Chan Chun Sing
Singapore
“Since 2002, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) has worked with the autonomous universities (AUs) to establish arrangements that minimise disruption to National Servicemen (NSmen) who are pursuing full-time studies up to the undergraduate level, while meeting the Singapore Armed Forces' (SAF's) operational and training needs.”
“Secondments help to build up the range of competencies and work experiences of public officers to strengthen their longer-term employment relevance and resilience. The Public Service Division's guideline to agencies is to support public officers even while they are on secondment.”
“The priority of our National Servicemen must be their military duties and operational training, to meet the Singapore Armed Forces's (SAF's) operational requirements.”
“In January 2026, I had informed this House that the Government had convened an independent committee to conduct a review of the political salary framework that was laid out in 2012. The Committee has completed the review and submitted its recommendations to the Government in April.”
“All countries seek to develop mutually beneficial partnerships, and the United States-Indonesia Major Defence Cooperation Partnership is one such example.”
“Since the Singapore Armed Forces Volunteer Corps (SAFVC) was established in 2014, over 1,500 men and women have completed training and served as SAFVC Volunteers (SVs). Presently, there are about 1,100 in-service SVs, comprising 52% male and 48% female. About seven in 10 of our in-service SVs are new Citizens or Permanent Residents.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,624 lines we hold for Chan Chun Sing, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 53.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think if Mr Leong Mun Wai has listened to what I said in the last half an hour, he will understand why there is a need for us to group our students of diverse abilities into groups of roughly similar abilities, in order for us to ease the load and to provide better focus in our teaching. Our aim to allow different students to be in different groups of roughly the same ability is not to stigmatise them. It is to enable them to be in a learning environment that best suits them. Every examination – and we have been repeating this – is not a competition to compete with other people. I said in my Adjournment Motion yesterday, we want our students to keep having the mental model to surpass themselves, rather than surpass other people in an exam. To surpass themselves in life, rather than to surpass other people in an exam. How we respond, as a society, will complement what MOE is teaching. Whether a student feels stigmatised or not, we all each have a responsibility. If we do not change our mindset, if we label our students because of the classes that they go to, then we have failed our students and no amount of policy or structural change will help us. The reason why we have Full Subject-based Banding (FSBB) is because we have moved away from grouping students of average abilities together. We do not look at people and say: you are gifted, means you are gifted in everything; you are average, means you are average in everything. We know that different people have different strengths and this is the spirit behind FSBB.”
“Actually, it is not so far-fetched because the pedagogy of one means mass customisation according to the diverse abilities of our students, complemented by technology using artificial intelligence, data science and the science of learning. This is the vision of how we want to go forward to break the conventional trilemma, whereby we have finite numbers of quality teachers that will allow us to scale, achieve quality and make sure that it is affordable. So, whether it is one end of the curve or the other end of the curve or somewhere in the middle, we will try our best to complement our best teaching resources with the best technology in order for us to mass customise accordingly to bring out the best in each of our students.”
“Look at the world of gamification today. Young people play games up to the level that they are comfortable with and they can be repeatedly stretched until they reach the next level. These same technologies are available today on the market where students with high abilities to high needs can all be taught at a level with the aid of the computer. I will give a simple example: English language learning. In NorthLight School, there are higher-need students. They need time, they need many more practices in order to get some basic fundamentals right. In the past, it was one teacher to one child in NorthLight School. Today, the teacher can supplement his or her abilities with technology. The child can repeat the same exercise multiple times without overly taxing the teacher, who has to focus on other students and, yet, at the same time, the child does not have to feel pressurised that he is impinging on the teacher's time nor the stigma that he is repeating the lessons. That same technology can be used for the middle- or the high-end students, where people use the same technology to improve their language proficiency, according to the levels that they are at. So, for us, I think we need to transcend this debate about whether class size or not class size. In fact, in one of my speeches recently, which I have shared with the National Institute of Education (NIE), we give ourselves this challenge: if in medicine, in the future and now, we can produce a batch of one, that means medicine customised to the one person; in education, can we, one day, asymptotically, arrive at the holy grail, whereby our students can have the pedagogy of one?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that is the wrong way to characterise what I have said. Let me explain once again and let me share what MOE is trying to do. We can all agree that the quality of our teachers is most important. We can also all agree that there is a finite number of quality teachers within any system. MOE will be very happy to be able to recruit many more quality teachers if we can do so and we will continue to do so and expand our recruitment, whether it is from the young graduates to the mid-career people, to expand our teaching pool. But no matter how many teachers we have, it comes back to this concept – we are not applying all the teaching resources evenly to all classes. Which class requires what class size depends on the needs of the students. It does not matter whether it is one end of the spectrum or the other end of the spectrum or in the middle. The same concept applies. Then the question is: how do we break what I call the "trilemma" of any public education system: achieve quality at scale, achieve speed of innovation and achieve affordability? Why is it a "trilemma"? Because you can go through it in your mind, in most public education systems, you can, at most, get two out of three. If you have quality and speed, chances are that it is not so affordable. If you have quality and it is affordable, chances are that you cannot scale. If you have scale and you are affordable, chances are that the quality is not very good. But there is a way for us to break this conventional trilemma and, that is, how we leverage technology to use an adaptive training system. Adaptive training system will be the way that we can break the conventional trilemma, where we want to achieve quality, speed and affordability. What is an example of an adaptive training system?”
