I feel that the current mother tongue is already considered too easy. Its not even half of what the whole language is about.
Seriously speaking, I got A1 for Chinese for O Levels, scared the hell out of my life, including my family. And I cant really decipher what is being told in Mandarin at times.
And guess what? In one of PM's national day speech.... "I cant understand the meaning of "Singapore is a "xing xing" country".... until I ask my parents.... at first i thought it means Singapore is a gorilla country.
If it is lowered, parents will totally ask their children to forgo the whole subject altogether, since there's not much weightage anyway.
I feel that the current subject weightage should stay the same, just that they have to look at changing certain topics, such as taking away old modern china history, that makes people least interested in studying.... instead to be replaced like how English is taught... modern.... "terms like technology, contract, computer... mouse and all" .... all tat can equip us with business skills when we go out to work in future.
Want to learn Chinese, Learn something, if not, my as well don't learn.
Seriously, I hope Singapore does not lag itself behind by becoming a monolingual society, when other countries, who are currently monolingual, are trying to become bilingual.
find it so nuts...our chinese standard aready so bad still wan reduce somemore sure cmi.
they push english more than mother tongue in the past then end up mmore n more families that speak eng at home...= drop in standard of chinese then they wad intro chinese b.
let ppl see as easy way out...
i tell u we will lose our roots if they go on reducing.
The chinese culture, the chinese language, dialects, the cultural morale of chinese people in Singapore, all these are all destroyed by Lee Kuan Yew.
Lee Kuan Yew is the killer and destroyer of chinese culture in Singapore.
reminds me of this..
=> Obesity
One of the key goals of Lee Kuan Yew was also to annihilate off the dialect languages of the chinese dialect groups in Singapore. This project of destroying off the dialects led to a serious weakening and loss of cultural morale among the chinese dialect groups in Singapore.
The most ambitious aspect of Singapore's language planning and attempted social engineering was the campaign to replace the Chinese "dialects" with Mandarin, called the "mother tongue."
The Speak Mandarin campaign began in 1979 as a PAP project and was subsequently institutionalized in the Mandarin Campaign Secretariat in the Ministry of Communications and Information. The promotion of Mandarin as a common Chinese language dates back to the early years of the century, when it was associated with the rise of Chinese nationalism and the foundation of Chinese schools. Learning Mandarin would, it was argued, permit all Chinese to communicate in their "mother tongue," be useful for doing business with China, and, perhaps most important, promote traditional Chinese values. All ethnic Chinese were required to study Mandarin through secondary school and to pass examinations in it for university admission. Chinese civil servants took a required 162-hour conversational Mandarin course, and the Mandarin Campaign Secretariat coordinated the annual Speak Mandarin campaigns. Mandarin classes were offered by the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry and by some native-place and clan associations. All Chinese television broadcasting was in Mandarin, as was most radio broadcasting. Radio programs in Chinese dialects were limited to 9:00 P.M. to midnight on the same station that broadcast Tamil from 5:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. In 1989 members of Parliament complained that some residents were tuning in to Cantonese opera broadcast by television stations in neighboring Malaysia.
By late 1988, some 87 percent of the Chinese population claimed to be able to speak Mandarin. People did not agree, however, on the appropriate social contexts for use of what was for everyone a school language.
As a result, people tended to use English or their native tongue on most everyday occasions. During the late 1980s, the Speak Mandarin campaign attempted to persuade people to use Mandarin when shopping and targeted taxi drivers, bus conductors, and operators of food stalls as workers who were to use Mandarin.
The goals of the Speak Mandarin campaign included improving communication between Chinese speech groups, teaching people to read Chinese, and promoting Confucianism. Some critics argued that children were expected to learn two foreign languages in school (English and Mandarin) and that for some students the result was fluency in neither.
The official response was that the problem would be avoided if people would speak Mandarin at home. Some educators questioned whether a sufficient level of Chinese literacy could be achieved with the amount of time the schools devoted to Chinese, a point that was indirectly supported in August 1988 when Brigadier General Lee Hsien Loong, the minister for trade and industry and son of Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, urged Chinese newspapers to use simpler language to attract younger readers.
Some academics questioned the restriction of Chinese values to Confucianism and recalled that in the 1950s and early 1960s Chinese was the language of radicalism and revolt rather than of loyalty and conservatism.
The necessity of learning Mandarin to conserve traditional Chinese culture was not obvious to those Chinese who felt that Chinese culture had been transmitted for centuries through Hokkien, Teochiu, and Cantonese.
