Hansard, 2004-11-26

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) Mr Andy Gan Lai Chiang 26 Nov 26 Nov Mr Sin Boon Ann 26 Nov 26 Nov Mr Gan Kim Yong 28 Nov 29 Nov Dr Lee Boon Yang 03 Dec 04 Dec Mr Seng Han Thong 06 Dec 12 Dec

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore >

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang asked the Minister for Health what is the Government's policy regarding the promotion of HIV-AIDS public education campaigns by (i) his Ministry, (ii) the Communicable Disease Centre (CDC), and (iii) the people sector.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry implements the AIDS Education Programme through the Health Promotion Board (HPB) to educate Singaporeans on how HIV infection is transmitted and its consequences.

The HPB conducts year-long education using both the mass media and face-to-face activities to reach the general public, the high risk groups, foreign workers and the youths. Awareness activities include talks, interactive workshops, mobile exhibitions, video screening and distribution of educational materials. In addition, a month-long AIDS awareness campaign is held in conjunction with World AIDS Day on 1st December.

As it is important to educate our youths, the AIDS Education Programme also aims to raise awareness of AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections among students in secondary schools, junior colleges, institutes of technical education, polytechnics and universities.

As community involvement is an important aspect of the Programme, my Ministry and the Health Promotion Board collaborate with various businesses through their workplace health promotion programmes as well as voluntary organisations in our fight against AIDS.

The Communicable Disease Centre (CDC) plays an important role in the education of patients with HIV infection or AIDS and their family members. Patients seen at the CDC are carefully counselled and given information on the disease, its mode of transmission and how it can be prevented, as well as the risk that they pose to their sexual partners, and how they can care for themselves. These patients are also informed that it is an offence if they carried out activities that will put others at-risk of the infection.

The AIDS prevention message is summarised in the ABC Approach: (a) Abstinence from sex with multiple partners and sex workers; (b) Being faithful to one partner; and (c) Condom use.

Singapore's HIV/AIDS rate is much lower than many Asian countries and is within the range found in developed countries. So, our AIDS prevention programme works as well as that in many developed countries. However, if we consider the relentless progressive rise in new HIV/AIDS cases in Singapore, with an expected record of more than 300 new cases this year, we clearly need to do more if we are to stem the rise.

We need to get across four public health messages: First, do not be promiscuous. HIV is a sexually transmitted disease and if all individuals lived an upright and moral life, there will be no HIV/AIDS problem. HIV spread is related to promiscuity. The greater the prevalence of promiscuity in a society, the greater the risk of HIV spread. So we must reduce promiscuity. Second, if an individual is having casual sex, a condom should be used. It will provide significant protection against catching HIV/AIDS. Third, if an individual has casual unprotected sex, that person is at risk of catching HIV and we recommend HIV testing. If HIV is detected early, treatment can be started early. Fourth, if a person is HIV positive, it is an offence to have sex without informing the partner of the HIV status.

The first message will be targetted at the general public, and the second, third and fourth messages will be targetted at the high-risk groups, like gays and those having casual sex.

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. As the Health Promotion Board supposedly would

be the lead agency, what are the coordination mechanics and system at work to bring in the people sector, organisations like AFA and others, so that we can do a better job at public education?

The Health Promotion Board and the Ministry of Health have frequent dialogue sessions with the community groups, including AFA. In fact, last week, there was one such session and all the groups from the community agree on the four messages, although there was no total agreement on how much emphasis should be given to each individual message.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he will consider reviewing the signed consent for HIV blood test, especially for antenatal HIV screening, in order to better protect the unborn babies? Is it not correct that those who refuse HIV screening are the ones that doctors are most concerned about but cannot do anything due to the required signed consent? On another question: will the Minister consider helping those afflicted patients who cannot afford HIV drugs because they are very expensive?

With regard to the first question, my Ministry is reviewing this question of screening of mothers with HIV, especially since if we treat a mother who has HIV with medication, the child can be born without HIV. The risk of HIV transmission is reduced from 25% to 2%, and that is a significant drop in the risk. So the Ministry is currently reviewing this and will announce changes shortly.

With regard to the second question on helping HIV patients, currently, we treat HIV patients in our hospitals like all other patients. We should not discriminate against HIV patients either positively or negatively. So HIV patients are entitled to

the same subsidies as patients who suffer from other illness. Like other patients, if they have financial difficulty, they can apply to the medical social worker for help.

Sir, I have three supplementary questions. My first question to the Senior Minister of State is: what is his evaluation of his public education campaigns? How effective are they, in particular, in terms of targetting the sex tourists, either those from Singapore or those who transit through Singapore, who go to places primarily for such activities? Can the messages be more focused and targetted in order to help prevent communication of such diseases?

My second question is that the Minister has mentioned earlier about targetting campaigns at the workplace. There is a guideline on handling HIV cases at the workplace. Will the Ministry be able to provide a lot more support, in terms of promoting that guideline? This is the joint tripartite guidelines actually.

My third question is: are there sufficient resources allocated to the prevention of communicable diseases, such as HIV? Are enough resources allocated, including the recruitment of specialists, to deal with such diseases?

The first issue of sex tourists is a very complicated issue. We do not know why they choose to go to Batam and have unsafe sex. If the issue is one of not being educated about the precaution that they can take, then this is something that the Ministry can try and correct. Pamphlets have now been distributed to these travellers about AIDS prevention. But there has been another feedback that we have got from members of the community. It is hard to verify how true this is. It is that most of the people who get HIV/AIDS, whether they are gays or heterosexual men who are

having casual sex, know there is a risk of HIV and they know what they need to do to protect themselves. But they think that it will not be them who are going to get the disease. They always think it is someone else. The reason for this may be that, so far, the incidence of HIV has been quite low and they have not seen their friends, colleagues and partners die of HIV. So there is still this denial that it is a problem that is going to affect them and that is why they are not taking the necessary precaution. It is very hard to understand what goes on in the minds of these people. Nevertheless, my Ministry will try our best to reach out to these people and get this message across to them that they have to protect themselves. My Ministry will work with the unions and others in the tripartite partnership and businesses, and to further our education efforts in the business community. We hope the unions will also work with us in getting this message across.

With regard to resources, currently, 95% of the resources given to CDC is used on the clinical side, that is, looking after patients who have got HIV/AIDS, and only 5% of the resources of the budget is being used in public health measures in trying to control AIDS. We are going to give more resources to build the public health arm. With that, I think they will be more effective in contact tracing and doing all the other things that are necessary to try and reduce the number of new HIV cases.

2. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many applications for HDB rental flats have failed because of the two sharing policy in the past years; and (b) will his Ministry review this policy especially for those

single elderly with no family member to share with.

Sir, under the Joint Singles Scheme (JSS) for HDB rental housing, two singles who are at least 35 years old and who have a combined monthly income of not more than $1,500 can apply jointly to rent a one-room flat from HDB.

HDB requires singles to pair up to rent a flat because HDB has a limited stock of rental flats, whose rents are heavily subsidised. This pairing arrangement also facilitates mutual care and support between the tenants, which is especially important for elderly singles.

HDB maintains a list of single persons who are looking for a flatmate. HDB does not track the number of applicants who are ineligible because he or she cannot find another person to pair up with. Nevertheless, there are currently 9,400 rental flats let out under the Joint Singles Scheme. This suggests that many singles are able to get together and share a rental flat.

We have no plans to change the requirement for singles to pair up to rent a flat.

I would like to ask about the rising trend of divorce cases. We do see divorced women with young children.

So, they do not have two people who are adults above 35, but they do have one person above 35 and one young child. Can the Government relook its policy to allow for such cases to also have rental flats?

Sir, a divorced person, with custody of at least one child, is considered a proper family

nucleus under HDB's eligibility criteria for subsidised rental, so we will allow such cases.

Sir, I asked in my question on the number of applicants of HDB rental flats who have failed, but the Minister of State has not replied on that.

Sir, I have said that we do not track the number of people who have failed because they cannot find another partner to pair up with to rent a flat. How would HDB know? They apply if they can find another person to pair up with, and we provide them with a rental flat. If they cannot find another person, we will help them, because we have a list of other applicants who are also similarly looking for a pairing-up arrangement. So those who actually failed to find a flatmate and decided not to apply (on that reason alone), we really do not have records of these people.

May I ask the Minister of State whether our two-sharing rental policy causes a lot of hardship on the elderly who do not have family members to share their rental flats with? Is it not very difficult for them to share their rental flats with complete strangers, especially at their age? Is it reasonable to insist on them to comply with this policy? Will the Minister of State consider converting some of the two-room HDB flats to one-room HDB rental flats to accommodate more single elderly?

Sir, as I said, there are currently 9,400 rental units let out under the Joint Singles Scheme. So there are many who are able to find another person to pair up with. Yes, in isolated cases, they cannot get along, in which case, HDB allows this remaining tenant six months or so to find another flat mate to live together with. So, by and large, yes, it is not ideal, but it has

worked well and there are now 9,400 such cases.

For the reason that HDB is sticking to its rule of two persons per flat, is it because there is a lack of rental flats?

Sir, if the Government were to invest the next dollar of its budget, we could do what the Member suggested, drop the requirement for pairing up, allow each one to rent individually his own flat. What does that mean? We would have to double the number of rental flats currently let out to joint singles. Today, as I said, there are 9,400 units. If you double that, say, another 9,000, at roughly $100,000 per unit, it is $900 million. And is that all? I think many at the margins will say, "It is not too bad; total privacy for $30 rental a month. Let me also join the queue." And, willy-nilly, we would have enlarged the safety net and unwittingly fallen into the trap of the welfare state. So, I say, we are better off if we invest this money to expand our economy to create the jobs and incentivise workers to retrain so that, that way, we can increase or at least maintain our high home ownership rate and, more importantly, preserve our work ethos.

Dr Neo. Last question.

Sir, the Minister of State said earlier that it was an ideal. Does that mean that he is going to change this two-sharing rental policy? Am I not correct that those who really apply for HDB rental flats are the ones who cannot afford any other type of housing? May I ask the Minister whether there will be an increasing number of elderly being denied of HDB rental flats, in view of the increasing number of smaller families, an ageing population and the limited number of rental HDB flats? Will he spare more thought for our elderly, especially our needy elderly?

Sir, when I first joined the Ministry of National Development, the first visit I asked HDB to arrange for me was to visit rental flats, and I have done so. I have visited those flats in Bukit Merah and Redhill Close, and what I saw was a Main Upgrading Programme. The Government is investing a lot of money to make sure that the needs of the elderly are taken care of. If you were to visit these flats, you will see that the lifts are larger to enable wheelchairs to roll in and out. There is no ledge to impede the movement of elderly people. There is even a panic response system inside the flat, should an elderly get into trouble. Here again, I emphasise that, if they live in pairs, that would provide for mutual care and support. So the Government is concerned, aware and is doing lots of things, investing a lot of money to help upgrade the living conditions of the elderly.

But to change the pairing policy means to double the number of rental units to Joint Singles that we have today which, as I said earlier, involves a non-trivial sum. More importantly, rental housing is really to provide for the lower strata of our population. It is a safety net. It is not an area which we want to increase. In fact, what we should do, as I said, is to help them find jobs, expand the economy, so that they can move out of these rental flats and own their own homes.

3. Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) what are the outstanding issues his Ministry faces in developing a comprehensive family policy that will realise the vision of quality Singapore family life; and (b) what measures is his Ministry pursuing, or plans to pursue, to resolve these issues.

Mr Speaker, my Ministry's policy is to promote family life and family values so that Singapore as a nation will have more strong and stable families. Strong families are the foundation of our society and will continue to remain as the first line of support for us as individuals and as a nation. Our family policies and programmes are therefore intended to create an environment conducive for family formation and the strengthening of family ties. As the family is really part of a much larger system in society, my Ministry works closely with other Ministries, corporate bodies and community groups in order to achieve this desired outcome.

There are several issues confronting us in the family arena. A critical issue faced by us right now is low fertility. In 2003, the total fertility rate for the resident population was only 1.25, well below the replacement level of 2.

1. The new package of parenthood measures which were announced recently in August 2004 takes a holistic approach to support couples who wish to have more children. The measures do not just focus on the financial aspects but also seek to give parents an opportunity to spend more time with their children, pursue a range of childcare options, and strike a better balance between work and family life. One clear example is the 5-day work week. My Ministry - I was going to say my family as well - is very encouraged by the positive overall feedback by Singaporeans on these measures.

Mr Speaker, our total fertility rate is also affected by higher singlehood rates, which is another issue we face. MCYS and the People's Association are presently reviewing the roles and functions of the Social Development Unit (SDU) and Social Development Service (SDS) to see how we can better achieve the outcome of more marriages.

However, even as we want more marriages and more children for our next generation, we also know that families today face many challenges. While our divorce rates are not alarming compared to many other countries, they are nevertheless on an upward trend. Many Members of this House who are parents of teenagers or pre-teens will also know that parenting them has become more challenging. In addition, we have a fast-ageing population. In the context of small families, that also means that more people will be in what we call a "sandwiched" generation, who are facing the simultaneous challenge of both looking after aged parents as well as young children. Therefore, we need, as a society, to ensure that there are adequate support programmes for families like this as they face the future.

We will continue to work with community and private sector partners to run programmes and services in order to help families fulfill their responsibilities and to sustain nurturing family relationships. We adopt the life-cycle approach in planning these programmes. For instance, prior to marriage, we have marriage preparation programmes. And then, subsequently, in order to help couples make their transition into parenthood, we have parenting and marriage support programmes which are run as part of the prenatal programmes of the KK Women's and Children's Hospital and Singapore General Hospital. We are also piloting a family education programme at childcare centres next year in order to help young parents. In schools, we have the School Family Education and Step Up programmes, which cover values education and life skills for students, while simultaneously helping parents with parenting skills. For grandparents, we have inter-generational programmes to foster close bonds between grandparents and grandchildren. We also continue to develop programmes to facilitate positive and successful ageing so that our senior

citizens will be able to actively contribute to family and community life.

Mr Speaker, making Singapore a great place for families is a long-term sustained effort that will require a comprehensive approach, with individuals, families, the community, the private sector and the various Government agencies all working together. The challenges facing our families are dynamic and will continue to change and become even more challenging as society evolves. MCYS will remain vigilant of these evolving challenges, and we will continue to work with our partners to realise the vision of Singapore being a great home for families.

Further clarification, Sir. The whole idea of bringing quality family life is such that there will be inclusiveness and, so far in the list, no mention has been made about people with disabilities and how we are going to help them. In fact, with an ageing population, there will also be an increase in the proportion of disabled elderly family members. Perhaps the Minister could just enlighten us on how the Ministry would like to tackle this aspect too.

The supplementary question really is a very substantive question in its own right. I do not think we will do justice to the issue of helping people with disability simply as thinking of them as a tag-on or add-on to the family. Nevertheless, the first thing to note is that all people with disability in Singapore are part and parcel of our families. As the Prime Minister himself said in his swearing-in speech, they are our brothers and sisters.

The next point I want to make is that there are two key themes that underline our approach to people with disability. The first is that we seek to maximise their potential to lead independent, full and fulfilled lives. Yes, they are affected or

impaired as far as certain functions are concerned. But with adequate support and education, and with necessary adjustments to the environment and to even transport arrangements, people with disability can try to lead as independent a life as possible.

The second key theme is integration. Again, the point here is that people with disability are not a separate, distinct, cut-off, isolated segment of our society. If we say that they are members of our family, then they deserve the option of participating as fully as possible in community life, community activities and family life. So I do not have time to enumerate specific programmes for people with disability, but I just want Members of this House to rest assured that we will do our best to maximise independence and integration for people with disability in Singapore.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he thinks it is necessary to have a committee or agency that is cross-cutting, ie, cuts across all the Ministries, because issues pertaining to the family cut across all Ministries. If we talk about juvenile delinquency, it is the Ministry of Law. If we talk about ageing,

that comes under the Ministry of Health. If one wants to talk about work-family balance, that comes under the Ministry of Manpower. So, is there a need for such a coordinating agency or committee to deal with cost-cutting issues pertaining to the family?

Thank you for that question. Mdm Halimah is absolutely right that the issues confronting the family cut across multiple sectors and indeed rely on the expertise and the support provided by multiple Ministries and agencies. Juvenile delinquency is an example she cited. Yes, we certainly

work with the Ministry of Home Affairs. There is an Inter-Ministerial Committee on Youth Crime, chaired by SMS Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee, which looks into this. For aging, we have constituted a Committee for Active Aging, which is co-chaired by SMS Dr Balaji and by my Parliamentary Secretary, Dr Maliki Osman. On work-life balance, yes, there is a specific unit looking into work-life balance which is part of the Ministry of Manpower. But this unit was conceived in MCYS and then subsequently the embryo was transferred to the Ministry of Manpower.

So the point is that, there are already committees and cross agency initiatives and programmes. I do not believe that creating a super agency to look into this will necessarily be more effective or more productive. I think it is far better that this House and indeed all the Ministers recognise that these issues are part and parcel of the overall responsibilities that they shoulder, whether you are talking about the Ministry of National Development, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Defence or any Ministry. Every Ministry has a role to play in supporting families, in supporting active aging, and even in supporting people with disabilities. I am quite happy to continue with our current model where all Ministries and Ministers accept that it is part and parcel of their responsibilities, and we will work together to generate optimal solutions for families and individuals who need our help and support.

4. Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) how many tender awards have been made since the inception of tendering out the

management of welfare and rehabilitation services to voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and non-profit organisations (NPOs); (b) what are the types of awards made so far; and (c) how does his Ministry ensure that the service quality provided by the successful tenderers meet or exceed the required standards set.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since January this year, my Ministry has implemented an Open Selection Process to select voluntary welfare organisations or non-profit organisations to provide social services in the community. Selection is based on a set of criteria which takes into account aspects such as how well the service provider understands client needs and service requirements, and its ability to deliver quality service. It is thus different from procurement or revenue tender exercises in which contracts are awarded based primarily on monetary consideration. The Open Selection system helps us to select service providers that are best able to meet the clients' needs in an effective and efficient manner. It also ensures that the provider is selected through an open and transparent process.

Since the Open Selection Process was introduced, a total of eight facilities or programmes have been awarded. These include one Neighbourhood Link, two child care centres, one student care centre, one Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) with disabilities, one Community Integration Support Programme for children with hearing impairment in mainstream schools, and two dedicated special student care centres for children with disabilities. In addition, the proposals for three more facilities, which include one child care centre and two student care centres, are being processed.

MCYS monitors and ensures that the standards of service provided by the successful agencies are acceptable, eg, through licensing and funding conditions, and regular supervision visits conducted on the various services. The service providers are also required to submit a self-evaluation of their programmes to the Ministry on a quarterly basis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry will assess service providers' performance, and work with them on areas that require improvement. Under licensing and funding conditions, my Ministry can terminate the service provider's licence, or reduce or withdraw funding for the service provider, if it consistently falls short of the standards of performance required. So far, we have not had to take this course of action.

In terms of the licensing, visits and the inspections done by the Ministry, would the Minister of State clarify what would be the expertise level of the Ministry's staff and whether they would have the knowledge, especially where there are specialised services?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have a committee, chaired by my Ministry, and we invite the 3Ps, ie, the private sector, NCSS and the people sector to be involved. For instance, Mr Gerard Ee and Mr Willie Chan are two of the volunteers. We also have some criteria. The criteria are based on objective programmes proposed and the leadership of these programmes and, of course, the ability of fund-raising, and so on.

Sir, just now, the Minister of State mentioned that the Ministry has awarded a tender for Neighbourhood Link and that there is only one successful tenderer so far. Is that for the

Mountbatten Estate in Tanjong Rhu? If so, when will that be implemented?

The successful one is for the Geylang East Home for the Aged. It is under Mayor Matthias Yao's ward. The Ministry has the overall national planning programme based on requirements for the various services. And from there, we will release our requirements through the newspapers, NCSS and we also invite interested providers to come for discussion.

What I am saying is that the Ministry has a national norm on how many services are required for the different periods. And from there, we will open our invitation.

I understand from the Ministry that the Neighbourhood Link at Tanjong Rhu will be established in about a year's time. That is the reason why I asked this question whether any more tenderers are coming along the way.

Actually, it is not a tender system. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify. It is an open selection process and we do not select through a tender. If the Adviser sees that there is a need, please communicate with us. We will also take into consideration the duration, based on the various situations. For this particular case, would the Member please communicate with us?

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.

2.10 pm

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been thinking for quite sometime whether I should speak in Mandarin or in English to present my views with regard to this White Paper and the recommendations therein. Eventually, I decided to speak in Mandarin because I am a Chinese and I want to express my views on these recommendations in my mother tongue language.

I believe that if anyone who has the right environment and the confidence, he should be able to learn the Chinese Language well enough to converse and communicate in his daily dealings. Let me use myself as an example. During my younger days, I spent one year in the Chinese-stream kindergarten and then I went for another year in an English-speaking kindergarten. Following that, I had two years of English education in Kuala Lumpur before I came over to Singapore to do my Primary Three. I faced many difficulties and a lot of problems, particularly in the learning of Chinese.