“We cannot change the average very much because, in every society, there are only so many quality teachers that we can recruit. If we expand the numbers, we do not want to compromise the quality. So, if we cannot change the average, what we need to do is what I call, we "tilt the curve". How do we "tilt the curve"? For the higher-need students, we have smaller class sizes to cater to their needs. But on the other hand, we must learn to leverage technologies to allow other class sizes that are not so high-needs, in order for the students to do learning on their own to complement what the teachers are teaching them. So, today, actually, there is no such thing as an average class size in our school system. That is a mathematical concept. But in reality, we have a range of class sizes, from the smaller class sizes to the bigger class sizes, according to the specific needs of our students. And, of course, I would like to thank everyone for your support for MOE to have more resources to support our teachers. But we are very cognisant that the quality of our education outcome is much more dependent on the quality of our teachers and the support that they get, rather than just a class size issue alone.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I make the following points in response to Mr Louis Chua's comments? First, I think many of us talk about class size. I want to lay out the context of what we mean by class size in today's Singapore education context. It is true that we organise our class sizes generally on average between 30 and 40 people, depending on primary school to secondary school levels. But actually, if we visit our schools, as I do regularly, you will find that in today's Singapore's education system, we have class sizes, from a few like five, all the way to 40. It all depends on the needs of the students. For the higher-needs students on both ends of the spectrum, we will tend to have smaller class sizes in order to cater to their diverse needs. That is the first point. Today, we have a range of class sizes, there is no one-size-fits-all class size because it all depends in the needs of the students. In fact, for some of the very high-needs students, we have pull-out classes for one-to-one or one-to-two. Those are for the higher-needs students. Having said that, let me take a step back and explain how we manage this issue of class size with the finite resources that we have. If we look at the OECD reports and if we look at many of the studies overseas, the main determinant of the quality of our education system, as I explained yesterday during the Adjournment Motion, is not necessarily the class size. The main and most important determinant of the quality of our education outcome is the quality of our teachers and how we support them to enable them to use the most effective pedagogical tools for the different types of classes. Assuming that this is the average class size that we have resources for the entire system, how do we resource it?”
“This is why in Singapore, we have moved away from either of the extremes: one extreme is where we mix people of all abilities together and put them in the same class, regardless of abilities and interests; the other extreme is to segregate everyone just according to their specific interest and they never mix with other people with different interests. We want the best of both worlds and this is how we have organised the MOE system – which is that for selected topics and subjects, we will group the students of similar abilities together so that it is easier and more manageable for the teachers to teach in a much more focused way. At the same time, beyond those subjects and areas, there will always and there must always be opportunities for them to mix with students with diverse backgrounds, with different abilities so that as they grow up, they also learn to live and work with people with different abilities. This is the approach that we are adopting to make sure that on one hand, we want the benefits of focused teaching and learning; on the other hand, we want a diversity of backgrounds, of people so that our students can mix and grow up together. We will certainly take into consideration the students' interests and abilities in assigning them to the classes that will best bring out their potential.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will make three points in response to Ms Denise Phua's comment. I thank her for her support for what MOE is doing. First, why do we not allow students to pick their subjects? In fact, we actually do. In the new approach, what we are saying is that we look at the students, we look at what they are interested in, where they have strengths in. We want to combine their areas of strength with their areas of interest, in order for them to be enrolled in certain classes. This is to have our education system, where possible, tailored to the respective needs of our students. But, of course, it would not be possible for us to run some of these classes just on the basis of interest, without an assessment of the ability – which brings me to my second point. For all of us familiar with teaching and teaching pedagogies, we know that it is actually very tough to teach to the average where you have a class of very diverse abilities, from very high-needs students to very high-ability students. What we want to do in our vision going forward is that we are able to cluster the students of generally the same abilities in the same domain for more effective teaching and learning. This will also help to alleviate the workload of our teachers instead of having them to teach to the average across a class with very diverse abilities in a finite period of class time. Having said that, we come to the third point – which is, we all know that when our children develop, it is not just about learning academically in one area or another area. We also want them to develop holistically. We want to make sure that their social-emotional development commensurates with their academic development.”
“While the typical class size in primary schools can go up to 40, the pupil to teacher ratio of 15 is comparable to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Today, schools already have the flexibility to group students for learning based on their needs. For example, Foundation-level classes are typically smaller, with between 10 and 20 students. With this new approach, while there will be no change in the typical class size in schools, schools are able to size classes accordingly for the school-based programmes and after-school modules for higher-ability learners, as well as for learners who need more learning support, to ensure that the programmes achieve the intended outcomes. Dr Wan Rizal also asked about strengthening access to quality education and support for all students regardless of their backgrounds. These changes to the GEP will indeed broaden the support for higher-ability learners and provide more opportunities for them to maximise their potential, regardless of their background.”