They pointed out that the colloquial speech of modern Beijing (upon which Mandarin is based) was as distant from the classical Chinese of the Confucian texts as was colloquial Cantonese.
Giving up the dialects implied a major transformation of the social structure of the Chinese community, because the associational and commercial structure of Singapore's Chinese-oriented society rested on (and reinforced) dialect distinctions.
http://countrystudies.us/singapore/20.htm
If you are curious as to why the languages is so seriously messed up in Singapore, why there is a singlish, etc.
Go and study the language policies of the PAP since they came to power.
The endless destruction of traditional language schools, the suppression of local languages, the use of alien foreign languages that cannot be understood by majority of people, the endless useless speak mandarin, speak english campaigns etc, the manipulation of state mass media to impose alien languages upon the population.
Go and study these things and you will be clear that the state of the messed up language situation in Singapore is all entirely due to PAP and Lee Kuan Yew.
The sickest part about all these is that it was all completely unnecessary, because the population of Singapore is majority chinese.
In Singapore, bastion of British strength in Southeast Asia, the Communists at last felt strong enough to attack in the open. For months they had worked to infiltrate the local Chinese, who make up 80% of the city's 1,200,000 population.
80% chinese, which meant that a simple common mandarin in schools, mandarin as the dominant language would do the simple trick.
But no.
Not for Lee Kuan Yew.
He didn't know mandarin. He was not chinese. So no.
So he must go and mess everything up to serve his own interests.
Created by three founders, namely Tan Chye Cheng, John Laycock and Nazir Ahmad Mallal, all three founders were educated at London University and were three of the six first ever elected legislative councillors in Singapore. (The other three were independents. They include Sardon Bin Haji Zubir, S.C Goho and Mohamed Javed Namazie)
Party ideology
The Progressive Party was heavily backed and made up of English-speaking upper class professionals.
Its campaign ideology was to advocate progressive and gradual reforms, rather than sudden, quick, radical ones, which fell in line with British policy at the time, to slowly let Singapore gain full self-government. This approach was criticised vehemently by David Saul Marshall, leader of the Labour Front who instead wanted rapid reform. The locals (especially the Chinese), and the communists also blasted the Progressive Party, claiming that they are Hanjian, or traitors in Chinese.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(Singapore)
After his education in Britain, Lee Kuan Yew returned to Singapore in 1949 to practise as a lawyer in the law firm Laycock and Ong.He became the honorary legal adviser for several trade unions after being acquainted with their leaders (in 1951) and subsequently caught the public eye in February 1952, when the Postal Workers Union succeeded, with his guidance, in obtaining important concessions from the colonial government.
According to his memoirs and this website, Lee Kuan Yew then proceeded to form the PAP with the help of the communists. Yet these sources conveniently neglect to mention Lee Kuan Yew's involvement in the Singapore Progressive Party in the 1951 legislative elections. In fact, Lee acted as the election agent for his boss John Laycock, helping him to manage his campaign and canvass on his behalf. (See here and here for proof) He had thus entered into politics even before he became involved in the trade unions' dispute with the British. (Polling day for the 1951 legislative elections was on 10 April, we can assume that his political activities with the SPP started months before that)
If I may speculate, LKY joined the SPP initially to build up his political career there. However when the Rendel Constitution expanded the electoral rolls to include all local-born as voters, resulting in a significant increase in Chinese voters, LKY decided to jump ship and formed the PAP in 1954 because he saw that the SPP lacked the support of the Chinese working class. (So the next time LKY condemns politicians who change political parties, you know where he's coming from)
Yet the problem isn't solely that LKY jumped ship and didn't care to tell anyone about his great experience in his memoirs. The bigger problem lies in the fact that LKY supported the SPP despite the fact that it was A) pro-British in both its policies and in its composition of members (mostly English-speaking upper class professionals) B) unsupportive of achieving independence (it merely paid lip-service to the idea by declaring in October 1952, its objective of Singapore achieving independence through a Singapore-Malaya merger without setting a target date)
LKY's miraculous change of heart on these issues when he joined the PAP only demonstrates how the pursuit of power can sometimes make one very flexible about their beliefs. Unfortunately for us, this flexibility of LKY's did not extend to the area of political freedoms.
http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/secret-blog/2009/09/is-lee-kuan-yew-more-interested-in.html
It seems that when it comes to Lee Kuan Yew, everything is a lie, everything is a fraud, everything is only purely for political effect.
To him it is only power that matters.
