Probe into 15 July GCE "O" Level English Oral Exam Incident, Lessons Learnt and Support for Affected Candidates

1 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education in respect of the "O" Level English Language oral examination conducted on 15 July 2026, whether the Ministry intends to review and improve the way the oral examination is conducted notwithstanding the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board's finding that there was no discrepancy in the question displayed on the candidates’ and examiners' screens, to minimise risks of students being unnecessarily affected.

2 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education with respect to the "O" Level English Language oral examination conducted on 15 July 2026 (a) whether any requests for assistance from students or their parents have been received by Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) due to the alleged discrepancy between the question displayed on the candidates’ and the examiners’ screens; and (b) if so, how has SEAB been assisting these students.

3 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Education before the 2026 "O" Level English results are finalised (a) whether the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) will compare candidates’ scores and responses from the 15 July 2026 oral session against other sessions; and (b) what remedies will apply if this shows a material session-level or examination-centre-level anomaly despite SEAB’s finding that one version of the examination video and questions was released.

The Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, may I please address oral Question Nos 1 to 3 on today's Order Paper?

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: My response will also address related oral and written questions filed for the Sitting on 4 August 2026.

Sir, as the questions are about the GCE "O" Level English Oral Language Examination on 15 July, let me first explain the examination process.

Candidates are first seated at the silent preparation station. The candidates view a computer screen with three components simultaneously displayed. The examination instructions, a text prompt and a video.

They are given 10 minutes at this station to prepare a planned response to their oral presentation. After 10 minutes, the candidate is called to the examiners' station. The oral examiner reads out the same text prompt and invites the candidate to commence the presentation. There is another examiner present.

Candidates are given two minutes to deliver their planned response. This is followed by the spoken interaction component, where the candidate engages in a discussion with the oral examiners on a topic based on the video clip.

All examination materials are subjected to a rigorous and secure process of authoring, review and approval. The oral examinations are accessed through the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board's (SEAB's) e-Examination system. Digital logs monitor all activities carried out in the system to ensure the integrity of the processes.

For each oral examination session, only one version of the examination materials is stored on SEAB's e-Examination system. All examination centres access the same materials when they log into SEAB's e-Examination system. The materials are encrypted and can only be accessed by authorised personnel.

Before the start of each session, the Assessment Specialist at SEAB checks that the prompt shown on-screen to candidates during the silent preparation and the prompt shown to the oral examiners tally exactly with the prompt on the question paper in hard copy. Once the examination has commenced, the materials cannot be amended. During the examination, all stations in the examination centres, including the candidates silent preparation stations and the oral examiners stations, access the same approved, secured, encrypted examination materials from the e-Examination system.

There were 389 oral examination teams across schools, with each team comprising two trained oral examiners assessing 13 candidates per session. The video presented to candidates depicted street barbers at work. The prompt for the planned response segment was, "Who do you think would go to a place like this for a haircut? Why do you say so?"

On the day of the examination, 173 candidates from 76 different schools reported that the prompt for the planned response segment displayed on their screen at the silent preparation station was different from the one that was posed by the oral examiners.

In the following days, the number of candidates who reported similar issues concerning the 15 July oral examination increased to 432 from 102 schools. Close to 5,000 candidates sat for the GCE "O" Level English language oral examination on 15 July 2026. On 15 July itself, SEAB took immediate actions to investigate. SEAB verified the examination materials by making system level checks and by logging into candidates' individual accounts in the e-Examination system, which shows the prompt and video accessed by the candidates. The investigation showed that the prompt on the candidates' screens match the prompt in the approved examination materials.

SEAB subsequently also reviewed all the digital logs of the authoring and delivery of the examination material from SEAB's e-Examination system and the digital logs of what was displayed on individual candidates' screens during the silent preparation, for all candidates who reported a discrepancy. In addition, cybersecurity checks were conducted to ascertain if the e-Examination system had been compromised.

Investigations showed that in all examination centres, oral examiners and candidates accessed the same examination materials during the oral examination on 15 July 2026. There was no evidence of a system malfunction. There was no discrepancy in the prompt displayed to candidates and oral examiners. There was only one source that all candidates' and examiners' accounts accessed. There was also no cybersecurity incident detected.

We also observed no discernible pattern of these incidents. The 432 candidates who reported this discrepancy came from 200 different oral examiner teams. There was also no particular order to the affected candidate. For instance, it was the second and eighth out of 13 candidates for one oral exam team. So, in that sequence, this oral exam team would examine 13 candidates, and it was the second and eighth candidate reporting a discrepancy with the other candidates reporting no discrepancy. And for another oral team, it was the third and 10th candidate, for example.

To be clear, the discrepancies reported were not about what the oral examiners asked – only that the recollection of the text prompt at the preparation station was different from what the oral examiner read out.

