MM Lee admits “mistake†made in his education policy
-
PM Lee says teaching of Chinese needs to cater to range of abilities
By Channel NewsAsia's Imelda Saad in Cuba | Posted: 03 December 2009 2216 hrs
HAVANA, CUBA: Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said the teaching of the Chinese language has to cater to the changing landscape as well as the range of language backgrounds and learning abilities.
He said Singapore wants to succeed at mother tongue as it is critical to Singapore - not just economically but because of the sense of identity as Singaporeans and as Asians in a globalised world.
At the same time, Mr Lee said Singapore needs to know what can be achieved and the best way of attaining it.
Mr Lee was speaking to the Singapore media at the end of his trip to Cuba on Thursday.
Mr Lee's comments follow an ongoing debate, after Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said the teaching and learning of Chinese should have been done differently from the start.
After a flurry of comments over the past few weeks about Singapore's bilingual policy, Prime Minister Lee put things in perspective.
He said: "We have to try and do what is educationally sound and pedagogically and academically in the interest of the child. If you politicise this and ask what is it (or) which is the popular thing to do when I teach Chinese or when I teach English or when I teach Science, then we're going to do a big disfavour to the child.
"We have to find out what is educationally sound, and what is the best way to teach it and is within the capabilities of the kids, to interest them in the subject and not to turn them off the language. That is what we will try and achieve."
He said the reason why Singapore has to tweak the way it teaches the Chinese language is because of the changing profiles of the students. There are now more of them from English-speaking homes.
So more schools are expected to use English to teach the Chinese language.
On the other hand, the proportion of students who take Higher Chinese (HCL) in secondary schools has also increased as more students understand the importance of learning the language.
"Now 27 percent take HCL in secondary schools, more than double the figure before the last changes were made," said Mr Lee.
There is also a need to have a tailored approach of teaching the language which adapts to everybody.
Mr Lee said: "We are trying, in an English-speaking environment, to maintain a level of working proficiency in Chinese and other mother tongues for all of the population. But different levels of proficiency, depending on the ability of the person and the language background which he comes from, his home background.
"Some can reach almost first language standard and join the bicultural programmes. A majority should have a functional mastery of the language - some from Chinese-speaking homes, some from English-speaking homes too, because many students from English-speaking homes actually have good language aptitude and quite often do Higher Chinese.
"But some students from English-speaking homes are going to have a lot of difficulties with Chinese, however hard they try. Maybe they are generally weak in school, but not always. The correlation between your language ability and your general academic skills is not that close. Quite often, we come across students who are generally bright and able, but have a lot of difficulties with Chinese.
"So we have to set standards for this group which are realistic, which they can aim for, but without bringing down standards for everybody else. That is why we introduced CL-B."
CL-B refers to the simplified Chinese Language B syllabus introduced for weaker students in 1999.
Technology has also made it a totally different experience for a person to read, learn and work with the Chinese language.
Mr Lee said: "In China now, everybody uses computer inputs one way or other. The young people are working on keyboards so much that when they have to write the characters, they do not remember how to produce them."
Communication styles too are changing, with more people using email and SMS.
Prime Minister Lee said: "There are all sorts of strange abbreviations. I was exchanging messages with a young person in Chinese and the person typed '3488'. So I asked, what on earth is '3488' ('暂时拜拜')?
"There are all sorts of other abbreviations and synonyms which have become part of the lingo. If you stick to the traditional formal language teaching, you are not going to teach people that, you are not going to use that, and students are going to learn a very formal language. But that is not what they will often encounter in real life."
Mr Lee said testing methods will also need to change.
"So, in an exam, you can bring an electronic dictionary along and ideally, everybody should have a keyboard and should type and write on the keyboard rather than have the burden of struggling with the mechanics of memorising and writing characters by hand," he said.
Moving forward, he said the way the Chinese language is taught in schools will be updated based on changing language usage and ability patterns in society.
There were revisions in 1999 and in 2004 to cater to different learning tracks for students, depending on their language abilities. Revision number three of the teaching and learning of the Chinese language is already underway. The Education Ministry is expected to release the results during the Committee of Supply debate in Parliament.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...022362/1/.html -
Some employers worry language courses may lead to higher costs
By Evelyn Lam, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 03 December 2009 1931 hrsSINGAPORE: While some employers are welcoming latest efforts to improve the English language standard of foreign workers, others are concerned that sending staff for classes will result in higher costs and disruptions to working hours.
Most companies that MediaCorp spoke to said on Thursday that upgrading the English language proficiency of foreign workers will help staff in terms of career development. But some are worried about the costs of these courses.
