Curiosity Credits: Empowering Informed Post-secondary Choices

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Question proposed.

Curiosity Credits: Empowering Informed Post-secondary Choices

Mr Speaker: I am very happy now to invite Mr David Hoe. He has been waiting to raise this Adjournment Motion, I believe, for nine times. This goes to show that persistence does pay. Mr David Hoe.

7.54 pm

Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, after many rounds of balloting, I am grateful for this opportunity to be able to share about this topic.

Before I start, I would like to record my appreciation to the participants of Curiosity Credits Dialogue, organised by South-West Young People's Action Party, at the same time, my Clementi residents during my Clementi community run and also my Meet-the-People Session volunteers. They have helped to refine this idea that I am about to share today.

In my maiden speech, I shared with this House about the idea of Curiosity Credits. It is a means-tested way for children to draw upon so that they can discover their interests beyond academic pursuit: things like songwriting, sports, robotics and the list goes on. This is important, because if we want to have our own definition of success, the first step, it is really a function of knowing our interest and what our strengths are like.

Since then, I have moved this idea beyond a slogan. I have filed Parliamentary Questions asking whether our Child Development Account (CDA) can be expanded to support enrichment and exposure beyond preschool settings. However, the response I have gotten is that it is not advisable to open up our CDA funds for enrichment programmes that are outside of preschool.

Well, I also then ask the Ministry of Education (MOE), whether could we have an age-appropriate SkillsFuture-like scheme for students from lower-income households to access subsidised out-of-school opportunities, with proper guardrails. The response has been useful. They made it clear that we already have many schemes supporting children and students from disadvantaged background.

So, here is my challenge. I then kind of figure out that Curiosity Credits, because it cuts through many different life stages – preschool, primary school, secondary school and beyond – I must admit, it was not too obvious where does this nicely sit under? Is it under the Ministry of Social and Family Development? Is it under the Prime Minister's Office? Is it under MOE, or is it a combination of agencies?

Well, at the same time, I am also happy to report that since my maiden speech, I have seen ground-up pilots suggest that this idea has promise. One of these examples is through the support from a donor, funded through Ray of Hope and carried out by Empowering Families Initiative, for children from lower-income families where they are able to purchase opportunities to try out programmes that they otherwise would not have accessed.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the clerk to distribute the accompanying slides through the MP@SG PARL app?

Mr Speaker: Yes, please proceed.

Mr David Hoe: One participant expressed interest in art. Within a few months, that spark fanned into flame and she produced a drawing reflected in Figure 1, to express thanks to the donor. Others have tried a course and decided not to continue. That, too, is useful, because discovery is not just about finding what one likes. It is also about finding what is not a good fit.

So, to me, Curiosity Credits 1.0 is still about a simple principle – give children the opportunities to discover and ignite a spark.

But today, I want to build on this idea and focus on Curiosity Credits 2.0 – helping secondary school students to make more informed post-secondary school choices.

Mr Speaker, we make many decisions every single day. Some are small. Some are routine. But some decisions shape the directions of our lives. For many of our young Singaporeans, one of this decisions comes very early, that is at the age of 16. After they are done with "N" levels or "O" levels, our youths than have to decide: "Do I go to polytechnic? Do I go to ITE? Or do I go to junior college? Or a specialised institution? then what course should I then take?" If they choose a pathway that is a poor fit, their consequences can be serious.

Let me explain, and I have seen this countless number of times. A student enrols into an engineering course without realising how much mathematics or technical thinking it requires. The student does not lack the ability. But he simply have chosen a pathway that does not match his strengths, interests or learning style.

What then happens is this – he enrols into the course; he struggles; he loses motivation; his grades suffer. Perhaps he can still graduate from the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) or polytechnic, with mediocre results, about 2.0 or 2.5 of Grade Point Average (GPA) out of 4.0.

At this point, he wants to switch out, switch to another course or progress to the next level, but with a GPA of 2.0 or 2.5, he may find that his options are narrowed. A higher Nitec student want to move to polytechnic, but his grades might not qualify because his GPA is not strong enough. Even if his GPA was decent, he is not able to switch course that easily because of the earlier course that he has chosen.

Likewise, a polytechnic student who entered engineering, but later discovered that he wants to do another field, may find that his grades and course background do not support the switch. By then, it feels too late.