“They are not designed to help students perform better in mainstream examinations. Neither is the aim to introduce higher subject levels ahead of time, which would still be bounded by the core curriculum and examination requirements. I wish to assure Mr Leong Mun Wai, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Mohd Fahmi that MOE will support schools and teachers to deliver this new approach effectively and consistently. MOE will guide them in using multiple sources of information to identify higher-ability learners. These holistic assessments will include the students’ academic abilities and social-emotional readiness for the programme. MOE will continue to support our primary schools by providing more curriculum resources and professional learning for teachers to support the cognitive and social-emotional development of our higher-ability learners. For example, we will continue to train teachers to understand the cognitive and affective traits of higher-ability learners, establish a classroom climate that encourages exploration, creativity and personal reflection for these students. There will be platforms for schools to share best practices on how they design, implement and monitor their school-based programmes. With the broadening of access to programmes for higher-ability learners in all schools from 7% to 10% of each cohort and after-school modules being accessible to eligible students from all schools, students will be able to benefit from the new approach regardless of the school they attend. Dr Wan Rizal asked about resource allocation and Mr Louis Chua asked about class sizes. MOE will continue to resource schools according to the learning needs of their students.”
“Instead of a uniform GEP for selected students based on their general abilities in multiple areas, we can now also offer opportunities for those with higher abilities in specific areas. And instead of being selected at a single point, students can join these programmes at any time during their upper primary years. We want to work with parents to have the proper mindset to allow students to blossom at their own pace, rather than be hot-housed or rushed to be admitted at a particular entry point. The new approach also gives students the option to exit the programme or modules at any time, if they find them unsuitable or wish to pursue other interests, without the stigma of having failed to meet the expectations after being labelled as gifted. Ms Denise Phua, Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Mariam Jaafar asked about different aspects of our new approach. From the Primary 4 batch in 2027, higher-ability learners will remain in their schools and benefit from school-based development, without having to disrupt their learning environments and the social bonds they have formed. Students who can benefit from further stretch beyond school-based programmes can attend after-school modules at nearby schools. These after-school modules will bring like-minded peers together to interact and inquire more deeply on selected topics. We will ensure a good geographical spread of schools offering these programmes, so that they are accessible to all eligible students regardless of where they study. Together, these programmes will provide higher-ability learners a more customised suite of development opportunities according to their interests and strengths. They aim to cultivate curiosity, creativity and a love for learning in students.”
“Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Leong Mun Wai asked about the lessons learnt and outcomes of the Gifted Education Programme, or GEP. The GEP has generally delivered good student outcomes in the past 40 years, with many students being stretched intellectually and developing holistically. GEP alumni have made significant contributions in diverse fields such as public service, medicine, academia, arts, entrepreneurship and technology. Many GEP alumni are also active leaders in the community and social sectors. However, there were also some students who felt weighed down by the expectations to excel, or could not cope with the rigour of the programme and lost interest in learning. There were also students who were selected for the programme but decided not to join. Over this time, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has gained useful lessons and experiences in developing higher-ability learners. We have observed that while some students showed high abilities in multiple areas, there are also some students who showed passion and strength in specific single areas, such as in English or Mathematics. Students may also present strengths and potential at different points in their educational journey, rather than at a single point in time. These observations are in line with international research. Concurrently, over the years, our primary schools have expanded their capacity in nurturing high-ability learners. Today, all primary schools have teachers trained to identify and develop high-ability learners in both cognitive and social-emotional domains. Hence, it is timely to update our approach to develop higher-ability learners.”
“Mr Speaker, my response will cover the questions raised by Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Louis Chua, as well as those raised by Ms Denise Phua, Dr Wan Rizal, Ms Foo Mee Har, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Leong Mun Wai for the Sitting on 9 September 2024, and by Mr Mohd Fahmi, which is scheduled for the subsequent Sitting on 13 September 2024. If need be, I invite Members to seek clarifications following my response.”
“To enable our children to have a good start, the Government has invested significantly in preschool education over the last decade. Preschool enrolment has also grown and 95% of Singaporean children aged five to six years are now enrolled in preschool. There are sufficient places for every child. Rather than impose compulsory kindergarten education, the Government's approach has been to remove impediments to preschool enrolment by ensuring access to affordable and quality preschools, such as in Government-supported preschools. Today, over 65% of preschoolers are in Government-supported preschools, up from just over half in 2019. We will continue to increase spaces so that 80% of preschoolers can have a place in a Government-supported preschool by around 2025. We also provide targeted assistance to lower-income families to address practical challenges in enrolling their children in preschool and ensuring their regular attendance. Children from lower-income families are accorded priority when enrolling in MOE Kindergartens (MKs) and Anchor Operator (AOP) preschools. After Government subsidies, low-income families may pay as low as $1 per month for half-day kindergarten in MKs and AOP preschools. As kindergarten education is affordable and accessible to all Singaporeans, we have no plans to make it compulsory at the moment.”
“All registered Private Education Institutions (PEIs) must adhere to baseline standards established in the Private Education Act and Regulations. These standards are in place to safeguard consumer interest and promote informed decision-making. SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) also implements the EduTrust Certification Scheme (EduTrust) to raise sector performance and institutional quality. The latest version of the EduTrust Guidance Document, last revised in August 2023, sets minimum requirements for critical areas, such as student protection and academic quality. It also includes new requirements to benchmark additional outcomes (e.g. service quality and operational standards) against national or international standards. PEIs train both local and foreign students. Based on the PEI Annual Returns exercise, 36% of full-time Bachelor external degree programme graduates from PEIs were foreigners. The PEI Graduate Employment Survey (GES) 2022/2023 found that 55% of the foreign graduates who responded to the survey found full-time employment. It is for employers to assess if PEI foreign graduates make good hires. SSG's focus is to enhance the capabilities and employability of our local workforce through SkillsFuture initiatives, including the recently implemented SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme.”
