Hansard, 2004-11-25

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2004) To (2004) Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam 02 Dec 04 Dec 10 Dec 30 Dec Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon 05 Dec 08 Dec Dr Balaji Sadasivan 06 Dec 16 Dec RAdm Teo Chee Hean 08 Dec 10 Dec Prof. S Jayakumar 15 Dec 24 Dec Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee 16 Dec 30 Dec Mr Lee Hsien Loong 17 Dec 23 Dec

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore [Mr Speaker in the Chair]

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.

(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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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.

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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.

(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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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."

(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

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

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?

(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.

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.

(In Mandarin) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all my parliamentary colleagues for giving us so many precious suggestions on this reform.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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,

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,

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,

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

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

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

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.

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.]

Debate resumed.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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,

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

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:

more emphasis on the practical use of Chinese Language;

engaging and relevant instructional materials; and

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

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

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."

Dr Wang, you have three minutes left.

Thank you, Sir.

Wen ti pu da!

Wen ti pu da!

Two and a half minutes now!

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.

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

Debate resumed.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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

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

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,

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.

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

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

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

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.

With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present,

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Mentor's speech." - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Debate resumed.

4.38 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not spoken in previous debates in this Chamber since this Parliament was elected because I think the future belongs to the younger Members. But this is an old and never ending subject - education, language and culture.

I have listened to the speeches made yesterday and today on my computer URL. I think we have made progress. But unlike Ms Irene Ng's idealistic approach that we should create a national consciousness and forget our ethnic origins and be Singaporeans, I think this will take us a few more generations. If you take a vote in this Chamber, never mind about going out to the constituencies, and say, "Do you agree with what Irene Ng said?", I am pretty certain that the overwhelming majority will say, "Let's stick to where we are."

Race, language, religion, culture are deep in the human psyche. You cannot change your race. You can change your language. You can change your religion. You can, over time, change your culture. So there are countries which strive very hard to obliterate race, language and religion to treat all their subjects equally.

At present, a leading exponent of this philosophy of government, of nation building, is the United States. It has been a white man's country. They excluded, by their Immigration Acts, immigration from Asia until the 1960s. But in recent years, because they were caught up in the Korean war, Vietnam war, they removed those Immigration Acts. They now understand that they need talent, and they are not getting it from Europe any more, so too Australia and Canada with their big, wide, open spaces that have to be filled up. So they have lifted the bar against non-white races but have a high bar for education and ability.

But has the United States succeeded? If you are black? You can see them on television; they make an effort. So CNN has an anchor woman who is an Afro American. The person who presents the weather forecast on CNN is an Afro American. The British are trying the same. They have Indians now broadcasting on

BBC. But go to Britain, is it really like that, or is this some form of affirmative action? So it is a very gradual process.

Start off from where we were, let us say after the war, 1945, or even 1965. We were in different communal groups - Malay kampongs, Chinese villages. You would see Hainanese at Lorong Tai Seng, Malays in Kampong Ubi, and so on.

Mr Rajaratnam was the exponent of "we can create a race of Singaporeans". Idealistically, I would go along with him. But, realistically, I knew it was going to be one long hard slog; maybe we'll never get there, but we should try.

Ask yourself this question. If your child brings back a boyfriend or a girlfriend of a different race, will you be delighted? I will answer you frankly. I do not think I will. I may eventually accept it. So it is deep in the psyche of a human being.

Before we entered Malaysia when we negotiated the terms of entry, education, language and culture were such important subjects. We knew the way Malaya was going with Malay as the national language. Had we not had education excluded from Federal jurisdiction, there would have been a no vote in favour of merger. Right from the start, 1961-1962, education was already a red hot issue.

What did we do as a Government? From 1959 to 1965, we had a laissez-faire policy. We inherited from the British, English schools, Malay schools, Tamil schools and other schools. We introduced mother tongue in the English schools for those who are in English schools, and we gradually introduced English into Malay schools and Tamil schools.

When we became independent in 1965, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce committee came to see me in my office then at City Hall. They urged me to have

Chinese as our national and official language. I looked them in the eye and said, "You must be mad, and I don't want to hear any more of that from you. If you do, you are entering the political arena. I have to fight you. Because Singapore will come apart."

Supposing I had been otherwise inclined, which my colleagues would not have allowed, and had said, "Yes, OK." What would have happened to Singapore? Where would the Malays be, and the Indians, what future would they have? The English-educated Chinese would also be against us. The country would fall apart.

Let us assume that we were all Chinese, no Malays, no Indians. Could we make a living with Chinese as our language of government and our national language?

Who is going to trade with us? What do we do? How do we get access to knowledge? There was no choice. Having made English the working language of government and administration, what do we do about the mother tongues? If we had no set policy and allowed free market practices, free choice, all mother tongues would have eventually vanished. Because the first business of any parent is to make sure that his or her child can make a living. It is as simple as that. Therefore, we decided that however unpleasant, however contrary to the concept of a homogeneous society, each racial group would learn his mother tongue as a second language. Most unhappy for English-speaking Chinese homes and, I am sure, also for Indian homes. For Malays, nearly all of them spoke Malay at home; so they were happy.

