Debated in Parliament on 11 Jul 2018.
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me say at the outset that I promise not to take anymore beyond 10 minutes to make my speech. I say this because I think we have been very fortunate. We have had Ms Rahayu Mahzam suggest amendments to the original Motion, which we actually accepted consensually. And we have also had three Members of the Government respond. We have had Minister Ong Ye Kung speak about the paradoxes which I will mention in a moment. We have Senior Parliamentary Secretary Faishal Ibrahim talk about what is being done for the disadvantaged and disabled communities, or the vulnerable groups. And we have had a wrap-up by Second Minister Indranee Rajah.
What I will say, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that I think what has been best put forward — I mean, all of us have spoken about these issues and we have agreed on a lot of those points. But what has come out, which I think is refreshing in some ways, is that the Government has heard what we have been speaking about. And the Ministry has come forward to say that there are areas where the imperfections are there. The Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) is not perfect. The education system is being tweaked as we speak. I found out just 10 minutes ago what the transformation plan that the Ministry of Education (MOE) has in mind and I think Ms Denise Phua will also be very happy to hear about this.
If this is what we have, if this is what we are looking at, I think we have a bright future in terms of the future of education. Might I just suggest two points?
The first is there has to be a move away from the stalemate between parents and the education system. This is also problematic because a lot of system designers within MOE are also parents. So, I think the first point that has to be made and that has been made by the three Government speakers earlier, is that everyone acknowledges that stress is there. Everyone acknowledges that the children, or the young persons, or the students are dealing with this stress. How do we alleviate these problems without sacrificing excellence and meritocracy? That has to be at the core of this.
The second point that I would like to make is that perhaps when we look at these points, moving away from the stalemate and, in fact, the acknowledgements that the PSLE and other systems are imperfect, is that not every sacred cow needs to be sacrificed. I accept this because, partly, as a Hindu, I do not believe in cow sacrifice at all. Cows are worshipped.
But perhaps, some aspects of the sacred PSLE need to be put out to pasture. What those aspects are we have had some idea of it, but I look forward to 2021, when we will know precisely what is going to be changed. We know banding is going to happen, we know certain other aspects are going to be significantly changed. But I think parents generally, Singaporean parents, are wondering what will really differ so that I do not have to go and pay all my money to a tuition teacher. That is really the question here; I think that is where it is going to go. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Kok Heng Leun, you have already made your speech, but I will allow you to seek a clarification if you make it brief.
A few things. One is to seek clarification. It is about the PSLE. My problem with PSLE is more of it happening at the age of 12. For children at that age, going through that experience can be quite traumatic. I understand the need for national examinations so that we know, we can allow students to, up to some point, be assessed and then, find the kind of things that they want to go for. Is it possible that we consider, like in some other Scandinavian countries whereby basic education should last more than six years? It can start from six to 16 and, during that process, especially when we have this 21st Century Transformation Plan, where there is so much content in there, that, within those six years or even more and when there are examinations and national examinations in between, the process of learning actually cannot be deep enough. Because you will be moving from learning a bit to preparing for examinations. And I think perhaps the Ministry should start thinking about – that, in the long run, that we should have this shift.
The second thing is about play which fellow Members have talked about, purposeful play. It is just scary that every play becomes purposeful. Then, you would not be playful. Sometimes, whimsical play is equally important because it is only when it is whimsical, that we actually make greater discovery.
Mr Deputy Speaker, purposeful play is for the learning part, but they do also have just play-play. They do, so do not worry. There are both types of play. We will certainly encourage our teachers and remind them of that.
On PSLE, there has been a lot of debate on that. I think we all agree that it is not a perfect system, but it is something that has stood us in good stead.
We do not want to dismantle something which really helps us to channel the students to the further path ahead. But I think the point that Mr Kok Heng Leun is really making is that, prior to age 12, or leading up to age 12, you want them to enjoy their learning; you want them to have enough content that they have a solid foundation; you do not want them to have so much stress that, not only do they not enjoy it, but it really becomes self-defeating in terms of the educational purpose.
So, as I have said earlier, on those broad objectives, we are aligned. And we will find ways. So, as we have said, we will work together on this. And, in fact, as Members have said, there is much hope, we are working to transform the system so that our students can be ready for the future. We look forward to working with Members, parents, teachers, educators in accomplishing this purpose.
We have come to the conclusion of the debate. I shall put the questions to the House for a decision. We have an amendment proposed by Ms Rahayu Mahzam and we will deal with the amendment first. The amendment is that the words proposed by Ms Rahayu Mahzam be added in line 4 after the word "learners".
Question put, and agreed to.
The amendment has been agreed to. The original Motion, as amended, is now before the House.
Original Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises that a love for learning is the foundation of our future, and calls on the Government to partner with the people to ensure accessible, inclusive and lifelong education for all learners, by building an education system that:
[(proc text) (a) gives each student the best possible support, and the opportunity and motivation to excel; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (b) recognises ability and talent in every student, and offers development paths suited to their unique strengths and interests;*
[(proc text) (c) enables Singaporeans to improve our lives, paying special attention to students from vulnerable families; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) (d) becomes a platform to bring our young together, to build an inclusive and united Singapore.*
PAPERCUTS