Hansard, Tuesday, 3 March 2026

1 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health given the rising incidence of cancer detection in Singapore, whether there are plans to increase the availability and uptake of screening for common types of cancer in Singapore, such as lung, liver and prostate cancer.

Mr Speaker, uptake of cancer screening is a matter of health habits, which take time to evolve. Under Healthier SG, regular screening for common cancers, such as breast, cervical and colorectal cancer, is recommended and heavily subsidised, and we hope it will shape positive changes to health-seeking habits over time.

As for screening for lung and liver cancer, it is only recommended for high-risk individuals. As such cancers are less common in the general population and there are limitations in the accuracy of screening tests, general population screening has lower yield compared to more targeted screening and can lead to many false positive results, requiring further investigations and causing unnecessary anxiety.

In addition, to address the burden of disease of cancer, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has been promoting healthier lifestyles, for example, not smoking, limiting alcohol consumption, healthy diets and physical activity, all of which are modifiable risk factors for cancer.

Mr Nair.

I thank the Minister of State. I think cancer screening under Healthier SG is an excellent programme and the earlier you detect, the better. I had recommended a few specific types of cancer in my question. To follow up, the first question I have is, for those who are at higher risk, will their screenings be subsidised by the Government? Second, what is the view on multi-cancers screening tests?

I thank the Member for the question. Mr Speaker, indeed, as a matter of principle, we do want to encourage screening, but when we do so for the general population, we make recommendations and these are highly subsidised. When we do this, we actually make reference to the recommendations by the Screening Test Review Committee and we take deference from that. Because this does mean that we do have to allocate resources and funding to it if we do this for the general population level. For individuals, it is something that we will need to look at and assess, because the prevalence is different and the clinical effectiveness of the tests are different. What we recommend is for patients to have that good relationship with their doctors so that they can individually recommend it accordingly.

To make a scheme out of this is something we need to assess because it will require some separate resourcing.

2 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will coordinate with the Ministry of Transport to increase enforcement efforts against cyclists and e-bike users riding on roads without helmets, front and rear lights for night rides, or riding against the flow traffic in fairness to motorists who may face severe penalties, including imprisonment if found liable for accidents involving cyclists or e-bike riders.

Sir, the Traffic Police (TP) and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) conduct regular enforcement at accident hotspots and locations reported by members of the public, including where unsafe road behaviour by cyclists and e-bike users are observed. TP and LTA enforce against on-road cycling offences, including riding in groups of more than five, without helmets, without front and rear lights, and going against the flow of traffic.

Mr Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. This is a long-standing riding culture issue, and I have spoken on this previously. The legal duty to keep a proper lookout almost always means that many motorists are often slapped with a minimal level of contributory negligence, whether via TP prosecution or in the civil Courts. With the recent practices of the prosecution and the Courts asking or imposing stricter sentences, including custodial sentences when a person is injured in a traffic accident, I would like to ask the authorities to consider that it would not always be as fair for a motorist to receive harsher punishment if he is involved in an accident with a cyclist who is blatantly not compliant with the law, for example, riding against traffic, beating red lights, not having lights at night or even not wearing helmets and risking more serious injury during an accident.

I would also like to ask the Ministry of Home Affairs to take sterner actions to stop or reduce these unsafe and illegal practices to achieve better parity with the legal risks faced by motorists on the roads and work with LTA to improve the cycling culture.

Finally, beyond patrols and spot checks, how is the Ministry leveraging on closed-circuit televisions or other methods to identify repeat offenders riding against traffic or without lights?

First of all, I want to thank Mr Dennis Tan for his strong support for road safety. Indeed, we need all groups of road users, whether they are motorists, riders or pedestrians, to take more care in order for us to reduce the rate of accidents, especially accidents leading to injuries and fatalities.

As for culpability, when TP investigates cases and when assessing what kind of charges should be preferred against those who violate traffic rules, culpability will be assessed holistically. And so, I wish to assure the Member that the circumstances will be looked into, and it would not be the case where there will always be one type of road users who are blamed disproportionately. The entire situation of how the accident was caused must be looked into and I believe that is also the approach that our Courts take.

