-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Insistence on bilingualism in early years of education policy was wrong: MM Lee
- Thread starter motuiti
- Start date
YES......Let's vote them out.........LKY to the Grave............I am pressty sure he will collapse and die.........if he loses..............or maybe he will runaway with our money...and be in California resort laughing at all the Singaporeans who sponsored the LEE family.
Aiyah, being Bilingual not that bad lah, can use to talk with PRC mei mei mah. Whats the big fuss about? I think he is only saying this now because his children are not as multi-lingual as he is. LHL mandarin is "shit" compared to him. It might be a way for him to save some face for the famiLee in the future once he up the lorry lah.
You are right, there is nothing wrong with being bilingual. Most people in Europe speak three languages, so why shouldn't people in singapore speak two?
What was wrong the policy which penalised one for not being academically proficienct in the second language. If you didn't pass 2nd language, you can't move up, you can't get to JC, you can't get to uni, you can't get anything. That was wrong.
And the methods of teaching were so archaic and illogical. That was wrong too. I knew many friends from Chinese speaking families who couldn't pass their CL2 and were deprived of opportunities for further education. That was wrong.
It was wrong to submit an entire generation to such torture and to penalise them for something which was not their fault at all!
Many students spent large amount of hours on just passing their CL2 at the expense of their other subjects and lifestyle because of that policy. That was wrong.
For this, and more, he should apologise.
What was wrong the policy which penalised one for not being academically proficienct in the second language. If you didn't pass 2nd language, you can't move up, you can't get to JC, you can't get to uni, you can't get anything. That was wrong.
And the methods of teaching were so archaic and illogical. That was wrong too. I knew many friends from Chinese speaking families who couldn't pass their CL2 and were deprived of opportunities for further education. That was wrong.
It was wrong to submit an entire generation to such torture and to penalise them for something which was not their fault at all!
Many students spent large amount of hours on just passing their CL2 at the expense of their other subjects and lifestyle because of that policy. That was wrong.
For this, and more, he should apologise.
He is not apologising. He has admitted a mistake but did not apologise.
He should apologise for such a grave mistake.
If Sporeans had punished the PAP by NOT electing PAP, I'm sure he would be singing a different tune. Unfortunately many citizens chose to give him too much power. Now its of course too late, the PAP can "fix" any opposition
Attending Chinese camp is ruining your life?
hi there
1. that is no apology.
2. nobody from the relevant establishment had advised.
3. you called this an apology after screwing sinkies again and again.
I always thought that he was brilliant but it took him 40 years of learning Mandarin to come to the conclusion that he was wrong, that he was deceiving himself, and had to learn from his daughter that language ability and intelligence are two different things as well as revealed that he had great difficulty in learning Mandarin!
He admitted that successive generations of students paid a heavy price for his "ignorance" but fell short of apologising for his mistake.
Apologise?
Hahaha, you obviously don't know him well.