Originally posted by Jenri619june:find it so nuts...our chinese standard aready so bad still wan reduce somemore sure cmi.
they push english more than mother tongue in the past then end up mmore n more families that speak eng at home...= drop in standard of chinese then they wad intro chinese b.
let ppl see as easy way out...
i tell u we will lose our roots if they go on reducing.
To be blunt, most or all of us dun even speak English. We speak Singlish. Except for the written part, which is much better.
Well all i wanna say is...
Hey, its the basics!
Think about it.
Singapore is going, and gone.
Wonder how would foreigners see us as? A country with no tradition? might aswell go other country and invest better still.
Originally posted by Fuck PAP & Lee Kuan Yew:After his education in Britain, Lee Kuan Yew returned to Singapore in 1949 to practise as a lawyer in the law firm Laycock and Ong.He became the honorary legal adviser for several trade unions after being acquainted with their leaders (in 1951) and subsequently caught the public eye in February 1952, when the Postal Workers Union succeeded, with his guidance, in obtaining important concessions from the colonial government.
According to his memoirs and this website, Lee Kuan Yew then proceeded to form the PAP with the help of the communists. Yet these sources conveniently neglect to mention Lee Kuan Yew's involvement in the Singapore Progressive Party in the 1951 legislative elections. In fact, Lee acted as the election agent for his boss John Laycock, helping him to manage his campaign and canvass on his behalf. (See here and here for proof) He had thus entered into politics even before he became involved in the trade unions' dispute with the British. (Polling day for the 1951 legislative elections was on 10 April, we can assume that his political activities with the SPP started months before that)
If I may speculate, LKY joined the SPP initially to build up his political career there. However when the Rendel Constitution expanded the electoral rolls to include all local-born as voters, resulting in a significant increase in Chinese voters, LKY decided to jump ship and formed the PAP in 1954 because he saw that the SPP lacked the support of the Chinese working class. (So the next time LKY condemns politicians who change political parties, you know where he's coming from)
Yet the problem isn't solely that LKY jumped ship and didn't care to tell anyone about his great experience in his memoirs. The bigger problem lies in the fact that LKY supported the SPP despite the fact that it was A) pro-British in both its policies and in its composition of members (mostly English-speaking upper class professionals) B) unsupportive of achieving independence (it merely paid lip-service to the idea by declaring in October 1952, its objective of Singapore achieving independence through a Singapore-Malaya merger without setting a target date)