“International students pay higher tuition fees than Singaporean and Singapore Permanent Resident students at the same level of study. Tuition fees for international students in polytechnics and autonomous universities are also higher than those paid by international students in secondary schools and junior colleges. Eligible international students enrolled in the polytechnics and autonomous universities can apply for a Ministry of Education (MOE) Tuition Grant. If successful, they will pay lower tuition fees, but they are required to work in a Singapore entity for three years upon graduation. International students in secondary schools and junior colleges do not receive Tuition Grant nor have such obligations, so the annual fees they pay are higher than the fees paid by international students receiving Tuition Grant at polytechnics and some university courses. However, even with Tuition Grant, the annual fees payable by international students are higher than Singaporean students in the same course.”
“The Ministry of Education will provide an Oral Answer to these Parliamentary Questions, together with other Parliamentary Questions which have been filed on this topic, at the next available opportunity. [Please refer to "Investigation and Security Measures following Mobile Guardian App Breach", Official Report, 10 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 141, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“When a Singaporean child is not registered for Primary 1, the Ministry of Education (MOE) takes steps to locate the child and engage the parents on schooling matters, including placement into a suitable school. Where needed, MOE works with other Government agencies to support the child and the family. Should the parents remain uncooperative, MOE may escalate the case to the Compulsory Education Board. Over the past five years, only one case needed to be escalated to the Board. Following the Board’s intervention, including summoning the parents for a hearing, the child was placed in a primary school and attendance has been regular. To date, there has not been a need for MOE to take legal action against uncooperative parents.”
“The SkillsFuture Credit base tier, which comprises the opening credit of $500 and a one-off top-up of $500 in 2020, can be used to cover over 200 examination-only certifications. To ensure prudent use of the credit, these certifications must be recognised by the industry and supported by the relevant public agency overseeing the sector. Individuals who completed industry-relevant certifications that are not within this approved list of certifications on the MySkillsFuture Portal can write in to SkillsFuture Singapore to appeal for a reimbursement of their examination fees, using their base tier credit. This allows us to support professional certifications, such as the ones mentioned by the Member, where the certification body is based overseas or has not registered with SkillsFuture Singapore. We will continue to review how the SkillsFuture Credit can support industry-relevant training and certifications.”
“The Ministry of Education will provide an oral answer to this Parliamentary Question (PQ), together with other PQs which have been filed on this topic, at the next available opportunity. [Please refer to "Outcomes from Gifted Education Programme, and Rationale and Plans for Programme Revamp ", Official Report, 10 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 141, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“The Ministry of Education will provide an oral answer to this Parliamentary Question (PQ), together with other PQs which have been filed on this topic, at the next available opportunity. [Please refer to "Outcomes from Gifted Education Programme, and Rationale and Plans for Programme Revamp ", Official Report, 10 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 141, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“The Ministry of Education will provide an oral answer to this Parliamentary Question (PQ), together with other PQs which have been filed on this topic, at the next available opportunity. [Please refer to "Outcomes from Gifted Education Programme, and Rationale and Plans for Programme Revamp ", Official Report, 10 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 141, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“The Ministry of Education will provide an oral answer to this Parliamentary Question (PQ), together with other PQs which have been filed on this topic, at the next available opportunity. [Please refer to "Outcomes from Gifted Education Programme, and Rationale and Plans for Programme Revamp ", Official Report, 10 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 141, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“Having public officers on private sector boards, and likewise private sector individuals on public sector boards, encourages greater diversity in perspectives and helps strengthen the understanding between the public and private sectors. As I have explained in the written reply to Ms Sylvia Lim on the same topic on 6 August 2024, Permanent Secretaries, like all civil servants, are required to seek the necessary approvals prior to accepting requests to serve as board directors of private sector companies. [Please refer to "Management of Conflicts of Interest for Permanent Secretaries on Private Sector Boards", Official Report, 6 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 138, Written Answers to Questions section.] The Public Service Division works with Ministries to conduct conflict of interest checks to ensure that there is no conflict of interest and that the Permanent Secretaries’ ability to carry out their primary duties are not compromised. These checks take place prior to an appointment to a company board, during re-appointments, or when there are changes to an officer’s primary role. Appointments can proceed if there is no conflict of interest.”
“Instead, we should ask which school will bring out the best version of our children so that they will learn to surpass themselves in life instead of trying to surpass others in an exam and to have confidence in their abilities instead of comparing with others to determine their self-worth. All of us – parents, educators and public – must evolve our mindsets to complement the structural and policy changes that we are making. Mr Speaker, we can never fully know what the future holds. We cannot and should not try to remove all uncertainties and difficulties that our children face. Each and every setback is also a learning opportunity for our children to build resilience. Even as we enhance our education system, we must be careful to not over-structure, over-provide or over-protect. Instead, we must retain space for our children to try, fail, take responsibility and bounce back from setbacks. Only then can they learn to embrace untidiness and thrive amidst uncertainties – the only things that we can be certain that the future will hold. Finally, I would like to thank Assoc Prof Razwana and all Members of the House, our partners, parents and teachers for their close partnership to support our children's development. MOE is committed to work with all partners to improve our education system so that Singapore and Singaporeans can thrive in the years and generations to come.”