Was that policy right or wrong? If you bring me back to 1965, I would say that is the policy I would still adopt. So I take primary responsibility. The whole Cabinet deliberated on this - we agreed on this - but I was the Prime Minister and I took

primary responsibility. Did I legislate it; you go to English school, and Chinese as a second language. I think we would have lost the next election. Because after Independence, the enrolment for Chinese schools increased; 1966, over 55%. Many parents thought, "Yes. Let's do Chinese now. We are out of Malaysia." I left it alone. By the 1970s, the job market decided what parents chose, and the rush began to English schools. You can look up the statistics in the Education Ministry, and you will know what decided the parents' decision. It became so rapid that I had no choice but to urge parents to go slow, because we could not produce enough English teachers. How do you convert Chinese language teachers into English language teachers? Anyway, from a trickle, to a flow, to a flood. So I faced the problem of Nanyang University. By 1978, Nanyang University was in dire straits. I do not know when Low Thia Khiang graduated. Ji nian qian?

Bashi.

Bashi nian. Zuihou yipi. Last batch.

It was so bad that when a Nanyang graduate applied for a job, he would produce his school certificate. Because employers knew that the Nanyang graduates of the 1950s and 60s were not the same as the Nanyang graduates of the late 70s. The quality students had moved across to English schools. Do we allow this to go on? What was the solution? We tried to convert Nantah from within, get the teachers to lecture in English because they all had American PhDs. They could not. They had lost their English fluency. So we moved the whole campus into University of Singapore. The students had a terrible time! I met them, I encouraged them. But 70% made the grade and passed their final examinations. When they passed, we asked them: do you want a Nanyang University degree or a University of Singapore degree? They

chose a University of Singapore degree, because there was a market for that. We decided to merge the two universities and made it the National University of Singapore. You can see from the coat of arms, the Nanyang's five circles and the University of Singapore's lion.

It is now 20-plus years since the first batch of NUS students, 1981. Has it ceased to be an issue, politically? I do not think so. Endless requests to go back to old Nanyang University, to drop out the "Technical" from the university name. Why? Sentiment. Not only that, the Malaysian graduates want teaching to be restored in Mandarin. It is a very powerful, emotive issue. And it is a very powerful, emotive issue still in Malaysia where nearly 100% of Chinese students are now in Chinese private primary schools without any government support or very little of it. Why? Because it is a question of identity, of culture and of future prospects. Would you want to go to a national type school and be taught in Malay and increasingly, also caught up in teaching of the Koran and so on?

I have been berated all these years by the Chinese-educated in Malaysia for having killed Chinese education. I am a convenient excuse for letting off their frustrations. They are not really hating me. They are saying, "Look. Please don't go that way in Malaysia." If you have a unified system based on the national language, that will be a big problem for the Chinese community. It is not a problem here because I never forced anybody into the English stream. They could have chosen Chinese as their primary language and English as a secondary language. But career prospects determined what they chose. Will we ever become completely homogeneous, a melange of languages and cultures? No. Why did we take this route? Because we have no other choice. If we have only

English and we allowed the other languages to atrophy and vanish, we face a very serious problem of identity and culture. We are learning the English Language, but we are not absorbing western culture. Western culture, just incidental, over TV, and higher culture in the higher literature. But the basic culture is still native. Therefore, an understanding of your native language, even though it is not your master language, gives an appreciation of the proverbs, of the sayings, of the aphorisms, gives you that sense of identity. How do I know this? Because I learned Chinese late in life, and I rediscovered snatches of what I heard when my parents, my grandparents said, "Ah! yes, that was what they meant." It resonates, pulled at my heartstrings. Would I want to see it lost? Absolutely not! So I sympathise with you, I empathise with you. But Rajaratnam was aiming too high - it cannot be achieved easily.

Had I known all the difficulties of bilingualism in 1965 as I know now today, would I have done it differently? Yes, in its implementation, not in its policy. I do not regret the stress and the heavy burdens I put, because the other way would have been a destruction of our whole cultural base, the chance to build up some form of culture which is worth preserving. This way, over time, we will learn, maybe in 100 years, five generations. We may be able to evolve a certain Singaporean culture, but not one which will bridge all the races. Not possible. We might bridge some of the other races, but religion is a very powerful cultural factor. I know of no non-Muslim society in this world that has been able to assimilate its Muslims into their society. Not even China. The Chinese absorbed the Jews. There is a place in Jiangsu called Yangzhou where there were Jews. But there are no more Jews. They have been absorbed into Chinese society. But you can go to Beijing, you can go to Yunnan, you can go to Xinjiang, and there

are mosques. They are not assimilated. So there are limits. Within these limits, we find a way forward.

Many views have been expressed. I do not intend to reply to what Mr Chiam or Mr Low Thia Khiang have said. This is my view and the people of Singapore have to decide who has the experience, the knowledge and the judgment to do the right thing, whose view to take. I am satisfied, if they just read me. I say, "You decide." What I am saying to all parents is: you make up your mind, just how much English you want for your child and how much Chinese. But, remember, the more English, the less Chinese; the more Chinese, the less English. There is no such thing as 100% English, 100% Chinese. Those who achieve that level are simultaneous interpreters at the UN; they spend all their time juggling with words, grammar and idioms from one language to another. Then how do you make a living. How to learn hi-tech, the economy, and so many other subjects.

I will begin by describing the learning of languages that I went through, and I put my children through. The acid test is, what would you do to your children?

Think that over carefully. I thought it over very carefully with my wife, and I decided we would make them Chinese educated. They would learn English at home. We were confident of that.