And as for repeat offenders, cyclists and e-bike users are treated like our cars and other kinds of motorised vehicles on the roads in the sense that we expect them to keep to our traffic rules, we expect them to observe them. The kinds of enforcement that we take are also similar.

3 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in light of global competition and rising domestic demand for healthcare manpower (a) how Singapore is strengthening long-term workforce sustainability while maintaining care standards; and (b) whether workforce planning assumptions are being reviewed to ensure resilience amid tightening regional labour markets.

Sir, ensuring an adequate healthcare workforce to meet rising healthcare demand is a foremost priority for the Ministry. We adopt a multi-pronged workforce strategy to ensure sufficient healthcare manpower while maintaining care standards and regularly update our plans as circumstances change.

Our focus continues to be to build up the local core of our healthcare workforce through diversifying training pathways, increasing local intakes for healthcare programmes and ensuring that job roles are attractive and salaries are competitive. We bring in qualified foreign healthcare workers in areas of shortfall. And to ensure resilience, we diversify the sources of foreign recruitment and secure government-to-government bilateral manpower cooperation agreements with regional countries.

We will continue to invest in good preventive health and right-site patients to appropriate care settings to keep our healthcare system sustainable.

Dr Choo.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the Senior Minister of State for the response.

Beyond expanding training capacity and recruitment, how is the Ministry redesigning care models and workforce structures so that productivity gains translate into more sustainable workloads? Beyond that, how are we strengthening retention of experienced mid-career and senior healthcare professionals whose institutional knowledge is critical to long-term resilience? And finally, as demographic and disease trends evolve in the next decade, how is our workforce planning being aligned with broader healthcare transformation efforts to ensure that sustainability is present beyond immediate capacity expansion?

Sir, I thank the Member for her three supplementary questions. As I will be giving a more holistic treatment of this subject on healthcare manpower in my Committee of Supply speeches, I will be brief on the three supplementary questions.

For the first supplementary question on how we are redesigning care models to ensure the workloads are sustainable, I would just briefly say that we are shifting from more team-based care to a more shared care model, in which we allow more cross training among the healthcare professionals in adjacent domains, so that they can provide more shared care for patients who may need a lower acuity of care outside their area of expertise. For example, among the allied health professionals, a physiotherapist and occupational therapist may share the same patient, for which they can provide some degree of support or guidance to a patient who needs an adjacent sector of care. So, that would not require an overburdening of another fellow professional, for which they can give simple advice in their own capacity.

We will also be doing care team transformation. So, one idea is to then change the idea of a specialist being always the principal doctor in charge of a patient to having someone else who can coordinate the care other than a specialist, so that the workload can be better distributed and care is less fragmented.

On the second supplementary question on strengthening retention of more senior or mid-career professionals in the healthcare sector, as I said in my main reply, we looked at making sure the salary is competitive compared to other sectors so that there will be a good reason to retain them, but also making sure that they are able to practise at the top of their licence. So, through redesigning the job and making the career progression pathway a lot more seamless and more fluid, we allow these professionals to practise at the top of their licence so that they actually have satisfaction in their professional career.

But beyond their own professional satisfaction, we also want to make sure that the work environment is one which is inclusive and supportive. So, each of our healthcare clusters have a Chief Welfare Officer that looks at the welfare initiatives to encourage and support our healthcare staff who work under reasonably stressful situations.

And finally, we also have systems in place to prevent harassment and abuse at the workplace of our healthcare professionals and we take a zero tolerance stance. So, we also send a signal that we are protecting their workspaces and supporting them in the work that they do.

The third supplementary question on how the workforce planning is being aligned with care transformation, I will briefly say that we are also creating new career tracks. For example, in the hospital setting, we are creating a new category of career track for doctors. We call them hospital clinicians. These are pegged similar to how a specialist would progress in the hospital and by doing so, we open up pathways for doctors even within the hospital setting to have fulfilling careers. And in the primary care sector, we have also announced that we will grow the pool of family medicine specialists, designating family medicine as a specialty itself, so that we can then grow the pool of general practitioners who are prepared to train at a higher level and deliver care at a higher level of acuity in the community, and thereby aligning that with our overall transformation to community care settings and helping patients to accept their care in the community.