At that time, when a teacher asked me to read an article, I would not be able to read about half of the characters in that article. There was no hanyu pinyin so I invented my own phonetics. Whenever I was asked to read in class, I would read from my own symbols rather than the Chinese characters. I am sure many of our friends here would have the

same experience. So during the examination, when I looked at the Chinese characters, I would look at the radical and the shapes of the characters and guessed the meaning of it. When it came to essay-writing, I would memorise about 10 prepared essays with the hope that at least one of them would fit the subject matter prescribed in the examination. If the title was correctly spotted, I would simply write my "essay" from memory. I believe many students managed to get through the Chinese paper in the 'O' level examination. Oral examination is, of course, a different matter.

But after graduation, how many of us could actually converse in Mandarin? I believe there are many like me who are English-educated and who use predominantly English at home. I think not many would converse in Mandarin. Fortunately, when I studied medicine in the university and after I became a doctor, I had a lot of opportunities to converse in Mandarin with my nurses, my patients and with some physicians from China. Although the standard of my Chinese is not so good, we managed to get by. To a certain extent, they could understand me and I could understand them.

After I became a Member of Parliament, I had even more opportunities to converse with my grassroots leaders and my residents in Mandarin. With all these practices and also at home, sometimes, before I go to bed, I would pick up a dictionary and read it as though it is a novel and read myself to sleep.

Although it is a bit thick-skinned to use such methods, but more and more, I gathered enough courage to speak in Mandarin. And today, for the first time, I am using Mandarin to address this august Chamber. Why am I saying this? In my younger days, my environment was not so good. I came from an English-speaking background. At home, although my

parents could speak Mandarin, English and even dialects, English was still the predominant language at home. I did not have much opportunity to use Mandarin. When I was in school, I would converse with my classmates in English. I did not have the environment or the condition for me to speak in Mandarin. I had to take Chinese tuition for 12 years. I believe my parents had spent a lot of money. If they had invested the tuition fees on shares instead, I would have been a rich person now.

But after I finished my secondary school, I was sometimes described as a "banana man" - yellow outside, white inside. I do not want to be a banana person so I began to read about the history, the geography and the culture of China - in English. Just like what the Senior Minister had said, "No fish, a shrimp will do." Although my command of the Chinese Language is not good enough to read about China using Chinese, at least, I made an effort to study about China using the English Language. But after I became a doctor and a Member of Parliament, I have a favourable environment and plenty of opportunities for me to speak Mandarin. The only question is whether or not I have the confidence and the courage to do so. I am a very patient person, thick-skinned and persistent. Hence, I am making progress.

In conclusion, I would like to say that given the opportunity, the environment and the will power, I am sure anyone would be able to learn Chinese well, and be able to converse in Mandarin.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I not only support the recommendations in the White Paper, I am also urging all other English-educated parents like me to give their children more opportunities, and build up their confidence in speaking Mandarin. Do not say that they cannot take it. I think we should encourage them. We should give them the opportunity to read more

magazines, novels or even cartoons that would be of interest to them.

If you want to look for Chinese books, there are many types. Some talk about moral education, values, how to behave yourself and this would not arouse the interest of the children. On the other hand, we also have many English story books, like Harry Potter, translated into Chinese. There are also documentary films, like the National Geographic, dubbed in Mandarin. There really are ample opportunities for our children to be in touch with Chinese, as long as they care to use them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the recommendations in the White Paper.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, mother tongue education has been a perennial item on the agenda in Parliamentary debates, especially during the Budget debates. The last time the topic was thoroughly discussed was in 1999 when PM Lee made a Ministerial Statement on the Teaching of Chinese Language. Today's review on this topic, in my view, is an extension of PM Lee's concern and his suggestions raised then. Therefore, we can see that the Government and Parliament, in fact, attach great importance to Chinese mother tongue education. It is not like what Mr Low Thia Khiang described as a review to correct a shortsighted policy. In fact, our policy has been farsighted in nature. Had it not been for PAP's farsightedness and consistent emphasis with regard to bilingual education, we would not have been able to benefit from Mr Deng Xiao Ping's "economic reform and opening up" policy that transformed China's economy.

Mr Low has been a teacher and he knows what he is talking about. But, sometimes he would selectively attack the Government's policies using illogical

reasoning. At the last General Election, there was this "da-you shi" (poetical rhyme) that was being chanted all over Hougang. It goes like this,

"Tomorrow will be better,

Don't let it be smashed by the Hammer;

Eric is kind and his knowledge is strong,

Vote for PAP, and you cannot go wrong!"

We can see that language, when used cleverly, can be an effective means to convey messages across to the people, without having to use a lot of high-sounding or bombastic words. Simple rhyming words and straightforward phrases can similarly express our feelings. I agree with Dr Wang Kai Yuen that when teaching Chinese, the Ministry should put more emphasis on rhyming phrases and simple poetical works.

When we were learning Chinese during our primary school days, we were required to memorise selected nursery rhyme from the classics. I can still remember some of the rhyming phrases quite vividly. From these texts, we learn not just the words and phrases but, more importantly, the values and the moral behind the writing. Dr Wang Kai Yuen mentioned about one Prof. Zheng. I would like to mention a small book used by primary students in China: "One Word One Rhyme". This is a new Zheng. There are many examples to show that students can understand the beauty of the Chinese character, and then they can use simple words to express their feelings and ideas. In certain songs, there is a verse and this verse uses very simple words. Such teaching materials will be very useful to help our pupils to learn the Chinese Language well. This book can be used in primary schools. In fact, our students currently have to use a very thick book on vocabulary, which we should discontinue.

This round of reform to the Chinese Language curriculum and pedagogy can be summed up in four Chinese idioms starting with the word yin (on the basis of; in the light of) namely: (1) yin shi li dao (make the best use of the situation and guide something along in the light of the general trend); (2) yin li cheng bian (rely on the facilities of the situation - take the tide at the flood; (3) yin shi zhi yi (suit measures to the changing circumstances; and (4) yin cai shi jiao (teach students in accordance with their aptitude). Now that we are sowing the shan yin (good cause) of Chinese Language curriculum and pedagogy reform, I am confident that, with the concerted efforts of all the people of various stations in Singapore, we shall reap the shan guo (good results).

The reform in Chinese Language teaching is no different from any other education reform in that both have to move with the times. The objective of Chinese teaching still remains the same - to enable the younger generation to have a foundation in the language so that they will be able to effectively communicate with others in the language and then when required by work or further study, to raise it to a higher level. As Minister Tharman said, "Our aim is not to make language learning plain and easy, but to enthuse all Chinese Language students and develop in them an abiding interest in the language and culture, and to provide more avenues for learning the language in tune with their home background and aptitude." We, all parents included, should not think that once their children enter school, their aim of learning the mother tongue is to pass the examination. Most people understand that a person who is bilingual and bi-cultured is a more flexible and rounded person. There is no longer any need to look for reason or excuse for learning one's mother tongue.

On Tuesday, Minister Lim Swee Say told us an analogy about the cat and the

"bilingual" mouse. There is another story to prove this. I am sure we are all familiar with the fable of the race between the tortoise and the hare. In the first race, because the hare was so proud and callous, he slipped half way and the tortoise overtook him. Later on, the hare was not happy and asked the tortoise for a re-run. He allowed the tortoise to choose the route, and the tortoise won again because he cleverly chose a route which included a stretch where they had to go into the water. He leveraged on his ability to swim and the hare's inability there to swing the race to his favour. The hare was very unhappy because he lost the race again. They went on a third race, but half way through, there was a bush fire and both the tortoise and the hare had to run for their lives. On the way, the tortoise tagged along the hare by biting its tail, and when they were crossing the water, the hare sat on the back of the tortoise. By helping each other, they both managed to escape and survived the ordeal. Like the tortoise and the hare, each of us has his or her own strengths and weaknesses, and we would lose out in a competitive world if we are monolingual. To be bilingual is like having the strengths of both the tortoise and the hare - we enjoy the best of both worlds.

In her article in the Straits Times, Chua Mui Hoong cited a survey which revealed that about 46% of our Secondary 4 students find Chinese difficult to learn, and 52% of students find it difficult to learn English. While it is difficult to learn Chinese, English is not easy to master as well. Therefore, we have to face the reality squarely. The most important is that we must have the aspiration and passion for the language to overcome all difficulties in learning it.

I agree with Mr Wu Wei Chai who wrote in the Lianhe Zaobao, "Whether one can learn one's mother tongue, or for that matter any other language well will solely depend on one's aspiration and passion.

Now I am also giving English tuition in Beijing. From my teaching experience, I could clearly see that in learning languages, apart from teaching materials and pedagogy, the more important factor for success is motivation and passion."

Therefore, the intrinsic motivation and interest are very important factors. In Singapore today, we can no longer use the "stick wielding" strategy to coerce the students to learn Chinese to satisfy the university enrolment requirement, and to learn for the sake of passing examinations. In the famous Chinese classic, "Journey to the West", the Monkey God's cunning and mischievous character just could not be changed, but because of the "Incantation of the Golden Hoop" used on him to keep him under control, he was forced to accompany his master Tang Xuanzang to the western world to collect the sutras. This method is no longer relevant to our present day situation. The vast majority of parents and students have come to a realisation of the present situation and the need to learn Chinese. There is no longer a need to use threat and force any more. In the past, marriages were all arranged by the parents. A boy and a girl were paired together under the "command of the parents and recommendations of the match-makers". Now, young people find their own true love and marry the partners they choose out of their own love. If we can cultivate our young people's love for the Chinese Language, they simply do not need you to force them in embracing their true love. Otherwise, the moment they graduate, they will bid farewell to the Chinese Language.

Let us focus our attention on how to make the younger generation understand the reasons for learning the mother tongue, and provide them with a favourable and effective environment to learn the language. This is what we

should do today. Whatever their motive for learning the language, be it materialistic, idealistic, utilitarian or for their own personal cultivation, for doing business or for finding one's root, we will try our best to provide them with the avenues for learning.

There was an article entitled "Difficult to learn Chinese?" by one Wu Senwei describing the various problems of growing up in Singapore. No doubt there are difficulties, but we should not be afraid of difficulties. We are not going to make Chinese so simple and shallow here that anybody could learn it without effort. The most important thing is that we must face the Chinese Language squarely. We must lay down the foundation, firmly and strongly, for our children so that they can acquire some proficiency in the language, and later on if they so wish, they can go further and be effectively proficient in the language and culture.

With this reform plan in hand, the most important thing is how we implement these recommendations. I hope MOE should move away from the age-old practice of making the teachers stick to the syllabuses and teachers' manual, treating the textbooks and the teaching manuals as a fixed recipe. When assessing the teachers' performance, the relevant authority should take into account the value-add on the students rather than whether the teachers had covered the prescribed syllabus for the examination. The school management should empathise with the Chinese Language teachers' plight and try its best to boost the morale of the teachers. School principals should understand that the teaching of Chinese is different from the teaching of other subjects. They should not use the same yardstick to assess the performance of the Chinese Language teachers. From the 1992 Ong Teng Cheong Report and the 1999 DPM Lee Hsien Loong's Review Committee on the teaching of the Chinese Language,

we see the same problems surfacing again and again, that is, the extra heavy workloads of the Chinese Language teachers. The Ministry should address these concerns.

We hope that the teachers themselves would remove the mental block of the students which inhibits the love for the Chinese Language. One teacher said that in order to make them love the language, he became friends to the students and set up a sincere and cordial relationship with them. In this way, they will pay more attention in class.

The teachers themselves must also adapt to and embrace the changes. A principal told me that when he was counselling a senior Chinese Language teacher, he got this retort from the teacher who said, "I have been teaching in this way for many decades! What is wrong with it?" But the problem lies here. Over the past few decades, we have seen great changes in the home background of students from mainly Chinese-speaking families to predominantly English-speaking families. To quote from Sun Tzu's "Art of War", to win the battle, we must first of all win the hearts and minds of the people. Therefore, teachers should adjust themselves and their teaching methodology to suit the needs of the students, from time to time.

The theory of child development shows that the critical stage in a child's development is from the age of three to four, particularly with regard to language acquisition. Children at this stage acquire the language skills most effectively. However, the present set-up in our pre-school establishments is contrary to what the child psychology says. In these pre-schools, the emphasis on language learning is mistakenly placed on examination techniques, and not the laying down of foundation for the learning

of languages later on in life. The learning outcome is measured by how many marks the child gets in ting xie (dictation) and how many assessment exercises he has done in a week, how much pinyin he has learnt. I fail to understand why MOE has not reacted to this kind of erroneous teaching in pre-primary schools.

At this stage of a child's physical and psychological developments, such young toddlers are not yet equipped with the motor skills to write. We should not measure the teaching outcome by how well the child writes or how many vocabulary items he has memorised. Therefore, people's dislike for the Chinese Language, I think, began when they were young. MOE should not neglect the pre-school stage. However, MOE is in charge of the pre-school administration only. There is no department to oversee the curriculum development of pre-school education.

The Singapore Chinese Teachers' Union has sought the views of their members and they generally welcome the major revamp in Chinese Language teaching. But whether the whole reform could be smoothly implemented would hinge on the cooperation and judgment of the teachers. The teachers will have to adapt to a whole series of changes from lesson preparation to designing of teaching materials, classroom teaching, semester assessments, etc. The workload is bound to increase.

More teachers should be recruited. They should be given more time to devise their teaching strategies so as to make the lessons interesting and lively. Time should be given for research to successfully implement the recommendations. To lessen the burden, teachers should be encouraged to share their resources. The Government, the Chinese community and the universities should support the initiative of the Singapore Chinese Teachers' Union to set

up a resource centre for Chinese Language teaching, to gather all teaching resources from here and from abroad. The centre could regularly invite overseas experts to share their teaching experience with us, so that successful teaching methods could be extended to more schools. They could help train local teachers on these successful teaching methods.

I also hope the Ministry could, through school clusters, involve teachers in this review. The report suggests that a new PSLE assessment mode be used in 2010. I think it is too late. Not only class examinations but all internal assessments which assess the progress of the pupils should be adjusted to fall in tune with this Chinese Language teaching reform. We may perhaps peg our examination standard with the HSK and look into the feasibility of letting our students sit for the standardised Hanyu Shouping Kaoshi evaluation examination conducted by the authorised agency of the People's Republic of China. Why wait till 2010? I think the Government wants to use the incremental approach to phase in the reforms. But in an "examination-oriented" society, we need to first review the examination to facilitate implementation of pedagogy reform.

I hope MOE will attach more weight to project work. The weightage on this kind of exercise should be increased, and not just rely on one written examination at the end of the academic year.

This review report should be deemed to be an all stakeholders' report. It is different from the Goh Keng Swee Report and the Ong Teng Cheong Report. I feel that the Ministry should broaden the degree of involvement by all the CL teachers and parents in the implementation of this report. Up to now, the report has been discussed with only Chinese

HODs and the experts over a total of 16 sessions. There is no Chinese version of this beautifully printed review report for each and every CL teacher to study the detailed contents therein. Do the Chinese Language teachers really and thoroughly understand all the recommendations in this report? I hope the MOE would publish a Chinese version of the report so that every Chinese Language teacher can have a copy. I also hope that Members of Parliament, particularly members of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Education would, after debating this report in Parliament, can go out into the community and the school clusters to involve the teachers and parents in the discussion of this report. This is because successful implementation of these recommendations will hinge on the teachers themselves. We should make them feel that their views are important. They should understand the reason for the recommendations of this report and how they should be carried out to ensure that they are successful.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in line with the current mood of the House, I shall speak in Malay.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, generally speaking, Chinese Language is required in Singapore for ethnic Chinese students only. However, it is not an issue for the Chinese community alone. If the Chinese community were to be concerned only with Mandarin, their ability to communicate with other communities in Singapore will be affected. On the other hand, if the Chinese community were to disregard the Chinese Language, this would change the face of Singapore as an Asian country. Such a move will also have implications on the status of the Malay, Tamil and other mother tongue languages.

The people support our bilingual policy. It is an important policy that ensures the stability of our multi-racial

country. Besides, it makes it possible for Singapore to continue to be part of the economic mainstream of the world through the English Language.

Many of the Chinese residents in my constituency want to continue to be competent in Chinese, in order to preserve their culture and identity. They also acknowledge the potential for Chinese to bring economic benefits. But, as reported, many feel that the learning of the Chinese Language today is so onerous as to result in a negative attitude towards the subject. They feel that this White Paper is most welcome. It proposes a number of new ideas relating to matters which might have so far been taken for a fact.

Among these is the view that our children will never be able to be completely and equally proficient in two languages, except for a small group. Secondly is the discovery that language-learning goes through a natural, gradual process. It begins with listening, followed by speaking, reading and writing. A system for language learning has to take into account this process. The third point is the position of the language in the current world. Language can be influenced by information technology, for instance. In addition, politics, religion, economics, science, and other elements also influence how a language is used, its status and user attitudes to it.

These three points are also relevant in the learning of languages other than Chinese, including Malay and Tamil. However, we have to admit that, in addition, Malay Language learning in Singapore also faces specific challenges. Generally, Malay is not considered to be a difficult language to learn. There is still widespread usage of Malay among the Malay families. However, as was mentioned by Mdm Halimah yesterday, we have begun to see the trend now of less Malay being used at home in

comparison with English. Will this trend continue? Will it result in Malay students, at some point in future, having to struggle with the difficulties now faced by Chinese Language students? We have to take prompt measures before this becomes a more serious problem. Better safe than sorry.

Although many students and parents complain that sometimes the Malay Language examination paper is too difficult for them to score, generally, students have a rather positive attitude towards the Malay Language. Nevertheless, we often hear comments that the language that they use, whether in writing or in the spoken language, is lacking in quality. The situation appears to be more critical among the post-independence generation and among teenagers. In casual situations, the language used can sometimes be considered crude and does not reflect Malay civilities. In formal situations, we find them sometimes stumbling and getting stumped for words.

When our young people go to Malaysia or Indonesia, it is easy to pick them out. Just listen to how they speak. Even when speaking Malay with the local people, their speech is halting. If it is smooth, you can be sure they will be using English phrases and sometimes even Cantonese or Hokkien phrases. What our poets call the beauty of language seems to be lost to them, blown far, far away by the winds of change. What measures can we take to overcome this situation?

I am not saying that Malay should not import words from other languages. Even the English word "import" is now an accepted term in Malay. Indeed, the development of knowledge in the world and globalisation mean that the Malay Language has to open its doors to all kinds of foreign words. Otherwise, Malay Language users would be sidelined from the mainstream of the world, especially in

knowledge, socio-political and economic fields.

What is a matter of concern to Malay Language experts is when foreign words are borrowed wholesale and not modified to suit Malay pronunciation, grammar and syntax. Such linguistic misuse can degrade the structure of the language, and must be avoided. As one expert of the language, Ong Swee Tin, said, and he is a Chinese, this leaves the language activists suffocating and gasping for air.

What about the development of the language in Malay-speaking countries in this region, where Malay is more widely used, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei? Besides ensuring their identity and functioning as a medium for dissemination of values, has the Malay Language any role in international relations, particularly, in the South East Asian region, and in the economy? How important is this role? What are the long-term trends of Malay Language in the Malay Archipelago?

Of late, Mr Speaker, Malaysian leaders have called for wider use of English as a medium of instruction in school, with certain subjects to be taught in the language. This proposal is to ensure that school leavers will be better able to keep up with the developments of the world today, even though they live in a country where the majority are Malay speakers and ethnic Malays. Is there a similar thinking in Indonesia? What are the implications of such changes to the learning of Malay Language in Singapore? There are so many questions.

As such, the Malay speaking community welcomes the statement by the Minister for Education that he will set up a committee to study the issue of Malay Language and Tamil Language learning. I hope that the questions I have

raised can be answered quickly. The review efforts will also give us the opportunity to update the syllabus, the teaching materials and teaching staff, as well as the role of the media in relation to language learning.

The approach used by the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee is sound. It takes into account the views of thousands of users, activists and scholars of the language. So in regard to the Review Committees for the Malay and Tamil Languages, the composition of the respective committees is an important point. It must reflect the objectives of language review which must take into account the present situation, the everyday socio-economic needs of the community as well as be wide-ranging and forward-looking. The Chinese Language Review Committee also benefitted from the vital viewpoints gained from a professionally-conducted survey. These are among the features of the report which should also be found in the efforts of the Review Committees for the Malay and Tamil Languages.

The review of Malay and Tamil Language learning should also be carried out with an open mind. Although there are many common issues shared with the learning of Chinese Language, I am sure there are also many differences. So we must not make the assumption that the conclusions of the Review Committees on the Tamil and Malay Languages must be the same as those of the Chinese Language Review Committee.

Mr Speaker, I also note that the Tamil Language faces additional impediments, among them, the small number of Tamil students in certain schools which often force them to attend classes in another school. This is unsatisfactory. Will the Ministry of Education ensure that there are Tamil classes in any school, no matter how small the number of students?

