Ong Ye Kung
Singapore
“The Ministry of Health (MOH) recently enhanced the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) dental subsidies, which are tiered by income, for common preventive and restorative procedures.”
“Healthier SG GP clinics may also refer their enrolled patients to Active Ageing Centres and Community Health Posts to fulfill their social prescriptions and for subsidised services, such as medication management.”
“Public hospitals, such as the National University Hospital, the Singapore General Hospital and Tan Tock Seng Hospital, have deployed robotic-assisted surgical (RAS) systems for minimally invasive soft-tissue surgeries.”
“The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) welcomes drug producers to choose Singapore as part of their first-wave filings. As long as a pharmaceutical product is approved by at least one regulatory agency, such as China's National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), it would also qualify for the abridged route.”
“A decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with diabetes can be due to multiple reasons. Doctors will first investigate the underlying cause before determining whether the patient should be referred to a specialist. Some causes are reversible and cause transient reduction in renal function.”
“Information on the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) cannot be made visible on the National Electronic Health Record system as it is protected under the Mental Capacity Act. Such information may only be disclosed by the Public Guardian to specified persons upon satisfactory submission of evidence(s) required under the law.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,932 lines we hold for Ong Ye Kung, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 49 of 59.
“I want to talk about how he was treated then and how he would be treated today under POFMA should such research happen today. Of course, today, we know that the Earth goes round the Sun. But at that time, the belief was that the Sun goes round the Earth and it was an important concept central to the power of the Church and the Roman authorities. Galileo wanted to prove the reverse. So, he built his own telescope. He spent many lonely days and nights staring into the sky, collected data and proved that it is the other way round, that the Earth revolves around the Sun. But despite his empirical methods, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira talked about the Inquisition, so his challenge was not kindly taken by the Roman authorities. Other astronomers came up with their observations and data to prove that the Sun, indeed, revolved around the Earth. He was sentenced to indefinite imprisonment and kept under house arrest until his death. What if something like that were to happen today, involving a question to which we have no answers, or we thought we had an answer, and a researcher comes up with something that challenges deeply held views or shared reality, as Assoc Prof Theseira mentioned? In our context, I can assure the House, that if it is empirical research, we will stay true to science and empirical evidence. We have always been, sometimes to a fault. And if it is an opinion-based research, we will have a vigorous public debate. Under both scenarios, POFMA does not apply in such a discourse. The only way POFMA comes in is if the research uses false observations and data to start with, you fabricated the data, which prevents public discourse from taking place properly.”
“The second type of research is based on opinion, philosophy, interpretation of history, cultural bias, geographical context and so on. This is mainly practised as a strand of researchers in the humanities. Instead of empirical data, they use methods that are primarily critical and interpretive to substantiate their hypotheses and arguments. I enjoyed reading the books of an author called Yuval Noah Harari. He is an Israeli historian and a tenured professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His two bestselling books Sapiens and Homo Deus, I read both of them, he cites some empirical findings, but most of all, he describes his deductions, thoughts and opinions. He gave his take on the origins and purpose of religion in holding complex societies together. He has an expansionary definition of religion that many will find offensive actually, and he postulated that humans will achieve near immortality and God-like powers, not too far into the future. Some of the works of humanities scholars like Yuval Noah Harari can be controversial, highly debatable, even offensive to some. But they cannot be subject to POFMA. In fact, they would not even reach the two gates of POFMA. Their conclusions are in the form of hypotheses, theories and opinions that are not covered by the Bill. I am sure Minister Shanmugam will explain why and how. This Bill is about truthfulness of "facts" – did the men really assault the women, did the President really give that speech, was Turkey really joining the EU? Those were the statements of facts that concern POFMA. Let me wrap up this section of my speech and I have to talk about Galileo – cannot resist – which quite a few Members talked about it. Actually, it is an excellent case study of how research upset conventional wisdom.”
“Or the three authors of Kiasunomics will be persecuted, if one day, blue taxis have more accidents than yellow taxis? Or will POFMA "criminalise" research that is trying to disprove a theory or a body of knowledge that is already well-established? The answer is no. That is simply not the business of POFMA. Any attempts to apply POFMA to empirically-based, natural sciences research, will fail at the first gate I mentioned. There are two gates; it will fail at the first gate. At the first gate, you ask, "Is there falsehood?" No, because researchers used real data and observations to draw their conclusions. Even if the data may not be accurate because the experiment was not well conducted, the data collected is not reproducible or incomplete, there is no falsehood as defined by POFMA. One Member mentioned that 15 years ago, two labour economists got into trouble because they used partial data and concluded nine out of 10 jobs in Singapore went to foreigners. So, now, let us apply POFMA's two gates to this case. First gate, was there falsehood? There was none. They used real data. It was not falsehood. The real data was incomplete. But they did not fabricate the data. Second, was there public harm? I do not think there was any harm, such as riots or very heightened tensions. It will fail at both gates. Incidentally, after I heard that speech, I did a check on the two academics, both of them are still teaching in the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and I understand they are now both Singaporeans. They applied for citizenship after the incident. Second gate, is there public harm? I do not believe good, honest research can cause public harm. I have talked about the first type of research.”
“They are figuring out how the human genome works, finding new cures for diseases, ways to cut down carbon emission, developing new materials for building and bridges, inventing new models with new AI technology and algorithms to have sharper predictive powers. In all these fields, scientists are questioning truths all the time. It is an endless quest for knowledge, where our understanding of nature and life are constantly proven and then unproven. Newton’s laws of motion, which used to be widely accepted, are proven now to be only partially true. Scientists have also proven that time, which we used to believe it is constant, actually can be stretched, it can be compressed, it can be bent. One branch of empirically-based research is data science. I recently came across a book called Kiasunomics written by three National University of Singapore (NUS) researchers. It is a popular version of a series of papers they have published. They gathered vast amounts of data, including getting a lot of data from Government departments and agencies, and tested many hypotheses. They found that after the removal of the Keretapi Tanah Melayu (KTM) Railway, the price of HDB flats around the railway line went up significantly. They found out that yellow taxis have fewer accidents than blue taxis. Households use more water when there was haze and so on. They went on to explain why. It is very possible that, one day, someone may gather more data and refute their findings. Does that mean POFMA will "criminalise" those researchers whose discoveries and theories were proven wrong or partially true? So, will Newton be caught by POFMA, because his laws are now only partially true?”