“This is why MOE is stepping up efforts for our teachers' personal growth and professional development by (a) investing in educational technology to support our teachers' pedagogical practices, alleviate their workload and enable them to deliver customised teaching; (b) supporting our teachers' well-being through curated resources, workshops and counselling services; and (c) even redesigning staff rooms and workspaces to better meet their professional needs, as recently announced by the Prime Minister at the National Day Rally. But respect for teachers must come not just from MOE. I seek everyone's support to respect and trust our teachers to do their jobs and to work with our teachers to support our children's learning and upbringing. Fourth, we agree with the Member that strong partnerships are essential for our students to learn for life. This is why we established the MOE Partnerships Engagement Office last year, to rally partners – industry, parents, community, experts – to collaborate with schools to create authentic learning opportunities for students and for us to leverage on the whole-of-society capabilities to provide the best for our children. The Member may be pleased to know that we will strengthen these partnerships, especially with the industry: to inspire younger students and shape their interests early and to help our adult learners keep up to date with industry changes by co-designing, co-developing and co-delivering modules with our institutes of higher learning. But our most important partners are our parents. We all want the best for our children, but the best may not mean the most popular school.”
“For those with particular talents and aptitudes, we have Specialised Independent Schools – School of the Arts, NUS High School, Singapore Sports School and Singapore School of Science and Technology. Aptitude-based admissions and Direct School Admission provide opportunities for students to pursue studies based on potential and interest and broaden their access to diverse education pathways. We share similar aspirations as the Member to provide each child with a customised learning journey based on his or her individual strengths and abilities. This is why we keep innovating and leveraging technology, including artificial intelligence, data science and the science of learning, to break the conventional education system trilemma of achieving quality at scale, speed and affordability. Through these efforts, we are striving towards mass customisation to free ourselves from the mindset that quality education is determined by class size alone. In fact, studies have shown that the quality of teachers is most important in determining the outcomes of education. Third, trust and professional respect for educators must be the foundation of our system. This will determine our society's ability to attract the best and most committed teachers, which then determines our education outcomes. Without good teachers, even the best education policies will have limited impact. Our teachers undergo years of rigorous training to do their work as professionals. They pour their hearts out to bring out the best in our children, often going above and beyond the call of duty.”
“We recently enhanced investments in our SkillsFuture programmes – from the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme to the JobSeeker Support scheme and training allowances for mid-career upgraders. All these allow our people to seize opportunities to stay relevant and secure good jobs that offer dignity, respect and financial sufficiency. Second, we recognise that our people have strengths in diverse areas. These talents can manifest across time rather than at any single pre-determined point in life. So, we must resist the temptation to "teach to the average" of a child or a class. We must cater to different learning needs of our children, across different life stages and provide porous systems for our children to develop at their own pace. We have improved our system over the years to allow students to customise their education at a finer level. For example, Full Subject-based Banding now allows students to customise their learning in individual subjects instead of keeping to one pace across all subjects. We have enhanced our curriculum support for Special Education schools to improve their ability to cater to students with a range of special education needs. There are Special Needs Officers at all primary schools to better support students with mild to moderate needs who can access mainstream education. The recently announced changes to the Gifted Education Programme and Higher Mother Tongue Language eligibility criteria in Secondary 1 will provide more opportunities to stretch our students in specific areas of strength. These moves also offer more opportunities for students to interact with peers of different profiles. Our school landscape and admissions system recognise students' diverse strengths and abilities rather than purely academic performance.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we thank Assoc Prof Razwana Begum for her work as an educator, her support for our education system and our educators, and for sharing her aspirations. As we evolve our education system for a better tomorrow, we must remember that good outcomes depend critically on good educators who can implement our ideas consistently and with conviction. Let me share our key beliefs that have shaped and will continue to guide our approach to education in the coming years. First, our success is not defined by academic results attained in the first 15 years in school. More importantly, it is defined by our contributions in the next 50 years beyond our schools, where we continue to possess the joy of learning and the DNA to strive for excellence in diverse domains. This starts with building a love of learning in the early years as our children explore the world and develop their bilingual, mathematics and critical thinking foundations. In their schooling years, we will provide students with porous and diverse pathways and give them opportunities to grow their potential. This means that no single test should determine a student's future and not every topic taught needs to be tested. For example, we are allowing students to count their fourth content-based A-level subject for admission to our Autonomous Universities only if it improves their University Admission Score from 2026 and to count one G2 subject for admission to Polytechnic Year 1 from 2028. With changes like these, we hope to shift towards a mindset of learning and growth instead of an exam-oriented mindset. Beyond the schooling years, we will invest in our people throughout life, with SkillsFuture as a key pillar of our social compact.”
“The Direct School Admission (DSA) Scheme and the Integrated Programme (IP) were introduced in 2004. As there have been refinements to both schemes over the years and the number of IP schools has expanded significantly since then, it is more meaningful to look at the outcomes of more recent cohorts. For the past five IP cohorts that have graduated, around 300 to 450 students were admitted each year through the DSA talent areas of Sports and Games, and Performing Arts which includes Music. Around four in five of them completed the IP within six years. The remaining students proceeded to other pathways, including transferring to the GCE "O" level track, pursuing other post-secondary education options, or relocating overseas. Almost all of the IP students who sat for the GCE "A" Level or International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme examinations at the end of six years passed on their first attempt and were eligible for degree courses in our autonomous universities. This includes those who were admitted to the IP through DSA for Sports and Games, and Performing Arts.”