And what about other non-Tamil Indian languages, such as Punjabi, Gujarati and Hindi? Is a similar review necessary for these languages? Will the marks scored for these languages be taken into account in qualifying examinations and for awards and scholarships? I hope all these questions will be reviewed as well. As the Malay saying goes, if you are going to dip into a jar of pickles, dip in all the way. There should not be half measures in this effort.

I support the motion to adopt this report, and urge the Ministry of Education to give the same emphasis on the learning of other mother tongue languages as well.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion moved by the Minister for Education to endorse the White Paper.

The Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedadogy Review Committee is led personally by Minister Mentor Lee, and the members comprise language experts, members of the Chinese community, the media and a number of Members of Parliament. We can say that the Government has really placed much importance on this reform of the Chinese Language curriculum and pedagogy in Singapore and it is an unprecedented White Paper for the reform. The recommendations proposed by the Committee can be said to be the result of some very intensive investigation and thorough studies by the experts. If we can implement all the recommendations of this report, I am sure that the future of the Chinese in Singapore will be very bright.

This is a very important reform of the teaching of the Chinese Language in Singapore. I am sure all those concerned with the development of the Chinese Language here in Singapore would agree that this report represents the

determination of the Government to raise the standard of the Chinese Language in Singapore. Unfortunately, we do not have a Chinese version of this report. From my understanding, the report of the Committee led by the late President Ong Teng Cheong in 1992 had only 15 Chinese characters in it. In 1999, when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made his Ministerial Statement on Chinese education, there was also no Chinese version of his statement. I feel that this is indeed unfortunate.

Although Chinese is one of the four official languages in Singapore, in most Government departments, including Parliament, Chinese is seldom used, except for this debate. Of course, we know that English is a very important common language for our various races to communicate with one another. It is also our administrative and business language. In the Asia Pacific, our superiority in English has given us the competitive edge to propel us to move ahead of others in economic development. But Chinese is seldom used by the Government and the business community. As such, its status has lowered. So I hope that there would be a Chinese version of this report. It would be more meaningful. Then we can show to those who are concerned with the Chinese Language in Singapore that we are sincere in wanting to raise the standard of the teaching of Chinese in Singapore. A Chinese version of this White Paper would also enable the Chinese educated, especially the Chinese teachers, parents and those who are concerned with the Chinese education in Singapore, to read it first hand, and they would understand the direction of the reform, and the spirit of this White Paper.

Mr Speaker, Sir, good teachers are critical to our Chinese education reform. Of course, training good teachers is not easy. So we should have a long-term plan to cultivate more local teachers. Of course, we can engage teachers from

overseas. Although their standards are very high, they may not be able to fully adapt to our local situation in Singapore and they may not understand the multi-racial and cultural background of Singapore. I feel that we should engage more local teachers, give them more training opportunities, and sponsor them for further studies overseas so as to enhance the quality of their teaching and their professionalism.

Education is not a business deal. We cannot see the results within the short term. But its impact is far-reaching. In some schools, when they have not enough Chinese teachers, they would ask other subject teachers to double up as Chinese teachers. I think this is unacceptable and very degrading to the Chinese Language. It is like asking a chef in a western restaurant to cook Chinese food. He will not be able to bring out the best in the Chinese cooking. It is the same principle. If you want to have a very typical Chinese food, eg, Teochew-style steamed pomfret, and you ask a very famous western master chef to cook it, I am sure he can produce a delicious dish as well, but it will not taste bona fide. Likewise, if you want to enjoy a meal of premier-grade beef steak and you get a Chinese cook to do it, he can also dish out a good serving of beef steak, but it will never taste the same. So I think we have to respect the professionalism of the Chinese teachers. If we do not have enough teachers in the schools, we should use ways and means to employ more Chinese teachers to teach Chinese. Apart from raising their salaries and remuneration, we should also attach more importance to the recruitment of Chinese teachers. We cannot just get some relief teachers whenever there is a shortage of Chinese teachers. Otherwise, the future of the students will be sacrificed. We should give more respect to and have greater affirmation for our Chinese

teachers. Then, we would be able to reward our present Chinese teachers and attract more young teachers to join in the teaching of Chinese, and thereby cultivate a new group of talents to undertake this very important profession.

Minister Mentor Lee had mentioned that if our students have learnt only some very shallow Chinese, they would have to pay a very huge cost later on. If the students are avoiding the difficult parts and learning only the easy ones and they are not willing to overcome the difficulties, in the end, they will regret it when the time comes for them to use Chinese and they find that they do not have enough knowledge to perform their tasks. It is just like cooking a Teochew-style steamed fish. If you want to steam fish in the Teochew way, you need to have a few pieces of fat meat and a few sour plums. Without them, of course, the fish will be the same but the taste will be entirely different. It would have lost its original taste and would not attract the interest of the connoisseurs.

Now, I would like to talk about the teaching of Chinese in the kindergartens. According to the report, the best time for children to learn languages is when they are at the age of five or six. If we wait until Primary 1 to build up their foundation for the learning of language, it will be too late. At the moment, before the students go to primary school, most of them would have gone through two years of kindergarten, ie, K1 and K2. In those two years of kindergarten, they also learn Chinese. But the curriculum and pedagogy are not covered or standardised under this report. In other words, the teaching method and the method they learn in the kindergarten may not be consistent with that in Primary 1. If the teaching method is wrong, you will have to spend a lot of time and effort to rectify it when they go to Primary 1. Over the last few years, I have been suggesting

very strenuously to the Ministry of Education that we should have more contact with the pre-primary education operators so that the curriculum in the kindergartens would be consistent with the Primary 1 and Primary 2 curriculum, and when the children get to Primary 1, they would fit into the system with minimal effort.

In fact, at the moment, the policy of the Ministry of Education is to let the private sector run the pre-primary education in Singapore. I have no quarrel with that. However, perhaps the Ministry of Education could have a more cooperative relationship with the pre-primary education operators to ensure that they use the proper methods of teaching. Then, they can prepare the students for the primary school lessons.

Teaching according to ability is very important. I feel that when we are guiding those who are weak in Chinese, we must find out what is the reason for their weakness. Many people say it is very difficult to learn Chinese. In fact, whether it is learning English or any other language, you will face the same difficulties. I cannot say that because you have a headache, I will just cure your head, and if there is a pain in the leg, I will just cure the leg. We must go to the root of the problem and find out where the problem is.

At the moment, a study by the Beijing Normal Univesity reveals that about 5-8% of the Chinese students are dyslexic in the learning of Chinese. The dyslexia in learning Chinese is different from the dyslexia in learning English. In fact, China is now studying how to help the students who are dyslexic in learning Chinese. At the moment, we have some methods to help those who are dyslexic in the learning of English. However, for Chinese, we do not have such a solution. I would like to ask the Ministry of Education whether they will conduct a

thorough investigation or survey among our secondary and primary school students to find out what our ratio of students having dyslexia in the reading of Chinese is. Then we can work out the right solution to help them so that they can obtain a breakthrough in their learning of Chinese, and it will be easier for them to learn later. We hope that by this study, we would be able to reduce the number of students who are dyslexic in learning Chinese and we would not give the wrong impression that so many of our students are having difficulties in learning Chinese.

Finally, I would like to quote yesterday's report in the Lianhe Zaobao. This year, the top PSLE student, Foo Xiang Peng, obtained good results in English, Chinese, Science and Mathematics and scored As in all of them, as well as a Distinction in Higher Chinese. His ambition is to be a Cabinet Minister. So we can see that Foo Xiang Peng, who has scored good results in Chinese and became the top student in the PSLE examination, has laid a good foundation for his future development. I would like to encourage all our students to learn Chinese and, with a good Chinese standard, they will have a better future.

I support the motion.

Sir, like the others before me, I support the motion. This is a development in our Chinese Language policy that has been a long time in coming, and I am glad that it is finally here. I speak as a Singaporean, born and bred in Singapore. While I recognise my Chinese heritage and my roots, I have no illusions about whether I want to be like the Chinese in China.

What do I mean, Sir? I am a fourth-generation Chinese living in Singapore. Like many of my Singaporean friends, my forebears came to this part of the world in search of a better life for themselves and those at home. My great-grandfather

came with no more than a shirt on his back. He made good and became a successful contractor at the tin mines. However, life was tough in those days. The driving force of the early pioneers were the memories of their families and the village they left behind in China, and the strong desire to want to be reunited with them. For them, it was clear that home was China, and they made sure that their children never forgot that. For this reason, the Chinese were constantly reminded of their heritage and their customs. Even to this day, the point of reference among some Chinese, especially among those from the same dialect group, is often the province and the village that their forebears came from. To keep memories of their ancestral home strong, it is imperative, therefore, that the language which is the vessel by which the values, customs and traditions, together with all its nuances, are carried be preserved as much as possible and be imbibed through the process of formal education.

And so it is that, at the threshold of our independence, we decided that we do not want to end up like the Calypso Caribbean society with its polyglot of people speaking a bastardised form of English, which is difficult to understand by those who are not native speakers. We also decided that, as a nation, Singapore would not be a melting pot of races and languages, but a multi-racial and multi-religious one. What it means, as we are aware, is that we decided that the various ethnic groups continue to maintain their cultural and religious boundaries while interacting with the others in the wider society. Such diversity of cultures, customs and religions allows Singapore to occupy its place as a cosmopolitan country that celebrates the rich differences of its peoples within the context of one nation.

Out of this ambition, we decided that our children would have to learn two languages: English, being the language of administration, commerce and trade, and a mother tongue, being the language by which the cultural DNAs of the ethnic group may be passed on from one generation to the next. This approach has since been the cornerstone of our education policy since independence.

Sir, we have heard how it is that with the language policy, the typical child and, in particular, the Chinese child, does not speak Mandarin as his mother tongue. Typically, the child going to school would use the vernacular language as his mother tongue. Many of my friends who went to school with me at that time could only speak Hokkien, Cantonese or Teochew when they first started. They were only beginning to learn Mandarin, and not to mention, English, for the first time when they walked through the portals of the school. In other words, the students at the age of six had to grapple with three languages instead of two, if one includes the vernacular language as well. When a child goes to school, he engages his teachers in English and Mandarin and, when he gets home, he talks to his parents and siblings in the vernacular language, be it Hokkien, Cantonese or Teochew.

Sir, if we accept the proposition that the capacity of an average person to learn languages is limited, then for the poor kid going to school in those early days, learning a language was indeed a challenge. The child ended up learning languages, none of which he typically has any significant mastery of. Sure, he could end up with a basic level of competence to communicate with his parents and grandparents, and pass written examinations in both languages. I would, however, hesitate to say whether a child in that kind of an environment would have the ability to understand, appreciate and apply the idioms associated with the

language or to play with the different nuances to bring out the full flavour of the language. The Chinese Language, in particular, is one such language where, if you were not able to use idioms and phonetics, you would be quite handicapped to put across your points as effectively and eloquently as the native speakers of the language. This inability to use the finer points of expression would also mean that for the majority of the population, there is a limitation in the ability to imbibe the full extent of the values and traditions that the language is supposed to convey.

Unfortunately, Sir, for a whole generation of Singaporean children, the opportunity to have a better mastery of one language has passed. It would not be wrong to say that the generation of Singaporeans who grew up from the sixties onwards, for many of them, they are never completely at ease with Mandarin, neither are they completely competent in Standard English, both in written and spoken form. Indeed, for many Singaporeans, writing in the English Language without any significant form of grammatical error is indeed a challenge. I have a friend, a partner in an accounting firm, who was just complaining to me the other day about how appalled he was to find some accountants - trained university graduates - still struggling to write grammatically-sound reports and letters. Never mind the eloquence.

For many, just standard expressions in standard English are a problem. No doubt, the average Singapore may be better in English than other non-native English speakers, but we are still some way away from the typical educated American and the British people in the handling of the language.

Sir, we are talking here about Singaporeans whose first language is English, supposedly. What about Chinese? I do not have the figures, Sir, but I believe that after 10 years of both primary and secondary education, many Singaporeans

will not have the ability or the confidence to write a letter or a report in Chinese. This is despite the fact that for many students, they would have had at least 10 years of second language education or would have scored at least a C6 in 'O' level examinations.

I have observed over the years, that in any international forum or gathering where you have representatives from East Asia, the US and Europe, and if the occasion calls for impromptu speeches to be given, the average Singaporean would be rather tongue-tied. It would be rare indeed to find Singaporeans who would be comfortable enough to engage the audience by speaking off the cuff, either in English or Mandarin. This is, no doubt, due to the lack of facility in the language and I believe this has translated in the level of confidence that Singaporeans display when it comes to public speaking.

Sir, the debate on the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Education raises deeper issues about the question of the identity we want to develop as a nation. Despite coming from different backgrounds and traditions to journey together towards a common destiny, do we want to deny the evolution of a Singapore identity that draws its heritage from the rich and well developed cultures of India, China and Southeast Asia? Or do we insist on maintaining our own and separate identity using language as a bulwark against erosion of ethnic identity?

This debate on the teaching of Chinese Language is not just a debate about pedagogy. Fundamentally, it is a debate about our choices, your choices, about who we are as a people and who we want to be. I have, in a previous sitting of this House, looked at the US as a prime example where the many people from different lands who make up their citizenship, would proudly refer to themselves as Americans first before making mention of their ethnic origins. It

would, therefore, be common to say that I am an American of Chinese origin, or that I am an American of Indian origin. Within their respective communities, I believe there is limited or little push to get every child to learn their own languages as a second language. Sure, there will be parents who will be pushing their children to learn their mother tongue as a way of preserving their heritage. However, I do not believe that such efforts are carried out on a scale as we have seen in our schools. Certainly, I do not believe that their education is as focused as we are on designing the curriculum and the pedagogy for the teaching of the second language. Their focus, to my mind, is education with a mastery of the English Language, even if it was US English. Beyond the second and the third generation of immigrants, it would be difficult if you close one eye to differentiate whether the speaker was a Chinese American, an African American or an Indian American. Such is the strength of the American society and identity that the polyglot of races that migrated to the US were never officially left to feel out of place in that society simply on account of their creed or colour of their skin.

Sir, when we made the choice to use English as the language of administration, commerce and trade, we essentially set the tenure under which language is to be used in Singapore. It did not take pragmatic Singaporeans long to recognise the basic fact that sending their children to English medium schools increases the child's chances of success in life as there would be wider career options. This was mentioned and referred to by Minister Mentor yesterday. We know that part of the education reform, some years back, had to do with declining enrolment of students in the Chinese schools, which is the main reason why such schools had to convert to using English as the medium of instruction.

And because we use English as the language of administration, the use of the Chinese Language is now confined to the social context and, in recent years, as the language of choice in entertainment for many Singaporeans. In this environment, the standard of Mandarin would have dropped, and quite naturally. To my mind, this would have a knock-on effect on the perceived difficulty of learning the language if the schools tried to teach it at a level that is higher than the context in which it is used daily. This partly explains, to my mind, why we have had to consistently moderate downwards, the standard of teaching and learning the language that is expected of our students.

Also, it did not help that Mandarin, as taught in the schools, did not change with the times. For most subjects, I believe the pedagogy has moved on from rote learning and regurgitation to the process of thinking and application of principles, which explains the official tag line of the Ministry, "Thinking Schools, Learning Nation". However, with Chinese, there is still much emphasis placed on memory work as a basis of learning. I remember how my two children had to commit numerous characters to memory in preparation for the PSLE. Sure they did well in the examination, but did they learn? The unfortunate outcome of such a process though, is that after the examinations, unless there is requirement for the use of Chinese, much of it would have been forgotten.

Often, it is said that we need to use languages to transmit our values to our children. Sir, I question that assumption. I do not accept the argument that one cannot teach our children the universal virtues of filial piety, humility, regard for others and service to the country, diligence and industry in languages other than our mother tongue. Yet, these are values which have been customarily associated with those from a Chinese-speaking background. In fact, I personally

found that many English-speaking Singaporeans display even stronger examples of filial piety than do many of those who came from Chinese medium schools.

Sir, that does not mean that I personally eschew the learning of Mandarin. The reasons that I am interested and I want to learn Mandarin are both personal and pragmatic. While I may be a fourth-generation Chinese, it does not mean that I am not proud of my own heritage and tradition as a Chinese. Living in Singapore, and being so far removed from the land of my forebears, I would be interested to learn more about where my ancestors came from, their customs and practices and even the basis of their religious belief. Does that mean that I see myself, because I observe similar customs, as being similar to the Chinese in Mainland China? Surely not. In the course of my work, I travel to China quite frequently. It did not take me long to know that as a Singaporean, I cannot see myself as one of them. We are essentially operating in different worlds, with different thought processes, values and practices. And I make no pretensions of wanting to be like them. I am, after all, a Singaporean of Chinese origin.

The other reason for my interest is, of course, a pragmatic one. An ascendant Chinese economy dictates that I should master my ability in the Chinese Language if I want to do business in China. It is mainly for this reason that there will be continued interest in the Chinese Language, or Chinese-based courses. At least, at this moment in time, we should not be unduly concerned that there would be a lack of interest among Singaporeans in learning Mandarin. A strong economy in China, coupled with the attraction of lucrative employment or investment, there would be sufficient incentive for many Singaporeans to learn the language. Market forces, I believe, will compel Singaporeans to attain a level of

competence in the language sufficient for them to operate comfortably in the Chinese environment.

In the final analysis, where will this debate on the teaching of the Chinese Language bring us? Without detracting from the points that have been canvassed so far, I believe that at one level, the debate of teaching Chinese is about the choice of Singaporean identity. I would advocate that we should move away from any pretensions of wanting to be like the Chinese in China in our approach towards our language policy. Chinese should be taught as a practical language that, like mathematics and science, should be used to equip our children to survive in the future world which, in our present calculation, must necessarily include an advanced and modern China, and to remind us of our past heritage. It should not and must not be treated as the last bastion against the erosion of our identity with the Chinese in Mainland China. Chinese Language should not be promoted on the basis that we are Chinese and, therefore, it is our bounden duty to have a thorough familiarity with our heritage and culture as the principal reason. To do that, Sir, I believe would further alienate a further generation of students from learning the Chinese Language. Chinese is a living language. There is no reason why we cannot enthuse our students to take a more active interest in the language and equip them with enough foundation to enable them to pick up the language in their later years, whether for the sake of rediscovery of their roots, or to help them operate more effectively in China. Whatever it is, the new initiative, as I have said, as suggested by the Government, in the present motion, is a step in the right direction. I would, for the reasons mentioned earlier, support the initiative by the Government.

3.22 pm

Mr Speaker,

Sir, over the past three days, many MPs have spoken up and given their views on this issue of learning Chinese Language in school and, more broadly, on our mother tongue policy. These are issues that are very close to our hearts, because the changes which we are considering and which MOE will implement will have a profound impact on our children and indeed on Singapore's future.

The debate has ranged very widely over the last few days. And yesterday, MM gave a comprehensive tour of the whole subject. So, today, I will not do a comprehensive tour. I will just focus on three issues.

One, why I think the bilingual education policy continues to be vital and relevant to Singapore today. Two, why we are making these changes now to the way we are teaching the language. What has changed? What has made these major changes in the way we teach Chinese in schools necessary? And three, what are the key success factors if we are going to make these changes work and get students to learn Chinese the way we would like them to do?

Let me start with bilingualism. As MM emphasised yesterday, bilingualism is the cornerstone of our education policy. We adopted this not just because we want to equip our children with language skills, or because we are looking for economic advantage. Language policy goes much further and deeper than that. It concerns such fundamental issues as how we see our role in the world, how we express ourselves culturally as a people, how we ensure that Singapore survives as a society, and how we can have the confidence and the sense of identity as Singaporeans to chart our future.

So the White Paper is not just about changes in the curriculum and pedagogy

of Chinese lessons in schools. It is a strong reaffirmation of our commitment to the bilingual policy. We are making these changes to the teaching of Chinese, in order to make bilingualism work under new circumstances. If we just let it be, it is working now, more or less. We can carry on for another 5-10 years. But if we do not change, with changing circumstances, eventually, the policy will snap and will fail. If we change now, we position ourselves so that we can maintain the bilingual policy and a reasonable standard of Chinese, maybe for another generation, and then we find new solutions to new problems.

The root of our bilingual policy goes back to independence in 1965, when the Government took the fundamental decision that English would be our common working language. Why? Because English was the language of international businesses. It gave us the best chance for economic survival. It was also the common language on which all races could meet on neutral ground. Had we decided on Chinese as a common working language, first, it would have been much harder to make a living; secondly, the minorities would have been marginalised and aggrieved, and Singapore might well have broken up. English gave everyone and every community the equal chance to succeed in life and equal space to lead their own way of life.