Mr Cai Yinzhou.

Thank you, Speaker. Thank you, Senior Minister of State for the reply. I have a question regarding foreign domestic workers in Singapore. I understand we have 300,000 foreign domestic workers who form about one-fifth of our foreign workforce. Many of them work in the homes in the care settings at home, taking care of seniors with a range of conditions as well, some more severe than others.

May I ask the Senior Minister of State if we are considering having a professionalised track for foreign domestic workers to specialise in the aspect of palliative or geriatric care, considering that is part of what they are already doing at home, in order to professionalise our home care setting?

My second question is also for foreign domestic workers who are really good in taking care of seniors. Sometimes, after the seniors pass on, they are unable to continue taking care of another senior in another home setting. Do we have options for these foreign domestic workers to progress to also join the community care sector as a care staff, or even nurses as well?

Sir, the short answer to that is that we have no plans to turn foreign domestic workers into healthcare professionals in the formal sense.

For those who want more details, stay back for the Ministry of Health Committee of Supply taking place in the next two days.

4 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether giving out CDC vouchers to every Singaporean household regardless of socioeconomic status results in worsening cost-of-living due to demand-pull inflation.

Mr Speaker, the Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme is one of several measures introduced to help Singaporeans manage their cost of living.

There is no evidence that the CDC Vouchers Scheme has worsened the cost-of-living due to inflation. The Consumer Price Index (CPI)-All items inflation has moderated in recent years, from 4.8% in 2023, to 2.4% in 2024 and 0.9% in 2025, even though the quantum of CDC vouchers increased over that period.

Mr Lee Hong Chuang.

I want to thank Senior Parliamentary Secretary Shawn Huang for his reply. I just have one supplementary question. Has the Government conducted any studies to what extent the CDC vouchers have helped households manage the cost of living?

I thank the Member for the question. The Government regularly reviews the effectiveness of our schemes to ensure that they continue to help Singaporeans manage cost of living concerns.

Over the years, in response to high inflationary pressures, we have progressively reviewed and enhanced the Assurance Package (AP) with additional cash, U-Save, Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) rebates and CDC vouchers. And in total, we actually increased the support delivered via the AP from an initial $6.6 billion in 2022 to more than $10 billion in 2025. These enhancements have fully offset the expenditure increases arising from high inflation for lower-income households and substantially offset the expenditure increases for middle-income households each year from 2022 to 2025.

The Government also provides substantial structural support to help Singaporeans manage major costs of living concerns, like education, healthcare, housing and retirement. And on top of this, we also provide targeted structural support for vulnerable groups, such as the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme for lower-wage workers, the Fresh Start Housing Scheme for lower-income families and the Silver Support Scheme for seniors who had low incomes in their working years. And when necessary, we will complement these structural measures with one-off additional support for households. This approach allows us to provide more responsive and targeted support while remaining fiscally prudent.

5 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry will review the CDC Vouchers eligibility framework to consider caregiving arrangements where related but distinct family nuclei reside at the same registered address, such as married children living with parents for caregiving purposes; and (b) whether alternative criteria may be used to recognise them as separate households.

Mr Chairman, the Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme is a broad-based scheme designed to help all Singaporean households with daily expenses.

The CDC Vouchers Scheme is complemented by schemes that support the different family circumstances of Singaporean households, such as the Assurance Package Cash, Child LifeSG Credits and the Silver Support Scheme for eligible households.

For caregivers, the Government has, over the years, increased subsidies for long-term care services and enhanced the Home Caregiving Grant and the Seniors’ Mobility and Enabling Fund to provide greater financial relief to caregivers. Caregivers can also apply for the Migrant Domestic Worker Levy Concession if they need more help to care for their loved ones.

The Government will continue to regularly review our measures to ensure Singaporeans in need of help will receive the appropriate support.

Dr Hamid Razak.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Earlier this month, I think, Member Yeo Wan Ling did ask about unrelated Singaporean households living in the same registered address, and the Ministry had replied that those are easily appealed through a process.