We thought, at that time, when they went to Chinese kindergarten that they would be more fluent in Mandarin than in English. In the end, it turned out the other way, because the home influence was profound and, after university, in English, they worked in English. So their master language today is English. I tell all parents, "Look at your child carefully. Consider how much he can take - one or the other - and decide what you want." I will give you a series of options. You want Chinese as your master language, go ahead. You want English, how much.

And how much Chinese. A series of options. But remember the choice is yours. If you make the wrong decision over your child's capability, do not blame the Government. The teachers will give you their recommendations, "Do EM3, EM2, EM1, your choice, but you take the consequences."

Why do we do that? Because this is a highly emotive issue. I started off in a Chinese school, Choon Guan School in Joo Chiat. My grandmother wanted me to be educated in Chinese. I hated it. At home my mother spoke to me in English and some Peranakan Malay. I spoke to the village kids in Hokkien and Malay. Here was this teacher mumbling away in some dialect-accented Mandarin, I did not understand a word of it. So after two months I persuaded my mother to send me to Telok Kurau English School. She did. Sometimes, I regretted having done that because I paid for it later on - in 1955, when I went to Tanjong Pagar to contest my first election - and I have been paying for it ever since. My grandmother said, "Go to the village school." There was a small fishmen's village behind my house in Siglap. It was a one-man teacher in an attap house, and all the fishermen's children were learning brush work. I sat there for two, three months, learned nothing. I gave it up. I scored well in English, did not need Malay, learned Latin in school because I wanted to be a lawyer. I did it for my Junior Cambridge and Senior Cambridge, without that, you could not become a lawyer in those days.

My first crisis was when the Japanese captured Singapore. I did not know Japanese and I got smacked and hit. But I hated them so much that I did not want to learn Japanese. I saw that they had these notices with Kanji on it. So I said, "Okay, I'll learn Chinese to understand what they are saying in the written form." I bought up the books - there was a school in Prinsep Street teaching Chinese

through English - four books. There was Chiang Ker Chiu "Mandarin Made Easy", and "advanced Mandarin", and so on. I studied it with a dictionary - Chinese/English, English/Chinese - self-taught, learned how to write the characters. I must have learned about 2,000 words in about six to eight months. I had a neighbour who spoke Teochew, got him to teach me. But he was teaching me Teochew. So I refused to take it in because I would learn the wrong pronunciation.

But my next crisis was in 1955, because my opponent, Lam Thian, a Hakka, like me, challenged me to a debate in Mandarin in Tanjong Pagar. What could I do? Should I speak Cantonese? Because I could speak some Cantonese with my maid servants at home. I debated this furiously with my wife. She said, "Don't. This is kitchen Cantonese. Don't try this." So I got hold of a Chinese left wing reporter from Sin Pao, a pro-communist newspaper. I said, "Can you do a speech for me in Chinese, one page in Mandarin." He did. I said, "Make it simple, so I can read the characters." The problem was the pronunciation. I furiously learned the pronunciation. And I remember one phrase that he put down, one little proverb gua yang tou mai gou rou to criticise my opponent, Lam Thian, who was a capitalist pretending to be a socialist.

I sweated blood - 20,000 people in Kreta Ayer - and my first speech in Mandarin. They saw me struggle, they cheered me. I knew, I would win. And I did. I slogged like mad every day - because I was the Secretary-General of the PAP, I was a Member of the Legislative Assembly, I had to meet people; every day one to two hours, I learned Mandarin. Who was my teacher? A PAP branch member who was a communist. He was told to convert me.

So we had a simple textbook - Ren Sheng Guan, very interesting little book - Marxism made easy. So, I learned all the left wing phrases which were most useful, because I knew what they were saying, and I could also produce them.

At that time, I had to decide what to do with my children. I said, "Don't send them to English school. They will suffer like me." Starting with my eldest boy, lessons began at home at the age of 3, then kindergarten, two, three years, Nanyang Xiao Xue, then Catholic High, 12 years. For the other children, kindergarten, Nanyang Xiao Xue; the girl, Nanyang Nu Zhong; the boy, Catholic High and National Junior College. For their "A" levels, the two decided to switch to English. My daughter did not want to learn biology in Chinese and then learn to be a doctor using English textbooks. So there are limits. I realised that quickly. I encouraged them but never pressed them to breaking point. They learned Chinese in school, learned English at home, and they also learned Malay. It was not just the teacher teaching them Malay, the cikgu who was teaching in Kampong Jagoh got my son, Hsien Loong, to join a Malay group. I said, "Get him into a Malay group." So, he joined the Kampong Jagoh Wolf Cub Troop. It was a living language, talking to people in Malay, to young boys like him. So it was not just lessons in Malay. He was young, he picked up the rhythm and the accent. He took his "O" levels, never used it. He went into politics, and it came back. But my Chinese, if I lose it, it goes rusty, it is very difficult to get it back.

By the 1959 general elections, I could make speeches in Mandarin. Unfortunately, at that time, the majority of the audience understood Hokkien. You reached the largest number of people in Hokkien. So our Hokkien speakers, the first was Lim Chin Siong. He was arrested and detained. Then we had Ong Eng Guan, a good Hokkien speaker. He

became the first Mayor of Singapore. By 1961, he wanted to be the leader, found some excuse, quarrelled with the party and resigned. A by-election in Hong Lim. By that time, we could not trust Lim Chin Siong because we knew he was on the other side. So Goh Keng Swee saw me and said, "No choice. You better learn Hokkien. You will be our Hokkien speaker. Otherwise, we will have no end to this problem." I can tell you - this was in March 1961 - if I did not learn Hokkien, the rest of history would have been different.