They said if the course fees are too expensive, the S$90 rebate offered by the government for skilled workers will not be sufficient to convince companies to enrol their workers. Others, like restaurant operators, said classes may disrupt their scheduled work shifts.
Jacky Liu, owner of Mutton Soup Steamboat, said: "It's a small restaurant, the workers are fixed, there is no way of letting them take turns to go (for these courses). Workers here work a little longer – they usually finish at 11 or 12 o'clock."
Minister of State for Manpower, Trade and Industry Lee Yi Shyan announced on Wednesday that work permit holders in the retail, food & beverage, and hotel sectors will need to pass an English language proficiency test from the third quarter of next year in order to qualify for skilled levy status.
Employers will enjoy cost savings from the lower skilled workers levy, which stands at S$150 a month, compared to the unskilled levy of S$240.
- CNA/so -
Originally posted by tan reborn:
Some employers worry language courses may lead to higher costs
By Evelyn Lam, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 03 December 2009 1931 hrsSINGAPORE: While some employers are welcoming latest efforts to improve the English language standard of foreign workers, others are concerned that sending staff for classes will result in higher costs and disruptions to working hours.
Most companies that MediaCorp spoke to said on Thursday that upgrading the English language proficiency of foreign workers will help staff in terms of career development. But some are worried about the costs of these courses.
They said if the course fees are too expensive, the S$90 rebate offered by the government for skilled workers will not be sufficient to convince companies to enrol their workers. Others, like restaurant operators, said classes may disrupt their scheduled work shifts.
Jacky Liu, owner of Mutton Soup Steamboat, said: "It's a small restaurant, the workers are fixed, there is no way of letting them take turns to go (for these courses). Workers here work a little longer – they usually finish at 11 or 12 o'clock."
Minister of State for Manpower, Trade and Industry Lee Yi Shyan announced on Wednesday that work permit holders in the retail, food & beverage, and hotel sectors will need to pass an English language proficiency test from the third quarter of next year in order to qualify for skilled levy status.
Employers will enjoy cost savings from the lower skilled workers levy, which stands at S$150 a month, compared to the unskilled levy of S$240.
- CNA/so------------------------------------------------
I would say this is very good news to local citizens who intend to work in the service sector.
If the bosses have the guts to 'pass on training costs' to the consumer by either raising the price of his services or product, or resort to cutting corners, then go right ahead and see if he can survive the next day in competitive Singapore.
Ultimately, such added costs of trainning will add to the foreign workers' employment costs, and will be a necessary consideration on the boss choice to favour the local more than the supposedly 'cheap' foriegner.
Not only that, the boss may even become a laughing stock if he still insist to train the foreigner, for the foreign guy or girl has no loyalty, and would probably say a quick thank you once the course cert is obtain and flee to a higher pay job anywhere else.
The govt is not attempting to make things difficult for the bosses, but it is the taxpayers money that is funding STPB (Tourist Promotion Board) to attract tourists here. Millions had been spent.
No sense in getting the tourists here, only for them to be pissed off by a stuck up china foriegner boy or girl who insist on speaking mandarin, tagalog,or tamil.. If hundreds thousands of our tourists are pissed, it will damage our economy, as tourism critically contributes to our GDP.
Let the bosses whine. If they have a great ideas and great biz to offer, they will attract more customers. And with that increase, they can jolly well pay a bit more for locals than for foriegn workers.
If they have no ideas and a lousy biz, dependent on cheap labour, then they deserve to die a natural biz death, and free up resources for the next better player.
Score: Citizens 1 Foreigner 0
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
I would say this is very good news to local citizens who intend to work in the service sector.
Can there be anything of value that can be said by a X-rated Fraud with a pseudo-intellect with its jingoistic pseudo-values in the interests of "local" citizens - as if there are "foreign" citizens ?
If the bosses have the guts to 'pass on training costs' to the consumer by either raising the price of his services or product, or resort to cutting corners, then go right ahead and see if he can survive the next day in competitive Singapore.
If the bosses cannot cover its costs, can it be in any position to survive in competitive Singapore to keep "local" citizens employed ?
With the government not helping to lower costs to help keep Singapore competitive against the region, who else can help the employers without burdening the already over-taxed citizen-workers ?
The pathetic confrontational attitude of the X-rated Fraud towards employers is quite obviously telling - and can only allow its hoped for wider audience to know that the pathetic X-rated Fraud cannot be in any position to be an employer of "local" citizens.
Ultimately, such added costs of trainning will add to the foreign workers' employment costs, and will be a necessary consideration on the boss choice to favour the local more than the supposedly 'cheap' foriegner.
Has the X-rated Fraud got its vision skewed with its skill at Double-XXing itself ?