我为我的孩子做出了另一类的教育选择，那就是到用有学习中文的异地去读书。这地方比新加坡具备了更好的中文学习环境，也有学习英文的条件。虽然英文教育会比新加坡逊色，但是英语是比较容易学上手的。
如果我们要有选择并不是没有，但是代价非常大。
我本身就为我女儿做出了这语言教育的选择，让她在异地读书，从幼稚园开始。许多朋友甚至政治圈的人物都非常困惑为何我会做出这样一个代价非常的选择，但是我还是坚持了我的想法。
学习语言不止是fun不fun的问题，更重要的是切身运用的问题。在新加坡你走在街上，很难会看到几个华文字，这对一个学童来说根本就是潜移默化的暗示中文并不重要，或者是中文只是课室里应付考试的学科，甚至是一个令人乏味的学科。
所以我坚持让我的孩子到一个处处有华文字的地方学习。这地方到处也有英文字，所以我并不担心她会失去学习英文的机会。学习英文毕竟比学习华文容易，因为华文是象形文字，英文是拼音文字。学习华文需要更多视觉的接触才能牢牢的把文字注入记忆。
我很庆幸我做出了这样的选择。如今我女儿读写中文字的基础超越一般同龄的新加坡学童，虽然英文基础稍微弱一些，但是要赶上并非难事。
生长在一个缺乏选择的国度里，我们必须要有更大勇气去作出非一般的抉择，甚至是周围亲朋好友都觉得匪夷所思的选项，才能冲出愚钝政策的枷锁。
我是不服这傲慢的自大和自以为是的执政党！
这关乎我下一代的教育和幸福，我怎么也不会妥协的。我可以留在新加坡为国人奋斗，试图为人民争取够多福利，但胜败谁也说不准。输了我大可一走了之，毕竟这是人民最终的选择，我也无怨无悔。但是要我孩子继续活在这独裁，任意拿各种事物来要挟人民的执政党的统治下，我是死也不会愿意的，更何况是关乎我下一代教育的方向，更不可被他们那误民愚民的政策给害了。
没办法，只有选择那一条路了。
吴明盛
我国华文教育失败的症结
● 王昌伟
文化视角
据报章报道，李光耀资政认为政府早年在推行双语政策时走错了方向，那是因为他错误地以为，只要智力相同，人们就能学好两种语文。
其实在我国，即使不是每个人都能精通双语，能学好两种语文的人为数并不少。根据个人的观察，在我们这一代受过大专教育的人当中，精通华文的人一般也能自如地使用英文，但精通英文的人却往往无法有效使用华文。问题的关键，不在于华文比英文难学，而在于我国华文教育的失败。
我们的双语政策的确是走错了方向，但我认为问题并不出在我们高估了学生同时掌握双语的能力，而恰恰是我们在华文的学习方面，太过“纵容”学生，太过为他们“着想”。
李资政经常以他学习华文的经历作为例子，说明一个人不可能同时精通两种语言，那我也想谈谈自己学习双语的经历。我的华文程度和李资政的英文程度一样，都达到母语(native language)的水平，但我相信我的英文程度应该比李资政的华文程度高。虽然不管是口语还是书面语，我的英文还存在瑕疵，但在日常的沟通之外，我还能用英语授课，能用英语发表演讲和与西方学者讨论高深的学问，也能用英文出版学术专著。
这绝不是因为我比李资政聪明，也不是因为我对英文有多热爱；相反的，因为家庭环境的关系，我从小对学习英文就有强烈的排斥心理，总觉得自己身为华人，为什么需要被迫去掌握一种不属于自己的语言。但在我们的教育体制下，不管你喜不喜欢，英文水平跟不上体制的要求，就随时会被淘汰。现实就是这么残酷，容不得你选择。
记得求学的时候，上英文课是一项苦差，几乎把上学的乐趣消磨殆尽。李资政说，双语政策所犯的其中一个错误是没考虑到讲英语学生的心理，但一直以来，我们的英文教育也从来没有考虑到讲华语学生的心理。不过现在回过头去，我反而感激我们的教育体制不但没有纵容我，还不断设立更高的标准，让我即使心不甘情不愿，但为了生存，还是不得不设法达让自己的英文达到不断提高的要求。
取法于上，仅得为中
正因为如此，我才能够打下一定的基础，让英文成为今天发展事业的一大助力。可以想像，如果当年的教育体制对我们这群讨厌英文的讲华语学生特别“关爱”，处处为我们“着想”，只要我们一觉得困难就降低程度来迎合我们，那我自然会产生一种侥幸的心理，更不可能会认真学习英文，等到日后真正需要使用英文的时候，就会陷入“书到用时方恨少”的窘境。
这正是我们的语文政策的最大错误。和李资政的认知相反，我们的双语教育，从来就不曾假设一般人都能同时学好双语。当年除了在少数的几所特选中学，华文都是被当成第二语文来教授的。即使后来在更多的学校开设了所谓的高级华文，其程度之低落仍然是有目共睹的。
李资政说，目前的挑战是通过能引起学生的学习兴趣的方法，让他们喜欢上这门语文，并在学生身上打下一定的华文基础，让他们日后如果到了中国等需要使用华文的地方工作，即使一时生疏，很快就能重新掌握。
这话固然没错，但我们的华文教育，是否真能为学生打下一定的基础？我曾在《特选中学计划成功了吗？》（2007年8月8日《联合早报》言论版）一文中举出血淋淋的例子，说明如果我们以为我们目前对学生的华文水平的要求，就能为他们打下一定的基础，无疑是在自欺欺人，更遑论继续顾及学生怕难的心理，进一步降低要求。
“取法于上，仅得为中；取法于中，故为其下”，这句话说明的道理显然是不难理解的。
