Implementation of Guidelines from Comprehensive Action Review Against Bullying

Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Education arising from the Comprehensive Action Review against Bullying (a) whether the reasons why caning remains a suitable and effective punishment for upper primary and older boys can be shared; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that schools carry out caning with the necessary safeguards in place.

Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Education arising from the Comprehensive Action Review against Bullying (a) whether schools will be empowered to lodge cyberbullying reports for or against students to the Online Safety Commission; and (b) how will schools deal with cyberbullying content amongst students that may not reach the definitional threshold of online harms in the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act 2025.

Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education with the planned expansion of bullying reporting channels, including a new online platform (a) whether the Ministry can clarify who will manage and follow up on reports made through such channels; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that the platform design is (i) age-appropriate (ii) easy for students to use and (iii) able to support timely intervention.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education with the introduction of the new online bullying reporting channel (a) how will the Ministry ensure that serious cases receive timely and adequate attention amid increased reporting volumes; and (b) whether triage frameworks, reporting guidelines or safeguards will be implemented to prioritise cases while recognising that perceptions of severity may differ among students and parents.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Education (a) whether studies have been conducted to assess if the current resources set aside for counselling is sufficient in schools to deal with school bullying; and (b) whether school counsellors are sufficiently equipped to deal with the fast-evolving challenges of online bullying.

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) how will the Ministry assess whether the recommendations against bullying are effective; (b) what specific indicators and evaluation methodology will the Ministry use to assess the effectiveness and consistency of schools' implementation of the measures; and (c) what recourse students and parents will have should they disagree with schools' findings and decisions.

Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Education (a) what protocols are in place to ensure transparency in the handling of serious bullying cases; (b) what information is shared with victims' parents, such as the evidence considered and reasons for the disciplinary outcomes; and (c) whether more consistent disclosure practices across schools will be considered.

Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education how the new anti-bullying measures will help teachers and school staff handle bullying cases promptly and fairly without adding unsustainable workload to frontline staff.

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Education (a) how the Ministry will ensure consistent implementation of the new anti-bullying guidelines across all schools; and (b) what audit or oversight mechanisms will be put in place to monitor compliance and hold schools accountable for lapses.

Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Education (a) what performance indicators will the Ministry use to monitor the effectiveness of its overall framework and specific measures to address bullying in schools; and (b) whether the Ministry plans to make the reports on these indicators public.

Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education under the new guidelines to deal with bullying in schools, (a) how do schools decide on the appropriate disciplinary response out of the measures given; and (b) what specific safeguards are in place to ensure that responses are proportionate, student-centred, and applied consistently across schools.

Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education in relation to bullying in schools, (a) whether the Ministry tracks longitudinal outcomes such as the proportion of students who reoffend after a first serious bullying incident; and (b) how it evaluates which combinations of punishment and rehabilitative support are most effective in preventing recurrence.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education (a) with regard to the standardised caning measures outlined in the Comprehensive Action Review Against Bullying, whether the distinctions in its application, including (i) between boys and girls and (ii) its commencement only from upper primary levels, are based on established research; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry can share the basis for these distinctions.

Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has conducted or relied on any studies evaluating the effectiveness of caning in reducing repeated bullying behaviour; and (b) what considerations inform its continued use, in light of international research linking corporal punishment to increased aggression and adverse long-term outcomes.

Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry takes an evidence-informed approach to designing its overall framework and specific measures to address bullying in schools; (b) if so, what evidence has the Ministry taken on board to date in designing its overall framework and specific measures; and (c) whether it will consider convening a panel of experts to strengthen this evidence-informed approach.

Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry requires schools to report bullying cases to the Ministry; and (b) what are the available channels for escalation or seeking further assistance should parents feel that their child's school has not handled their report of bullying adequately.

Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education what is the Ministry's directive to schools on the appropriate circumstances to lodge a police report when a case of bullying is severe.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there has been an increasing incidence of students creating and circulating AI-generated fake obscene images of fellow students in schools and educational institutions; and (b) whether the Ministry provides guidance on how such cases should be handled.

Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (a) whether any studies have been done to show the mental and emotional impact of caning on children and youths; and (b) if so, what are the findings of these studies that have resulted in the Ministry continuing with caning as a form of discipline for boys and male youths.

Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for Education in view of the planned implementation of standardised disciplinary measures in managing student misconduct (a) what outcomes framework, baselines, and quantified impact measurements, such as incident rates, recurrence, and reporting rates, will be used to assess bullying; (b) what is the intended timeframe for tracking such data; and (c) how will student well-being be measured and validated.

Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education in light of the recommendations from the Ministry's Comprehensive Action Review Against Bullying (a) whether the Ministry will enhance measures to support the mental and emotional wellness of students to help them deal with hurtful behaviours and bullying; and (b) whether there are any plans to strengthen mental and emotional wellness education in schools' curricula.

Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Education (a) what support is provided to victims of bullying who require care beyond school counselling, including referral pathways for clinical intervention; and (b) how does the Ministry safeguard students with mental health conditions or Special Educational Needs from being targeted by bullies.

My response will also cover related oral and written Parliamentary Questions set down for today's and subsequent Sittings.

Sir, MOE, with the support of the COMmunity and PArents in Support of Schools (COMPASS) Council, completed the Comprehensive Action Review Against Bullying and announced the recommendations on 15 April this year. These span four key areas and nine measures, forming a comprehensive whole-of-society approach.

Let me briefly outline the four areas.

First, we will strengthen values education. Prevention must begin upstream. We will place greater emphasis on shaping students' character and social-emotional skills, so that they not only know what is right, but understand why it matters. Our schools will also foster a pro-social peer culture, where students look out for one another, be upstanders, stand together against hurtful behaviour and support those who are affected.

Second, we will strengthen the school culture and environment. Every school must be a safe, caring and enabling environment where every student can learn and grow, where bullying and hurtful behaviour have no place. We will deepen a culture of kindness and respect and promote empathy and kindness. At the same time, we will take more proactive action through early identification, better reporting channels, timely intervention and firm discipline for serious cases.

Third, we will strengthen school capacity. We will provide our schools with additional resources to procure additional manpower and services, where needed, to support our teachers in student management processes. We will also enhance professional development for our educators and tap on technology to improve case management and facilitate timely communication and intervention when incidents happen.

Finally, we will strengthen partnerships with parents, families and the community because bullying and hurtful behaviour cannot be seen purely in the school context alone but must be seen in a context of what happens at home, in the community and in society. Parents and families can reinforce positive values and character at home and partner our schools to support their child's development and well-being. We will also work with community partners to promote mutual kindness and respect across all sectors of society.

Members asked about the methodology and findings of the Review. MOE looked at research and drew on resources from local and international experts and sources. These included mental health professionals, developmental and educational psychology researchers, sociology researchers and professional mediators. As part of the Review, we also engaged various stakeholders, including professionals, such as researchers, counsellors and psychologists, as well as school leaders, school staff, parents and students.

We engaged or received feedback from over 2,000 stakeholders in total. There was broad agreement that addressing bullying holistically requires a collective, sustained response involving our schools, our families and the wider community.

Members have asked a wide range of questions relating to specific areas and recommendations of the Review. I will address these questions by focus areas. Let me start with values education.

A key goal of our education system is to develop character and social-emotional skills. As I shared in this House last September, the character and citizenship education (CCE) curriculum already covers these areas, including respectful behaviour online and offline. CCE equips our students to disagree appropriately, cope with negative behaviour and overcome challenges. Schools also have peer support systems, where students learn to support and stand up for one another.

Following the Review, we have strengthened our CCE lessons with more interactive learning strategies and real-life scenarios. This better equips students to respond when they witness or experience bullying and other hurtful behaviour. We have also updated cyber wellness lessons to better address evolving online risks. These changes strengthen students' character and well-being whilst creating a more caring and supportive school environment.