LKY's miraculous change of heart on these issues when he joined the PAP only demonstrates how the pursuit of power can sometimes make one very flexible about their beliefs. Unfortunately for us, this flexibility of LKY's did not extend to the area of political freedoms.http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/secret-blog/2009/09/is-lee-kuan-yew-more-interested-in.html
It seems that when it comes to Lee Kuan Yew, everything is a lie, everything is a fraud, everything is only purely for political effect.
To him it is only power that matters.
Please teach me quantum physics in chinese. Nah beh, you can teach such subject not in english, I say that you are good.
æ–°åŠ å�¡çš„教育部三番两次对å�Žæ–‡çš„教育政ç–作出改é�©ä¸Žè°ƒæ•´ï¼Œè¿™ä¸�仅让我感å�¹æœ¬åœ°çš„å�Žæ–‡æ•™è‚²çš„没è�½ï¼Œè€Œä¸”也让我感到å�³å¤±æœ›å�ˆç—›å¿ƒã€‚教育部æ£åœ¨è€ƒè™‘å‡�å°‘æ²�浴在å°�刘辉考的比é‡�，是为了让那些æ¯�è¯è¾ƒå¼±çš„å¦ç”Ÿä¸�ä¼šå› æ¯�è¯çš„æˆ�绩ä¸�ç�†æƒ³è€Œå¤±åŽ»å�‡ä¸Šè¾ƒå¥½çš„ä¸å¦å¿µä¹¦çš„机会。å°�å…会考是鉴定å¦ç”ŸåŸºæœ¬çš„å�Žè¯èƒ½åŠ›çš„考试，如果我们ä¸�好好地利用它，而一直å�šå‡ºç§�ç§�çš„é€€è®©ï¼Œè¿™æ ·ä¼šå¯¼è‡´å¦ç”Ÿå¤±åŽ»æœ€åŸºæœ¬çš„å�Žè¯æ²Ÿé€šèƒ½åŠ›ï¼Œè¯»å†™çš„能力还得了呢。
如果å�Žæ–‡åœ¨ä¼šè€ƒä¸çœŸçš„ä¸�比其他科目æ�¥å¾—é‡�è¦�çš„è¯�，刚入å°�å¦çš„å¦ç”Ÿå¤šå¤šå°‘少会抱ç�€ä¸€ç§�å�Žæ–‡è¿™ä¸€ç§‘并ä¸�é‡�è¦�的心æ€�，并且ä¸�会把心æ€�放在那科目上。怎么说，人都是很现实的，家长必定会è¦�求å�女把心æ€�å�Žåœ¨åŠ 强英è¯ï¼Œæ•°å¦å’Œç§‘å¦ï¼Œè¿™äº›å� æˆ�绩比é‡�è¾ƒå¤§çš„ç§‘ç›®ä¸Šï¼Œå› è€Œå¿½ç•¥äº†å�Žæ–‡ã€‚å¦ç”Ÿä¹Ÿä¼šå�—比é‡�å·®è·�çš„å½±å“�，而没有动力去å¦å¥½å�Žæ–‡ã€‚
æ–°åŠ å�¡çš„唯一资æº�æ�¥è‡ªäººä»¬ï¼Œæ‰€ä»¥æ•™è‚²éƒ¨æ‰�会ä¸�æƒœç ¸ä¸‹é‡�本æ�¥æ•™è‚²æˆ‘们，希望我们能够为将æ�¥çš„æ–°åŠ å�¡å°½ä¸€ä»½åŠ›ã€‚éš�ç�€ä¸å›½ç»�æµŽçš„å´›èµ·ï¼Œæ–°åŠ å�¡æ”¿åºœä¹Ÿä¸€ç›´åœ¨å¼ºè°ƒå�Žæ–‡æ•™è‚²çš„体制必须担负起为国家培育å�Žæ–‡ç²¾è‹±çš„责任，所以æ‰�会有了所谓的‘å�Œè¯æ”¿ç–’，好让本地人能够在国际市场上å� 优势。但是，在å°�å…会考ä¸å°±æŠŠå�Žæ–‡è¦�求é™�ä½Žï¼Œå¿…å®šä¼šé€ æˆ�å¦ç”Ÿçš„å�Žæ–‡èƒ½åŠ›å�˜å¾—è¾ƒå·®ã€‚æ–°åŠ å�¡è¦�é€ å°±å�Œè¯ç²¾è‹±çš„ç›®æ ‡å°±ä¼šæ˜¾å¾—é�¥ä¸�å�¯å�Šã€‚
å�Žæ–‡æ˜¯æˆ‘们的æ¯�è¯ï¼Œè�”ç³»ç�€æˆ‘ä»¬çš„æ–‡åŒ–å’Œæ ¹æº�，并也象å¾�äº†æˆ‘ä»¬å‡ å�ƒå¹´çš„历å�²ã€‚身为一ä½�å�Žäººï¼Œæœ€é‡�è¦�的是è¦�æ‡‚å¾—æ€Žæ ·ä»¥è‡ªå·±çš„æ¯�è¯æ�¥ä¸Žè‡ªå·±çš„å�Œèƒžæ²Ÿé€šã€‚连外国人也赶上了这å¦ä¹ å�Žæ–‡çš„çƒæ½®ï¼Œä¸�惜劳苦地把å�Žè¯å¦å¥½ã€‚æ–°åŠ å�¡å…·å¤‡ä¸€ä¸ªå¾—天独厚的å�Œè¯çŽ¯å¢ƒï¼Œä½†æ˜¯æˆ‘们å�´ä¸�懂得ç��惜。长æ¤ä»¥å¾€ï¼Œæ–°åŠ å�¡åœ¨æ”¾å¼ƒäº†è¿™æ ·ä¸€ä¸ªå¼ºå¤§çš„优势情况å�Žï¼Œå�ˆè¦�æ€Žæ ·ä¿�æŒ�ç�€è‡ªå·±çš„竞争力呢？
Originally posted by Junyang700:To be blunt, most or all of us dun even speak English. We speak Singlish. Except for the written part, which is much better.
Haha i think around there la...
this is really getting hopeless...i see my brother's chin compo, (12 this yr) no flow at all. guess wad he is studying higher MT...
I guess this issue is still a much debatable thing online so as a moderator who is "in-charge" of Chinese in this forum, i shall say something.
I remember making this comment here saying, "Hey, it is the basics!" What i meant was essentially that at primary level, if we start to cut weightage of the subject in PSLE, then what will happen at higher level?
