448

This bears emphasising because there is a paragraph in the MOE report which states, "Knowing our mother tongue languages gives us confidence in our culture, roots and identity as a people." It also added about the usefulness of the mother tongue languages in a fast-growing region. I quote, "In particular, the usefulness of learning Chinese Language will increase with China's growing global influence." And yesterday, the Education Minister, Mr Tharman, said: "Our mother tongue languages will always be essential to give us our identity. Our cultures, languages and values give us roots, a quiet confidence in who we are."

Sir, I do not dispute the role of language as a vehicle of self-expression and for opening doors to opportunity. We are an Asian society, we are proud of our Asian heritage and we should retain our Asian values. But I do question if we should actively promote the idea that our mother tongue languages, as defined by the State (Chinese for Chinese, Malay for Malays, Tamil for Indians), and our race, again as defined by the State as required in our identity cards, should provide the key anchors for our identity in this globalised world.

Some nations are bound by a common language, and that defines them - France by the French language, Germans by the German language and the Japanese by the Japanese language. But for us, what binds us is not our separate languages, but our political ideology, the founding principles that guided Singapore's foundation and undergird our way of life. Sir, the two fundamental planks are multi-racialism, which means equal regard to all races and their languages and cultures, and meritocracy, which gives equal opportunity to all, regardless of their race, language or religion.

When Singapore separated from Malaysia, the PAP Government based its legitimacy on this political credo, not on

Column: 1449

the basis of communal identities, as is the case in some countries. We need to make sure that this renewed emphasis on Chinese Language and culture, while legitimate, because of the rise of China, will not mean that our society will be made more "Chinese" as a result, with Chinese signs dominating the landscape or Chinese being promoted as the dominant language in public places. We must also be aware that, with the rise of China, the Chinese in China have become more nationalistic. There is a surge of pride in being a Chinese national, that sense of superiority that comes from their becoming more successful as a nation and growing as a giant to be reckoned with on the world stage.

Even as we promote the teaching of Chinese thought and history in the curriculum, we must be careful that the Chinese in Singapore are not influenced by the rising nationalism in China and wear the Chinese badge as a sign of superiority, because in Singapore, that would not make them nationalists, but Chinese chauvinists. Sir, we should take every opportunity, including in the mother tongue curriculum, to inculcate a Singaporean consciousness. We should work towards local themes and shared experiences in the teaching of the different mother tongue languages. We should also champion our own Chinese literature written by our own Chinese literati.

Indeed, I would say that one way to gauge the success of all the reforms that we have put in place is whether there will be more books in Chinese written by our Chinese writers in our bookshops and being read increasingly by our Singaporean citizens. These books should not only have local themes and familiar settings, but also be uniquely Singaporean in the idioms used and express the feelings and thoughts of the Singaporean writers.

Column: 1450

Sir, for this, the role of Chinese Language teachers is key. Yesterday, the Education Minister spoke about the need to recruit more teachers, from both local and foreign sources. Sir, I would urge that the Minister tilt the balance towards Singaporean Chinese teachers and not those from China. These Singaporean teachers can weave in Singaporean ideas and context, to promote a Singaporean consciousness, as opposed to a Chinese China consciousness.

This leads me to the second principle and that is of equality. All the four official languages in Singapore - English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil - enjoy equal status. And this position was restated by the then PM, Mr Lee Kuan Yew just after Singapore became independent. This is symbolic of our approach to multi-racialism, in which the majority group does not lord over the minority groups and force the minority groups to learn its language as the national language, as is the case in some countries. This is also the approach taken by the Swiss. So we are not unique in this. There are four languages spoken in Switzerland - German, French, Italian and Romansh. They are able to accept equal rights for all these languages, notwithstanding the fact that the German language is spoken by at least 65-70% of the population. Thus, no language group can claim to have priority with regard to its constitutional status.

Sir, in Singapore, this state of affairs, where we treat all languages as equal in principle, cannot be taken for granted in the way it is practised on the ground, especially as the MOE report advocates more opportunities to use Chinese Language in the formal as well as informal curriculum. It proposes that more time be given to Chinese Language subjects in some schools, where there is demand. Then, there are the SAP-Plus programme which will allow more non-Chinese Language subjects to be taught in Chinese Language.

Column: 1451

There is also the proposal for schools, if there is a demand, to organise CCAs or enrichment programmes that introduce students to Chinese culture in a way that is accessible to students of all races. We need to look out for the unintended spillover effects to our non-Chinese Singaporeans. We should learn from our experience when we launched the "Speak Mandarin" campaign with great gusto. The constant exhortation to speak Mandarin, although directed at Chinese Singaporeans, has not only increased the sense of insecurity among the minority groups, but also heightened the racial consciousness of Singaporeans. And even today, sometimes we still hear the problems associated with Chinese speaking in Chinese, even though there are non-Chinese present at work, at home or in the buses, as if the non-Chinese are invisible.