But it was not viable for Singapore only to be English-speaking either, because as a society, we needed strong cultural roots and it would take us generations to develop a strong culture of our own. Our immigrant people still had the cultures of their ancestral countries, and still upheld the values of these ancient civilisations. We wanted to preserve these heritages and values, to keep in touch with our roots and to pass down these traditions to our children and grandchildren. As we had grown up, as

we had known these values, we wanted to update them, but we also wanted them to continue and to be perpetuated, and for our children also to be something like us and to carry some of our heritage. And the way we decided to do this was through the bilingual policy - to teach English as the main working language and the main language of instruction in schools, but also the mother tongues as second languages to maintain these cultures and values in Singapore. We did not believe that if Singapore became a purely English-speaking society, or even for that matter, if just the Singaporean Chinese became purely English-speaking, we would have the collective instincts, the resilience or the cohesion to survive as a nation.

The base on which the PAP won elections was a Chinese base. The base on which the society and the nation was built, the instincts were basically Asian - attitudes towards society, towards Government, towards parents, towards the family. At the top, a small elite spoke English. Some went to RI, ACS, a few English schools, but they were not representative of the whole society. And if the whole society had been English-speaking, I think it would have been very different. And even the non-Chinese, the Malays and the Indians, would have found Singapore a very different place in which to live, because the texture would have changed.

That was 1965. Today, nearly 40 years later, these reasons for a bilingual policy are as valid as ever. More than ever, English is the international lingua franca. It is the language of the Internet. Today, knowing English is great plus for Singapore. If we compare ourselves with Hong Kong, South Korea or China, we have an advantage. Today, the Chinese recognise the need to learn English to compete in the globalised era. The country with the largest number of English students is China. For 2008, for

the Olympics, they are trying to persuade everybody to learn a few sentences of English, particularly in Beijing. And all the taxi-drivers are supposed to know 100 phrases and they gather, Chinese-style, in football stadiums, where you have a master instructor saying, "Good morning, teacher" and they practise back. I am not sure it will work, but it shows how fervently they feel the need to learn English. And we have that. That is why so many peidu mamas send their children to Singapore to study. They want them to have a good foundation in English. At the same time, this is an Asian society, they feel comfortable living here and so they come here, and so they benefit from us.

As for the identity part, over the last 40 years, we have, as a nation, made a lot of progress building a Singapore identity. We are more cohesive, we feel much more Singaporean.We can recognise a Singaporean, and our common ground is much stronger. But the process is not yet complete, and to complete it is going to take a very long time. At the same time, the external pulls on us, to separate us, are stronger than before. We are more cosmopolitan. The world is more connected. We have to work harder to make sure that our next generation retains a sense of self and cultural identity. At least, watch Singapore Idol and not just American Idol.

We may be English speaking. We may adopt western ideas and knowhow but, fundamentally, we are a society of Asians living in Asia. We are today, notwithstanding the skyscrapers of Shenton Way or, later, Marina South, notwithstanding the modern structure of our economy, our instincts, our values, our social norms are all distinctively Asian. The culture, the values carry that Asian tinge, and indeed more than tinge, a deep dye is still there. And we have been able to succeed because we have displayed Asian traits - hard work, thrift, respect for

elders, tolerance, social inclusiveness. So, the motivation for the bilingual policy stands and we need to maintain the bilingual policy and we want all our children to learn their mother tongues.

There are advantages, of course, in learning Chinese because China is rising and there are opportunities there. India is rising and there are more opportunities there too. But our language policy is fundamentally driven by the deep questions: Who are we? What kind of people should make up Singapore?

I myself am a product of the bilingual education policy. I spent 15 years altogether learning Chinese, about three years in a Chinese kindergarten, 12 years in a Chinese school, but I had a home background which was English speaking. As a result of my Chinese education, I became competent in Chinese, and imbibed the values of the Chinese educated Singaporean. I am one of them. I was inspired by the dedicated teachers who taught me, who imbued me with their values and a sense of passion, their commitment to do their best for their students, and it has left a deep impression on me to this day.

But somehow, my master language was English. I do not know why, not for lack of exposure or effort, but somehow while I am fluent in both, English became my master language. After I left school and entered work, so much of the business is done in English that it became even more entrenched. And if I do not practise my Chinese, it becomes very rusty. The phrases do not flow, the grammar goes very strange, the pronunciation drifts off, and I have to practise, read, speak, engage in conversations and, after a while, it comes back. If I visit China or Taiwan, or if I am in a Chinese speaking environment, I start

having to think in Chinese, it comes back faster. Within a day or two, I am up and running. So, in an election campaign, at the beginning, the speech sounds terrible, but by the end, it is OK.

But Chinese is not just for elections. I have found knowledge of Chinese valuable, not just to talk to Chinese and Taiwanese officials face-to-face and without interpreters, but also because it gives me a more rounded view of the world. You read the Straits Times, you read the Zaobao, same news, different angle, different perspectives, different presentations. Sometimes different news is picked up. And you understand that the English Language perspective is not the only one in the world, and that there is a big reality out there which the purely English educated are missing out on, and which because I have that Chinese education, I have access to. If I only had English, I would have been a different person. So I am very grateful that my parents sent me to a Chinese school. This made me what I am.

If the bilingual policy stands, then why are we having to change the way we teach Chinese in schools? What has changed? Is it our thinking which has changed? Is it circumstances which have changed to cause us to make such far reaching fundamental reforms? We have touched on some of these in the debate, but I would like to summarise them into just a few points.

The first change is our progressive realisation of what we can realistically achieve when we are trying to make people bilingual. As Minister Mentor described vividly yesterday, most people can only master one language well, which is the one we use most of the time. The majority will not be able to master a second language at the same level. We started off believing that we could bring everybody up, or even that we could bring

everybody about equal, even though they did not quite reach 100% for both languages. But, gradually, after many years of experience, we have come to the conclusion that it is not so. The more we learn of one language, the less we learn of the second. English is our working language. Everybody accepts that, and you have to master that in order to learn all the other subjects in school, and in order to make a living. We have to start off with that as a first requirement - that we are going to learn English and learn English well. Within that constraint, we want to achieve as high a standard as we can for the mother tongue for each child. So the standard will vary with each child, and will also vary depending on the social environment in which the children grow up in. But, basically, we have to make a trade off. We do not like it. We wish it did not exist, but it is there. The more you emphasise Chinese, the less you will have of English and vice versa. If you want to improve your English, you have to use it, you have to practise it, you have to be exposed to it, you have to speak it with your friends, with your teachers, with your colleagues. The more you do that, the less practice you are going to have with your Chinese. We have to accept that trade off.

Therefore, we have to set realistic targets and expectations for learning Chinese, recognising that students differ widely in their language ability and home language backgrounds. And we have got to allow and encourage the stronger students to study Chinese at a higher level, while helping the weaker students to gain confidence in the language and not become overloaded.

The level we can achieve is going to vary from person to person. It depends partly on your general ability or IQ, but it is not just IQ. For equally bright pupils, some will be good at languages, the girls particularly, but others will struggle with

languages. Many of the boys are like that. Some may not be very clever with Mathematics or Science, but they will be good with languages and they will be facile. We have to acknowledge that, recognise it and take it into account. So that is the first change in our thinking, which is our realisation that there is a trade off. We have to accept this trade off and we have to decide where along that choice we are going to go - one quarter, three quarters, one third, two thirds, or whatever.

The second change is in the language habits of our families. The profile is steadily shifting from Chinese speaking to English speaking. This has been under way for some time. We already recognised it several years ago. In 1999, when I did the last review of the Chinese Language teaching in schools, we already noted that over 10 years, the proportion of P1 students coming from English-speaking homes had doubled. In 1988, 20% of the children in P1 came from English-speaking homes. By 1998, 10 years later, the proportion had doubled to 40%. Since then, 1998 till now, which is about 6-7 years, it has increased further to 50%, and it is going to continue to rise.

The home language background makes a huge difference in the child's ability to absorb Chinese. It also makes a huge difference to the right approach to teaching him Chinese. Because for somebody who is speaking Chinese at home, learning the language in school is a reinforcement or formalising of what he already knows. He speaks it, he understands the meanings, he expresses himself in it. What he needs is to learn the writing, maybe learn the formal grammar, maybe learn hanyu pinyin, and, over time, expand his vocabulary.

For somebody who speaks English at home, he is learning what we call the

mother tongue - though it is almost a foreign language - from scratch. He has no reinforcement at home. He has to learn everything - the words, the meanings, the sounds, the writing, the grammar. He has to express himself and, at the same time, we want him to absorb values and culture and many other things to come with that language. Well, some children will have a strong aptitude for languages and can do it, like Miss Penny Low, who is from a baba family, but spoke fluently in Chinese day before yesterday. I asked her what was her level of Chinese in school, she said, "CL2". I think if everybody could be a CL2 like that, we would not be having this debate today. But not everybody is of that level and some will face great difficulties however hard they try. MOE statistics show this, and the MPs know this first hand from experience with their own children.

Today, I do not think we yet have a very serious problem, because most students can manage the CL curriculum in schools. Most of them still come from Chinese-speaking homes. But if we look at the P1 cohort, 50% of whom are from English-speaking homes, project 10 years ahead when this P1 cohort reaches Secondary 4, and that is 'O' levels, can we imagine that they can achieve the same standards, the same fluency as the Secondary 4 cohort this year? I think long before that, there will be many who will run into difficulty with the curriculum, as they reach upper primary and secondary schools. Not because the teaching quality has deteriorated, or the students are less bright, but as a result of the shift of language profile. We know it. The evidence may be anecdotal but we see it. Little children going to school in Primary 1. After a few weeks, they have phobia. They say, "I am frightened of Chinese."

Primary 6 or 'O' levels put on the pressure, as Mr Yeo Guat Kwang says cing ku chou - tighten the ring, force them to study, enormous effort. They swear, "Once I pass and get into whatever school I am aiming for, that is it. I am putting it down and I am not taking it up any more." If we have to do that to our students, we have failed. We have not succeeded in getting them to learn the language, to love the language or to imbibe the values which go with the language. Maybe he passes the examinations but at the expense of our ultimate objective which is for him to have something which he holds precious and which becomes part of him. That is the second thing which has changed.

The third thing which has changed is the practical usage of the language. In our daily lives, we speak, listen and read Chinese much more than we write the language. In fact, we speak and listen more than we read the language. And, for young people, they are more likely to SMS one another in Chinese than to write in Chinese. And least of all are they likely to write a formal note to a Government department - jing qi zhe and so forth, which I think the school children still have to do for their examinations.

Take my work, for example. When I interact with my Chinese grassroots leaders and residents, I listen and speak Chinese. To keep in touch with what is happening on the ground, I read Lianhe Zaobao. And there are very few occasions when I need to write in Chinese. When I have Chinese speech, I work it on the computer. And with Windows XP, especially if you have extra software which MM described yesterday, you just type in a sentence and the characters will come up and will be corrected as you go along - wo men shi Xinjiapo gong min. By the time you reach the end, the software has figured out the whole sentence. And if you type in a

name which is familiar, the name itself will show up, because there is artificial intelligence in the computer.

I am not the only one using that software. Millions of Chinese in China are using that software. All their journalists, researchers and all their officials are using it. There are no handwritten documents any more. Everything is typed on a computer. In fact, if you read

accounts of what is happening in China, the Chinese scholars themselves are beginning to forget how to write the characters, because they do not have to write, they just have to recognise. So I am not sure what will happen to the language after one generation like that. Something is going to change. Maybe some form of phonetics will come in, as has happened with Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese which were originally also ideograph-based. But I think the language will come under great pressure to change, and we should recognise this. If we insist we have to write because with strokes and bi shun, in its right sequence, for some it is worth the effort; for many, if you are not going to become a calligrapher, there is no practical need to. Now what you have got to remember is how to use the keyboard, and that is a practical, realistic approach. Otherwise, we would still be using the brush - mao bi.

So we need to emphasise the practical usage of Chinese. It would be ideal if all the students could do all four equally well - listen, speak, read and write. But, in reality, not everybody can achieve this. For students with average language ability, we should shift the emphasis, which means less writing, to more listening, speaking and reading. We should increase their exposure to spoken Chinese, so as to develop their listening and speaking skills. And we should give them more opportunities to speak and practise using the language, instead of sitting in class listening and memorising, and not actually having the opportunity to

express and engage, and to have the language as a living, vibrant, useful medium to them. At the same time, we can make zuo wen (writing composition) easier by not emphasising on 100% memory of words and how to write them.

Fourthly, what has changed is that we have to recognise and respect the growing desire of parents and students to make their own choices. We have to preserve a certain core and minimum standard of Chinese, which the great majority of students can manage. Maybe, as Yeo Guat Kwang says, it can be the HSK (hanyu shuipin kaoshi), if that is the appropriate level. But how far to go beyond this minimum, how much more Chinese to do, and how much less English to do, this is a matter which the students and the parents ought to have more say in deciding, depending on their own interests, their own abilities and their own plans in life.

What is it which will make them want to study more? Not pressure, not coercion, but them seeing that there is some point in learning Chinese, that this is not just an academic exercise, not just a dead language like Latin, but something which will be useful to them, which is interesting, which they find intriguing, challenging, rich and which will give them the interest and incentive to go and do more. What we can do to facilitate the parents' choices is by offering more programmes of different standards, and then within that, they choose. This was what we did in 1999, when I led a review on the learning of CL and we made reforms for the secondary school level. We decided to inject more flexibility into the system. At the lower end, we introduced CL 'B' as a different syllabus for the secondary schools, as a practical approach to help the weaker students cope with the subject so that they do not lose interest altogether. But, at the higher end, we allowed more students to study Higher Chinese. We added another SAP

school, Nan Hua, and we allowed more students to benefit from a rigorous bilingual programme.

Now, the White Paper is taking a further step forward by adopting a customised approach when a child enters primary school, so that even from the beginning, we acknowledge that the starting points are different and we take account of that in the way we teach him Chinese; at the same time, offering a continuum of programmes at the secondary school level, SAP schools, Higher Chinese Language curriculum, and the Language Elective Programme (LEP), and now the Bicultural Studies Programme, so that those who can excel in two languages can go as far as they can.

The fifth reason why we are changing now is because we feel increasingly that the Chinese community in Singapore has an imperative to ensure that we produce succession for the people who are bicultural, who are proficient in English, but at the same time almost CL1 in Chinese, who understand the language, the culture, the history, contemporary China, how to do business there, how Chinese society is evolving, and contemporary trends.

It is not for sentimental reasons but it is because we want to maintain the Chinese base in Singapore. And to maintain that CL base at CL2 for the majority of the students, you have to have this group who are at much higher level than CL2, who will be able to teach, who will be able to expound, who can write, compose and carry forward the torch into the next generation. Also for doing business in China, that is another reason why we need people who are at that level who can understand, interpret and help us to take advantage of what is going on. So we started the Bicultural Studies Programme. We have had a very

encouraging initial response, and we have many more students who want to enrol than there are places. It shows that parents value and support the programme, and there are students who are interested, who have the aptitude, and will grow up bicultural. The Bicultural Studies Programme complements the SAP schools and the LEP, and will give avenues for students with an interest in the language and the culture to pursue it further.

Graduates from these schools will be in great demand. They will become diplomats dealing with China; thought leaders and writers working and writing in Chinese; teachers and lecturers helping to pass on the language and culture to the next generation. At the same time, they will give our economy the extra edge. Because they can communicate with the Chinese businessmen and entrepreneurs on the same wavelength and without barriers. They will be interlocutors and deal makers, and will be valuable economic assets for Singapore. Even those who did not do Chinese at first language level will learn.

I was in Shanghai this year and I went to a restaurant on The Bund. It is called Three on the Bund. There is a restaurant, a spa and an art gallery. The chef was a Singaporean. He is originally from Hongkong. The sommelier, that means the wine advisor, was a young lady from Singapore. How did she do it? She found the opportunity and she had to learn all the wine terms and describe the wine in Chinese. I do not know how she did it - the shape of the cork, the bouquet of the wine - but she learnt all the words and she could tell a story in Chinese about French wines, mind you, not Chinese wines. And she made a living there. So Singaporeans, given the opportunity, will have the motivation to go and learn, master the language and make a living for themselves in China and in Singapore.

Some Members have said, what a pity the motivation is an economic one; we

should have purer motivation. Let us only do this for cultural reasons because of values, because of heritage. Let us not do this because there is a living to be made. But it is quite legitimate to acknowledge that one reason why we are learning Chinese is because it is going to be useful to us. If it is not going to be useful, it is going to be a more difficult task. It will be like some of the East European countries or Balkan countries. Their people emigrate to Australia, New Zealand, America, to far parts of the world. The first generation may keep the culture. By the children's generation, the language is gone. By the generation after that, they are completely Australians or Americans. As Sin Boon Ann says, they speak like Americans. If Chinese were not useful to us, I think we would be in danger of that fate too. Fortunately, Chinese is useful to us. So I think that it increases our chances of keeping our culture and roots as Singaporeans.

There are two critical success factors for this package of changes.

First, we have to be able to bring the language alive for our children. They have got to see the practical value in learning the language, so that they will be motivated to learn and use it. Without that, there is no basis for talking about raising Chinese standards. The children will find it pointless to learn Chinese, and even if we impose high standards on them, it will be force fed.

I listened to Low Thia Khiang. He said we must keep the standards high, and I can empathise with him. Because he remembers the Chinese schools of a different era when that was the first language, and that was what children spoke, he learned all the subjects in Chinese, that was what he achieved, and he was studying wen yan, zhonghua wen xuan (extracts from the classics). But, today, the standard we can set is not only

determined by what trade-off we choose between English and Chinese. It is also determined by what level we can achieve if we try hard in this environment. There is a natural level which the students can do if they work at it. Let's say you make them study two hours of Chinese a day. They can reach a certain level. Can I add another 500 words per year by making them study three or four hours a day? It cannot be done. At primary school, you will already have a problem. By secondary school, you have a revolt. It has to be at a level which is variable and which they find they can achieve, and which they find a purpose in doing.

So I think the most important thing for us is to make the children feel that there is a practical value to learning this language, then they will be motivated to learn, then they will have the motive to raise the standards over time. So we have to create opportunities for them to listen to Mandarin, to speak Mandarin. We have to help them to enjoy reading Chinese story books, Chinese newspapers, even Wanbao and Shin Min - why not, it is entertaining, it is practice of the language - and watch Chinese TV programmes, sing Chinese songs. And when they grow up, follow the developments in China and conduct business dealings in Chinese. But the motivation for learning the language cannot be that one day, they will go to China and they will need it. They are now in primary school or secondary school. It has to be something here and now which they find relevant and it makes sense to them. And that is what is different when you are learning Chinese from learning Science, Mathematics or so many other subjects. The other subjects are hard too. But you know you need to learn Science or Mathematics, because you are going to become an engineer, a technician or a doctor. You learn Chinese. Why do you need that? So, there has to be a motivation. The motivation has to be that this is the language which is used, which

gives you access, which you can enjoy using, and which your friends are using and you have a chance to talk to them, and you feel part of the in-crew.

Bringing the language alive is a job for both the schools and the teachers and for our society. The Chinese community has expressed support for the changes. The Clans have done so. And Mr Wee Cho Yaw, as President of the Federation of Chinese Clans Association, has said that he intends to get the community organised to raise funds to do activities and programmes to promote the learning and use of Chinese, and he set the target of $10 million. I support the idea. The Ministry of Education also supports the idea, and MOE will match the fund dollar for dollar, up to $10 million. I wish the Chinese community every success in this effort. The money is not the problem. The challenge is to have the activities, the engagement, the fund and the young people to participate. And if we can do that, this is money well spent.

The second key success factor of this exercise lies with our Chinese Language teachers. All teachers play an important role in moulding the characters of the young. But the mother tongue teachers play an extra role in passing on traditional values and also teaching the language, which is a much more difficult task than teaching some other subjects. We can make all the right policy changes but whether the policy is worked on the ground, that depends on what happens in the schools and in the classrooms. We have had a lot of comments on

what is wrong with our Chinese Language syllabus. But I do not think what is wrong is our Chinese Language teachers. Our teachers are dedicated and doing their best. Many of them have adopted innovative teaching methods which have spurred the students' interest. They have

tried very hard. They conduct the lessons in schools, mark the assignments after work, give remedial classes on Saturdays. They sweat their guts out, and try their best to make the children pass the examinations.

Some parents get angry at the teachers when their children do not do well. As a result, what do the teachers do? They want results. They want the schools to do well. They teach in a way that will help the students to pass examinations, which means you have to memorise words, phrases, idioms, sometimes entire compositions. The solution to this is to fix the examinations so that we examine in such a way that we are really testing you realistically for what you really can achieve, and you are not faking it. I know students who do this. You look out for key characters in the examination question, and you say da an shi ru ci, and you put the rest of the answer you memorised. And you get a few points right by chance. I think if examinations can be faked like that, that means, the students are cleverer than the examiners. And we have to find ways to examine, so that we really establish what they know and that, when in preparing for the examinations, in fact, they are doing what we want them to do, which is to understand the language and to learn to be able to express themselves in that language.

We will give our Chinese Language teachers more support. It includes providing good training, adequate resources. We need to ease their workload. We are recruiting more Chinese teachers so that they can spread out the workload. And we will set the right syllabus and examination format. Parents also will have to play a part, supporting the teachers, motivating their children and understanding when the child does not perform up to expectations. So we should record our thanks to the

Chinese Language teachers for their effort over all these many years. They understand the problems. They know what we are trying to achieve. They are trying to help us solve this problem, and in solving this problem, we must take their input so that we understand what is happening, and we can make changes which are going to work.