Over time, this then contributes to underemployment or mismatch between what he or she studies, and what he or she eventually does at work. At the core, the real issue is really about whether the student had never had enough exposure to choose well in the first place.

Now follow me. Let us take a step back. How does a 16-year-old decide?

In my interactions with youths, I have asked them and they say, some tell me: "I chose this, because my friend chose this", "I chose this course because my grades could qualify for this", "I chose this because I was told that this was a safe course".

And a recent conversation reflects this harsh reality.

I spoke with someone who is a chief executive officer of a private equity and venture capital investment firm. He shared with me how his 16-year-old nephew this year made his polytechnic course selection. His nephew was good at principles of accounts. Therefore, at 15 years old, his very loving uncle decided to help him find an internship at an accountancy firm. His nephew realised that he really does not enjoy the nature of accounting even though he does well at principles of accounts and he decided that accountancy was not something he wanted to pursue.

So, when his uncle asked him this year, "Nephew, what did you then decide?"

The nephew replied, "I chose maritime business."

His uncle was perturbed. He asked, "Why?"

The nephew said, "My good friend chose maritime business. Hence, I am going there."

His uncle later realised that his good friend's family business was in the maritime sector so that choice made sense for his friend. But it did not necessarily make sense for his nephew.

This example shows two things. Some of our young people have networks that can create opportunities for them to gain better clarity. Second, not every 16-year-old would have this uncle, mentor or family contact who can help them to think through their choices.

At the heart of this Motion, it is a simple point. We can do better to help our youths to make better decisions through better exposure.

Mr Speaker, I want to make it clear that MOE is not starting from zero. In fact, Singapore has built a fairly extensive ecosystem that helps students think about their future.

Students today have access to the MySkillsFuture portal and CourseFinder to explore education and career pathways. We have the Education and Career Guidance (ECG) curriculum in schools. Students can consult their teachers and ECG counsellors. There are open houses by our polytechnics and Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs). And our schools offer co-curricular activities (CCAs), Learning for Life experiences and, in some cases, internships, externships, job shadowing for some of our integrated programme schools.

All these are important points. However, from the student's perspective, the exposure journey may still be uneven.

Some of this support I mentioned earlier, they are information-rich but lack hands-on.

What do I mean? They can read about courses, but that is different from being able to try them. Some guidance is personalised, but not experiential. Because our ECG counsellors can guide a student through, but it will be even better if they can reflect on something that is more concrete in their experience.

Some students may get internships or job shadowing or informal exposure before making such choices. These opportunities, they are more personalised and more hands-on, however, it is not equally available to all students.

So, in simple terms, students can benefit from personalised information, guidance and hands-on exposure.

Today, we have all three pieces. But what I am asking is can we connect them more deliberately so that every student, especially those who come from less-resourced families, has a fair chance to taste and try before making a major post-secondary school decision.

Some may ask me, David, does it really matter? It does if we fundamentally believe that every child learns differently. If we believe that some students learn better with hands-on experience, then it matters, because these hands-on experiences are not a nice-to-have. It helps them to make sense of their options.

So, Mr Speaker, I would, therefore, like to ask whether MOE can study and pilot a more structured way to help students who learn best through experience. For now, let me call this Curiosity Credit 2.0.

The idea is simple. From Secondary 1 onwards, students would have this thing that I call a Curiosity Credits wallet. With this particular wallet, they can purchase curated taster sessions to have a flavour of what this course is like. These taster sessions are designed by ITEs, polytechnics, universities or specialised institutions, and schools can bring these tasters into the school and into the classrooms during selected weeks and also allow students to attend them at these institutions during protected exposure periods.

The aim here is not to create an open-ended voucher scheme. The aim is to provide structured exposure.

This is why, in Figure 2, Curiosity Credits 2.0 is not just a passive wallet, it is a school-guided cycle. First, students receive their annual Curiosity Credits. Then, they enrol into one of these courses with guidance from their ECG counsellors or teachers. Now, they experience a short and age-appropriate module. After that, they reflect on what they have learnt and then, use that, record it down, and decide on what the post-secondary choices will look like.

Follow me to Figure 3, because Figure 3 will show Members what it does look like across the secondary school years.