“You can also find a deep fake video of President Donald Trump telling an audience in Belgium that they should withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, a speech which he did not make. But you do not even need to deploy sophisticated technology to spread false information. In 1998, Dr Andrew Wakefield published a controversial study that linked the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, which protects against measles, mumps and rubella, to autism. It circulated widely. Although the study has been totally debunked, it helped fuel a dangerous movement of vaccine scepticism and refusal around the world. It was later discovered that Wakefield had falsified the data and had been paid by lawyers involved in an MMR lawsuit. The paper was retracted only in 2010, 10 years after its publication. The paper remains severely harmful as children who are unvaccinated could lose their lives. Deliberate lies, connivance, impersonations, incitement of unrest and societal anger and turmoil. These are what we are dealing with. This is the world of online falsehoods and manipulations that this Bill is targeting. In contrast, what is research? It is about experiments, gathering data, testing hypotheses, publishing findings, discovering how the world works and having work reviewed by peers and following a strict discipline and a strict process. We should distinguish between two kinds of research. The first kind is an empirical-based approach to understanding how the world and nature work. This is what researchers are doing in A*STAR, and in faculties, such as engineering and medicine, in our universities.”
“That is for the Ministers and the Ministries to justify, prosecutors to initiate and the Courts to decide on the verdict. What kind of online activities would pass the two gates? Let me give a few examples. I was thinking that I can cut down on the examples because I expected many Members to be citing many. But given the examples I am hearing, let us get back to what are the examples we are talking about. Two years ago, in Germany, there was a report that a mob of 50 "Arab-looking" men, assaulted women on New Year’s Eve in downtown Frankfurt. The story went viral. But when the German police investigated, they found no evidence of this mysterious assault. The newspaper eventually conceded that the attacks described in the article did not take place. They apologised and took down the article from all its platforms. But more people had read and remembered the falsehood in the original article than the clarification. The damage was done. Public sentiments shifted, society becomes more tense, political discourse altered. We are familiar with Brexit. During the campaign on the referendum, a falsehood was going around that Turkey was going to join the European Union (EU) and Britain would be flooded with immigrants from Turkey. The falsehood might have well affected the outcome of the referendum and the fate of the UK. It will get worse as technology continues to advance. You can now use artificial intelligence (AI) to make fake videos of a real person – "deep fakes". Mr Vikram Khanna wrote about it in The Straits Times today. You can just google "Obama deepfake" and you will find a video of the former US President – I tried, I found it – delivering a speech with swear words and all, which he, of course, did not make.”
“We started to come out with scenarios where we think falsehoods or truths are somewhat fuzzy. We talked about the balance between the Executive and the Judiciary, we talked about fast versus slow processes in the Courts. But really, what is this issue about? The issue is that we really have a serious threat from online falsehoods. Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, in the Members' lounge, was just telling me that when he was young, he remembered when the racial riots were happening, there was a big headline in The Straits Times saying "Stop Rumour Mongering" because that was fuelling the riots. Real public harm. Just imagine today, with the tools in the hands of people with malicious intent, it is one thousand times easier to come up with a falsehood. It will spread thousands of times faster. Thousands of times broader and wider. Thousands of times more serious impact. This is what we are really dealing with. First, let me reiterate, the two gates through which any falsehood must pass before it can be corrected or removed by this Bill. One, what is put up online must be a statement of fact that is false. Two, it must cause public harm. When these two gates are crossed, then the falsehood may be corrected or removed by a "Direction". "Directions" are not criminal punishments. It is just a Correction. Let us put things in perspective here. All that we are debating about concerning the powers of Ministers, it is the power to initiate a correction of an online falsehood that has gone viral and has public harm. That is what we are debating about. For there to be criminal liability, a third gate has to be crossed, which is that the propagator of the falsehood must have knowledge that it is false and it is harmful. So, there is malicious intent.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when Mr Melvin Yong said that we need better media literacy, I was bracing myself that he would say, "So, we need MOE to teach media literacy." We always hear people say that the root of any problem in the world is education. That aside, the ambit of this law has little to do with my Ministry. But since I received a letter from concerned academics, I thought I should speak at this debate. As of the afternoon of 6 May, as reported by Assoc Prof Walter Theseira earlier on, the letter was signed by 124 academics. We did not do any database check but, to the best of MOE's knowledge, 71 are foreign academics based in foreign universities and 52 are Singaporeans – 25 based in foreign universities outside of Singapore and 27 based in local universities. There is one signatory who is a foreign academic based in a local university. My colleagues from MCI and the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) have offered to meet with the academics who signed the letter. The offer has not been formally taken up yet, but I understand many of them have attended the dialogue sessions with Minister Shanmugam, Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong as well as Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary. The three of them have been visiting universities and conducting talks and I hope that our three public officeholders have largely assuaged their concerns. Today, I will first explain how hard, or rather, how impossible it is, for academic research to run afoul of POFMA. Second, I will comment on what I think the academics, or at least some of them, are really worried about. I will end my speech with a summary in Chinese. I have been sitting here listening to the debate, and I think we have, unfortunately, started to obfuscate what the core matter is about.”
“All primary schools already offer Higher Chinese to students who have the interest and ability to do so. Demand for Higher Chinese is healthy. Over the past five years, over a quarter of Chinese students offer Higher Chinese at the Primary School Leaving Examination. Many Primary schools start offering Higher Chinese from Primary 3, and all will offer it from Primary 5. This is in line with our priorities in lower primary education to ensure students settle well in school and build a strong foundation in literacy, numeracy and social skills, rather than to specialise them too early. This will also allow schools to make use of the two years of Chinese Language instruction at Primary 1 and Primary 2 to assess if the child has the interest and ability to offer Higher Chinese from Primary 3. Even without offering Higher Chinese, however, the Chinese Language curriculum at Primary 1 and Primary 2 is designed with enrichment modules to stretch students with stronger ability and interest.”
“Parents have been supportive of the school-based vaccination programmes, and there is high take-up of vaccines offered in schools. For example, the take-up rate of vaccination against second booster doses of diphtheria as well as the vaccination against polio, both offered in schools at Primary 5, are above 90% each. For the recently rolled out Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination, the opt-in rate has been slightly over 90% for the first 25 schools covered so far. In addition, measles vaccination coverage among resident children is at 93% for the second dose at seven years of age. We want to encourage high vaccination take-up rates to achieve herd immunity, so as to protect against the outbreak of potentially serious diseases, such as measles, diphtheria and polio. The Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Health Promotion Board (HPB) conduct public education programmes to the general public as well as to parents and students to ensure continued support for the vaccination programmes. For example, through HealthHub, HPB's online health information portal, members of the public can access information on immunisation as well as details on age-appropriate immunisation for children. For school-based vaccination programmes like the HPV vaccination, the Ministry of Education (MOE) supports HPB in the distribution of an information package prior to the school visit for HPV vaccination, to enable parents to make informed choices. The information package includes a factsheet on HPV vaccination, a brochure on the risk and prevention of HPV, and a letter providing information on the HPV school-based programme. MOE will continue to work with MOH to sustain support for vaccinations offered in schools.”