There is also a sense of division among the Chinese-speaking Chinese and the English-speaking ones. I feel that this will affect social cohesion on the ground if it is not managed properly. It does not mean that we do not use our Chinese or mother tongue whenever we feel like it, but we must be sensitive and use it in the right context and to be very aware that we live in a multi-racial society.

Sir, the other fundamental principle that we should bear in mind is meritocracy, that we offer equal opportunities to everyone, according to their merit, which means if you work hard and apply yourself, you will get the job that you want, and get as far as you can according to your abilities and talents.

Sir, it is recognised that increasingly, Chinese is a useful language to get ahead for employment opportunities and for career advancement, not only in China, but also in Singapore. Indeed, we have heard of complaints from the jobless,

Column: 1452

especially among the minority groups, that they are shut out of certain jobs because the jobs require a fluency in Chinese and that is a requirement put in advertisements, the ability to speak Chinese.

Sir, in times of economic difficulty and job losses, the concern over fairness and equal opportunities will particularly be acute. Compounding the problems caused by the fast pace of economic restructuring, strains have also appeared along ethnic lines. Given the trends of the rise of China and the increasing importance of Chinese, some parents from the minority groups would like their children to take up Chinese as their second language, if they are given a choice, so that they will not face these problems in the future.

But the present bilingual policy gives approval to non-Chinese students to take up Chinese as their second language only on a case-by-case basis. And we know that on a case-by-case basis means very rare and this is borne out in the figures given to me yesterday by Mr Tharman. Approval is only given, for example, where students are of mixed parentage, or where students have studied Chinese before.

But why must approval be sought and the lines drawn in the first place? Why cannot students choose their second language the way they choose history, mathematics, science or chemistry? If we give students and their parents the choice, the sharp sense that the non-Chinese might feel when they cannot get a job because of the Chinese requirement, and that the odds are structurally stacked against them in the job market will be blunted. The non-Chinese would not feel that they lack equal opportunity in the job market, because of the education system which effectively locks them out of this route of learning Chinese in school.

Column: 1453

Moreover, with this proposed revised curriculum, which also caters to students from non-Chinese speaking backgrounds, meaning Chinese who have come from English-speaking backgrounds, they will also be able to cope better with Chinese, because they also do not have Chinese-speaking backgrounds, ie, the non-Chinese minorities. But with his proposed revised curriculum which caters to this group, they can cope. The choice should be given to the students and their parents. They choose and take the responsibility for it.

Sir, recently, I was holding a dialogue in Tampines-Changkat Community Centre. It was about the National Day Rally speech. And there was a Malay woman who stood up. She was wearing the traditional Malay dress with the tudung and she was speaking about how she wants her child to learn Chinese, and in fact, took Chinese. I said, "How did you manage to get your child to take Chinese in school?" She said, "Oh, I married a Chinese-Muslim." They were given a choice and they chose Chinese because Singapore is their home, that is where they will grow up and they think that is where the future will be, in terms of how their child will be effective in the job market with Chinese as a tool.

Sir, I also know of some private kindergarten centres that teach Mandarin to its students, no matter what race they are from. This is at the request of the non-Chinese parents. If they have this foundation in the private kindergartens and yet, we do not allow them to carry on in primary school, that would seem a waste. Sir, the Government should let go of its role as the sole arbiter of language choice in school. Students should be given greater access to a variety of languages and not be limited by ethnicity. Globalisation has weakened the power of the nation state to prescribe and prohibit access to and use of language among its citizens. The new economy has also

Column: 1454

created new markets for language. Younger people, especially those that I spoke to recently, have told me that they see language more as a tool for occupational success and less and less as a marker of identity.

Such a policy of requiring each racial group to learn a particular mother tongue, except on a case-by-case basis, also erects artificial social and cultural barriers based on language. They are restrictive, as the Government has sought to tie a specific mother tongue to each ethnic group, resulting in restricted access to an ethnic language other than the specified mother tongue which is learned mostly in school.

The effect of this is that it forces Singaporeans to view language as the key constituent of identity, and puts the burden on the ethnic group to act as a watchdog and promoter of language as we have seen. Any change to do with any language is greeted with great passion and emotion because it is seen as a threat to their ethnic identity, and it need not be so. A desire to learn a language, other than the assigned mother tongue or a disinterest in the assigned mother tongue, in this context, may then be interpreted as an act of communal disloyalty and a rejection of cultural heritage. Linking identity and language so tightly has its problems. One can feel proud of being Chinese, while not having the full mastery of the language. Conversely, one can have full mastery of a language and yet, not feel part of that ethnic group.