“The Ministry of Education (MOE) closely monitors the demand for Special Education (SPED) school places and the waiting time for enrolment. To address rising demand for places, seven new SPED schools for students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) have started since 2022, while an eighth SPED school will start operations in 2026. Four of these SPED schools serve students who have ASD with intellectual impairment, while the other four serve students who have ASD without intellectual impairment. In the last two years, some students who have ASD with intellectual impairment commenced school after the school year started, mainly because the receiving schools needed more time to hire teachers. Currently, about 40 students who have ASD with intellectual impairment are waiting to commence Primary 1. MOE with work closely with the Social Service Agencies running the SPED schools to help them start school as soon as possible. There are currently no students who have ASD without intellectual impairment waiting to commence Primary 1 in SPED schools.”
“The number of students enrolled in Special Education (SPED) schools in Singapore has increased gradually from 5,410 in 2009 to 7,818 in 2023, largely due to an increase in students reported with moderate to severe autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This is consistent with the increase in the number of children diagnosed with ASD in other countries. The number of students reported with intellectual, sensory and multiple disabilities has decreased over the same period. The Ministry of Education will continue to monitor the demand for SPED school places and work with the Social Service Agencies that run SPED schools to provide sufficient capacity for the different student profiles.”
“SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) supports a range of training programmes to upskill and reskill workers across different career stages. Unemployed individuals, in particular, can benefit from SSG's train-and-place programmes that provide industry-oriented training alongside employment facilitation services. From 2020 to 2022, during the COVID-19 pandemic, these programmes took the form of the SGUnited Skills and the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways – Company Training. More than 60% of individuals who participated in the SGUnited programmes found new jobs within six months of course completion. The SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme (SCTP) was launched in April 2022 to succeed the SGUnited programmes. SCTP targets individuals who are interested to transition into sectors with good hiring opportunities, regardless of their employment status. We do not have complete data on how many SCTP trainees were unemployed. As of December 2023, over 54% of SCTP trainees found new jobs within six months of course completion.”
“The Science Café series is organised by the Science Centre Singapore to discuss topics at the intersection of science and contemporary lives to raise awareness of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) issues among young adults. The Science Café session in June was intended to discuss the sociocultural factors that shape society's understanding of sex and gender. Following public feedback expressing concerns about the topic and the panel composition, the Science Centre reviewed the session and decided to cancel it in view of the sensitivities involved. The Science Centre will learn from this incident to ensure its programmes remain anchored on the promotion of science.”
“As addressed previously in Parliament, the SkillsFuture Credit is designed to be non-transferable between individuals. This is because the SkillsFuture Credit seeks to empower Singaporeans to take personal ownership of their own learning throughout their lives, regardless of age or circumstances.”
“This question has been addressed by written answer to Question No 103 on 6 August 2024. [Please refer to "Data Collection on Causal Links between Academic Stress and Increased Mental Health Issues", Official Report, 6 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 138, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]”
“This question has been addressed by written answer to Question No 21 on 6 August 2024. [Please refer to "Conflict of Interest Declaration by Individuals Involved in DSA Selection Process", Official Report, 6 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 138, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]”
“Under the legislation governing Online Election Advertising (OEA), only political parties, candidates, their election agents or other third parties who have received written authorisation are allowed to publish OEA that is paid for. Every payment made in respect of any expenses incurred in the conduct or management of an election must be submitted as part of the declarations by the candidates and their election agents, rather than the digital content creator, and supported with bills and receipts as set out in the relevant laws. This includes all paid OEA. OEA must disclose that it is paid for and show the full names of the persons who paid for it. The full names of the persons who approved the content of OEA must be shown as well. Election expenses include any expenses incurred whether before, during or after the election, in respect of the conduct or management of the election. Thus, any payments made to content creators during the non-election period ahead of any impending election would have to be declared as long as the content created is in respect of the conduct or management of the candidate’s election. Outside of elections, there are also rules governing the receipt of donations received by all political parties, political office holders and other politically significant persons. Such donations must be disclosed under the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act. There are also other accounting and disclosure requirements on political parties as well, as the Member will be aware.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we are going round and round in circles. I am thoroughly confused now, as to whether the Member is suggesting that the Prime Minister give more specific instructions to the EBRC or the Member would like the Prime Minister to allow the EBRC to do its work objectively, with some basic instructions. Because it sounds like, now, we have to have the Prime Minister tell the EBRC the definition of compactness. It sounds like we want the Prime Minister to give the EBRC even more specific instructions. I am sure, if the Prime Minister does that, the Prime Minister will be accused of interfering unnecessarily in the process of the EBRC. So, I think the Prime Minister will do what he needs to do to give the broad outlines and guidelines to the EBRC. We will leave the EBRC to do their work, professionally and objectively. Sometimes, the more we interfere, the more we fall into this trap to make it a politically-motivated process. If Mr Leong Mun Wai says that they are not concerned about the political outcome, we thank them. And we also thank them for allowing the EBRC to do their work professionally and objectively.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will just make one comment in response. I am glad that Mr Leong says that we are here to talk about the process and not the outcome. Maybe Mr Leong can clarify what does outcome mean. Is outcome the boundaries or is outcome whether a certain party, a certain candidate, wins or loses? If the outcome that we are desiring is a set of boundaries that the public servants who have done their work professionally and objectively come up with to the best of their ability, then, that is the outcome. If the outcome is about whether a certain party wins or loses, then I am sorry to say that my public officers should not be made responsible for such an outcome. Is the EBRC responsible for WP winning Sengkang GRC in the last GE? Do we pin that outcome on the EBRC? No, certainly not. The EBRC's outcome is a set of boundaries, Sengkang Town. Ultimately, Sengkang voters choose who they want to represent them. But, Sir, if I may just move one step back, as I have to reiterate this point. The mark of success for any political system is not what rules it has. That is part of it. The mark of success of how we evaluate a political system is whether it is fit for purpose, it commands the trust and respect of its people so that the country can progress together. Very often, perhaps in this Chamber, we are all very seized with who wins, who loses. At the end of the day, it must be Singapore and Singaporeans who win. It must be that we have a functioning Parliament that can produce good governance in service of our people and nation. And it is on that note and that is the real outcome that we are looking for. The outcome is not whether your party wins or my party wins. It is whether Singapore wins.”