Many Members have also asked about our schools' disciplinary measures arising from the Review. Our schools' approach to bullying and other forms of student misconduct is fundamentally an educative process. Schools follow a structured process to ensure students' safety and well-being while addressing root causes in a timely and consistent manner. This includes making a police report for cases which warrant police attention. Throughout this process, our schools work closely with parents, keeping them informed, collaborating on safety measures and prioritising the well-being of the students involved.

When incidents are reported, schools investigate before deciding on the appropriate disciplinary and restorative actions. Actions are tiered based on severity – from reflection and detention to suspension or caning for egregious or repeated serious offences. Disciplinary measures are always complemented with counselling and restorative actions, with the aim of helping our students learn, change their behaviour and repair damaged relationships.

Safety plans for affected students can include separating the students, removing hurtful online content and arranging for peer support. Where affected students require additional support to manage their emotions, they may be referred to school counsellors, Special Educational Needs (SEN) officers or to the Response, Early intervention and Assessment in Community mental Health (REACH) teams for more specialised support, particularly when persistent distress is identified.

We recognise the need for greater consistency in the management of bullying across our schools. MOE has provided our schools with clearer guidelines on establishing offence management processes and disciplinary measures. As circumstances differ for each case, our schools will assess and take appropriate action aligned to these guidelines. All schools will also develop an anti-bullying policy by the end of this year that is based on MOE's guidelines.

To ensure case management processes remain calibrated across all our schools, MOE will conduct regular focus group discussions, school engagements and reviews. Our Cluster Superintendents, who oversee a group of schools, will provide further guidance and support to schools on the implementation of these processes.

Another important aspect pointed out by Members is parent engagement. When a case is reported to the school, the schools will maintain timely communication with parents, keeping them informed and partnering them to ensure the safety and well-being of their child. However, schools will require time to look into the incident and establish facts. The time taken will vary based on the complexity of the situation. Nonetheless, when an incident is reported, schools will prioritise immediate safety measures for all students involved.

In some cases, students may not report incidents to the school but may share them with their family or friends instead. In such situations, we encourage parents to report the incident to the school and work with the school to support their child. Should parents have concerns about how an incident is being managed, they should share their concerns with the school to better understand the school's approach and work with the school to resolve these concerns. Beyond that, parents can also provide feedback through MOE's online as well as offline feedback channels.

Some Members asked about caning as a disciplinary measure. This is not a new measure; it has been around for quite a long time. Studies show that poorly administered and frequent corporal punishment, particularly in unregulated settings, such as at home, is associated with negative outcomes.

We recognise this, and I want to emphasise that the context in our schools is quite different. Our schools use caning as a disciplinary measure if all the other measures are inadequate, given the gravity of the misconduct. They follow strict protocols to ensure safety for the student. For instance, caning must be approved by the Principal and administered only by authorised teachers.

Schools will consider factors, such as the maturity of the student and if caning will help the student learn from his mistake and understand the gravity of what he has done. In MOE's framework, schools exercise discretion on whether to use caning as a disciplinary consequence after assessing the circumstances of the offence committed. If it is used, it is never administered in isolation but always as part of a suite of restorative and disciplinary measures. Schools will monitor the student's well-being and progress after caning and counsel the student to reflect and learn, while supporting the student's rehabilitation.

Importantly, this approach is part of a framework of disciplinary measures which provides certainty of consequences, even as we support the student who committed the misconduct to learn from the experience. This approach is based on research which shows that children and youths learn to make better choices when there are clear boundaries enforced by firm, meaningful consequences. This has a positive impact on reducing bullying and enables the school community to feel safe to learn in an orderly environment.

Caning is meted out for boys only and, as I said earlier, only for egregious violations. This is aligned to the Education (Schools) Regulations, which only allows caning for male students. This takes reference from the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that women shall not be punished with caning.

Nonetheless, this does not mean that girls who bully or engage in hurtful behaviour are less culpable. Our teachers and schools adopt a tiered approach to discipline that ensures that all students face consequences corresponding to the severity of their actions. Girls could receive consequences, for instance, such as detention and/or suspension, adjustment of their conduct grade and other school-based consequences.

