Education for Our Future

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I beg to move* "That this House recognises that a love for [Line 1] learning is the foundation of our future, and calls on the Government to partner [Line 2] with the people to ensure accessible, inclusive and lifelong education for all [Line 3] learners [Line 4]."

* The Motion also stood in the names of Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, Mr Ganesh Rajaram, Mr Kok Heng Leun and Mr Azmoon Ahmad.

Mr Speaker, as I look at the third-generation (3G) leaders seated across from me, I realise that across the many years, they share one thing in common. And, no, it is not which football team they support for the World Cup finals!

It is the fact that Dr Ng Eng Hen, Deputy Prime Ministers Mr Teo Chee Hean as well as Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, have all "cut their teeth" in the Ministry of Education (MOE), they have led, enabled and elevated this Ministry.

Indeed, Mr Speaker, the Motion I propose and that is seconded and supported by my eight Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) colleagues and four other elected Members of Parliament, is, indeed, inspired by two fourth-generation (4G) former education Ministers: first, Mr Ng Chee Meng who encouraged the NMPs to consider how a love for learning should be instilled within the education system, especially in the formative preschool years; and second, Mr Heng Swee Keat whom many educators, even today, look up to for his path-breaking choices and ideas.

Long before any call for greater equality in the education system, Minister Heng asked that "Every student should be an engaged learner", regardless of background or ability. He said that to support this, we will need: "Every teacher to be a caring educator"; "every parent, a supportive partner". And, of course, his trademark quotation, "Every School, a Good School"!

Today, our Motion paints a portrait of students, educators, schools and parents. It questions the assumptions about individual stakeholders and system designers collectively, both bear responsibility to improve the future of education in Singapore.

Improvements that ensure accessible, inclusive and lifelong education for all learners. We speak to this House, Mr Speaker, as academics, educators, professionals, business persons and parents keenly interested in the future of Singapore's education system.

We, ourselves, are Singaporeans who have benefited from a world-class education system and our education system is that. But we also know that the most important lessons that you learn is to cherish the ability to give back to society whenever you can; to always be independent-minded, ever ready to question the status quo for the sake of progress and ready to refine the methods that have worked in the past but may not be so productive today or may even be outmoded.

Here is a snapshot, Mr Speaker, of what we will cover in this Motion.

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin will highlight the importance of recognising the talents of every student. She will suggest ways to refine how assessments are conducted in primary and secondary schools, even taking a leaf, perhaps, from what preschools are currently doing.

Mr Louis Ng will further ask that performance-based rankings of teachers should be reviewed. He will also ask that preschool and lower primary students should be encouraged to play and explore and that we should not be overly focused on academic content at this formative early stage of education.

Mr Kok Heng Leun will suggest how humanities education should be promoted and ask a controversial question: is it time to do away with the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE)?

Ms Chia Yong Yong and Ms Rahayu Mahzam will ask that special education schools and mainstream primary and secondary schools be encouraged to work together to ensure that students with special needs are integrated in settings that are appropriate and that meet their needs.

Mr Azmoon Ahmad will propose ways to ensure social mobility and national integration are best preserved as we go forward. He will also suggest that we should look into multiple strategies, not the one-size-fits-all formula.

Prof Randolph Tan will ask that we build on the strengths of the current system and anticipate the challenges of technological disruption with effective and future-ready policies that are already being deployed in other comparable jurisdictions.

Ms K Thanaletchimi similarly will ask if our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) have matched the new opportunities that have arisen and whether old barometers of success come with risks and may not always be applicable anymore.

And Mr Ganesh Rajaram will share why sports education and Direct School Admission (DSA) should be better insulated from tuition and mismanaged expectations from coaches and parents alike.

I have three points, Mr Speaker, in my own speech.

The first is about tuition and false advertising. I have put together a photo collage which Mr Speaker has kindly reminded that it may be too much to actually be shown up. But this collage is something that I collected from just a visit to Coronation Plaza which is often frequented by parents and students alike from all the primary and secondary schools in that area in Bukit Timah, a stone's throw away from the top primary and secondary schools.

But these ads, much like slimming pill advertisements, promise incredible results and are equally insidious. They suggest, in one example, that an A-star average in Chinese can be secured in just 24 hours, if you choose that particular agency. They suggest that you will be guaranteed a PSLE score of 279, much higher than I had ever got, if you would just move to this particular tuition agency. They suggest that they have 91% proven track record of As and A-stars.

I ask myself, "Should this be the way that tuition for primary schools, 10-year-olds is advertised, saying that you will get results, but for a price?"

Forget the process; forget the love for learning a subject through dedicated guidance, peer support and patience. These advertisements and the tuition agencies that produce and disseminate them should with respect, Mr Speaker, be regulated. Not only because they may be false and misleading, but because they promote gaming the education system. They extol quick solutions and well-to-do parents will fork out the cash for these quick solutions. Studies show that excessive tuition can harm rather than help a child and, yes, parents and children should be cautioned and counselled, but the preoccupation with grades must change, Mr Speaker, and I invite the Ministry to indicate what else it plans to do, going forward, on its part.

As Minister Ong Ye Kung revealed at the Committee of Supply Debates: students from Singapore have consistently come up tops in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) rankings for decades. We did very well this year as well.

Yet, does this necessarily mean that Singaporean students are ready for the brave new world of tomorrow? Or does it only suggest that we are exam-smart as a nation? After all, companies from countries that do very well PISA-wise barely feature in other rankings for business, for companies, of the Top 25 most successful companies, as an example, in Forbes. They are not there.

So, I ask, what can or should we do differently? Are there plans for a total systems review, much like the Goh Report of the past? Such a review could aim to change the attitudes of parents, teachers and students towards examinations and grades. It will take time. But the best way to do so is for all our schools and IHLs to give due weightage to aptitude testing – not just grades, but what is the aptitude of each student – and that is very much at the core of today's Motion.

Mr Speaker, our schools must move away from having a top-down culture of one-­size-fits-all curriculum, age-based cohorts and streaming based on standardised exams. And they must "never become self-perpetuating, closed circles", as the Prime Minister noted in this House in May.

Second, let me say a bit more about neighbourhood primary schools and Raffles Institution (RI). Let us never forget the contributions of neighbourhood primary school teachers. My colleagues and I have separately spoken to a few and the stories of one has rung true with me. Mr Kumaran Veera is the Head of Department at Concord Primary School in Chua Chu Kang. He teaches Primary 5 and Primary 6 students. Concord Primary School has consistently improved over the years because of him and his colleagues and its Applied Learning and Learning for Life programmes (APL and LLP). They have made the news.

But what made me sit up when speaking to Mr Kumaran and his colleagues were the stories that they had beyond just the rankings, beyond just the ALP and LLP. Kumaran's stories are not of children who are bored in class because of too much tuition. They are stories of bright girls and boys who sit at the back of the class and, sometimes, do not even come to school because parents do not encourage them to turn up at school. Stories of him and others visiting the houses of such students and using tough love, Mr Speaker, to encourage these students to attend school and tough love on the parents as well to send their children to school. It helps that Mr Kumaran is more than six feet tall and is built like a discipline master should be.

But I congratulate every neighbourhood primary school like Concord that continues to make a difference.

Like Kumaran, I am proud to come from a neighbourhood primary school myself. I graduated from Princess Elizabeth Primary School. Contrary to its name, Princess Elizabeth Primary School has nothing to do with the United Kingdom! It is named after a road which is based in Bukit Batok right now. It used to be Hillview, but now it is Bukit Batok. After the PSLE, I was fortunate to get a place in RI. And let me say a few words about RI. Those four years were the most blissful years of a kid's education.

RI has held itself up as the best school, but not because it has always put itself up to be that, but because none of us came from a feeder primary school, Mr Speaker. No one dared to think, when they entered RI in Secondary 1, that they were the best in the class, a subject or a sport because we had no idea who might be better than you; we were all just equals coming there. Your path was never paved for you; you worked hard to earn your own reputation. My schoolmates could not have been from more diverse backgrounds or sensibilities.

I was thus concerned when the Prime Minister raised in May that diversity had become an issue in RI. That saddened me. And I am happy to report that after speaking to Vice Principals and teachers at RI, they have tried to take some swift action to combat this perception. RI has established a scholarship and mentorship programme for Primary 5 and Primary 6 students from across the country. I spoke to Mrs Theresa Lai, a Vice Principal, who hopes that, through this mentorship and scholarship programmes, RI can play a part in the social mobility of these students with both financial support and also through "old school", "older brother/older sister" mentorship, where you have Secondary 1 and Secondary 2 students actually going to meet their counterparts, or their juniors in primary school to encourage them. Although the mentors provide academic support, the larger idea is to work with these nine- and 10-year-olds in primary school to deal with the socio-emotional stresses and what leadership skills actually involve.

RI has also engaged the principals and teachers from primary schools to see how they can better support these students. This year, for example, the school had almost 60 primary schools represented at its yearly dialogue sessions.

Through these engagement efforts, RI, as a school, tries to dispel the notion that it is an exclusive educational institution; it is not only for the bright children from wealthy backgrounds. It is a tough journey, partly because that is the assumption that many of us have, even those of us who have gone to the school.

But frankly, today, I would say that we do not attribute the success of RI to its famous British founder and his credos, but rather, we would look to its famous Singaporean teachers, principals and vice­ principals. Few are more charismatic than Mr Eugene Wijeysingha.

And I say his name because he was one of the first few people to inspire generations of Rafflesians to say that you have to give back. It is not enough to just do well in school for yourself; not enough to haul books at the library; not enough to ensure that your friends do well. The idea was always contribute back to society.

Let me be clear. I have friends who have graduated from other secondary schools as well. I have a range of friends whom I have met through National Service or work, including graduates of Maris Stella High School, Chinese High, Victoria School, St Andrews and even those of the Anglo­-Chinese School variety.

Might I ask the Ministry to invite other top secondary schools that I have just mentioned, to also account what they are doing to ensure that social mobility is never frustrated and that elite groups of Singaporeans and foreigners in these schools who emerge do not only look out for their own.

The third and final point I want to touch on, Mr Speaker, is how when we look at the future of education, it really is a call to stare into a crystal ball but to think what are the benefits and advantages that Singaporean students would need to possess, partly because of our geography, partly because of the languages that we are encouraged to speak and that we do speak as a mother tongue and what more we can do.

As an example, 10 years ago, in 2008, Australia came up with the Melbourne Declaration for primary and secondary school education. And, in that Declaration, they said this: "India, China and other Asian nations are growing and their influence on the world is increasing. Australians need to become 'Asia literate', engaging and building strong relationships with Asia." I think they tried to do precisely that. Today, they suggest that they, too, maybe one day soon, should be a member of the 10-party ASEAN block so it becomes part of Southeast Asia and not just Asia.

When that is the reality, for Australia, which started this idea 10 years ago, what precisely are we doing within our education system, at the primary and secondary school levels, to ensure that our students are Asia-literate? They are Singapore-literate. They speak English; they speak very good English; they can understand smatterings of the three languages beyond English that are our national languages. But are we doing more to ensure they understand what really makes Asia tick? Because that has to start at the secondary school level.

With our advantages as a leading Southeast Asian nation, with clear interests in cross-border trade and investment, I urge that we ensure that secondary schools, junior colleges (JCs), IHLs and the universities contribute to the school of ensuring that our students and our future are Asia-literate.

When we talk about the One-Belt-One-Road initiative, when we talk about the CPTPP, this should be, in some way, at the secondary school or JC level, be reduced, distilled and imparted to students. It is very good that we teach Cold War, current affairs. It is very good that we teach about early Southeast Asian history in Thailand, Indonesia and Singapore. But we really have to think about what we can teach these students now that prepares them for trade and investment going forward.

Today's Motion, Mr Speaker, is dedicated to Singapore's children whom we want to be future-ready and to the teachers who have made us who we are today. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

1.49 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to firstly declare that I am a parent of a child with Down's Syndrome. My son Ayden is, therefore, by common definition, a child with special needs. The first few months of Ayden's life was probably the most challenging period in my life. Down's Syndrome children typically have certain associated medical conditions. So, at the beginning, I was at Kandang Kerbau Hospital almost every other week for a slew of medical appointments. Other parents, whose children have special needs, would probably share similar experiences.

In addition to the worry about the children's health, there is also always that nagging fear about their future, how society would see them, whether they will be able to take care of themselves when they grow up, what will become of them when we, the parents, pass away. It is not uncommon to hear this – and I believe the hon Member Ms Denise Phua would have shared this – that these parents often say that they would rather live to see their child die so that they could ensure that the child's needs are met to the end. It is heartbreaking to hear.

This worry is not unjustified. A quick sensing of the current environment suggests that society, whilst now more open and accepting of people with special needs, is still not completely comfortable with them. The National Council of Social Service (NCSS) conducted an attitude study with 1,400 citizens and permanent residents in 2015 and found that the public viewed persons with disabilities less favourably than those without a disability. They also had less favourable attitudes towards those with intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorder. The Lien Foundation's Inclusive Attitudes Study conducted in 2016 echoed this finding. Half of the parents they polled indicated that they were uncomfortable about their child having to sit next to one with special needs in class.

I also hear stories from parents of children with special needs about how people treat their children. One father shared that on one occasion, a few young children were running towards his daughter. They probably just wanted to play, but their caregiver was heard shouting "不要去那边！她是神经病的人!”. Do not go there. She is a crazy person.

Several months back, I heard on the radio, a caller commenting on a discussion on inclusivity. The man said that his wife is a teacher and that there is a child with special needs in her class. His wife must have shared her challenges with him. He said that he was of the view that "these children" should not be put in the same class as normal children. They are disruptive and cause a lot of problems to the teachers and the class. He felt that parents of children with special needs are in denial and they want to believe that their children are normal, so they insist that their children be in mainstream schools when they actually should be taught elsewhere.

Honestly, I understood where this gentleman was coming from. The challenges faced by teachers in such settings are real. We need to deal with these challenges. I will touch on this a little later in my speech. But the caller's solution to the problem offended and hurt me as a parent. His tone and the curt manner in which he declared his views reflected how he felt about children who are different. They should be taught separately, kept apart from normal children. I appreciate it may not be completely fair to postulate from his brief remarks what he thought of people with special needs in general. To me, though, it felt like a rejection, that children like Ayden will always be seen as a burden, that they should be put in appropriate places. I cried my eyes out that afternoon.

So, what does all this have to do with the Motion today? Why am I telling you these stories? There are many different aspects of the Motion that we can debate about today but I would like to speak about inclusive education from the perspective of persons with special needs. The reality is, whilst Singapore has made great strides in encouraging and promoting inclusiveness within our community, we have some way to go in truly walking the talk. Our society is still not yet able to truly view persons with disabilities as an equally valued member of the community. And I believe that we can review and build our education system so as to change perceptions, normalise disabilities; so that people can appreciate that persons with special needs are simply differently abled and are of no lesser value than any other member of society.

Singapore has done a lot towards building an inclusive society. The Government started the journey in 2007 when the First Enabling Masterplan (EM1) was drafted and adopted. EM1 outlined a vision where persons with disabilities are fully integrated, empowered to reach their potential and are contributing members of society. A decade later, the Third Enabling Masterplan had been drafted and is currently being implemented.

However, there are still gaps and areas which we can give more attention to, so as to truly embrace people with different abilities and give them the opportunity and motivation to excel. I would like to say at this juncture that this is not about seeking special treatment. A pragmatist may also say that it would be unreasonable to expect the Government to put in large resources and funding to address needs of only a small percentage of people in the community. But I trust one can agree that enhancing inclusiveness within our education system will bring great benefit to Singapore as a whole.

Firstly, fully embracing people with special needs within our community creates opportunities for people to be more caring and compassionate. I recall a conversation I had with you, Mr Speaker, when you were then the Minister for Social and Family Development. You feel strongly that people with special needs have a role to play in helping build kindness and empathy in the community. They are conduits through which we can elevate the level of compassion amongst Singaporeans. I fully agree.

Research shows that a genuinely inclusive education system allows children to build and develop friendships that they might not have encountered otherwise, as inclusive settings encourage higher levels of interaction than segregated settings. What results is better outcomes for social and communication development and an early inculcation of values of inclusion. Such early exposure benefit both children with and without special needs, where they will be better able to demonstrate greater compassion, empathy and have better understanding on how to interact with their peers and accept diversity. These children could develop better interpersonal skills and exhibit greater adaptability.

These results could already be seen at Kindle Garden, a preschool by Asian Women's Welfare Association, Singapore's first inclusive preschool. At Kindle Garden, children with different needs and different backgrounds study together. Learning is personalised and children are taught to embrace diversity and respect for each other. I accept that the model is not necessarily easy to replicate, but, for now, let us focus on the results that could be achieved if we truly set out to be inclusive.

Secondly, there is great future economic value in equipping our special needs children with the necessary skills so that they could be independent. Research shows that when children with special needs are being supported to communicate with their peers, they enhance their independent communication, mastery of augmentative and alternative communication strategies and have increased speech and language development. If we intervene early, in schools, we give them the necessary skills and prepare them for the future, there is a greater chance that they would graduate school and join the workforce. If they can work well, be independent and contribute meaningfully towards the economy, less resources need to be spent on support structures or schemes when they are adults.

In light of the above, I make the following recommendations to enhance the education landscape.

For one, we should have an integrated education system and school setting. A common misunderstanding of an inclusive education is one where there is simply a presence of students with disabilities in a classroom or school setting but where micro or macro exclusion still occurs. If there is segregation and the children are not treated equally within the same setting, that is not truly inclusive education.

In 2012, MOE announced that 20 Special Education (SPED) Schools will be paired with mainstream schools so that students from both schools have the opportunities to mingle, for example, during recess and at school events. I understand that there are also lessons in Character and Citizenship Education in mainstream schools that help raise awareness of disabilities and how each person can play a part in developing an inclusive society. Schools have also forged partnerships with Voluntary Welfare Organisations to provide opportunities for students to interact meaningfully and deepen mutual understanding. These are all great efforts but we need to build on them.

So, we should have an education system where children with and without special needs learn and play within the same setting but in different pathways. I believe that this is more accurately described as an integrated education system. That way, students can receive different support and assistance based on their needs but yet have the opportunity to interact meaningfully.

Currently, there are special needs students in mainstream schools. However, such arrangements, in some situations, have been challenging for the teachers as well as the students – those with and without special needs. We hear many instances where the teachers and the allied educators cannot manage the students and the class situation. Teachers get stressed, the students in class are affected, parents chime in and express their unhappiness about the arrangements and everyone is discouraged by the efforts to be inclusive. So, to do this properly, we need to build the proper support structure and have sufficient resources.

One key resource is the group of teachers who are trained to teach students with special needs. It appears that there is currently a shortage of such teachers. While there is a growing pool of allied educators specialising in learning and behavioural support and a large number of teachers trained to meet special needs in mainstream schools, teachers have been reported to be shorthanded in managing students requiring additional learning support. In addition, we have also seen reports in the papers about the Lien Foundation survey which alluded to a high burn-out rate of professionals working with special needs children. Fifty-one percent of the 423 professionals surveyed felt that burning out quickly was one of the key challenges they faced. Forty-four percent said salaries and benefits were unattractive while 34% pointed to manpower shortage as a challenge.

We, therefore, secondly, need to improve the profession and career pathway of special education teachers. Currently, these teachers are hired by various social service organisations who are guided by the salary scale recommended by NCSS. The general perception is that these teachers receive less recognition and their pay packages are less attractive than their counterparts in mainstream education.

I propose that these teachers come under the purview of MOE, like their peers in mainstream schools, so that they would have access to the same salary scales, as well as career opportunities, which would, in turn, raise the stature and attractiveness of the role and encourage more to pursue a career in this profession. Having more educators trained in supporting special needs would better support the learning needs of our children and ensure that they can achieve their fullest potential. These teachers can be tapped on to support students in mainstream or SPED schools.

In the same vein of building resources, I would make a third recommendation that we also build synergy between the education and health sectors, so as to ensure that access to the necessary assessments is enhanced. Early identification of learning difficulties can help ensure that students who have such needs receive the necessary support as soon as possible. However, parents often cite long waiting lists for MOE psychologists when seeking to have their children assessed. Taking a leaf from the General Practitioners (GP)-Partnership Programme in the mental health sector, I propose an MOE Psychologist Partnership Programme where several recognised private psychologists can provide assessments for learning difficulties. To address high costs, the identified practitioners could provide subsidies to families with the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) cards, with part of the costs subsidised by the Government.

Lastly, I propose a review of the administration of school curriculum for both mainstream and SPED schools. Our children are all unique, with different talents and abilities. Often, in the school system, we are pushing them into categories or groups, which allows for a more expedient delivery of information and knowledge. However, this means that we may not be fully developing their strengths and addressing their weaknesses. For example, at the moment, children with special needs in mainstream schools are still expected to complete the same curriculum as their peers. Support is given when their natural abilities fall short of what is required. But if we are really serious in allowing each child to flourish, there may be value in adjusting a curriculum according to each individual’s needs, pace of learning, as well as providing the facilities and resources required to cater to the wide spectrum of disabilities.

Mr Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today. I thank the Members who have proposed the Motion. I am supportive of the Motion. However, I am of the view that it would be useful to give some resolution to the matter at hand. Therefore, Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I propose an amendment to the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Can I have a copy of the amendment.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Yes. [A copy of amendment handed to Mr Speaker.]

Mr Speaker: The amendment is in order. Are copies made available to Members of the House?

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Yes, I have given copies to the Clerks for distribution. [Copies of amendment distributed to hon Members.]

Mr Speaker: Okay. Please move your amendment.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that in line 4 after the word "learners", to add the following words:

", by building an education system that:

(a) gives each student the best possible support, and the opportunity and motivation to excel;

(b) recognises ability and talent in every student, and offers development paths suited to their unique strengths and interests;

(c) enables Singaporeans to improve our lives, paying special attention to students from vulnerable families; and

(d) becomes a platform to bring our young together, to build an inclusive and united Singapore."

Mr Speaker, allow me to conclude. Paolo Coelho said that a child can teach an adult three things: to be happy for no reason, to always be curious and to fight tirelessly for something. My son teaches that to me every day. I am glad we are debating this Motion and I hope our children remain our most important source of inspiration. Developing a good education system that is inclusive and suited to the times should be a constant work-in-progress. I believe our robust discussion today will contribute towards the continued development of a quality education for all children in Singapore. Mr Speaker, with that, I beg to move. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Thank you for sharing. It has been proposed as an amendment, in line 4 after the word "learners", to add the following words:

"by building an education system that:

(a) gives each student the best possible support, and the opportunity and motivation to excel;

(b) recognises ability and talent in every student, and offers development paths suited to their unique strengths and interests;

(c) enables Singaporeans to improve our lives, paying special attention to students from vulnerable families; and

(d) becomes a platform to bring our young together, to build an inclusive and united Singapore."

It may be convenient that the debate on the Original Motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single question. Do I have hon Members' agreement on this?

Hon Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added." Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin.

2.05 pm

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, before I begin, please let me state my professional interests upfront. For the last 16 years, I have been part of the teaching and learning ecosystem in Singapore. I am a co-founder of a purpose-driven tuition centre. I am a publisher of current affairs magazines sold directly to schools. I am also a coach and trainer of working professionals, helping them develop the social and emotional skills they need to become better architects for cultural change. Some of my clients have included principals, vice principals, teachers and administrators.

My interest in education began when I was 25. I had started an experimental tuition group with my friends because we were curious about two questions. The first was: "Why are so many young Singaporeans graduating out of our local education system uncertain about who they are and indifferent to bigger problems in Singapore and the world?" And the second question was: "What can we do about it?"

We experimented with General Paper tuition as a strategic medium to help 18-year-olds consider their individual and collective responsibilities and we found that if you help kids get curious about who they are and what they care about, they get naturally more curious about how their individual choices connect with broader systemic issues.