Every day, in spite of my work, I learned Hokkien. My basis was my Mandarin. And my teacher was a real Hokkien scholar, Seah Cheng Tit, producer of Radio Singapore Hokkien programmes. And he could teach me the pronunciation and the tone, seven different tones in Hokkien, romanised by missionaries. I learned like mad.

My first speech was in China Street, a street rally. Lots of kids around - first meeting was in March/April - because they all lived in one-room cubicles, there was nothing to do at night, they would go and watch an election rally, crowd around a lorry. I spoke in Hokkien. They laughed hilariously. I said, Gin nai mia chio, wah bai oh, chia wu bian kai lo kong, in wee gua wu chit kwa chu tiong yar ei tai zi beh hor lo chai yan. I practised this with Seng Han Thong to bring it back.

Because I used Hokkien frequently, Hokkien become my second language. From 1961 to 1963, touring all the constituencies, and at every National Day Rally I spoke in Hokkien. I reached out to the largest crowd. But we were teaching Mandarin in schools and I was setting a bad example speaking in Hokkien. Many parents believed their children could learn Mandarin, speak dialect at home and learn English. It did not work out. So, I decided to stop Hokkien. I wrote off my investment of 20 years of effort. I switched off all dialect programmes from

television and radio. It was very harsh. I started a "Speak Mandarin" campaign. I heard Goh Choon Kang recently explaining why the "Speak Mandarin" campaign was a failure. He is wrong. It is a success. The first "Speak Mandarin" campaign was to get people to switch from dialect to Mandarin. It succeeded. Nevertheless, till today, come election time Low Thia Khiang is able to carry Hougang because kong Teochew wa. But that is a vanishing generation. Twenty years from now, few will understand it. You will have to speak English or Mandarin, and you will have more listeners in English than Mandarin, because we are multiracial. So it is a changing language environment.

Let me add that you can learn all these languages but, to be able to use them, you have to have them at your fingertips. In other words, you have to use them frequently. I refused to learn Japanese. In the end, I was forced to, because I could not get a job. So, I became a copy typist in a Japanese firm. The owner was a friend of my grandfather. It was a textile firm called Shimoda & Co. Fortunately for me, as a copy typist, I learned how to write Chinese characters, and I learned touch-typing. So, when I went to the computer, it was a great help. I revived my typing skills. But can I speak Japanese now? At the end, in 1945, I could translate Japanese into English, and not so well from English into Japanese. After I became Senior Minister, no longer Prime Minister, when in Tokyo, I toyed with the idea of reviving my Japanese. So I told our Ambassador to get me Japanese books to revive my Japanese. He bought me the books. I started re-learning. Hiragana katakanan and so on. After a while, I said to myself, "What am I trying to do?" I am talking to the Japanese in English, and his English, not as good as mine, or he gets an interpreter. Why I am learning Japanese and pushing out my English, Chinese and my Malay, that I need. So I closed the books.

Anybody who wants to learn Japanese, I will let him have the books. I learned Latin. I was the only boy in class to pass with a credit. Self-taught. Forgot all of it. That was in 1939. In 1946, I started law studies and had to revive my Latin. Can you do this? English, Malay, Mandarin, Hokkien, Japanese, Latin - six languages? The language environment has changed.

In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, I had ample opportunities to speak in Mandarin - at my CC, MCs, the people I meet - in Hokkien and Mandarin. Now, 95% of my time is English. If I am not careful, my investment in Mandarin will rust away. So, every week, I meet my teacher - he has been teaching me for 30 years - not teaching, just chatting, making sure that it is kept alive. I watch television and read the papers. Do I read the Chinese paper Zaobao thoroughly? No. The speed at which I read English is three times the speed at which I read Chinese. It is as simple as that. So what do I do when I read Zaobao? I see how they have displayed the news, because I have read the news already in English - Wall Street Journal, Herald Tribune, Straits Times and others online. I want to see how they have presented the news, which headline, what picture. Then, the pin lun, the commentary page, who is commenting on what. That I will read, because that is special - commentaries about Taiwan, China and Hong Kong which are not carried in the English press.

So, bilingualism is not easy. I recount this to show you how I shared this ambition of a bilingual population with the late Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. I was in Canada on my way to Harvard in November 1968. He sent an aircraft from British Columbia to take me to Ottawa to chat with me for a few days. He had just come into office. He was a French Canadian, with a French

father and an Irish mother. He spoke both languages brilliantly. He was educated in Quebec, LSE in London, and a Paris university. When he gave a press conference in Ottawa and was questioned in English, he spoke like an Englishman - understated, stiff upper lip, restrained. When questioned in French, he gesticulated with expressive fingers like Jacques Chirac. I watched him in amazement. He wanted to solve the Quebec separatist problem by making all Canadians bilingual in French and English. And they are closely related languages.

I shared his view and ambition. Yes, English and Chinese, more difficult. But I now know it is not possible. Because 40 years on, Canada has not succeeded. It is taught in schools. You can in any Canadian court speak in French and they will have to produce you a French-speaking judge. You can give your evidence in French. In parliament, you can speak French. All documents are in English and French. English-speaking Canadians are fed up with it. It is over-loading them. I once asked him, "What is your master language?", because he is so good at both. He said, "When I am campaigning in Quebec and speaking French, French is my master language. When I am campaigning in the west, speaking English [which is Columbia, Alberta] English is my master language." I did not understand him at that time. I said, "I thought you are both. They are there." No, it is there and it is not there, because you are not using it every day.

