MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR - 1ST APRIL, 1990 TO 31ST MARCH, 1991
Sir, before I deal with the question from the Member, perhaps I can continue with the rest of my speech, with the Member's permission. Sir, I just want to point out to Members the uniqueness of our situation. Sir, I do not know of any other country in the world which tries to make an entire population bilingual in two languages. Most countries which teach their children more than one language educate their children in their mother tongue first in their early years of school. The children then pick up the second language in the later part of their school career. But no system in the world, Sir, tries to educate an entire population so that every one is literate in English and at the same time has a reasonable knowledge of his mother tongue. In Japan and Taiwan, for example, the children are educated essentially in Japanese and in Chinese respectively. The learning of English in these two countries only comes at a much later stage in life. The nearest to our situation is Switzerland. But even then, Sir, the Swiss Confederation is split up into French speaking, German speaking and Italian speaking communities. A child in Zurich, for example, which is in the German speaking community, would be educated primarily in German at the primary school level. He only starts to learn some conversational French but without taking any examinations towards the end of primary school. It is only in secondary school that French and English are introduced as formal school subjects. Sir, I believe that the problems of implementing a bilingual policy of education in a multi-racial society like Singapore have not been sufficiently addressed. There are many issues which, to my mind, require further investigation. One issue, Sir, for example, which has worried some of our more thoughtful and perceptive principals in our SAP schools, is the long term social consequences of teaching children almost exclusively of one race in a system where they do not have the opportunity to interact daily and frequently with children of other races during a very formative period of their lives. These principals are concerned as to whether their pupils will, in later life, be able to interact easily with children of other races and develop an instinctive understanding and respect for traditions which are different from those of their own. Sir, we need to foster a core of students who are able to use Chinese at first language level. Some of these students will continue to study Chinese at university level and, in due course, help to transmit the language by occupying key positions in our society as teachers, media personnel, diplomats or businessmen. It is for this reason that we need the SAP schools and the Language Elective pro- gramme in junior college. We should note that students in the SAP schools have opportunities to mix with children of other races, for example, when they go to junior college or when they are in national service. But nevertheless, Sir, having regard to the concern of the principals, should we not seek to improve the system by consciously providing more opportunities to enable the students in the SAP schools to interact with children of other schools and other races? Now, Sir, another issue. This concerns the intellectual requirement for Chinese children to learn two languages - English and Chinese - which are completely different linguistically. English has a phonetic alphabet while Chinese uses ideographs to construct words. When a child learns two European languages, English and French or French and German, we know that the key is to teach the children on an oral basis first, ie, to learn to use the language orally, to listen, to speak and to understand before going into the grammar and the spelling. Once the child is comfortable with the spoken language, the writing and reading then come more naturally. The question which we have to ask ourselves is: Does this also apply to Chinese which uses ideographs and not a phonetic alphabet? How much does oral fluency in Chinese help children to read and to write Chinese characters? If it is established that attaining oral proficiency in Chinese does help children significantly to get a better grasp of the language, should we therefore not restructure our teaching and our examinations to put emphasis on speaking, listening and understanding the language rather than on memorising and reproducing characters on demand? This would provide the opportunity for a more interactive, more interesting type of teaching and learning and make the study of the language more enjoyable, as Dr Hong Hai has suggested, and possibly lessen the anxiety of parents and students. But we cannot make such decisions off the cuff. The issues have to be studied carefully. A third issue, Sir - how many Chinese characters should a child know so that he can be considered to have acquired a reasonable knowledge of the language and how should the study of these characters be distributed between primary and secondary schools? Sir, Members may remember a few months ago it was reported in the press that Japanese and Korean students need to learn only 2,000 Chinese characters and 1,000 Chinese characters respectively by the time they reach 12th grade, ie, when they are 18 years old and they are still able to read their own newspapers. Of course, Japanese and Korean are not the same as Chinese. As Members will probably know, modern Japanese is written in a mixture of three components - Kanji, Hiragana and Katakana. Kanji are Chinese characters while Hiragana and Katakana are sets of syllables which make up two separate syllabic alphabets. Kanji is used mainly for content words, such as nouns, verbs and adjectives while Hiragana and Katakana are used for specific Japanese words, to perform grammatical functions, to denote pronouns, adverbs and conjunctions and to render foreign words into