This question is actually stemming out of some of my households in Jurong Spring and Gek Poh, where family nuclei are residing together. For example, a daughter who has moved out of a place to live in with a senior mother or grandparent, and looking after them full-time with her own family, living with her young children. And because they are related, they are unable to appeal for the CDC vouchers. So, this household actually has a fair number of individuals living in a single registered address and they have to change the address because, legally, they are required to do so since they are living permanently with someone else. So, these households have maybe about eight to nine people each. And these appeals unfortunately did not get through.

So, I appreciate that Senior Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Ministry will continue to review the criteria. Hopefully, if the data shows that there are growing number of households with such situations, one of the ways we can do is with what fellow Members have asked for during the course of the serious debates, to perhaps look at the number of persons in the household and maybe we can have a calibrated approach to the quantum of CDC vouchers given to larger households in Singapore.

I thank the Member, Dr Hamid Razak, for providing that feedback and we will most certainly take it back to consider.

6 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the percentage of households with utility bill arrears has increased over the past five years; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that lower-income households with utility arrears are well supported so that their electricity and water supplies are not disrupted.

Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Sir, over the past five years, the percentage of households with utility bills in arrears for six months or more have decreased from about 0.5% to 0.2%.

The Government provides targeted support to those who may require assistance with their utility bills. Eligible lower- and middle-income Housing and Development Board households enjoy U-Save rebates to help offset utility expenses. Resident households that require additional financial assistance can tap on various community and social assistance schemes.

For households with more severe arrears, water supply will not be shut off. Instead, flow restrictors are installed to reduce the rate of flow of water to these premises and normal flow of water will be restored once the arrears are paid off. These households will also be offered the Pay-As-You-Use scheme for their electricity supply until outstanding arrears are settled.

Mr Abdul Muhaimin.

The current U-Save rebate framework is tiered by flat type, not by household need or circumstance. Is the Ministry aware that low-income families caring for sick or disabled members at home, such as those requiring home oxygen or concentrators, electric suction machines, motorised wheelchairs on charge or frequent bathing due to incontinence, face structurally higher utility consumption that is not of their choosing? Will the Ministry consider recognising caregiving needs as a distinct basis for enhanced utility support?

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. We all recognise that different households beyond room types may have different needs depending on the composition of their household.

Currently, as the Member mentioned, the U-Save rebates are organised based on room types. If we are required to look at further circumstances of the household, this will then necessitate further gradation of that classification. So, it will require further study.

But I do want to point out that beyond U-Save rebates, there are other forms of assistance that recognise these different caregiving needs, as explained by the responses in the earlier Parliamentary Questions related to caregiving, as well as other form of community assistance provided by, for example, the Community Development Councils.

7 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has studied ways to encourage a shift towards more outcome-based work arrangements, rather than structured time-based models, where appropriate; and (b) what measures are in place to support employers and employees in adopting such practices while safeguarding productivity and employee well-being.

Both employers and employees may benefit from outcome-based work arrangements, where the nature of the job allows. However, such a model may not be suitable for jobs that would require shift work or a physical presence. Many professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) already work on the basis of delivering successful outcomes with limited tracking of work hours. As our workforce profile and the nature of jobs continues to evolve, we may expect more employers and employees to adopt such flexible work arrangements.

The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests sets out the process for workers to formally request for flexible work arrangements and for employers to consider these requests on reasonable business grounds. As part of implementation, employers and workers should mutually agree on the outcomes and how to track them.

The Government also supports employers in adopting technology and redesigning jobs through enterprise and workforce transformation initiatives so that work can be done more efficiently. This enables workers to deliver higher value in less time, improving productivity and enabling outcome-based approaches to work.

Even as some work arrangements move towards outcome rather than time-based management, we recognise the need for employees to have healthy work-life boundaries. The Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health and Well-being at Workplaces sets out good practices for employers that support the well-being of their workers, including setting reasonable expectations of after-hours work communications and communicating them to employees. Such practices could include not requiring employees to respond to non-urgent work-related messages and emails until the following working day.

Ms Lee.

Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I have two supplementary questions.

