Singapore is a country that adopts a highly centralised education system and a strong top-down approach in policy-making. Changes made at the national level often may be difficult to put into practice at the school level. TLLM is one of them. Catherine Chua and Richard (2007) did a study by comparing the science curriculum between two top schools and two mid-level schools. The top schools appear to exercise more flexibility in their curriculum by introducing a more diverse programme. They are placing greater emphasis on research-based and higher order thinking skills, acquiring beyond the basic knowledge. This is in line with the MOE’s initiative. The middle category schools are also embarking on introducing and reinforcing some incentive programmes in their schools, especially for those less able students. However, an important observation shows that there was no corresponding decrease in the number of topics taught in class. On the contrary, the number of periods allocated for the science lessons increased in 2005. They also found that the programmes offered by the top schools are more intensive and research oriented than those offered in the middle category schools. By introducing more intensive programme and increase the number of periods, both top schools and middle level schools actually did not put TLLM into practices. These schools rather play “safe” by teaching more, and add more to the curriculum. This can has negative impacts on the school climate, as teachers will have less time to prepare, teach and interact with their students. Sooner or later, teachers would develop resistance towards government initiatives.