How much does it cost to employ a foreigner familiar with their mother-tongue even when paying the foreign worker levy - compared to the cost of retraining a "local" citizen for the same job with fluent 'mother-tongue' skills ?
Can a "local" citizen learn the mother-tongue to be as fluent as the foreign worker - after the mother-tongue had been killed by the Stalinist-Autocrat since the 1960s ?
Not only that, the boss may even become a laughing stock if he still insist to train the foreigner, for the foreign guy or girl has no loyalty, and would probably say a quick thank you once the course cert is obtain and flee to a higher pay job anywhere else.
Obviously, the situation quoted by the X-rated Fraud is from the actual experience of Singapore being made a laughing stock - to give citizenship so freely to the Foreign Talent, provide them with the various resettlement help to settle into the community, and only to have them "flee to a higher pay job" in some other real First World country
The govt is not attempting to make things difficult for the bosses, but it is the taxpayers money that is funding STPB (Tourist Promotion Board) to attract tourists here. Millions had been spent.
Can the "Millions had been spent" be comparable to the US$100 BILLION that was spent uselessly to rescue bankrupt foreign financial institutions that ended up using our Citizens' money to pay for the bonuses of the foreign executives responsible for bankrupting those financial institutions ?
If the Government is prepared to spend Billions more in overseas ventures - even after losing the US$100 Billion in 2008 - why will it not help the Singapore bosses instead of diverting funds overseas ?
No sense in getting the tourists here, only for them to be pissed off by a stuck up china foriegner boy or girl who insist on speaking mandarin, tagalog,or tamil.. If hundreds thousands of our tourists are pissed, it will damage our economy, as tourism critically contributes to our GDP.
"china foreigner boy or girl who insist on speaking mandarin, tagalog, or tamil" ?
Can a Chinese foreigner speak tagalog or tamil or even expected to do so ?
"hundreds thousands of our tourists are pissed" ?
The skills of the X-rated Fraud to exaggerate to inflate further its hot-gassed standing is as bad as its needs for a illusionary wider audience to witness its plagiarized skills in its deluded grand performance.
Let the bosses whine. If they have a great ideas and great biz to offer, they will attract more customers. And with that increase, they can jolly well pay a bit more for locals than for foriegn workers.
"a great ideas and great biz to offer" ?
Some great ideas that a X-rated Fraud intend to teach anyone with ?
If they have no ideas and a lousy biz, dependent on cheap labour, then they deserve to die a natural biz death, and free up resources for the next better player.
Score: Citizens 1 Foreigner 0
If only the insufferable X-rated Fraud with its infamous pseudo-intellect had listened to its own voice - "that if it has no ideas and a lousy biz, dependent on cheap copies that are plagiarized from others' labour, then it should deserve to die a natural biz death, and free up resources in this server for the next better player".
Yet it will continue with its pathetical efforts to make itself relevant in its typical hot gassed jingoistic pseudo-pursuit to advocate for OUR fellow-Citizens
-
Originally posted by Hello Kitty:
gan phua sian ah.
got $$$, no time to spend, got wat use.
She he is suffering from severe desperate for attention disorder so come here everyday to seek attention. -
Originally posted by Veggie Bao:
Please dont disturb angel7030.
Thank you.
Be objective, you this bao. Why not you tell angel7030 not to disturb people here? YOu got all wrong. YOu support her him in sgforums no use, go patronize her his pub in Joo Chiat then he she will be happy.tsk tsk tsk . . . . . . . . . .
-
PM Lee cautions against politicizing Chinese language issues
Written by Our Correspondent
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had cautioned against “politicizing” the education of Chinese language in Singapore which has sparked an intense debate lately following MM Lee Kuan Yew’s recent admission that some “mistakes” had been made in the past.
“If you politicise this and ask what is the popular thing to do when teaching Chinese, or for that matter English or science, then we are going to do a big disfavour to the child. We have to determine what is educationally sound and what is the best way to teach Chinese Language within the capabilities of the kids, to interest them in the subject and not to turn them off the language. And that is what we were trying to achieve,” PM Lee said.
The Secretary-General of Singapore Democratic Party Dr Chee Soon Juan had questioned why no ministers or civil servants had pointed out the flaws in Singapore’s bilingual policy earlier.
While some Singaporeans called for the bilingual policy to be relaxed for their children, others are concerned that the shift in policy may lead to a lowering of the standard of Chinese in Singapore.
PM Lee said that such views are focused on the past and what the government is trying to do now is to deliberate what is the best way forward for the future.
In reaffirming the bilingual policy, he described it as a cornerstone of Singapore society.
“We want to succeed at Mother Tongue because it is critical to Singapore – not just economically, but also to our sense of identity and who we are as Singaporeans and as Asians in a globalised world,” he said.