We started off with 20 kids from neighbourhood JCs. But by the end of that same year, the group ballooned into 100 kids and we realised we should officially register as a private tuition centre. So, we applied to the Registry of Business (RCB) calling ourselves School of Thought and, soon after, an RCB officer called me back to tell us our name could not be approved. I asked him what was wrong with the name School of Thought. And for as long as I teach, I do not think I will forget what he said. His response, without any irony, was this: "What do schools have to do with thinking? School of Math, yes. School of English, I understand. But thought? How do schools teach thinking?"

He did not sound uneducated or unwilling, just genuinely perplexed. And I remember having a very surreal, one hour-long conversation with this Government officer about why schools had a lot to do with thinking, that the name was a pun and, still, he would not be moved. Finally, I asked, "What if we just call ourselves School of Thought Learning Centre?" And he said, "Oh yes!”, with great relief. "That's fine. Because then it's just a name, not an intention."

I do not take that very odd exchange as representative of the whole-of-Government. That was just one bureaucrat's worldview. Also, 16 years have passed and times and attitudes have evolved since then and I am more optimistic that I would not get that response today. Still, I do not wish to brush off his remark as an aberration. Because his remark to me is a signpost that there could be many more individuals out there who were taught an incomplete or mistaken lesson about the purpose of education and that gap in their learning does have consequences on us all at a systemic level.

In the last few years, I have been getting more enquiries for training from healthcare organisations. When we asked them why there was a surge of interest in social and emotional development from their sector, they shared with us their challenges in teaching some of their staff to see their patients as not just diseases to treat, but people to care for. One medical team shared with us that their conviction to put more emphasis on empathy in their curriculum came after a disillusioned medical student revealed to them that she was quitting the profession after she witnessed two surgeons she was supposed to be learning from execute a surgical procedure with flawless expertise, while simultaneously making the most vile and derogatory comments about the unconscious patient. And though the two surgeons had saved a patient in body, they had killed a young doctor in spirit.

Those kinds of stories make me reflect: when did that bureaucrat learn that schools had nothing to do with thinking? When did those surgeons learn that their medical education had nothing to do with feeling? Did they learn it from their parents, their teachers or society? And barring how great their results were in the exam hall, are we satisfied with these results of their education in real life?

The kids we teach today grow up. The first 18-year-olds I taught are 34 now. And some of them probably work for you. Our kids become our bureaucrats deciding what to approve or not approve. They become our doctors and bean-counters deciding who is worth saving and who is not worth saving. They become our customers and entrepreneurs deciding what money can buy and what money should never ever buy. They become our voters and politicians deciding who rules and who should be ruled.

The future of our country is already being written in our classrooms. I do not know if that thought assures you or scares you. I choose to let that thought convict me to figure out how can the people continue to partner the work of our public schools so that we can all win, for our country can go only as far as our classrooms are willing and able to go. So, we need to work together on this.

I thank my fellow parliamentarian Rahayu Mahzam for the amendments she has introduced. I will focus on three of her amendments and make my recommendations along those lines.

Her first amendment asks that we build an education system that gives each student the best possible support. When I talk to educators, three big things recur on their wish list of what “best possible support” could look like: (a) more time to focus on teaching and learning; (b) reduction in class sizes; and (c) abolishing the high-stakes exams.

All teachers who take their work seriously will tell you that school calendars are over-stuffed and it is a constant struggle to claw back time to just focus on teaching. Teachers do appreciate the need to expand their work scope beyond teaching to broaden their skill sets. However, there is a breaking point when they start to question how much time in their job is spent on mastering their craft versus managing projects, marking, doing administrative work, running co-curricular activities (CCAs) and organising events.

Many educators actually express some guilt that they spend more time teaching and managing other people's children versus spending time on their own kids at home. In fact, some educators express double guilt for sending their own kids to private tuition because they have no time or energy left for their own kids after a full day of teaching.

We must stop piling on more new initiatives and programmes onto schools because the constant cry I hear from teachers is "enough". We need to do a lot less so we can do a lot more of what is significant. Part of the reason why teachers feel so strapped for time is the number of learners we expect them to give individual attention to.

Right now, our primary and secondary schools still average at 33 to 34 students per class. Primary 1 and 2 average at 29 pupils, which is still way above the average Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) primary and secondary class sizes 21 and 24.

I know MOE has argued that teacher quality matters more than class size, but the sheer volume of work to be done with such large numbers of students will constrain even the most talented teacher. Adjunct Prof S Gopinathan at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and former dean of National Institute of Education (NIE)'s School of Education said in an interview with The Straits Times that even the best-trained teacher will find it difficult coping with a class of 40 students in an era where we want children to be more inquisitive, explain their insights, have more applied learning. And those are more complex processes, compared to the direct transmissive teaching of the past.

So, no matter how good you are as a teacher, you only have a fixed number of hours in a workday. Even really good teachers are telling us that the only way they can cope with giving individualised attention to everyone in a large class is to sacrifice time from their after-work hours to prepare, mark, answer questions and meet up with kids. This is a price that many good teachers are willing to pay because of their personal convictions, but it does come at personal cost to their own mental, physical and emotional well-being.

With declining birth rates and schools closing, we can take the opportunity to adjust our class sizes to a more sustainable number to address some of our teachers' longstanding concerns. I see that we currently have smaller-size classes at the JCs, tertiary and university levels, but not at the primary and secondary school levels. I suggest that we explore our assumption that the tertiary level students need more individualised attention than younger students. If education is about helping learners gain in confidence and ability to manage and own their own learning process, then should not the smallest classes and the greatest availability of teacher support be with the youngest children?

An 18-year-old should be sufficiently independent as a learner and more capable of taking care of his own learning than a seven-year-old learner who is just beginning to "learn to learn" needs a lot more individual scaffolding and personalised attention. So, it does make more sense that a primary school teacher should be given a smaller class, compared to a JC teacher.

If our education system was designed as a process of cognitive apprenticeship, then, technically, by the time you are 18, you should be able to begin teaching and learning by yourself while in teams. However, if our education system was not about cognitive apprenticeship and more about subject downloading, then what I have said is irrelevant.

Some of us might say that the average 18-year-old in our current system might still be exhibiting signs of great dependency on his teacher for instructions and still asking people to spot questions and compile model essays on his behalf. In fact, you might say some of our working adults still display similar learning habits and overdependency on authority to spoon-feed solutions. If so, then this is feedback that we are still not doing enough cognitive apprenticeship.

So, to me, the class size issue is a bit linked to the intentions of our education system. Is it for helping learners get progressively confident and independent in their thinking? If so, primary school class sizes need to get much much smaller to help teachers work with their learners' high dependency.

Is it for helping learners just swallow large amounts of information? If so, I can understand why huge class sizes are still tolerable because it is a bit like raising battery hens. You can cram a lot of them in one room because you feed them all the same thing anyway. But, of course, my hope and personal bias are that we go for smaller classes, because I think we should be raising more free-ranging, free-thinking independent learners because I am not sure battery cage learners will be ready to out-think and out-run the rest of the world.

Having smaller class sizes across the system is a very huge investment but if it would allow teachers more time and space to train learners in thinking, then it is a luxury worth investing in.

The concerns about costs are real. So, why not take up Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Leon Perera's suggestion in 2017, that MOE consider conducting a small trial to find out if reduced sizes could improve students' results? I support that request and agree with Prof Gopinathan's opinion that "more work can be done to look at the pros and cons of reducing class sizes before dismissing the idea. Without a local knowledge base, we can't say it doesn't make a difference based on international research". Which brings me to the high-stakes exam issue.

A bewildered parent explained it to me this way: "There are 10 weeks in a school term. The teacher typically takes Week 1 to do administration and settle the kids in. And then Weeks 6 to 10 are all about exam prep and taking the exam. Which means if the teacher wants to do anything interesting, he only has four weeks in a term. So, 40% of the school term is taken up by exam preparation. Where does the teacher have the time to go find out about what is happening in the world or in different industries?"

When that same parent told his child's teacher that he would rather the school not focus so much on exam preparation, the teacher told him, "It’s not that I do not want to do all the interesting stuff. I want to, but if my students do not do well at the exams, it affects my appraisal and it affects my bonus. I do not have a choice."

MOE has been plagued for years by public outcry about excessive levels of stress in the system. And while many stakeholders want the education system to change, many are still looking at other stakeholders to change first. So, it feels like everyone is a bit stuck in a psychological impasse.

I have been of two minds with the issue of abolishing PSLE. It is hardly a silver bullet solution and abolishing it will definitely generate many new problems and fail to resolve some old ones. It will force many other policies to change together with it. However, I also see that the ground does not seem sufficiently convinced so far by the little tweaks being made to PSLE grades. We know this because they are not changing their behaviour in any significant way. Mothers are still quitting their jobs to prepare their kids for PSLE. The billion-dollar tuition industry is still not pivoting their business models to help kids grow in character rather than in grades any time soon. They are quite confident that they know their customers are not going to shift. The "arms race" kiasu culture seems to be eating all our strategies for breakfast.

So, I do wonder whether abolishing PSLE could be a psychological Gordian knot that needs to be cut. I can understand the Government's resistance to abolishing PSLE because to take on the barrage of trouble involved, the win must be significant and something the majority of the electorate must show that it is willing to support. Because abolishing PSLE will set off a chain reaction of very uncomfortable changes. Without PSLE, there might be much less reason to stream in primary school or upon entering secondary school. Primary school teachers will be challenged to up their game and compelled to design and deliver a curriculum that is no longer about preparing kids for a standardised exam. And MOE would have to devise a whole new way to assess the quality of teaching in primary schools without data from PSLE results.

Abolishing the PSLE also opens up the question of how then should we level the playing field for secondary schools? Do we want to ensure all secondary schools are funded, resourced and governed the same way by MOE? If so, then we have to remove all other kinds of admissions, such as the DSA and even end the special status of some schools. This would be a very difficult change for some elite schools to swallow, because nobody wants to give up their elite identity.

If we do abolish PSLE someday, these teething issues would take probably a painful decade to iron out, but once a steady state is reached, there would be much less difficulties. So, the question for us today, the Government and the people, is more about whether that steady state of greater inclusivity for all learners represents a future we think is worth suffering for.

Sir, I do not think it is an easy path at all. I do not have an answer about whether we should or should not abolish the PSLE because I recognise it takes a lot of political risk to make that change. So, this is all easy for me to say because I am not a politician and I am just speaking as a parent. This particular parent's naive hope is that we will someday dismantle the PSLE because I would rather give more time and space for our teachers to develop our children's thinking without fear of messing up a high-stakes exam. Moreover, I think a 16-year-old is far more cognitively prepared to deal with the psychological impact of a high-stakes exam than a 12-year-old. And this also gives us more breathing room for primary-schoolers from lower-income families to catch up.

The second amendment Ms Rahayu Mahzam raised is about recognising the ability and talent of every student and offering developmental paths which are unique to them.

When I talked to parents, two things were brought up. The first is on whether we can reimagine our report cards. I know we have already shifted our report cards from just listing grades and sharing more on their personal development; but I still think they do not present a rich enough picture of the unique journey of progression that every student takes. So, right now, the burden of assessment is placed on teachers alone. But what if students and parents helped to co-create the report book?

Many preschools today actually do not use report cards and they show parents a well-curated achievement file instead. The file contains very rich visual artefacts like photos of key moments or outstanding pieces of work that help everyone appreciate how far their child has come. There is also a section in the achievement file where teachers ask parents on the spot to not only put in the parents' assessment of the achievements they have seen in their own child at home, they are even asked, very subtly, to assess what they have done for their own child.

In my recent meeting at my daughter's preschool, I had to fill in how often we were reading to her, talking to her, showing her new places in Singapore. That message sent by the achievement file was compassionate but very clear: I, the parent, was part of the process of my child's growth. This co-created achievement file, while much more costly in investment of time, can change the relationship between parents and teacher from an adversarial, consumeristic one to a collaborative and empathetic one.

The second thing that parents raised was how principals were rotated in five- to six-year cycles, preventing neighbourhood schools from deepening their commitment to a unique set of strengths and interests. They felt that, sometimes, new principals would try too hard to establish their own flavour and uproot directions set in place by the previous principal. This constant upheaval in direction not only prevented a strong identity and culture from forming but it broke trust with teachers and disheartened parents who believed in the previous vision.

Culture and identity are not built overnight. It takes 10 to 20 years. If more principals were allowed to commit two cycles to building culture, schools would have a stronger foundation to design those alternative development paths that are wholly unique to the school and suited to particular students' interests.

The third amendment asks us to enable Singaporeans to improve our lives and pay special attention to the kids from vulnerable families. In this, I want to raise our attention to an especially vulnerable niche group of kids: those who grow up under the care of single migrant mothers.

This is a group that was highlighted to me by ReadAble, which is a wonderful ground-up movement of young professionals who partner lower-income families to close the literacy gap. For the last four years, they have been running literacy classes in Jalan Kukoh, not just for the kids but for their mothers as well.

These kids are three to 14 years old. They do not speak English as a first language at home. Many still cannot name all the letters of the alphabet. This means, without any early intervention, many of the kids would have begun Primary 1 with no or little reading skills. This puts them way behind the starting line.

Research very clearly shows that early intervention in the lives of children from low socio-economic status (SES) households would reduce the learning gap significantly in the following years of their lives. All the kids who started attending these ReadAble classes regularly before the age of six actually started reading at Primary 1 or above grade level. In fact, some of the kids who attend their preschool class currently read better than children who joined them at primary school-age. So, there is a trickle-down effect as well. As the kids grow in confidence, they started to influence their siblings to read.

I hope the Government can partner community groups to intervene as early as possible in the literacy gap. For instance, can the National Library place a personalised mini-library in every low-income household with a child that requests to have one? Every parent in this room also knows there is a huge difference when children grow up in a literacy-rich environment. That is why we buy books for our kids though we also have access to public libraries. So, we allow these kids to initiate the request for their own mini-library and own their own customised cargo of books. They might be far more likely to see books as part of their life. If the Media Development Authority can consider working with these successful ground-up literacy movements to co-create a solution using media or technology that could help sustain their impact, that would be great because kids need plenty of repetition and audio-visual recordings of these books for them to play back at their own time might prove really helpful.

Second, can the Government provide better support in housing, education and employment for migrant mothers who are struggling to improve the lives of their Singaporean children? A stable home environment and literacy-related support for these parents will help the child's educational progress and more deliberate and pre-emptive outreach from the Government to help these migrant mothers care for their Singaporean child in the short run could stave off far more expensive problems in the long run. Community groups like ReadAble, working directly with such migrant mothers, hope for much greater public dialogue on how they can partner the state to help more migrant mothers and their Singaporean children progress in the education aspect.

Sir, I would like to conclude by affirming that despite the issues I brought up, I have seen greatness in our system and that there are lots of innovations and innovators already waiting to be tapped if we so choose to see them, learn from them and partner in supporting them.

There is, in fact, a school in Singapore that manifests so many of the things I talked about in this speech. Character Education there already makes up 50% of its first two years of curriculum and is a major part of the way they assess student development. The kids there are focused on discovering their values and what work they would like to do and not just mug before an exam. The content, pedagogy, assessments are learner-centric. They are 70% experiential learning. By the end of their programme, they would have all gone for an eight-week industry attachment. And, yes, they have achievement records, not report cards, and their kids are so proud to show them to their parents. And, yes, there are protected times there for educators to just reflect and learn. And, yes, this is a school that gives support to its neighbourhood community and receives a lot of support back from its community.

And, no, this is not a school for the elite; this is just the opposite. It is a school designed to support kids who failed PSLE two or three times, as well as those who dropped out of the system. This school is Northlight and it was an idea floated in 1997 and dismissed as before its time and made real only in 2005 when Mr Lim Chuan Poh, a Permanent Secretary at MOE, had the curiosity to find an answer to one student's frustration about why he had to repeat PSLE so many times. That Permanent Secretary's leap of faith allowed more leaders and purpose-driven principals and teachers to come and put their own skin in the game and it was all of them combined together – their collective courage to live out their highest ideals of education that made Northlight happen.

Northlight is a school that makes me damn proud to be Singaporean. Honestly, I would gladly send my own child there. Northlight's model contains so many wisdoms and insights that mainstream schools can learn from and it is a beautiful symbol of what is possible if we care enough to make things happen not just for ourselves but for others who we do not want to leave behind.

2.25 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Sir, I rise to support the Motion. I want to make a call for an Education Masterplan for the Future – a masterplan to be jointly developed by Government and other key stakeholder groups; a masterplan to span over the life stages of a learner, from cradle to the third age; and a masterplan to be reviewed every three years.

I have five key reasons for making this call: one, we need to urgently respond to the rapid rise in global changes and disruptions; two, we need to broaden the definition of education; three, we cannot afford to ignore the elephants in the current education system; four, no one knows it all; and five, no one can do it all.

Reason one: response to the rapid rise in global changes and disruptions. Sir, the kind of changes and disruptions we are seeing today are never like before. The world's largest movie supplier owns no cinemas – that is Netflix. One of the world's largest accommodation providers owns no physical real estate – that is Airbnb. Even the beggars in some countries, such as China, are tapping on technology to collect monies – cashless.

As former Google Senior Vice President Rosenberg puts it, "… the world is changing so fast across every industry and endeavour, that it is a given that the role for which you are hiring is going to change."

No one knows for certain what the jobs of the future will be, but we know that progressive employers are looking for candidates who have high-learning agility, candidates who learn on their own, candidates who are comfortable in moving out of comfort zones.

The MOE team had been working hard to update Singapore's education system. Over the years, we have heard of separate reviews in early childhood, special schools, primary schools, secondary schools, Institutes of Technical Education, polytechnics, universities and in the adult learning space as well.

With the world changing so exponentially, we will need a more consolidated and holistic education masterplan for the future. We need an education masterplan that is not as disjointed and that can articulate the overall vision, values, principles, learning approaches and roles of different partners; a plan to develop self-motivated learners from young to old holistically, with a strong passion for learning, comfortable with discomfort and even disruptions; who are not slaves and consumers of technology but masters and even creators of technology.

Reason two: our need to broaden the definition of education. Let me now turn to the need for Singapore to broaden the definition of education.

Many of our education initiatives were made with the purpose of ensuring that as many Singaporeans as possible can be economically deployed. Nothing wrong with that; after all, a vibrant economy and full employment pay the bills and fund the public services, including helping our poor. But the future of Singapore is more than just the future state of its economy and its workforce.

A good education must surely lead to a good life, a better life for the people; a better life that is more than holding down a good job and attaining financial wellness. It should not have to take a World Health Organization (WHO) study to inform us that a better life must also include physical wellness, socio-emotional wellness, passion for learning and the important component of service to others.

To what extent has our existing education system led us to a better life? Have the schooled amongst us learnt and adopted healthy lifestyles after we leave school? Have we learnt to build strong personal relationships? Have we, young and older, developed a love for learning and taken responsibility for our own learning? Have we regularly given time and efforts for people and causes beyond ourselves?

What kind of education, for what kind of society? Intellects like John Abbott from the 21st Century Learning Initiative, lamented on what he felt was the sad state of the British education system. In his writing, "Battling for the Soul of Education", John Abott asked the pertinent question of "What kind of education for what kind of world?". He issued a clarion call for an education to prepare the young "for the kind of adult life which society values and which society wishes to perpetuate."

He said, "Develop the young to be "thinkers able to take responsibility for their own actions, and willing to accept responsibility for working for the common good. Re-imagine society first; and then the education system."

Hence, an education masterplan for the future must convey and communicate the definition of a good education that reflects the kind of society we want.

Next, Sir, I want to talk about the elephants in the room: the obvious difficulties in our system that people often do not wish to talk about.

The elevation of one's place in life as an outcome of one's better endowed and ambitious parents; as a result of one's academic abilities; as a result of other abilities that are not due to class privilege – they are all outcomes of Singapore's success story. "Parentocracy", meritocracy and the resulting inequalities are all developments that have come under criticism in recent times.

The Straits Times' Chua Mui Hoong pointed out in her book, "Singapore Disrupted" that "Singapore's academic-based system of meritocracy needs to evolve." Already, she said, "Many critics have pointed to the limits of Singapore's competitive examination-based academic meritocracy, which has bred a generation of hyper-competitive students who try to top examinations… to secure a place in that cherished school or to win that prestigious scholarship", she said.

Indeed, we continue to be a "tuition nation".

The findings of a recent Mediacorp Channel 8 Education Survey of 1,200 respondents are cause for concern. It was reported that more children are enrolling in more tuition as they rise through the school levels, spending even longer hours in tuition at the secondary level. Tuition is no longer only about providing support to those who are performing badly. Seventy-two percent of parents surveyed who send their children for tuition do so when their children are already performing well in school. It is a way to, as they say, "hack the examinations".

Sir, examinations, tests and academic rigour are by themselves not evil. But there is an underlying layer of fear in our system of high-stakes examinations that is killing us softly: the fear of failing; the fear of not doing well enough; the fear of not being able to get into the next school of our choice; the fear of what it looks on our resume; and even the fear of what else we should chase if we are not chasing these marks.

Sir, we cannot go on helplessly accepting this as our lot. Joy and this brand of unhealthy fear should not co-exist. Fear strips away the joy of learning; fear distracts us from the real "why" of learning. We are the victims of our own success. It is up to us, the people of Singapore, to craft a new narrative.

We cannot continue to tweak the edges of the current education system. More of us have to stand up to seek and articulate a more compelling, a more hopeful vision versus this relatively uninspiring and utilitarian state of learning.

We need to not just think out of the box; we may need to get rid of the box to confront some of these elephants in the room.

Reason four: no one knows it all. Sir, the fourth reason why I asked for a joint development of a masterplan on the Education for the Future is this. No one, nobody, not even MOE, has the monopoly of wisdom and perspective to get it right. Things are complicated. We have to unpack them so that we can move ahead with clarity and courage. No one knows it all.

Like me, I am sure many of you have lost count of how many new topics MOE has been asked to add to its curriculum.

Today, you will hear from us, parliamentarians a host of what should be added: digital skills, life skills, financial literacy, art and music, sports, Asian literacy and, of course, not forgetting new economy literacy topics like coding, computational thinking, data analytics and so forth. Minister Chan Chun Sing himself joined the chorus last week when he implored the Public Service to acquire four sets of new skills: digital skills, design thinking skills, systems skills and ability to collaborate across society.

The World Economic Forum listed 10 skills to survive what is now called the Fourth Industrial Revolution and named complex problem solving, critical thinking, creativity and cognitive flexibility, amongst them. Those were only the "Whats" to cover.

What about the "Hows" to deliver? Experts visualise a picture of more personalised learning driven by a more individual self-paced curriculum; lesser physical campuses, project and problem-based learnings; teachers as guides, curators of content and learning designers; and social and emotional skills.

We are not done. Who should education be targeted at? Everyone – from babies to youths to working adults to seniors; and not forgetting those of us who learn differently and those of us who are at risk of being left behind; the disadvantaged and persons with special needs.

The world of lifelong education is complicated and no one knows it all. And this is the reason why we need an overall education masterplan for the future to collect the dots, to join the dots, so that it makes sense for everyone; so that we know where we are heading; and what each of us has to do.

Reason five: no one can do it all. Finally, Sir, if the purpose of education is to lead to a better holistic life for all Singaporeans, then education is everybody's business and the Government must involve and partner the rest of society in conceiving and delivering a good education for all.

Families with younger children must take our place and decide that enough is enough. We will not live in fear; we will not succumb to the excesses of a tuition nation. Families must not simply outsource the raising of our children, building of character and life skills in their children to domestic helpers, schools and vendors.

Educators in schools must do their part to be relevant and updated. They must themselves be self-driven learners and become better designers of learning experiences; curators of content; and coaches to instil life skills, such as problem-solving, teamwork and social resilience, in partnership with caregivers and students themselves.

The community must provide opportunities and training to ensure purposeful and fruitful internships and service learning assignments.

Adult learners need to rise to the challenge of being personally responsible for our own learning, not just dependent on the SkillsFuture Credit or the courses that have been created for us.

