Education for Our Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker, I will deliver my speech first in Malay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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