The target is modest but meaningful – not to expose every student to every possible course, but if by Secondary 4, they can have about six to eight structured taster experiences in different clusters, this might help them to make a better decision.

If we do this right, we can help students to enrol into courses with a clearer fit alignment and reduce the risk of course mismatch, disengagement and later pathway regret. More importantly, it is to reduce the possibility of underemployment.

Now that Members understand the broad strokes, let me bring Members through the details of how this work.

What I am proposing is that these taster lessons, it should be age-appropriate. It should designed for secondary school students so that they can understand. One practical model is to expose them by broad cluster rather than an overwhelming list of courses. So, for example, this cluster could be health and care, engineering and the built environment, digital and cybersecurity, hospitality and tourism and the list goes on.

So, how does a taster look like? A taster in engineering could show students not just the final exciting end-product, but to also show them the kind of mathematics, systems thinking and problem-solving required. What does a taster in nursing look like? It could help them to understand the basics of patient care, empathy, clinical discipline and the realities of healthcare work. What does a taster in cybersecurity look like? It could involve a simple hands-on challenge to show them what the field actually demands.

Exposure helps students to make more informed decisions. Course design aside, let us move on to the mechanism.

The mechanism and how it drives this exposure should be simple. First, as mentioned, each student will receive a certain number of credits to be able to purchase approved taster modules. The taster modules could be offered during maybe the last week of the school term or during protected exposure periods.

By going for the taster lessons, it gives our teachers and our ECG counsellors something richer to discuss with the students. This can be linked to our ECG lessons because before the student goes for our taster lesson, the teacher can ask, "What course do you think you want to do?”

After they have attended, instead of asking "What did you hope to do?", the question becomes, "What have you tried? What did you enjoy? What did you struggle with? What surprised you? What made you want to learn more?"

This, in my view, is a better ECG classroom conversation.

Sir, this pilot must be designed with safeguards. Let me explain. First, it should not be cash. It should be credits and entitlement used for approved programmes. Second, it should be curated, not an open marketplace. The first set of providers could be from our ITE, polytechnics, universities or even specialised institutions. Over time, vetted partners can be considered. Third, it should not be used for tuition, exam preparation or academic drilling. The purpose is exposure, not competition. Fourth, it should be easy for schools to administer. The Ministry can build upon the existing applied learning modules infrastructure. Fifth, it must be evaluated properly. The question is not whether every taster leads to a course application. Rather, the question should be – through every taster, does the student become clearer, more confident and more informed about their choices?

With the mechanism done, allow me to also say this: MOE already has something close to this. From my research, it is what we called applied learning modules. I see that as a strength to build upon, not as a reason to stop. What I have proposed and what I am proposing? Four differences.

First, at the student level, every child would have a visible Curiosity Credits wallet from Secondary 1, not Secondary 2. Why is a personalised wallet important? Because a personalised wallet signals ownership. It tells the student – you have the permission to explore, and you have the choices to make.

Second, at the choice level, the tasters should cover a broad spread of clusters, like I mentioned earlier, health and care, engineering and the built environment, and the list goes on.

Third, at the course level, the tasters can be shorter and lower-barrier, perhaps three to four hours for each. Because the current one today, is a multi-day module. While they have value, but shorter tasters will allow students to have a sample of more fields before narrowing down a choice. The goal is exposure and it is to spark.

Fourth, at the system level, such exposure should build into protected curriculum time. Because if curiosity matters, we must create space for it.

At the core, if we agree that every child learns differently, then the broad spectrum of intervention must be able to reflect that. At the heart of it, it is just like Curiosity Credits 1.0. This is fundamentally about helping each child to discover his or her interests. Oftentimes, our ability to discover our interests depends on our access to opportunities.

As we progress as a country, opportunity inequality exists. But we should acknowledge this gap and ensure that our systems and structures seek to reduce it.

Sir, on this note, I also want to make a related appeal. We should be careful when advising 16-year-olds who are uncertain about their post-secondary pathways. Sometimes, well-meaning adults will tell students who do not know what to study and the easy advice is – just go to junior college first. For some of these students, this might work. If they are academically strong or if they prefer a more academic curriculum or want more time before specialising, junior college could be a good option.