“Since the current school cleaning contract commenced on 1 October 2017, 35 cases of workplace accidents involving school cleaners were reported to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), out of about 3,300 school cleaners engaged. About half of these cases reported involved slips and falls. The Ministry of Education (MOE) has been and will continue to work with our cleaning contractors to pay attention to workplace safety and health (WSH) issues for school cleaners. To reduce potential workplace injuries, MOE requires all our appointed cleaning contractors to provide a WSH Officer to carry out risk assessment and monthly cleaning safety checks in schools. In addition, MOE holds regular meetings with our cleaning contractors to look at safety concerns and work together to improve workplace safety for our school cleaners. Currently, about 50% of the school cleaners have undergone training related to WSH. We will take the Member's suggestion to require all cleaners to undergo the training when we review subsequent school cleaning contracts.”
“The first question of inconsistencies across AUs, I would not call it inconsistencies. Different AUs may well have slightly different disciplinary actions, just as different companies would have different disciplinary actions when there are offences. Having said that, researchers and academics stick to the discipline of peer review very closely and I have no doubt in this aspect that there will be some peer review going on. The second question is expertise. The disciplinary boards of the review committees will need to have certain members, including having student representatives. But of course, if they need enforcement or legal advice, I am sure they can ask for it and they are able to tap on it. After all, it is a university; lots of different talent in different expertise. So, I think we need to give them some time, some space, to get their work done.”
“I think we also need to respect the fact that they are AUs having their own boards and governing themselves in a fairly independent way, separate from MOE. So, for us to issue standards or codes or rules to the universities would not be appropriate. We can do that for polytechnics because they are Statutory Boards, and we can do that for ITE. But for AUs, they are differently incorporated and structured. Having said that, when I first issued my public statement that the penalties are manifestly inadequate, I think they all understood the standard that I was looking for. I am sure we will work together, not by MOE issuing rules and regulations but through discussion, moral suasion, I am sure we can come up with something feasible, workable and effective.”
“I just want to add that we need to take some firm measures but be careful not to overreact to the extent of not allowing students to visit one another or staying over. These are, after all, university campuses. I think we can have a lively campus without having all the dangers and security lapses, which we will tighten up.”
“The first question is again, looking back, why did we not realise that was serious? Of course, we wish that there was a realisation that these are serious offences. Voyeurism is a rising concern. But having said that, today, after this incident, I believe that the AUs are all very aware and I am confident that they will do something swift and decisive. I am confident of that. And we will work closely with them. As to publicising the punishment, NUS has actually been publicising the cases, the sexual misconduct cases and the punishment that has been meted out to them. It is available on their student website, which is why after the latest incident, there were several press reports about past cases, because it was publicly available within the NUS website. I think we can publicise but, fundamentally, as what I have mentioned, the penalties are just not stiff enough. We just need to toughen them up and send a strong signal that at the most egregious end of the offences, there must be very stiff punishment.”
“Okay, I see. Should we not have done this earlier, in other words. The AUs do review their disciplinary framework from time to time. NUS' framework was reviewed about five years ago, and it was probably due for review. But I think what this incident has taught all of us is that there is a stronger concern and also some underlying trends. I think we do need to make it tougher at the egregious end of the offence. Should we have done this earlier? I wish we had. But I think there are many things that we do, sometimes, ahead of time, and we are also being questioned, "Why do you do it now?", "Aren't you going to open up other problems?" In this case, unfortunately, that did not happen. But I think what is more important is immediate action is being taken now. I am confident that there will be swift and decisive actions. The second question is how we would know if the measures will be adequate. I think after this furore, the AUs all understand the implications of this. I have given them my written advice and policy guidance that they have to do a thorough review. I am sure all of them will take it very seriously.”
“Sorry, I did not catch the Member's first question because I thought we just announced that they would review their framework.”
“The first question is whether there is a deep-rooted trend of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a type of sexual misconduct. There are several types: outrage of modesty, sexual assault, sexual harassment. At the AUs, the big bulk, about two-thirds, is still voyeurism. Based on the data I gave just now, there has not been a rising trend in the last three years. However, I do also acknowledge all the explanations that some of the literature has given, including the "Big Read" article in TODAY that I mentioned earlier, that the young today grow up with the Internet, they are exposed to pornographic websites, they know of miniature photography and recording devices, and sometimes, they get these materials through their WhatsApp. Over time, they may have the idea that "Actually, this is no big deal". This is what we worry about. It has not manifested in terms of higher incidence rates, at least not over the last three years. But we do worry about this underlying trend. I do agree with the Member that we need to send a strong signal. It has to be a combination of measures between what I and Second Minister Indranee Rajah have talked about, tougher penalties, education, improving the physical security as well as better support for both the victims as well as, sometimes, for the offenders in counselling them and helping them turn over a new leaf.”
“No matter how wrong an offender is, we need to respect the due process. During this episode, the harshest punishment for Nicholas Lim came from the social media. I hope that, as a society, we will give his family and him the time and space they need to reflect on his actions, to turn over a new leaf and move forward. Ms Monica Baey herself has said that, as hurt and affected as she is, her objective in publicising her story was not to seek revenge for the present case, but to ensure fairness for both the perpetrator and the victim in future cases. So, the most important priority now is for the AUs to see how they can do better and take concrete steps to improve campus safety and their victim support frameworks and processes. They are strongly committed to doing so and I am confident there will be swift and meaningful changes, and my Ministry will work closely with them on these aspects.”
“I have, therefore, asked all our AUs, polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education to review their disciplinary frameworks. In the case of NUS, it has convened a Review Committee led by Mdm Kay Kuok, a member of its Board of Trustees, to review its disciplinary framework. I know many students are not excited by Committees, but this is a necessary process to bring about a considered change to an established disciplinary framework. The Review Committee has started its work and will release its recommendations in stages. The Committee members will release some preliminary recommendations in the middle of May for consultations and aim to complete their work in June this year. In the meantime, NUS management is taking immediate actions to improve the support systems and campus security, which Second Minister Indranee Rajah will elaborate on later. Ultimately, the AUs are tackling the concern on campus and student safety holistically, involving tougher penalties for offenders, better physical security on campus, and stronger support and greater sensitivity for the needs of victims. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me end with just one last comment. This incident provided an opportunity for us to reflect on the character of our society. And I can see that we are a people with a strong sense of justice, who see the importance of differentiating between right from wrong, and this explains the strong reaction to Ms Monica Baey's situation. We also continue to believe in tough but fair systems of punishment to keep the Singapore living environment the way it has been. These are characteristics of our society that I am proud of as a Singaporean. But we should always refrain from trial by media, doxxing and resorting to mob justice.”