When we have Chinese 'B' at Junior college and Secondary school level to cater for different chinese level, do we still need to cut down subject weightage in primary school levels? When weightage level goes down, focus on the subject will naturally will not be as much as others. When parents start not to place emphasis on chinese and instead concentrate on other more "valuable" subjects like English Maths or Science, i believe that Chinese language abilities of our kids will not be as strong as before. It would be a good thing if our parents can start to improve the chinese language ability of our children because they think that it is our root and it is our "responsiblity" to learn it well. But i think that is not the case, with our English speaking society as well as more and more English speaking families, there is still a risk of families forgo-ing the learning of Chinese and believe that putting more attention on English Maths and Science will be more beneficial to them.
I am afraid will there comes a day when the Ministry starts to give parents the option of not letting their children learn mother tongue. I hope it will not happen.
If student A aced his 3 subjects and neglect his Mother tougue, then his computation of scores under a 5-point system (A-5, B-4, C-3, D-2 & E-1) would be:
ABAE = 5+4+5+1 = 15 (Average=3.75)
If student B is above average for his 3 subjects and his Mother tougue, then his computation of scores under a 5-point system (A-5, B-4, C-3, D-2 & E-1) would be:
BBBC = 4+4+4+3 = 15 (Average=3.75)
In this aspect, it is preferably to let the primary school students to pass through PSLE so as to achieve a legibility society.
However, once the two students reached secondary school where one more subjects are included, then the current existing 5-point system would be disadvantage to the above average student.
If student A aced his 4 subjects and neglect his Mother tougue, then his computation of scores under a 5-point system (A-5, B-4, C-3, D-2 & E-1) would be:
ABAAE = 5+4+5+5+1 = 20 (Average=4.0)
If student B is above average for his 4 subjects and his Mother tougue, then his computation of scores under a 5-point system (A-5, B-4, C-3, D-2 & E-1) would be:
BBBBC = 4+4+4+4+3 = 19 (Average=3.8)
This is not fair to all-rounder student B.
Proposed suggestion is to convert the 5-point system to 4.5-point system (A-4.5, B-4.0, C-3.5, D-3.0, E-2.0, F-0)
If student A aced his 4 subjects and neglect his Mother tougue, then his computation of scores under a 4.5-point system would be:
ABAAE = 4.5+4+4.5+4.5+2 = 19.5 (Average=3.9)
If student B is above average for his 4 subjects and his Mother tougue, then his computation of scores under a 4.5-point system:
BBBBC = 4+4+4+4+3.5 = 19.5 (Average=3.9)
The purpose of the recommended system is to push up the learning of mother tougue as well as to maintain the harmony and diversity of multi-cultural Singapore. If student A who is aiming for a scholarship, then he/she should make an effort to brush up his mother tougue to at least a pass level to get a better score of 20.5 (average 4.1) to be classified as an all-rounder like the above average student B. Thank you.
Originally posted by angel7030:
I hv no doubt that few centuries later, some peoples will be worshipping LKY instead of General Kuan
China gt ppl worship chairman mao.
Originally posted by ~PEPPER~:
China gt ppl worship chairman mao.
Not surprising. Even the Yuan has his face. LOL...
China many religions. U watch documentary shows u will know even fish can worship.
Hi,
Learn the language for the sake of learning, regardless. Thanks.
Cheers,
Wen Shih
My previous post got locked for some reason. Is my stand displeasing to the moderators of this forum? In any case, I'm going to post it here again and let's see what happens:
I read with a heavy heart two ST forum pieces published on May 5, 2010 in support of cutting MT weighting at the primary level (“Cut it to focus on other subjects? Precisely” by Kenneth Kwok [http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum...y_522641.html] and “Examine why many families felt forced to migrate” by Jason Lu [http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/...y_522640.html]). Close reading of their viewpoints will show their arguments to be motivated by personal agendas that seek instant gratification, and to be lacking in foresight.
Mr Lu suggests that many families are migrating due to their children facing difficulties in coping with Chinese, and hence it is advisable for MT weighting to be cut. This proposal is absurd at best. Any responsible parents’ response to a child failing to cope with a subject would be to try all means to improve the child’s proficiency. It is inconceivable to try to coerce policy-makers into undercutting sound assessment policies just in order to create a false impression of academic excellence. Even if what Mr. Lu suggests turns out to be true, would we want to subvert a vital educational policy to retain citizens whose first reaction to hardship is to flee the country? Furthermore, in stating that “subjects like English and other vital character-moulding activities… have suffered because pupils have had to sacrifice the time for them in order to study Chinese”, Mr. Lu has revealed his scant regards for MT. It is little wonder, by Mr. Lu’s own admission, that his children detested the language from the very beginning. This is the root cause that has resulted in their poor performance despite much effort and time spent, not a fallacious perception of “unfair” weighting.