I was happy Members were honest and said, "Look, I lost it." As John Chen said, now he goes to China, he can do it in Chinese. He has improved. He went to Chinese schools for 12 years. Using English, his Chinese declined. But he did it young, so easy retrieval. Revival is easier. The roots have gone deep. My roots are those of a transplanted tree, not deep. The tap root is not deep enough.

Now I know that to make a whole society bilingual is not possible. I am very interested in this, because I was experimenting with Singaporeans. I went to Luxembourg in 1975 or 1976. The Luxembourgese are very proud. They speak Luxembourgese, their native dialect; they also speak German, on the east, and French, on the west. And because of their banking and financial centre, they were learning English. They go to universities either in Germany or France. They do not have any of their own. I thought a wonderful place. I looked at their newspapers, each is an apology of a newspaper. I do not know French or German, but I know English and when I looked at the English, I said, "Oh, this is not a newspaper." It is rudimentary. Only the top few speak two languages well, not three, and they know a little bit of the others. I went to Mauritius in 1979. Mauritius was French. After the Napoleonic wars in 1824, the French surrendered it to the British. The British undertook to allow the French to continue teaching the French language. So the French kept sending teachers. The Prime Minister was a good friend of mine, a nice Indian gentleman called Dr Ramgoolam, educated in Britain, spoke English with a French accent. He was an ambitious man. Once they got independence, he said, "We will have a third language" - Hindi, Tamil, Gujarati, Chinese and Creole. Creole is their pidgin, descendants of the slaves and the mixed blood speaking a French pidgin with native languages. You would have thought it is wonderful. I looked at the newspapers. No, it was only a few at the top who were bilingual. Some of their ministers, because the British charged full fees, went to France for their university education. Half their ministers were French educated. But what about the general populace? Campaigning, was in Creole and English. We can go on ad infinitum.

Many Members have been to Hong Kong and Taiwan. They speak Chinese - Cantonese in Hong Kong; Mandarin in Taiwan, but now going back to Hollow Whey - Hokkien, creating a new language. How many are bilingual? In Hong Kong, because it was a British colony, about 5-10%. Really bilingual and competent in both languages? Less than 5%. In Taiwan, many have gone to American universities, PhDs - some 3%

of population. Can they speak fluent English? Recently, I met Ma Yinjiu, Harvard-educated. He is now the Mayor of Taipei. He was Jiang Jingguo's English secretary. He used to tell me, "I read all your letters to Jiang Jingguo", because I wrote to Jiang Jingguo in English, Jiang Jingguo replied in Chinese. He translated my Chinese. Because I was not confident of our translation, I sent mine in English for them to translate. When he came recently, he was more comfortable speaking to me in Mandarin, because Mandarin now is his master language. When campaigning, he has learned Hollow Whey, the native dialect to win votes. In Hong Kong, they want to learn Mandarin, Cantonese and English. They teach Cantonese in schools, and want to learn English and Mandarin. It is quite an ambitious project for the general population.

What will happen in Singapore? My guesstimate: If we do this right, we will have about 10% of the population reasonably good in English and Mandarin, another 40% reasonably competent in English and Mandarin, the lower 50%, so-so in English, and so-so in Mandarin. But the lowest, maybe 10-20%, their Mandarin better than their English, because that is the language that they use at home and they will read the Chinese papers. Am I confident we can do that? Only if we make the effort and have that desire to keep the language alive.

Let me explain the depth of the problem. I used to believe that you can

learn two languages at the same time, whatever your IQ. I was wrong. You have to master one language enough to read and to absorb knowledge, lessons in all the other subjects. If you have no master language, and you cannot absorb your mathematics, history, science, geography, either in English or Chinese. You are done for. I did not know that. I said, spread the time. If you spread the time, the child has not got the mastery of any one language, so he is lost. How does he learn his geography, history, mathematics, science, biology, etc? Once we make English a working language, he has to master English. And not all, as I have said, will master it properly, because at the lower end, 10-15% will still have Mandarin as their master language.

Another fact which I learned was that you can have the same IQ, score the same marks in science, mathematics and other subjects, but your linguistic skills are different. Girls are better at languages than boys. That is statistically proven. And even between boys, some are more able linguistically. Now, with MRI scanners, they have found that those who are good at the second language have got an extra bit of the brain which is active when they use the second language.

Did I know all this? I did not. My ambition was high. I shared with Pierre Trudeau, to make all bilingual. He wanted French and English and I wanted English and Chinese, or Malay or Tamil. It is difficult. Let me explain how difficult it is.

I learnt Mandarin and I spoke to my children in Mandarin. They spoke to their mother in English. I was practising my Mandarin, she was making sure that they understood English. But when they were age 15-16, my Mandarin was not enough to get my intellectual concepts across. So I had to switch to English. My Chinese teacher said, yes, his children,

when they have a real argument with him - his son who was completely Chinese-educated, speaking Chinese at home, went to NTU, went abroad for his education, he would break into English because English is his master language.

What has happened to our society? Every parent wants the best for their children. So they are switching to English at home to give their children that added advantage. If you start learning English at home, then your Chinese will go down, unless they are very sure that they are able to pick up English on their own, which is not very easy.