“Our AUs are important national institutions that educate and nurture young Singaporeans to be contributing and responsible members of society. To achieve this, the AUs' disciplinary frameworks should, therefore, be stringent but fair. "Two strikes and you're out" cannot be the standard application. But neither should expulsions be the default for all forms of misconduct. The penalty must continue to fit the offence, but there has to be a significant adjustment at the most egregious end of the spectrum of misconducts when they are serious criminal offences that undermine the safety and security of university campuses. We must ensure that potential offenders know the severe consequences of their actions, including the impact on their future. There has to be a deterrent. And if the offender is remorseful, accepted and served punishment, he deserves a chance to make good. This is also the spirit behind the Yellow Ribbon project, and this is how we balance deterrence and rehabilitation. Second reason, we must recognise that voyeurism is a growing concern in Singapore. A recent "Big Read" article by TODAY published last weekend gave a good explanation that this may be because the young are exposed to the Internet from an early age, and technological advances make video-recording easier and more undetectable. This led to some thinking that voyeurism is not a serious offence, and they cannot be more wrong. Coincidentally, the Ministry of Home Affairs is amending the Penal Code, which will be debated this afternoon, to include new provisions on voyeurism. As our circumstances change, the AUs must likewise keep up with the times and ensure that their policies and processes remain relevant in establishing a safe and supportive environment for all students.”
“To determine the appropriate sanctions, each case is evaluated by the disciplinary body, taking into account the severity of the misconduct and any mitigating factors, such as how remorseful and forthcoming the offender was during investigations, the potential for rehabilitation and the presence of any mental health issues. For offenders with psychiatric conditions, sanctions will include requiring the offender to start, or continue, with mandatory counselling and psychological treatment. Of the 56 cases I mentioned earlier that happened over the last three years, five cases are pending disciplinary hearings and four students withdrew from the university before sanctions were imposed. So, out of the remaining 47 cases, 34 resulted in an official reprimand, 26 resulted in suspensions of up to two academic terms and 20 were banned from entering student dormitories. These numbers do not add up to 47 because, typically, an offender received a combination of penalties. But if we just look at the 10 Police cases involving serious offences which led to jail sentences, there was only one expulsion, which was subsequently reduced to an 18-month suspension after appeal and the taking into account of the offender's psychiatric condition. I think there is no need for me to repeat my views on the adequacies of the penalties meted out by the AUs, but I will give two strong reasons why the AUs will need to review their disciplinary frameworks with a view to strengthening the penalties. First, we need to better balance the objectives of deterrence and redress for the victims against the rehabilitation of the offender. Balancing these objectives is important for an education institution, but it should not end up with penalties that are too soft and too lenient.”
“So, the number of cases for each AU is closely related to their student population. Finally, 37 or about 66% of the cases were related to voyeurism, that is, peeping Toms and filming of people in vulnerable positions. As the student population changes from year to year, what is more meaningful is to express this as an incidence rate, that is, the number of sexual misconduct cases involving student perpetrators per 1,000 students. That is probably a better measurement. The number was 0.21, 0.21 and 0.20 over the last three academic years, showing no discernible trend. Let me now talk about penalties for the offenders. Of the 56 cases, the victims in 37 cases made Police reports. Of these 37 cases, four cases are still under investigation and, for two, there was insufficient evidence to make out offences. So, there is a remainder of 31 cases. Out of the remaining 31, 10 cases resulted in jail terms of between 10 days and eight months. And these 10 are serious offences, involving outrage of modesty or multiple instances of voyeurism. These are all arising from Police reports and then Police action. Minister Shanmugam will explain later how the Police deal with these cases. Separately, apart from Police action, the AUs will carry out their own disciplinary processes through their respective disciplinary bodies and mete out a combination of penalties that is within the AUs’ powers and authority. These range from an official reprimand, which will be reflected in the student’s formal educational record, to suspensions, and expulsion, which is the harshest punishment an AU can administer.”
“Members have raised three areas of concern. First, the number of sexual misconduct cases across the autonomous universities (AUs) over the years. Second, the adequacy of law enforcement and disciplinary actions in deterring potential offenders. Third, the support systems that have been put in place to help victims in a timely and effective manner that is sensitive to their needs. I will address the first two aspects, while Second Minister Indranee will cover the final aspect. So, Members may want to pose your supplementary questions after both of us have given our replies. First, incidence rates of sexual misconduct in the AUs. Over the past three years, the six AUs handled a total of 42 disciplinary cases involving sexual misconduct within campuses. But there were another 14 cases committed by students that happened outside of campuses, making a total of 56 cases. I know that Mr Leon Perera, in his question, referred to cases within campuses. But since the focus of my reply today is on the penalty framework of the AUs rather than campus security, I will refer to all 56 cases today in my reply. Let me give a breakdown of the 56 cases. There were 17 cases in Academic Year 2015, 18 cases in Academic Year 2016, and 21 cases in Academic Year 2017 across all six AUs. Twenty-five out of the 56 cases were from National University of Singapore (NUS); two from Yale-NUS which has its own Board of Discipline separate from NUS; 20 were from Nanyang Technological University (NTU); and six were from the Singapore Management University (SMU). The Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) and Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) had one case each over the last three years.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I take the next three questions together, please?”
“As of end 2018, more than 58,000 Singaporeans aged 65 and above have started using their SkillsFuture Credit. The courses which they most commonly used their SkillsFuture Credit for were in information and communications technology, productivity and innovation, personal development, and leadership and people management. SkillsFuture Singapore works with partner agencies to ensure there is a suitable range of affordable SkillsFuture Credit-eligible courses designed specifically for seniors. These include information technology courses at various levels of proficiencies and learning opportunities under the National Silver Academy offered by community-based organisations. Individuals can also attend the SkillsFuture Advice workshops organised by the Community Development Councils, which cater to all ages, including seniors.”
“The first question is on ITE resources. ITE is well-resourced. First, infrastructure. Look at ITE Ang Mo Kio (Central) – very nice premises. There are many countries that look at it and think this looks like their universities. Secondly, programmes and lab equipment. Also, ITE students pay only 3% of the total cost of delivery. So, subsidies for ITE students are much higher compared to polytechnics or universities. Thirdly, we continue to build new pathways for ITE students and, one of them, which I explained, was the Work-Learn Technical Diploma, which will be a major programme coming out of ITE. So, really, no worries about ITE not resourced enough. As for the other question on JPAE, I addressed it in my speech. They do come after the GCE "O" levels students. But it is a separate queue with their separate places set aside for them. So, they will not be disadvantaged in any way.”