Singapore used to be a bastion of Chinese education in the 1950s and 1960s. It was home to the only Chinese university in Southeast Asia during that time – the Nanyang University or Nantah.
There were also a variety of independent Chinese newspapers such as the now defunct Nanyang Siang Pao and Sin Chew Jit Poh which has moved across to Malaysia.
They were eventually closed down or merged with other papers to form Singapore’s sole media company SPH in 1984. Nantah was merged with Singapore University to form the National University of Singapore in 1980.
As English was the medium of education in Singapore, a whole generation of Singaporeans grew up using English as their preferred language of communication instead of their Mother tongue.
With China becoming more affluent and influential, Singapore has switched its focus back to the Chinese language for pragmatic reasons.
Singapore’s bilingual education is both its greatest strength and Achilles Heel as well as some academically gifted Singaporeans have genuine difficulties mastering the Chinese language.
-
Don't like all these non chinese people fucking up chinese dialect culture in Singapore.
Messed up everything.
Especially that peranakan Lee Kuan Yew.
-
The economics beyond our dialects and languages
By Kelvin Teo
Published: April 9, 2009
(First published on The Online Citizen)
So the dust has now settled over Minister Mentor Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s provocative call to Singaporeans to focus on learning mandarin instead of their dialects. From a personal perspective, I didn’t find Mr Lee’s call surprising, given the fact that he has always championed Singapore’s role as the gateway to China. There has been exhaustive discussions on the cultural impact of Mr Lee’s remark but little attention is paid to the economics beyond the dialects and languages.
As the fallout from the current global credit crisis continues, there has been some talk of America losing its superpower status as it reels from a double whammy – the collapse of its financial system and the overstretching of its military in Iraq and Afghanistan. And naysayers have further rubbed salt into the wound by predicting that the US dollar will lose its world currency status. The writing is already on the wall when OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) countries started dumping the dollars. Iran transacts in Euros with Venezuela following suit. And after the dollars hit its lowest against the yen, the likelihood of the former being knocked off its pedestal seems closer to reality.
There could be a shift in the balance of world power, a transition from one dominant entity to a few powerful entities. The BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations seem the likely candidates. China is poised to overtake America in terms of GDP by 2040. For ASEAN nations, trading volume with China is set to rise with the establishment of the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area by 2010. The value of ASEAN-China trade was forecasted to hit $200 billion in 2008.
The Kra canal project, which is the planned waterway link between the Indian ocean and the South China sea and cutting across the Isthmus of Kra is in its revival stage. The Chinese will be providing assistance for the project, and it is a move to increase Chinese presence within the Southeast Asian region, particularly in facilitating trade.
So the geopolitics shift and anticipation of increased trade links with China within the region might make learning mandarin an attractive posposition, no? Perhaps, there is use for learning mandarin after all. However, wouldn’t it seem a little premature to place the learning of our dialects into the backburner?
Those who speak cantonese amongst us might have a strong case for arguement here. The cantonese make up 15% of the chinese Singaporean population. Cantonese is spoken as a medium of communication in Guangdong, a major business center in China. And it will come in useful when interacting with business people from Hong Kong too.
However, it is a fallacy to think that being chinese and able to speak mandarin would eventually lead to a comparative advantage. The initial failure of the Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP) serves as an important reminder to all of us. SIP was initially conceived to be the epitomy of Singapore-style industrial township – a showcase of Singapore’s way of managing an industrial set-up. That wasn’t to be, and Singapore transferred a major part of SIP’s ownership back to the Chinese. What happened was that SIP was outgunned and outfoxed by the Suzhou New District, despite the former enjoying advantages ranging from political support from the Communist party to freedom over planning and land use. Turned out that the experiment to clone Singapore in China failed.
Thus, what Suzhou has taught us is that what works in Singapore may not necessarily work elsewhere. Undoubtedly, learning the language or dialect involved in trade communications is important, but the key to survival is to be able to adapt to the prevailing business conditions. This is the basic rule of evolution.
-
Yes indeed, LKY had been planning for Singapore to welcome our Mainland Chinese overlords all these years, no ?
The time has come.
To our Mainland Chinese overlords.. .."Wan Sui Wan Sui, Wan Wan Sui !!!"
-
Originally posted by tan reborn:
The economics beyond our dialects and languages
By Kelvin Teo
Published: April 9, 2009
(First published on The Online Citizen)
So the dust has now settled over Minister Mentor Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s provocative call to Singaporeans to focus on learning mandarin instead of their dialects. From a personal perspective, I didn’t find Mr Lee’s call surprising, given the fact that he has always championed Singapore’s role as the gateway to China. There has been exhaustive discussions on the cultural impact of Mr Lee’s remark but little attention is paid to the economics beyond the dialects and languages.