What has happened to my grandchildren? They went to the same kindergarten and primary school, Nanyang Kindergarten (you zhi yuan) and Nanyang Primary School (xiao xue). But when I speak to them in Mandarin, they give short replies and they switch to English. They are more comfortable in English. I met Wee Cho Yaw. He said, "Terrible. I speak to my grandchildren, they reply to me in English." And his sons are Chinese-educated at Hwa Chong. What has changed? Because the children in Nanyang you zhi yuan and Nanyang xiao xue now speak to each other in English. Where is the language environment? Is it the children's fault? No. So I think Koo Tsai Kee is quite intelligent. He sent his children to a heartland kindergarten, HDB housing estate kindergarten. I do not know whether he will also send them to a neighbourhood primary school. You need that language environment, but that is vanishing.

As more and more of those parents become English-competent, they will switch. Why should my child lose the chance of that scholarship or that job because he is speaking Chinese all the time and his English is not as good and he cannot score as much? That is the problem. That is why we have offered this series of options. You decide. What

is best for a good future for your children? We have to abandon this one-size-fits-all.

Motivation is the crucial factor. I learnt it because I was powerfully motivated. It was a matter of life and death. If I did not learn Mandarin, how could I hold Tanjong Pagar? How could I be an Assemblyman? How could I be Secretary-General of the PAP? I simply had to learn it. If I did not learn Hokkien, how could I have fought in Hong Lim in 1961, the Referendum in 1962, tour all the constituencies and carried the ground because I got my ideas across? It is motivation. What is the motivation now?

As Mr Low Thia Khiang rightly pointed out, China now makes it a language with economic advantages. So we do not have to tell parents, you better do that. When we talked about culture, roots, they were thinking of jobs, security, future. They will not tell you this in public, because it is loss of face diu lian, but that is their calculation. My advice to them is: you decide, but do not aim too low. If you aim too low for your child, you may regret it.

Nobody can predict which language will be of the greatest value. I thought I knew, so I advised my elder son to do Russian. Having mastered Chinese, English and Malay, I said, "Do Russian." So he did Russian for his 'O' levels. I said, "You are going to do mathematics. Russians are good mathematicians and chess masters. Learn it." He passed his 'O' levels. Took dictation in Russian, got a distinction. Today, it is lost. I asked him, "When you were sitting next to Putin, did you understand him?" He said, "No." Because since 1971, when he went to Moscow, on his way to Cambridge, he stopped using the language. That was 30-plus years and it was only at 'O' levels. It was a bet on the future.

The changes in this White Paper will remove the drudgery of learning Mandarin

- the rote learning, memorising words, phrases, mo xie, ting xie. I do not write my speeches. I make my drafts in English. They translate and type it. I can read it. And I would say, "No. That is too literary (tai wen), change it, make it colloquial." I cannot write it, but I know that is not the way I want to say it. That is good enough.

My advice to Mrs Gan is, do not negotiate with the Chinese in Chinese. My Chinese is very elementary. But I know enough to know that the other person's absolutely scintillates; his phrases are so precise, succinct; they sparkle. If you negotiate with them in their language, you will lose - always have an interpreter. When we have dinner, to chit-chat, that is fine. When we are talking terms and conditions, English is my language, please translate. My translator is not good enough, not as good as yours, you translate. But, of course, you have the empathy, the bonhomie over dinner and drinks; that is useful.

Dr Winsemius, the Dutchman who helped us with our economic development, advised me before I went to China. He said, "Never negotiate in any language other than the one you are most capable in." He said he spoke French, German, Dutch, English. But he negotiates in Dutch.

Our two ambassadors in Beijing, No. 1, Cheng Tong Fatt and No. 2, Chin Siat Yoon, both Chinese school educated - xiao xue, dao gao zhong san. Their Chinese is OK. But can they compare, are they equal to the Chinese officials they deal with? Not a chance. How can you? They spend all their time, from the day they are born with that one language and in a very rarefied literary atmosphere. Jiang Zeming quotes Tang poems, can you do that? He can just rattle them off. So every time we deal with them, once

we come to serious business, I speak in English. A very wise acknowledgement of my limitations. You cannot compare yourself with them.

Let me give a simple illustration. My English, because I have spent all my life with the English Language, I would say, it is about 85-90% of my equivalent counterpart in England.

Supposing I had been an Englishman, lived in England, worked the language, it would be 100%. I do not have that, because I am using other languages. How do I know? Because the class that graduated with me went on to become QCs. When I talk to them, I know they have beautiful phrases at their finger tips, when in court. Because they are working in their language.

It is like playing tennis. They are playing tennis at Wimbledon and we are playing tennis at the South East Asian Games - a different level. When they smash the ball at 150 miles per hour, can you take it? It is very quick repartee, smooth, crisp.

But I am happy. If you ask me to start all over again, I say that without Chinese and Malay, we are done for. Why do I say that? Without my Chinese, we would have lost the election in 1963 and the whole history of Singapore would have been different. I needed the Hokkien and Mandarin.

Without my Malay, how could I speak to Suharto alone - no interpreter? How could I make a speech in the Malaysian Parliament in Malay? At the last meeting in the Malaysian Parliament, I said, "You are going to make Malay the national language." I spoke in Malay half way through. "You tell me how, my speaking to you now in Malay, increases the price of padi or the rubber tapper's salary?" If I had not been able to speak in Malay, they

would not have considered the PAP a significant problem. But because we could get our ideas across, it made the difference.