“I think there is no disagreement that mental health is part of health, together with physical health. In fact, when we speak with students today, teenage students, mental health is one of the top concerns on their mind. I have spoken to many of them. Definitely, this is something we have to look into and continue to improve. What I want to seek the understanding of Members is that the mode of delivery does not always have to be in a curriculum, and under "lessons" and under " talks", taking up curriculum time. In fact, for mental health education to really work, it has to be delivered in a different way, such as through peer support groups that Senior Parliamentary Secretary Muhamad Faisal Ibrahim talked about, and also general public education which students now receive through their social media channels. So, let us explore different ways and not always channel through the formal MOE education curriculum. It is more effective that way.”
“Thank you for describing the practical problem you face, and, yes, we will be happy to study them.”
“First, on Sports School and SOTA. Sports School already takes in students from all three streams actually, and they also have tied up with Republic Polytechnic so that some of the students, when they finish, they go to Republic Polytechnic and continue sports-related education. SOTA takes in Express stream students plus those in the Option Band where they can opt for both Express as well as N(A). And the reason is because SOTA offers an International Baccalaureate (IB) programme. So, there is also a responsibility for the school and the system to recognise that IB is quite an academically rigorous programme and you want to make sure that the students can keep up and not end up not being able to cope and losing confidence totally. And so, for the time being, so long as SOTA continues to offer an IB programme, I think it will take in Express students. However, in time to come, when the three streams are merged, I think it will naturally have to relook at what kind of students it takes. As for Spectra and Crest, as I mentioned in my speech, speaking to Spectra's and Crest's students, they feel so much better being in a school where there is a whole-school approach to recognise that they are probably better at doing technical jobs, hands-on jobs, and develop them in that direction. So, there is value to have diversity across schools, having schools that focus on certain segments of students but, at the same time, the bulk in the middle have diversity within the school, which is what we are trying to achieve.”
“I thank Ms Denise Phua for her view which is a valid one. In a way, GEP is a similar but smaller issue compared to the SBB issue that we were considering. So, this year, there are GEP centre schools – Nanyang, Nan Hua, Rosyth – that have already started mixed form classes for GEP students. So, just like SBB that I mentioned earlier, they spend 50% of the curriculum time together for various subjects. Only when it comes to Mathematics, Science, English and Social Studies, they then break out into their GEP classes. So, I think changes are already happening. We note the Member's point. This is exactly the same balance that we are trying to optimise and we will continue to work on that.”
“The challenge of our education system is to cater to that. That is the central purpose of this change. Put to rest the mistaken notion that there is a single, dominant path to success that starts from a very young age. The school system will become far more flexible than today, so that we can customise learning to the student, to give them time to blossom at different points in their lives, while anchoring the belief that we can grow and get better. Beyond schools, the IHL landscape offers even more varied pathways for the student to develop and grow, based on his talents and strengths. In making this change, we are developing a child with the knowledge that the pace of his or her learning changes with time, all the way to adulthood. We are acting on our conviction that our students benefit most when there is diversity across schools and within schools. Above all, we are guided by our belief that no child's fate is fixed, and in an environment that encourages growth and development and holistic education, they will fulfil their potential to be sons and daughters of Singapore that we can be proud of. [Applause.]”
“I grew up in a Chinese-speaking family. When I was young, the only books I read were Chinese comics. I entered Primary 1 not being able to understand English very well, much less reading and writing. My late mother, a Chinese teacher, tried to teach me, but her English was also very limited. Then sometime in Primary 3, I had a eureka moment. I still remember it vividly. I figured out that if "b-a-r" reads "bar", "b-e-r" reads "ber", then "b-a-r-b-e-r" – I can put them two together and it becomes "barber" – the guy who cuts my hair! So, I had figured out phonics in Primary 3. From then on, I could start to read some English books. My first book was "The Three Musketeers". I could read the words and sentences, but I had a problem because I did not know what they meant. So, in secondary school, my English standard was what my classmates would describe as "cannot swim". This affected other language-dependent subjects, such as History and Geography. How did I pass? I memorised large chunks of texts. And in the exam, I kept my fingers crossed. If I had spotted the exam questions correctly, then I would regurgitate what I had memorised. If the exam questions came out wrong, I regurgitated anyway. But if I were in primary school today, I would probably have been put into a Learning Support Programme, which would have done me a lot of good. In secondary school, it would also have been better for me to be placed in a less demanding band for English, which would give me time to pick up the basics, and then upgrade to a more demanding band if I could meet the standard. I should have done G2 or G1 English. There are some students who are very strong in every academic subject. But most, like myself, have uneven strengths, and specific weaknesses. It is just the way humans are.”
“Four decades ago, we made major progress in customising education to reduce student attrition. From two decades ago, we have been redesigning the system to develop the varied abilities of our students. What is the focus now? In the digital era, knowledge has become very accessible. One smartphone and you can access all kinds of knowledge. But skills carry a premium. Skills, both technical and soft, are what make us human and inoculate us from being replaced by computers and robots. But skills take a lifetime to acquire and hone, and one must be driven by passion to do so. Skills. Passion. Growth. In this phase, more than ever, we are centred on the need to learn for life, to prepare our students for the future. The third thrust of our "Learn for Life" movement: "one education system, many subject bands", is another step in this direction. We are able to take these steps now because of the work done in the past. So, in a way, whatever I have announced could have been anticipated. In fact, many Members of Parliament who urged for the phasing out of streaming, made reference to SBB, and saw this as a natural extension of all the work that we have done. And this has to be our attitude when it comes to education – never complacent, always anticipating the future, figuring out what needs to change next, planning it out, and implementing at a pace that takes into account the tradeoffs, complexities and the immense impact any changes will have on our students. We should never stay frozen for long periods, only to make sudden changes years later. So, any change that can be compared to the slaughtering of any animal is probably a bad idea. I am confident that "one secondary education, many subject bands" will benefit many students. Let me share a personal story.”
“There is value in having certain schools take a whole-school approach in implementing specialised programmes. Every education system in the world will have schools that cater specifically to different segments of students, such as those with high academic ability and strengths in specific areas or who much prefer a more hands-on, vocational and technical training. Such a diverse education system can complement the plan to move beyond streaming. We should maintain and balance diversity across schools and within a school, to allow us to better cater to the educational needs and strengths of different groups of students. The downside is the lack of mixing in these more specialised schools. These schools have to make a special effort to recruit students from all backgrounds, wisely using their Direct School Admissions mechanism. They will have to ensure that students participate actively in inter-school mixing opportunities, such as combining school CCAs, Outward Bound School camps, or Values-in-Action projects where week-in, week-out, students from different schools get to mingle together. I can see many of the principals from the specialised schools working very hard to do better in this aspect. There is also scope for these specialised schools to offer more subject options. Spectra and Crest should offer more N(A) subjects compared to today, and could possibly also offer a few Express-level subjects. Similarly, in time, it will also make sense for the schools that take in only Express students to offer some subjects at the N(A) or N(T) level. After all, customisation of education and catering more flexibly to the varied interests and abilities of students will benefit them. Mr Chairman, let me conclude. The emphasis of our education system has evolved over the years.”