So I am glad that, in the course of this review, the Chinese Teachers' Union has been very receptive and made many constructive suggestions. We would have to keep in close touch with the teachers because we need this feedback loop, as we continue to implement changes, monitor the results and implement further changes, as we go along.

The White Paper has stated a 10-year plan. So by 2015, the "O" levels examination format is going to change. I think 2015 is over the horizon. Many things will change before then. Our society will change further. We would have experience operating the first reforms to the Chinese teaching. We would have to see how they are working out. We need new ideas. There would be new technology. And we would have to adapt as we go along so that we continue to teach in the most effective way. So I do not think this White Paper is the last of the changes. It is the roadmap and there will be many adjustments as we go along. But the strategic direction is that we are adapting our language policy to the circumstances of today and the future. That is set and will not change.

Despite all the challenges we face, our bilingual policy has been successful. Most of our students know two languages which give them many added opportunities when they start work. What we should compare is not Singaporean's Chinese with the Chinese' Chinese. It is the Singaporean's Chinese with the Chinese' English. So that is what we have achieved, a workable second

language standard, a reasonable first language standard. The Chinese have a good first language standard and very little second language standard. They will find it very difficult to change. We have achieved something very valuable.

I was in Chile recently, and some Chilean CEOs told me they admired the way we taught Singaporean children two languages, whereas in Chile, the children study predominantly Spanish, with only two hours of English lessons a week. Chile is another example of a society where you have got Germans, British, Spanish, all mixed together, but finally the dominant language is Spanish. And English is only spoken by the elite, German is not spoken. So there is a certain dynamic to the language which is spoken by the society which we have to accept and work within in crafting our policy.

We therefore are at a significant advantage and able to serve as a bridge between the East and the West. I think Singaporeans recognise this, which is why there is now strong support for the bilingual policy. In the past, the Chinese-educated and the English-educated had very different views on language, often resulting in heated debates. And the arguments arose from differences in very deep beliefs and very strong emotions. They concerned fundamental questions, such as what texture the society should have. Today, very few Singaporeans question the need for a mother tongue. Whatever our arguments, whatever the gripes of the English-speaking parents whose children have difficulty in school, they accept the policy. They want their children to study Chinese but they say, "Can you make it a little bit less hard?" I think on that, we can find common ground. And the Chinese-educated also accept the importance of mastering English. We have seen the benefits of the bilingual policy, and that has taken much

of the heat out of the issue. So it is possible for us to have a rational and calm discussion in Parliament.

If you follow the discussion in the English and Chinese newspapers, you will find that the views of the different segments of society have indeed converged, not become identical, but come closer together. And the parents are now better able to approach the issue objectively too. The challenge for us now is how we can best prepare our children to succeed in the future to become confident adults. Deep down, we know that for them to succeed, they have to master English but, at the same time, for them to survive, for them to be something like their forefathers, for them to be a society together, the more they know of their mother tongue, the better.

I believe that this package of changes will help our children reap the most dividends from our bilingual policy. I strongly support them. The modular approach, customisation to the children's abilities, more choice for parents, even "Read first, Write later" will go a long way to interest and engage the great majority of our Chinese students to learn their mother tongue.

So let us strongly reaffirm this bilingual education policy, in order to maintain our roots and identity. At the same time, let us take a practical approach which will minimise the trade off between learning English and learning Chinese. That way, we will entrench our position as an open, competitive and vibrant international city in the East. With bilingual skills, our people will be confident to face the new world, and will be in a better position to enjoy the fruits that the booming Asia will bring.

Sir, may I seek a clarification?

Yes, a short one.

Thank you, Sir. Two clarifications. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that, in order for a person to continue to use a language, he has to be comfortable and confident in using the language. And in order to be confident and comfortable, a person will have to attain a certain language proficiency, level and standard.

Second clarification. Is the Prime Minister not concerned that if a student, at the end of Primary 6 education, is not able to attain a certain basic proficiency and standard in Chinese Language, he will find it even more onerous in secondary school to study the language and may give up altogether, and will end up losing the Chinese Language altogether?

I readily concede those points. To speak, you must have a certain level and you have to attain a certain level in primary school in order to be able to take the subject in secondary school. The question is: what is that level? Is it the present standard? Is it something higher? Is it something lower? It cannot be the level of the Chinese school which he knew and I knew, because that is impossible. And you can see in many places where people are speaking Chinese, even though they are not at that first language standard. You can communicate. You are comfortable talking to one another. You may not be able to make a speech or write an editorial, but you can express yourself adequately and vividly. And I think amongst the children who are in our schools, in our polytechnics and even a certain proportion in our universities today, they would have that level.

What would we be able to maintain in future for primary schools, that is an empirical question which we would have to establish. I cannot say for sure, if 80% of the families are English-speaking at

home, what level can we achieve in school? We will have to find out as we go on. Then what level can we achieve in secondary school, if that is what they can reach in primary school? We would also have to find that out as we go on. It is not possible for us to say, "These are the levels, and come hell or high water, we are going to get there." Because it would depend on the pupils and on their abilities.

Could I ask the Prime Minister, as we see this as the second language policy, whether it is possible for the Indian and the Malay communities to take up this modular approach to the Chinese Language?

I presume Ms Braema means this modular approach to Malay and Tamil?

The Chinese Language is now going to use a modular approach which seems a more approachable attitude towards the Chinese Language. Is it going to be open to the Indian and Malay communities to take it up as a second language?

The mother tongue policy is that each community has to do its own mother tongue. There are exceptions. The Minister for Education has answered the question, explaining how the exceptions are made and how many there are. But, basically, the mother tongue policy means that each community has to study its own mother tongue. We had a debate in this House, and the Malay and the Indian Members have participated in the debate. For the Malay Language syllabus, the problem is not an urgent one, because most Malay parents still speak Malay at home, although this is shifting. And we are beginning to see Malay parents who

speak English and whose children have difficulty learning Malay in schools. But it is a small number.

For Tamil, it is a problem. The Ministry of Education has put it very gently that it is going to review this. But we know that it is a problem and the current standards are too high. And some Tamil parents have told me that they themselves who are native Tamil speakers - really truly mother tongue, not taken it as a second language - would fail the Primary 6 Tamil examination. And people who live in Chennai, who speak Tamil as it is spoken today, tell us that we are using a very literary, formal form of the language, which is not the way the language is spoken anymore. Because if you listen to the radio in Chennai, they use all kinds of English words and colloquialisms. I have to take this on faith, but I believe it is so, we have not kept up with it, we have been preserved in aspic jelly, and we are teaching a form which is not spoken anywhere else in the world, and it is probably not going to be spoken in the next generation in Singapore either. So adjustments have to be made, and will be made.

Sir, can I have another clarification with the Prime Minister?

Yes.

Sir, with the shifting standard which the Prime Minister has said, in response to changing circumstances and the language environment, what would he see the language situation in Singapore, particularly the standard of Chinese Language, and whether we will lose the language two generations down the road?

If Mr Low can tell me what his grandchildren will speak, I would be able to answer his question.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.15 pm until 4.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.35 pm

Debate resumed.

Sir, like many of my fellow Members of this House, I am delighted that the Government has decided to implement the recommendations of the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee. In particular, it is heartening to note that the emphasis will now be on practical, real-life usage of the language that aims to stand our students in good stead long after they leave school. Very often, English-speaking friends told me that in spite of scoring decent grades in Chinese Language all the way up to 'AO' levels, they cannot conduct a decent conversation in Mandarin now, have difficulty following the Mandarin news or reading Chinese newspapers and, even more embarrassingly, are unable to help their primary school children with the Chinese homework. How often do Singaporeans who did Chinese for at least 10 years in school marvel at some westerner who only put in a couple of years of effort in learning Mandarin to be able to confidently converse on any given topic in fluent Mandarin? I believe the reason for this marked difference in the ease with the language lies in the level of interest, the learning environment and the motivation in learning it. The new approach in teaching the Chinese Language will certainly produce a more

positive and upbeat attitude to the learning of the language.

Sir, at this stage of the debate, I would just like to share some of my personal experiences, difficulties and discoveries in learning Chinese. Before I begin, I must first of all declare that I came from an English school, having spent 12 years in the ACS family of schools where students during my time were not shy to score an F9 in Chinese. Chinese was not among my favourite subjects in school but, after spending more time in China in recent years, I have come to appreciate the beauty of the Chinese Language and also why it is so difficult to learn and master the Chinese Language.

Unlike phonics in English, there is no system as to how a Chinese character is formed and why a character should be written that way. Teaching a child to recognise Chinese characters is like teaching him to recognise and remember the make and model of the cars on the roads. As the cars go past, the Chinese reader must be able to recognise almost instantaneously that that is a Honda Civic, there goes a Mercedes E230, and that is a Subaru WRX. I used to think that Chinese characters come in pairs. For example, walk is zou lu, chopsticks is kuai zi, window is chuang kou. Maybe that was how we were taught when we were young. This may sound laughable to many Members of this House, who are naturally more proficient in the language. But only recently did I realise how each single Chinese character is complete in itself. Standing alone on its own, it contains all that is required to convey its unique meaning. Putting another character before or after it serves to elaborate, enhance or differentiate the root character, just like the purpose of an adjective in English. Do not laugh, because I never fully appreciated this. But from this basic approach, two or more single words can be strung together to

form intricate expressions or phrases, giving different meanings or flavours.

This leads to the fondness to truncate and shorten Chinese names and phrases. For example, changes in teaching methods become, in Chinese, jiao gai. So, the fewer the words, the more profound and intricate the expression. Added to the tonal nature of the Chinese Language, this makes learning and using the Chinese phrases difficult, as the context can be pretty unique to the subject matter. Of course, abbreviation is also practised in English but, in English, letters are used as abbreviations. For example, Singapore Stock Exchange becomes SGX, which makes it equally difficult because, unless you are familiar with the jargon or context, it is almost impossible to decipher what the letters "SGX" mean. But if you do not know the abbreviation, does that make you less proficient in English? No.

To illustrate, I was talking to a group of doctors, and they were discussing "GE". I thought it referred to "General Elections". But, in fact, they were referring to gastroenteritis or, more simply, food poisoning. So, if we do not know "GE" refers to gastroenteritis, does it make you a less proficient English speaker? It does not, because we know that even a visiting English professor would not have guessed that "ERP" refers to electronic road pricing, and "TSC" refers to Takashimaya Shopping Centre, unless he had come across those abbreviations before. However, in Chinese, the abbreviations can be used not only for names but also for feelings, situations and other expressions. One requires a certain level of proficiency to comprehend the abbreviation and has to know the meaning of each individual character it comprises.

The other day, my 8-year-old son was watching the National Geographic programme about volcanoes on television. It

was in English and he could understand most of it, because he could repeat and describe to me what he had learnt. It was not a programme for children but, by using contemporary English, the commentator was able to communicate with the general audience, such that even 8-year-olds had no difficulty appreciating the subject. What if the same programme on the same subject matter was produced in Mandarin? Would it be able to reach out to the general viewers in English-speaking homes, if it were not sub-titled? I do not think even I, an adult with not so bad Mandarin who obtained a P2 at "O" levels, would be able to understand it. To be well regarded by Chinese viewers, producers of Chinese programmes of that nature have to use the language to a certain standard which would prove to be too difficult and profound for the average English-speaking Singaporean. So there are calls for more Chinese programmes, serials and even cartoons to be aired on television. But would the average Mandarin speaker have that level of competence to be able to comprehend, appreciate and enjoy such programmes without English sub-titles? Two of my daughters are doing Higher Chinese in school, yet they rely heavily on English sub-titles to understand our Chinese television serials.

Added to this, I found out that the good Chinese speaker loves to use highly descriptive language. In English, one would be labelled bombastic if one uses language that is too flowery. But the Chinese like to embellish their language, in fact, the more and crisp the language is, the more it is admired. For example, after listening to Dr Ong Seh Hong on the first day of this debate, I went back and, over dinner, asked my daughters who are doing Higher Chinese, "The English expression "to kill two birds with one stone", how would you say it in Chinese?" One of them said, "yong yi li shi tou sha si liang zhi niao". But Dr Ong Seh Hong said, "yi jian shuang diao", and just now Mr Yeo

Guat Kwang said the simpler or local use of it is yi shi er niao. So this can intimidate those who are less fluent and discourage them from using more of the language in the presence of better Chinese speakers. So, in the presence of Mr Chan Soo Sen, Mr Seng Han Thong or Prof. Low Seow Chay, often I prefer not to open my mouth in Mandarin, in case I show my inaptitude and ignorance!

So, Sir, I can understand how less proficient speakers, like myself, are deterred by our inability to communicate at the same level. I would, therefore, like to urge good Mandarin speakers not to look down on those who are poorer at it but to encourage them and try to help them along their conversation when they falter or hesitate, because the reality is that we have to persevere to use the language, as we can only improve with practice. Therefore, the challenge is that, to succeed together with the changes in curriculum and pedagogy, we have to create a conducive environment for practice and usage. Yesterday, when I listened to some of my parliamentary colleagues, like Mr Lim Swee Say, Prof. Low Seow Chay, Dr Ong Seh Ong and Dr John Chen, making their speeches in Mandarin, I marvelled at their choice of words, so beautifully strung together. I copied some of these down and made notes to remember them. But then, when would I get to use such phrases again?

Chinese is a beautiful language. Mastering it needs practice and exposure. Anyone who has the chance to mix and mingle long enough with any community, whether of doctors, Singaporeans or Chinese, would inevitably pick up and learn their jargons quite naturally. Sir, our bilingual policy has succeeded, even for ACS Boys, as it has given an adequate base and foundation for them to improve. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that many ex-ACS Boys from English-speaking

backgrounds are now actually working and living in China. And much to their astonishment, they find it comfortable to use Mandarin as part of their daily lives. Some tell me they have learnt to recognise the words when they sing karaoke. Some others practise their Chinese with Chinese girlfriends. Sir, I am not suggesting that we go out and get a Chinese girlfriend. But there must be a conducive and affirming environment for practice, exposure and learning of the language here in our local community.

Sir, when I talk about the environment, that includes the home environment, and this is crucial. Why do I say that? This morning, at a town council's event, I was talking to a Chinese news reporter, Janice Ng. She is a young girl, effectively bilingual in English and Chinese. So I asked her, "How did you manage? How did you become bilingual?" She said that she speaks to her father in English and her mother in Chinese. When she was in school learning Chinese, her mother would be cooking with one hand, and with a cane in the other hand, pushing her on to memorise the phrases, to learn by rote, the Chinese phrases. Her opinion is that Chinese parents nowadays are softer with their children and not pushing them as hard to excel in Chinese.

To have a group of bicultural Chinese-speaking elite, the key success factor is the parents who are dedicated and committed to also push their children to excel in the Chinese Language. For the average Chinese student, the task of bringing the language to life falls on the schools, the teachers and society. I applaud the recommendation to boost our oral skills. This is especially relevant, as many of us have observed that many of those who speak Mandarin cannot help, but insert English words or expressions into their speeches whenever they have a lapse in their Chinese vocabulary. However, in my view, to truly train a student in oral skills, requires face-to-face

live communication with the Chinese proficient speakers. No doubt oral skills can be acquired from books, audio and video aids, but these helpful supplemental materials cannot replace learning in a live environment, which provides human-to-human interaction between learners and proficient speakers. In a class of learners, the students will be able to learn more from guided conversation with their teacher than from unguided conversation with each other.

Unfortunately, Sir, the truth of the matter is that the larger the class size is, the fewer the opportunities for students to practise their oral skills with a trained teacher doing a routine lesson. As a typical class size is about 40, which will be reduced to 30, this is an issue that deserves consideration. I hope that the Ministry of Education will find ways and means to provide students with regular meaningful interaction with proficient speakers who can guide them and help them practise speaking the language.

Sir, lastly, I would like to also point out the concern about the uncertainty over current students who will be taught an extended interim period between the introduction of the new curriculum in 2008. The students and their parents are unsure of the areas in which they should pay attention. I will not be surprised that the perception of these students will be that there will be an increase in their Chinese workload as they have to make sure areas focused in both the existing and new curriculums are covered, just to be on the safe side. I hope that MOE and the schools can spell out as soon as possible what is expected of the students in the interim.

Sir, on that note, I support the recommendations.

Mr Speaker, I join my colleague, Mr

Ahmad Khalis, in speaking in the Malay Language.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the report of the Chinese Language Review Committee contains pretty wide-ranging proposals relative to the changes that had been introduced before. The reasons are obvious: so that the Chinese Language will continue to be a medium for dissemination of the culture and values of the Chinese community in Singapore. This is totally in line with the original objective of mother tongue teaching and does not in any way represent a shift from our bilingual policy. Everyone has to learn English and his mother tongue.

Mr Speaker, I wish to declare my interest as Chairman of the Malay Language Council of Singapore and as a member of the Advisory Committee of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore.

English is vital for our survival. It is the heart and pulse of our life. Everyone knows that English is a language of knowledge, of modern technology and the means by which we can communicate and conduct business with the world, giving us the ability to apply and absorb modern discoveries and innovations.

Would we be the same Singapore today if we had chosen Mandarin, Malay or Tamil as our working language? Minister Mentor, in his insightful speech yesterday, clearly showed that that is impossible. I share his views completely. If Sri Lanka, with its population of 20 million, and a standard of living higher than Singapore at one point, can be sidelined by the mainstreams of modern development for having taken the path of nationalism and emphasising Sinhalese, and having failed, is now trying to revive the role of English, what chance is there for Singapore, with our small population of four million?

I shall not discuss the economic reasons behind this move because they have been dealt with and widely debated by Members who spoke before me. And this is not the first time that questions of language and culture have been debated here. For 40 years, I have been through one debate after another on the subject. From our opting for English as one of our official working languages, to the introduction of multi-streaming in 1960, to the issue of the lack of economic value of Malay, Mandarin and Tamil languages which led to the demise of multi-stream education, and eventually the end of the use of Mandarin as the medium of instruction at Nanyang University, the Speak Mandarin campaign and the introduction of SAP schools - I have been through all this.

But what is interesting and apparent this time, and this is important, Mr Speaker, is the lack of the emotional element in this debate. We are not at each other's throats. We are not speaking the language of the hardliners, except for the Member for Hougang with his cynical tones. We speak with cool heads.

The lack of emotional heat in the three days of debate in this House is evidence of our maturity as a multi-racial people in handling such a sensitive issue. This is a vast difference from my experience of 30 years ago.

I took part in the National Education System Conference organised by the Malay Teachers Union (MTU) in 1971 at the Jamiyah Hall, as representative of the University of Singapore Malay Language Society. MTU had suggested that Malay parents send their children to national English Language schools. Of course, that was bound to attract heated debates.

One of the participants rose and spoke loudly and emotionally, calling the MTU's

proposal akin to pulling out a banyan tree in our hot, equatorial climate, and planting in its place a pine tree more suited to a colder environment. But years later, the proposal proved to be a sound one. Malay parents began sending their children to English schools because the graduates of the Malay-stream schools could not find jobs.

The same with the Chinese community leaders and their Mandarin language, who vociferously protested the closure of the Nanyang University. But the fact that graduates of Chinese schools and universities were also having problems finding jobs made them send their children in droves to English schools.

Pragmatism eventually decides the best course of action and we are as always guided by a commitment to ensure a future for our children.

Mr Speaker, throughout our debate, the issue of the mother tongue, whether it is Mandarin, Malay or Tamil, or even the other Indian languages, being given the status of a second language, has given us cause for concern as to the status and treatment of these languages.

But does being called second languages make them less, or worse, not important? I do not think so. Can we live without a mother tongue? I think we can, but we will be a very different society. After all, our mother tongue is the language of our soul, our faith, our culture. As Minister Mentor, Mr Lee Kuan Yew said in his speech yesterday, we are Asians. No matter how fluent, how proficient, how competent is the mastery of English among the Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese, the Indians, Indonesians, Malays or Arabs, even if they were graduates of Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard or Princeton, we are still Asians. We cannot be Englishmen. We remain bound by the cultural roots of our

origins, the lands of our birth, our culture, our norms and our values.

Mr Speaker, while serving in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and as a committee member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I had the opportunity to travel to the Carribean and Africa. The people of Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago descended from slaves who were brought in by the whites. Due to the loss of ties with their cultural roots, they knew only English and practised the English culture. And yet they were not the heirs of that culture. Their elites speak English very well and use the language for intellectual discussions, but among the ordinary people, their mastery of English was limited. They lack the proficiency, could not express themselves in the language. In other words, their English was stunted and could not serve as the language of cultural life for them. And worse, in the eyes of the Englishmen, the people of Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago are not accepted as English because they have no ties with the culture and history of the English homeland.