It is a difficult language but now we have the electronic tools which I am using. I've got Power Word. I can go to Lianhe Zaobao on line. Any word or phrase that I do not understand, I just point the cursor and the English translation comes out. If I do not know the pronunciation, I press the loudspeaker, an electronic voice reads it out for me. If I am not sure what tone it is, I click a little symbol and the character comes out with the pinyin and the tone.

I've got another tool given by another teacher. I can write my speeches without anybody helping me in Chinese. If I do not know one word, I type it in English and it offers me a series of different words and phrases in Chinese, to choose from. I do not have to write the character. I just type in pinyin, it will come out.

So, why do we want to get our children to sweat their guts out learning to write 2,000 or 2,500 characters? When I ask my teacher, "Write that word for me." From time to time - and he spent all his life teaching Chinese - he hesitates and says, ah wang le. He takes the dictionary to look it up because he is not writing any more. He is typing in pinyin with Microsoft software.

So give them all these tools. They can listen, speak, read. Write, later on, in pinyin. Make it as hassle free as possible. Let them develop a facility in the language. Get them to like the language. Later on in life, they can pick it up and build on it.

If I had all these aids when I started learning in 1942, how much easier it would have been! I would not have got

my neighbour to teach me Mandarin that he pronounced in Teochew.

But has our second language policy been a failure? No. When I go to China I meet our people doing business there. I ask them, "Where did you learn your Chinese?" They said, "CL2". I asked, "Do you need a translator?" They said, "No." I asked, "Can you read the documents?" They said, "Yes." Not when they first started, but now they could.

A woman lawyer, aged 40, was sent by her firm to Shanghai, a NUS graduate, with CL2. She decided to polish up her Mandarin, went to Fudan University. Today, she can do contracts in Chinese, because she had that second language base. They are testimony that the second language was a valuable foundation for them.

Those who say that our second language policy has failed, I say you look at the TV and radio listeners and viewership. Every locally produced Chinese TV programme has more viewers than any locally produced English programme. Chinese TV news have more viewers than English. But in reading, Zaobao is losing out, because English is easier to read, faster, and they are reading English every day at work. They read the English newspapers. They buy the Chinese newspapers for their children to read, hoping that they will pick up their Chinese. They themselves find it a burden.

I have read the comments in the pin lun (Commentary) page of Zaobao. I empathise with their sense of sadness, of resignation, that we are losing that core of people who will keep up high standards in written Chinese. Zaobao has to keep on lowering its level of literary excellence. It cannot be helped. You cannot maintain it. Ask the older editors and reporters, "Can your children do what you did?"

They cannot. They are bilingual and their master language is English. So the sadness is that of a group that understands because our working language is English, that elite Chinese educated layer they had when half the population studied Chinese is gone. In 1955, half the school-going population was doing Mandarin. They went on to university and they were the Chinese educated elite. They could produce these crisp pun wen yen - literary stuff. This has gone. They are a shrinking community. It cannot be helped.

We will replenish them with people from China who become our citizens, PRs, work permit holders. But what we must do is to keep up Mandarin as a living language, spoken and read. Type pinyin, yes. But write beautiful essays in Chinese, very few. There are some who have done Chinese in NUS are now reporters in Zaobao or MediaCorp, some in Beijing where they brush up their Chinese. But are they equal to the Chinese in Beijing? No. I know the difference. They are passable. But English is 90%, Chinese is about 50% of my counterpart in China. Their Chinese is about 80% of their counterparts. But they have English which their Chinese counterparts do not have.

You have to decide what is it that you want, what balance between the two. If you want your master language as Chinese, that it is more advantageous than English, the SAP schools will give more Chinese, and you go for the bilingual/bicultural programme. But if your English is not up to mark and you miss your job chances, that is your choice.

Our system will evolve and adjust with changing circumstances. It is the best way to do it.

Let me add this word of caution, a caveat. Let us assume that you spend all your time mastering Chinese to be as

good as the Chinese in China - language, culture, poetry, history, whatever. What is your value add to China? They have 1,300 million. Do they need an extra Singaporean as a professor, journalist or businessman?

Why are we useful? Ask the people who have been there. Because we are English speaking, because we have connections with the English speaking world - US, Japan, Europe, India, Australia, New Zealand, large parts of the English-speaking world. That is our value add. We know the outside world better than they do. So we are a valuable partner. We bring something to the table. We can speak their language. We understand them, but speak not as good as they do, but that is OK.

What is my value to them? Why do they talk to me? Because my Mandarin is good? No. Once we talk business, I talk in English. But I know a lot about management, the political stance of the US, Europe, Japan, etc.

Will they learn all this, yes, because they are now going all over the world - in America, Europe, Japan, Latin America. They are building harbours and ports for the Brazilians, buying up factories, mines, from Brazil, Argentina and so on. They are everywhere.

Will we be as useful in future? It is difficult to say. I think at the top they will learn much that we know. But in South East Asia, we are still the specialists. We live here. That is why I say, do not lose our regional connections and bahasa, Malay. They will never understand this region like we do, because we are part of this region. That is our value add. They cannot take that away from us. So, 50 years from now, they may know about America better than we do because they have got more people there than our few

in the Embassy and our businessmen. They are outnumbering the Taiwanese in America and in Europe. But in South East Asia, they will send many but they come as adults. We grew up with people in the region. So, as Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong

said, let us have exchange programmes with Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and so on. Let us maintain that link, which will be a value add. These are the realities of life.

I read recently in Zaobao about the 130th anniversary of Tan Kah Kee's death. His grandchildren cannot speak Hokkien or Mandarin. It would have saddened him, but they have to live, they have to work, they have to adjust to the world.