MOE regularly reviews our discipline guidelines, to ensure that our disciplinary measures remain appropriate. We will continue to receive feedback and refine our approach based on ground wisdom and research.

I will now address the questions on reporting channels. I shared in this House last September about the various reporting channels available in our schools. The Review reinforced the importance of providing safe and accessible platforms for reporting students' well-being concerns.

From 2027, each school will have an online reporting platform available for students and parents. A school-based platform ensures that the platform is age-appropriate, accessible and familiar for students and parents to use. Schools will be provided with guidelines on managing reports received through the different reporting channels. However, urgent cases should still be reported directly to teachers and School Leaders rather than through the online reporting platform, so that prompt action can be taken.

Some Members have expressed concern on cyber incidents. MOE recognises the seriousness of cyber incidents, ranging from online harassment to obscene and inappropriate images that may be artificial intelligence (AI)-generated. MOE will continue to provide schools with guidance on managing all cyber-related incidents, including fact-finding processes and supporting students in reporting online harms.

When the Online Safety Commission (OSC) becomes operational by the end of next month, June 2026, victims of certain online harms, such as online harassment, doxxing and intimate image abuse, will be able to seek more timely assistance. Our schools will support the well-being of students who encounter negative cyber incidents and guide them to report to the OSC.

Questions were also raised by Members about incidents involving students with SEN or mental health conditions. While schools uphold disciplinary standards, our schools also take into consideration each student's specific needs and circumstances.

For students with SEN or mental health conditions who have been hurt, schools will first address the immediate safety concerns. Trained school personnel will also look out for signs of distress that may not be immediately visible or explicitly communicated, and provide timely and appropriate support. The broader intent is always to enable affected students to regain their confidence and restore their sense of safety and well-being.

For students with SEN or mental health conditions who have hurt others, it is especially important to help them understand that such hurtful behaviour may affect others negatively. The consequences are educative, restorative and focused on helping the student learn and behave appropriately.

Members have also raised concerns about the impact of these recommendations on our staff workload.

Our intent is to go upstream, to reduce the incidence of bullying and hurtful behaviour, while strengthening and streamlining current practices. In the near term, of course, workload may increase as our schools implement these changes. MOE will, therefore, provide funding for our schools, on a needs-basis, to hire additional manpower or services to provide support while managing teacher workload. This manpower could include youth workers, restorative practitioners, pastoral care officers or parent liaison officers. MOE will also bolster support for our school counsellors when managing complex cases.

Over time, as processes and norms become clearer, workload ought to stabilise. And if the measures succeed in reducing bullying upstream, then the overall burden on our school staff ought to ease.

To streamline case management, MOE is also exploring technological solutions to help reduce the administrative load. For a start, MOE is developing an offence management system to support case investigation, documentation and monitoring.

We have received suggestions for MOE to set up a centralised anti-bullying unit to support our schools in managing egregious cases. We considered this carefully. Our schools are best placed to manage such cases and MOE Headquarters (HQ) will support our schools. Our teachers know their students well and understand the dynamics of their school communities. Where additional expertise and support is needed in specific areas or to deal with complex cases, our schools can tap on the needs-based funding to hire additional manpower or seek support and advice from their respective Cluster Superintendents.

On community partners, MOE recognises that the cultivation of values such as kindness, empathy and respect in our children requires efforts well beyond the school environment. We are grateful for community partners who share this commitment. For example, the Singapore Kindness Movement partners schools through programmes, such as Friends of Singa, Kindsville initiatives and Kindness Day SG, which encourage students to lead kindness initiatives.

The Centre for Fathering works with fathers to strengthen family bonds so that children feel secure turning to their parents when they face difficulties. We encourage community partners to share their expertise and initiatives as part of this society-wide effort against bullying.

Members have also asked about data, outcome indicators and measures of effectiveness.

First, we will keep track of the implementation of these recommendations through regular engagements with educators and parents, as well as focus group discussions.