The same with some of the people of the southern part of Africa who do not emphasise their Swahili language and as a result, the Swahili language is truncated, stunted and unable to meet the needs for the creation of their identity. How many of them have grown to be like Kunta Kinte, aware of their origins and seeking to re-connect with the cultural anchor that they have lost? Not many. The rest are happy with their present position and so they become neither here nor there.

Mr Speaker, we do not want to be and must not be in the same position. The question is: can we create a group of mother-tongue speakers who will form the core elite who will champion our cultures, values and ways of life? This is the major challenge that we are facing. To be able to have in our midst cultural scholars, as

some have described them, we need to have a group of people who have mastered and deepened their knowledge of English as well as the mother-tongue languages - Mandarin, Malay and Tamil - to such a level that they can be called experts, people who can go deep into the language, appreciate it, and bring to the surface the very deep nuances and cores of our respective cultures.

Their numbers need not be large but through hard work, study and deep research into the history, thinking, philosophy and inner values of their cultures, they build the cultural landscape that orientates and guides the way for their communities through the ages.

Out of the multitudes of the ancient Chinese with their thousands of years of history, not many have become their Kong Zi, Meng Zi, Lau Zi, Zhuang Zi and Hanfei Zi. And the same with the Greek and their Aristotle and Plato, the Arabs and their Al-Farabi and Ibnu Sina.

For the Malay community today, the number of Malay cultural scholars are few. Out of the people of my generation and before - people like Mahmud Ahmad, Ramli Abdul Hadi - they can be counted with the fingers of one hand. By and large, they are graduates of the Sultan Idris Training College (SITC) and products of the Malay-stream education system who mastered the Malay language as a first language, except for a few such as Syed Hussein Alatas, Wan Hussin Haji Zoohri and Dr Shaharudin Maaruf.

Out of 188 graduates of SITC, how many have turned into Muhammad Ariff Ahmad, Masuri S N, Aliman Hassan and Sidek Saniff? Very few. Out of the thousands of Malay-stream graduates, how many have turned into the Guntor Sadali, Mohd Raman Daud, Hadijah Rahmat and Mohd Naim Daipi of today who have mastered the Malay Language and became the cultural beacons of the community?

Graduates of SITC are today in their twilight years. And the graduates of the Malay school system are now mainly in their fifties. Do we have a generation of cultural scholars to succeed them?

Based on figures obtained by NUS in English Studies, on average there are 100 graduates with Honours in English and 38 degree holders every year. For English Literature, about 60 come out with Honours and another 30 are degree holders. I am not very familiar with the situation among English and Chinese speakers in Singapore, but I am told there are about 40 taking the Honours course and 30 taking the degree course in Chinese Studies at NUS every year. In the Malay community, what is the supply picture in regard to the succession of our cultural scholars?

As a rough estimate, I tried to get the numbers from those currently taking the Malay Language course at various levels at NTU. Out of 190 students, there are 16 taking the post-graduate diploma, 63 degree students and 111 students taking the Diploma in Education. Only 12% were admitted with ML1 results. At the end of the course, about 30-40% are assessed to have mastered Malay Language at ML1 level. At the Townsville campus, another 72 students are taking the NIE diploma course.

Are these numbers sufficient to meet the needs for creating a group of Malay, Chinese and English cultural scholars? This depends on our changing demands and needs.

The number of those taking Malay Studies at NUS is 77, or 25 a year. 28 of them are taking the course as a major. This is a rather small figure to meet the new need, and it is due in part to the absence of an Honours course in this department.

Some might think that this avenue is open at NTU but the course there is limited in scope, specifically to provide Malay teachers for the schools which offer Malay Language. The new challenge we are facing requires that we produce Malay cultural scholars who possess a holistic outlook.

This, of course, demands that they have a wider course of study. And if this cannot be done by the Malay Studies Department at NUS due to the limitations of expertise and financial resources, we can still do this by allowing the NUS Malay Studies Department students to take courses conducted by the South East Asian Studies Department as part of their curriculum.

Mr Speaker, the creation of such a group of people is critical at the current stage of Singapore's development. In their hands lie a stable future for our children. With their ability to act as champions of the language, a medium for the transmission and fostering of culture and values, the future of the Malay community of Singapore will be better guaranteed.

But based on the numbers I have quoted, we need to increase their numbers and quality. I feel that their role will be even more critical considering the changing background of Malay Language at home. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in launching the Malay Language Month in July, gave the changing profile of language usage in the Malay community. In 1988, he said that only 8% Primary 1 Malay students came from families using English at home. Ten years later, in 1998, the number had grown to 20%, and now in 2004, it is 25%.

If we project the figures into the future, in the year 2010, with rapidly growing emphasis on English, more young parents educated in English and growing

numbers of nuclear families, it is not impossible if the percentage goes up to 30% or 35%. The question of Malay Language and its role as our cultural ballast, that helps create our identity and transmit our values, will be even more critical.

Some may think that in the face of globalisation and negative popular culture from the west, Islam may be the only cultural ballast for the Malay community. I would say, look at the Muslims of China, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iran and Egypt. They are not the same although they are Muslims. Geographical, historical and cultural factors make them different. It is the same with our Chinese and Indian fellow citizens in Singapore. The Chinese and Indians of Singapore are different from the Chinese and Indians of China and India.

Sir, I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Education that he will also conduct a review of the teaching of Malay and Tamil. We hope that the issues I have raised will also be considered.

Mr Speaker, post-September 11, the Malay Muslim community needs to have its own identity shaper, and this identity shaper is the Malay culture. Malay Language is its pillar. This makes us unique Malay Muslims, and I call ourselves Singapore Malay Muslims.

Sir, I support the motion by the Minister for Education.

Sir, the Report of the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Committee comes at a critical time. There have been many calls in the past by many Chinese parents to relook at the standards of Chinese education in Singapore. I personally know some Chinese friends who have moved overseas because their children could not cope with Chinese

Language education and our rigid entry requirements into tertiary institutions. We have tried novel solutions like Chinese 'B' syllabus, etc, to help students who are weak in their mother tongue language to progress at a pace that takes into account their home and family background.

I am impressed by the honest views stated in the Report and the suggested solutions to make Chinese Language a relevant and living language. The important message that the Report sends to all is that MOE will find solutions and implement policies that will take into account the strengths and weaknesses of our students and tailor solutions to maximise the ability of our students.

Sir, my colleagues in this House have given expression of their personal experiences and the feedback of the general public in respect of the learning of the Chinese Language. I will try to express the views of the Indian community on the woes faced by them in the learning of Tamil and other non-Tamil Indian languages.

Before that, let me, first, welcome the statement of the Minister that he will set up a similar review committee to study the teaching of the Malay and Tamil languages in our schools.

Sir, Tamil was originally neglected by the colonial government. It was this Government that made Tamil an official language and made available the teaching of Tamil in all national schools in 1959. There is always concern in Singapore as to what will be the status of Tamil in future.

At the last census, it was revealed that of the 7% Indian population in Singapore, 5% speak Tamil. And of that 5%, only 50% use the language at home. As such, there is great concern as to what is the future of the Tamil Language in Singapore.

Sir, it is no fault of the Government. This Government has spared no effort and money in ensuring that Tamil Language education is provided in as many schools as possible. In many schools, even where the numbers are small, the Government provides teachers and resources to show its impartial treatment to all the official languages. Tamil is a living language and has pride of place among Indians and the global Indian community. In fact, our Government policies and commitment to Malay and Tamil serve as a model and a lesson for many countries and governments on how to build a united and cohesive society.

Sir, where else can we see a 24-hour Tamil radio station, daily Tamil TV and cable programmes, Government publications and even public signage in Tamil? Even in our own Parliament, Tamil is spoken and simultaneous interpretation is available. Tamil is taught in both universities - one as an elective and in NTU, as part of the teachers' training programme as a graduate programme. Tamil books are available in abundance in our libraries.

Sir, there is never a doubt in my mind that this Government is committed to a fair and equal treatment of all the official languages. However, there are problems that are peculiar to Tamil Language teaching and learning in Singapore.

The problem that is faced by Tamil Language students parallels that faced by Chinese Language students in Singapore. In fact, when I read the Report, I smiled, because if one takes out the words "Chinese Language" in the Report and replaces the words "Tamil Language" in it, one can see big smiles on the faces of Indian parents and children.

The trends of what is happening to the Tamil Language actually started appearing

20 years ago. The usage of the Tamil Language at home has been less as compared with the English Language. I know because I served in many Indian organisations over the years, and it is a subject of great concern among community leaders. In fact, it led to the launch of various Speak Tamil Language months over the years.

There is, however, widespread support for Tamil and other Indian languages among Indian parents. They understand and encourage the learning of the language as the best way to preserve the language and transmit cultural, historical and even religious values. They want their children to enjoy learning and using the language. Even if it was not compulsory, many will still want their children to study their mother tongue languages.

The feedback, over the years, has been consistent, and I will now highlight some of these feedback which I hope the Minister will take into consideration.

Sir, the first point that I would like to make is that the standard of Tamil education is very high in Singapore, so high that many thought that it is being taught as a first language. I can tell you so because I have attended the World Tamil Conference and have served as the Chairman of the Tamil Internet Steering Committee. Every one of these Tamil experts tells us that the standard of Tamil education is the best outside India and, in some cases, some have complimented that it is higher than in the home country, Tamil Nadu.

Sir, next, let me move on to curriculum development. We have not adjusted our curriculum to reflect the changes in the language environment in Singapore. My generation and the generation earlier came from a different background. We spoke Tamil at home. Tamil radio was turned on throughout the

day in my house. Tamil newspapers and books were found in homes and read by everyone. The Indian community stayed in distinct areas where there was great scope for language usage. Community and cultural events were prevalent where the language was used. But that environment is gone. I have three primary school boys. It is difficult to get them to use Tamil at home. We have tried many novel approaches to encourage the use of the language at home. The children are not always the defaulters. It is I, as a parent, who often revert to the use of the English Language unconsciously. Sending children to stay with grandparents to improve Tamil Language only meant that the grandparents' English improved. My eldest son is presently taking Higher Tamil in Primary 6 and my second son has been offered Higher Tamil for Primary 5. The kids complain, just like many of their friends, that the language is too difficult. I intend to encourage them to pursue Tamil at a higher level if they are able to cope with it. But many households do not have the same support or the language environment. I can tell you so because I have seen the children of many of the leading lights of the Tamil community, and even Tamil scholars, whose children have great difficulty in using the language.

I have seen the local Tamil school books and for many years, even helped MOE vet some of their textbooks. The problem is that old habits never die among some of these people in the Ministry of Education. Inevitably, many of our curriculum developers are scholars who have excelled in Tamil education. Their yardsticks and standards still reflect an earlier era. The full impact of the societal changes has not been felt by them or is ignored by them. At times, I feel that the curriculum developers should undergo frontal lobotomy as the best way to remove all historical baggage and start on a fresh start. Even today, as I look at the textbooks used in our schools, they are

world class but more suited for an environment where children learn Tamil as a first language and not as a second language.

Let me now move on to the topic of teaching of the language. Because of the curriculum dictated by MOE, teachers are constrained in the teaching of the language. Here, there are two groups within the school system. The first group are the home grown and post-1960s' generation teachers who are for easing of standards and implementing novel ways of teaching. They are an increasing minority but still not a dominant group to bring about change at MOE, particularly at curriculum and teaching levels. The other group are the older generation teachers, some language specialists and expatriate Tamil teachers who consider themselves as the guardians of the language. They are dominant and determine policy, curriculum and pedagogy. They are seen as the ones setting higher standards and maintaining strict language criteria.

Because of the set curriculum, the teachers find they are handicapped. Writing and reading are emphasised at the expense of developing oral skills. In some cases, they add to the burden by increasing the vocabulary and content with a view to increasing the language ability of the child in the classrooms. Words that are no longer relevant or even used in present days are still found in our textbooks. There is an urgent need to relook at the curriculum and the pedagogy that is used by our teachers.

On the topic of teachers, I think it is equally important that we continue to provide a path that is very attractive for Tamil teachers. Many feel that the path for Tamil teachers is short and they do not see great prospect in the teaching profession for Tamil teachers. So we have to see how we can overcome these feelings and hurdles that are faced by

Tamil teachers and how we can provide avenues for Tamil teachers whereby they not only teach Tamil but also another subject in school, so that they feel that they are part of the school teachers community and they have the same opportunities to rise in the teaching profession as any other teacher in the system.

Sir, let me move on to another problem that is faced by reformers within and outside MOE. This is the lack of a channel to receive feedback from teachers, parents and others on Tamil Language within MOE. At present, and in the past, the feedback is given to the very people who are the cause of the problem in the first place. The additional problem is that MOE does not have a person of sufficient seniority who belongs to the post-independence generation and is literate in Tamil Language and understands the language issues and is able to monitor what the curriculum development staff and teachers are doing. I can tell that this is a serious problem because, as the Chairman of the Tamil Internet Steering Committee, I faced difficulties and had little cooperation from some of these experts who think they know best, even when the trends and the standards which are being decided for Tamil in the international arena are very different and moving in different directions from where MOE is aiming for. On the other hand, if I try to reach a higher level to explain an issue, I meet Chinese senior officials in MOE to whom Tamil Language is Greek.

Let me now move on to the topic of difficulties of students. Sir, our children face many difficulties in learning the language. There are about 100 secondary schools where Tamil is not taught as a second language and they have to go to one of the nine Tamil Language Centres twice a week to learn the language. About 3,000 Tamil students attend at

these Centres. The problems have been there since the 1980s. In fact, the present Minister for Education in his capacity as the Chairman of the Research Committee of SINDA in a 1992 report stated, and I quote because it summarises very briefly but accurately, that Tamil Language students not only face problems in learning the language but also in the logistics. It is stated in its report:

"At secondary level, Tamil Language is taught off curriculum time in many schools. This creates a heavy burden on the limited time of students as they have to travel from school to the Language Centre for these classes. As the Language Centre classes are of lower frequency and considerably longer duration, learning efficiency is also reduced. Furthermore, loss of lessons due to public holidays and school functions is not infrequent and is not made up. The students also miss the remedial classes in Mathematics and Science organised by schools for weaker students. The Action Committee has proposed that the Language Centres be replaced by having Tamil taught during curriculum hours in more secondary schools. Those taking Tamil need not be disadvantaged. The schools selected for these should represent a reasonable mix of academic standards as well as geographic location."

In 1992, when this report was put up, Tamil students could still participate in Tamil ECA on Saturdays or on other occasions. But now, with schools not functioning on Saturdays, even the avenue for language appreciation and participating in programmes on Saturdays is taken away. And now Tamil ECA, run by the Tamil Language Centres, has to compete with the ECA in the normal school hours on top of remedial classes and other programmes that are going to be offered by the schools. So this causes a problem.

However, Sir, I appreciate that MOE has done much to provide Tamil education. In some schools, the number

of Tamil Language students is small, yet MOE still provides teachers. The concern in the community is whether MOE will stop providing Tamil teachers in schools where the intake of Tamil studying students is declining.

It is clear that the present approach of teaching Tamil does not appeal to our students and is the cause of their frustration with the language. What can MOE do to make the language enjoyable? How is IT being harnessed to enthuse our students? What I would request MOE to do as part of its review of Tamil Language education is to see whether there are adequate resources devoted to make Tamil education interesting. For example, we all talk about IT. I just hope that the Minister visits the MOE Tamil website maintained by MOE and see whether it really appeals and enthuses our young children who are used to playing GameBoy Special and Xbox games, and whether it is being regularly updated.

I am not stating that all is not well. There is a whole new generation of Singaporeans who have benefited from the bilingual education and Tamil education in Singapore. Many of them hold key appointments in Singapore. I for one have benefited from the education that is provided by the school system, and I am quite sure many others have appreciated the benefits of the language education of Singapore. In addition, there are also some excellent services by many Tamil teachers in Singapore. For once I note some excellent dedicated Tamil teachers who do more than their share. They use IT, and one group of dedicated Tamil teachers that I know even develop Tamil IT software and content at their free time and share them with teachers and students outside the MOE. MOE should look within and see how such groups of teachers can be identified, nurtured and recognised. I consider myself lucky to have benefited along the way from good teachers who taught me well. However,

there is certainly much room for improvement.

Sir, I hope the Minister will also study whether the present second language standards in Singapore for Chinese and Tamil are being maintained or suffering minimal decline because of the fresh influx of new immigrants for whom these second languages may be the first language back home. I would like to see whether a different or even a drastic trend emerges if their numbers are excluded from the general student statistics.

Sir, as contained in the Report, an environment that provides for the nourishment of the language is important. In the past, many organisations wanting to organise many Indian activities and Tamil Language activities needed to go from one Ministry to another to seek support for various programmes so that children get an opportunity to use the language outside the school environment. Because only when they get the opportunity to use the language outside the school environment do they see the relevance and would appreciate and like to learn the language. Here, I am very happy that the Prime Minister earlier mentioned that if the clan associations are able to raise $10 million, the Government will match that grant dollar for dollar in order to encourage activities to promote Mandarin. Sir, I do hope that the Minister for Education will also ensure that such funds can be made available to the Malay and the Indian communities so that they can also get together and organise activities which will promote the two languages. And I think this is very important because when it comes to Tamil activities, I see it in my own personal experience, it is very difficult to run from one Ministry to another Ministry asking them for money because they will tell you that it is not part of their budget or it is not part of their programme. Such financial incentives that have been offered

by the Government must certainly be extended to the other language groups also.

Sir, besides Tamil, there is also a group of non-Tamil Indian languages which also need help. There are a growing number of Indian parents who are sending their children outside curriculum time to learn Indian languages like Hindi and Punjabi, and they face their own set of problems. I would like to ask the Minister whether, as part of the overall review of second languages, the standards and teaching of these other Indian languages will be considered by the new Committee, in particular whether these non-Tamil Indian language results will be considered for national student awards and promotion.

Sir, I notice that the Minister has given in his statement two days ago that there will be a timeline for the implementation of these changes in the Report. What I would like to seek clarification from the Minister is whether there is such a timeline for the implementation of these changes in the Malay and Tamil languages and whether the Minister could see that the implementation of changes and the teaching of second languages are synchronised, so that all changes for the three languages can be implemented along the same timeline.

In conclusion, I would like to say the following, Sir. I support the key recommendations of the Review Committee, in particular the call for greater customisation and flexibility at the primary level through a modular approach to provide for students with differing home backgrounds. I also welcome the greater emphasis on fluency in oral communication and reading for the majority of students.

These changes most certainly apply to Tamil. These and other key recommenda-

tions will certainly go a long way to ensure that our second language policy is one that is flexible and practical. Through this honest and open approach, I am confident that we can ensure that our mother tongue languages continue to stay as usable and living languages. It will also provide each one of us that cultural ballast, that edge and sense of perspective that will stand us in good stead for our country and us as a people.

On that note, Sir, I support the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, almost at the end of the third day of debate, what needed to be said, I think has already been said. So what I have to add to this debate, I think some of my Chinese teachers, who were very dedicated teachers in the past, would cringe. But I would air it anyway so that I can lend support to this motion.

I am an early product of the bilingual policy. I just heard yesterday in this Chamber from MM that the enrolment of students into the Chinese Language schools actually went up in 1966, the year that I entered Primary 1. But never for a moment, did both my Chinese-educated parents think of sending me to anywhere else except an English language school. Even in 1966, they were already seeing that the world was changing. In those years, for CL2, rote learning was the rule. We certainly did not perceive any attempt to make the study of the language interesting. Maybe that was the state of the art at that time. It was the days of teachers know best, to learn we must suffer and so suffer many of my fellow students did. But we got by. However, once we got through with the examinations, we quickly lost what we had learned. There was no other motivation to continue to excel.

In my cohort, those who came through and retained a strong mastery of

the Chinese Language were but a handful, mostly attributable to a family environment that sustained it. For the rest of us who got by at home in dialects and in schools in English at that past age and time, the Chinese Language appeared to have no place. We had learned the Chinese Language reluctantly because we had to and we forgot it just as readily out of disuse. To us, at that time, it was never about identity or culture. This, we made do with our dialect links. It was all about what is important to livelihood. In the late 60s and early 70s, we were in the throes of industralisation, the emphasis was English primarily because it offered the road to either a technical or professional education. The Chinese Language just did not fit in. However, in the last 30 years, many changes took place. The external environment changed. The social landscape changed. As one aged, even my own outlook changed.

5.31 pm

At university in London, I encountered western students from the School of Oriental Studies who were staying with me in the same hall, superbly adept at Mandarin. At that time, it was just a matter of awe, a matter of curiosity for me. Why are these people studying Mandarin? Only years later into my career, when I had to live in China and Hong Kong, did I know that they were way ahead with their times. They were way ahead of the economic wave. When having to speak the Chinese Language became a daily affair for me, you could not imagine the difficulties or the hilarity of some of the situations I got into. Much as many of my PRC colleagues and business associates understood and tolerated a low standard of language, it became a personal conviction to improve. At the deep end of the pool, one definitely kicked furiously. Then I appreciated that,

early in life, some basics of the Chinese Language had actually been retained and edged in. So luckily, for me, there were some foundations, not deep as in well-anchored, but deep as it took a long while to rediscover. Upon these foundations is overlaid a whole new foundation to the language, this new overlay necessitated by sheer economic needs and the need to socialise. I learn to appreciate the language and took to its learning with more gusto.