As the fallout from the current global credit crisis continues, there has been some talk of America losing its superpower status as it reels from a double whammy – the collapse of its financial system and the overstretching of its military in Iraq and Afghanistan. And naysayers have further rubbed salt into the wound by predicting that the US dollar will lose its world currency status. The writing is already on the wall when OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) countries started dumping the dollars. Iran transacts in Euros with Venezuela following suit. And after the dollars hit its lowest against the yen, the likelihood of the former being knocked off its pedestal seems closer to reality.
There could be a shift in the balance of world power, a transition from one dominant entity to a few powerful entities. The BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations seem the likely candidates. China is poised to overtake America in terms of GDP by 2040. For ASEAN nations, trading volume with China is set to rise with the establishment of the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area by 2010. The value of ASEAN-China trade was forecasted to hit $200 billion in 2008.
The Kra canal project, which is the planned waterway link between the Indian ocean and the South China sea and cutting across the Isthmus of Kra is in its revival stage. The Chinese will be providing assistance for the project, and it is a move to increase Chinese presence within the Southeast Asian region, particularly in facilitating trade.
So the geopolitics shift and anticipation of increased trade links with China within the region might make learning mandarin an attractive posposition, no? Perhaps, there is use for learning mandarin after all. However, wouldn’t it seem a little premature to place the learning of our dialects into the backburner?
Those who speak cantonese amongst us might have a strong case for arguement here. The cantonese make up 15% of the chinese Singaporean population. Cantonese is spoken as a medium of communication in Guangdong, a major business center in China. And it will come in useful when interacting with business people from Hong Kong too.
However, it is a fallacy to think that being chinese and able to speak mandarin would eventually lead to a comparative advantage. The initial failure of the Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP) serves as an important reminder to all of us. SIP was initially conceived to be the epitomy of Singapore-style industrial township – a showcase of Singapore’s way of managing an industrial set-up. That wasn’t to be, and Singapore transferred a major part of SIP’s ownership back to the Chinese. What happened was that SIP was outgunned and outfoxed by the Suzhou New District, despite the former enjoying advantages ranging from political support from the Communist party to freedom over planning and land use. Turned out that the experiment to clone Singapore in China failed.
Thus, what Suzhou has taught us is that what works in Singapore may not necessarily work elsewhere. Undoubtedly, learning the language or dialect involved in trade communications is important, but the key to survival is to be able to adapt to the prevailing business conditions. This is the basic rule of evolution.
The failure with the Singapore Government's venture in SIP is not that it failed to clone the Singapore Way in China but that it failed to clone it on Terms and Conditions that the Singapore Government had thought it had negotiated in an iron clad deal.The Suzhou Provincial Authorities showed to the Singapore Government that even as the Central Government and the Communist Party may have agreed to all the terms and conditions, the Provincial Authorities cannot simply be mere executors to the agreement - to be sidelined as Civil Servants, while the Singapore Government Talents act with the authority of the Central Government and to be its extension.
Even before the Singapore Government had transferred major part of the ownership in the SIP to China, the Suzhou Provincial Authority showed that they are as capable as Singapore, and had built a rival to the SIP without any input from Singapore.
The rival Suzhou New District was a showcase in point.
It had shown that despiite being in the backwaters of China's modernisation plans, and even as everyone thought the local Provincial Authority to be not as sophisticated in infrastructural planning - the Provincial Authority was determined to show that they had the intelligence and the drive to compete with the more business savvy and internationally exposed Talents from the Singapore Government.
The Suzhou Provincial Authority certainly got the Singapore Government Talents "outgunned and outfoxed" in an area that was supposed to be their expertise.
The Truth is that Singaporeans should learn that the Singapore Government is not infallible nor are their "Intelligence" and supposed "Talent" uniquely superior.
If the success and failure of the SIP is used as an indicator or a standard of measure of superior "intelligence and talent" - it will be seen that ordinary Singaporeans are more capable than the Singapore Government Talents - as seen in other Industrial Parks in Suzhou that were built before SIP and with private capital from Singaporean businesses - who showed that they are more able and political savvy than all the Singapore Ministers playing "entrepreneur" with Singapore Tax Payers' Money.
-
Singapore’s bilingual policy: a success or setback?
By Nicholas Tan
Long regarded as the crux of Singapore’s financial, political and national success, the bilingualism policy has come under the limelight recently, all thanks to Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s apology for his mistakes in the policy.
When the policy was meted out four decades ago, Mr Lee said: “if we were monolingual in our mother tongues, we would not make a living.”