Second, we will continue to watch student management outcomes. In terms of data on bullying incidence, as a baseline, bullying incidents in the last five years averaged three incidents per 1,000 in our primary school students and eight per 1,000 secondary school students per year. We will study these outcomes and trends, and review if more needs to be done.

We thank Members for their interest in this issue. While schools play a central role in creating a safe, caring and enabling environment for our students and teachers, addressing hurtful behaviour and bullying takes a whole-of-society effort. MOE will work with our schools, families and the wider community to create environments where every child feels safe, valued and supported to reach their full potential.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his responses. I have two supplementary questions.

The first one, if the assessment is made that the affected students of a bullying case is not suited to remain in the same learning environment or should be separated, either in the same class or school, what are the measures the school will take to ensure that the final outcome is fair, equitable and in the best interest of all the affected students?

Second, I just wanted to clarify my Parliamentary Question No 9 on cyberbullying. Actually, what I wanted to seek clarification on is that in the instances of cyberbullying, unlike the Australian Online Safety Act, which differentiates between cyberbullying material targeted at a child and cyber abuse targeted at an adult. Our equivalent does not have that. And while I agree that the OSC will be a good platform for parents, students and even schools to refer such instances to, the thresholds may not be the same. What we constitute as cyberbullying to children, many online harms to adults may not be the same. And if the Online Commissioner is not in a position to intervene, then how would the schools deal with such cyberbullying cases?

I thank the Member for his questions.

On his first question, if a parent feels strongly that the child needs to change seating, change class, change school, please work closely with our schools. And if needed, they will activate MOE to look at the specific circumstances and see what immediate safety plans need to be put in place and what longer-term arrangements need to be made.

On the Member's second question, I believe the OSC will take also a child-centered approach to understand cyber incidents, cyberbullying, cyber harassment – not just in relation to adults but also for children. And as I have said, we will work closely with parents, with schools, as well as the OSC when such incidents arise.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, the Minister mentioned the incidence rate of bullying behaviour in our schools and I would like to stress that this is based on reported incidences.

My questions to the Minister are, number one, do MOE and the Minister foresee that there will be an increase in reported incidences and therefore, the rate of bullying behaviour in our schools given the measures to roll out improved reporting and easier reporting of bullying behaviour?

And number two, given this backdrop, would bringing down the rate of bullying incidents in our schools be a meaningful measure of effectiveness, in MOE's view?

I would say the data that we have provided, as the Member pointed out, is based on what is reported. And so, when you look at this data, we are mindful that there can be overreporting and underreporting. Overreporting in the sense that from the child's perspective, they feel that they have been hurt. But again, it depends on their personal threshold and what we feel requires intervention. So, there might be some overreporting.

But there certainly may be underreporting. A child decides not to report for various reasons, or tells friends and parents, and the matter is not raised to the school's attention or is not picked up by our schools. So, we look at this data, but we also need to make sure that in every school, our school leaders are on top of the situation and are mindful of what is happening in the classrooms and outside the classrooms.

When we put in these measures, when there is greater awareness across the board, across society, among parents, among students, among peer support leaders, among educators, one could well expect that with that greater awareness and willingness to speak up and address this issue, more are reported. Not to mention that from next year, all schools should have online reporting platforms to supplement the face-to-face reporting to school leaders, peer support leaders, as well as teachers.

As to whether or not bringing the numbers down should be a meaningful key performance index, obviously, it is something that we want to watch, but it requires not just a downstream intervention and measures, but a lot of the work has to be upstream. It has to be about culture building. It is about the child and his or her understanding of how to relate to one another. And it also involves taking care of children with special needs or mental health challenges who may have challenges behaving in norms that we would otherwise expect. So, we have to be inclusive in that regard as well.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. MOE has stated that the standardisation aims to ensure common baseline, while schools retain discretion based on individual circumstances. I have two supplementary questions for this.

How does the Ministry ensure that the discretion retained by individual schools does not result in significant disparities in how canning is administered? For instance, between schools that have well-resourced student development teams and those that do not.

My second supplementary question: what oversight or audit mechanism exists to review whether mitigating factors such as special educational needs and mental well-being are in fact being properly assessed before caning is administered?

