Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate on the motion, standing in the name of the Minister for Education. As I thought about the motion, I thought back about the entering cohort of medical students who started in university with me. One has become a very good musician, one a playwright, a few have become bankers, a few have become good businessmen, real estate developers - not all finished their medical course - but all became successful in their own ways. And in thinking of these people, I thought about the second part of this motion, which endorses a greater diversity and opening of new pathways in JC and Upper Secondary Education, to cater to different strengths and interests of students. Twenty years ago, and I am sure this strikes a chord with many Members, many of us and parents would have said that the route to advancement lies in the professions, therefore, get yourself a good "A" levels, go into one of the professional courses and after that you can think about it. I think this new set of reforms sends a strong signal that we mean what we say in wanting to show people that there are many, many ways of achieving success, that Singapore needs a broader definition of success if we are to face the world ahead. We are an unashamedly meritocratic and competitive society. No matter what MOE reforms are put in place, many Singaporean parents and Singaporean kids themselves will always strive for excellence, and subject themselves and their children to perhaps a little too much pressure to succeed. These reforms will not change this because it is an ingrained habit, and perhaps not such a bad thing. But what I think we would need to change is this broadening of the Singaporean mind. And I think this is very, very important because it is the broad minds, the agile minds, succeed in the new economy, even though that itself is a cliche by now. What we do hope to achieve is a long term shift in society's attitudes and direction towards a more thinking and creative nation - a nation of leaders and not followers alone. We need a couple of Thomas Edisons, not a couple of thousand of candle-makers. Yet the biggest impediment to the success of these proposed changes is, I think, fear. And I think these fears are two-fold. Firstly, a fear of change. Some have expressed fears that our teachers are not used to the system. Others fear that their children would not be able to cope with this new system. Secondly, a fear of missing the boat - a lack of bridges between the EM3, EM2 and EM1 segments of society, so to speak. Many of those who have talked about the through-train approach also fear that some of these young people might fall between the stools in the through-train system. Many have expressed the fear that in households where English is not the main language spoken at home, there will be children who would not be able to cope and not be able to benefit from these new reforms. But I think we can actually deal with these fears separately, and indeed some of these issues are very important, but they should be dealt with separately. The crux of the matter before us today is that we need to give our brightest and best new routes to success because the "A" level education model that has served us so well in the past is perhaps no longer the most suitable model for Singapore's future needs. Yet, I am glad that the report has recognised the great value of the brand name of the Singapore "A" levels and that we must not only provide for the acquisition of technical knowledge, but also for the development of the spirit of inquiry and creativity, and the development of morals and character. The issue is really also about the best way to use the time available to prepare Singaporeans who will benefit from a university education, to be qualified for competitive admission to local and foreign universities. With the proposed changes, individuals can reach a university education by either proof of achieving academic excellence, or through proof of academic competence, accompanied by proof of excellence in some other fields, such as the arts or in sports. Is it perfect? Perhaps not. Because just as there are limitations in designing, say, a car or a military tank, where one has to balance fire-power, protection and mobility in one fighting vehicle, there are also only 24 hours in a day, and there is only so much that one can cram into a young mind in a week. Instead of fire-power, protection and mobility, therefore, we have to balance breadth of knowledge, depth of knowledge and the ability to apply knowledge. I believe there are no easy solutions, and there is no perfect design - only the possibility of a design which is best able to suit our particular needs and our particular point in history. The Singapore of the future will have more and more people with degrees. In fact, if you look around world-wide trends, the tendency for many of the developed countries is for the majority of the so-called educated workforce to have some degree or other. The issue then is: what will a degree be worth? And, if everybody has a degree, why would then people fight to get a degree? We are familiar with what has been happening in the United Kingdom, where there is a move towards getting everybody to have some sort of university experience. We need to ask ourselves if the aim of our system is to make it possible for all people to go to university. I believe it is not. And, if not, what will then be the value of a university degree? Our system aims to ensure that all Singaporeans will have the skills to earn a living, to understand the world around them, after a fashion, and to understand the society they live in and their own place in the society. I believe this has been very well stated through the Ministry of Education's goals in education. But we are also unique in that we do this through a variety of institutions, culminating in the ITE, polytechnics and university education routes. While we recognise these different routes to success, we are focused today on the route that leads towards university education. We need to recognise that there is a bell curve for academic excellence and there is no getting around that bell curve - you are either at the beginning, the middle, or the end of it. But we can recognise the existence of other bell curves, and that we can recognise that some of the people who are otherwise just competent, to benefit from a university education, may be actually the excellent end of the bell curves for some other skills. And I think it is a societal choice whether we should be allowing them the chance to enter university. I personally believe that it would be a good thing for us to recognise this type of excellence and allow these people to enter university because in Singapore, university education, like it or not, is one of the big prizes of our system. We realise that not everyone would know what he wants to do later in life at the age of 16 or 18. This new system will make it easier for young people to make better choices and prevent premature shunting into fields which one may not have wanted to go into. In thinking of that, I think of my friends, some of whom were asked to go into certain professional fields, even though their own hearts say otherwise. Also, not everyone will have the benefit of a family that values exposing their children to a wide range of general knowledge topics, or to the opportunity to travel. But again, these new JC and Upper Secondary reforms will make it easier for