Nobody can deny the fact that as a result of learning our sciences and mathematics in English, we can go almost anywhere to further our education and earn a living as a scientist or a lawyer. MNCs and research companies have no qualms about setting up regional bases here and directly contributing to our economy. However a further prognosis of Mr Lee did not quite materialize. He predicted that ”Becoming monolingual in English would have been a setback.
We would have lost our cultural identity, that quiet confidence about ourselves and our place in the world.” Regrettably, the younger generation has already shown signs of that much unwanted setback despite NOT being monolingual. We might, with some difficulty, claim to be bilingual but we are definitely not bicultural. The younger generation has lost interest in the Chinese language because of the way Chinese is taught in schools: rigid, boring and meaningless. Chinese literature and culture are out of the question if students loathe the medium of instruction. It is hardly perplexing that most of us know nothing about cultural heritage and identity.
What might be happening? A fundamental principle of our governance is that education keeps up with economic growth and society. Consequentially, we learn a language if it is beneficial to the country, regardless of personal interest. For instance, we learn mother tongue to promote communication and economic cooperation with other countries.
The Chinese language is emphasized in particular because the government wants Singaporeans to leverage on the rapid growth of China. The problem occurs when the pressure on students comes in the form of ‘forced’ learning of the written and spoken forms of Chinese over a short period of time in order to ‘keep up with the economy’. Our ‘comprehensive’ Chinese education lasts from primary school to pre-university education (JC/polytechnic), after which hardly anyone reads or writes Chinese anymore. At best, we use a mixture of Chinese and English in our daily conversations in addition to losing almost all writing and reading skills. Is this the kind of attitude and level of Chinese literacy desirable in a population expected to deal with native speakers of Chinese?
It would be exaggerated to claim that we are all jaded victims of the bilingualism policy, for I consider myself a relatively grateful survivor of the policy. I enjoy speaking and writing Chinese and it still surprises me how some of my peers abhor the language.
Learning Chinese was not enjoyable because one had to go through the rites of dictation and ‘ting xie’ year after year. It was a chore, a pain, but it gradually became bearable as I was moulded by being around Chinese-speaking friends and grew to like Chinese music and Taiwanese entertainment shows. These seem like trivial and silly reasons but they all point to the fact that to learn Chinese, one has to enjoy the process. Make it ‘fun’, as Mr Lee Kuan Yew puts. However, learning Chinese should not be achieved by removing the arduous process of ‘ting xie’ and ‘mo xie’ (it’s not madness, really.) Instead, the focus should lie on inculcating interest in the language out of a school setting.
Family and friends play an important role in shaping one’s attitude towards the language. For example, it helps that families try to speak Chinese at home to help students habituate into speaking mandarin. It is not easy to create a whole new environment around the student, one that facilitates enjoyable learning of the language, but learning a new language is not meant to be effortless.
The top PSLE student this year came from Guangzhou in 2006 and began learning English here. She attributed her success to ‘library trips and encouragement from family and friends to speak English’. Furthermore, she admits that there were no short-cuts to learning a language. Her achievement proved that language learning is hard work; lowering standards or removing burdensome procedures of writing do not solve the problem. I also caution against excessive use of English in teaching Chinese because the two languages are very different in nature and by using English, we are conveying the message that there are ‘equivalents’ in Chinese for everything in English and vice versa.
They all sound more like restrictions than advice to learning a new language. Well, not every individual has a flair for language learning and we have all come to realize that some people are more bilingual than others. Apart from the dearth of a conducive environment for learning Chinese, more commonly there is a lack of motivation. It is impressive to read about people who push themselves to the limit to learn 8 or more languages, all out of passion, but it is idealistic to expect such ardor in our students. Why not separate students into groups of ‘I love Chinese’ and ‘I just want to get it over and done with’? It would be nice to reward passionate learners with the chance to learn more and guarantee release for the uninterested after imparting the most essential ‘knowledge’.
We need to replace the image that Chinese is just another subject one has to mindlessly memorize for twelve years before throwing it away with a precious gift of heritage. For the few who have suffered under the bilingualism policy such that their talents went unrecognized and emigration was the only way out, it is sad to see them forsake valuable cultural assets for the development of their limitless aptitude.
In the earlier years of Singapore’s independence, the situation was reverse. There was a greater proportion of mandarin-speaking families and we were figuring out ways of better grasping the English language. How did we become better at English over the years? Encouraging families to communicate more in English and gradually shifting from Chinese-medium schools to English-medium schools were some contributing factors. As much as these changes improved our English, they reduced Chinese and other mother tongues to mere subjects like mathematics. Could there be a similar reversal in favour of the Chinese language? Bilingualism was borne out of Singapore’s need to operate globally and ‘retain’ cultural identity; it is time we put more effort into its second objective.