利用富有创意的教学方式提高学生对华文的兴趣当然非常值得鼓励，但我们的错误，就在于以为降低要求是提高学生学习热忱的先决条件。从第二语文到华文B、到用英语教华文、到只需认字不必写字，这样一步步退让，也许当下能讨好学生，但等到学生日后需要运用华文的时候，他们是会恨我们耽误了他们的。
李资政还举出美国第二代中国人未必能学好华文作为例子，说明要学好一种语文必须先从抓住学生的兴趣开始。但我们的社会和美国其实存在明显的差异。美国华人学习华文缺乏有利的环境，而我们的学生即使出生在讲英语的家庭，在生活中，从日常的交谈到流行歌曲到影视节目到报刊读物，还是不缺乏接触华文的机会。新加坡社会有得天独厚的条件，让学生不管是出生在讲哪一种语言的家庭，都能随时随地接触双语。重要的是，我们不要通过错误的教育政策人为地去摧毁这样的环境，把新加坡变成一单语的社会。
我们常说，教育乃百年大业，肩负为国家培育英材重任的我们，能不慎思谨行？
作者任教于新加坡国立大学中文系
如果我们要有选择并不是没有，但是代价非常大。
我本身就为我女儿做出了这语言教育的选择，让她在异地读书，从幼稚园开始。许多朋友甚至政治圈的人物都非常困惑为何我会做出这样一个代价非常的选择，但是我还是坚持了我的想法。
学习语言不止是fun不fun的问题，更重要的是切身运用的问题。在新加坡你走在街上，很难会看到几个华文字，这对一个学童来说根本就是潜移默化的暗示中文并不重要，或者是中文只是课室里应付考试的学科，甚至是一个令人乏味的学科。
所以我坚持让我的孩子到一个处处有华文字的地方学习。这地方到处也有英文字，所以我并不担心她会失去学习英文的机会。学习英文毕竟比学习华文容易，因为华文是象形文字，英文是拼音文字。学习华文需要更多视觉的接触才能牢牢的把文字注入记忆。
我很庆幸我做出了这样的选择。如今我女儿读写中文字的基础超越一般同龄的新加坡学童，虽然英文基础稍微弱一些，但是要赶上并非难事。
生长在一个缺乏选择的国度里，我们必须要有更大勇气去作出非一般的抉择，甚至是周围亲朋好友都觉得匪夷所思的选项，才能冲出愚钝政策的枷锁。
我是不服这傲慢的自大和自以为是的执政党！
这关乎我下一代的教育和幸福，我怎么也不会妥协的。我可以留在新加坡为国人奋斗，试图为人民争取够多福利，但胜败谁也说不准。输了我大可一走了之，毕竟这是人民最终的选择，我也无怨无悔。但是要我孩子继续活在这独裁，任意拿各种事物来要挟人民的执政党的统治下，我是死也不会愿意的，更何况是关乎我下一代教育的方向，更不可被他们那误民愚民的政策给害了。
没办法，只有选择那一条路了。
吴明盛
我国华文教育失败的症结
● 王昌伟
文化视角
据报章报道，李光耀资政认为政府早年在推行双语政策时走错了方向，那是因为他错误地以为，只要智力相同，人们就能学好两种语文。
其实在我国，即使不是每个人都能精通双语，能学好两种语文的人为数并不少。根据个人的观察，在我们这一代受过大专教育的人当中，精通华文的人一般也能自如地使用英文，但精通英文的人却往往无法有效使用华文。问题的关键，不在于华文比英文难学，而在于我国华文教育的失败。
我们的双语政策的确是走错了方向，但我认为问题并不出在我们高估了学生同时掌握双语的能力，而恰恰是我们在华文的学习方面，太过“纵容”学生，太过为他们“着想”。
李资政经常以他学习华文的经历作为例子，说明一个人不可能同时精通两种语言，那我也想谈谈自己学习双语的经历。我的华文程度和李资政的英文程度一样，都达到母语(native language)的水平，但我相信我的英文程度应该比李资政的华文程度高。虽然不管是口语还是书面语，我的英文还存在瑕疵，但在日常的沟通之外，我还能用英语授课，能用英语发表演讲和与西方学者讨论高深的学问，也能用英文出版学术专著。
这绝不是因为我比李资政聪明，也不是因为我对英文有多热爱；相反的，因为家庭环境的关系，我从小对学习英文就有强烈的排斥心理，总觉得自己身为华人，为什么需要被迫去掌握一种不属于自己的语言。但在我们的教育体制下，不管你喜不喜欢，英文水平跟不上体制的要求，就随时会被淘汰。现实就是这么残酷，容不得你选择。
记得求学的时候，上英文课是一项苦差，几乎把上学的乐趣消磨殆尽。李资政说，双语政策所犯的其中一个错误是没考虑到讲英语学生的心理，但一直以来，我们的英文教育也从来没有考虑到讲华语学生的心理。不过现在回过头去，我反而感激我们的教育体制不但没有纵容我，还不断设立更高的标准，让我即使心不甘情不愿，但为了生存，还是不得不设法达让自己的英文达到不断提高的要求。
取法于上，仅得为中
正因为如此，我才能够打下一定的基础，让英文成为今天发展事业的一大助力。可以想像，如果当年的教育体制对我们这群讨厌英文的讲华语学生特别“关爱”，处处为我们“着想”，只要我们一觉得困难就降低程度来迎合我们，那我自然会产生一种侥幸的心理，更不可能会认真学习英文，等到日后真正需要使用英文的时候，就会陷入“书到用时方恨少”的窘境。
这正是我们的语文政策的最大错误。和李资政的认知相反，我们的双语教育，从来就不曾假设一般人都能同时学好双语。当年除了在少数的几所特选中学，华文都是被当成第二语文来教授的。即使后来在更多的学校开设了所谓的高级华文，其程度之低落仍然是有目共睹的。
李资政说，目前的挑战是通过能引起学生的学习兴趣的方法，让他们喜欢上这门语文，并在学生身上打下一定的华文基础，让他们日后如果到了中国等需要使用华文的地方工作，即使一时生疏，很快就能重新掌握。
