Education for Our Future

Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly support this Motion. Education is the key enabler to unleashing potential and poverty; it is the key to gaining more knowledge; and it is the key to staying relevant and future-ready.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, Minister Ong had earlier raised the importance of how we should not cap the top, but lift the bottom. I would like to add that to lift the bottom, we are committed to ensuring equal access to opportunities for every child, from preschool to adulthood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next, bridging gaps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, let me say something about partnership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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