About the Author:
Nicholas was born and bred in Singapore. Like most other Singaporean males, he ad undergone primary, secondary, JC education and full-time national service. Currently, Nicholas is an undergraduate of the University of Western Australia.
-
Lessons learnt from Singapore’s Bilingual Policy
By Darren Feng
Singapore’s education system has seen itself being consistently placed among the top ten in international comparison studies. However, many analysts and commentators have stated that Singapore’s education follows an excessively rigid and specialised system, with emphasis on performing well during assessments instead of creative learning. One major point of debate regarding the education system surrounds the Ministry of Education’s Bilingual Policy, which has been parodied in the popular local film I Not Stupid 2 as boring and ineffectual.
At the official opening of the new Singapore Centre for Chinese Language, MM Lee commented that the Chinese language syllabus during the 1960s was poorly executed; comprising of a structured program focusing on literacy and being too difficult for young learners to grasp. During his opening speech, He took responsibility for the adverse reactions of successive generations towards learning Chinese at schools, and commented that it should have been carried out differently from the start.
Several key points were raised by MM Lee:
Intelligence does not necessarily translate into a flair for languages.
The Singapore education system has achieved top grades in its scores for Maths and Sciences, both subjects related to the human faculties of logic, abstraction, and numerical understanding; which form a significant component of human intelligence. However, studies have shown that language ability is an innate function of the human brain, one that is a system of its own, rather than a manifestation of human intelligence. The Ministry of Education’s Chinese Language Curriculum followed a system of memorisation and writing based upon a student’s logical capabilities and understanding, which was a flawed path towards language learning.Mandarin was being taught in isolation to English-Speakers
The Chinese curriculum was taught by Chinese teachers only via the use of Mandarin Chinese, and this posed a challenge towards the growing trend of children who spoke English at home. MM Lee remarked that English-speaking children entering Primary education with no knowledge of Mandarin Chinese will quickly lose interest due to the communication barrier between teachers and students.The Mandarin Chinese Curriculum was ineffective
The emphasis of Dictation and Memorisation of words further isolated students who were already being taught mathematics and sciences via similar methods. The failure to bridge their understanding of the Chinese School Curriculum with experiences outside the classroom (especially among English-Speaking Children) meant that students were having difficulty realising the importance of Mandarin Chinese usage. Furthermore, students of different language abilities and backgrounds were compelled to learn the same curriculum, which resulted in different rates of progress.
From these points, several courses of action could be taken to correct the bilingual policy:
Engage students towards the use of Mandarin Chinese at an early age
As more and more Singaporean children use English at home; the curriculum must be redesigned to ensure that Mandarin Chinese remains relevant and engaging. MM Lee has suggested that this could be carried out via the use of IT and drama in lessons; and this will help students like the language, resulting in greater use of Mandarin Chinese outside the classroom, regardless of the learning level.Pedagogical Reform
The joint agreement between 4 major institutes (SEED, MDA, SIM and HKU) towards the Singapore Centre for Chinese Language; together with the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee will help towards training teachers who will directly address the linguistic needs of Singapore’s demographic patterns. Furthermore, the importance of tailor-made curriculums and modules to adhere to specific school needs will be addressed by training teachers in curriculum design. Another important aspect of pedagogical reform would be to train teachers in the use of the English language during Chinese lessons, thus eliminating any potential communication barriers.
Curriculum Reform
A new curriculum system implemented in 2005 has seen increased academic performance among its respective pilot schools. The focus has shifted from textbook dictation towards Chinese for everyday practical use. Chinese usage in mainstream media (from newspapers and music) has been incorporated into classroom activities. Furthermore, the modular system has been implemented which will address the different learning paces and language abilities of various students. From these two advancements, the Ministry of Education should embark on further experimentation and assessment of results to obtain the optimum Chinese Education Policies for Singapore’s demographic mix.
Standards/Assessment Recognition
The practice of relegating poor performers in Chinese to the Chinese “B” stream should be reconsidered, as lowering the standards for poor academic performance might translate towards an incentive for students to perform poorly in that subject, especially with a lack of interest for Chinese amongst the student population, and concerns about a poor Chinese Academic grade affecting assessment results (and thus hindering streaming, promotion and tertiary school entry).
Retention of English as the Primary Language
Despite the increasing relevance of China in international communications, English still remains the dominant language of the Global marketplace. Care must be taken to avoid students losing track of the English-language syllabus. The usage of a second-language medium to teach content-based subjects (such as maths, sciences and humanities) must be reconsidered, as this will have the potential effect of alienating minority groups, as well as decreasing Singapore’s competitiveness via a pre-dominantly English-speaking workforce.