这话固然没错，但我们的华文教育，是否真能为学生打下一定的基础？我曾在《特选中学计划成功了吗？》（2007年8月8日《联合早报》言论版）一文中举出血淋淋的例子，说明如果我们以为我们目前对学生的华文水平的要求，就能为他们打下一定的基础，无疑是在自欺欺人，更遑论继续顾及学生怕难的心理，进一步降低要求。
“取法于上，仅得为中；取法于中，故为其下”，这句话说明的道理显然是不难理解的。
利用富有创意的教学方式提高学生对华文的兴趣当然非常值得鼓励，但我们的错误，就在于以为降低要求是提高学生学习热忱的先决条件。从第二语文到华文B、到用英语教华文、到只需认字不必写字，这样一步步退让，也许当下能讨好学生，但等到学生日后需要运用华文的时候，他们是会恨我们耽误了他们的。
李资政还举出美国第二代中国人未必能学好华文作为例子，说明要学好一种语文必须先从抓住学生的兴趣开始。但我们的社会和美国其实存在明显的差异。美国华人学习华文缺乏有利的环境，而我们的学生即使出生在讲英语的家庭，在生活中，从日常的交谈到流行歌曲到影视节目到报刊读物，还是不缺乏接触华文的机会。新加坡社会有得天独厚的条件，让学生不管是出生在讲哪一种语言的家庭，都能随时随地接触双语。重要的是，我们不要通过错误的教育政策人为地去摧毁这样的环境，把新加坡变成一单语的社会。
我们常说，教育乃百年大业，肩负为国家培育英材重任的我们，能不慎思谨行？
作者任教于新加坡国立大学中文系
I totally agree with what you are saying here. Its the implementation of the 2nd language that is wrong. The old man is saying now its a mistake that language ability is not tied to intelligence, he is wrong again, in my personal opinion. I see everyday having language ability in the IT field all the time. You have to have a modicum of language ability to be in the programming field. Its called computing languages for a reason.
Indulge me for a moment here as I make the point that intelligence and languages are tied from the perspective of the programming field. In computer science, the parsing and translation from a language to another is governed by three things. Think of how something like Java can be made to run your actual CPU. Apology to the people that are not in this field.
The only difference in this case, compared to "natural" languages is that the vocabulary and grammar are ever evolving. There can be ambiguity in "natural" languages as well. The ability to learn new languages actually involves recognising the above three principles. Like which, when is it appropriate to use certain words, grammar etc. To be proficient in a language you have to "love" it. You have to think and breath it, this is where the second languages in Singapore got it so wrong, there is no program to instil "Love" of languages.