Let me wind up by giving you my perspective of where we are. We are not the custodians of either the English language, the Malay language or the Tamil language, or Gujarati, Hindi, whatever. We are just the users. We adopt their standards and try to approximate them. Irene Ng must understand this. For English, our gold standard was Britain. But you look ahead, another 50 years, and you see the volume of books, magazines, literature, TV; businessmen, tourists, interchange with Americans, our English will gradually be Americanised. When I listen to our radio, they are picking up American pronunciations. "Inquiry" - it jars with me. I am British educated - "in quiry", "inventory"; not "in ven tory" (that is American). It jars with me, because it sounds uncouth. But can you defeat American speech? It is everywhere. Newsreaders do not know. They do not look up the English pronunciation dictionary. They do not click on the little microphone and press it for the electronic voice. We use wrong words, have wrong pronunciation; or mangle up names! The American spoken language will dominate.

It's happening to the British. They are picking up "inventory" as the Americans pronounce it, and on BBC. Canadian English is close to American, a variant of American. The Australians are a variant of the British. Our English is influenced by our dialects, Malay, Tamil. I tried hard to get BBC English put across on our news. But BBC has abandoned BBC English. You hear strange accents on BBC. It is sad, but BBC has decided to go with the tide. Theirs was a class society. The BBC accent was the accent of the educated elite, the establishment. The Oxbridge public school types - spoke English that was crisp and clear, well-enunciated, not cockney English, not barrow boy English. Even the Australians are veering away from British English. I think eventually American English will infect the world.

Today, I keep my spelling on Microsoft, "English (UK)". In another 20 or 30 years, "English (US)" maybe the norm. So, double "ll" or single "l"? Languages live and change. Languages impinge on you by its frequency.

We are not the custodians of the Chinese language. We follow whatever standards China sets. When China went to the simplified character, jian ti zi, we said, "Let's go!". Taiwan, Hongkong stayed put. I think Hongkong will give way. Every day, I read more and more Chinese PRC notices. Taiwan is trying to create a new language. Their Romanised Mandarin is spelt their way, not pinyin - I do not know what they call it, it is a special version - and they added Hokkien words. If you watch their channels (TVBS, Zhong Tian), you will degrade your Chinese. How can 27 million people be the gold standard for Chinese? Why should Microsoft put in the effort to create these programs for 27 million people when you've got 1,300 million on the other side? So, Tamil, Urdu, Hindi, whatever it is, we will follow the custodians. For Malay, we follow

Malaysia. Over time, maybe not 10 years, 20 years, but 50 years, the number of publications in Bahasa Indonesia, which is a different language with a different diction, different rhythm. We may follow them. They will influence us. So we will move from Melayu Baku to whatever they set. We are users. We are price takers, we are not price givers.

We often confuse ourselves. This is relevant to what Irene Ng said. We are not trying to be Chinese-educated. A Beijing professor recently in an article made this point. When you say zhongwen jiaoyu (Chinese education), you mean not only learning the language but learning the culture of China, the history of China and a love for China, and all this is in one package. Their textbooks inculcate their whole value system. What we are learning is the language, not necessarily the culture. Our culture will evolve over time as we become Singaporean Chinese, as Ong Ah Heng has said. I do not believe watching Phoenix or CCTV, we will absorb their culture. We will watch it just as we watch American sitcoms. That is their culture, you are not identifying with them. You begin to understand them better. But when we have our own sitcoms on Channel 8 or Channel U, that is us. Gradually over generations, we will become more what we should be.

I sum up saying we cannot settle this forever. The value of the language will change, the emphasis that each parent wants for his child will change. So we will adjust our policies accordingly. I do not see Singapore giving up English as a working language because then we will perish. Nor do I see Singapore losing its mother tongues because, I think, we will all be the losers. Not just for reasons of culture, roots but for that sense of self and confidence in self. I am not an Englishman. I am not an American. I do not pretend to be one. I am Chinese but Singaporean. I do not share the values

totally with the Chinese. Many of their basic values - courtesy, the various things you do, food, etc, - that is part of me, it is my heritage, nothing to do with the politics of China. At the end of the day, that will be the same for the Malays, for the Indians and for all the others. S Rajaratnam was aiming for the stars. I went along with him with the pledge, and we must try to live up to the pledge. But to say, let us forget race, language, religion, culture, that is not doable. We have to accept the realities that this is what we are, and we should be grateful that we have got here in one piece.

You look at our neighbours; I believe their societies are less integrated. You can see problems in Indonesia. You can see problems in Malaysia. So when they have national service, they have problems between their races, because they go to different schools, and they have different friends. We all go to the same schools. We are learning the same working language. That we are able to talk about these things now without arousing deep emotional reactions is great advance. This is where we are. How do you take it forward? I say, take note of how we have evolved, gradually, and let's evolve further. Do not go for one-stroke solutions; we may regret it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may clarify my speech.

Make it a brief one.

Sir, I just want to clarify so that I do not be misunderstood. I am not saying that we forget our ethnic cultures or obliterate our ethnic heritage. I am saying, yes, value and preserve our ethnic cultures and heritage but also promote a national consciousness, and do that also through our mother tongue curriculum.

Order. We shall stop now.

Resolved,

That the Debate be now adjourned. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Resumption of date, what day?

Tomorrow, Sir.

So be it.

Resolved,

"That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Adjourned accordingly at

Fifteen Minutes past Six o'clock pm.