I want to thank the Member for his two good questions. The first, it is that perennial tussle or balance that has to be struck, not just in our schools, but in society as a whole – between ensuring consistency and standardisation versus giving safety valves, versus giving discretion for our schools and for figures of authority to assess each case on its circumstances and on its merits.

And certainly, in the context of a school which is fundamentally an educational institution, not just cognitively, but also socio-emotionally and in terms of values, we want to look at the children concerned as well; look at whether they have special needs, mental health challenges, whether they have challenges at home, or whether they are under peer pressure, and so on and so forth.

And so, it is always that balance between consistency and fairness, that principle, versus providing discretion to ensure that discipline ultimately has education as its core goal. And so, our schools have been given clearer guidelines, some benchmarks to look at for different kinds of offences. Necessarily, there will need to be discretion. Facts will differ, gravity of the acts will differ. And therefore, they will exercise discretion, but with our cluster arrangements, and with more frequent sharing and conferencing amongst each other, we will be able to take a look and make sure that on the whole, we address fairness while ensuring that each case is dealt with appropriately on its merits.

The other question the Member raised is on oversight, whether a child has those needs like education needs or mental health. Our teachers and our form teachers will know their children, will know their students. We will have SEN officers in school, we have counsellors, we have school welfare officers and we have access to the REACH teams as well as external social, as well as health and mental health providers in the community so that we ensure a proper oversight when administering any form of discipline or any form of rehabilitative and corrective measures for our children.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just two supplementary questions for the Minister.

The Minister mentioned earlier about the revamping of CCE. I would like to ask Minister that are there specific strategies or techniques taught to students, either within CCE or in other aspects of school, in terms of self-regulation, how to manage their emotions, and so on, that might help them with their own behaviour management?

The second supplementary question is, the Minister talked about connecting with other agencies. Oftentimes I found that students who are involved in acts of bullying, they themselves perhaps are dealing with issues in their home space with their families. They could perhaps be themselves the victims of being bullied. Does MOE or the schools therefore work with other agencies, be it the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), to find out how they can help the students who commit acts of bullying if they are indeed also victims of bullying themselves?

Mr Deputy Speaker, on the first question on CCE, during our engagement sessions, one which I attended, parents spoke about whether we could look at more recent incidents in the school, and after the passing of a certain amount of time, use those relatively fresh experiences in the school to make the CCE lesson come alive – because it is very real, it is not hypothetical, it is not anonymised from some other place.

We looked at that and we felt that there was merit in that suggestion by some parents. Therefore, we have enhanced CCE so that there is role playing, there are more realistic scenarios and allow the children to take on different roles in order for them to do better perspective-taking and strengthen the sense of empathy, and allow them to not just experience the emotions, but also what it is to be an upstander, and what it is to seek help if you are playing the role of the victim. Or if you are a student, to be able to understand what kinds of words hurt, what kind of actions cut. And so that is how our CCE is being expanded.

Of course, there are other aspects of CCE and other curriculum throughout the whole school year where we teach students about cyber wellness, cyber well-being, and in learning about these technologies, they also learn how to use it appropriately when interacting with one another.

The Member's other point about families who face complex challenges at home that may manifest in terms of the child's behaviour, whether it is parentified behaviour, whether it is permissive parenting, whether it is a negative influence in the community or in the neighbourhood – this is something which our teachers will be more in touch with our students on; that is why the home-school partnership is so important. And that is why our partnerships with Family Service Centres, with the Social Service Offices (SSOs) as well as mental health agencies in the community, are so important.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response.

Some parents have met me at my Meet-the-People Session about disputes with schools, about how the teacher handles bullying cases when a kid is bullied. When there are disagreements between schools and parents on the severity of a bullying case, will MOE consider establishing a clearly defined independent, escalation pathway?

And my second supplementary question is, with the introduction of an easier reporting channel likely increasing volume, could the Ministry explain whether it is confident that serious cases will not be crowded out by less severe reports?