Employers and industry captains must be active in honing skills mastery and hire for skills and stop using paper qualifications and academic scores as proxies for hiring criteria.

The Government must be the systems integrator to harness the energies of all key stakeholders; to apply design and systems thinking skills to facilitate the crafting of an integrated and dynamic education masterplan.

There are and there will be no single brilliant strategist; and no magic silver bullet to craft an education for the future. No one knows it all. We must all come together and craft and support an education masterplan that is uniquely Singapore.

In conclusion, Sir, Singapore has always prided itself in being one of the top-ranked education systems in this world. But I fear this is one of the key factors why we often resort to just tweaking the system, instead of making bolder moves – for fear of changing a system that earned us so much prestige. But let us learn something from the World Cup series that is going on now. Many of us have watched – I do not watch football much but my husband updates me a lot on this and he watches with his friends, in disbelief and dismay how prestigious favourite teams, such as Germany, Brazil, Argentina and Spain, have all been eliminated. We are reminded that past success is no guarantee of current or future success.

Hence, I call again for the joint development of an Education Master Plan for the Future to consolidate all that we have done across the life stages of learners; to retain the best and boldly slaughter the sacred cows which serve us no longer.

Singapore should chart our own path of significance, not just success, in education; march to the beats of our own hearts and drum; and take the path less travelled if that is the one we need. Sir, I support the Motion.

2.39 pm

Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to declare I have worked as an arts educator, teaching in school, teaching in NIE, teaching teachers and communities over the last 20 years besides being an arts and cultural practitioner.

I am speaking about the Motion today on imagining Education for Our Future, I think we should examine present trends, which will help us forecast possible future scenarios, should the situation remain the same.

So, what do we see today that can impact on our future?

Technological advances have given cause for worry, in terms of economic disruptions and adverse effects on human interactions and interpersonal relations. Ideological and sectorial conflicts are on the rise, leading to confrontations, polarisation and violence. Rampant capitalism and consumerism, left unchecked, are also widening the inequality gap in our society.

The above troubling signs might seem pessimistic, but, as my favourite writer 木心（Mu Xin) says: "悲观是一种远见". Pessimism is a form of foresight. In identifying possible negative outcomes, we can then work harder collectively to come up with new ways of addressing these crises before they become reality. I say "collectively" because I believe it is essential for us to break away from the sense of alienation many of us feel when faced with these challenges. To do that, we must better understand the complexities of these disruptions, so that we can present better suggestions to tackle them.

To better understand the future that young people wish to see, recently, I asked a group of youths about their hopes, dreams and concerns. Amongst the responses included: a call for transparency, that truths should not be distorted just so that some can achieve their personal goals; a plea for kindness to others, especially those who are different from us; and an exhortation for everyone to collaborate and work together, rather than pursue self-serving gains; and one particularly poignant call by this young lady who said, she hopes, we, as human beings, do not lose our faith in humanity.

All these hopes, shared by youths, are heartening because they point to a few key points: open-heartedness, teamwork, deep listening and engagement, all of which are essential for true, constructive discourse.

Yet, in recent times, when there is disagreement, people resort to one of two modes: either to "agree to disagree" and just leave it at that; or to "disagree" vehemently, engage in keyboard warrior tactics on the Internet, or wage a litany of complaints on other channels. There is no discourse. There is no empathy or desire to listen. It is you versus me, us versus them, my truth versus yours.

I am reminded of the recent incident of a group of people organised under a Facebook group accusing The Esplanade of "promoting bestiality" when the latter displayed an artwork of Singapore artist Vincent Leow at the Community Walk on the third level of The Esplanade. The artwork was subsequently removed. But what is disconcerting is that that was a simplistic misreading of an artistic work.

Is this the sort of discourse we want for our future, a reactionary one that seeks to ban works, complain, call out, label and shame without dialogue? Why does one group so quickly jump to impose its moral value on others? Why should the louder voice always be the one abided to, before all sides tell their story and come to a point of agreement with negotiation and mediation? Is it that the complainant's version of truth is the singular one everyone else must accept?

The world does not comprise only one simplistic moral or ethical view. Just like how we look at one object by not only observing the parts that are lit, but also those defined by shadows, so it is that the world comprises different shades, contexts and perspectives.

I bring this up because discourse is something fundamental and integral in education, specifically in the study of the humanities. Through Literature, History, Geography and the Arts, we develop a keen sensibility for nuances, differences and complexities. Take, for instance, the Dream of the Red Chamber, which, when studied from a humanistic approach, is not just a literature text to be examined. Rather, it is a very nuanced study of humankind, of society, of politics, of culture and art. We discover that being human, through that book, means having to deal with the different aspects of living: social, political, emotional, psychological, spiritual, physical, carnal and meta-physical. Yes, the Dream of Red Chamber does talk about carnal desires. We learn that power of empathy, by seeking to understand and deeply appreciate how each of these characters are like and, of course, including their shadows.

Why is this important? Because we do not want a future society without empathy. Education plays such a crucial role here, because our young ones should be given the opportunity to explore in schoo,l under the guidance of teachers, so that they learn at a tender age about the complexities of humanity. Without this, we will likely have a generation of people lacking in empathy, believing only in one's value and unable to comprehend or accept vulnerability in human existence.

In fact, even in the study of science, technology, mathematics, the focus is not merely on the discovery of theorems, theories and inventing things. Rather, great scientists and inventors view nature with awe and are constantly searching for humanity's relationship with nature, to understand rather than to alter it. This is because they are acutely aware that the search for truth is a quest in humility. We search because we are ignorant. And in acknowledging our imperfection and ignorance, we open our hearts and minds to learn and improve.

As Lessing, the philosopher, put it succinctly: it is not the truth that a man possesses, or believes that he possesses, but the earnest effort which he puts forward to reach for truth which constitutes the worth of a man.

So, where would be the best place for such complex studies of the humanities happen? Naturally, it is in our educational institutions, which provide a safe space where our young people can grapple with these conundrums in life, ponder deeply about differences, and come to a better understanding of and empathy for others.

This is also how educators help develop critical thinking in the young. In Singapore, we have been emphasising the importance of critical thinking. But critical thinking is not just about differentiating what is good or bad, or what works or not.

In teaching critical thinking, a lot of emphasis has been placed on the methodology of problem-solving. That is to say, one learns to analyse the problem, then suggest solutions, before evaluating its results. There is also an emphasis on dialogic learning. Allow me to quote Paulo Freire, the pedagogue who advocated Problem Posing approach, dialogic learning and critical pedagogy. To him, dialogue "cannot exist without the profound love for the world", and Problems-posing Education "affirms men and women as being in the process of becoming".

So, a good critical thinker is someone who has a curiosity in how human beings think, act and feel. This desire to understand another person’s perspective, objectives, fears and hope is the first step towards critical thinking and then towards empathy.

The study of humanities will go a long way in developing our critical thinking skills. As such, I appeal to MOE to deepen its efforts in ensuring that the humanities are studied deeply and widely. It should and must be an integral part of our pedagogical approach towards knowledge acquisition and the overall formation of our youths.

I spoke earlier about curiosity being a building block of critical thinking. I believe that people – young and old alike – are inherently curious folks. We want to know how things work, why policies are made, when something will affect us and how extensive that will be.

Yet, as the saying goes, many may buy into the notion that "curiosity kills the cat". Asking too many questions is sometimes seen as diverting energies in something that is irrelevant; it sidetracks from the task orientation. In a world that seeks efficiency, maximised profit and maximum satisfaction, it is easy to take the beaten and proven path, but, by doing so, we have sacrificed our natural instinct for curiosity as well.

I remember how my Mathematics professor in NUS, Prof Lee Peng Yee, proved theorems during lectures. He certainly knew all the right steps to do so, but, interestingly, he would deliberately permit himself to take detours, try alternatives, until he met with an obstacle. Was he wasting his students' time as he meandered and hit roadblocks? Not in the least. In fact, his trajectory was illuminating, because as he traced his steps back, he talked about why this path did not work and how we could perhaps try another path instead.

His deep curiosity was infectious and I remember it fondly until now. Curiosity is about getting lost, but allowing oneself to do so without fear. Any inventor or artist will tell you the same thing: that the fun part of creation is when you are trying to find your way around, when you are experimenting and discovering the world in the process. There should be no fear in that, but, rather, we should become accustomed to the promise that it brings with it.

Once again, the question is: where is the best and safest space to allow young people to be lost and explore? The answer, again, is our educational institutions. They are well-equipped to guide young people, young explorers and creators in life, as they find their own individual paths. Through these detours, they can discover curvatures and gradients instead of a straightforward movement from Point A to B. They can explore shapes and shades and become more three-dimensional in their outlook.

Unfortunately, our education system is so preoccupied with quick results that there is little time permitted for such holistic growth and exploration. I do not know how many teachers can do as Prof Lee did in my Mathematics classes. I do not know how many young people get to benefit from that curiosity, so that they learn what does not work as much as what can.

In today's competitive, results-oriented world, we tussle to be Number One all the time. This narrative has also permeated our education system and has become part of our cultural DNA. We may laugh about how Singaporeans are kiasu and kiasi, but, in accepting these traits with humour, we are also legitimising these self-serving attitudes and behaviour; we have normalised this race for instant gratification, for accolades, when we are winners and not second best.

So, to ensure results, we instil discipline and rigour. We tell our young people, yes, it is good for you to try new things, but make sure you get those grades or you will fall behind in life. We remind them that life is a competition, fulfilment is to be the best.

But is competition the best way that we can be? I seriously doubt so. Like it or not, competition creates silos and alienation. We are a small nation of 5.6 million. Should we create a race to the last for 5.6 million individuals, so that some privileged ones amongst us, or some able-bodied amongst us, can be the best? How about harnessing our collective capabilities instead through collaboration, so that we, as a nation, can move mountains at no one's expense? Can our education system reflect an ideal of how we want our society to be, like what fellow Member, Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng, has just said?

In my opinion, the schools are places where we can learn such life skills, that there is much merit in collaboration. A proliferation of competition can lead to a cancerous situation. In removing competitive elements from our education system, schools can become more inclusive and equitable and young people can discover the full potential of their innate curiosity.

Humanities and the cultivation of curiosity is not only reserved for the academically inclined. Unlike the situation during my time in school, you no longer need to be more proficient in language and writing to be studying literature or the arts. Rather, curiosity is a leveller – it is present whether you are academically inclined or otherwise and it should continue to be nurtured, regardless of how smart, or privileged you are.

But I can imagine what a rebuttal to this might be: do we have time to be curious? How do we make time for quality learning through discovery and having deep discussions on the humanities?

A parent of a young boy once told me that her kid had initially enjoyed preschool, which was full of play and discovery. But the moment he went to kindergarten, the pressure of academic pursuit reared its ugly head. By the time he was in Primary 3, when the PSLE loomed ominously ahead in the coming years, the honeymoon period was over. She noticed that her son had lost his sense of curiosity.

Is PSLE really necessary? I am aware that this question has been mooted before, but I believe it is important for us to ponder more deeply about it even now. If young students have to prepare for a major examination after an initial six years of study, does it impede their ability to learn deeply, discover and investigate?

I think we need to fundamentally agree on what is important in the education of our young people. Is it deep learning and interaction? If so, can we rethink the current system to make time for these aspects, rather than rush them through national examinations that determine their paths at so tender an age?

I have heard sharings of young people talking about how PSLE is such a scary thing. Children who studied so hard yet could not get the results he wanted and became angry and smashed a chair. This is not normal. This is not right. I am a product of such kind of education. The competition, the exam, the pressure that comes with shame and fear. And I still have nightmares of not completing my examination. Maybe some of you would have too.

It was only in theatre that I found the meaning of collaboration. When we are working in productions, when we use the best of our abilities to make the most meaningful work. Theatre-making provides a different model of learning: working with each other's strengths, respecting each other's differences, incorporating different opinions for the sake of trying to present a complex world of existence. I always think that theatre-making is an alternative schooling model. One builds on collaboration, not competition.

We should seriously consider slaughtering this sacred cow of the PSLE. The Scandinavian system has provided certain possibilities for us to look at. Of course, I am not saying that we simply emulate their system. Naturally, for any change, there is a need for plenty of political will and the Government and people must commit to such a change. But as a start, I think it is important to begin discussing this process of change, so that we can chart a roadmap forward, as well as addressing parents' anxiety over the issue.

With that, I really support fellow Member, Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng, for her suggestion on the masterplan. This masterplan should include looking at classroom sizes, assessment models and the capacity of teachers. I would not talk about classroom sizes because my colleague, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, has talked about it. But I want to talk about assessment again, which I think is an important aspect of learning. Yet today our assessment methods are still focused on the quantity that students have learnt, rather than the quality of their learning and retention. Many of us are aware of diagnostic assessment, where assessment is used to diagnose students' needs, so that the learning process can be improved to help them acquire knowledge better. In short, diagnostic assessment is less about KPIs, more about taking the interest of each individual child at heart. It means education to harness his or her skills, to address his or her needs and to encourage and groom each child's unique strengths.

If we adopt this fundamental shift in thinking about assessment, it will change how lessons are being taught and, subsequently, how individual learning journeys can be scaffolded. It changes the relationship between teachers and parents, between teachers and students, and amongst students themselves. It becomes an approach that is not about competition and not about fighting to be the best, but more about discovery, collaboration and being the best together, rather than alone.

I will talk about the educators who are instrumental in shaping our young people. I have worked with teachers for many years and we have heard about how much they have done and a lot of event-organising they have done. In fact, there is a joke that goes around that if they want a second career, they can consider being event-organisers.

I know from personal encounter that most teachers are incredibly passionate about teaching and draw their greatest pleasure from daily interactions with students. However, with increasing demands on how lessons should be taught – for instance, new pedagogical approaches, such as inquiry-based learning, or "Teach Less, Learn More" model – teachers who are products of our previous education system have found it challenging to move into these methods. It is not for the lack of trying or an unwillingness to try, but that they need more time to adapt and experiment.

Unfortunately, while these new approaches, taken on to alleviate pressure and produce more well-rounded students, are beneficial, the runway for teachers to adopt them and produce the same results is simply too short. Hence, I think we need to give more space for teachers to learn and experiment, and a way to do this is to relief them of their administrative duties.

Afinal word for the parents. I am a parent, too. I know intimately the pressures of parenting and I am familiar with the worries any parent has about the well-being and performance of our kids in schools. But let us be honest. Parents are equally responsible in the education of our children. In our bid to make a living, to ensure that we best provide for our children materially, have we become so caught up with work that there is a trade-off in our time spent with them? Have we also passed on that role of education fully to teachers, rather than undertake part of it ourselves? In doing so, have we become the source of stress for teachers, constantly checking on them, harrassing them, being critics of them and as if we know better and can tell teachers how to teach the children better?

So, here is my plea to parents like myself. Parents, take a step back. A teacher has to take care of more than one class of students. Your child's teacher has more wards than just your kid.

Mr Speaker: Mr Kok, you have half a minute left.

Mr Kok Heng Leun: Okay. Teachers have a job to fulfil to the best of their capabilities and that is true. But they are human, too. So, do not treat teachers like you are a customer, that they are salespersons at your beck and call. Rather, see them as equals, because that is what they are trying to do: to work with you and not for you, all for the benefit of your child.

Finally, I will say that there is hope and all is not lost. There is room for change and collaboration and that is why I am so deeply thankful for this Motion so that we can take in all these thoughts and ideas and hope that the Government will seriously consider making a huge revamp of our education system.

Mr Speaker: We hope that parents will also take heed. Mr Louis Ng.

2.59 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, every school is a good school. This is a phrase we are very familiar with by now. Perhaps soon, we will also have to say, "every early childhood development centre (ECDC) is a good early childhood development centre".

Parents are now not just worried about which primary school their child goes to but also which ECDC their child goes to. The rat race has now begun way before our primary schools. We now have kindergarten assessment books, tuition for preschool children and even homework for our nursery kids. I have to be honest to say that this worries me. My wife and I found ourselves in this rat race as we searched for an ECDC to send our daughter Ella to.

The reality is that there is a wide variety of ECDCs. We tried a few, visiting them, letting Ella try it out for a day to see if she liked it and I joined her during these trials. I sat there in some of the ECDCs and I saw first-hand how much things have changed.

As Mdm Siti Zubaidah said in a news article, "In the past, it was all play and just learning the ABCs in kindergarten. But now, by K1, you need to learn how to count and read, to be on a par with everyone else”. And Mdm Siti is not alone. A survey found that four in 10 families in Singapore now send their preschool children to tuition. The most common reason for tuition, cited by more than half of the parents with children under seven, was to keep up with others.

Sir, there is much debate about how stressed our students are and how they suffer from high levels of anxiety. According to a survey, 66% of students across all OECD countries said they were worried about poor grades at school, but among Singapore students, it was 86%. In a post by ex-MOE policy officer, Yann Wong, in June this year, he also mentioned about how performance anxiety, shame and a need for validation through grades are problems that plague our students and our education system.

Sir, I sincerely hope that this stress, this anxiety, do not start when our children are three years old, in nursery. The early childhood years should really be about play. As O Fred Donaldson had said, “Children learn as they play. Most importantly, in play, children learn how to learn.”

The early years are the most formative in a child’s development, character and future. Scientific research tells us that children have objective developmental stages. Below the age of seven, especially, they need large amounts of time for free play. This develops personal and social awareness, gross and fine motor skills, and a foundation for learning. It is more important to directly encounter the things in the world that words and numbers describe, than to recite those words and numbers in an academic way. Earlier is not better when it comes to academic learning as well. A New Zealand study looked at children who read at five versus those who read at seven. They had no difference in reading outcomes at age 15.

In the German system, young children focus on social and personal awareness, only learning to read and write at age seven. This nation is also a major engineering and economic powerhouse of the world.

An education for our future needs to look at solutions that are both holistic and inclusive for our children, parents and educators. One way to do this is to shift early education away from a linear academic emphasis, to a more rounded emphasis focusing on holistic growth. There are many factors involved here but as around two-thirds of the early childhood education industry will be controlled by the Government by 2023 and with the establishment of the National Institute of Early Childhood Development, the Government can play an important role here.

First, we can strengthen and lead the move to de-emphasise academic content for early childhood education. The present emphasis on academics means that children play less and they are also outdoors less. Studies again in this area show that a lack of play will increase the odds of depression, anxiety and other disorders.

We also need to help shift the current tuition mindset for preschool children. As Dr Nirmala Karuppiah, an early childhood and special education lecturer at the National Institute of Education, stated in a news article, "As tuition is about sitting at a table doing pencil and paper activities as well as rote learning and acquiring academic skills, it could actually cause more harm than good for some children. For example, it goes against the way young children grow, develop and learn, which is through play and interacting with real objects, people and events in their environment."

Following on this point is, second, we need to promote more play and exploration in preschools and also lower primary schools. In the early years, children learn mainly through active exploration of the environment. In the words of Albert Einstein, "Play is the highest form of research." In fact, our current "Nurturing Early Learners" curriculum already recognises that children are naturally curious and does outline a framework that encourages learning through play. However, I am not sure whether this is followed by all ECDCs. From what I have seen and what other parents have shared online and with me, play is not a strong focus in some of the ECDCs. We also need to look into how we can provide our early childhood educators with enough time and flexibility to allow for creative exploration and play.

Third, we need to put care even more at the forefront to cater to the individual needs of each child. The need for young children to form responsive relationships cannot be overstated. Our policies and early learning framework should support the ability of educators and caregivers to be sensitive and responsive to a young children’s needs.

To support caregivers and educators, it is vital that student-to-teacher ratio remains small so that each child receives the attention he or she needs. To prevent disruptive relationships between caregivers and children in their care, it is also important to reduce the rate of turnover in these positions. Attractive salaries, incentives and supervision should be put in place for educators of young children. When children feel cared for in a stable and supportive relationship, stress naturally goes away and learning takes care of itself. In fact, shifting our priority to care over academic outcomes is key in helping children thrive and reach their full potential.

Fourth, the future of our education requires us to cater to the emotional health of students more comprehensively. I am heartened to see that schools remain vigilant in preventing further suicides in children. However, that is not adequate. We want children to thrive, not simply survive. A survey by Chapter Zero, a social enterprise working with parents, caregivers and educators in Singapore, showed that the top two qualities parents hoped to see for their child were "healthy relationships with others" and "strong emotional health". Approximately half the parents interviewed were concerned that the educational system did not support students to develop these qualities. Seventy percent of the parents raised the need for more emphasis on social-emotional learning in preschools and primary schools, particularly on mindfulness, empathy and conflict management.

While there are existing frameworks on Southampton Emotional Literacy Scales (SELS), some surveys show that more can be done, and should be done, to meet the emotional needs of students. Studies have shown that there is correlation between the level of pro-social behaviour that a student showed in kindergarten and their education and job prospects, criminal activity, likelihood of substance abuse and mental health in adulthood. Other studies likewise indicate that feeling socially connected as a child is more strongly associated with happiness in adulthood than academic achievement is.

Lastly, I propose a need to review the performance-based ranking for teachers. MOE's Enhanced Performance Management System (EPMS) was instituted in 2005 and reviewed in 2014. It provides a competency-based performance management system which serves to appraise teachers' efforts for the year. The EPMS Teaching Competency Model, among other indicators, assesses a teacher's ability to "cultivate knowledge".

In an interview on incentives in education, American psychologist Barry Schwartz said, "If you start giving teachers bonuses if their students exceed some scores on these standardised tests, teachers will find a way to teach to the test. Test scores will go up, but education will not."

Teachers join teaching to make a difference to the lives of our youths. Yet, the reality of the pressure from competition created by our own performance-based ranking and reward system can skew teachers’ choices. We want teachers who teach for the love of teaching, not teachers who teach for tests.

Perhaps, there should also be a de-emphasis of ranking and rewarding of teachers based on ranking. Ranking teachers pits them against each other and may incentivise some teachers to do what is visible or measurable, like teach to teach, to the test. Educators are pitted against each other, which could also reduce the incentive for some to share resources and ideas, or to work together.

Sir, an education for our future cannot just be about academic pursuits, about grades and about students who suffer from high levels of anxiety. And this, definitely, cannot be the case for our preschool children. In the words of Fred Rogers, "Play is often talked about as if it were a serious relief from serious learning. But, for children, play is serious learning. Play is really the work of childhood." Sir, I support the Motion.

3.09 pm

Mr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I will deliver my speech first in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Hon Mr Speaker, I agree and acknowledge that we have a world-class education system, which, at times, is the envy of other countries. Our nation has developed for over five decades, during which time our education system has played an important role in our success.

The Malay community, in general, has achieved success in many fields. We can see many young Malays now who are highly educated and attained their own successes. The focus on getting the right education is something that, undeniably, leads to all these successes. However, there are those within our community who are not as fortunate.

As we strive and progress towards building an inclusive society, where no one should be left behind, I think that there is more that we can do for our students. We must be bold in our actions, beyond merely giving lip service about levelling the playing field for everyone.

We must make hard decisions and take bold actions, no matter how difficult it might be, in order to create a level playing field. We must strive to mitigate the different obstacles faced by our children in order to help them succeed and achieve their dreams and aspirations.

We must go beyond merely using buzzwords like "future-ready" or "broad-based education". These words may sound good, but are they well-understood or seen as reality by the man-in-the-street?

Just as we work towards building a society with a big heart, our education system has to develop its strategies with a heart. This kind of education strategy needs to be holistic in nature, which focuses on the development of each individual, in order to explore the potential and grow the capabilities of each child, so as to help them achieve their dreams and aspirations. It will be meaningless if the education system merely provides pathways to a similar destination, without achieving one’s dreams and aspirations. Therefore, I would like to suggest, for consideration, multiple education systems and strategies, so that we can fulfil this aim. Let us take this step together and embolden ourselves to achieve this objective, so as to ensure a successful life for our future generations.