But it is not good advice for everyone. Even if a student qualifies to enrol into a junior college, but the student is not suited to that learning style, pushing him or her into junior college may simply put him or her at a very wrong end of a very competitive environment. The student may or will struggle to obtain the grades needed for university and may emerge out with fewer options than expected.

This same applies to all pathways. The issue is not whether junior college, polytechnic or ITE is better. The issue is fit. This is why exposure matters before the choice is made.

We often tell our youths that you must be able to define success for yourself. But in order to be able to define success for ourselves, we must first have some self-level of awareness. They must know what excites them, what challenges them, what kind of things they are willing to work hard for and what kind of environments will help them to grow.

Self-awareness does not magically happen at the age of 16. It has to be built through exposure, reflection and experience.

Mr Speaker, to conclude, we certainly cannot determine every outcome of young Singaporeans. But I believe we can do more to ensure that every young Singaporean has relevant information, meaningful exposure and a fair chance to make better decisions.

I want to build a Singapore where our youths are able to articulate their aspirations not because someone told them what to choose, but because they have discovered something about themselves in their own journey. If we truly believe in many different definitions of success, then we must allow our students to have the chance to see enough paths, enough possibilities and choose the next step with confidence.

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun.

8.13 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi): Mr Speaker, I thank Mr David Hoe for his suggestions on the use of Curiosity Credits 2.0 to empower our students to make informed choices about their education and their future.

Experience is indeed a great teacher and we are open to ideas, like Mr Hoe's, that can bolster our existing range of programmes to guide our students in their educational journeys. But I would also like to gently offer a different perspective on one aspect of Mr Hoe's Motion – that is not having the perfect fit at 16 means it could be too late.

Certainly, not everyone must have everything figured out in secondary school to succeed in life. In fact, what might look like a suitable pathway at 16 may look very different just several years later.

We must, instead, ready our students with resilience and adaptability towards change through developing their 21st Century Competencies. With this goal in mind, MOE has a three-pronged approach in supporting students to discover their interests and strengths, develop their potential and choose their post-secondary pathways wisely. Members will already see some parallels with Mr Hoe's proposal.

First, MOE offers exposure opportunities for our students at key junctures in their educational journey to understand how their choices today may shape their options tomorrow. Within the school curriculum, MOE supports students in making informed education and career choices and prepares them for lifelong learning.

In secondary school, students explore the diverse pathways available to them through ECG programmes. This exploration allows them to develop a deeper understanding of their sense of purpose, their interests and their strengths. Through education and career fairs and learning journeys, students are better equipped to make key decisions on subject combinations and post-secondary education pathways.

Institutes of higher learning (IHLs) offer flexible pathways to give students time and space to explore their interests and strengths. Our polytechnics offer the Polytechnic Foundation Programme and Common Entry Programme, allowing students to choose a broad cluster, such as the sciences, without deciding on a specific diploma programme when they enter polytechnic. With the opportunity to be exposed to different areas and skill sets in their cluster for up to a year, students can make informed decisions about their specialisations, allaying to some extent Mr David Hoe's concern about the risk of course mismatch and its implications.

Beyond the curriculum, MOE provides students with opportunities to get a taste of the next stage of their schooling or working life. As Mr David Hoe has pointed out, a hands-on approach will help students define success for themselves and explore areas that they may wish to grow into and aspire towards.

Our ECG Counsellors and Career Coaches stay current with emerging trends through professional development and networking sessions, to better provide our students with the personalised information and guidance to navigate the opportunities available for them.

To support students’ transition from secondary school, polytechnics and ITE offer three-day Applied Learning Modules (ApLMs), as highlighted by Mr David Hoe earlier, providing students with authentic and immersive hands-on learning experiences that help them to discover their interests and their strengths, and make informed education and career choices. Spanning six broad clusters – Business, Engineering, Information Technology, Hospitality and Tourism, Mathematics and Science, Media and Design – each ApLM module exposes students to at least one related IHL course and industry.

In addition, polytechnics and ITE also conduct school visits and open houses, providing exposure to course offerings and an authentic taste of what student life could be like in these institutions.

Second, MOE works with a network of community and industry partners to offer a wide range of authentic, real-world experiences in higher education and industry. Our Partnerships Engagement Office actively reaches out to schools and industry organisations to identify and support partnerships that enrich learning for our students.