With the increasing role that global non-English-speaking economies are playing (such as India, China, and the EU), Singapore has to ensure that its bilingual policy meets the goals of creating a linguistically diverse population, ensuring the competitiveness of Singapore’s future workforce. The recent admission of error by MM Lee and subsequent policy changes over the last ten years has shown MOE’s dedication towards a creating a holistic education system.
About the Author:
Darren Feng is a freelance writer, who has studied at Fairfield Methodist Secondary School and has recently graduated from the University of Melbourne with a Bachelors in Engineering. He has written Technical documents for the Defence Science and Technology Association (DSTA), the Technical University of Munich, and the University of Melbourne.
-
Originally posted by tan reborn:
Retention of English as the Primary Language
I completely disapprove of this policy.
Nothing but fucking drivel.
He doesn't seem to grasp that why mandarin standard is being destroyed is due to english as dominant language.
He also fails to see that chinese culture is being weakened and people demoralised due to english education system.
He seems to be ignorant in such things.
I totally oppose his views on english language policy.
-
You want to learn fucking multiple languages you have to start with only one language first, then move on to next language after mastering the first language.
You CANNOT learn TWO languages at the SAME time.
The result will be BULLSHIT.
But PAP still refuses to see this.
I think the real reason why is political in nature, not educational in nature.
Fucking bastards these PAP mother fuckers.
-
Chee Soon Juan also did a study on this:
What is surprising is that it has taken all this time for the Government to realise this error when there was clear evidence, both scientifically and politically, to demonstrate the inanity of Mr Lee's policy.
I had written in a book that I co-authored with my wife, Dr Huang Chihmei, that the English language is processed very differently by the brain compared to Chinese.
I pointed out that while English is based on the alphabet and read phonetically, the Chinese language consists of characters which are recognised pictorially. These languages are learnt through different neural systems, involving different regions of the brain.
(The book, entitled Effective Parenting for the Asian Family, was published in 1995 but its publisher Heinemann Asia inexplicably cut short its shelf-life and got rid of the remaining copies.)
I had also pointed out in letters to the Ministry of Education that was published in the Straits Times Forum in 1993 as well as in my book Dare To Change that such brain functions are still developing in students.http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/3139-you-mean-no-one-said-anything-to-mr-lee
-
Lee Kuan Yew, I beg you to stop your rubbish educational policies and end the bullshit before chinese culture is completely destroyed in Singapore.
You have already gone too far already, destroyed an entire generations of chinese people's culture already.
Lee Kuan Yew - stop your fucking shit.
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
You want to learn fucking multiple languages you have to start with only one language first, then move on to next language after mastering the first language.
You CANNOT learn TWO languages at the SAME time.
The result will be BULLSHIT.
But PAP still refuses to see this.
I think the real reason why is political in nature, not educational in nature.
Fucking bastards these PAP mother fuckers.
he thought one sentence first half speak english the second half chinese
or vice versa
it sure confuse or obstruct a person learning and absorbing ability
he just too desperate in implementing his policy - cos he now want people to go to china, india , brazil and russia to do business
us, uk, autralia and canada may be new zealand in stead we kena attack - thses countries sent troops - after war paid money
-
-
Originally posted by tan reborn:
he thought one sentence first half speak english the second half chinese
or vice versa
it sure confuse or obstruct a person learning and absorbing ability
he just too desperate in implementing his policy - cos he now want people to go to china, india , brazil and russia to do business
us, uk, autralia and canada may be new zealand in stead we kena attack - thses countries sent troops - after war paid money saf temp tahan/deter enemy invasion
-
Don't know which mother fucking bastard came up with this fucking moronic billangual fucking bastard policy.
Proper great chinese schools produce cultured chinese people go and fucking destroy, then implement rubbish fucking system, produce half fuck english, half fuck mother tongue, off spring bastardised singlish.
Then come and mother fucking complain about fucking singlish when fucking education system at fault.
Last time the chinese schools the people where got speak mother fucking singlish.
You train people in proper schools, REAL schools, they where got speak the cock sucking fucking singlish, Lee Kuan Yew.
Only an anglo dog like Lee Kuan Yew can come up with such filth as billangual mother fucking policy.
-
every year rjc,etc - top jc students local or foreigners took the gahmen or private scholarship went to top us uk china u to study
like harvard degree and mba in public policy later came back to work
these scholars brainstorm, propose/suggest, meeting - pros and cons - cost and benefit, feasible or not, their impact, sent to their chief
their chief sent to the gahmen then they approved and announced in parliament
so we must vote properly