The strategies that we create must take into account the abilities and shortcomings of each individual and transform it into opportunities to grow and thrive. However, we should also tread cautiously. In our eagerness to do so, we must ensure that it does not limit their opportunities.

Admittedly, this is a difficult task. It requires all stakeholders – the Government, schools, teachers, students and parents – to join hands and work together. But I am certain that this is a goal that is shared by everyone. With this common goal, we hope that we can take our first step towards achieving national integration, where everyone moves forward together as one nation, with no one left behind, and each individual, whether children or adults, can thrive on their own abilities without being limited by the system.

Let us take this bold step together for the sake of our future generations.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I shall now deliver my speech in English.

Education is an often-discussed topic that I foresee will continue to be hotly debated in the years to come. This is certainly to be expected as education has such a tremendous impact on our future generations and the state of our economy.

Education also plays a major role in the social mobility of our citizens. We have repeatedly told our students, "Go, go and get a good education, and you will have a better future". And that is true, for the most part. But what if one's starting point affects one's ability to have a good education? What if one's circumstances present him or her with challenges and difficulties which hinder him or her in getting a good education?

As an illustration, a child from a low-income family, in most cases, starts out at a disadvantage. Despite the assistance that they receive or that is made available to them, there is a high chance that their performance in school may still be affected by other factors, such as their living conditions, the strength of the family unit and others. Another example, a student studying in a cramped 2-room flat that is shared with another family might find it a struggle, compared to another who has the luxury of studying in a room of his or her own; or a student who has to stay up late to care for his younger sibling because his mother is working, is likely to find it harder to concentrate in school, compared to his classmate who does not have to.

These are the very real circumstances that our students are going through and something needs to be done to help them. As Singapore progresses and develops further, we must ensure that every individual is sufficiently equipped to face the uncertain future. Let us make our education system a platform for all, to enable them to rise up in meeting with the new challenges.

As we work towards an inclusive society where no one is left behind, I think there is still much that can be done for our students and it has to go beyond lip service about levelling the playing field. Hard decisions must be made to look at how we can truly make the playing field level for everyone and how we can help mitigate the effects of the different circumstances faced by each child in order to help them succeed in school. It has to go beyond catchphrases like "future-ready" or "broad-based education". That may sound good. But is this well-understood by the average person? Can the common man truly see the reality?

Just as we work towards building a society and a nation with a heart, our education system has to develop its strategies with a heart. It is about developing strategies that consider the child holistically and as an individual who is unique. We should consider to develop strategies that make pathways available to them that are truly meaningful in helping them to achieve their aspiration and dream and the true meaning of success. It is meaningless when the pathways are simply routes to the same destination as everyone else, but not achieving one's dream and aspiration.

I regard our current education system as a "one-size-fits-all" approach, with minor tweaks here and there to cater for the incidentals which are away from the mainstream. We should be bold enough to take the step forward to consider multiple education systems and strategies with different approaches to serve the varying individual needs, a holistic system where every dream and aspiration is met. And I am convinced we have the ability and maturity to do this.

Strategies have to take into account the child's abilities and shortcomings and turn these into opportunities to grow and thrive. However, we must be careful that, in our pursuit, we do not limit opportunities for them.

Admittedly, this is a difficult task and it is one that requires all stakeholders to work together – the Government, schools, teachers, educators, students and parents. But I am certain that this is a goal that is shared by everyone and it is within this shared goal that we can hope to take our first step forward in achieving national integration, where everyone moves forward together as one, with no one left behind and everyone thrives, based on their abilities without being limited by the system. Let us take this bold step together for the sake of our future generation.

As we talk about the importance of developing skills rather than chasing for degrees, how have we seen the decision of parents and students change? Based on my observation, many parents still remain unconvinced that the days of the paper chase are over and that they are still pushing their children to strive towards degrees and paper qualifications. We need to look at why this is so. Could there be a lack of understanding of what it means to be future-ready? If so, then, clearly, outreach and education efforts need to be stepped up.

Mr Speaker, our education system emphasises the concept of the joy of learning. Yet, if we ask parents, many may not see this as being true. Anecdotally, I have heard parents of lower primary students lamenting about how tough school work is for their children these days. For example, Primary 2 students are now expected to draw problem-sum models when, in the past, these are reserved only for the older primary school students. How can the abstract concept of modelling be effectively and comprehensively explained to an eight-year-old child who is only two years into the primary school system? Is our education system, in its pursuit to be competitive, inadvertently taking away the joy of learning? How are our students supposed to spend time to explore and discover their love for Mathematics, if they are inundated with planning out models for problem sums today? Shall we not guide our students to discover what they do not know and assist them to explore alternatives, rather than providing concepts and solutions? I believe the ability to discover, explore and rediscover will have a more far-reaching effect in the long run. Our goal to become a resilient nation should embark on a "discover and explore" education system, continually.

Ideally, education should be about allowing our children to explore the different subjects at their own pace and discover what interests them. Admittedly, it would not be easy to achieve. The need for standardised tests is one big obstacle preventing this. But challenges and obstacles have never stopped us as a nation, so why let them stop us now? A child who learns because he wants to will learn and retain much more than one who feels forced to do so simply because it will count towards his final grade.

My concern is that the chase for grades will make our children lose sight of what is important – that it is truly a joy to learn new things. My concern is that the preoccupation with doing well and being the best will derail them from the essence of learning, which is to discover new things that interest them, that will fuel their curiosity and desire to explore and learn even more.

It is my hope that the Government and policymakers will approach education strategies with a heart, especially in considering the different circumstances our children are in and how we can help them overcome any challenges or barriers. It is also my hope that these strategies will also help our children to explore and rediscover the joy of learning.

Only when we do these can we truly prepare our children for the future and, at the same time, take our first step towards achieving national integration, where everyone moves forward together as one, with no one left behind.

Mr Speaker, in summarising, education will remain as important as it has been since time immemorial, if not even more. It is through education that we progress and morph from one stage to the next. Be it in culture, economics, engineering or others, education will continue to be the bridge for now and into the future, enabling us to be socially mobile.

However, like the generations before us, our future will always be challenged with uncertainties as the external environment is dynamically changing. I am certain that our ability to explore and discover will enable us to circumvent these uncertainties and lead us to the right survival strategies.

Let us be bold, bold enough to explore new ideas to ensure that our education system brings out the best in each and every one of us. Let us embolden ourselves to consider multiple education systems and strategies with different approaches, away from the "one-size-fits-all", to serve the varying individual needs, where our dreams and aspirations can become a reality.

With the right education strategies, I am confident that we will progress as a nation with a heart. Not only shall we progress as a nation, but also as an integrated society where we truly see our fellow Singaporeans as family. With that, Mr Speaker, without reservation and, wholeheartedly, I support the Motion.

3.24 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a small country with no natural resources, Singapore has done well to leverage on our one major resource that has allowed us to achieve all that we have in the past 50-plus years: our people. Leveraging on our human capital has allowed us to thrive and punch far above our weight on the global stage and is a testament to our efforts to develop, attract and retain human capital.

A key ingredient to sustaining Singapore's talent competitiveness and enhancing our human capital is a robust ecosystem that supports our human capital development and education is a critical aspect of that system. Indeed, it is this belief in the importance of education that led me to begin my career as an educator in 2001 and it is this belief that motivates me to continue in my career as an educator today. I would like to declare my interest as CEO of a private education institution.

Over the years, Singapore has made changes to its education system to ensure that it continues to be relevant. With education being the key to developing people to their full potential, we need to continue to be innovative and visionary in our approach and ensure that we have an education system that not only develops our people to their full potential, but also one that helps them meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in my maiden speech a few years back, I spoke about the importance of creating "I"-shape graduates who not only have deep subject-matter knowledge, but also a breadth of other knowledge and life skills that allow them to operate across different fields. By an "I"-graduate, I mean the horizontal top of the "I" will refer to a spread of different technical skills and knowledge, one of which will then go deep to form the vertical part of the "I" and then, the bottom horizontal bar of the "I" will refer to a variety of life skills and other skills that will actually anchor the individual in the journey through life.

The call for creating "I"-shape graduates has far more relevance today than before, especially in this age of disruption. Across the globe, we have seen disruptions happening not only in businesses, but also in how we work, play and organise our lives. As the operating landscape of our lives becomes more complex, it is now more important than ever to ensure that our youths and young adults possess a diverse set of skills that allow them to traverse and navigate this increasingly pluralistic world.

Ellen Galinsky, the co-founder of Family and Work Life Institute in the USA, advocated that we need to possess seven life skills that allow us to grow and learn throughout our lives. The skills are: focus and control, perspective taking, communications, making connections, critical thinking, willingness to take on challenges and self-directed and engaged learning.

Among these seven skills, I strongly urge the Government to cultivate making connections and self-directed and engaged learning in our students and youths. This self-directed and engaged learning would, indeed, be an indication of the "love for learning" concept that is mentioned in the Motion today.

In an increasingly complex world where simple linear relationships are giving way to multi-directional ones, our youths need to see both the wood and the trees. This would require them to be perceptive and have the intuitive ability to make connections between seemingly unconnected events and make sense of them.

Building these skills would require our students to be exposed to concepts, such as design thinking and having the ability to oscillate between possessing a macro-worldview and the ability to see how different pieces fit into that view. I would strongly suggest that MOE consider how our youths can be exposed to such concepts from a young age so that they could adopt a more holistic approach in dealing with the complex challenges of the future.

I would also like to take some time to talk about the issue of tuition and education, Mr Speaker. This has been mentioned by Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan in his opening speech; by my colleague Mr Louis Ng and a few other colleagues.

I think there is a tendency to regard tuition as the scourge of our education system. But we should also step back and take a look at it from the perspective of times when students do need additional help if they are weak in their subjects, if they are struggling, for them to be able to have the opportunity to take tuition in order that they may actually improve. And while I take the point also that parents who perhaps have the means to afford tuition of a different level would be able to pay for that tuition, we also do have self-help groups and community organisations that are able to provide tuition to needy students, to needy families for students who need help at affordable rates. I think the issue here is perhaps one that I feel strongly about and, that is, for parents to understand how tuition fits into the education of their children.

I know a lady who lives in my constituency and we see her quite often at grassroots events. I used to see her with her child. And increasingly, on the weekends, her child would be with her less and less. And I actually asked her one day, "Where is your child?" she said, "Oh, he is having tuition". I said, "Okay". The next week, I saw her again and I asked, "Where is your child?" She said, "He is having tuition." And one day, I asked her, I said, "Madam, you don't mind if I ask you, why is it your child seems to be going for a lot of tuition on the weekends? Shouldn't he be here with you having some fun?" She said, "What to do? He is so lazy. If I don't send him for tuition, he is never going to do his work."

And I think this comment by this lady had me reflecting because, essentially, what she was hoping to do was that by sending her child for tuition, that will eventually "cure" him, as it were, of the concern that he was lazy and not wanting to do his work. I think that is reflective of how parents then would view tuition in the context of their children's education.

By all means, if your child needs tuition, I think we should be supportive of families who are needy, help them get the tuition. And if people can afford tuition, then get tuition for your children if they need to improve and if they are struggling with their subjects. But I would hope parents would also encourage their children to take ownership of their learning, to be these self-directed learners that we are talking about, rather than regard tuition as a way of ensuring that children do their work.

The danger of this, Mr Speaker and Members of the House, is that we will end up with a society, one day, whereby when the tuition finally stops, then what do you do? What do you do when there is no one left to tell you how to do your work? When there is no one left to tell you what assignments you should do? When there is no one left to tell you which 10-year series you should practise? That is the challenge. Because you cannot have tuition throughout your entire life. Or maybe you can and that is why people have life coaches, psychologists and psychiatrists.

Moving on then to my next topic, which is: an exam-based academic achievement versus a skills-based academic achievement. I think one way of ensuring that we focus more on life skills is to explore how we can shift from an exam-based academic system to a more coursework-based or skills-based academic one.

I spent 16 years in the polytechnic as an educator and I have seen how students who have less than stellar academic PSLE or even "O" or "N" level scores often end up doing very well in the polytechnic system. They are able to achieve good grade point average scores in the polytechnic, which reflects their ability to do well academically. They are transformed from being regarded as academically poor or average, into good academic achievers. The main difference, of course, is that they are now in a system that measures academic achievement in terms of coursework and skills capability, as opposed to the ability to study for an exam.

There are some subjects at the "N" and "O" levels that allow students to do well based on their practical and skills-based capabilities, but the fact remains that our education system is still very much an exam-based academic one, especially when it comes to the mother-of-all exams, the PSLE. Ultimately, a good PSLE T-score demonstrates a child’s ability to cram for exams and deliver in a controlled exam-based environment and one wonders if that is an accurate reflection of his or her potential.

So, while I am not advocating the scrapping of the PSLE and I acknowledge the proposed changes being made to this exam by MOE, I would like to suggest that MOE consider how it can make the PSLE more about a demonstration of other skill sets and capabilities, other than the ability to “cram-and-deliver.” Perhaps, the element of coursework or continuous assessment could be introduced as part of one’s PSLE grade, such that the eventual PSLE score is a more holistic reflection of a young adult’s capabilities and abilities.

The Government has, over the years, increasingly recognised that there are multiple pathways to success. Having a degree, for example, is only one of the many peaks of excellence and we have, indeed, seen many examples of successful people who do not have degrees. The fundamental objective of education is thus not to pursue paper qualifications, but the assurance that the receivers of education learn employable and relevant skills that enable them to succeed in the industry or career of their choice.

In an earlier speech debating the President’s Address in May, I briefly commented on how the Government has recognised the importance of providing learners with various options that cater to different learning needs and aspirations in the post-primary school education sector. The same choices are also given to parents in the pre-primary education sector with different early childhood education options providing different pedagogies and curricula to suit different needs.

While multiple options are provided for pre- and post-primary school students, the primary education sector still follows a one-size-fits-all model where schools administer a centrally planned curriculum with limited room for variations. As evidenced by how our post-primary and tertiary education sectors have produced a varied pool of talent who are skilled in a variety of different fields, could we not also allow our primary schools to be more diverse in offering their own curriculum that caters to different learning needs and aspirations?

I am supportive of Ms Rahayu Mahzam’s amendments that development paths need to be suited to unique strengths and interests and I believe strongly that having different systems and different pathways will ultimately be beneficial as it produces different products. Diversity ultimately results in a whole that is always more than the sum of its parts and I would like to encourage MOE to perhaps run some pilot programmes in the primary school sector to see how alternate systems and pedagogies could also be successful.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we live in an ever increasingly complex world where challenges are often multifaceted and closely intertwined and we need to design an education system that adequately prepares our people for this world. A system of this nature must necessarily recognise the potential of each and every learner and create diverse pathways for everyone to meet their potential and aspirations.

In this increasingly complex world, it is not so much about what you know, as what you can do. I thus strongly urge the Government to consider how we can continue to ensure that our people, both the young and not-so-young, are given adequate opportunities and pathways that allow them to learn and develop along different pathways, while at the same time, master a set of life skills and domain knowledge that enables them to maximise their unique potential.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I would just like to take a few moments to speak about our educators and admitting the challenging jobs they face.

Being an educator is not easy. I always make the comment that we will never presume to tell a lawyer how to do his job. You would not go onto a plane to tell a pilot how to fly a plane. Indeed, you would not tell a brain surgeon how to perform surgery. But everybody seems to want to tell teachers and educators how they should teach the children in school, so, it is tough. We have to deal with these expectations. We have to deal with the amount of work outside of the classroom. We have to deal also with the fact that we are shaping and growing young people and young children.

So, I would like to take this moment just to say "Thank you" to all our educators; whether you are a preschool educator or a professor in a university. Thank you for taking our children from building blocks to the “ABCs”. Thank you for preparing them for the mother-of-all exams. Thank you for guiding them in their coursework and their projects. Thank you for all the academic, the non-academic work and the administrative work that you do outside the classroom. But most of all, thank you for continuing to develop the one resource, the one resource that will always be critical to Singapore’s success and, that is, our people. [Applause.]

3.37 pm

Mr Ganesh Rajaram (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for allowing me to speak on the Motion. When my colleague and fellow Nominated Member of Parliament, Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, mooted the idea of a Motion that recognises and endorses the love of learning as the foundation for our future and that education should be inclusive, accessible and a lifelong experience for everyone in Singapore, it was a no-brainer for me to endorse and support this meaningful Motion.

Sir, as I have recounted several times in this House, education has played a key role as an enabler and is the main reason why many other Singaporeans and I have been able to progress and succeed in life. I would also like to preface my speech by stating that the education system in Singapore is a world-class system that has done well for our country and continues to be a key path of success for those who have less.

However, like any system, now and again, there may be a need to take a step back, every once in a while, to see if there might be tweaks and adjustments that would ensure that a strong system becomes even stronger over time, to keep up with evolving needs and demands. In Singapore, growing affluence and rising aspirations are a few among many factors that point to a need for an even more calibrated approach to education. Some may argue that Singapore is doing fine. It is precisely because we are doing so well that we should take this opportunity to wholeheartedly support things that are working well for Singapore and perhaps consider slight tweaks to areas that are not functioning at their full potential.

In my speech today, I will be focusing on two main areas: sports education in Singapore and the bigger role that parents can play in nurturing the talents of their children. Much of it will be through anecdotes from my experience as the father of a child who has gone through sports education in a local primary school, as well as from the many conversations that I have had with parents with children in the current primary and secondary school local system.

Like many in this House, my wife and I enrolled our son in the local primary school system. It is a system that is robust, well thought through and which works. While many parents focused predominantly on a school’s academic success, accessibility through alumni membership or perhaps proximity to home, my wife and I, when looking for a primary school for our son, also looked at the breadth of sports offered by the school.

You see, Sir, as I have shared before in this House, sports is not just about fitness, wellness and competition. More importantly, Members in this House who have played sports would agree with me here, sports is about learning traits, such as teamwork, fair play and values such as respect, resilience and graciousness. Through sports, children learn sportsmanship and other life skills. They develop a sense of fellowship with one’s competitiveness that is not selfish or self-centred.

Sports would also enable our children to build relationships with people across all sectors, with many lasting a lifetime. On the football pitch, when you are playing as a team, it matters not whether you live in a 1-room rental flat or a good class bungalow, or whether you are the top student or worst student in class. What matters most is that you are working together, having each other’s back, in the bid to score against the opposing team. It is perhaps one of the best social leveller platforms around.

So, when it was time to sign up my son for a sport, it was a new experience for me. Back in the day when I wanted to play a sport, I just turned up when the teachers asked me to and that was it, we played. Today, it is a pretty complicated exercise to play in the sport of your choice.

Most schools now have an online registration system for CCAs that opens for a specific window, during which parents must go online to register their child for the CCA of their choice. And it is not a given that you will get to play the sport or CCA that you have selected for your child as there are limited places. So, it is on a first-come-first-served basis. This is also incredibly tough for parents who do not have immediate access to the Internet during that specific window. I am speaking from experience here.

I have always been puzzled by the thinking behind this. If you are a child in a primary school and love a sport and want to play it, you should be encouraged to pursue your passion instead of being told that there are “not enough” places in that CCA and sent off to a sport or CCA that you have absolutely no interest in. As I understand it, part of the reason for this is that schools now farm out some of their CCAs to external vendors who cannot cope with the large numbers of students keen on popular sports, or are not paid to do so.

Often, we hear about schools that decide against offering sports options that they do not excel in. I know of one particular school that stopped offering a sport after repeatedly finishing second and third in national tournaments. Parents and children are also told that that there are too few children interested in that particular sport so it does not make sense to offer that CCA. The end result is that even if it is a fairly popular sport like football or tennis, some schools tend to not offer the sport as a CCA. Parents are then told: "Don’t worry. You can engage your own coach and enlist your child in a programme to participate in the sport he or she enjoys and, we, as a school, will recognise it as an official CCA".

What this means is that the more affluent parents will engage private coaches for their children, and the children from less affluent families make do with playing an alternative sport which they may not like or have any interest in. It also means that parents have a very big say in the running of the CCA and, sometimes, this can lead to conflicts of interests with regard to team selections and performance.

Perhaps, a solution would be for schools in a particular zone or area to come together and decide collectively to offer sports that they may not be able to offer on their own. Schools pooling their resources could also alleviate cost concerns as, when CCAs are farmed out to vendors, it usually means that parents have to top up the fees. The shared fees would reduce the burden for less affluent families.

Sir, another suggestion I would like to make is for all schools to have a common basic sports curriculum to introduce popular sports to all children. If a child does not know what sport he or she wants to participate in, the introduction to a comprehensive sports programme, perhaps during physical education (PE), will allow the child to familiarise himself or herself with different types of sports and identify ones that he or she enjoys and would want to pursue. This would also give children a broader understanding of sports in general, be it rugby, football, swimming, table tennis, badminton, hockey or whatever the sport may be. I understand that some schools do introduce one or two sports during PE, but this is not comprehensive, nor is it standard across all schools.

The Government could also take the lead in creating public spaces where kids can play sports without the hassle of booking fields and courts, many of which require some form of online registration and payment, which children might not have access to. We have done an amazing job with our park connectors. Surely, we can do just as amazing a job by creating open, public spaces in neighbourhoods where any child can play a sport of his or her choice, without fear of reproach, meaning, not being chased away or reprimanded as I was decades ago when honing my football skills in HDB void decks.

Sir, I call for greater scrutiny on external vendors appointed to run CCA programmes for schools. For those running sports CCAs, many are former national and club sportsmen who may have robust credentials as sportsmen but have little or no qualification or experience in coaching or, more importantly, educating children.

I have seen this first-hand, where fundamentals like proper warm-up and warm-down techniques, drills and explanations about sportsmanship and respect are not part of the sports CCA's curriculum.

What you often find instead is a strong emphasis on winning, which in itself is not a bad thing; but sports education in schools should be more than just about winning. There are vendors who blatantly tell parents, "Your child need more coaching. I am happy to coach him outside of the CCA hours, and these are my rates". And lo and behold, the kids who go for these private extra coaching end up on the first team representing the school. Again, this encourages elitism, where the affluent parents will be able to get their kids on the school team because they can afford the additional coaching.

There are also vendors who are harassed by parents on the sidelines: parents who yell instructions and abuses during tournaments and pressure the coaches to place their children. Again, this is not what playing sport is about. Worse still, children who have parents who work lose out because their mothers or fathers are not at the training or competition grounds to lobby on behalf of their children. This is behaviour that is fundamentally wrong.

Sir, I urge the Ministry to take a closer look at how schools organise their PE curriculum and CCA, and how external vendors are appointed. For sports CCAs, what are the credentials of these vendors and how are they assessed? It cannot just be about winning tournaments. Perhaps, Sport Singapore, the Singapore Sports Institute and the Singapore Sports School can lend their expertise to help schools craft the PE and sports CCA curriculum so that every child can enjoy and reap the benefits of sport.

Teachers managing sports CCAs as well as vendors could also be better trained to nurture children who play sport, which could include advice on nutrition and physical and mental wellness. Sir, what I am sharing is probably not new to many in this House, or to any parent with school-going children. But I raise this now, in light of this Motion, to strongly urge the House that if we are serious about encouraging our children to pursue their passions, that education continues to be the pathway for success for those who have less, then perhaps it is time that we pay more attention to sports education. Sports in our schools should be a meeting place for friendship, fellowship and the pure enjoyment of sport, regardless of your family and financial background. It is one of the few places in a child's schooling life where he or she is not judged by their academic prowess and we should do all we can to return to this spirit.

Sir, I would like to turn our attention to my second point, about the DSA programme. When conceived and introduced in 2004, the programme was to enable Primary 6 and Secondary 4 students who are exceptionally talented not just in academics but also CCAs, and sports included, to be guaranteed places in secondary schools or JCs, through tests and trials. While the scheme has worked and Minister Ng Chee Meng has announced that a review is being undertaken to address how different schools select students, here are some observations about the scheme that merit further scrutiny.