On the Member's first question, our teachers and our School Leaders seek to investigate the facts, objectively try to address the incident – on the one hand support the affected child and on the other, making sure that the actor of the misconduct or alleged misconduct is dealt with appropriately. So, not just discipline but also an opportunity to reflect and learn.

And that is why his question emphasises why the relationship between parents and school is so important because in a small number of cases, unfortunately, parents' concern for the child results in a certain level of acrimony and adversarial approach taken by a parent of one child against the other child, who is viewed as the perpetrator. That can be very emotional. We fully understand parents' feelings and emotions when their child has been hurt or subject to hurtful behaviour or bullied, and the parent, of course, would expect certain things to be done.

But our schools and our teachers want to make sure that we address this fairly, even if firmly. So, we seek parents' support and understanding. Of course, our teachers will endeavour to do their best to build a positive relationship with not just the child but also with the parents at home.

If there is a need to escalate the matter, then certainly the School Leader and beyond that, the Cluster Superintendent and Zonal Director – these are people with experience who can be called upon through the MOE reporting channels to look into the matter.

On the Member's other question about how to ensure that minor cases do not crowd out more serious cases, certainly, we want to make sure that we look at the serious cases whilst not allowing minor incidents to then fester and become the shoots of more serious incidents, because it is better to nip in the bud. It is more important to take an upstream approach or midstream approach and see if there are concerning behaviours that need to be addressed early. So, certainly, we do not want to crowd out the serious cases, but we must not ignore the small little, matters that can then blow up over time.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I have met parents of victims of bullying cases at my Meet-the-People Session and usually two underlying themes are what they are concerned with: transparency of process and accountability of perpetrators.

I would like to ask: number one, does the Ministry facilitate formal apology protocols that provide closure for the victim? Number two, does the Ministry track whether victims continued to struggle after the case is closed and whether it sees the need to? And lastly, what extent will the recommendations from the Comprehensive Action Review be adapted for institutes of higher learning (IHLs) and will IHLs be required to adopt a centralised reporting platform, like the ones rolled out for the other schools?

On the Member's second question, I think this is beyond the remit of today's focus, which is on general education. And of course, I can give an answer but our IHLs are autonomous, especially the autonomous universities, and they have their disciplinary mechanisms and approaches, there is a certain strand that runs through all of them. But I think it would beyond the limited time we have. So, I urge the Member to file another question to allow us to explain the approach in IHLs with regard to young adults.

On her first question about transparency and accountability, she is right on that point, because that is a mark of whether the trust is upheld between home and school – and that is something that we strive to upkeep with these latest series of enhancements to our framework.

With regard to formal apologies, there are some schools which will facilitate, as part of restorative practice, an opportunity to bring the two children or two young people together, or more if the incident involves more people, to try to bring closure when they are ready, particularly the student who has been subject to the bullying or hurtful behaviour. Sometimes it is written, sometimes it is oral but over time as we work more closely with restorative practice practitioners, we will be able to refine and improve on this aspect of closure. Because, ultimately, most of the time the students will have to remain in a learning environment and have to learn from what has happened – on the one hand to curb bad behaviour, on the other to strengthen one's resilience.

Thank you, Sir. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister.

First, on what the Ministry has published on this matter, we read of course the recommendations being made about how to handle school bullying, but I was not able to find the fuller report or the findings on which the recommendations were based. So, I like to ask the Minister whether there is any concern about publishing more information about how MOE arrived at those recommendations – meaning, for example, what he mentioned the literature consulted, the findings from various focus groups and so on? So, that is the first question.

Second question is related to my Parliamentary Question No 25, which was on cyber incidents. I did not hear him answer whether there has been an increasing incidence of creating and circulating AI-generated fake obscene images between fellow students. So, has there been an increase noticed? And then on this point, I wanted to know what the schools could do if the perpetrators are not known. I mean, how are they supposed to handle such incidents because, obviously, their powers of investigation might be limited.

On the Member's first question, let me discuss with my colleagues what additional material might be useful for our schools as well as for the public to understand, in terms of the basis for various recommendations.