The reported discrepancies also demonstrated significant variation, with different phrases recalled by different students, including by students that were examined at the same centre and by the same oral examination team. The actual prompt shown was, "Who do you think would go to a place like this for a haircut? Why do you say so?" Some candidates reported reading the prompt as, "Would you go?" Others reported reading the prompt as, "Would you visit?", "Would you be interested?", "Would you like?", "Would you want?", "Would you cut your hair at the place shown?", "Would you get your hair cut?" and "Why would I go?"

Putting together the technical details, the distribution pattern of the incidents across the stations, schools and time, as well as the variety of phrases reported by the students. SEAB has concluded the cause of these incidents was not technical in nature, nor the result of a deliberate or malicious act.

We understand that the experience would have been unsettling for the affected candidates. Parents and candidates can be assured that our oral examiners are experienced teachers who assessed candidates based on what they demonstrated during the examination, including how they developed and presented their ideas and opinions, and how effectively they engaged the examiner during the discussion.

The preliminary data shows that the mean score for the oral examination on 15 July is comparable to that of the other four sessions in 2026. In addition, the mean score of the 432 candidates who reported the prompt discrepancy is also comparable to the mean score of the remaining candidates who sat for the oral examination on 15 July 2026.

So, therefore, as a group, the candidates who reported discrepancies fared as well as other candidates who did not report any discrepancy.

There might be some candidates who experienced significant distress arising from the circumstances. This might have affected their ability to provide a suitable response. Schools are working with these candidates to apply for special consideration. Special consideration is an established evidence-based process by examination boards to review the final subject grades for candidates whose performance had been adversely affected by circumstances beyond their control during the examinations. This is to ensure fair assessment. Each application will be evaluated on its merits.

We thank candidates, parents and schools for bringing their concerns to our attention. We take these reports very seriously. SEAB conducted a thorough investigation before coming to the conclusion that the same prompt was displayed for all candidates. SEAB will review the oral examination processes for students to read the oral prompt more carefully during the 10-minute preparation time. SEAB also remains committed to ensuring that all candidates, including those who might have misread the prompt, are assessed fairly.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his substantive reply. In relation to the special considerations that he shared with this House earlier, I also understand from my resident that that has been the reply from SEAB to one of my residents whose child has been affected.

In this regard, can I enquire so far in relation to the over 500 cases that were reported of discrepancies that were highlighted – 400 plus in total, I beg your pardon – have any of these students followed up with a special consideration application? And in such an instance, what will be the process taken and whether the students who had put in the appeal would eventually be updated that their results have taken in the circumstances that had transpired?

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Ms Hany Soh for the question. Certainly, the applicants for special consideration will be updated and engaged on the process.

The process of special consideration is still in process. So, I think it is perhaps not appropriate for me to comment on the specifics. Each case will be evaluated. The process of special consideration is to look at the particular circumstances of each case.

Certainly, some applications have been made and potentially further applications will be made. So, I think we have to let that process play out.

Mr Speaker: Mr Andre Low.

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions.

First, if I may paraphrase what I am hearing as the explanation or what the investigation has uncovered, is that the system architecture by its very nature would not permit the incident that students are describing from happening – because of the nature of the fact that it is a single question stored in the database and it is a single question transmitted to all terminals. That being said, I understand also that centralised logs were also checked to make sure that this was indeed what happened.

Can the Ministry share if the terminals themselves maintained any logs and whether these logs can be investigated to see whether what was displayed or was it recorded what was actually displayed on the screen of the individual terminals, as opposed to the centralised database? So, that is my first supplementary question.

My second supplementary question is essentially on the nature of the question itself. It would seem that given that the Ministry of Education (MOE) is convinced that no actual variation in the question displayed happened, but about 8% to 9% of students who took the exam experienced this, would MOE consider varying the way they set oral examination questions in the future?

I understand that reading comprehension is one of the elements being tested in an oral examination, but I would argue it is probably not the main element being tested. Would MOE consider in the future of setting questions or user testing questions such that such incidents would not arise again in the future and cause potential distress to our students?

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Mr Low for the questions. On his first point, indeed, the investigation involved the individual terminals, including logging on with the student's ID and authentication, so that the exact same handshake between the terminal and the centralised database was carried out, to see what was returned as material. So, very thorough from a from a technical perspective.

I would point out that his 8% to 9% is on that that day – I presume he is taking the 432 divided by 5,000 – but that was for that day only. The total number, of course, of people taking the examination across the four days is approximately four times as many.

Yes, indeed, SEAB will look to learn from this incident how we can reduce the risk of prompts being misread, guide the students about the preparation better, both in terms of the preparation for the exam and during the exam itself. And part of that technical professional skillset is to look at how specific phrases or words are used within examination prompts. SEAB will certainly do this.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof James Lim.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, I believe the incident reports of the anomaly were made by a number of individuals, not only by – and I have to be careful about the use of this word here – at least 432 students, but also by the teachers themselves.

I accept that SEAB did their due diligence in verifying that there were no computer issues that could have given rise to the alleged outcome, and it is on this basis that the Senior Minister of State has asserted that that there were no errors. I wonder then is SEAB implicitly suggesting that there could have been an occasion of collective hallucination that occurred on that day? And if so, does this mean that the investigation would have perhaps implicitly privileged computer forensic evidence over the contemporary testimony of a significant number of human witnesses?