One unintended consequence of the scheme is the emergence of "DSA coaches". These are sports coaches who have, over the years, studied the DSA entrance requirements of schools and created programmes that aim to guarantee your child a place in the school of choice if you enrol your child in their classes over a period of time. Some of them are so good at it that they will refund the fees if your child does not make it to the school of your choice through the DSA programme.

Sir, all parents want the best for their children. So, parents who can afford the fees would enrol their kids in these programmes. But what do these coaches actually teach? A friend, whose child attended one of these classes, talked about how the coach instructed the child not to pass the ball to his team mates during the trials or when the coaches from the DSA schools were observing him. This is to ensure that the child would outshine his team mates and secure that precious DSA place in the school.

Another child, who had no interest in any sport, was enrolled by his parents into a shooting class that guaranteed success in the DSA trials and a place in a top school. Yes, the boy got into the school through DSA, but is now miserable as he does not enjoy the sport and only enrolled and played it to get into the top school. We need to ask ourselves if this is what the DSA scheme is intended to be and if this "gaming" of the system is acceptable. Is this what sports is about? Do we want to encourage such behaviour and, worse, reward it, by giving these children places in our top schools?

What we need is for the system to also recognise and reward children who exemplify good sportsmanship and character as these are qualities that will stay with them beyond their school sporting careers. Just look at Japan at this year's Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup in Russia. They were a hair's breadth away from beating Belgium and qualifying for the Quarter Finals but the world now remembers them more for their behaviour off the field, for their fair play and how they left their dressing room spotless and penned a note of thanks in Russian to their hosts.

Perhaps, the Ministry can work on tweaking the DSA trials to include criteria, such as sportsmanship, fair play and traits and values exhibited like Sean See from St Andrew's Secondary School. Sean, the school's hockey captain, captured our hearts earlier this year when he asked the umpire not to allow a goal that his team had scored when their opponent was not ready, as he felt it would not have been fair to the other team. This resulted in his team eventually losing the match. To me, values, such as integrity and fair play, are as important, if not more, than one's ability as an athlete. By including these other criteria in the DSA selection process, the Ministry would send a strong signal to the teachers, coaches, parents and children about the kind of young Singapore it hopes to nurture. And it will also create a more level playing field as these values cannot be paid for.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the other main role in education belongs to us, the parents. Fundamentally, it is up to parents who should know and understand our children best, to make the best decision with them and not for them. Let me share a personal experience which I think has helped me become a better father. I think most people in this House know that I love sport. I played it at all levels and am a true football nut. So, when my son came along, all I dreamed of was to see him have the same passion for sport as I did, and for football, in particular.

When he was about four or five years old, I enrolled him in a football academy, as I had wanted him to have a very good foundation. But after a few weeks of watching him from the sidelines, I noticed that while he seemed happy enough, instead of going after the ball and passing it, all he seemed to do was chase after the other children, much like he was playing a game of "catching". So, on the way home from training one day, I decided to have a heart-to-heart with him. "Do you actually enjoy football?" I asked. "Yes, daddy, very much", he said, smiling. Then, I pressed, "But why do you just chase the kids around?" The smile on his face turned to a frown and, almost bursting into tears, he said, "Actually, daddy, I don't like football at all." So, I said, "Why didn't you say anything, you don't have to play the sport if you don't like it?" And his response broke my heart, "Because you love football, daddy." That is when I realised that, as a father, I just assumed that my child would love what I loved and would want to be just like me. But I had never bothered to ask him what he liked.

So, for the next few years, we encouraged him to play whatever sport or activity he wanted. He tried everything from aikido, to swimming to table tennis to golf. And, finally, after a few years later, on his own, he began to develop a love for football – thank God! And he is today an accomplished footballer, having played competitive football for school and club. It is a sport he genuinely loves, for all the right reasons. As parents, it is natural to want our children to be just like us and have the same interests as us. As a parent, it is also easy to fall into the trap of seeing other parents and their children succeeding and excelling in different sports and thinking to ourselves our boy or girl could also do that. I know of parents who have pushed their children so hard that their children end up resenting not just the sport but their parents as well.

I am reminded of an interview I read in the Financial Times about a month ago. It was an interview with Andira Zafirakou, who was recently crowned the best teacher in the world, the 2018 winner of the Global Teacher Prize. She says and I quote, "Every child is different. Some children will really benefit from the military lining up and find it comforting. But, then, some children won't be able to adapt to those environments and that will cause mental health issues."

The point here is that, as parents, we need to understand our children better, to listen more and to listen effectively. And as far as sport education is concerned, we would have succeeded when sport elicits the same unbridled joy in every child that we see when the school bell rings to announce it is time for recess. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Tamil please.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Mr Speaker, sports in schools are not just for ordinary physical exercise. Neither is it for the purpose of competition. Sports are more than that. Children enjoy the benefits of playing in the field through their interaction with one another and learn values, such as comradeship, hard work, discipline and honesty. When children engage themselves in sports, they develop among them the sense of competition, become unenvious, forbearing, develop together good virtues and the sense of accepting defeat. At present, sports in schools have become very competitive.

Today, affluent parents send their children for multiple coaching classes so that they can get into top schools under the Direct Schools Admission programme. This favours the affluent parents and discriminates against the less well-off parents who may not be able to afford such classes to prepare their children. Therefore, there needs to be a level playing field.

Parents and educators should look into this and create an interest among children for sports and let them enjoy it. When the recess bell is rung, the children run and play with one another. Likewise, such a situation should exist when they engage themselves in sports activities in schools.

(In English): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I stand and support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.58 pm until 4.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Before we resume, can I just perhaps pose two questions to Members: who is the most important teacher in our child's life? And where is the most important school? I think systems, structures, processes are important, but I think it is useful to think about what the answers to those questions might be.

4.20 pm

Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly support this Motion. Education is the key enabler to unleashing potential and poverty; it is the key to gaining more knowledge; and it is the key to staying relevant and future-ready.

The Motion on Education is a broad topic. I just wish to speak on something that is close to my heart: adult learning and lifelong learning. Continuous skills upgrading and learning are paramount for us to keep abreast of the changes that are happening in the fast-changing world.

The SkillsFuture credit was introduced to encourage Singaporeans to learn new skills, new knowledge. Some use it for higher learning programmes and, some others, for new skills. As of 1 February 2018, 285,000 Singaporeans have used their SkillsFuture credits. However, more awareness needs to be created about the use of this credit. Additionally, there must be three "Flex" for lifelong learning to be successful. Flex-time, flex-place, and flex-learning would further encourage Singaporeans to embrace lifelong learning more readily. Age is just a number. What is important is the tenacity to be open-minded, be adaptable to un-learn and re-learn new knowledge and skill sets.

There should be co-ownership between employers and employees and interns to train and learn, so that employers can retain skilled people in the workforce. Employees must be open to training and upgrading their skills and knowledge. Employers should give these employees opportunities to go for training so as to upskill themselves. More online learning courses can be made available to allow for flexibility in learning.

The winning formula for continuous and lifelong learning is mindset change by all three parties. Employers must be receptive to training young people through effective collaboration with Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and increase the rate of place-and-train for students, interns and employees. Employees, too, must be receptive to the notion of learning while working and with attaining a skill qualification or equivalent skills. The Government, too, must change its mindset towards the definition of training and learning.

In today's time and age, learning is multifaceted and the mode of learning is multi-pronged. It need not be purely classroom training of defined hours, but rather, a composite type of training which includes classroom, on-the-job training, application-based learning, e-learning and, in some cases, virtual reality, too, can be used.

SkillsFuture Singapore, too, must transform to meet the needs of today's industry and training relevance. The ideal is to have WSQ programmes for skill-based training. However, if the regulatory and policy process becomes an impediment to making a relevant customised programme nationally recognised, then we have a challenge of persuading both young and mature workers to go for training recognised only within the company. Skill sets must be transferable, even though this can be customised. We need to be agile and yet develop programmes to fit the need of industries of not only today, but for the future.

The question of how fast do the IHLs develop programmes that are relevant for the future, as identified by EDB, which brings in new investments, remains to be seen. For instance, in the green energy industry sector, have we trained an adequate number of cohorts to fit this industry under the place-and-train programme, if we find that this will be the future-ready skill that is required now? If data analytics and AI are expected of future industries, the future workforce, how ready are we in developing our own skilled workforce? Can the IHLs turn this around to suit the needs of the future fast enough?

Singapore's education system is among the most highly regarded in the world, but it is also a very stressful one for the students and young people. We were the top-performing country in Science, Mathematics and Reading in a 2015 study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It also suggested they scored higher on test anxiety. The adult literacy rate of Singapore increased from 92.5% in 2000 to 96.8% in 2015 with an annual growth rate of 0.75%. This rate is for a population of 15 years of age and above, who can, with understanding, read and write simple statements in their everyday life. Such achievements are commendable, but it has to translate into a better life for Singaporeans.

It is, indeed, heartening to note the Education Minister Ong Ye Kung's comment in a recent The Straits Times interview, "Singapore's compass for the education system points towards two things: preparing the young for the future and ensuring that education continues to be an uplifting and integrating force in society". In other words, education is a social leveller. In his interview with The Straits Times, he also, with pragmatism, said, "A prime minister without a degree can happen not too far off in the future as there is nothing inherent in a Minister's job that requires a degree".

His comments provide a new hope and the beginning of a new dawn to those who have missed out on their formal education route. He further stressed that Singaporeans should not narrow their opportunities by chasing only after paper qualifications and pursuing academic excellence, such as going to university. There are many pathways to achieving success and success is defined as what one sees as success. He further said, "Education has been, and will continue to be, an uplifting and integrating force in society."

I applaud Minister Ong, being a proponent of an aptitude-based selection process, for his bold move to introduce aptitude-based admissions and lifelong opportunities in an increasingly diverse higher education landscape during his time as Education Minister (Higher Education and Skills). It is important not to place over-emphasis on academic achievements, but on skills and talents. We must embrace diversity of skills and talents, each of which combines to form a successful Singapore, since human resource is our only available critical asset and brain power is our gift.

Mindset change is important. Employers should not recruit based on paper qualifications alone, but to look at other skill sets relevant to the job. Many employers are still taking examination grades as proxy to a potential employee doing well at work. This is a fallacy. More should be done to change this.

Education should not be exclusive to a few, but an inclusive social leveller. We must transform the way we teach and the way we learn and discover new things. For continuous learning and lifelong learning to be successful, there must be conversations with adult learners and working people, as many are attending part-time classes to attain paper qualifications. For skills to be truly recognised across Singapore, we must ensure Public Service, Government agencies and Statutory Boards revamp its recruitment methods to provide greater emphasis on aptitude, attitude and skills, with less focus on paper qualification. In fact, some private sectors are more inclined to recruit an applicant based on skill sets and this is, indeed, commendable.

The thinking of Singaporeans, too, must change. Recently, I met with a union member who asked, "If I do part-time studies, will I receive additional increment or job promotion once I pass or graduate from this programme?" This is a natural reaction of anyone who wants to upgrade himself or herself. For lifelong learning to really succeed, one must erase the notion of "establish reward first, then train", but learn and train for the love of learning and staying relevant.

As defined, lifelong learning is the "ongoing, voluntary and self-motivated" pursuit of knowledge for either personal or professional reasons. There must be a national lifelong learning movement across Singapore. This can be done with the Singapore Conversation.

In summary, learning must be enjoyable, interesting, flexible and innovative, so as to capture the attention of both the young and old. We can catalyse the love for lifelong learning by forming a community of learners and a lifelong learning movement, especially when a person transits from school to workplace and this has to be seamless. Mindset change is the important ingredient to the recipe of recognising skills and aptitudes, instead of paper qualification. Education itself must be inclusive and be deemed as a social leveller to break the cycle of poverty. Sir, with this, I support the Motion.

4.28 pm

Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): Thank you, Sir. I declare my interest as President of the Society for the Physically Disabled (SPD) and board member of SG Enable.

For this speech, I acknowledge SPD, Singapore Association of Occupational Therapists (SAOT) and Dr May Lim Sok Mui of the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) for their professional inputs. Any unpalatable views, however, are entirely my own.

Sir, I support the Motion and I ask for all our children, including children with disabilities and special needs, to be given equal opportunities to education and the necessary support to develop their potential, to thrive in the same environment as their peers, with or without disabilities, and to participate effectively as members of our society.

Singapore's accession to the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is testament to our country’s commitment to provide an inclusive education for all children and youth, including those with disabilities and special needs.

This commitment is shown in the Government's resourcing of special education (SPED) schools and mainstream schools to support students with special needs and disabilities and the implementation of compulsory education for children with disabilities and special needs with effect from 2019.

Sir, inclusive education is the right of every child, whether with or without disabilities or special needs.

We are naturally drawn to and congregate with people who, overall, are like us and who possess qualities that we aspire to have. It is, therefore, not natural for us to embrace people who are different or who face challenges or difficulties that we do not want for ourselves. It is difficult to be different from the majority. Disabilities and special needs make us different from the majority – the way we look, the way we walk, the way we talk, the way we think. All these make us different in different aspects and it is difficult for us. Inclusive education is, therefore, necessary because of differences and can only succeed by design.

Sir, as we implement inclusive education, I would propose a few fundamental principles to be observed. First, we must be careful not to place the interest of one group of students above the other. The interests of both groups are equally important. Secondly, we must create opportunities for both groups of children to play, learn and grow together. We should, to the extent practicable, remove barriers against children accepting one another.

In respect of the first principle, studies show that children undergoing inclusive education achieve greater progress in reading, Mathematics and general academic performance. They are also given the opportunity to develop meaningful friendships, understand, appreciate and respect individual differences and prepare for engagement in diversity. Therefore, inclusive education, if prudently implemented, benefits children with and without disabilities.

From the broader and long-term perspective, inclusive education forges a common identity and bonding between our young ones, with and without disabilities or special needs, and inculcates in them important values, all of which will, in turn, build their resilience and that of our country.

Sir, a common identity and bonding between students with and without disabilities and in special needs are, therefore, important to Singapore, important to these young ones and can be achieved in various ways.

Firstly, the sharing of common physical spaces. The provision of accessible infrastructure, where children are brought together in common physical spaces creates opportunities for shared experiences and the sharing of diverse experiences, just like in National Service, and that, in turn, creates a common bonding.

Sir, the following could be considered: the co-location of SPED schools with mainstream schools. I know we are working on that. The setting of special classes in mainstream schools allows students with special needs to spend some of their lessons in special education classes appropriate to them and also in other classes together with their non-special education peers. Thirdly, of course, which is also what is happening now, the inclusion of students with disabilities or special needs in mainstream schools.

Perhaps, the Ministry of Education (MOE) can also consider a concept of enhancing a common identity through the wearing of the same uniform. So, when schools co-locate or where they have sharing of classes, perhaps the students could wear the same uniform. That way, they will feel like they are one and the same, together in the environment that they will grow together in.

The third principle, removing what keeps students apart. The first sub-principle is to increase their independence. When we broadly categorise school activities into learning, self-care and school-leisure, it becomes apparent that children with handwriting difficulties, cerebral palsy, autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, social and emotional issues and so on, will find difficulties engaging in these school activities. Such difficulties will create dependency on teachers and classmates and will impede the performance to the full potential of the child.

In addition, the dependency on teachers and classmates could result in the child being perceived as a source of nuisance, annoyance or disruption. If we drop a pen, we can pick it up rather easily. So, it is understandable that we may be annoyed if we have to repeatedly pick up a pen for a student or a classmate.

The difficulties in engaging in school activities are intimidating, but not insurmountable. The use of assistive technology, environmental modification, application of principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and life/social skills development can overcome or ameliorate the difficulties. However, expertise in these areas lies outside that of our teachers. It is not reasonable to expect teachers to be occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech therapists, IT experts, social workers and counsellors, all at once.

And, yet, the current support system for students in these respects is limited by structural and funding constraints. So, we have limited access to occupational therapists because it is on an ad hoc and time-limited basis. Organisations like SAOT and SPD that provide a suite of relevant professional services to support schools are not often called upon.

To increase the level of independence of students with disabilities or special needs, the suite of professional support services, on whatever basis, should be accessible to students on a continuing, sustained and sustainable basis. I, therefore, propose that the Ministry of Health (MOH), MOE and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) collaboratively review the support and funding structures accordingly.

Secondly, facilitating learning. Sir, each of us learns differently, regardless of whether we have special needs or not. We may facilitate learning in three ways: through the adoption of UDL in which teachers and educators are guided in the development of flexible learning curriculum which caters to the individual learning differences of students, whether with or without disabilities or special needs. For example, instead of delivering an essay, students may be assessed on a video produced by them. And the UDL framework accommodates students, regardless of needs, right from the start.

Next, to be open to the development of bespoke curriculum that caters to the abilities of the children, taking into consideration their disabilities or special needs. So, we base the curriculum on the national curriculum, but modify that according to the abilities or disabilities of a child. And we issue the certifications for the completion of the courses accordingly.

Next, we could work on the better adoption of technology through the use of real-time, interactive, direct-to-classroom virtual learning. We could also use mainstream voice-to-text or text-to-voice technology for a child who is unable to type or not able to see or not able to hear. This technology can empower them to do their homework, to hear a book, even to do their examinations. These are a few examples. If you would like to know more, please visit Tech Able.

Sub-principle three: involving the whole school. Inclusive education requires a whole-of-school approach. In Australia, school-level good practices include adjustments to cultures, policies and practices, development of support structures, regimes of funding support and the provision of and access to equitable learning opportunities. In class, differentiating curriculum or alternative curricula, application of universal design, use of information technologies and individual education plans are applied for students.

Closer to home, Mayflower Primary School enrolled six deaf students this year and it undertook systemic and infrastructural changes to accommodate them. In addition, the cultural change in the school shows that it takes a whole school to make the students with disabilities feel welcome and accepted.

The final sub-principle: acceptance. Inclusive education turns very much on acceptance by Singaporeans of persons with disabilities and special needs. Inclusive education requires parents of children without disabilities and special needs to agree and encourage their children to make friends with children with disabilities, to allow children with disabilities and special needs to attend school with them.

Based on the survey results of the Lien Foundation Inclusive Attitudes Survey in 2016 and the findings from a series of surveys in 2016 by the National Council of Social Service, although seven out of 10 Singaporeans support inclusive education, only half of the parents surveyed are comfortable to let their children sit next to a child with disabilities.

It also requires educators and policymakers to be bold, affirming that education goes beyond the acquisition of knowledge to the inculcation of values, the most basic of which is the respect for the dignity and potential of another human being and, by so affirming, to walk the talk.

Based on the same survey findings, half of the children with special needs had difficulty enrolling in mainstream preschools because of their special needs. I understand MSF is taking action to resource preschools and I applaud that. But consistent with these findings, the findings on mainstream primary school enrolment are that half of the parents of children with special needs consider it a success if their children can get into a mainstream primary school.

Inclusive education requires members of the public to accept people with disabilities and children with disabilities. Based on survey findings, whilst 64% of Singaporeans are willing to share public spaces with people with disabilities, they are not willing to interact with them.

All these mindsets will filter down to the young souls of our children. Unless we change, our children cannot be any better.

So, I ask that we all work together. And parents of children with disabilities, I ask that you do not give up. Do not give up on your children. Your struggles may be phenomenal, but you do not have to walk alone because there are many Singaporeans who will walk with you.

In my concluding remarks, Sir, I want to say again that it is difficult to be different from the majority. Our disabilities and special needs make us different from the majority. And the differences are accentuated when we are placed in environments that are suited to the majority.

In a short story written by HG Wells, "The Country of the Blind", a fully sighted mountaineer named Nuñez loses his way and finds himself in the "Country of the Blind". It is an unusual village with windowless houses and a network of paths, all bordered by kerbs. He thinks, that in the "Country of the Blind", the One-Eyed Man is King. He thinks he can rule them. The villagers cannot, however, understand the concept of sight because they live in darkness. In due course, he falls in love with his employer's daughter but he is not allowed to marry her, unless his eyes are removed.

How does the story end? It depends on the version that you want to read.

But we learn that the differences arise from different perspectives. In the Country of the Blind, who is the person with a disability? Who is the misfit? Who is the one who needs accommodation?

We can all work together and turn differences and different perspectives into positive effect, only if we hear each other and are prepared to push frontiers unfamiliar to us.

Sir, I stand before the House as an example of a person with a disability who has benefited from mainstream education. You asked two important questions just now. The first: who is the most important teacher in our lives, and which is the most important school? I am blessed to say that I have had many teachers who made that difference because they did not treat me as inferior to a child without disability. They accommodated my disability but they treated me the same. So, when I did not do my homework, I was punished. When I talked too much, I was punished. But I was like any other child. It was not always easy; there were times when I felt like a burden. I am sure there were many times my friends felt like I was a nuisance. But you know what, we grew up together. We did not think we had a choice, we stuck together and we grew up together. It got easier when I went to university. So primary school, secondary school, PLMGS. My principal was here yesterday, she was one of those who accommodated me.

Mr Speaker: Ms Chia Yong Yong, like any other Member of Parliament, you have to wrap up.

Ms Chia Yong Yong: And I want to say this: that mainstream education, Sir, what I went through is what I think is an opportunity we should give to every child. I urge all Members to do and to work together for every child because every child matters. Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

4.49 pm

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Sir, first, I would like to declare my interest as an employee of SUSS, which is an institution dedicated to lifelong learning. Sir, I agree with the statement of the Motion. Our education strategy must continue to be founded on the basis of a love for learning.

I believe, however, that we should also not neglect the role that economic priorities have had in shaping the choices that we have made in this area both as a society as well as individuals. It is important to recognise that the ultimate satisfaction that individuals derive from learning is often based as much on the fulfilment of practical objectives as it is on philomathean impulses.

In an age of intensifying global and regional economic competition, there is almost no doubt that the economic imperatives determining what we learn, how we learn and where we learn will only continue to grow in dominance.

We should see the education journey of our nation in the light of the challenges we have faced in building our nation.

Sir, in that sense, our education system must build on its strengths and anticipate these challenges with future-ready policies that match or exceed the effectiveness of those that other advanced economies have deployed. There are many of these, most notably those in OECD.

Supporting individuals in their pursuit of a love of learning cannot be allowed to become identified with a denial of the importance of pursuing practical economic value in the learning process. Both should be seen as alternate perspectives of the enrichment of human capital for the individual.

For a small country like Singapore whose dependence on workforce performance is now being brought into sharp relief with the simultaneous onslaught of demographic shifts, skills challenges and productivity concerns, ensuring the human capital security of future generations of workers should be of paramount concern to policymakers. By ensuring we maximise the human capital potential of our small workforce, we can continue to overcome the natural disadvantages of being a small nation competing at the frontiers of technology.

The education system we have has been holding out the best hope for expanding opportunities for the disadvantaged and one of the main challenges we face is to ensure this continues to remain so in the face of the disruptive forces that unsettle both our economy and our society.

Since Independence, Singapore’s education system has enabled widespread participation with its strong emphasis on ensuring universal access to basic education. This approach has brought tangible benefits to large segments of society. In particular, members of the lower-income groups have been able to take advantage of significant opportunities for social mobility.

Sir, in recent years, with the general elevation of income levels, the challenges have become more complex. Hence, the relevance of this Motion to the lower income is especially important. This should bring us back to the fundamental basis of the early success of our system. This is a recognition of the fact that should the opportunities to this group narrow, the overall outcomes to society will worsen.

One of the most prominent empirical economic findings in the last few decades has been the determination that the estimated impact that additional years of schooling have on tangible labour market outcomes, especially earnings, is a significant measurable magnitude. In anticipation of this payoff, there has been a change in behaviour and that is the reason why we have witnessed huge individual and societal investments in educational pursuits.

The education system must ensure that all segments of society have access that enables them to gain from these payoffs in a manner that at least matches their efforts. The data on the employment outcomes of graduates from tertiary institutions in Singapore confirm these points. Nothing emphasises the importance of educational attainment more than the fact that university graduates, generally speaking, earn more than their polytechnic counterparts. The pattern is repeated when you compare polytechnic graduates and their Institute of Technical Education (ITE) counterparts.