Japanese. The Korean writing system consists of Hanja which is mainly based on Chinese characters and Hangul which is the original Korean script. Korea has, of course, gone much further than Japan in using a phonetic script to denote both Hangul and Hanja characters. The experience of our children learning Chinese is therefore not strictly comparable to that of Japanese children learning Japanese or Korean children learning Korean. But nevertheless, Sir, as Japanese and Korean children learn Japanese and Korean as their mother tongue and their first language and having regard to another press report in the Chinese press which quoted a Professor from the Beijing Institute of Languages, as saying that, with a knowledge of 3,000 characters, one would be able to read newspapers in Chinese, are we not overloading our students who study Chinese as a second language by requiring them to learn 3,000 characters by the time they reach 'O' level? Should we not update our words list which was last compiled in 1982, and see if we can make do with fewer characters and still give our children a reasonable proficiency in Chinese? With regard to spreading the study of characters between primary and secondary school, we know that Chinese is not an easy language to learn and it could be advantageous for children to learn as much Chinese as possible in primary schools in order to build a firm foundation for the study of the language before the children proceed to secondary schools where they will have to study many more academic subjects. The question then arises as to how much time can we devote to Chinese at the primary school level without permanently handicapping the pupil in his learning of English and the other academic subjects. Unfortunately, our experience in this matter has not been very encouraging. Our previous attempt to give an early start and hence, more time to the learning of Chinese to about 10% of our primary school pupils in the pre-primary classes was not successful and, as Members will know, this has to be discontinued. We are now making a fresh start with the Preparatory Year programme for five years old in the 10 primary SAP schools. Here, our aim is to try and lay a sound foundation in Chinese by taking advantage of the Chinese primary school ethos in these schools and utilizing redesigned curricula and teaching materials. If this can be done successfully, and the signs are hopeful, we then have to consider whether or not we should extend the system to more schools and thereby effectively have our children start school earlier at five years instead of six years. This is a major issue which should be carefully studied before any decision is taken. Sir, my point in mentioning all of this is to point out that the Ministry of Education, as an operational Ministry, is not the best institution to look into these issues, many of which require intensive long term research. The Ministry has to deal with day-to-day problems. I believe that we need a centre or an institute in Singapore which can study issues not of the teaching of languages as such but of the implementation of the bilingual policy in our multi-racial society. In my view, Sir, the most appropriate institution to set up such a centre or institute for the study of bilingualism in our society would be one of our tertiary institutions, possibly the proposed National Institute of Education. I have therefore asked the working committee, which is looking into the establishment of the NIE, to consider the possibility of the NIE, perhaps in association with other relevant and interested bodies, sponsoring an institute or a centre to look into all the problems and issues connected with the implementation of the bilingual policy in Singapore. If this centre or institute can be set up, it could be of considerable assistance to us in resolving many of the problems and issues which we face today. Sir, I have explained at some length the steps which the Ministry of Education is taking in order to make the study of the mother tongue by our students less stressful and more enjoyable. Our objective must be that by the time a student finishes his general education at the age of 16 at 'O' level, he will have, in addition to a high standard of English, reasonable fluency in his mother tongue and a sound foundation on which, should he wish, he can build on to enhance his proficiency in the language. It will take us some years to realise this objective but it is something which is worthwhile for us to work towards. Sir, I apologize to the Member for taking so much of his time before coming round to his question. But as I said, Sir, we are paying as much attention to the teaching of English as to the teaching of Chinese. I am happy to inform him now that with the new materials and new techniques which we have in our primary and secondary schools, plus giving more time to those pupils who need help, the majority of our children are now able to reach an adequate standard in English. As I pointed out, Sir, the percentage of our students who now pass English at '0' level is comparable to those of English children taking the same examination in England. And for those children who need more time, ie, those children who come from dialect-speaking homes or non English-speaking homes, for example, this is a matter of concern to us. We will continue looking into it. One advantage which we have, Sir, with regard to the teaching of English in Singapore is that we are not the only country doing so. There are an innumerable number of centres and experts in England, America, Australia, Canada, all looking into this matter. Therefore, there is a huge variety of teaching materials and techniques which are constantly in use. My Ministry has been able to take advantage of these new materials. We constantly look out for new techniques to make the teaching and learning of English much more interesting and we will continue to do so. Much obliged, Sir.