I started by saying that I am an early product of the bilingual policy. And I believe that I am so much the better for it. I would not have been able to mix with many of my business associates and both my professional and cultural lives would be that much the poorer. And even harder to account for is the direct correlation in my case of age versus the desire to discover my "Chineseness", if there is such a word. Without a facility for speaking and reading the language, this rediscovery would be no more than a longing for me. I am glad that I have a mother tongue.

Many of the experiences and stories that were told in this Chamber for the past three days came with a heavy price of effort, hardship and, at times, embarrassment. Young students of today would find it hard to take this in, internalise and apply their efforts in the appropriate areas. Hence, the modular approach to the teaching of the language, the no one-size-fits-all approach is so welcome, not a moment too soon for many of these students. The emphasis on reading and speaking, of growing into the language as opposed to pushing them into scholarship, would be unimaginable for my generation of students. By supporting the motion, it is going to be a reality for my children. So Minister, make it fun, make it interesting, take the learning out of the classrooms, and take away the excuse from all these students to hate the language. Let it come to life.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from my perspective, what this review has accomplished is that it would take the pain out of the learning of the Chinese Language. It assures that, for most of us, it is okay to approach the language just as a tool. It is one piece in each of our tool kit, maybe rusty at times, but always there to be used whenever it is needed.

Sir, I support the motion.

Sir, the debate in the last few days has confirmed the mood for change in the CL curriculum and pedagogy necessitated by a changed socio-economic environment. As so succinctly put across by MM, a sea of options are available for the learning of CL and parents will have to make a stark choice depending on their assessment of the abilities and inclinations of their children.

Sir, the changes in CL are viewed differently by Singaporeans. Some described the changes as radical and, for many from the old system, incomprehensible. These changes have certainly evolved over the last 40 years since the bilingual policy was passed in the 1960s.

What has remained intact, is the Government's policy on bilingualism and the mother tongue language which serves to preserve our Asian identity and values, and at the same time create a competitive advantage for Singaporeans to capitalise on China's growing global influence.

This breadth of fresh change will hopefully motivate learners to pursue CL differently from those under the old system. For those who will be impacted, it will be freedom from the frustration trap that their predecessors had endured during the old system.

Sir, I commend the Committee for taking a holistic and integrated study and review for a new CL curriculum and pedagogy, which has put in place an inclusive policy, which gives to each his own fair share of learning outcomes according to the differing needs and motivations.

Yesterday, MM has helped to clear the confused state of mind of many Singaporeans who, for many months, were grumbling and asking what was MOE trying to do with its latest change in the CL teaching and what is expected of them as parents. MM has simplified the matter by telling parents to take a considered decision and make a stark choice on the learning outcomes of their children.

It was useful clarification when he explained our relationship with the language, in terms of the role of custodians and users. And because we are users, and not custodians, we need to take a practical and flexible approach. In other words, we will have a collection of shoes of different sizes, and not just a Cinderella size, so that, ultimately, there will be a good fit for everyone as provided in this change with a modular approach.

Nonetheless, Sir, because we are turning around an entrenched methodology and tradition of teaching and learning CL, it is only natural and indeed healthy that Singaporeans are ventilating their views. I would like to raise three fundamental concerns which many Singaporeans have talked about. I term them as "fundamental" because they have been there all this while and will continue to remain so.

The first concern deals with the response of Singaporeans who were schooled under the old system. Sir, we are fortunate to have the hindsight of those who were subjected to a tough and rigorous system. In this, allow me to

share the views of an adult CL student who is doing her postgraduate in Law and has offered a language module in Chinese on Chinese Legal Traditions and Language. This adult student, who has gone through the old system, has difficulty in recognising words, that is, reading. However, if someone reads the materials to her, she understands them, and can probably hold a pretty decent oral discussion of the issues.

Sir, I note that these skills - listening, speaking and reading - are what the new reforms hope to target.

Sir, let me quote further from this 28-year-old adult CL student. This is what she said:

"What I've come to realise is this - language learning has to be something ongoing, and there must be constant exposure and usage. I remember learning 200 idioms for PSLE (I got an "A"), and for "AO" Chinese, I remember writing countless reviews of newspaper articles ("jian bao du hou gan" - for which I got a B3) - but most of this has been forgotten ever since formal Chinese education ended at "AO" levels. Like most people from English-speaking homes, I have had no opportunity to use or practise the language (apart from perhaps ordering food from the hawker centre!). Listening to the news in Chinese is something I try to do regularly on my own, but attempting to read the Chinese newspapers on my own is an arduous task - besides, I won't even be sure if I'm reading it correctly!"

She carried on:

"While I applaud the changes in the methodology of teaching and emphasis on making it more enjoyable and less stressful, I wonder if cutting the syllabus really is the solution to effective language learning for the long run - after all, we should be looking beyond helping children to cope with exams, to learning the language as a life-skill. It's quite natural that one does not retain 100% of

everything one learns, especially if the knowledge is not applied regularly. What I'm wondering is this - if someone like me - who has gone through the "old" supposedly "harder" system of learning Chinese, and managed to get fairly decent grades in it (B3 for "O" and "AO" levels) - now currently has the level of language ability that I do (that is, can converse but struggle to read and write) - will the children undergoing the new system really do any better, or even be able to converse at the desired standard in the long run, seeing that they will be learning much less? It would be undesirable to have a generation of "guinea-pigs" handicapped by an experimental policy."

Sir, such a perception is serious food for thought. The point is that, in the past, many of us had learned CL because of the compulsory requirement for a good pass at different levels of our education. So, when the CL examinations are over and the necessary grades are attained, we bid goodbye to the language.

How can we sustain the motivation and interest of our students in the language? How can we create an ongoing environment for the constant practice? Whose responsibility is it to create such an infrastructure? What kind of mother tongue learning culture are we building so as to ensure that learning and usage of CL does not stop at school but will be a lifelong journey?

I would like to ask the Minister for Education whether the changes are only poised to remedy some of the pitfalls in the curriculum, pedagogy and assessment methods for CL, or should the changes not be extended to cultivating learning CL as a lifelong skill for the long haul.

I also hope that the Minister will explore

how this lifelong learning for CL - and for that matter, the other mother tongues - can be realised by integrating our students with the community network

and establishing a continuous network-wide linkage with the heartland community which is often proficient in CL and other mother tongue languages.

Sir, next, allow me to share the response from some Singaporean parents and students who will be impacted by these changes. Would parents worry that they will see a lowering of the standards through this change? Some are, therefore, beginning to load their children with additional lessons and tuition, in order to jia yu. Will this not lead to more stress for our children? And if we go by the experience of the adult CL learner I had mentioned earlier, it would definitely seem so, since the new system appears to be a more relaxed system.

Another perception is that the change will make it easier to learn the language and, with a de-emphasis on the written CL usage, parents worry that it may set in complacency and lack of discipline in learning the language. To this, it is important to continue to assure Singaporeans that a high standard is maintained as we roll out the revised CL curriculum.

I would like to share this observation. My youngest child, who is going to Primary 6, has somehow refocused her learning interest to speaking and listening in the context of the impending changes. Unlike her elder brothers, who were schooled under the old system and are able to speak and read as well as write, provided that they continue to sustain their interest in CL in an on-going environment, she may not write as well as her elder brothers but may be able to listen and converse more eventually. Is this good or bad, right or wrong? Only time can tell. What we know for sure is that we will have a large majority of a generation who can converse well but

may not be able to write and read proficiently, unless there is motivation to pursue this as a life skill.

Whilst past Government policies had been rigid and rigorous on the learning of CL, perhaps our socio-economic scenario then left us with very little choice but to pursue the path that we took. So it was not about having a wrong policy in the past because, if you see this generation who had gone through the rigours of past Government policies on CL, we have survived and have not been made worse off. In my own experience, I may have abandoned the language for the approach that it was taught but, in my adult life, thrown into a Mandarin-speaking environment in Boon Lay constituency, I started to learn and appreciate the beauty of the language in the way it is spoken, and I have no regrets having to learn Mandarin now in my adulthood.

Sir, one aspect about this change, as is perceived by the more critical Singaporeans, is that the Government has again taken the approach to "nanny" us, although it has said many a time that it would leave us to eke out our survival. So, are we underestimating the potential threshold and capabilities of this generation or are we again taking charge because we just cannot seem to be weaning off the paternalistic inclination of protection and, therefore, doing our best to ensure the survival of the generation?

Sir, if we so desire for a resilient generation and would wish for them to grow up rough and tough, will making everything simpler and easier for them leave them with anything worth striving for when they need to do so? From security to education, ask any Singaporean on the street as to the challenge they face, they will typically answer, "The Government is taking care of it for us." Good and yet not good, if we want a more robust younger generation.

Sir, will the Minister for Education consider integrating this younger generation to evolve their own solutions and coping skills to survive? Why not let them be part of the solution rather than the problem? In this way, we include our children in the process of reform rather than just be the recipients.

The second concern, Sir, has to do with how we manage the implementation of the changes. Certainly, the Steering Committee to be set up to oversee the implementation will consider feedback and put in place a two-way communication to resolve issues and challenges along the way. Just as we would manage change taking place in any other situation, it is imperative that we convince and persuade for acceptance, selling the merits and winning over owners rather than coercing for compliance and, in the process, producing resisters.

The process of implementation of changes must, therefore, be robust, and inputs from parents and students must be acknowledged and considered to ensure better ownership. In this, I urge the MOE to set up more dialogues for parents and students at the local school level, and to ensure that only trained MOE officials be presiding over such dialogues to ensure consistency in the message.

Will the CL standard be marginalised? Sir, whilst the intention of the impending changes really is to facilitate learning of the language in a more utilitarian way, it is important that the message going through to parents and the students be clear that it is not a change about lowering the standard of CL, but rather a more creative and effective pedagogy of teaching and learning the language without compromising the standard. Of course, this brings to question what is a right or correct standard, as raised by Mr Low Thia Khiang.

We had also in the past been confronted with similar questions when

we debated on good English and whether Queen's English is the acceptable and correct English standard that we must pursue. For the utilitarian purpose of learning to speak a language, I reckon the importance of the ability to communicate the language at a standard that is clear and comprehensive to the users in the local and international environment. In other words, we need not speak and write Queen's English to be understood and, therefore, we need not speak and write perfect Mandarin to be understood. What we require as a common standard is a reasonable standard acceptable and understood by the international community using the language for business purpose.

Therefore, I urge MOE to focus its message on an acceptable standard that will be clearly understood by parents, students and the society at large. This standard must be redefined and defended to ensure that, going forward, students will not be learning the language at a lower standard but will prioritise learning CL competencies according to individual needs. It is important that these issues be aired and addressed so that we can quickly clear the doubts and focus everyone's attention to roll out the changes as stakeholders.

In conclusion, Sir, I see our uniqueness as Singaporeans in our supreme mastery of one language, ie, English, plus our proficiency in speaking and reading a mother tongue language in multiracial Singapore. In such a multi-racial context, how can we do it? Sir, we can do it primarily because of our "salad bowl" philosophy versus the "melting pot" philosophy. Unlike, the melting pot philosophy, the salad bowl philosophy does not attempt to assimilate anyone but instead allows an integration based on mutual respect for each other's race, language and religion where, even in the rojak salad bowl, we each retain our own character, despite the constant tossing of

different fruits and yet, together, we look an appetising salad!

Sir, I am grateful for the clear vision set by Minister Mentor, whose experience with the learning of languages has provided us with a practical guide for Singaporeans, ie, to master in the English Language for survival and acquire proficiency in mother tongue, so that each multi-racial group will continue to use its mother tongue to anchor its own cultural roots but coexist harmoniously with one another as Singaporean citizens.

Sir, on this note, I support the motion.

Sir, I wish to thank Members for their comments and suggestions on the subject of the Malay and Tamil languages. A few Members, including Mdm Halimah Yacob, Mr Ravindran, Mr Zainudin Nordin, Mr Ahmad Khalis and Mr Yatiman Yusof, have spoken about the need for similar reviews for the other Mother Tongue Languages, ie, the Malay Language as well as the Tamil Language.

We agree with the Members that all our mother tongue languages are important. Our children will benefit from a strong foundation in mother tongue languages for both cultural as well as economic reasons. In order to do so, we should ensure that mother tongue languages are taught effectively in our schools. It is, therefore, necessary for us, after a period of time, to take a look at our curriculum and how we can better teach these languages. Like the Chinese Language, the way we teach Malay and Tamil must adapt to and anticipate changes in the environment.

The last review on the teaching and learning of Tamil Language in schools was conducted in 1998, and it is timely that

we look at it again. We need to pitch the standard of Tamil Language to a realistic level for our children. So I agree with Mr Ravindran that we have to review whether our children can cope in the context of the changing needs of learning other languages, particularly English and other subjects. This was pointed out by Ms Braema Mathi and Mr Ravindran. Many parents said that their children have to put in a great deal of effort to learn the language. We should also consider the fact that English is becoming the dominant home language in most Indian households. We need to do more to help children from households which have little exposure to Tamil. Therefore, there is a need to review how we teach Tamil, especially at the primary level, so that our children do not lose interest in the language.

It is true that there is less of a problem for the Malay Language, as most Malay families speak the language at home. When we conducted a review on how the learning of Malay in schools could be enhanced in 1999, the feedback received showed that the majority of students are able to cope with the subject. But as both Mdm Halimah and Mr Ahmad Khalis have noted, the home language trends in Chinese and Indian families are also beginning to surface in the Malay families as Malay parents become more educated. We are beginning to see a small percentage of Malay families, usually professionals, who speak mainly English at home. Mr Yatiman Yusof has observed that this trend is likely to increase over the next few years. So, as Mdm Halimah has rightly pointed out, there is still a need for us to review and refine the Malay Language curriculum to recognise the different backgrounds and abilities of our Malay students, and to ensure that they continue to have an interest in the language even after they have left school.

Therefore, as the Minister for Education has said in his speech on the

first day of the debate, we will be reviewing the Malay Language and Tamil Language curricula in January next year. The reviews are expected to be completed in August 2005. As part of the review processes, MOE will consult major stakeholders, such as Malay Language and Tamil Language teachers, students and parents. It would also be useful to get feedback from Malay and Indian language and culture activists.

We would like to assure Mdm Halimah, Mr Ravindran and Mr Ahmad Khalis that the review of both the Malay Language and the Tamil Language, like the one for the Chinese Language, will be comprehensive. We will focus on the appropriateness of the syllabuses, suitability of instructional materials, effectiveness of teaching approaches, as well as assessment standards.

They have suggested useful areas for the review committees to look into. In particular, they have also spoken on the need to concentrate on teaching oral communication skills to the younger generation so that they can communicate in the language more confidently, effectively and in greater depth. Mr Ahmad Khalis also brought up this point. We agree that these are practical and important skills for our students to learn. In fact, I think these are critical skills. The Members also asked how we can make the teaching and learning of Malay and Tamil languages more alive and interesting for our children so that they will be motivated to use them within and outside of school. The review committees of the Malay and Tamil Languages will look into these areas in greater depth and detail during the course of their work.

We will see what more needs to be done. Currently, Malay and Tamil Language students benefit from a rigorous curriculum to build their oral competency in the languages. There are adequate

opportunities for students to hone their communication skills in class and in real-life situations. For example, teachers conduct student-centred activities, such as group discussions, oral presentations, speeches, poetry recitations and debates that encourage the students to communicate to their peers and teachers in the language.

These activities also make the teaching and learning of Malay and Tamil interesting and engaging. Besides student-centred activities in class, the topics in the instructional materials are developed with students' interests in mind

and include issues that are thought-provoking. In addition, schools conduct enrichment programmes, such as drama and field trips to further enhance the learning of the language among our students, and organised language competitions as platforms for students to express themselves confidently in the language.

Mdm Halimah and Mr Ravindran also suggested using IT or other teaching methodologies to appeal to our children. Our children have grown up very comfortable with technology - they use mobile phones, play computer games and surf the Net. We should tap on their IT literacy as well as the excellent infrastructure in school to teach the languages. I agree with both of them. Schools are already doing so. MOE has developed interactive CD-ROMs for teachers to use in class, and some schools have also created their own websites to encourage students to communicate with their Malay and Tamil Language teachers in their mother tongue languages through the Internet. As Mr Ravindran has also pointed out, some teachers have excellent language teaching approaches, and MOE also organises sessions for teachers to share these best teaching practices. For the Tamil Language, there is also an on-line

newsletter to create awareness of the various teaching approaches used by the teachers.

I agree with Mdm Halimah's point that reading will help inculcate an interest in the language. She expressed concern on the lack of suitable Malay Language reading materials and books. This is not the sole responsibility of MOE, but requires the efforts of the wider community. At the present moment, MOE collaborates with the National Library Board to review and get suitable and interesting books in the language to be available for our students in schools. MOE has also developed supplementary reading materials, such as Big Books and the Small Books for lower primary students, and the Supplementary Readers (Bacaan Tambahan) for secondary school students. Our local newspaper, Berita Harian, carries a weekly column for students, such as Tunas (Budding Writers) and Info-R (Information for Teenagers), and teachers often use these materials in their lessons. We knew it for sure that teachers in some schools use the newspaper, Berita Harian, as a teaching tool. So that helps. The review could study what more should be done to produce interesting, accessible and appropriate reading materials of various genres and topics that appeal to our students, including novels, fables, stories, joke books as well as comics.

Sir, there was also a question raised by Mr Ravindran on the implementation timeline of the recommendations of the Malay and Tamil review, and whether it will also be aligned to that of the Chinese Language review.

While we will always try to ensure comparability across all three mother tongue languages, and the issues facing them are not very different, we also need to recognise that the teaching and

learning of the three mother tongue languages may require different approaches and solutions. The sensible thing to do is not to rush implementation. We will want to ensure that there is sufficient preparation time, for example, to train the teachers in order to do a good job.

There was some concern that schools will not offer the Tamil Language if the enrolment for the Tamil Language students falls. This was raised by Mdm Halimah yesterday, and also by Mr Ahmad Khalis and Mr Ravindran earlier today in their speeches.

A critical mass of students is needed to ensure that our limited teaching resources are well-deployed. A sufficient number of students is also needed to create enough opportunities for students to use the language with their classmates. Where the Tamil Language demand in an existing school has fallen to a very low level, MOE will review if the Tamil Language teaching resources need to be redeployed to other schools where demand is higher. However, I would like to assure parents and our Members here that any decision taken to stop Tamil Language instruction in any particular school will be taken after careful consideration. In general, existing students in a school will continue with their Tamil lessons until they graduate.

MOE strives to make Tamil Language instruction as conveniently accessible to as many students as possible. The current level of accessibility is high - as of this year, there are 70 secondary schools offering Tamil Language within the curriculum time. We will see an increase by one next year. So next year, the number will be 71 schools. Information on the schools offering Tamil Language classes is available in the secondary one posting exercise booklets which are given out to Primary 6 students every year. This is to help parents to make an informed

choice regarding the secondary school for their children.

Let me touch on non-Tamil Indian languages. Mr Ahmad Khalis, Mr Ravindran and Mdm Halimah asked about non-Tamil Indian languages, and whether MOE will conduct a review in the teaching and learning of these languages. This is something best done by the non-Tamil Indian-speaking communities who have already made commendable efforts to improve the teaching of their languages.

Mdm Halimah and Mr Ahmad Khalis asked if students offering non-Tamil Indian languages are disadvantaged. I would like to assure Members that students are not unduly disadvantaged by the current treatment of non-Tamil Indian languages. At present, the Ministry conducts examinations for these languages at PSLE, 'N' levels, 'O' as well as 'A' levels. The grades obtained at the national examinations are treated on the same basis as the other official mother tongue languages. Similarly, students who offer these languages will continue to be considered for Edusave awards, based on their overall performance in the other subjects, not just in the mother tongue languages.

On Bicultural Studies Programme (BSP), Mr Ahmad Khalis asked about the role of the Malay Language in economic development and international relations. Mdm Halimah asked if there are any plans to offer bicultural studies for the other mother tongue languages, akin to the one for Chinese.

Malay is a significant language, particularly in our part of the world. It is the official language of our neighbours - Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei. The Malay Language will continue to play an important role, not just as a conduit for cultural transmission, but also for the purpose of trade and commerce, and in

strengthening ties with our neighbours in Southeast Asia.

Singapore's future will always be interwoven with the region. Therefore, it is important to develop a group of students who have a strong grasp of the Malay Language and culture and who will be able to know our neighbours and engage and relate to them. We encourage Malay students to take Higher Malay if they have the ability to do so besides their taking Malay Language. We are also nurturing a Malay bilingual elite through the Elective Programme in Malay Language for Secondary Schools (EMAS) and Language Elective Programme (Malay) at the JC level. The Malay Elective Programme at JC is known as MLEP. Mr Zainudin had also earlier suggested about having immersion programmes for students studying the Malay Language. The MLEP students receive MOE scholarships and go for immersion in Malaysia. The JC can consider taking the students to Indonesia some time. MOE will continue to enhance these special programmes and electives where appropriate.