However, both ratios have dipped from 2007 to 2017, indicating that disparity between the different levels of tertiary institution graduates has actually narrowed. This shows that even as further education bestows clear advantages in the labour market, the benefits are not confined to further education at the university level alone. A solid grounding at any level counts. This is particularly important for social mobility, for it demonstrates the availability of intermediate levels of upgrading which do not prevent those with limited means – financial or otherwise – from attaining the same educational goals as those who are better endowed or better resourced.

From 2007 to 2017, the median gross monthly starting salary of graduates in full-time permanent employment grew at a compound annual growth rate of 2.1%. The corresponding figure for post-NS polytechnic graduates is almost the same at 2.2%. For post-NS graduates from ITE, however, the growth was nearly twice this during that period, at 4.1%. Nonetheless, compelling as they are, starting salaries represent only part of the picture about how well any system of education performs.

It is important to also consider how well an educational foundation serves its graduates over the span of their careers. The major challenge posed by the rapid advance of technology is the accelerating pace at which knowledge and skills become obsolete.

The need to make up for the natural depletion of knowledge is not a concept that is foreign to this House. Members of this House, at various points in the last few years, have shown a keen understanding of this connection. During the Committee of Supply (COS) debate for the Ministry of Trade and Industry in 1994, for instance, Assoc Prof Koo Tsai Kee, then-Member for Tanjong Pagar, had argued that there was a link between the fact that "the shelf life of knowledge is becoming shorter and shorter" and the need to treat education and training as "continuous lifelong processes".

Again, in 2005, during the COS debate for MOE, then-nominated Member of Parliament, Dr Loo Choon Yong, had warned that "even medical knowledge has a half-life of seven years only". A year and a half after that, during the debate on the President's Address, the Minister of State for Trade and Industry at that time, Mr Lee Yi Shyan, in pushing for a re-examination of the skills upgrading policy then, had pointed out that "half of what you learn in four years in polytechnics and universities can become obsolete in two years, and they get halved every two years".

Much more recently, just this year, during the debate on the Annual Budget Statement, our hon colleague Mr Patrick Tay drew our attention to the issue of skills being at risk. Mr Tay’s emphasis and those of the other hon Members I had cited above should lead us to realise that the shelf life of skills and learning has always been short and is possibly getting even shorter in some fields. Because this shelf life is not much longer than the education and training which had led to their acquisition in the first place, an important objective of a sound education system should be to lay the foundations for a continuous process of learning.

There is already good appreciation about the importance of continuous learning. And there is also widespread acknowledgement that such continuous learning, regardless of whether we speak of lifelong educational pursuits, retraining at work or continuous upgrading of skills, is thrust upon us by the advance of technology and the resulting decline in the shelf life of knowledge and skills.

The imperative for continuing education and lifelong learning to be relevant to the needs of the economy is at least as urgent as it is for early basic education. Adult learners have to juggle different roles and the immediacy of their roles in the workforce means that their skills must be responsive to current employer needs. Our education system must meet the needs of lifelong learners and skills upgraders with the same rigour that it has cemented the basic educational foundation of early learners.

The system of skills training and upgrading should be built upon a firm foundation imbued in young learners from an early age that learning itself must always be a lifelong pursuit.

The importance of learning takes on added prominence during the current industry transformation drive. And the sense of uncertainty pervades not just the adult training landscape but also affects the sense of direction of young learners, many of whom are often confused about how they should embark upon seemingly irrevocable decisions about lifelong careers at an early age.

Sir, we should be careful to realise that just as sailors who navigate choppy waters need to seek safe harbour to replenish their strength and supplies, it is important for our basic education system to provide anchorage to learners that will stand them in good stead when they embark upon their lifelong learning endeavour.

The last thing we want is for everyone to discard the strong foundations currently offered by our education system. Learning is age-dependent and young learners benefit from the security of a rigorous grounding in the basics. Having a solid foundation in the basics also prepares them for self-directed learning throughout the rest of their lifelong journey as a learner.

Hence, while we seek to continually upgrade and keep our education system relevant, we must also seek to retain those fundamental pillars of strength which continue to have a timeless relevance for any learner.

Although there is much scope for policy to promote learning which meets the needs of an advanced economy like ours, the ultimate motivating factor for effective learning is still a love for it. That is why it is important to ensure that policies are an enabler, helping learners to persist in their natural inclination to pursue lifelong learning.

In closing, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to give you my response to the two questions you asked. In my opinion, the most important school is the School of Life and that is why I think the most important type of learning is lifelong learning. My most important teachers have been all of my teachers.

In closing, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to also thank MOE for its tireless efforts in bringing us to this point of our nation-building journey. Sir, I support the Motion.

5.00 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. By most measures, we have an excellent education system and our system has kept up with the times and our nation's needs. To meet tomorrow's needs, I would like to propose fine-tuning the way we evaluate our students. Doing so will strengthen the critical thinking and the relevance of what our students learn in the humanities and applied subjects, at the "N", "O" and "A" levels. At the same time, I would like to speak about encouraging better social mixing between students from different schools so that we can shape a better future for Singapore.

In any education system, the evaluation system – or examinations – is the critical link between what should be taught verses what ends up being taught. An examination is where the rubber hits the road. The best intention of any curriculum developer can only be translated to effective learning if the examinations are properly designed and evaluated correctly by somebody appropriately trained.

Today, our current systems work very well for mathematics and science subjects, because these subjects are objective and theoretical. Nevertheless, there is scope for fine-tuning in two areas: one, fine-tune how we evaluate humanities subjects; and, two, accredit the industries to evaluate applied subjects.

From time to time, we sometimes hear that we can do more to promote critical thinking when our students learn humanities. Some humanities teachers, I was told, teach the students to recognise patterns and regurgitate pre-determined answers.

Why is critical thinking important? Well, the humanities study the human condition, society and culture. Or, in short, life. Just like in life, there is no right or wrong answer in the humanities. There is only a way to think rationally and look at the big picture. If we do not teach this, we are doing a disservice to our students and are holding them back beyond their school years.

Why then are some teachers still focused on encouraging students to regurgitate answers, rather than to think critically and independently? One contributing factor could be the way in which our humanities are being marked at the "O", "N" and "A" levels.

Currently, overseas educators from Cambridge mark our examination papers. They then provide annual feedback to MOE on how our students fare. In addition, every few years, the Cambridge chief markers will come down to Singapore to provide in-depth feedback to selected Singapore teachers under the "train-the-trainer" approach. These Singapore teachers then relay the gist of what they have learnt from the Cambridge markers to the rest of the teachers.

However, because information is sometimes lost in the transmission process, some of the Singapore humanities teachers might not get a uniform picture of how Cambridge evaluates our students. And some of these teachers, operating without the fullest clarity and, I must stress, out of the best intention for their students, fall back on encouraging pattern recognition and regurgitation of pre-determined answers.

If this is a possible issue, then a possible solution must be to try to provide as much clarity as possible to our teachers. One way of doing so is to build up a team of Singapore-based professional markers for humanities subjects, even as we continue to work with Cambridge as our examination partner. These professional markers can be former teachers. But I hope that once they become markers, they should not be allowed to go back to become teachers or part-time tutors. Besides focusing on marking, they can also work closely and strengthen MOE's curriculum development team. And because this team is based in Singapore rather than in Cambridge, they will have ample time to communicate with full clarity with all our Singapore-based teachers.

The benefits are clear. Because our teachers will have minimal uncertainty on how the markers will grade the subjects, our curriculum developers will have more opportunities to: one, promote independent thinking; and, two, shorten the curriculum review cycle. At the same time, it will ensure a clear divide between the professional markers and the teachers, so that the markings can continue to be fair and equitable.

Next, I would like to talk about applied subjects. I am very heartened by the recent moves to teach applied subjects, such as computing, mobile robotics, sports science and retail operations at the "N", "O" and "A" levels. This is a good move that can prepare our students for the future and I believe we can build on this. We can do so in two ways: one, by ensuring our students are taught the most current curriculum; and, two, by ensuring our students are being evaluated by accredited examiners with directly relevant industry experience.

Currently, even for applied subjects, I was told that the curriculum is set two to three years before the actual year of assessment and the curriculum will last for four to six years before review. As we know, in some applied subjects, changes in technology happen quickly and a six-to-eight year curriculum cycle could be too long.

Of course, one can argue that at the "N", "O" and "A" levels, our students can focus on the foundational knowledge for applied courses. Nevertheless, there could be scope for us to do better. One way we can do so is to examine what is being done in Hong Kong. I am not advocating for our examination board to be privatised like in Hong Kong. Rather, I am suggesting we take a look at how Hong Kong's examination board works with the private sector to accredit certain members of the relevant industries to evaluate students. For example, students learning auto repair would be evaluated by specially accredited actual mechanics, operating in real workshops, rather than in mock-up classrooms. I do understand this is a departure from the current way we evaluate, but I hope that we can at least explore incorporating elements of this approach even for our "N", "O" and "A" levels.

Related to this is to encourage more industry practitioners to join in as teachers or as part-time teachers for applied subjects. Today, I believe that we have a lot of capable industry practitioners who are teaching and lecturing at universities and they find it a privilege to do so. Perhaps we could also confer the same amount of prestige and encouragement to encourage more of these industry practitioners, very excellent industry practitioners, to do so in ITE and polytechnics as well.

Working with the industry to be accredited examiners, bringing more industry practitioners to be teachers, these two will help our students learn current content for applied subjects and help us transit towards a model that is closer to Germany's apprenticeship model.

Let me speak about the next topic, which is forging friendship across social divides. Even though our social divide is nowhere as serious as in many other countries, there is always scope for us to do better. Singaporeans expect us to try our best. One powerful lever is our education system. MOE is already doing a lot, but there could be scope for more.

Today, MOE already encourages our students to do values-in-action programmes and this has, in my view, brought out altruism in our youths today which I am very proud of. I am for suggesting that MOE can provide bonus points to encourage collaborations between different schools. For example, at the cluster level, MOE cluster leaders can actively foster collaboration between elite and other schools, so as to give students from different educational backgrounds a chance to forge friendship from a young age.

MOE can also strengthen the collaboration with the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY)'s ActiveSG to encourage social mixing through sports. Today, MCCY is already encouraging students to interact with their peers doing sports outside of their school. Where we can improve is this: MOE and MCCY can collaborate by growing ActiveSG's Sports Academy and Clubs to absorb even more students from all schools and give them co-curricular activity (CCA) under the Leadership Engagement and Development (LEAD) framework. At the same time, MOE can also invite Sports Academy to send teams to join various inter-school sports teams.

These are just two ideas where MOE can encourage our youth to come together to bridge the social divides. When our youth willingly come together to socialise, they will treasure the bonds that they built.

To sum up what I have suggested, education is not preparing students for examinations. It is preparing them for life. By strengthening the teaching of independent and critical thinking, up-to-date practical skills and social skills, we can further achieve our aim. With that, Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

5.10 pm

The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank our five Nominated Members of Parliament for tabling this important Motion and the Members who have spoken during this debate. Many of you spoke passionately and many from personal experiences, especially Ms Rahayu Mahzam, whom I also thank for proposing additions to the Motion, which I support.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Faishal Ibrahim and Second Minister Indranee Rajah will address many of the issues raised by Members. Amidst all the ideas and suggestions raised, I thought it will be useful for me to speak on the key principles of Singapore's education system.

Last week, David Brooks wrote a piece called, "The paradox of the gender divide". He observed that in the Nordic countries, where gender equality is the highest, many women exercise their choice and opt out of the corporate rat race. So, the greater the gender equality, the fewer the number of female corporate managers. That is the paradox.

In education, we encounter similar paradoxes, too. There are at least two. The first paradox is that of meritocracy. Meritocracy recognises talent and ability over wealth and circumstances of birth. It motivates society to work hard. It encourages us to develop our talents and put our talents and strengths to good use.

This approach has uplifted many families over the decades. Many Members of the House have benefited from this approach and philosophy. And as families do well, they believe in meritocracy and, therefore, they spare no effort investing in their next generation, including enrichment classes, from a very young age.

Hence, children today from more affluent families are now doing better than those from lower-income families in school. Unlike the first generation of Singaporeans where students are mostly from humble backgrounds, the next generation is pushing off blocks from different starting points and students from affluent families have a head start.

So, meritocracy, arising from a belief in fairness, seems to have, paradoxically, resulted in systematic unfairness. This is the question we all ask ourselves.

There is a second paradox and that is of inequality. When I was young, most of my classmates, including myself, were from humble backgrounds. By the sheer law of probability, some of us ended up as top performers in schools.

Today, the percentage of students from similar backgrounds are much smaller and it continues to shrink. Ten years ago, about 20% of our employed households had an income of $3,000 or less, at 2017 dollars. Today, that has gone down to well below 15%. And I think it will continue to shrink as we continue to uplift families.

This is a happy outcome. But as we successfully uplift more poor families, the smaller group of families that remain poor are facing increasingly difficult challenges. Their challenges are also translated to their children's performances in school. So, as we uplift poor families, the greater the achievement gap between the rich and poor in school. That is the second paradox.

As we confront these paradoxes, we question if our policies and approaches have run their course and perhaps it is time to slaughter some sacred cows and take a fundamentally different approach. It depends on which cows you are thinking of slaughtering. For some, maybe. For some, my answer is no.

Paradoxes make us think hard about our challenges and our choices. But we can resolve these apparent contradictions. Take the gender divide debate in the Nordic countries. They provided more equal opportunities to men and women, but women chose not to be like men and, so, there is no contradiction in both greater equality and fewer female corporate managers.

How do we deal with the two paradoxes I mentioned: that of meritocracy, and that of achievement gap? Let us start with meritocracy. It is in danger, recently, of becoming a dirty word.

A couple of education-related controversies arose in the US recently. The first was a lawsuit filed against University of Harvard for systemic bias against Asians over the years. It was alleged that Asians who tended to score highest in the admission tests for Harvard were marked down by the university on soft criteria, such as personality. So, it is not just Singaporeans who are kiasu and study a lot. Asians overseas, like those in the US, they, too, study very well and ace their examinations. Apparently, Harvard did this to preserve ethnic diversity in the university.

The second controversy was that the Mayor of New York recently suggested to scrap the highly competitive admission examinations for eight of the city’s specialised public high schools. Sixty-two percent of the students in these schools are Asians, who tend to perform well in these examinations. The move by the Mayor of New York will reduce the number of Asians and increase the number of black and Hispanic students being admitted into these specialised high schools.

Some ideas that we have come across in recent weeks – I must say not from this House, but from what we have read – are along the lines of what the US schools are doing. There was a suggestion that we set a quota for lower-income students in popular schools. I am not in a position to comment on the admission policies for US schools. But Singapore’s circumstances are different and unique, and we cannot assume that we will have to eventually do what other countries like the US have done.

Many of our popular schools, and I think Asst Prof Mohan has mentioned it, are making extra efforts to attract eligible students from lower-income families, encouraging diversity amongst students and mingling of students from different backgrounds. And we should encourage them to do more and try even harder.

But setting a quota sends the wrong signal. I do not think it is aligned to our societal ethos. It can even be seen as patronising.

Another common suggestion that was raised is to scrap the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), one of the sacred cows. I will admit that the PSLE is far from a perfect system and does add stress, a lot of stress sometimes – to parents and students. And to the Minister, too. But it happens to be the most meritocratic and probably the fairest of all imperfect systems. If we scrap it, whatever we replace it with to decide on secondary school postings, I think is likely to be worse.

I came across two alternate systems recently. I was in Switzerland last month; the Swiss do not have the equivalent of PSLE. But neither do students have a choice on what secondary school to go to or work towards to go to. They are simply assigned to the school nearest to their homes. I visited one of these schools; I spoke to the students and they all go home for lunch because they said it is a five- to 10-minute walk, different directions, and then they come back to school. They did not have a choice where to go to. However, in Switzerland, the affluent have a choice, because they can pay for their children to go to private schools. In Switzerland, 7% of students attend private schools.

I visited Hong Kong earlier this year. They did away with their equivalent of PSLE some years ago. In its place, Hong Kong uses the school examination scores for Primary 5 and 6 to decide on secondary school postings. But because different primary schools have different standards, they have come up with a device and a tool to harmonise and to normalise the standards, so that they are comparable. In this case, the stress is somewhat transferred upstream. And, like the Swiss, there is also a thriving private school sector in Hong Kong, which accounts for nearly 30% of the student intake.

The Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC), a self-help group which I chair, has a programme called the supervised Homework Group programme. Here, young volunteers spend a few hours a week tutoring and helping students from lower-income families with their homework. On surface, it is to help these students with their homework, but the unspoken objective is for the volunteers to act as role models for the children.

I thought the volunteers would be a very suitable group who should have their opinion heard. So, I asked if they think PSLE should be scrapped. They have no vested interests; they have gone through the education system themselves and they are now helping poor students cope with schoolwork. So, I thought, "Let us hear their opinion."

On the education system as a whole, they have many different views. But on PSLE, the great majority disagreed with scrapping it.

The common reasons they cite were that they felt that PSLE can, in fact, motivate the poorer students to work hard and there are resources to support the poorer students. One expressed, frankly, that we can complain that PSLE favours the rich, but the rich are better poised to prepare their children in whatever alternate system that is in place. They say support the weaker students more, but do not take away the PSLE.

So, I think it is not a straightforward matter. This sacred cow survived for some very valid reasons. But what I think we need to do – we must do – is to reduce the stakes of this examination. Make it less of a do-or-die examination that is so important as if it will determine your whole life, which it does not. And there must be many other ways that we can do to reduce the stakes of this examination.

One way is to ensure a broader definition of merit. One that does not focus too narrowly on past academic scores, but recognises a broad meritocracy of skills, given the various strengths and talents of our people. That, at the core, is the objective of SkillsFuture.

That is why pedagogy is changing in schools, which many Members have acknowledged. It is more experiential, applied and exploratory. There are many more pathways in the higher education sector, leading into lifelong learning that Assoc Prof Randolph Tan talked about. We cannot change the fact that the starting point of each child is different, but our system can ensure that all of them can run a good race and finish this well.

Let us talk about the second paradox, the achievement gap. The easiest way to close the gap is to cap the top. Some of the suggestions raised in public, such as banning tuition and enrichment classes, redistributing resources from popular to less popular schools, are pointing in that direction.

Excessive tuition to the point of causing undue stress and killing the joy of learning is not good for the child. But I do not think capping achievements and limiting opportunities are the right approach either. It runs against a very fundamental philosophy of our education system. As the educators in MOE will say in Chinese,"保底不封顶", meaning "do not cap the top, but uplift the bottom".

Indeed, a good proportion, about 7.5%, of students who live in 1- to 3-room HDB flats emerge as top PSLE performers every year. And there are many others with great non-academic strengths and talents. We must continue to strive to help them develop their strengths to the fullest.

MOE’s resourcing of schools reflect this approach. The highest level of funding, about $24,000 per student, goes to the Specialised Schools: Crest Secondary School, Spectra Secondary School, NorthLight School and Assumption Pathway School.

The next highest levels of resourcing, about $20,000 and $15,000 per student, goes to Normal (Technical) and Normal (Academic) streams respectively. A student in other courses in Government and Government-aided schools and in Independent Schools attracts under $15,000 of resources per student.

In addition, MOE regularly rotates and ensures that our good performing teachers and principals are well spread across different types of schools. Beyond resourcing of schools, further assistance is granted to students from lower-income households in the form of financial assistance schemes, bursaries, school meal programmes and the Opportunity Fund.

The Public Service Commission (PSC) also reaches out to students from different schools, in a quest for diversity amongst Government scholars. It has been paying special attention to applicants from lower-income families.

Students from two junior colleges (JCs) – Raffles Institution (RI) and Hwa Chong – used to dominate the scholarships awards. But the situation is improving. In 2007, over 80% of PSC scholars were from these two JCs. In 2017, the percentage has come down to 60%.

PSC is also adjusting its interview techniques. They recognise that students from poorer backgrounds tend to be less articulate. So, the Commission is assessing candidates beyond their communication skills, but instead, looking into the substance of what they say, their ideas and thinking.

As a result, we continue to see President’s Scholars who come from humble backgrounds or outside the most popular JCs. In 2016, LTA Natasha Ann Lum Mei Seem became the first President’s and Singapore Armed Forces Scholar from Pioneer JC. She is now studying in the US and is an Air Force C3 Officer.

At last year’s President’s Scholar award ceremony, I sat next to Mr Lee Tat Wei, whose father was a taxi driver and mother a part-time sales assistant. Tat Wei is also studying in the US and, when he graduates, he will join the Foreign Service.

Our approach of lifting the bottom has other significant outcomes. First, what we used to regard as opportunities available to students from more affluent backgrounds are now broadly accessible. For example, most schools now organise overseas learning experiences. Schools are offering a wide variety of CCAs: Tanglin Secondary School has fencing as a CCA; Kent Ridge Secondary School offers sailing, North Vista Secondary School offers string ensemble and NorthLight School has, for many years, run an equestrian programme for its students.

The Junior Sports Academy (JSA) is another example. It is a two-year free sports development programme for talented and interested P4 and P5 students. The Academy does not scout for high-performing athletes and sportsmen and sportswomen; they look for raw diamonds, students with good motor skills and hand-eye coordination abilities and then help them develop their sporting skills through professional coaching.

Since 2017, we have doubled the capacity of the Programme to about 800 a year. Some students from the Programme – and Mr Rajaram may be happy to note this – have gone on to gain places in secondary schools through the Direct School Admission (DSA) system. They did not go to those expensive coaches with high rates. It is done by the JSA and is free-of-charge. MOE is now in the initial stages of developing a similar programme for the Arts. It is a good example of an alternate system that we discussed and what will happen if we do not have PSLE.

DSA is an alternate system. Mr Rajaram has correctly pointed out, the affluent will always have a way, whatever system it is, to make use of it. But in this case, DSA also serves those from humble backgrounds and we are able to train them to enter the top and popular schools. So, we ask ourselves: are we better off with, or without, this alternate system?

And I think we may well be better off having a system that can enable students from humble backgrounds to enter popular schools, notwithstanding affluent students will also be able to make use of it.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

The second significant outcome is smaller class sizes for weaker students. The additional resources for Specialised Schools and students in Normal streams come partly in the form of additional teaching resources. In Crest Secondary School, Spectra Secondary School, NorthLight School and Assumption Pathway School, the typical class size is 20.

In lower primary, Learning Support Programmes are done in groups of eight to 10. Many Normal (Technical) classes are now taught in sizes of 20 or have a class size of 40 but two teachers. In many JCs, consultations between students and teachers are often one-to-one. For sessions with an education and career guidance counsellor, students meet one-on-one or in very small groups.

There is, sometimes, still the perception that students study in one class and it is of a certain size. The reality and the lived experience of students are that they now regularly move around, join different groups and there is no single class size.

Let me put MOE's position on class size straight and clear: with good teachers, smaller class sizes help the students. Our teachers can attest to that through first-hand experience. In fact, I think there was a suggestion by Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin to do a study. Actually, we are convinced. With good teachers, smaller class sizes help the students. It is quite clear.

Why then is MOE cautious on the issue of class size? Because how it is implemented makes all the difference. Let me cite the results of a few studies to illustrate this. They are done overseas, but, nevertheless, are scientific studies and we should take note of the results.

In 2009, Hong Kong did a study on small class teaching in primary schools. It put about 700 classes through an experiment over three years, varying their class sizes along the way. The study found that however they varied the class sizes, there were no significant differences on performances, compared to the territory-wide averages.

What Hong Kong did find was that where an experimental school or class did significantly better, it was because the principal was more experienced, took an active role in developing the curriculum and the teachers and involved the parents in education. Those were the key drivers of better performances.

