Will PAP MPs vote against the motion? I think not. Parliamentary history tells us that this is unlikely to happen. In 1979, when the whip was lifted on the Goh Keng Swee education report, 27 MPs debated passionately for four days.

They argued over its radical suggestion to allow pupils to study at a pace that suited their learning capacities. But when it came to the vote, all the MPs voted in favour, and streaming was born.

In the past, MPs have voted against a Bill if it goes against their conscience. In 1969, 10 MPs voted against the Abortion Bill. In 1992, Dr Tan Cheng Bock was the sole voice saying "no" when the House debated whether it should have Nominated MPs.

About 30 MPs are slated to speak on the motion. Education Minister Teo Chee Hean is expected to ask the House to:

·Support the new JC curriculum which will better develop thinking, communication and other process skills and engage students in greater breadth of learning; and

·Endorse greater diversity and opening of new pathways in JC and upper secondary education to cater to the different strengths and interests of students.

The way the motion is worded has stripped most of the controversy from the issue; no MP should have problems giving his "aye" to it.

Why then lift the whip?

The cynical reason is clear: the government has little to lose by doing so. Unlike the transport fare hike, a hot potato for which the PAP refused to lift its whip, the education issue is one where there is more or less a consensus of objective, if not of means.

The more fundamental reason why the whip is being lifted, I think, is that the government needs strong support from parents to implement the recommendations, which will change the way students are taught from primary school to the university.

Rear-Admiral (NS) Teo underscored this point when he said: "Strong support from parliament will send a strong signal to the public, parents and students, whose support we'll need for the successful implementation of this review."

The debate will enable the minister to know if there is widespread support for the reforms or whether there are issues that need to be ironed out before implementation.

An open debate and vote from the people's political representatives will give the government the endorsement it needs.

The frontbench is under no illusion that MPs will be restricting themselves to the motion or the report.

Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister of State for Education, told reporters earlier this week: "I will be surprised if MPs confine themselves to the White Paper. I think they will speak on larger themes."

He added that even if the whip is not lifted, MPs will say what they want.

While the vote itself might be a foregone conclusion, MPs will probably use the occasion to bargain for concessions from the Education Ministry.

The Tharman report, after all, is not as uncontroversial as it looks on the surface.

No one can argue against, for instance, diversity in the education system, but there will be endless argument over the question of diversity for whom?

Another issue is the mother-tongue requirement, which is remaining sacrosanct even as other cows are being slaughtered.

When the 1979 Goh Keng Swee education report was brought before parliament, MPs tried to get the parliamentary motion deferred. Some MPs also spotted an error in the study team's conclusion that the morale of teachers was not low.

The motion was amended eventually to state that the Education Ministry must first collate the suggestions and criticisms raised during the debate.

Parliament members also wanted the ministry to study the implications of the policy changes in depth and give schools and parents enough time to implement them.

MPs cheered quietly when their amendment - that the Education Minister has to report to parliament the progress of the review after two or three years - was accepted.

It was only after the MPs' conscience was clear that all of them gave their "ayes" for the Goh report.

Next week, the outcome of the debate will depend on how convincing MPs are in airing the issues that bother their and their constituents' consciences. Much will also depend on how comfortable the frontbench is in accommodating these wishes.

The lifting of the whip is MPs' great opportunity to enhance their bargaining power. Underneath what looks like mere shadow play, powerful forces will be shaping the education policy of the future.

                                                            Home