On her second question about AI-generated fake obscene videos, I think I mentioned it in my reply that MOE will work closely with our schools to address these issues. I did a check. Such technology is relatively recent, over the last few years. And therefore, these new actions would involve an increase – from zero to a certain number. The numbers still remain small, but we are keeping a very close eye on it and with the formation of the OSC from next month, we work closely with them to help our students and help parents tackle such incidents as they arise.

Of course, to the extent that perpetrators are students, the culture building, the establishment of norms, the education on cyber wellness and how to use these powerful tools ethically and appropriately and legally will be very important.

But to the extent that these instances have occurred, I have mentioned that we will work with the families and the students, support them, work with the authorities like the OSC to have them taken down. It is not an easy task because there could be proliferation around different platforms, so that work will have to be not just immediate but follow through for some time yet.

And the Member asked what if the perpetrator is not known because these are people hiding behind the technological tools, then we may need to work with not just the OSC but with the Police. One may recall an unfortunate incident in 2024, where some secondary school students created AI-generated deep fakes of female students, obscene nudes – they were identified and they were dealt with firmly, not just through Police investigation but also by school disciplinary action.

Thank you, Sir. I have three questions on the balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

One, how will schools be guided to balance disciplinary action with counselling and restorative practices? I think the Minister mentioned it.

Whether MOE will track recidivism rates to assess if these rehabilitation efforts are effective?

On cyberbullying, will MOE consider working with agencies, like IMDA and the social media platforms to enable faster take down of harmful content?

The answer to one is that we, as I said, discipline, whether it is corrective, punitive, ultimately, it has to be educative in nature. So, disciplinary measures are always followed through with reflection, with counselling and so on and so forth.

On his second question, the answer is yes.

Thank you, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister for further colour about the longitudinal tracking of bullying incidents, as in my Parliamentary Question, both in terms of perpetrators and how does the Ministry actually track that. And also, in terms of the actual victims of the bullying incidents, so, how do you track, for example, the interventions taken, the punishments given, the disciplinary measures taken? How does and whether the Ministry tracks on the actual victims of the bullying incidents?

I thank the Member for her two questions.

On the longitudinal tracking of victims and alleged perpetrators, the school will have very close proximity with the students concerned. They will have a sense of whether a child learns from his or her mistake after the disciplinary and corrective and educative steps are put in place, and observe the child for the duration of his or her time in school. We will see how best to track this on the longer term, to look at overall recidivism rates.

With regard to victims as well, particularly, if the student has been a victim of a serious incident of bullying, counsellors will keep an eye. They work closely with not just the child concerned but also with the families as well.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive response.

My question comes from concerns from parents. Three supplementary questions specifically.

First, on disciplinary action: what guidance is given to school in deciding when it should be in school suspension and when it should be out-of-school suspension?

The second question for out-of-school suspension, how does the Ministry ensure that there will be avenues for guided reflection during the time of out-of-school suspension, so that this would be able to achieve the objective, which is supposed to be educative in nature?

Lastly, given that students may fear retaliation or social repercussion, what measures are there to protect students and assurance given to them that they will be protected after making a report?

On the Member's first question, I recall in September, we also had this discussion. When a student has to be suspended, part of it could be, as a safety planning arrangement, to have the perpetrator removed from the class or from the school. Part of it could be punitive in nature to say, "Well, because of this behaviour, after investigation, you are suspended from coming to school to learn."

But as the Member rightly pointed out, for some students, they may not perceive that as being punitive. They do not feel that they are being deprived of something and do not feel that these are worthwhile consequences that cause them to want to behave better. And therefore, there is also, in-school suspension and school teachers, form teachers and School Leaders will know their students' background well and know how to position the application of these disciplinary measures in the way that reinforces that there are consequences for serious misconduct.

On fear of retaliation, there are, therefore, a whole range of school measures from peer support leaders being brought in; in addition, of course, school arrangements by staff to look after students who stand up or who report incidents that happen to them. And, of course, there are consequences if retaliation then leads to offences that are investigated.