Another study was done by the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel and results were published in their 2016 Annual Report. Unlike the Hong Kong study, the Taub Center did not conduct an experiment. They gathered a large volume of data on students' results and did a multivariate analysis on the key determinants of the results, with a special focus to find out if class size made a difference.

The conclusion was in the first page of the report on the study, which said, "No significant relationship was found between class size and achievement." However, the study did find that, for the learning of Hebrew, the larger the class size, the better the results. There are various explanations behind this, but I would not go into it today.

The third study was done in 2011 by the Center for American Progress and the results were particularly insightful and shed light on the results of the two studies I previously cited.

It observed that smaller class sizes were a popular idea, but, after tens of billions of dollars were spent across states, particularly in California and Florida, it did not affect results in a statistically significant way. One reason was that in the US' context, smaller class sizes meant hiring of many new teachers who were inexperienced and yet to be effective in the classroom.

The report said, "The evidence on class size indicates that smaller classes can, in some circumstances, improve student achievement if implemented in a focused way. But class size reduction policies generally take exactly the opposite approach by pursuing across the board reduction… (They are) also extremely expensive and represented wasted opportunities to make smarter educational investments."

When I was in Finland earlier this year, I visited a secondary school. Finland has a very good education system. And I asked the teachers for their opinion on class sizes. They told me this: they said there are different political parties in Finland and each has a position on the class size. Whoever is elected would then legislate the class size and put it into law.

The teachers said they would rather not have the rigidity. Grant the school the teaching resources and give them the flexibility to configure class sizes for different groups of students for different subjects. This is what Singapore has been doing.

Let me summarise. Earlier generations of Singaporeans have worked hard to uplift their lives and education played a major role. But success creates new problems. The doubts of many Singaporeans – whether meritocracy still works, whether inequality is worsening – are, paradoxically, the results of our policies succeeding and improving the lives of Singapore families. That is why I said tackling inequality is unfinished business.

But I stress there is no contradiction between meritocracy and fairness, nor reducing inequality and raising our collective standards. Instead, we should double up on meritocracy, by broadening its definition to embrace various talents and skills. We should not cap achievement at the top, but work harder to lift the bottom.

I wanted to set out these fundamentals, because it is important to have broad agreement around them. If we have, we are in a much better position to develop the education system to better prepare our children for the future.

As to what exactly we need to do in terms of programmes, initiatives and policy reviews, MOE will take in all the views and suggestions raised inside and outside of this House and consider them. Some we will implement. Some may take time to implement. Others may involve trade-offs and we may decide not to implement them for the time being.

Mr Speaker asked two questions. He asked, “What is the most important school you attend? Who are our most important teachers?” My answer is this: the most important school is our family; the most important teacher is our parents.

Of course, it takes a village to raise a child. But the home and the parents are one of the most important education experiences all of us would have. Imagine a family is a school and a parent is a teacher. It makes the job of MOE complicated. Between the parent and the child, it is a complex relationship. All of us who are parents would know that there are expectations, love, respect, hopes, fears, and worries, as a parent. It is a complex relationship and MOE is in the middle of it.

It also means that being an educator is a great privilege because you get to educate a child who is the most cherished and valuable to the parents. This is why Mr Darryl David mentioned that being a teacher is unlike all other professions, it is unlike a lawyer or a pilot, where nobody questions you on how you do your job. But when it comes to teachers, parents will question, because parents, too, are the most important teachers to the child. And it is a complex relationship between mother and child; father and child. There are so many opinions on education because of that. It is so close to our hearts because it affects the closest people in our lives – our children.

It also means that discussions on education can be frustrating and sometimes end up in a stalemate. Parents will say, "MOE, you better change." MOE will say, "I think parents, too, you need to change." Sometimes, we point fingers at each other. The children do not say this. They look at you and say, "I think both of you better change."

The truth is, we are all in this together, as partners, to build a better future. I feel optimistic and hopeful because, through all these speeches today, it may appear that we have different views. But underlying all that, there is consensus on the direction ahead. I do not think we ever had such a strong chorus of voices in the House, emphasising the importance of joy of learning and cautioning against excessive tuition and relentless chasing of academic results.

I believe this is a view that will reverberate beyond this Chamber. MOE and all our partners will work together. MOE, with the resources and policy levers, will be the initiator of changes and be the system integrator and work together to bring about improvements and change. All of us cannot fail the young people of Singapore and cannot fail our society.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

5.41 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mr Deputy Speaker, Minister Ong had earlier raised the importance of how we should not cap the top, but lift the bottom. I would like to add that to lift the bottom, we are committed to ensuring equal access to opportunities for every child, from preschool to adulthood.

Our commitment goes beyond our students in school to adult learners who have graduated from the formal school system. MOE leads the SkillsFuture movement, which emphasises opportunities for Singaporeans to fulfil their potential, regardless of starting points. A wide range of subsidised modular courses are available through the SkillsFuture series at our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). We also empower individuals to make informed decisions for lifelong learning through the MySkillsFuture portal, which hosts online self-assessment tools. This ensures that those who may have had a rockier start than most, can still find a path back into learning and retool themselves for a better future.

For now, let us go back to the start of a child's educational journey. MOE believes that with a robust system of support, all children can go on to lead confident, independent lives with hope in the future. I will cover three points, specifically, how MOE is committed to investing in three groups of students: our students from disadvantaged families; our high-needs learners; and our students with special educational needs.

First, I will talk about supporting our children from disadvantaged families. Let us start with Sitihajar, who is currently a Primary 1 student at Riverside Primary School. Prior to joining Riverside Primary School, she was enrolled in MK@Riverside in 2016.

Recognising that children learn better in school when they have a strong early start, we set up the first five MOE Kindergartens in 2014 with the following admissions policy: to reserve one-third of places for Singaporean children from low-income households. This has benefited children like Sitihajar, who may not have had the opportunity to enjoy quality and affordable preschool education otherwise.

Sitihajar also benefited from the subsidies provided through the Kindergarten Fee Assistance Scheme. Last year, her monthly fees at MOE Kindergarten cost $150. But because Sitihajar's family met the income eligibility criteria, her parents only paid a monthly fee of $1.50. As Sitihajar was also enrolled in KCare for afternoon student care, her parents paid $2.10, instead of the monthly fee of $225 for Singapore Citizen children. Sitihajar was also able to redeem three sets of uniforms yearly, as part of the Start-Up Grant of $240.

While she joined MK@Riverside with fear and anxiety, Sitihajar blossomed into a confident and joyful learner. Her experience at MOE Kindergarten gave her a good head start when she enrolled in Riverside Primary School this year.

Similarly, her brother, Saiful, who is in Primary 4 this year in the same school, also receives financial support under MOE's Financial Assistance Scheme. Under this scheme, he has his school and miscellaneous fees waived and receives free textbooks, school attires and transport subsidies. He is automatically placed on the School Meals Programme, where he can use the meal subsidies for breakfast, lunch and recess. With basic needs, such as food and transportation, no longer a concern, Saiful is a friendly and helpful student who is fully engaged in his learning. I should add that MOE's financial assistance would apply to Saiful, even if his family is already receiving concurrent help from other agencies.

We do not want financial concerns to prevent our children from exploring their interests. Over the past few years, Saiful has been able to tap on the school's Opportunity Fund to enjoy co-curricular activities, such as a local learning journey to the River Safari. In the future, as Sitihajar and Saiful progress to a post-secondary educational institution, such as ITE, polytechnics or autonomous universities (AU), we will continue to support them.

Since 2017, we have increased the quantum and extended the coverage of Government bursaries for ITE, polytechnic and AU students. By raising the annual bursary quantum of the Community Development Council/Citizens Consultative Committee Bursary by between $200 to $400, depending on the institution, we can help students further defray the cost of post-secondary education. We have also enhanced students' access to these bursaries by introducing Gross Monthly Household Income as an alternative income assessment, so that more students qualify for assistance. Students may also apply for other merit-based scholarships and financial assistance schemes offered by foundations, Self-Help Groups and other community or private organisations.

As shared earlier during the Parliamentary Question (PQ), in 2016, over 70% of students at ITE received some form of financial aid, bursaries or scholarships. More than 60% of our students in polytechnics and AUs receive similar support.

So, just like Sitihajar and Saiful, other children with a similar background can be assured that they will be given the same opportunities, regardless of their family circumstances.

I will speak now about investing in our high-needs learners and preparing all students for the future. MOE remains committed to helping our weaker students in schools through levelling-up initiatives. For example, additional teachers are provided to ensure that the Learning Support Programme and its sister programme, Learning Support for Mathematics, for lower primary students, are conducted in small groups of less than 10. A primary school student on these programmes would have received 60% more resourcing, compared to a peer not on the programme.

At the secondary level, MOE provides additional resourcing for students from the Normal course. To smoothen their transition to post-secondary education, these students can take Elective Modules, which are 20- to 30-hour modules that secondary schools may develop together with our ITEs and polytechnics.

Bendemeer Secondary School is one such good school that has done well to support its students from the Normal course. As part of its Elective Module Framework, the school identifies accredited Science and Technology courses at ITE that would benefit students as they face the future economy. For Secondary 4 students, the Elective Modules are used as precursors for different pathways, leading to post-secondary education institutions. The support provided by Bendemeer Secondary School is not just academic. They also have the Students Overcome Adversity Responsibly (SOAR) programme, that engages at-risk youths after school. Through the programme, these students engage in healthy and meaningful recreational activities jointly planned by community partners, such as Family Service Centres.

MOE also provides authentic work-experience opportunities for students in Specialised Schools, such as NorthLight School and Assumption Pathway School. For students in these schools who are not yet ready to further their education at ITE or start work independently at the workplace, they can join the Work-Study Pathways programme. They will have on-the-job learning at the workplace for three days and continue with their education for the remaining two. Regardless where our students begin in life, MOE has always placed importance on nurturing students who do not just have the mastery of knowledge, but also skills and attributes required to succeed in life. So, we look at the different strengths and we help them as much as we can.

Mr Azmoon Ahmad acknowledged the success of the Malay community and shared his concerns about children from disadvantaged backgrounds. He has concerns if they are able to progress as well as they should. I would like to address this point in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Sir, there have been discussions on the state of the Malay community. One of the discussions is about the concern that we have not progressed, left behind and excluded from the nation’s development. I would like to assure you that this is not the case. So far, the Malay community has shown progress in education, as we will see from the data that I will be sharing now.

Based on data over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the percentage of Malay students entering post-secondary education – 84.1% of the Primary 1 Cohort in 1997 has gone on to post-secondary education. Meanwhile, the Primary 1 cohort in 2006, who are now 18 years old, 94% of that cohort has progressed to post-secondary education. We have also seen an increase in the number of students who have attained passes in three “O” level subjects. In 2007, 86.6% of Malay students have attained passes in at least 3 “O” level subjects. In 2016, this number increased to 91.3%. For "A" level students, 76.4% of students who sat for the examinations in 2007 have obtained passes in at least three H2 subjects, as well as passes in General Paper and Knowledge and Inquiry. This percentage increased to 83.2% in 2016.

Our children have shown an improved performance currently. With an even higher passing rate, they have even more options when they continue their studies at the post-secondary level, including various opportunities for higher education and getting better jobs.

However, as a community, there is still more that we can do. We must be aware of the needs of our neighbours, family members and friends by giving our support and encouragement to them. We are not alone in this regard. I would like to assure you that MOE is highly committed towards providing support to our children, regardless of race or background.

I will now continue my speech in English where I will touch on our efforts and support for our children with Special Education Needs.

(In English): The last group of students I will focus on is our students with Special Educational Needs. Ms Rahayu Mahzam earlier highlighted her experience as a parent of a child with special needs. The role of parents and caregivers is critical and a challenging one, especially during the crucial transition points of the care recipient's life. As the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for MSF, I would like to reassure Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Ms Chia Yong Yong that the Government has not forgotten families and caregivers of persons with disabilities. As part of our efforts under the Third Enabling Masterplan, we are adopting a whole-of-life approach to ensuring adequate support and transition for persons with disabilities and their caregivers at each life stage.

MSF will develop a framework to support caregivers, especially new parents of children with special needs, to build relevant skills and improve their understanding of special needs.

For young children at risk of developmental delays, the Government aims to strengthen early detection and intervention to maximise their developmental potential. MSF is piloting the development of a continuum of early intervention services with varying intensities, to better meet the different needs of our children over time.

We hope that early intervention will give our children a good start as they progress to formal education. Currently, there are 31,000 students with Special Educational Needs, with 80% of them in mainstream schools and another 20% in our SPED schools.

As we support our students, we recognise the need to change the narrative in our society. We want to celebrate our children, to focus on their abilities, not disabilities. We want to work towards a society where we do not just accept, but embrace those who are differently-abled. We want to see this cultural change in our schools, both SPED and mainstream.

However, we must pace this change. The sense of welcome that we want to achieve has to be developed and achieved over time and with sustained effort. We need everyone to commit to this – teachers, schools, parents, the public, employers and the wider society. Likewise, we have to teach our children with Special Educational Needs to be advocates for themselves. They must learn how to communicate their needs to friends, co-workers and employers and to be confident contributors to our society.

MOE recognises the importance of skills development for all our students with Special Educational Needs. Sometimes, these skills are best developed in customised learning environments, such as small groups, so that students with particular learning needs can receive intensive learning experiences. Sometimes, the skills need to be developed in authentic "real world" contexts, such as the experience of communicating with typically developing peers and adults in community settings.

This is because not all our students with Special Educational Needs are comfortable in social settings and require a long-term level of support by specially-trained teachers to develop the skills needed. The best combination of both settings – customised and "real world" – varies from child to child. A child who has moderate to severe needs will benefit from extensive support available in SPED schools and a paced inclusion in "real world" settings, through interaction opportunities with peers and adults in a variety of activities.

A child with mild Special Educational Needs can function in the typical settings of a mainstream school's lessons and CCAs but will need occasional pull out sessions, perhaps once a week, one-to-one or in a small group, to learn certain skills more explicitly.

This is where we are seeking to have a hybrid approach. The learning environment of a SPED school accommodates the needs of such students, allowing them to learn at a comfortable pace. When they are ready, they have opportunities to interact with peers in other schools, such as through the Satellite Partnerships.

Internationally, school systems continue to wrestle with the question of what is the right amount of inclusion for students with Special Educational Needs. Ms Chia Yong Yong and Ms Rahayu Mahzam have shared with us approaches to inclusion which need to be studied further. They can rest assured that MOE will take their suggestions seriously. I thank them for their suggestions.

There are about 25,000 students with Special Educational Needs in our schools. They spend a large portion of their day learning together with their peers. This is where they attend the mainstream schools. Since 2005, we have equipped all teachers with a basic understanding on supporting these students during their pre-service training in NIE. All schools have a core group of teachers, known as our Teachers Trained in Special Needs, to provide support to students in our classrooms. We recognise the importance of equipping our teachers with these skills and have stepped up our efforts to train more in the next few years.

Our Allied Educators in Learning and Behavioural Support also work alongside our teachers. Let me illustrate this through the story of Sam from Presbyterian High School. Because of Autism Spectrum Disorder, Sam had difficulties approaching teachers and presenting in class. He would feel sick and look for opportunities to avoid these situations. This is unfortunate, because while Sam has a flair for Chinese orchestral music and plays the "Ruan" well, he is afraid of performing in front of others.

Thankfully, we have an Allied Educator, Mr Lae Chung Kit, who worked closely with Sam's teachers and parent, to equip Sam with the strategies to manage his anxiety-related difficulties in social situations. Eventually, I am happy to share, Sam applied what he learnt and put up a great performance in front of the whole school! We know that there are many more teachers and Allied Educators like Mr Lae out there who are supporting our students to overcome their learning difficulties.

A number of students in mainstream schools also need support for other physical impairments or for hearing loss or visual impairment. MOE fully funds a range of Assistive Technological Devices, also known as AT Devices, for them and also collaborates with two Volunteer Welfare Organisations, the Asian Women's Welfare Association and The Singapore Association for the Deaf, to provide integration and learning support for students with physical and sensory impairments. These organisations also provide training for students and teachers on the use of AT Devices. Likewise, students in SPED schools who need AT Devices receive them for free.

I have shared Sam's journey in a mainstream school. Now, I would like to share the story of Emeth, who graduated from MINDS Woodlands Gardens School in 2017. Deemed ready for work, he was referred to the School-To-Work Transition Programme, which MOE jointly launched with MSF, and SGEnable in 2015. Job coaches supported him at various work experiences organised by the school and its industry partners. Emeth's parents also worked with the school to reinforce his travel training skills and build his stamina and fitness for employment. This year, Emeth found employment at the Yishun Community Hospital, in the Kitchen Department, where he works as a Kitchen Attendant. A job coach continues to support him as he assimilates into the work environment.

We are happy to share that 150 children have benefited from the programme. They are employed in diverse sectors, such as healthcare, homes, retail and hospitality. By 2019, we hope to expand this programme from the current 12 SPED schools, to 15.

Members have asked whether students like Sam and Emeth get to meet with other students and how well they and their peers are doing in interacting with and understanding one another. Mainstream students are learning important lessons on empathy and acceptance of others who are different from them. This includes explicit instruction about the needs of Persons with Disabilities through the Character and Citizenship Education syllabus. Our schools have also developed programmes to strengthen peer support, so that no child is left behind.

The Rainbow Peer Support Leaders Programme by Orchid Park Secondary School does just that. Students who have been identified to be part of the programme are taught how to support their classmates with Special Educational Needs. They become advocates for their peers, sharing and standing up for them in classrooms. Admittedly, some schools have gone further along the road to an inclusive culture through these programmes, but it is something that every school is committed to bringing about.

Our Satellite Partnership programme has been the bridge in linking our students from both SPED and mainstream schools. In the programme, a SPED school is partnered with a mainstream school and both schools provide purposeful activities, such as joint CCA activities, sharing of facilities and joint school celebrations. As we see our SPED students grow in confidence through the programme, we see our mainstream students grow in empathy. However, partnerships and activities are not limited to the Satellite Partnership. At the recent Singapore Youth Festival Concert, students rehearsed and performed alongside each other in a range of items. The upcoming National Day Celebrations will also bring both groups of students together.

The most intensive form of partnership is the social and academic partnership between Pathlight School and Mayflower, Yio Chu Kang and Peirce secondary schools. This partnership allows for Pathlight students to be taught by Pathlight teachers in self-contained satellite classes sited within mainstream schools. Where appropriate, Pathlight School students join their mainstream peers in their classes for academic learning. This model is possible because the academic and social inclusion opportunities serve the needs of the Pathlight students. The experience is, however, not easy for these students with moderate autism. Yet, gradual exposure over a period of years have benefited these students who go on to post-secondary education institutes.

We have also extended our range of Special Educational Needs support in post-secondary education institutes, as our students with special educational needs move on to the next stage of their education. Since 2014, MOE has established Special Education Needs Support Offices, known as SSOs, in each of our AUs, polytechnics, ITE colleges, and arts institutions. This is a one-stop support unit where students, such as Benjamin, can seek support as they chase their dreams.

Benjamin is currently a second-year student with visual impairment, studying for his Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering at Singapore Polytechnic. To ensure a smooth transition to Singapore Polytechnic, the SSO and Benjamin’s lecturers worked closely to see how they could facilitate his learning, such as enlarging the font sizes on slides and handouts. The SSO also arranged for Benjamin to visit the Resource Centre at the Singapore Association of the Visually Handicapped, so he could find the best AT Device for his needs. He eventually chose a handheld device which makes reading easier by enlarging fonts and adjusting the colour contrast of materials. With the support of his lecturers, friends and staff from the SSO, Benjamin has been doing very well.

As I mentioned earlier, we want to see a change in our schools, both SPED and mainstream – one where our children are celebrated and accepted, where we focus on their strengths and abilities to help them reach their potential.

Have we got the balance right between the customised settings in our SPED schools and the amount of interaction opportunities afforded by Satellite Partnerships today? I think we have made progress, but we still have ways to go. As I see the passion and the concerted efforts of the teachers in both SPED and mainstream schools and also the passion and the touching words and what was spoken earlier, I am confident such inclusion efforts will gain momentum.

In our schools, we must teach our students to be empathetic and accepting of people who are differently-abled from us, who learn at a different pace from us and who come from different family backgrounds from us. From the stories I have shared today, it is heartening to see that we are building students of character.

While we are continuously improving the affordability, accessibility and quality of educational support provisions to students, as adults in the world of work and society, we must be sensitive to the needs of every Singaporean. We must welcome and support them, regardless of their background and starting point in life. In other words, where we begin in life will not dictate where we end up. Only then can we call ourselves a truly inclusive nation. [Applause.]

6.12 pm

The Second Minister for Education (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) for moving this Motion on the important topic of education. They have put the focus on the love of learning as the driving force for education and called for the Government and people to work together to ensure that education is accessible, inclusive and lifelong. I would also like to thank Ms Rahayu Mahzam for her amendments which help to flesh out how we should do this and provides the frame for the action plan, as well as all the Members who have spoken and contributed to this debate.

Listening to the speeches, there are some key themes that have emerged.

The first is that parents want reassurance that their children will have a bright future and that they will not lose out. We have heard much about a future-ready education system, stress, competition, the PSLE, lifelong learning, inclusivity. All these are really different aspects of the same concern, which is, trying to ensure that our children have the best possible chance to succeed.

Second, even as we want our children to get ahead, there is also a strong sentiment that we want our children to be able to enjoy their years in school.

Mr Louis Ng, Mr Darryl David and Mr Kok Heng Leun spoke about this. We do not want the children's years in school to be only about homework, tests, assessments, grades and examination scores. Schooling must also be an enjoyable educational experience, built around a love of learning, of exploration and of play. It must be holistic, teaching skills like critical thinking, to prepare them for the new world ahead and it must have the emotional well-being of students at heart. Mr Ganesh Rajaram and Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin also spoke about the need to change our culture, that as teachers, parents, as a society, we need to give our children space to grow. We need to listen to them better in order to support them better.

Third, many of you also spoke about how this love of learning must be a lifelong one. Ms Thanaletchmi, Assoc Prof Randolph Tan and Mr Darryl David urged that our children must continue to learn after they leave school and throughout their working lives. Employees and employers alike must be nimble and receptive to on-the-job training.

Fourth, this debate reflects our social conscience. Many Members of Parliament, including Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin and Mr Azmoon Ahmad raised the issue of inequality. You worry that the vulnerable, the disabled and the low-income will not be able to get as much out of the education system as those who are better off, that they will get left behind and that the gap is widening. This shows that, as a people, we care about those who are disadvantaged.

A fifth common theme was that of inclusivity, integration and social mixing. Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Ms Chia Yong Yong and Mr Henry Kwek have spoken passionately about this. We are concerned that children born with special needs will go through life without being embraced or valued by society. We are concerned that the divide between rich and poor or between children from different backgrounds and communities may grow. This is important because it says something about our values and the kind of society we want, the kind of people that we are, and we want a society that is more equal, more unified.

Lastly, a call for us to work together to achieve these goals. Ms Denise Phua spoke about the need for the Government to tap on the ideas, expertise of stakeholders to develop policies and programmes together, as we shape an education system for the future.

On all these broad objectives, we are aligned. These are MOE's objectives, too. We, too, want every child to have a bright future and to do well. Like Members of Parliament who have spoken, we want them to have a wonderful school experience. We are also concerned about the vulnerable and we want integration and inclusivity to be at the heart of our education system. Where we may differ in some aspects are on the strategies or solutions, but let me reassure the House that we are very much at one in terms of the overall aims and objectives.

Minister Ong Ye Kung and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Faishal Ibrahim have already explained some of our Ministry's programmes and the considerations behind our work. So, let me wrap up MOE's response by sharing with the House where we are coming from in terms of the big picture: our mission, what we have done, what we are doing and what we will be doing.

Every day, many vehicles and pedestrians go past the MOE signage along North Buona Vista Road. Most people do not stop to examine the signage, but, if you did, you would see MOE's mission statement on it, which is: "Moulding the Future of Our Nation". It is a mission we take very seriously. MOE has walked a life journey, not just with the nation, but also with every Singaporean who has passed through the education system. Let me show you that journey through the eyes of three generations of women.