Our partners serve as mentors and role models, offering advice and internship opportunities that indeed expose students to diverse pathways.

The Applied Learning Programme connects classroom learning with real-world applications, providing opportunities for students to appreciate the relevance and value of their learning beyond the classroom. Partnerships with community and industry partners help students explore and develop their strengths and interests further in areas such as business and entrepreneurship, engineering and robotics, and journalism and broadcasting.

For example, Peirce Secondary School has a partnership with Thales Singapore focused on exposing students to engineering and technology careers. This year, students will experience an assembly career talk, visits and a work shadowing programme. This partnership supports students in fostering interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields through authentic industry learning experiences, to help make sense of their options as mentioned by Mr David Hoe.

Secondary schools also organise learning journeys to organisations and dialogues with community and industry partners. MOE welcomes more school-to-industry partnerships to open more opportunities for our students in our schools.

In our polytechnics and ITE too, there are various efforts to help students transition from school to work, with the support of industry and community mentors.

One example is the collaboration between Mentoring SG as well as the polytechnics and ITE, under which mentors work with polytechnic and ITE students to guide them on their longer-term career and life goals. Daryl Thoe, a culinary student at Temasek Polytechnic and a young aspiring chef, went through Mentoring SG's programme last year. His mentor, Irene Hamons, a private dining host and creative entrepreneur provided practical guidance on improving his culinary skills and coached him in goal setting. These helped him gain confidence and clarity on his goals that now drive his culinary aspirations.

Third, MOE dedicates additional resources to support and empower students from disadvantaged backgrounds in their exploration of options and opportunities. Since 2019, MOE has provided more resourcing for schools with more students from disadvantaged backgrounds. MOE's Opportunity Fund also provides financial support to enable such students to access development opportunities. These include our schools' wide range of co-curricular activities, as well as talent and enrichment programmes.

Students can use the Opportunity Fund for overseas trips, enrichment programmes like leadership camps and creative arts workshops and personal learning devices.

Through MOE's Pathfinder Plus programme, Secondary 3 and 4 students from disadvantaged backgrounds attend workshops that MOE curates according to the students' strengths. These workshops are complemented with job tasters or learning journeys to organisations across various industries.

Schools also work with other Government agencies and community partners like self-help groups, Social Service Offices (SSOs) and Family Service Centres (FSCs) to engage such students to develop their aspirations and broaden their perspectives.

Under MSF's ComLink+ programme, dedicated SSO family coaches and FSC case workers work with lower-income families with children below 21, to support the child's education while helping the family address broader challenges that may affect their progress towards their long-term goals.

Let me come back to something I said earlier, that finding the right post-secondary path does not have to happen all at once, or perfectly, on the first try. Many of us know from our own lives that the journey of learning and discovery rarely unfolds in a straight line. There are moments of clarity, but also moments of doubt, of redirection and most importantly, of growth.

I would like to close by recounting the story of Tan Hock Yang, a student who recently graduated earlier this week from Republic Polytechnic. Hock Yang initially wanted to follow in his brother's footsteps into Aerospace Engineering, but soon realised that it was not his cup of tea while pursuing a diploma in that field.

After National Service, he reflected on his interests and took up a Diploma in Supply Chain Management at Republic Polytechnic. For his final year project, Hock Yang worked with his team to develop a solution to optimise air freight container space utilisation, a persistent challenge in logistics. He was awarded the LF Logistics Scholarship in 2024 and the prestigious Lee Foundation Scholarship in 2025. Moving forward, Hock Yang now plans to pursue a degree in Infrastructure and Project Management at National University of Singapore, a far cry from his initial interest in Aerospace Engineering.

Hock Yang's story is just one of many. Some might not take the most direct route to a work-ready qualification or may return as adult learners to upgrade to a diploma or degree at a later stage in life.

This is why we have worked hard to ensure that our education system remains responsive and walks alongside our students at all life stages, as their interests deepen and aspirations evolve. This can only be done with the support of family, community and industry partners.

Let us continue to work together to support our children's curiosity and aspirations, and help them fulfil their potential, regardless of family background or starting point in life – for every child learns differently.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at 8.24 pm.