Has the Ministry studied the correlation between flexible results-oriented work models with productivity?

And second, this question honestly was inspired by one of my residents who work for the Ministry. Has the Government, for public servants, demonstrated a work performance management system that weighs heavily on outcomes rather than time spent at work, meaning a Government-led work performance management system?

I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. For the first supplementary question, there is no specific particular study that will measure specific outcomes between flexible work arrangements and key performance. That is from the Ministry side.

But our survey results, from the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and also from our workers, show that flexible work arrangements are ranked number one in terms of preferred requirements, compared to other leave and even financial contributions. They appreciate such arrangements because they will have flexibility in taking care of their children, they have flexibility in providing caregiving needs as required.

In fact, this conversation should be between workers and employers as well – having a good conversation on what are the performance work outcomes required, and what are the tools and redesigning of the workplaces required to achieve productivity increases.

In terms of performance, we leave it to the market and also the employers to determine what is the best performance and what is value for money.

For the second one, within Ministries in terms of requiring work performance, I think, there is always a balance. Also, because within the Government, there is a myriad of roles. Some require presence and time, especially for security personnel, and some are mainly pure outcomes. And so, we work in very different ways and based on that tiering, we leave it to the supervisors to manage the staff and how they deliver those outcomes.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

If I may build very quickly on the second supplementary question by Member Valerie Lee. I am wondering the extent to which the Government actually monitors and ensures that Government-affiliated institutions, such as our autonomous universities, also respect these kinds of flexible work arrangements.

I ask because of news reports that speak to how academics at the National University of Singapore, where outcomes are certainly the main way that we measure academic performance and are nevertheless forced to spend a significant amount of time in the office even though outcomes ultimately are the way that their performance is measured.

I thank Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for that particular question. In fact, flexible work arrangements are considered pretty nascent. I think the entire job market is also learning. Employers and employees are learning how to make those requests and employers are learning different ways in terms of flexi load – whether it is flexi place, flexi time as well – on how they deliver flexible work arrangements.

On that note, in terms of the autonomous universities, it is an autonomous university. We leave it to the universities to decide how they determine outcomes and performance, and we encourage them to have deeper conversations with their employees and staff on their flexible work arrangements. And if they need any help, they can always approach Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices; if not, the Institute for Human Resource Professionals; if not, then NTUC. There are many toolkits and resources made available online and we are happy to help with that conversation.

Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the Day.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [4th Allotted Day]. (proc text)]

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Head K (cont) – (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [2 March 2026], (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the total sum to be allocated for Head K of the Estimates be reduced by $100." – [Mr Darryl David]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]

Minister Desmond Lee.

Mr Chairman, as a small nation without natural resources or hinterland, Singapore's success has always depended on our people. Education has been a core engine that equips Singaporeans with what they need to take on new challenges.

In the post-Independence years when survival was priority, we focused on basic education. In the 1970s, we shifted away from a one-size-fits-all approach and improved educational outcomes through streaming and differentiated pathways. From the late 1990s, we broadened our definition of success by recognising diverse strengths and abilities.

Since the 2010s, we have increased emphasis on students' holistic development and strengthened lifelong learning. During the Budget and Committee of Supply (COS) debates, Members spoke about the uncertainty and challenges brought about by the geopolitical paradigm shift, artificial intelligence (AI) and the existential threat of climate change, and proposed many ways to better prepare Singaporeans, through education, for the future.

I thank Members for your suggestions, which we will study carefully.

In our next bound of education reform, we want to support every Singaporean to learn and reach their full potential, regardless of their starting point, and to seize opportunities in a fast-changing world. In line with Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's call for a "we first" society, we will "Learn For Life, Together".

Today, I will speak about how we will refresh our education system in three ways.

First, we will learn together. Students of different strengths and needs will be developed to their full potential. We will also uplift disadvantaged students and support those with Special Educational Needs (SEN).

Second, we will grow together. To prepare students for the future, we will further strengthen our focus on holistic development, where students develop core values and critical life skills, and learn to interact and build bridges across differences, instead of just chasing after academic grades.