“This means that secondary schools should continue to admit students across three PSLE scoring bands, even though the streams have been merged. Educationally, this approach is both practical, reasonable and sound because the transition from Primary 6 to Secondary 1 is a fairly major one, and a significant one for all students. We need students to start off right. PSLE still serves as a useful initial gauge of the subject bands that each student is most suited for at the beginning of Secondary 1. So, students admitted in the first PSLE scoring band will initially take mostly G1 subjects, those in the second PSLE scoring band will take mostly G2 subjects, and those in the third PSLE scoring band will take mostly G3 subjects. Admitting students across three PSLE score bands will allow schools to offer subjects of all bands. But once in secondary school, students can discover and further develop their strengths and interests, and Full SBB will enable them to diverge into various paths, taking a combination of subjects across different bands. There is also an important social consideration. Admitting students from different PSLE scoring bands into the same secondary school will ensure that our students get to make friends from diverse backgrounds. Indeed, one of the key objectives of education is to forge a cohesive society. 12.00 pm This leads to the third question, which is, then what will happen to Spectra and Crest, which currently take in only N(T) students, or schools with specialised programmes, such as NUS High School, the School of Science and Technology, and Integrated Programme schools that take in only Express stream students today? Will MOE mandate that they take in students across all three PSLE bands?”
“I am sure that there are many questions on how all this will work. Some of them will need to be addressed as we implement the changes. But let me answer a few key ones. An immediate question is whether we will still keep Secondary 5. It is a key concern amongst students and parents, because for N(A) students today, attaining the GCE "O" level through Secondary 5 helps them to access the polytechnics and JCs. Our plan is that by 2024, all students will enrol into Secondary 1 and go through a four-year curriculum for all subject bands. At the end of Secondary 4, these students will attain the common certificate with various subject permutations. Some will have six G3 subjects and one G2 subject; some will have five G3s and two G2s; others, maybe two G3s, three G2s and one G1 and so on. This will require us to undertake a review of our post-secondary posting system, so that students taking a combination of G1, G2 and G3 subjects can be fairly considered for ITE, polytechnic and JC. Our review will recognise students’ particular strengths that make them suitable for specific post-secondary courses. The year 2024 is a few years away, and we will use this time to undertake this review. We will also explore other alternatives to a fifth year in secondary school, like the current Polytechnic Foundation Programme, to help students bridge over to polytechnic or JC. Another question is: currently, the great majority of secondary schools admit students from the Express, N(A) and N(T) streams. Now, it is one course. How will the secondary school posting system change? MOE has thought this through and concluded that it is better not to disrupt the current posting system.”
“Two things will happen then. One, we would have rolled out Full SBB and the new ways of organising form classes across the education system. The pioneering practices in Boon Lay and Edgefield will become the norm. Two, to reflect the reality of Full SBB as a more flexible, single course, we will enrol the first batch of Secondary 1 students, who will graduate with a common secondary school certificate. This common certificate will combine the current GCE "O" level, N(A) and N(T) certificates. It will list the subjects completed and the standard band of each subject, very much like what Dr Intan Mokhtar described yesterday. And we are not unfamiliar with this concept. It is actually similar to the GCE "A" level certificate for JCs, where the certificate states the subjects and the standards they are completed in, whether it is H1, H2 or H3. For secondary schools, we will use G1, G2 or G3. "G" stands for "General". G1 will roughly correspond to today’s N(T) standard, G2 to N(A) standard, and G3 to Express standard. Singapore and Cambridge will co-brand this new certificate. We are both strong international brand names in education and, by working together, we will enhance the recognition and value of the certificate. With Full SBB implemented, form classes reorganised across the board, and a combined secondary school education certificate, we would have effectively merged Express, N(A) and N(T) into a single course. [Applause.] The Express, N(A) and N(T) streams, together with their labels, will be phased out. [Applause.] So, from three education streams, we will now have "one secondary education, many subject bands." We will no longer have fishes swimming down three separate streams. We will have one broad river, with each fish negotiating its own journey.”
“The teachers noticed that students were helping one another more frequently in class, and students from the Normal stream were stepping forward to take up leadership roles during group work or project/team work. I chatted with several students at the canteen. I asked them, "You all think this is great. But how about your parents?" They said their parents felt it was okay. One student said "My father thought 'This is Awesome'." The principal, Mr Lee Peck Ping, told me that a handful of parents were concerned that this might slow down learning in class. Peck Ping painstakingly explained how SBB worked, what students are learning together as a form class, and how classes for academic subjects are still banded based on the learning abilities of the students. Through this explanation, he managed to address the concerns of most parents. He told me that a small number of parents were still worried and felt that, had they known, they would not have sent their children to Edgefield Secondary. And I understand the concerns of these parents. But Edgefield Secondary was making the right tradeoff to develop students both academically and socially. It was, in its own way, taking the lead in reshaping our existing culture for the better. Schools, such as Boon Lay and Edgefield, are important trailblazers and I thank them. After several years of progressively implementing SBB, and with good outcomes both academically and socially, the time is right for us to move to Full SBB. Implementing Full SBB will be a multi-year transition. We should not underestimate the challenge of this move. There are major operational challenges, such as timetabling. Schools will need time to learn, adapt and innovate. By the start of 2024, we will be ready to take the next step, which is the most crucial.”
“One student told me: “Now I can pour my heart out to my seniors every morning before assembly, even if it is for 10 minutes. But to do so, I must come to school and come on time. In fact, 10 minutes earlier!” Another Normal stream student told me something quite profound. He said that in the past, during morning assembly, a teacher might admonish a noisy class and say: "4N(T), keep quiet!" Immediately, all the N(T) students felt that they were singled out. Today, the teacher would say: "NCC, keep quiet!" and the Normal stream students feel: "Okay lah." The students who have gone through almost two years of the new form classes in Boon Lay Secondary have recently completed their national examinations. Across the school, results had shown improvement. MOE will need to study their results further, but there is now a genuine belief that the social environment of the school can positively influence a student’s academic behaviour and performance. I also visited another school, Edgefield Secondary, which had decided to reorganise form classes to include students from all three streams starting this year, not by CCA, but mixed form classes with students from all three streams. Each Secondary 1 form class goes through about half of their lessons together, for subjects like Character and Citizenship Education (CCE), Design and Technology, Art, Music and Physical Education, where there is little need to customise lessons based on academic abilities. The other half, comprising academic subjects – English, MTL, Maths and Science – are grouped according to SBB. It has only been a couple of months, but feedback has been generally good. The students I spoke to have no basis for comparison, so they all say it is very good, and they are very happy, as expected.”