We are open to new ideas of extending the Bicultural Studies Programme to other mother tongue languages where there is sufficient demand. However, as Singapore is at the heart of Southeast Asia, our students from primary schools to universities are already exposed to the study of the region at many levels.

Both Dr Ong Seh Hong and Ms Braema Mathi had earlier asked about non-Chinese Language students being allowed to take Chinese Language. We encourage all our students to study their respective mother tongue languages. As Dr Ong has also pointed out, our mother tongue languages are rich repositories of culture. Having said that, it is always useful to be able to know another mother tongue language since it will help young

Singaporeans of all races to operate effectively in the region and beyond. It would also help increase interaction among the ethnic communities and facilitate inter-ethnic understanding.

Therefore, besides seeking MOE's approval to offer the Chinese Language as a Mother Tongue Language, non-Chinese students can also be offered the Chinese Language as a third language. As announced in September this year, Secondary 1 students will be allowed to offer another mother tongue language as a third language, in addition to their native mother tongue, as long as they have the interest and inclination. The lifting of the previous eligibility criteria serves to allow and encourage more students to offer non-native mother tongue language as a third language.

On the impact of the learning of mother tongue languages on racial harmony, Ms Irene Ng expressed concern that the increased use of mother tongue languages in school will impact racial harmony. She spoke of the need to build up a Singaporean identity. Mdm Halimah also said that while studying one's mother tongue language well is important, she also emphasised the importance of multi-culturalism and that our students must also have an understanding of other races and cultures.

MOE fully agrees with this view that while it is important that Singaporeans take pride in their own ethnic language and culture, this must be within the context of a multi-racial society. While we wish our children to retain their culture and values, we must also build a sense of shared identity among all Singaporeans. While each community keeps its own links with its past and its language, we must also steadily widen the common space, which we all share as Singaporeans.

With this in mind, the encouragement to use mother tongue languages more effectively and frequently among our young will not be at the expense of racial harmony and social cohesiveness. Our schools are aware that it is their responsibility to educate our students to be steeped in our national values in a multi-racial Singapore.

There are many ways where schools promote multi-culturalism and a better understanding of other ethnic groups. The formal and informal curriculum in schools emphasises the value of ethnic integration. We are also confident that schools will be sensitive in promoting the use of mother tongue languages. For activities, enrichment programmes and co-curricula activities where mother tongue languages is the medium of instruction, schools will encourage pupils of all races to participate in them. It is also an opportune time for students to translate and explain the activities or instructions to their peers of other races.

Another way in which some schools try to expose their students to other culture is to encourage their students to learn other mother tongue languages. For example, Nan Hua Primary has prepared a simple booklet on basic Malay vocabulary and conversational usage that all students will go through every Friday morning for about 10-15 minutes during morning assembly. Once every two weeks, students of Seng Kang Secondary School learn about other mother tongue languages during their weekly assembly.

Let me finally touch on dyslexia in Chinese. We will consider Mr Ang Mong Seng's suggestion to conduct research and develop programmes to help children with dyslexia in Chinese. MOE has been looking into the needs of students with dyslexia in English. In particular, dyslexic children who come from non-English speaking homes have unique problems.

MOE's educational psychologists are in the process of developing a teaching approach for these children in collaboration with the Dyslexia Association of Singapore. The study of dyslexia in Chinese is a possible extension of the Association's work. However, as rightly noted by Mr Ang, research in this area is still limited and we will need to study this very carefully.

Debate resumed.

6.14 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Members for their views, the many constructive suggestions, and their broad support for the objectives of the Chinese Language reforms in their comments over the last three days. Prime Minister and Minister Mentor have provided the broad perspective of the realities we face in language learning, that explain why we have to make these fundamental changes in our approach to teaching Chinese Language. My colleagues, Mr Chan Soo Sen and Mr Hawazi bin Daipi, have responded to several of the queries and suggestions from Members. I had, in my opening remarks, set out MOE's reasons for supporting the changes proposed by the Chinese Language Review Committee

and would now like to round up the debate

by responding to further points made by Members and to explain how we will go forward.

Three broad areas of consensus have emerged in the course of the debate.

First, there is strong support for the first limb of the motion we have debated, which is to develop in our students an abiding interest in the Chinese Language, as being the key objective of the revised Chinese Language curriculum.

Second, Members have also endorsed greater customisation and flexibility in the Chinese Language curriculum, starting from the outset in Primary 1. Members have agreed that this should aim at both ends - to help students at one end who need support to gain confidence in the language and catch up, as well as to allow those who can go faster and further greater opportunity to do so.

Third, Members have agreed that to keep the Chinese Language a living language, we need to place more emphasis on developing in students the language skills that they can use. For the majority, this will mean a greater focus on listening, speaking and reading, with a reduced emphasis on writing. As several Members have noted, we should not do away with writing. That was not the White Paper's intent. We will make judicious use of writing skills in the learning of the Chinese Language. It will help to reinforce the learning of the other skills, and to help students appreciate the beauty of the language.

Members have also lent support to a continued focus on the four language skills - listening, speaking, reading and writing - for those with the ability and interest, as well as to provide them opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of Chinese history and culture.

Abiding interest

The central principle of the White Paper is to teach and learn the Chinese Language so that it is an enjoyable, living language for all our students. This way, we develop the intrinsic motivation to learn and use the language.

Without the intrinsic motivation, many students will continue to work hard, master their ting xie and mo xie, prepare very well for the examinations, because both parents and students are pragmatic, and they will find ways to do well in the school system. Many students will continue to memorise essays wholesale, word for word, and lose all memory of it soon after. Dr Warren Lee was being honest, as many young Singaporeans are when you ask them about their Chinese Language learning experiences. Our real objective has to extend beyond mastery of examinations. We must give our students the functional skills they will most need after they leave school, and the confidence and the motivation to carry on learning the culture and using the language. As Mdm Ho Geok Choo emphasised, language learning has to be for the long haul.

Mr Seng Han Thong and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang rightly cautioned that enjoyment and interest should not be mistaken as making the Chinese Language easy. Mr Chiam See Tong thought that this was all sugar-coating. I do not have a sweet tooth. Our objective is not to make language learning unchallenging. All learning requires dedication, practice and a keenness to clear hurdles that require real effort. The question is how we motivate students to do this. How do we motivate them to put in this effort continuously?

The crux of the changes to the Chinese Language curriculum is to engage

students in learning the language in a way they find relevant to their lives, in a way that encourages them to use it, in a way that allows them to enjoy it, so that they will have the motivation to put in the effort, to keep learning and using the language, and to take pride in their ability to do so. As Dr Wang Kai Yuen, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang and Dr Chong Weng Chiew pointed out, we are long past the days when we can motivate students to learn by saying, "I say so", or by wielding the stick or by pulling their ears over the weekends.

Students who enjoy learning will be motivated to go as far as they can, in their school years and after. Our task therefore is to make Chinese Language learning engaging, relevant and interesting, while retaining the challenge that every subject must pose.

Customisation and flexibility

Most Members, including Mr Gan Kim Yong, Mr Ong Ah Heng and Mr Arthur Fong, have spoken in support of the modular approach. Some, like Mr Fong and Dr Lily Neo, have asked if this will amount to a brand of streaming.

The modular approach that is being proposed for primary schools will not be a form of language streaming. First, there will be a core curriculum that everyone takes, from Primary 1 to 6. The PSLE will be based on this core curriculum. What we will provide to students is the flexibility to take modules, from Primary 1, that help them either to catch up or to reinforce what they have learnt in the core curriculum, or that allow them to take Enrichment modules that go beyond the core.

The modular approach, built around a core curriculum, will allow students to receive teaching that is tailored to their ability and language background without setting students who lack home exposure

to the language on a weaker path, or lowering their expectations from the outset of what they can achieve. As Dr Warren Lee mentioned earlier today, everyone should be encouraged to put in the effort. We will not lower expectations from the outset.

Greater emphasis on listening, speaking and reading

Next, the shift in emphasis among the language skills. There is broad agreement that by focusing, for the majority of students, on listening, speaking and reading, and by placing less emphasis on script writing, we will make learning the Chinese Language more engaging and interesting to students. This shift in emphasis is not aimed only at the early primary years, but will extend upwards. It will be reflected in the secondary school curriculum that the majority of students will eventually take.

The reduced emphasis on writing, and especially on having to put extensive time into memorising the writing of a large number of characters, will free up space in the curriculum to develop greater confidence and fluency in communication, and in reading materials that students find engaging. This is particularly important for the new generation of students who are entering our schools, with less exposure at home to the Chinese Language and who are increasingly speaking English amongst their friends.

However, MOE does not intend to do away altogether with teaching students how to write characters, even in the early primary years. We agree with Mr Gan Kim Yong, Dr Amy Khor and others on this point. MOE will study this carefully. For example, in the early primary years, root words and simple characters will be chosen, and students will learn to write the basic strokes and radicals of Chinese characters. These exercises could be aimed at developing their understanding

of the patterns and rules in character writing. They will also be aimed at helping students to appreciate Chinese characters more, and reinforce the teaching of reading skills.

MOE will study carefully how best to design the new Chinese Language curriculum, with a new balance between the four language skills at various stages of learning. It will be reflected in changes in the curriculum from year 2008 onwards, starting with Primary 1 and Primary 4 students - more fundamental changes for the Primary 1 students. As part of the study, we will pilot new approaches to teaching on the ground.

One of the approaches to be piloted is the 'Recognise first, Write later' method. Yesterday, Minister of State Chan Soo Sen spoke on the differences between our local context and that in China, and explained that we will customise the approach that we see in China to match local realities. I want to assure Dr Amy Khor, Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay and others who raised this issue that we will engage in sound experiments, suited to the abilities and backgrounds of our children, and not roll out new methods before they are tested and before we have studied their implications.

But we must be willing to experiment. Even in China, where putonghua is already widespread, there are many approaches in practice in schools in how they teach the language, and constant experimentation with new methods of teaching. If we are to make any progress, we have to be willing to engage in careful educational experiments, learn from experience and make adjustments as we go along.

Opportunities for good CL students

Let me now move on to what we are doing for Chinese Language students with the ability and interest to go further.

Members were rightly concerned about this.

We will continue to encourage students with the ability and interest to take the Higher Chinese (HCL) curriculum. With the modular approach in primary schools, Higher Chinese students will have more opportunity, not less, as some Members feared. They can start taking Enrichment modules earlier. They will also have the opportunity to take Enrichment modules within the Higher Chinese course itself at Primary 5 and Primary 6, that will build their vocabulary and language skills, and develop in them a deeper appreciation for the language and culture.

At the 'O' levels, the proportion taking Higher Chinese has increased over the years, from 8% in 1997 to 15% this year, almost doubling. After we relaxed the criteria this year to provide more room for students who are strong in the language to take Higher Chinese, the number taking Higher Chinese in Secondary 1 has gone up to 18% of the Secondary 1 cohort.

Dr Ong Seh Hong and Mr Low Thia Kiang mentioned the recent example of a particular student who was not allowed to continue with Higher Chinese in Primary 6 as he had done poorly in his Primary 5 examinations for the English Language. It is an isolated case. The school had misinterpreted the MOE guidelines on this matter, and has since allowed the student to continue taking Higher Chinese.

On top of the base of Higher Chinese, with 18% of students now taking Higher Chinese in Secondary 1, we are allowing secondary schools to introduce new subjects taught in the Chinese Language. We are extending the Language Elective Programme to a fourth JC from 2006, and we are rolling out the Bicultural Studies Programme next year. We are not standing still, but looking at new peaks,

spread across the system, new ways of spurring on those with the ability and interest. Even RJC, not a SAP school, is introducing its own bicultural programme, and we encourage them.

Mr Gan Kim Yong had asked that we provide opportunity for students in polytechnics who are talented in the Chinese Language to pursue their studies further. Ngee Ann Polytechnic will be starting a Diploma in Chinese Studies from next year. NIE is working with Ngee Ann Polytechnic to design a curriculum track within the proposed Diploma that is suitable for prospective Chinese Language teachers. Upon graduation, these students may proceed to NTU for teacher training and further qualifications. More broadly, our universities now have the flexibility to identify and admit students with special abilities for any of their courses, including Chinese Studies. So the doors are opening.

Balance of English Language and Chinese Language

Next, the balance between English Language and Mother Tongue Learning. A few MPs have expressed concern about standards of English Language among our pupils, and whether some of the proposed changes will weaken our English Language capabilities.

Our fundamental premise as we go forward is that we need varied approaches to promoting and inculcating bilingualism in Singapore. We must look, first and foremost, at the needs of our students, assess what it is that would benefit them, and give them choices. Some will need a little more exposure to English Language, others to the Chinese Language. But for most students, it will not be possible to give them more of both.

The trade-offs between English Language and Chinese Language are real,

and not unique to us. Hong Kong switched its secondary schools in 1998 from the English medium to using Chinese, meaning Cantonese in their case, as the medium of instruction in the majority of secondary schools. In the short time since the change in policy, English Language standards have fallen sharply. Many in Hong Kong are concerned about this fall in standards of the English Language among their young, because Hong Kong wants to remain a financial centre and an Asian hub for headquarters of international firms.

We have to keep our English Language capabilities because it is, together with our mother tongues, a source of real advantage to us as a global city in Asia. We have to keep nurturing enough Singaporeans in each generation, each cohort, with a flair for the language, and give the majority of students a good, working competence in the English Language.

English Language is still a struggle for many Singaporeans, as Ms Irene Ng, Dr Ong Seh Hong, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Mr Sin Boon Ann and others have pointed out. Our university and polytechnic lecturers complain about the standards of English among their students, and about their diffidence in expressing themselves. And as Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay noted from the MOE survey, more Secondary 4 students find the English Language more difficult than Chinese Language, than the other way around. It is changing for the younger generation, more of whom come from English-speaking homes. At the Primary 2 level, more students now find the Chinese Language harder than either the English Language or Mathematics. And this is precisely the generational shift that has prompted the changes that are being proposed in Chinese Language learning. But we have to bear in mind that even today in our primary schools, English

Language remains a challenge for a significant group of students.

We have to take into account this complexity in our language environment. We put in place the Learning Support Programme a decade ago, where students weak in the English Language, particularly in reading, and who therefore struggle to cope with school, are pulled out of class for additional support at Primary 1 and Primary 2. The programme is working reasonably well. Many teachers have also taken their own initiative to design programmes and activities to give students opportunities to develop competence and confidence in the English Language, just as we want to for the Chinese Language. I saw a group of students at CHIJ Kellock (Primary) - this is a school where most of the kids come from average

Singapore backgrounds - perform a full length adaptation of a Shakespearean play - A Midsummer Night's Dream. They had trained for several months. They performed with perfect diction, poise and obvious enjoyment. In fact, one of the stars was an EM3 girl. Their teachers found the change in the girls remarkable. They had gained confidence in the language, and in themselves.

It is with this broad perspective of the challenges we face in implementing bilingualism in a diverse Singaporean population, that the White Paper has proposed that we give schools some flexibility to apportion the time spent on the English Language and the mother tongue subjects. It is educationally sound to allow schools this flexibility. Students who come from English-speaking homes, with parents who are confident they can provide the necessary support in the English Language, may want to have a little more time in their mother tongue, particularly in the early years. On the other hand, those who speak mostly Chinese at home may want more time

with the English Language. They should be able to decide.

Schools will likewise design the informal curriculum of the school to meet the needs of this diverse student population. In many schools, there is scope for more informal activity using the mother tongue. As Mdm Halimah and Ms Irene Ng cautioned, schools can do more but have to ensure that we do not segregate pupils too often. The school has to remain the common space where all Singaporean children intermingle, make friends with others, and learn together, for a substantial period of their lives.

In the SAP schools, where all students are engaged in learning Chinese, we can do more. We will allow for a "SAP-Plus" programme in the early primary years. SAP schools will be free to enhance the Chinese Language environment and teach more subjects, for example Music, Health and PE, in Chinese during the early primary years, if it meets the needs of their students and parents are keen. It may be a few classes doing more subjects in the Chinese Language or all classes in that standard, Primary 1 or Primary 2, for instance. Parents will decide. They must be confident to make up for the lower level of exposure in the English Language in the early primary years. But we have to allow these variations in our school system, and not assume that there is only one formula, one ratio of the English Language to the Chinese Language in the primary school curriculum, that is good for all time or all students. Many believe that the Chinese Language, being a tonal, logographic language, is easier to pick up in the early years. So we should allow this option of obtaining greater immersion in Chinese Language at an early age, and be willing to make adjustments along the

way as we learn from experience on the ground.

Progression to higher levels

Members have also asked whether and how mother tongue grades will count in the progression of students to higher levels of education. Dr Lily Neo asked whether the Chinese Language will continue to be computed into the PSLE aggregate score. Mr Zainudin Nordin asked how the changes would affect the choice of students' school options or admission processes, whether the schools they want to get into will be affected by these changes. Dr Neo also asked if Chinese Language scores were being taken into account in the entrance criteria for the NUS medical faculty.

Mother tongue will continue to count in the PSLE, as it is now. The new core curriculum for the Chinese Language will provide a common foundation for all students. The Chinese Language PSLE examination will be based on this core.

Secondary schools, however, have increased discretion in admitting their students. Schools can now admit a percentage of their students based on other measures besides the PSLE. So students with a special talent in the Chinese Language, for instance, may well be considered by certain schools on the strengths of that talent, while students with a weak CL score but a special talent in other fields, academic or non-academic, will also be assessed by the schools they apply for. The schools now have a greater measure of discretion.

The next part of the picture is what happens after entry into Secondary One. To advance from secondary level to junior college or polytechnic, mother tongue has not been a required component of the aggregate score for entry to the Junior Colleges, we call this the L1R5 score.

Students who have done well in the Chinese Language can include it in their score for JC entry. Those taking Higher Mother Tongue may also substitute this for their English Language grade. About 10% of our students provide Higher Chinese scores instead of English Language for JC entry. About 50% provides Chinese Language as a relevant subject in their L1R5 score. So those who do well are able to use it in their score; those who have not done so well are not forced to use it in their score.

The changes that we made in January this year to the university admissions criteria are aligned with this. So mother tongue is no longer a compulsory component to enter university, including the medical faculty, unless again the student is applying for a Chinese language-based course, and the department decides that it is a subject that they will look at specifically. Students who are strong in the language will be able to include it as part of their score.

The approach at the secondary level and beyond, therefore, is geared towards flexibility and choice, because forcing students to do well in mother tongue is no longer tenable at that level. We have to recognise different abilities and talents, reward those who have done well in the mother tongue, but not penalise those for whom the MTL is not their key strength. And as students grow older and take ownership of their learning, it is really the intrinsic motivation to learn a language that has to sustain their efforts to keep learning a subject. Our job is to help them cultivate that interest, not force them, or make them repeat a year, as Mr Chiam See Tong suggested. Next steps: Implementation

As numerous Members have pointed out - Mr Seng Han Thong, Dr John Chen, Dr Lily Neo, Mr Gan Kim Yong and others

- success in these changes will hinge on timely and thorough implementation, and clear communication and support from all stakeholders, in particular our teachers. Progressive change

We must balance the desire to get on with the changes for the current generation of students with the need for adequate and thoughtful preparation. Mdm Cynthia Phua, Mr Gan Kim Yong, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang and some others had expressed the desire to see some of the changes take place more quickly.

First, there can be no short-cuts or quick fixes for the fundamental changes that we have debated. These changes will take time to implement and take root. Preparation will require major curricular modification, textbook preparation, teacher training, and development of new assessment methods. System-wide, we will implement the new curriculum at Primary 1 and Primary 4 from 2008, and work upwards from there. Significant changes to the PSLE examination will follow in 2010. To respond to Dr Gan See Khem's question yesterday, we are not doing away with examinations, but changing the modes of assessment and formats of our examinations.

MOE will however make selective, interim changes in the meantime. These changes will not involve any increased burden on students or teachers, as Mr Ong Kian Min was concerned about, but a reduced burden.

Removing less frequently-occurring characters from Character List

First, MOE will review the current character lists over the next few months to remove the less commonly used characters. These less-frequently occurring characters will not be assessed in the PSLE and "O" level examination

from 2005. MOE will communicate with schools early next year on this.

Reducing curriculum load

As I mentioned in my opening speech, teachers also feel that the current Chinese Language syllabus is too packed. This is widely-based feedback. MOE has therefore decided to reduce the syllabus load of both CL and HCL curriculum. We will start by cutting from the required syllabuses, 10-15% of the passages in the new textbooks that are coming on stream from 2005. Again, we will be communicating with schools soon on this matter. Interim examination formats

We will also make interim modifications to the examination formats for the PSLE and "O" levels. The interim formats will reduce the emphasis on character stroke memorisation. These interim formats will be introduced from 2006 at both the PSLE and "O" levels, before the revised curriculum is implemented in 2008.