In the other article, Dr Kwok’s primary argument in support of cutting MT weighting hinges on two points. Firstly, that the emphasis on a bilingual education will produce “incomplete all-rounders” who are proficient in neither language. As a trained linguist with years of teaching experience, I can assure Dr. Kwok that the viability of a bilingual education is a well-researched domain and attested practice. Examples of successful bilingual educational policies where two or more languages are mandated as compulsory subjects are plentiful, especially in European countries. There are simply no scientific grounds to say that learning two languages will result in mastery of neither. But more speciously, Dr Kwok argues that de-emphasizing MT will allow for students to “specialize” in other subjects where they may have a “natural flair”. He further insinuates that such a move will then provide the “right emphasis”. What is the “right emphasis” according to Dr. Kwok? By the same argument, we can also cut the weighting of any other subject to allow focus on whatever the student’s “natural flair” dictates. Why then target only MT for a weighting cut? Perhaps unconsciously, Dr. Kwok has also exhibited the same less-than-altruistic tendencies of Mr. Lu.
At this juncture, I would like to call attention to a critical but yet untouched aspect of this discussion, namely that the focal object here is primary education which is first and foremost foundational education. Hence is why primary students learn Maths instead of algebra or calculus; Science instead of chemistry, physics or biology; English and MT instead of literature or cultural history. The goal of primary education is to provide the most basic of building blocks, so that all students will have the ability to pursue different domains of study on a firm footing, as well as the flexibility to undertake or switch different field of works later on in life. Arguably, this is the basis for holistic development and life-long learning. Given the foundational nature of primary education, equal weighting given to all four generic subjects is nothing less than essential. This, ironically opposed by Dr. Kwok, is exactly what has allowed “second language dropouts” to reconnect with the language when the need arises. Therefore I find the call to specialize, an often-used line of reasoning in this ensuing debate, to be highly misplaced at the early stages of a child’s education. There is also something to be said for emphasizing groundwork and standing firm in the face of personal inclinations.
The crux of the matter is, as so aptly pointed out by Mr. Lu, emotive in nature. While I understand and empathize with English-speaking families possibly such as Mr. Lu’s, I must also beseech them to be dispassionate and exercise impartiality, not only for the good of their children but also for future generations of Singaporeans. It bears to reiterate that upholding the bilingual policy is a cornerstone of Singapore’s global success. Cutting MT weighting at the primary level will lead to serious repercussions on all subsequent stages of education. Only when English-speaking parents show restrain in displaying Anglo-chauvinistic predisposition will their children really learn to appreciate their mother tongue, and eventually conquer this seemingly insurmountable obstacle. Rather than pointing fingers at all MT-related policies, perhaps its high time parents take a long hard look at how their own attitude maybe negatively affecting their children’s motivation to acquire MT.
Originally posted by UCLA_Lim:My previous post got locked for some reason. Is my stand displeasing to the moderators of this forum? In any case, I'm going to post it here again and let's see what happens:
I read with a heavy heart two ST forum pieces published on May 5, 2010 in support of cutting MT weighting at the primary level (“Cut it to focus on other subjects? Precisely” by Kenneth Kwok [http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum...y_522641.html] and “Examine why many families felt forced to migrate” by Jason Lu [http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/...y_522640.html]). Close reading of their viewpoints will show their arguments to be motivated by personal agendas that seek instant gratification, and to be lacking in foresight.
Mr Lu suggests that many families are migrating due to their children facing difficulties in coping with Chinese, and hence it is advisable for MT weighting to be cut. This proposal is absurd at best. Any responsible parents’ response to a child failing to cope with a subject would be to try all means to improve the child’s proficiency. It is inconceivable to try to coerce policy-makers into undercutting sound assessment policies just in order to create a false impression of academic excellence. Even if what Mr. Lu suggests turns out to be true, would we want to subvert a vital educational policy to retain citizens whose first reaction to hardship is to flee the country? Furthermore, in stating that “subjects like English and other vital character-moulding activities… have suffered because pupils have had to sacrifice the time for them in order to study Chinese”, Mr. Lu has revealed his scant regards for MT. It is little wonder, by Mr. Lu’s own admission, that his children detested the language from the very beginning. This is the root cause that has resulted in their poor performance despite much effort and time spent, not a fallacious perception of “unfair” weighting.