“Day-to-day practices in schools play a big part in shaping a child's self-confidence, sometimes more than the academic curriculum. I learnt this from Mr Tan Chor Pang, the principal of Boon Lay Secondary. Mr Patrick Tay knows him very well. The late-coming and absenteeism rates amongst Normal stream students in Boon Lay Secondary had not been healthy. However, Chor Pang observed that when it came to CCA, all the students were very engaged. So, in an unprecedented move, he figured, let us just change the way we organise classes. After all, Boon Lay Secondary has a smaller school enrolment. He reorganised form classes according to CCAs rather than academic streams. Almost immediately, absenteeism and late-coming rates fell drastically. I was fascinated by this unorthodox practice and decided to visit the school and speak to teachers and students. I found out that, every morning, students would gather in their CCA groups – which is their form class – for morning assembly. They also underwent Character and Citizenship Education classes and learning journeys together as a form class based on CCA. For academic lessons, they then break out into different classes based on SBB. So, I asked the students: "Why the big reduction in late-coming and absenteeism rates when the principal changed the class organisation?" The students were frank. They told me that many of them had personal and other family problems. Teachers and counsellors could help, but they also needed peer support, especially from their seniors and friends in their CCA. Now, they look forward to attending morning assembly, because this is when they meet their friends and seniors from their CCA groups.”
“I think the Normal stream students have held their own. Our surveys also showed that students, parents and teachers overwhelmingly welcome this. Given the positive outcomes, last year, we expanded SBB nationwide. We are now ready to take a further, major move. It will involve a few significant policy steps over the next few years. Let me explain the process. There will be two important milestones – 2020 and 2024. Beginning in 2020, about 25 pilot secondary schools will implement Full SBB, with more schools joining in subsequent years. How is Full SBB different from vanilla SBB today? There are three main differences. 11.45 am First, we will allow lower secondary school students to study more subjects at a higher level – not just English, MTL, Maths and Science today, but also Geography, History and Literature. Chemistry and Biology will only be available in upper secondary. As it may be difficult to ascertain the level suitable for students using just their PSLE results, MOE and schools will develop guidelines and assessment mechanisms, including using Secondary 1 year-end examinations. The second difference is that we will also allow students of Express and N(A) streams the flexibility to take a subject offered in N(A) and N(T) streams respectively, to broaden their learning and experiences, or in instances where customisation will help the student. Express students today are already exposed to technical subjects, such as Design and Technology. In time, Express students may take subjects offered in the Normal stream, such as Mobile Robotics. The third big difference, beyond the academic aspects, Full SBB will also give pilot schools an opportunity to reshape the social environment in schools to benefit their students.”
“More than a decade ago, we started a form of SBB in secondary schools by allowing students in the N(A) and N(T) streams to take up to two subjects at a higher level starting from Secondary 3, if they had done well in those subjects when they were in lower secondary. It worked well. In 2014, we formalised a bolder form of SBB in 12 secondary schools as pilot schools. N(A) and N(T) students in lower secondary could take English, MTL, Mathematics and Science at a more rigorous standard, if their PSLE scores or school examination results for these subjects justified it. The results of this new pilot have been encouraging. About half of the N(A) students in the pilot schools took up subjects at the Express level. If we break down this number, 25% of N(A) students took one Express level subject; another 11% took two subjects, and over 10% took three subjects or were laterally transferred to Express stream. So, 25% plus 11% plus 10%, adding up to roughly half of the N(A) students. If we had included MTL, the numbers would be even higher. The numbers for N(T) students taking N(A) subjects are also largely similar. As of now, the two batches of students who have participated in SBB in the prototype schools have completed their secondary school national examinations. How did they do? Their results show that Normal and Express stream students, taking the same GCE "O" level examinations, perform comparably. To illustrate, for the national examinations in 2018 last year, 25% of Secondary 4 N(A) students who took GCE "O" level English got A1 or A2. How about Express students? It was 24%, or 1% less. For GCE "O" level Mathematics, 26% of N(A) students got A1 or A2; Express students, 50%. For GCE "O" level Combined Science, it was N(A) students, 33%; Express students, 34%.”
“We introduced different standards for the subjects – Standard and Foundation for English, Mathematics and Science; Higher, Standard, and Foundation for MTL. We called this Subject-Based Banding (SBB) and started it since the mid-2000s. Hence, by 2008, instead of having three streams, we had a single primary school course. Within the course, students could learn subjects at different standards, based on SBB. There were sceptics at that time who asked, "What is the difference between streaming and SBB? It is old wine in a new bottle, that is, 换汤不换药 – you merely changed the labels of EM1, 2, 3 to new subject labels called Foundation, Standard and Higher, that is all. It is the same!" There is a big difference. Streaming separates education into different courses and we put students into each course. Each course is like a big jar. You put all kinds of cookies into the jar and then you close it, and you label it "pineapple tarts". So, all the goodies inside, whatever they are, get labelled as "pineapple tarts", accurately or inaccurately. SBB changes this fundamentally. Essentially, we break the jar, students come out of it, take subjects of varying difficulty, based on their academic ability. Taking one or two subjects at the Foundation level is not tantamount to labelling the child. And equally important, it encourages students to find their strengths. Since we introduced SBB, many students who would previously have been in the EM3 stream ended up taking one or more subjects at a higher level. So, this way, we continued to reap the benefits of customisation of education but minimised the downsides of labelling. This is much harder to do for secondary school, because there are so many more subjects involved.”
“Today, for students whose PSLE scores allow them a choice between two streams, there are many who, in fact, prefer a stream where they can study at a more comfortable pace, and gain confidence as they feel that they are a "bigger fish in a smaller pond". However, there are downsides to streaming, too. There is always some margin of error, especially if streaming is done at a young age. Further, in its original form, streaming assumed that students needed a certain pace of learning in all their subjects, whereas many students, in fact, have uneven strengths across different subjects. Finally, more importantly, and raised by many Members, entering a stream that is considered "lower" can carry a certain stigma that becomes self-fulfilling and self-limiting. Students can develop a mindset where they tell themselves, "I am only a Normal stream student and this is as good as I can be." It becomes self-fulfilling. I thank Mr Ang Wei Neng and Dr Intan Mokhtar for sharing their personal experiences with this. We have been grappling with this tradeoff between customisation of education and the downside of stigmatisation. That is why, over the years, we have made significant changes to the streaming system. A major transition took place in the mid-2000s, when MOE phased out streaming in primary school over a period of four years. As Members would recall, we used to have three streams in primary school – EM1, EM2 and EM3. The first step was to merge EM1 and EM2, since the only difference between the two streams was the standard of MTL. Later, MOE shifted to customising learning not at the stream level, but at the subject level.”