If I may cite a personal example. I studied in Malaysia until my 'O' levels and came to Singapore for my 'A' levels. Throughout my years in Malaysia, the language of instruction was Malay - everything was in Malay - mathematics in Malay, science in Malay. I did not have an opportunity to learn Mandarin in

Column: 1455

school, although I speak Hokkien at home. So when I came to Singapore, I struggled with my studies as English was the language of instruction here. I could not understand what it was. When I was in mathematics class, "denominator" and "numerator" were all alien words to me. And in the science stream, I was even more stumped by the scientific concepts and names that were in English. I managed to do OK. But of course, the easiest subject for me was Malay and I got a distinction for my 'A' levels in my second language. But it does not follow that because I got a distinction in Malay as my second language,

I am more Malay than, say, a Malay who got a credit or an "F" in Malay. Similarly, it does not mean that because Chinese students speak better in Chinese that he or she is more Chinese.

The Indian community is very diverse with different language groups. My Indian friends tell me that they do not identify with Tamil as a cultural marker for them. Sir, we should regard culture in an organic sense, as an expression of human behaviour rather than as an entity which may be embodied in a language. Once we accept this, we should be open to giving students and parents their free choice in choosing their second language in school, and allow them to criss cross each other's cultural world through language. And then we can have people who can speak many languages besides their own language.

Third, I just want to mention the importance of English to remain as our common language, and not to lose our sight from that. Amidst all the reviews to increase fluency in the mother tongue, we should not forget that even in China, more Chinese are learning English. In this respect, I note with some concern the proposal on the SAP-Plus programme which says that if there is demand, SAP

Column: 1456

primary schools should be allowed to provide greater exposure to CL for a few of the classes by teaching more subjects in CL. And students in this programme could have up to 60% CL exposure in their total curriculum in Primary 1 and 2, compared to about 33% currently. This is a huge jump - 33% to 60%. It must be at the expense of another language, which is English.

There is also the proposal for more non-CL subjects to be taught in CL at secondary level. By all means do this if it helps but please not at the expense of an erosion of English as a common working language.

Recently, I was invited to give a talk at NUS to promote good English. I am told that the grammar and the sentence structure of the undergraduates leave much to be desired. It is a trend that worries many of the lecturers. And I said, "Why do you need me to come and speak to your students? I heard the problem is not English but Chinese." They said, "No. Increasingly, in canteens, the undergraduates are breaking out into Chinese or Singlish when they are together, and they are not speaking good English." And in my ward, I find that I have to run reading programmes for English to teach Primary 1 to Primary 3 students from low-income families who do not speak English at home, and they need a grasp of English so that they can grasp mathematical concepts, which are all in English so that they can have a firm foundation to carry on in their studies.

Sir, in conclusion, if I may quote from Mr S Rajaratnam, one of our founding leaders who wrote our National Pledge. In 1959, he wrote in Sunday Mail the need to inculcate in our people what he called then "a Malayan consciousness", because then Singapore did not exist as an independent country. In today's context, the right term would be "Singaporean consciousness". His views on this made

Column: 1457

up the essence of our National Pledge. So I thought it is worth quoting.

He noted that, "At the moment, [ie, 1959] this Malayan consciousness was a feeble thing. Because we have been taught from childhood to be loyal to our own racial group, to a communal culture. If you are a Chinese, you learn to be a Chinese and you speak Chinese." He believed that "being a Chinese, Malay or Indian is largely a question of cultural conditioning. It is group solidarity based on common customs, beliefs and superstitions." "It is not very difficult," he said, "through education to inculcate a sense of solidarity with the bigger group, the nation."

Mr Rajaratnam believed that with the right education policy, young people would come out of school as Malayans. In our case, today, as Singaporeans.

In another article that he wrote in 1960, he noted "that a majority of Malayans are more attached to their communal cultures. A Chinese, a Malay or Indian can get worked up about his communal culture but Malayan culture fails to evoke a similar response." Somehow that has a familiar ring even today. And he said, "I think this is partly because we have not yet developed a deep sense of national consciousness or identity." That was in 1960.

Forty-four years on, and especially after we achieved our own independence, we should have developed a stronger sense of national consciousness. And I would urge our education system to stress this Singapore identity and shared experience over communal cultures and separate identities.

Sir, I studied Confucianism as part of my philosophy subject in university, but I must confess that although I embraced the values of Confucius, after years of studying what Confucius said and even

Column: 1458

memorising what he said in Chinese, it did not make me feel more Chinese. But when I read Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's Memoirs, that resonated more. It made me feel more Singaporean. That kind of society I want to belong to.

Sir, we must seek to be ourselves. Let us follow our own path, our literature, our way of life. They are ours. They capture our spirit, our essence. Let that be enough.

Sir, I support this motion and I hope that the House should also bear in mind that we are working towards a national identity, and we should not forget that.