We will also encourage and equip our students to be innovative and enterprising, to pursue deep learning in an AI-transformed world and support them in their journey towards lifelong learning.

Lastly, let us work together, educators, parents as well as industry and community partners, to build a stronger education ecosystem.

My colleagues will share in greater detail how we will achieve some of these efforts. Senior Minister of State David Neo will speak about creating a student-centric education system. Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary will explain how we support lifelong learning beyond schools. Minister of State Jasmin Lau will share how we are preparing Singaporeans for an AI-transformed future. And Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun will set out our efforts supporting students with SEN and strengthening bilingualism.

Let me turn to the first theme of learning together. Our education system serves a broad spectrum of learners. Through Full Subject-Based Banding (Full SBB), students can build on their strengths in different subjects and learn at their own pace. We stretch those with academic strengths and talents, while providing additional support to disadvantaged students.

Let me share the progress we have made so far. Over the years, we have made moves to customise education. Notably, Full SBB allows secondary school students to take subjects at different levels based on their strengths, interests and learning needs. The first cohort of students under Full SBB will be sitting for the Singapore-Cambridge Secondary Education Certificate (SEC) examination in 2027 and will progress to post-secondary education in the following year.

This common examination gives us the opportunity to streamline several admissions exercises into a single Post-Secondary Admissions Exercise for admissions to junior colleges, Millennia Institute, polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) in the year 2028, which will improve students' user experience and decision making. My colleague Senior Minister of State David Neo will provide more details later.

Another move we implemented this year is to allow students who did well in Mother Tongue at the Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE) to take up Higher Mother Tongue from Secondary 1, regardless of their overall PSLE score. This will give around 2,500 more students the opportunity to pursue their passion for their Mother Tongue language. It is part of our broader effort to recognise and nurture the students' strengths as well as interests.

Mr Darryl David and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked for smaller class sizes to better customise education. Ms Denise Phua called for a flexible class size model, right-sized and fit for students' needs.

This proposal has been raised over the years by Members from both sides of the House. We agree that having smaller class sizes can improve teaching and learning, as teachers can better cater to the learning needs of their students especially those who need more support. That is precisely why we have smaller class sizes for students with greater needs. We deploy more teachers and allied educators to support and scaffold their learning and channel more of our resources to help them learn.

The average form class size for primary and secondary schools is 34 and 33 today, respectively. In upper primary, foundation subjects are taught in smaller classes, which in most instances can be 10 to 20. For the Learning Support Programme, its class sizes are of about eight to 10. And in Full SBB, different subjects range between 20 and 40 students, based on students' learning needs and the nature of the subject.

We are learning from our experience, over the last few years, with smaller class sizes for students with greater needs, and are studying how best to calibrate class size to bring about engaging and effective learning environments for our students, while managing teacher workload.

Assoc Prof Lim asked why we cannot simply hire more teachers to bring class sizes down. He took issue with the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) explanation that it is not easy to hire many more teachers and that quality may suffer. But these are not trivial challenges.

We have already ramped up teacher recruitment significantly – from 700 the year previously, to a current target of over 1,000 new teachers a year. That is already a 40% increase. And last year, we recruited over 1,300 teachers. But we would need to increase this much further to achieve across the board class size reductions.

At the same time, we are contending with a tight labour market, especially for those we want to recruit as teachers. We need to select not just for those with qualifications, but also the aptitude to teach and the heart to nurture future generations. Yet our local workforce growth is slowing and Singaporeans have many attractive career options in the public and private sector. So, this is hardly a simple fix.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also suggested hiring more allied educators. In fact, as I shared in November, we have doubled the number of allied educators in priority areas, such as counselling and special education needs across all schools, over the last 10 years, from about 800 to 1,600.

The number of administrative support staff in each school has also increased, from around six to around nine in the same period, to help teachers offload some of their administrative workload.

In expanding our allied educator pool, we are focused on the high priority, more specialised support functions that our schools and teachers need the most, such as school counsellors and SEN officers. They play important complementary roles alongside our teachers in supporting students of different strengths and needs.