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, implicit in Mr Lim's question, in what he describes as a collective hallucination, is that all the students recalled the same phrase. And as our investigations have demonstrated, the students demonstrated significant variance in the many phrases that they recalled. So, I think his implication that we are privileging one set of information over the other is incorrect.

We are looking at both the testimonies, as well as the technical assessment. And the fact that the testimonies covered a wide variation in the phrases in itself is a very significant data point.

So, I would ask him to perhaps not put words in my mouth about collective hallucinations, nor imply a privileging of one set of data over the other. I think in my response, I have explained how we take all the data very seriously.

Mr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. Three supplementary questions.

First, a factual question. Reports were filed on that day by SEAB's own examination personnel at the schools. So, how many irregularity reports did SEAB receive concerning 15 July English oral exam? Not complaints from candidates, but actual reports filed by its own oral examiners and presiding officers. And if the Ministry does not have this figure today, will they undertake to provide it? It seems very peculiar to me that 432 candidates from 132 schools reported it on day three, and day three alone. They did not report it on day one, day two or day four. So, to me it is highly anomalous.

Supplementary question two: did SEAB examine the candidates' contemporaneous physical planning sheets against the examiner's script?

And supplementary question three: since SEAB has all the evidence needed – the login logs, the examiners' marking comments, the contemporaneous planning sheets, as well as the audio from the session – will the Ministry allow someone outside SEAB to look at them to conduct an external investigation?

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I do not have the numbers for the officers reporting. We can certainly look it up.

We have examined the contemporaneous planning sheets. It is hard to correlate those with specific reports because many of the contemporaneous planning sheets did not have candidates' names written on them; that is not a requirement. But the information from the contemporaneous planning sheets does, in some cases indicate that the student had misread the prompt. And in some cases, it indicates that the student had misread the prompt, started planning on that basis and then corrected themselves. And so on one sheet, we can see the student having written down what they thought originally what is the prompt, and then crossing that out and then writing the correct prompt and then planning from there.

Indeed, we have had GovTech come in to audit the technical platforms, the processes and so forth. And they have come to the same conclusion as SEAB.

Mr Speaker: Mr David Hoe.

Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. My question comes from conversations with parents who accept the fact that their children might have misinterpreted or misread the question under examination pressure. So, three supplementary questions.

First, is the ability to accurately process a question under exam pressure, part of a skill to be accessed under oral examination?

Second, if so, how are students prepared for this, because, unlike written exams, which students experience across many subjects, they may have fewer opportunities to practise this skillset to respond under exam pressure.

Third, parents would like to know, when candidates reported the question has been asked differently from what they saw in the terminal, could we clarify what was the process thereafter?

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Mr Hoe for his questions.

His first two questions, I think, are a little bit outside the remit of this Parliamentary Question, which is about the examination process; and more about the overall preparation for the subject, the curriculum and the approach taken to prepare students. But across all subjects, certainly, the way in which our students approach an examination is very much part of the preparation in the classroom, in the development of the student across the curriculum, across the syllabus and the skills and techniques that they learn in the classroom. And some of that will be about how to deal with errors, deal with the emotional state that they are in. So, I think it is quite beyond the remit of the Parliamentary Question today, but I thank him for highlighting this. It is indeed an important part of the work that is done by the teachers.

He then asked about the process after reporting. Can I just ask what is it he was asking about? I did not quite understand what he meant.

Mr Speaker: Mr Hoe.

Mr David Hoe: Thank you to the Senior Minister of State. Basically, parents are questioning, after a child report that the question that they saw on the terminal and the question asked was different, what happened after?

Dr Janil Puthucheary: With the examiner or what?

Mr David Hoe: With the exam at that point.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Thank you, Sir. Mr Hoe has clarified that he is talking about what is happening with the examiner rather than the investigation of the incident.

The examiners are trained in a process of positive marking. They are not looking for absolute compliance with a template answer. They are looking in this exam, for the students to demonstrate their skill, their oral skill with their language – what vocabulary they are using, their sentence structure, how they use grammar and tense, how they present their ideas, how they organise their ideas and how they build upon ideas over the course of the presentation.

And this is one of the reasons why you can see that the marks are comparable. Because the students were able to speak. Sometimes, they had prepared incorrectly, but nevertheless were able to speak well, either on the initial subject that they thought they were presenting on or when corrected on the prompt that they heard from the examiner. And so, within their presentation was enough material demonstrating their ability with the language.

This approach of positive marking then allows the examiner to draw out the skills that the student has and provide them an appropriate mark. So, that is the process. And it applies regardless of whether the students hesitate, perhaps, ask a question about the prompt. There is this approach of positive marking: looking for the ability of the student to demonstrate the skills that they have, not blind compliance with a template, nor a negative marking approach looking for mistakes.