In the other article, Dr Kwok’s primary argument in support of cutting MT weighting hinges on two points. Firstly, that the emphasis on a bilingual education will produce “incomplete all-rounders” who are proficient in neither language. As a trained linguist with years of teaching experience, I can assure Dr. Kwok that the viability of a bilingual education is a well-researched domain and attested practice. Examples of successful bilingual educational policies where two or more languages are mandated as compulsory subjects are plentiful, especially in European countries. There are simply no scientific grounds to say that learning two languages will result in mastery of neither. But more speciously, Dr Kwok argues that de-emphasizing MT will allow for students to “specialize” in other subjects where they may have a “natural flair”. He further insinuates that such a move will then provide the “right emphasis”. What is the “right emphasis” according to Dr. Kwok? By the same argument, we can also cut the weighting of any other subject to allow focus on whatever the student’s “natural flair” dictates. Why then target only MT for a weighting cut? Perhaps unconsciously, Dr. Kwok has also exhibited the same less-than-altruistic tendencies of Mr. Lu.
At this juncture, I would like to call attention to a critical but yet untouched aspect of this discussion, namely that the focal object here is primary education which is first and foremost foundational education. Hence is why primary students learn Maths instead of algebra or calculus; Science instead of chemistry, physics or biology; English and MT instead of literature or cultural history. The goal of primary education is to provide the most basic of building blocks, so that all students will have the ability to pursue different domains of study on a firm footing, as well as the flexibility to undertake or switch different field of works later on in life. Arguably, this is the basis for holistic development and life-long learning. Given the foundational nature of primary education, equal weighting given to all four generic subjects is nothing less than essential. This, ironically opposed by Dr. Kwok, is exactly what has allowed “second language dropouts” to reconnect with the language when the need arises. Therefore I find the call to specialize, an often-used line of reasoning in this ensuing debate, to be highly misplaced at the early stages of a child’s education. There is also something to be said for emphasizing groundwork and standing firm in the face of personal inclinations.