“I will leave it to Members of the House and the public to decide.”
“Mr Speaker, I will just say two things in response to the comments. First, I think I have explained very clearly in my speech why we have kept the process as it is now, so that the civil servants who are not politically affiliated take charge of this process rather than have political parties getting involved and ending up, like in other countries, where there is horse-trading on how the boundaries are to be drawn. If you ask me, personally, I trust my civil servants to do their job objectively, professionally. If you ask me, personally, I think they have served us well. I cannot say what future governments may do. I do not even know who may form the future governments. And if a future government with a future Prime Minister thinks otherwise, then he explains to the House why they do so. We can quote selectively from our previous Prime Ministers, previous MPs, but we have always prided ourselves as a system that we are very practical people. We look at the issue at hand, see the needs of the country at its point in time and ask ourselves how do we evolve our system to keep pace with the needs of the time. We have never let the past shackle us in thinking of new ideas, coming up with new processes that fit the needs of our time. And I think that must be the spirit for us to keep progressing. Even in established democracies today, they have so-called rules that they so-called stick to across time. They soon find themselves in trouble because those rules are not adequate to meet the needs of the time. I do not need to name any country. There are many examples across the world for us to take a look at now. On the second point, I think I have explained the meaning of gerrymandering, what it means in other countries and whether it applies or not applies in our context.”
“But actually, it is quite interesting. Some of the ideas that the Member has mentioned and I listened carefully, but one of the Member's suggestions is quite interesting. I think, fundamentally, the Member would agree with us but he may also not like the result and it is this: that every electoral division should be a microcosm of Singapore. The Member said that we should actually use mathematical models to adjust the population so that they reflect the national pattern. First of all, if we use people's voting preference to adjust the model, would the Member not agree with us that that is precisely gerrymandering? Second, if we indeed do that and every division is exactly the same, then every division should give the vote share to the incumbent that is roughly the same. Is that the outcome that we are striving for? So, I think, have a care on how and what we learn from others and how we use models. We are open to exploring all kinds of models. But at the end of the day, is fairness defined by the process or is fairness determined by the outcome as to whether it is favourable to me or not? That is the question that we have to think about. [Applause.]”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in response, may I make the following points. First point, I am not sure I am an expert to distinguish what you refer to as "intentional" versus "unintentional". As I have mentioned in my speech, no system can ever claim that it is perfect nor will satisfy everyone who may choose to contest in an election. The question is: what is the purpose of the EBRC and whom must it serve? The fundamental question before us today is this: should the EBRC serve the interests of political parties or should the EBRC serve the interests of our people? Should the EBRC, as its primary goal, serve the political interests of different parties or should the primary goal of the EBRC be to serve the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans? And what are the goals of Singapore and Singaporeans? First, have an MP that can take care of them. Second, have an MP that can represent them. Third, have a Parliament that can form a functioning government that can take Singapore forward and look after Singapore and Singaporeans. So, I will not go into whether it is intentional, unintentional because I cannot understand your definition of and distinction between those. But I want to reiterate one point. We do not give the EBRC and the EBRC has no access to the polling results. We have no idea what the polling results or the voting pattern of the 200,000 people who have moved; neither do we have data on how the new electors in every election cycle will vote. Our goal is to make sure that every division is roughly a microcosm of Singapore so that when an election is conducted, people consider the national interest so that we do not have sectoral interests that define a particular division like other countries. We are open to all kinds of tools, as suggested by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.”
“The question is, how many, how much. And by your recommendations and your system, it will be much more and many more.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought this was a Motion by the PSP Members. I thought we should be seeking clarifications from you. I will just make three points. First, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not the EBRC. Today, we are here to talk about the process and whether the process is right. We are not here to debate the decisions or recommendations of EBRC. And I am certainly not the EBRC. If you are trying to get me to explain on behalf of the EBRC, then I think you are trying to get me to say that I have some influence, direction or control over the EBRC. Unfortunately, to disappoint you, I am not the EBRC. Today, the Motion is about the process and whether the process should stay apolitical, to be run by the Public Service officers or do we want to go back in time and, like in other countries, where our process goes into a horse-trading between different political parties. And even if we do that, what about new political parties that are formed? Everyone will have a view on what they should and should not do, how the EBRC should or should not move or change the boundary. So, that is my first point. Let us get back to the Motion. Today, we are not here to explain what the EBRC does. I am not the EBRC. We are here to talk about the review process. My second point, as I have explained very carefully to Ms Hazel Poa's suggestions, if we adopt and do exactly what you all have recommended, we should expect even more and more drastic boundary changes. You can work it out mathematically and I am sure Ms Hazel Poa will agree. Number three, you mentioned and you cited some examples of some people having to shift constituency although they stay in the same house. That will always happen regardless of which system because when boundaries change, there will be some shifts.”