“As Members know, our secondary school system comprises three streams, namely, Express, Normal (Academic) or N(A), and Normal (Technical) or N(T). Ms Denise Phua, Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Charles Chong, Mr Louis Ng and Dr Intan Mokhtar have raised concerns about the streaming system. In fact, I want to acknowledge Ms Denise Phua and Dr Intan Mokhtar, who have actually raised this concern for many years now. This year, Mr Louis Ng joined the call. Let me, first, explain the background of streaming. Streaming was implemented during the "efficiency-driven" phase of the education system in the 1980s and 1990s. We were concerned about the huge number of dropouts who could not read or write at the end of primary school. We had to move away from a one-size-fits-all education system because if students sat in class, could not catch up, and did not understand their lessons, they would lose interest and drop out. Through streaming, we customised education according to the learning rates of our students. It has successfully reduced school attrition rates from about one-third of every cohort to less than 1% now. The introduction of the N(T) stream contributed significantly to this outcome. Till today, we are benefiting from the legacy of the "efficiency-driven" education system. I urge Members not to casually juxtapose social stratification with streaming because, without reducing attrition rates through streaming, social stratification would have been far, far worse. Over time, parents and students also began to see the benefit of learning at a pace and rigour suited to their academic abilities.”
“How students, parents and teachers behave, what they focus on in education, are the result of deeply ingrained incentive structures in our labour market, education system and the way that our society recognises success. I think we cannot tackle these cultural issues with another promotional campaign, adding new stories into our syllabus, or adding more to our curriculum. We could do all that, but it would not fundamentally shift the underlying culture which is deeply ingrained. Having said that, we are not helpless either. With the evolution of our education system, and the broadening and rebalancing of how we measure success, we can shift the current culture. And indeed, we are starting to see changes. This is why we launched the Learn for Life Movement last year. The Movement is a holistic, comprehensive, multi-year plan to evolve our education system for the future. So, we have two movements today – Learn for Life for school education; SSG for lifelong learning. There are a few major thrusts under the Learn for Life Movement, and MOE has launched two of them. The first is to balance rigour and joy. If learning is just stress and no joy, there will be little chance of sparking passion and self-motivation that drive lifelong learning. This is why we are revamping the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) scoring system, introducing applied learning into schools, and cutting down on the examination load. The second thrust is UPLIFT. MOE has established an interagency taskforce called UPLIFT led by Second Minister Indranee Rajah to tackle the challenge of inequality. She will talk about the work of UPLIFT later. Today, I will explain the third thrust, "One secondary education, many subject bands".”
“The students' prior education and working experience will be recognised, which means they can complete the degree programme in one-and-a-half years, upon which they will then become certified Social Workers. 11.30 am SUSS can do this because of its unique role as a university catering to working adults. Some years ago, I informed the former President of Singapore, the late Mr S R Nathan, that a few autonomous universities (AUs) were keen to name one of their faculty after him. He said that if this was to be done, he would like it to be a faculty of Singapore Institute of Management University (UniSIM), the precursor to SUSS. When I asked him why, he said: "Because it is a university for someone like me." Today, we have the S R Nathan School of Human Development at SUSS. To Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's question, MOE will certainly support all AUs and encourage sharing of resources, where practical. When MOE says: "Every school is a good school", we do not mean that every school is the same, but that each has its own unique strengths, and is good in its own way. And whether a school is good or not depends on how well it fits the student, not whether it is popular or branded or highly ranked. The same logic applies to our AUs. Finally, I will talk about how we will introduce greater flexibility in our secondary school system by further expanding Subject-Based Banding (SBB). Mr Leon Perera talked about the importance of cultivating resilience, and a "can-do" spirit in our young. Ms Denise Phua and Dr Intan Mokhtar talked about moving away from an unhealthy tuition culture.”
“These courses provide ITE graduates with a skills-based apprenticeship pathway to attain a diploma. Last year, ITE launched four inaugural programmes, and enrolled more than 100 students. So, in response to Mr Ang Wei Neng's question, yes, ITE will expand the programme. This year, ITE intends to launch another 10 programmes, and it is already planning even more programmes next year. The ITE Work-Learn Technical Diploma will become a major programme in ITE. "Learning by doing" is also championed by our polytechnics and universities. Today, we have more than 100 SSG Earn-and-Learn Programmes, and these have collectively placed 3,300 trainees into various industries. Our universities have launched a total of 16 SSG Work-Study Degree Programmes, admitting over 150 students. One of the work-learn programmes that I found especially meaningful was the one for social work at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS). Those in the social work industry are very proud of their profession, and so they require social workers to be degree holders. However, that impedes the career prospects of students who went to Nanyang Polytechnic (NYP) to do a Diploma in Social Work. Many of them go to NYP to do this diploma out of passion but, ironically, cannot be certified as social workers. They should be given the opportunity to also pursue a career in this field. Hence, MSF and SUSS developed a pathway for this group of diploma graduates. Now, they can start work in the sector as Associate Social Workers. With good performance, they can be admitted into a Bachelor's programme in Social Work at SUSS, delivered in work-learn format.”
“The IHLs will require candidates to not just declare their interests and passions but demonstrate them, through portfolios, activities outside of school, or showing that they have the knowledge of a particular subject that is outside of the education curriculum. Interviews will have to be skillfully conducted. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked about appeals. It is inevitable that with EAE, the polytechnics will receive more appeals from applicants, which the polytechnics will have to evaluate objectively and independently. The rise in appeals is inevitable, because EAE involves qualitative judgement and assessment. This is essential, and we must learn how to adapt to this and do this well if we want to shift away from an over-emphasis on academic grades and inject more flexibility into our IHL posting system. This year, admission to polytechnics saw a record number of EAE applicants at almost 14,000, or 10% more than last year. We expect the final enrolment through EAE to stabilise at around 20% of the total polytechnic intake. So, in response to Mr Zainal Sapari, with EAE well-established, this year, it will be expanded to working adults for the first time, with consideration given to their current and relevant work experience, and not just their previous school examination results. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked if current procedures for application to polytechnics disadvantages ITE students. The answer is no, because although ITE students apply after GCE "O" level students, they belong to separate queues, and each group has separate places set aside for them. The way we deliver higher education has also shifted, with new work-learn pathways that champion "learning by doing". In 2017, we launched the ITE Work-Learn Technical Diploma.”