As a retired English and literature teacher, I applaud Dr V. Subramaniam's views (Literature is essential to the soul of Singapore, Oct 26).

Most parents and some school principals consider literature unimportant, as it is difficult to score in the subject. As a result, students are not encouraged to take literature as an O-level subject, with mathematics and science subjects being preferred.

I know of schools that do not give students the option of literature as an O-level subject, limiting their choice of humanities subject to history or geography. Perhaps it is for the good of the students.

What I don't understand, however, is why the Ministry of Education does not make allowances for the difficulty of achieving near perfect scores for literature by, for example, making a B3 grade in literature equivalent to an A2 grade in history or geography for junior college entry.

That would encourage students to attempt O-level literature, thereby allowing them to have a well-rounded education.

In most schools, literature is taught only in Secondary 1 and 2. Where is the incentive, then, to take the subject seriously? It is a difficult job for those teaching literature at the lower secondary levels when students are aware that they will study it for only two years.

And what happens to the upper secondary literature teachers? I know that if they have no literature students, some of them are assigned more English classes, on top of the two English classes that they already teach.

Dr Subramaniam extolled the advantages of literature being taught in schools and how it is essential for the future workers and leaders of Singapore to learn the skills imbued in the subject.

It is up to the educational authorities to realise that by not making people aware of literature's importance to Singapore's future, creative and innovative workers are lost.

Patricia Maria de Souza