The crux of the matter is, as so aptly pointed out by Mr. Lu, emotive in nature. While I understand and empathize with English-speaking families possibly such as Mr. Lu’s, I must also beseech them to be dispassionate and exercise impartiality, not only for the good of their children but also for future generations of Singaporeans. It bears to reiterate that upholding the bilingual policy is a cornerstone of Singapore’s global success. Cutting MT weighting at the primary level will lead to serious repercussions on all subsequent stages of education. Only when English-speaking parents show restrain in displaying Anglo-chauvinistic predisposition will their children really learn to appreciate their mother tongue, and eventually conquer this seemingly insurmountable obstacle. Rather than pointing fingers at all MT-related policies, perhaps its high time parents take a long hard look at how their own attitude maybe negatively affecting their children’s motivation to acquire MT.
My apologies for that thread being locked, as my moderators have probably forgotten to remind you all to keep similar topics into one thread.
And i emphasize this once again here.
Meanwhile, please feel free to express your opinions about this issue over here. Any other thread regardings this issue will be locked.
Thanks
Originally posted by Jesslyn 26:æ–°åŠ å�¡çš„教育部三番两次对å�Žæ–‡çš„教育政ç–作出改é�©ä¸Žè°ƒæ•´ï¼Œè¿™ä¸�仅让我感å�¹æœ¬åœ°çš„å�Žæ–‡æ•™è‚²çš„没è�½ï¼Œè€Œä¸”也让我感到å�³å¤±æœ›å�ˆç—›å¿ƒã€‚教育部æ£åœ¨è€ƒè™‘å‡�å°‘æ²�浴在å°�刘辉考的比é‡�，是为了让那些æ¯�è¯è¾ƒå¼±çš„å¦ç”Ÿä¸�ä¼šå› æ¯�è¯çš„æˆ�绩ä¸�ç�†æƒ³è€Œå¤±åŽ»å�‡ä¸Šè¾ƒå¥½çš„ä¸å¦å¿µä¹¦çš„机会。å°�å…会考是鉴定å¦ç”ŸåŸºæœ¬çš„å�Žè¯èƒ½åŠ›çš„考试，如果我们ä¸�好好地利用它，而一直å�šå‡ºç§�ç§�çš„é€€è®©ï¼Œè¿™æ ·ä¼šå¯¼è‡´å¦ç”Ÿå¤±åŽ»æœ€åŸºæœ¬çš„å�Žè¯æ²Ÿé€šèƒ½åŠ›ï¼Œè¯»å†™çš„能力还得了呢。
如果å�Žæ–‡åœ¨ä¼šè€ƒä¸çœŸçš„ä¸�比其他科目æ�¥å¾—é‡�è¦�çš„è¯�，刚入å°�å¦çš„å¦ç”Ÿå¤šå¤šå°‘少会抱ç�€ä¸€ç§�å�Žæ–‡è¿™ä¸€ç§‘并ä¸�é‡�è¦�的心æ€�，并且ä¸�会把心æ€�放在那科目上。怎么说，人都是很现实的，家长必定会è¦�求å�女把心æ€�å�Žåœ¨åŠ 强英è¯ï¼Œæ•°å¦å’Œç§‘å¦ï¼Œè¿™äº›å� æˆ�绩比é‡�è¾ƒå¤§çš„ç§‘ç›®ä¸Šï¼Œå› è€Œå¿½ç•¥äº†å�Žæ–‡ã€‚å¦ç”Ÿä¹Ÿä¼šå�—比é‡�å·®è·�çš„å½±å“�，而没有动力去å¦å¥½å�Žæ–‡ã€‚
æ–°åŠ å�¡çš„唯一资æº�æ�¥è‡ªäººä»¬ï¼Œæ‰€ä»¥æ•™è‚²éƒ¨æ‰�会ä¸�æƒœç ¸ä¸‹é‡�本æ�¥æ•™è‚²æˆ‘们，希望我们能够为将æ�¥çš„æ–°åŠ å�¡å°½ä¸€ä»½åŠ›ã€‚éš�ç�€ä¸å›½ç»�æµŽçš„å´›èµ·ï¼Œæ–°åŠ å�¡æ”¿åºœä¹Ÿä¸€ç›´åœ¨å¼ºè°ƒå�Žæ–‡æ•™è‚²çš„体制必须担负起为国家培育å�Žæ–‡ç²¾è‹±çš„责任，所以æ‰�会有了所谓的‘å�Œè¯æ”¿ç–’，好让本地人能够在国际市场上å� 优势。但是，在å°�å…会考ä¸å°±æŠŠå�Žæ–‡è¦�求é™�ä½Žï¼Œå¿…å®šä¼šé€ æˆ�å¦ç”Ÿçš„å�Žæ–‡èƒ½åŠ›å�˜å¾—è¾ƒå·®ã€‚æ–°åŠ å�¡è¦�é€ å°±å�Œè¯ç²¾è‹±çš„ç›®æ ‡å°±ä¼šæ˜¾å¾—é�¥ä¸�å�¯å�Šã€‚
å�Žæ–‡æ˜¯æˆ‘们的æ¯�è¯ï¼Œè�”ç³»ç�€æˆ‘ä»¬çš„æ–‡åŒ–å’Œæ ¹æº�，并也象å¾�äº†æˆ‘ä»¬å‡ å�ƒå¹´çš„历å�²ã€‚身为一ä½�å�Žäººï¼Œæœ€é‡�è¦�的是è¦�æ‡‚å¾—æ€Žæ ·ä»¥è‡ªå·±çš„æ¯�è¯æ�¥ä¸Žè‡ªå·±çš„å�Œèƒžæ²Ÿé€šã€‚连外国人也赶上了这å¦ä¹ å�Žæ–‡çš„çƒæ½®ï¼Œä¸�惜劳苦地把å�Žè¯å¦å¥½ã€‚æ–°åŠ å�¡å…·å¤‡ä¸€ä¸ªå¾—天独厚的å�Œè¯çŽ¯å¢ƒï¼Œä½†æ˜¯æˆ‘们å�´ä¸�懂得ç��惜。长æ¤ä»¥å¾€ï¼Œæ–°åŠ å�¡åœ¨æ”¾å¼ƒäº†è¿™æ ·ä¸€ä¸ªå¼ºå¤§çš„优势情况å�Žï¼Œå�ˆè¦�æ€Žæ ·ä¿�æŒ�ç�€è‡ªå·±çš„竞争力呢？
我也希望å�Žæ–‡çš„å¦ä¹ ，ä¸�å�•å�•æ˜¯å› 为ä¸å›½çš„崛起，想è¦�æ�这个ç»�济“顺风车”， ä¹Ÿæ˜¯å› ä¸ºæˆ‘ä»¬æ˜¯å�Žäººå�弟，炎黄å�å™ï¼Œè�”ç³»ç�€ç¥–先的å�ƒå¹´æ–‡åŒ–和历å�²è€Œæ„Ÿåˆ°éª„傲。
So can anyone explain to me how can quantum physics be taught in Chinese in Singapore public schools?
Fucker of PAP and Lee Kuan Yew says that it can be done easily and without revamping the curriculum and causing parents to have headaches trying to coach their children in A levels quantum physics.