When Singapore achieved Independence in 1965, Mdm Iris Wong was 11 years old. She used to walk in the hot sun to May South Primary School. School was often disrupted because of social unrest and racial riots. In those early years when Singapore was a fledgling nation, MOE played a key role in racial harmony and integration, bringing children together in a national school system. Our priority for a newly independent country was mass education for a young population and to help people get jobs in an era of industrialisation.

Mdm Wong's education journey ended after Secondary 4, which was considered quite a high attainment in those days. She began work in her father's tailoring shop and had three children, one of whom was a daughter, Josephine. Josephine went to Outram Primary in the 1980s. She drank milk out of little plastic packets and brushed her teeth over the school drain – as I did when I went to primary school in the 1970s! In the 1970s, we had milk, too, because milk was to help children get strong bones as rickets was still a problem at that time, due to poor nutrition in a country that was still not well-off.

By Josephine's time, the economy had changed. We were moving up the value chain, from a lower-skill manufacturing base, which was producing things like fish hooks and matches, to a more capital-intensive and a high-skills economy, producing electronics and petrochemicals. The education system had to adapt to equip Singaporeans to thrive in this new situation and also to address high dropout rates.

That was when streaming was introduced to cater to our children's different learning paces. The school dropout rate fell sharply after streaming. Attrition for the first primary school cohort that was streamed was about one in 10 students, as compared to the previous rates of one in three. Josephine left school, went to polytechnic, worked for a few years and then she got a degree in Marketing Communications. By the time she was being courted by her husband-to-be sometime in the 2000s, the education system was coming of age and undergoing a paradigm shift. We had entered the phase of the knowledge-based economy, where ideas and information are the key drivers of growth. We needed a people with entrepreneurial spirit, the ability to innovate and we had to build intellectual capital.

So, then-Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong introduced a new education philosophy "Thinking Schools, Learning Nation", that reduced curriculum time to make room for more inquiry-based activities that would develop creativity and critical thinking. We also gave our schools greater autonomy to be innovative in programmes and invested in Information and Communications Technology. To deliver this, we hired more teachers and strengthened teachers' professional development to improve teaching quality.

In the 2000s, to cater to new and different aspirations, MOE introduced more choices, diversity and flexibility in terms of types of schools and programmes. In 2010, Josephine gave birth to a beautiful baby girl, Vera. Vera is now eight years old. She started primary school in CHIJ Toa Payoh last year. The future that she faces will be very different from that of her grandmother and her mother. The beginning of this decade when she was born marked the end of the Global Financial Crisis and the beginning of what we call the future economy. The future economy calls for a very different sort of education from that undertaken by Iris and Josephine. It will be a VUCA environment – Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous. It is a future driven by the need for skills, innovation, adaptability and flexibility. It will be disrupted by technology. It will see the weight of the global economy shift towards Asia.

Members have correctly identified that our education system needs to be able to respond to this. And, in fact, MOE has already embarked on this. We are undertaking a transformational change for the next phase in our development.

The reason that I went through this history of MOE is really to show that, at each stage, as times changed, MOE has responded, our education system has responded. It has adapted and adjusted in order to walk that journey with the nation and with Singaporeans.

So, where are we at now? Now, it is really about developing each individual and creating multiple pathways.

First, we now put a lot more emphasis on developing the whole child, not just their academic achievements. This is key to our student-centric, values-driven philosophy. I know people do not like jargons like "student-centric", but, basically, what it means is we put the child at the centre of it and we build around that. MOE's approach is actually best reflected in our 21st Century Competency Framework. I have asked the Clerks to put copies of this on Members' seats. You may see it and if I could ask you to refer to it. It is often referred to as the MOE Swiss Roll but I think if we want to be technically correct, it should be an Arctic roll; Baby Boomers will know which ice-cream I am referring to.

If you look at it, you will see that the core of the framework is values, because at the end of the day, the most important thing is, for the individuals, what kind of person you are, your character. So, values are at the core of it. And this ties in with Character and Citizenship Development, which we have made as a central part of our education system.

The next two rings reflect the social and emotional skills that our children will need to navigate the world ahead; and the outermost ring shows what kind of people we eventually want them to be: confident, able to learn on their own, contributing actively in all their undertakings to society and to be good citizens. So, for the Members who have spoken about the need for character, for good attributes, please be assured that this is actually a focus of our education system.

Next, we have to ensure that our children will attain knowledge, to have a solid foundation in literacy and numeracy. But this book knowledge alone is not enough. This year, OECD published a paper entitled "Education 2030: The Future of Education and Skills". Future-ready students will need broad knowledge, but also practical skills, like the ability to utilise new technology. These skills will be in great demand by employers. And even this is not enough. The churn and change caused by technology and other disruptive factors means that learning has to continue well into adult life. The ability to learn, unlearn and relearn will be key.

Much of the stress that we have talked about is really driven by the assumption that there is only one path to success – the academic route. This has led to the fear that if children do not get into certain schools or into the Express stream, then they will not have a bright future. However, there are, in fact, many different paths to success.

Different children have different personalities, talents and abilities. Some are more academically-inclined. Others are much better with their hands or are more creative and artistic. And different children respond differently to different methods of teaching. The future economy will be much more diverse than today's. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects and accountants will still be around, but the way they do their jobs will be very different. There will be increased demand for jobs in new areas like Financial Technology, Data Analytics, Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality. Dell Technologies recently released a report based on a survey of 3,800 business leaders across the world. It estimated that 85% of the jobs in 2030 have not even been invented yet.

So, when Vera enters the workforce in about 15 years, she may well take on a job that we have not even conceived of today. And yet, it is our task to prepare her for it, for a job that we do not even know is going to come into existence yet.

And for that, you cannot have a system that is one-size-fits-all, nor is there any longer a single measure of success. And learning has to be lifelong. In recognition of this, we have, over the years, introduced different types of schools and programmes to cater for the different strengths and talents of different individuals.

We have the usual "O" and "A" level route, but we also have established the Integrated Programme in various schools to give students more time to immerse themselves in broader learning experiences. We have the Sports School to cater for sporting talent, School of The Arts for those artistically inclined; we have the NUS High School of Math and Science for those who are Science, Technology, Engineeering and Mathematics (STEM)-inclined; and the School of Science and Technology which focuses on STEM as well, but their curriculum also centres on applied and interdisciplinary learning. Then we have Crest and Spectra Secondary Schools to cater to students who would benefit from a skills-based, hands-on curriculum.

There is Northlight and Assumption Pathway to cater for those who may otherwise be at risk of leaving school prematurely. We have secondary schools with Enhanced Art and Music programmes. Mr Kok Heng Leun spoke passionately about Arts and the Humanities. I would encourage Mr Kok and all Members here to visit the Singapore Youth Festival Art Exhibition which is just next door at the National Gallery. You would be amazed at the quality of some of the artwork that is being produced by our students.

More recently, we have introduced Applied Learning Programmes (ALP) in all secondary schools. Changkat Changi Secondary School, whose programme, aptly entitled "SOAR", partners aviation industry giants to give students opportunities to deepen their understanding of aeronautics. This is at secondary school. And Teck Whye Primary School, where students are introduced to Design Thinking concepts, using 3D printing technologies to bring their projects to life. We have adjusted the system for different aptitudes and paces of learning.

While streaming in schools – the old English and Mother Tongue as first language (EM1), English as first language and Mother Tongue as second language (EM2) and English as first language and Mother Tongue as third language (EM3) system – did achieve the objective of lowering attrition rates, it also had the effect of too sharply categorising students at an early stage and did not sufficiently allow for the fact that different students may have strengths in different subjects. So, in its place, we introduced differentiated learning, which recognises that different children have different strengths and also learn different subjects at different paces. This is the subject-based banding, where students can take combinations of standard and foundation subjects.

At secondary school, the Express, Normal (Academic) and Normal (Technical) streams cater to the different talents, strengths and abilities of our students. We have now also extended subject-based banding to cover both the lower and upper secondary levels.

We also have many more subjects and many more subject combinations. Students can dabble in Food and Consumer Education, stand at work benches filling in with different ingredients, instead of at their usual desks; or they can take China Studies to learn about the complexities of Chinese society.

In our IHLs, we now also have subjects which were unknown to parents when they were in school. Singapore Polytechnic’s Diploma in Perfumery and Cosmetic Science taps into a growing global market for fragrance products. At least five of the world’s top flavour and fragrance houses are now based in Singapore and these students’ skills will be highly valued. ITE offers a Higher Nitec in Games Art and Design where you can learn how to create unforgettable characters and entire virtual worlds! And our students are so good, they create games that end up being finalists in showcases like the Tokyo Game Show (TGS).

In addition to all of these, we have created multiple pathways to success.

Post-secondary, we now have the ITE with three campuses, five polytechnics and six AUs.

Many Members of this House will remember the recommendations of the ASPIRE Report, which were debated in this Chamber and which have evolved to become SkillsFuture. The end result of that report was more applied learning; more career options; more career progressions.

We established the Polytechnic Foundation Programme for early entry into polytechnic and the ITE Work-Learn Technical Diploma so that students can undergo apprenticeships and study at the same time.

When students graduate, they can continue to learn, making use of their SkillsFuture credits, or enrol in part-time courses for adults.

Traditional universities like National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University, based on the British model, or Singapore Management University – which is more a US-style business school. In the last few years, we have added three new publicly-funded universities – the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) for engineering, computing, and architecture; the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) for science and technology; and the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) for the social sciences. And SIT and SUSS have a more applied pedagogy and curriculum.

There are many different ways to reach an ultimate goal. You can go the academic route from secondary to JC to university; or to polytechnic, then work; or attend ITE and work through the Work-Learn Technical Diploma; or go to ITE, then polytechnic, then university; or go to polytechnic, work and then move on to university or other professional certifications. There are multiple permutations.

We have made SkillsFuture a movement for lifelong learning, supported by the many SkillsFuture Programmes under MOE, as well as the Adapt and Grow Programmes under MOM.

Minister Ong Ye Kung also recently announced, at the ITE graduation ceremony on 3 July, that working adults will be able to apply to polytechnics via the Early Admissions Exercise from 2020 onwards. This means that adults can secure places in diploma courses through course-specific talents, because the polytechnics will better recognise work experience, instead of relying only on academic results. This is yet another example of our commitment to ensuring that people have many opportunities to progress.

That said, we do acknowledge that there are concerns about over-drilling and an over-emphasis on grades. We, on our part, have made moves to reduce PSLE stress. We stopped revealing the top PSLE scores; we removed banding of schools by academic results.

We are now going one step further. As announced previously, in 2021, we will be making changes to the PSLE scoring and Secondary 1 posting systems. We will replace the T-score with wider scoring bands. This means that there will be only 29 possible PSLE scores, compared to the more than 200 in the current system. This will reduce fine differentiation and comparison between students. It means more schools will share the same cut-off points. We will also introduce tie-breakers – choice, for example – that are not related to academic results.

On to inclusivity. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Faishal Ibrahim has addressed this. But let me just affirm that this is an area in which we want to provide the best possible support to those with special needs and will continue to be an important part of our work.

Ms Chia Yong Yong spoke very passionately just now on this topic. To Ms Chia, I would like to say that she is definitely not a burden. In fact, she is very much a blessing. Her disability or, rather, special ability, has enabled her to give this House insights and perspectives that we would not otherwise have had and this has enriched our debate and informed our policy, and her presence here has given us much more positive contributions. This is the value and the benefit of inclusivity and being able to draw on people with different talents and abilities.

We will continue to ensure that education remains an integrating force that brings everyone together.

On the joy of learning, many Members spoke about this and the importance of giving students time and space to discover who they are. We share their concerns about a culture of over-drilling and over-testing. We agree. Nurturing a love for learning in our students is equally important to us.

We start early – from the preschool years. Our Nurturing Early Learners curriculum, as Mr Louis Ng pointed out, recognises the importance of purposeful play. This framework is shared with the entire preschool sector. The Early Childhood Development Agency’s regulations have also placed more emphasis on outdoor play and physical development.

We have taken steps to unlock curiosity and encourage the joy of learning in our teaching pedagogies, for example, our Programmes for Active Learning and learning through "unstructured" play, where children can engage in open-ended and free play.

In Punggol Primary, teachers set up stations full of supplies for children – nets, leaves, twigs – to create their own rules and games.

At Yang Zheng Primary, students learn English through performing and dramatising stories together. Teachers also create games to teach Math.

We are facilitating sharing among educators on how to adopt innovative and engaging teaching practices so students will enjoy learning through initiatives like the Singapore Teaching Practice, an online portal for teachers.

We acknowledge sentiments from the public, from the House, about how we can work to free our students from the never-ending worksheets and tests. For example, Keming Primary School is exploring moving away from Common Tests, which used to take up about three weeks of curriculum time, to regular checkpoint assessments instead, so that more time is freed up for other learning experiences.

MOE’s Director-General of Education, Mr Wong Siew Hoong, recently sent a note around to the fraternity. In it, he affirmed the good work of teachers. He also encouraged everyone to adopt a spirit of introspection, to reflect on whether some of our practices, despite being done out of love for the child, may have unintended consequences. For example, by giving them too many tests which may deprive them of time for other activities.

So, we will do our part, but we do need the parents and other stakeholders to do their part, too.

Mr Louis Ng called for a review of performance-based ranking for teachers, because he was concerned that they might teach for the test. I would like to reassure Mr Ng and Members that, actually, teacher performance is assessed holistically and is not dependent on their students' academic performance.

Teachers are assessed on a wide range of criteria: quality teaching and learning; character development of students; professional development of self and others; and demonstrated desired personal attributes, professional values and ethics, content mastery and pedagogy of instruction.

Next, bridging gaps.

Members have also expressed concerns about students who are less well-off and disadvantaged. We pay a lot of attention to this group, with interventions and financial assistance. This has enabled students from disadvantaged backgrounds to do better. Today, nine out of 10 students in the lowest SES quintile progress to post-secondary education, up from five in 10, or 50%, 15 years ago.

We top the world Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores in mathematics, science, reading, and collaborative problem-solving. We also top the world in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) – in mathematics and science. We are number two in the world in the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS).

What this shows us is, there are high peaks. We have one of the highest proportions of students performing at the highest levels of proficiency: about one-third to half of our students. Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked if this means that our Singaporean students are ready for the brave new world. The fact that our students come out tops in collaborative problem-solving is promising because it measures not just their content knowledge, but their ability to work with others, communicate and solve complex problems. This will stand us in good stead for the future.

However, what is also notable about these results is that there are no deep valleys, meaning that we have one of the smallest proportions of low performers in PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS. What this means is that our schools are supporting students from all socio-economic backgrounds to do well and that they do better than their peers in other countries.

Nevertheless, like Members who have spoken today, we, too, are concerned about the widening income gap even as the middle class are uplifted and do better over time. The solution is to uplift those at the lower end and close the gap without chopping the top and holding back those who do well, as Minister Ong Ye Kung said just now. This is something we are committed to do.

I also want to say what drives much of our work to support and uplift students are our committed educators, who are at the heart of the system. It is our educators who motivate students and who identify opportunities for them. For example, Outram Secondary School has a remarkable principal, Mr Boo Hian Kok. He formed a task force, consisting of teachers and Student Welfare Officers, to address Long-Term Absentee cases, the children who did not turn up for school. For those teachers, their calendar is cleared for the first few periods in the morning. If students do not turn up by 8.00 am, these teachers will make phone calls, visit homes, knock on their doors and encourage the families to send them to school.

The task force makes a special effort to understand and empathise with the family’s difficulties. They build rapport, so that the family trusts that the school has their child’s welfare at heart. And this has helped many students like Jimmy, not his real name, feel welcome and safe. He used to skip school because his stepmother has a chronic illness and he had to buy her meals. With the school’s help, he now stays with his grandparents, who are better able to care for him. He loves soccer, so, the school placed him in a special soccer programme to encourage him to come back. His attendance is now regular. In the three years since the task force was set up, Outram Secondary has managed to reduce their long-term absenteeism rate by half.

Finally, let me say something about partnership.

At the end of the day, you can see that all of us – parents, teachers, MOE – want the same thing. We want our children and our people to do well. We want them to have as enjoyable an education as possible and we want them to enjoy learning. The key is in striking the right balance and having the right mindset.

On balance, Mr Louis Ng called on us to de-emphasise academic content and emphasise play and exploration. At the same time, Assoc Prof Randolph Tan cautioned that "the last thing we want to do is for everyone to discard the foundations currently offered by our education system" and that "having a solid foundation in the basics also prepares them for self-directed learning throughout the rest of their lifelong journey as a learner."

So, both of them have slightly different perspectives but are on the same spectrum. The question is, where do you set the balance? And that is MOE's task; and that is what MOE strives to do. We have already embarked on the shifts which embody much of what Members have called for. We are not removing PSLE, but the transformation is still taking place as we move more to Applied Learning. The process is ongoing and we do welcome the ideas and suggestions that have been put forward by Members today.

Ms Denise Phua called for a committee to develop an education master plan. The form that this takes is perhaps not so critical, but the key thrust of her suggestion is that achieving our education objectives is really a partnership between all stakeholders. And we will continue to engage and hear from the House, parents, teachers and our youths themselves.

Another important part is mindset. I have already outlined some of the steps that we are taking to reduce stress to try and create a better and more supportive environment for our children by telling them and society that there is much more to life than just grades. But mindset is a difficult thing to change. It takes time. And we call on all partners to do this. As I was reading the newspapers today, I flipped to the Forum page and I saw a letter written by a young, 17-year-old JC student, Teo Chen Wei. He was talking about PSLE. He wondered whether removing the T-score might help, or whether it might actually result in other means of stress. But the most telling thing in his letter was this: he said, “The most effective way to improve the education system is for parents and children to accept that failure in examinations is not failure in life”. And that is correct.

So, what are we doing? We are balancing various things. We want excellence, but excellence does not mean excellence purely in academic grades alone. There are many other paths, as I have pointed out. So, you could be excellent in aeronautics, or the culinary arts. Whatever it is, we want excellence because we want our people to do well. At the same time, does failure mean that you cannot progress? The answer is no, because we have created so many different pathways and we hope that people will see a setback as something from which to learn and to move forward.

Much of the stress is driven by the belief that there is only a narrow gateway and one path to success. But, as I have explained earlier, there are many different paths and I would really urge parents and students to explore what is available and to choose the option that is right for a particular individual.

There is a group of parents who started the campaign “Life Beyond Grades” to demonstrate that the path to success does not depend on grades alone. Parenting is one of the toughest but most fulfilling roles and they all just want the best for their children. So, I hope that more people would adopt this kind of a mindset.

Our system has enabled people to rise from disadvantaged circumstances and to do well. With the creation of the multiple pathways, it means that there are many opportunities with potential for good outcomes, not necessarily the same outcomes, but good outcomes for all. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Debate resumed.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me say at the outset that I promise not to take anymore beyond 10 minutes to make my speech. I say this because I think we have been very fortunate. We have had Ms Rahayu Mahzam suggest amendments to the original Motion, which we actually accepted consensually. And we have also had three Members of the Government respond. We have had Minister Ong Ye Kung speak about the paradoxes which I will mention in a moment. We have Senior Parliamentary Secretary Faishal Ibrahim talk about what is being done for the disadvantaged and disabled communities, or the vulnerable groups. And we have had a wrap-up by Second Minister Indranee Rajah.

What I will say, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that I think what has been best put forward — I mean, all of us have spoken about these issues and we have agreed on a lot of those points. But what has come out, which I think is refreshing in some ways, is that the Government has heard what we have been speaking about. And the Ministry has come forward to say that there are areas where the imperfections are there. The Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) is not perfect. The education system is being tweaked as we speak. I found out just 10 minutes ago what the transformation plan that the Ministry of Education (MOE) has in mind and I think Ms Denise Phua will also be very happy to hear about this.

If this is what we have, if this is what we are looking at, I think we have a bright future in terms of the future of education. Might I just suggest two points?

The first is there has to be a move away from the stalemate between parents and the education system. This is also problematic because a lot of system designers within MOE are also parents. So, I think the first point that has to be made and that has been made by the three Government speakers earlier, is that everyone acknowledges that stress is there. Everyone acknowledges that the children, or the young persons, or the students are dealing with this stress. How do we alleviate these problems without sacrificing excellence and meritocracy? That has to be at the core of this.

The second point that I would like to make is that perhaps when we look at these points, moving away from the stalemate and, in fact, the acknowledgements that the PSLE and other systems are imperfect, is that not every sacred cow needs to be sacrificed. I accept this because, partly, as a Hindu, I do not believe in cow sacrifice at all. Cows are worshipped.

But perhaps, some aspects of the sacred PSLE need to be put out to pasture. What those aspects are we have had some idea of it, but I look forward to 2021, when we will know precisely what is going to be changed. We know banding is going to happen, we know certain other aspects are going to be significantly changed. But I think parents generally, Singaporean parents, are wondering what will really differ so that I do not have to go and pay all my money to a tuition teacher. That is really the question here; I think that is where it is going to go. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kok Heng Leun, you have already made your speech, but I will allow you to seek a clarification if you make it brief.

6.52 pm

Mr Kok Heng Leun: A few things. One is to seek clarification. It is about the PSLE. My problem with PSLE is more of it happening at the age of 12. For children at that age, going through that experience can be quite traumatic. I understand the need for national examinations so that we know, we can allow students to, up to some point, be assessed and then, find the kind of things that they want to go for. Is it possible that we consider, like in some other Scandinavian countries whereby basic education should last more than six years? It can start from six to 16 and, during that process, especially when we have this 21st Century Transformation Plan, where there is so much content in there, that, within those six years or even more and when there are examinations and national examinations in between, the process of learning actually cannot be deep enough. Because you will be moving from learning a bit to preparing for examinations. And I think perhaps the Ministry should start thinking about – that, in the long run, that we should have this shift.

The second thing is about play which fellow Members have talked about, purposeful play. It is just scary that every play becomes purposeful. Then, you would not be playful. Sometimes, whimsical play is equally important because it is only when it is whimsical, that we actually make greater discovery.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, purposeful play is for the learning part, but they do also have just play-play. They do, so do not worry. There are both types of play. We will certainly encourage our teachers and remind them of that.

On PSLE, there has been a lot of debate on that. I think we all agree that it is not a perfect system, but it is something that has stood us in good stead.

We do not want to dismantle something which really helps us to channel the students to the further path ahead. But I think the point that Mr Kok Heng Leun is really making is that, prior to age 12, or leading up to age 12, you want them to enjoy their learning; you want them to have enough content that they have a solid foundation; you do not want them to have so much stress that, not only do they not enjoy it, but it really becomes self-defeating in terms of the educational purpose.

So, as I have said earlier, on those broad objectives, we are aligned. And we will find ways. So, as we have said, we will work together on this. And, in fact, as Members have said, there is much hope, we are working to transform the system so that our students can be ready for the future. We look forward to working with Members, parents, teachers, educators in accomplishing this purpose.

6.56 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: We have come to the conclusion of the debate. I shall put the questions to the House for a decision. We have an amendment proposed by Ms Rahayu Mahzam and we will deal with the amendment first. The amendment is that the words proposed by Ms Rahayu Mahzam be added in line 4 after the word "learners".

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The amendment has been agreed to. The original Motion, as amended, is now before the House.

Original Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises that a love for learning is the foundation of our future, and calls on the Government to partner with the people to ensure accessible, inclusive and lifelong education for all learners, by building an education system that:

(a) gives each student the best possible support, and the opportunity and motivation to excel;

(b) recognises ability and talent in every student, and offers development paths suited to their unique strengths and interests;

(c) enables Singaporeans to improve our lives, paying special attention to students from vulnerable families; and

(d) becomes a platform to bring our young together, to build an inclusive and united Singapore.