Another personal anecdote, I went through 10 years of education in Singapore, P1 till sec 4 O's. At the end of it, I hated english and mandarin. I'm neither proficient in both. After studying in Australia, my english improved, no surprise there, whats surprising is my mandarin actually improves as well. I could actually slang a bit of Peking accent if I want to. Can you imagine, you actually could improve mandarin in an "ang moh" country. Whats even more surprising, I picked up Cantonese, and Hokkien here as well and could distinguish between Penang and Singapore Hokkien.
What he should apologise is he failed to instil the love of languages. Its about fear, not being able to pass O's that gave everyone this impression that you have to pass CL2.
Indulge me for a moment here as I make the point that intelligence and languages are tied from the perspective of the programming field. In computer science, the parsing and translation from a language to another is governed by three things. Think of how something like Java can be made to run your actual CPU. Apology to the people that are not in this field.
- A starting symbol
- A list of vocabulary
- a set of grammar
The only difference in this case, compared to "natural" languages is that the vocabulary and grammar are ever evolving. There can be ambiguity in "natural" languages as well. The ability to learn new languages actually involves recognising the above three principles. Like which, when is it appropriate to use certain words, grammar etc. To be proficient in a language you have to "love" it. You have to think and breath it, this is where the second languages in Singapore got it so wrong, there is no program to instil "Love" of languages.
Another personal anecdote, I went through 10 years of education in Singapore, P1 till sec 4 O's. At the end of it, I hated english and mandarin. I'm neither proficient in both. After studying in Australia, my english improved, no surprise there, whats surprising is my mandarin actually improves as well. I could actually slang a bit of Peking accent if I want to. Can you imagine, you actually could improve mandarin in an "ang moh" country. Whats even more surprising, I picked up Cantonese, and Hokkien here as well and could distinguish between Penang and Singapore Hokkien.
What he should apologise is he failed to instil the love of languages. Its about fear, not being able to pass O's that gave everyone this impression that you have to pass CL2.
Similar threads