“Focus on how to serve the voters and gain their trust, wherever you choose to stand, rather than thinking about excuses for not being able to do so. Our electoral boundary review system is generally functioning well and seeks to ensure that voters distributed across Singapore are represented in Parliament in as fair a way as possible. Sir, the test of any electoral system is not its theoretical merits, but whether in practice it has worked for the country. In other words, whether it has enabled the electorate to elect governments whom they trust and who serve them well. By those two tests, our system is reasonably good. Trust levels in Singapore, including in Government, are high and even the opposition and many opposition voters will concede that the PAP governments have served Singaporeans well and to the best of our ability. However, intentionally or unintentionally, this Motion sows distrust and disaffection. This is disastrous for our political system and for Singaporeans. Low trust countries are stuck in a vicious cycle, where the Government cannot do things that are urgent and necessary because the population does not trust them, and therefore they fail and the population’s trust in their leaders and system is further diminished, and we are on a downwards spiral. Sir, our electoral boundary review process is fair and transparent. Elections remain clean and fair. The Government will oppose the Motion given its false premises and suggestions that the electoral boundary review process, and our public officers who serve on it, have not been transparent or fair. But we assure everyone that we will continue to evolve our electoral processes to better serve Singapore and Singaporeans first and foremost. [Applause.]”
“As Members have said, Singaporeans are wise people. They will know who has put in their hearts, day in day out, to serve them and I am sure they will cast their votes accordingly. Sir, no system is static, but our system has worked reasonably well. According to the Spring 2024 Global Attitudes Survey by the Pew Research Center, more than three-quarters of the Singaporeans interviewed were satisfied with the way democracy is working in Singapore and Singapore ranked first within the Asia Pacific region in terms of level of satisfaction with our practice of democracy. As the survey findings show, we have a trusted electoral system that allows the electorate to vote freely for MPs who do their best in looking after their constituent's interests, representing them in Parliament and forming a government to run the country responsively and responsibly. To keep our electoral system working well, it must continue to be based on what is best for Singapore and Singaporeans. Our system will continue to evolve, but we should not be changing the system, whether is it the electoral boundary review process or some other aspect, for the convenience or advantage of individual political parties. And when we study other people's system, we should also look at the system in entirety, rather than to pick and choose certain aspects that may or may not be able to be applied in context to ours, while neglecting other aspects in their systems as well. All political parties should not expect to keep or win seats because the boundaries are drawn one way or the other. Singaporeans are discerning voters. And so, I urge all candidates to fight an election on substance. Earn the trust of the electorate with concrete actions.”
“Smaller constituency populations in absolute terms do mean that the percentage variation can be larger and we have to strive for a balance between the two that suits our context, rather than pursue one at the expense of the other. On the weight of each vote, we have also studied the systems in other countries very carefully. No electoral system in the world can definitively claim that every vote is exactly the same or near equal. Even in established democracies today, we still have endless debates if the weight of every vote is the same. For example, in the elections now ongoing, there are places which ask "why are smaller states having the same number of senators or representatives as bigger states?" Does that not mean that their votes are not of equal weightage? On Ms Poa's suggestion for major and minor boundaries, we have also studied it and we are not sure that it will resolve the fundamental issue when boundaries change. Unlike big countries, with different states and provinces, we are a city-state with high mobility of our residents in every electoral cycle. To have "major boundaries" that cannot be changed and are immune to population shifts may not work out in Singapore. Then there will be the question of who and how should we delineate what constitutes major and minor boundaries? And we are back to square one. At the end of the day, what counts is the candidates that the party puts forth, and whether they are able to win the hearts and minds of Singaporeans to get elected into Parliament. At the GE2020, the formation of the new Sengkang GRC did not prevent the WP from winning that GRC, and that is why Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is here today. It is not for me to tell parties and candidates how they should win the hearts and minds of our electorate.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we are certainly for learning from others. However, we must try to learn the right lessons in context. We must also present the comparison and lessons from other countries holistically and responsibly. For context, while the UK and Australia examples may suggest a smaller margin of deviation per constituency, what Ms Poa should also highlight is that their number of electors per MP is two to three times that of ours. Applying the same margin of deviation to a smaller base will certainly lead to more frequent and more drastic change to boundaries, because of our high rate of movement and change of addresses within a small city-state. This may be the exact opposite of what Ms Poa may desire. Since 1980, we have a planning norm of plus or minus 30% variation in the average number of electors per MP. In our context, because population shifts between general elections can be quite significant, as I have illustrated, lowering the planning norm would likely require more extensive and more disruptive redrawing of boundaries. A lower variation in the elector to MP ratio between constituencies is also not the only or overriding consideration. We can probably lower the percentage variation if we only have a few super constituencies with much larger populations. But again, I do not think that is what Ms Poa is suggesting, nor do we think that it is a good outcome necessarily, because in absolute terms, voters would be served by fewer MPs. An advantage of Singapore being a small country with a small population is that we can have much smaller constituencies, both in terms of population and area, which makes for a stronger connection between MPs and the area and voters that they serve.”