children, even from less privileged backgrounds, to have their worlds opened up to different experiences. Turning to another point, I believe we should aim to reduce the wastage of potential. Currently, while one in four of our Primary One cohort will sit for their "A" levels, only 80% of these candidates will be able to qualify for admission to a local university. I am particularly heartened by the news that even with this new system, the 3-year pre-university centres will still be retained, to allow those who need to develop at a But, as with other speakers before me, I think that we should be dealing with the problem perhaps a little bit earlier. I think we really need to be finding ways to support those who come from households where English is not widely spoken, where the children actually already turn up in lower primary school and upper primary school with significant disadvantages, vis-a-vis language. Because with this new system, where you have to defend your thoughts and learn to present your ideas, if you have got a language difficulty, you have a double difficulty. Yet, I think the answer is not about levelling everybody down, but it is about levelling everybody up, and trying to narrow the gap where possible. I think that the introduction of specialised schools for sports and people who are talented in the arts, as well as the introduction of this through-train system, with the potential of not having to sit for the "O" level is wonderful, because we have been talking for so long about the lack of flexibility in our school system. And I think many of us would have heard from our friends that, "Well, we have decided to send so-and-so abroad because he could not cope with the lack of flexibility." Well, we are now going to have flexibility in our local school system. Let us see whether these children can cope. Yet the challenge, I believe, is not so much in setting up these schools, but in getting parents to buy into the idea of an alternative path to success. I am heartened by the new emphasis on socialisation and on learning of social skills in our new curriculum. This is very important. I would also argue that we should perhaps include some learning about cultural sensitivity, perhaps even religious sensitivity. Much has been said about learning how to be outspoken, but you know we live in Asia, and perhaps some of our English-stream students also need to learn a little bit more about the cultures in the countries around us, where it pays sometimes to be a little bit quiet at certain times - part of doing business, right? I am heartened by the introduction of this new subject called Knowledge and Inquiry, which will train students to evaluate the validity and relevance of new observations in theories and teach them how to defend their arguments, to apply their theories to present-day realities. We know, at a time when so many people claim to have a university degree, what makes people stand out is how well they can deal with changes, and actually apply knowledge, and also evaluate a statement that has been put forward to them. Prof Low Seow Chay actually pointed out that perhaps if one were to use this business of practical work or project, that soon there will be a whole industry, perhaps of people wanting to sell project work. But I believe there are new computer systems, smart systems, that can detect plagiarism of this nature. And it is not such a bad thing because, I think the Bible says that there are not that many new things under the sun. The challenge for us is actually to make use of the available knowledge that is out there on the web, everywhere, to rehash it, to look at ways to present it, so that it becomes something new. If our kids can learn to do that with commercial term papers, maybe that is not such a bad thing. That is called synthesis of knowledge. I think we also should consider teaching our JC students about basic statistical concepts, even if they are not headed for statistics as a course. We should teach them about circular arguments and concepts of management. This is about teaching our young to be educated consumers - educated consumers of information, of advertisements, of goods and services. Teaching them, as it were, to be a bit more street-smart in a structured Singapore way. I am also heartened that these changes will be implemented only in the year 2006. I am confident that this would give MOE the time to refine the syllabi and train the necessary teachers to undertake the new JC curriculum. I am confident that people described as old workhorses and old teachers actually will be able to meet the challenges. Because after all, we are trying to remake the whole of Singapore, why not the teachers? What I am perhaps a little less confident about is whether we can change parental attitudes. I think we should tell parents and students who are now in Secondary 1 or Secondary 2 that these changes would soon affect them. We can pilot some of these concepts now, maybe we do not have to make it an examination subject. We can also ensure that we will not inadvertently increase the tendency for people to take subjects that score more As by devising some sort of thinking skills type of questions so that, even in Science-based subjects, only those who can show independent thinking or higher order of thinking and deeper understanding can get this 'A'. That would perhaps balance the field for those who are taking the Arts type courses. In closing, we recognise the multiplicity of educational models out there in the world, and that this multiplicity of educational models suggests that there are either many ways to achieve excellence in education, or none of the methods out there really is foolproof. Therefore, we should choose the best model for our nation's needs and not be ashamed about it. I would also echo the call for a second chance to be made available for children who are brave enough to try this something new and who have made a mistake in perhaps making their first choice. It has been said that Singapore could not afford to give people a second chance in education because of scarce educational resources in the early days. This would have been true a generation ago. But what is scarce now is our young people. Our young people's innate potential should and must not be wasted. If we do not make some form of a second chance the cornerstone of these reforms, I fear that we would only perpetuate the tendency of Singaporeans to take only the safe route to success. We would then have failed in one of our most important tasks, that of nurturing the creative, entrepreneurial and 'never say die' spirit that we so much admire and strive for. I do not agree with those who say that we should not start off with the top 10%. We must not fear failure as a nation when we are changing the system. But I think, as Singaporeans, we are cautious. And it is perfectly reasonable to start off with the top 10% because these are probably the very people who are most likely to be able to cope and deal with change successfully. I am sure that MOE will make use of these experiences to make the changes down the line. As someone else has said, "Look, I understand what it is like to help my little girl with the project work in primary school." Finally, if these reforms succeed, I am confident that we can sell the product, call it the "Singaporean JC education", to paying students from around the region and, in doing so, enlarge our potential immigrant and talent pool. Mr Speaker, I support the motion.