To achieve this, with the limited manpower available, we have been progressively scaling back the deployment of allied educators in teaching and learning and helping them to transition into roles of greater need over the past nine years, through work attachments and training. This was reported in the media in 2016, a Parliamentary Question by Nominated Member of Parliament Yip Pin Xiu in 2019, a Parliamentary Question by Member of Parliament Leon Perera in 2020 and a Parliamentary Question by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim in 2025.

So, contrary to the Member's claim, this was not a new shift announced in tandem with the increase in teacher recruitment. I thought to set the record straight to soothe the "sucker punch" that the Member said he felt and to make clear that the Ministry had not been disingenuous.

Assoc Prof Lim also suggested that co-curricular activities (CCAs) and Learning Journeys are secondary to classroom instruction, and can thus be outsourced to free up teachers' time so that they can teach more academic classes.

While MOE has indeed been bringing in more coaches, instructors and administrators to help relief teacher workload by running CCAs, let us be clear. CCAs are an important part of holistic development and our teachers' role in CCAs are not merely administrative. They help nurture our students to develop critical social, emotional competencies.

So, if we were to reduce class sizes by restructuring teachers' duties and ask them to teach more academic classes, we would need to weigh the possible impact on students' holistic development and teachers' overall working hours.

As you can see, the considerations underlying class sizes are not simple and straightforward. But Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Mr Darryl David and Ms Denise Phua can be assured that we are studying them carefully to better support our teachers and students in a sustainable way for the long term.

Next, as announced in 2024, we will refresh how we support students with academic strengths and talents, and discontinue the Gifted Education Programme (GEP) in its current form. We are ready to share some of our implementation details.

Today, all primary schools already offer school-based programmes beyond the curriculum to stretch and challenge students who have strengths and talents in English, mathematics and science.

Take Blangah Rise Primary for instance. They have debate competitions and Excellence 2000 (E2K) math and science. As the Prime Minister had shared at the 2024 National Day Rally, we will broaden access to such school-based programmes, from around 7% of the cohort today to 10%.

On Ms Elysa Chen's queries, these students will be taught by trained educators. Today, almost all primary schools have at least five teachers trained to teach such students. Where needed, MOE will provide additional teacher resourcing to schools. Teachers and school counsellors will also be given training, curriculum resources and professional development.

Through these, schools can better support their students, encouraging exploration, creativity and personal ownership of learning. Students who can benefit from further stretch can choose to attend centre-based advanced modules after school, at a nearby school centre. They will no longer need to leave their school and transfer to another school that hosts the GEP for daily learning. Instead, they will remain in their own schools and continue to learn with their friends.

Besides English, mathematics and science, there will be interdisciplinary modules inspired by real-world problems. To be clear, these modules are not intended to give students a leg up in examinations. Rather, they are designed to further cultivate curiosity, creativity and critical thinking.

Take, for example, the interdisciplinary module on "Playgrounds". Students will explore them as community systems, integrating social studies, science and mathematics to tackle real world design challenges. They will study how to make such spaces safe, investigate the science of movement, and through empathy exercises, design inclusive playgrounds for diverse users.

Last year, we conducted a trial of these modules, which was well-received. Compared to the current GEP cohort, at least double the number of students will be able to take these centre-based modules, which cater to students with strengths in both specific as well as multiple domains. As a start, there will be 15 centres hosted by primary schools across Singapore, such as Palm View Primary and Yew Tee Primary. These schools have good geographical spread and are accessible via public transport. The centre locations will be reviewed periodically.

The first batch of Primary 3 students will participate in a standardised one-stage identification exercise this August, instead of the current two-stage process. Schools can also identify students using additional resources of information, such as teacher observations and students' work. Rather than having a single entry point at Primary 4, students can also join at the end of each semester at Primary 4 and Primary 5, making this more porous.

Next, let me speak about how we are helping students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Education has helped spur social mobility in Singapore. We want our children to know that as long as they are prepared to put in effort, they can do well in life regardless of their starting point.

We would like to assure Mr David Hoe and Mr Abdul Muhaimin that MOE provides additional support for disadvantaged students in their education journey and that financial barriers will not impede their educational aspirations and progression.

From Academic Year 2026, we raised the income eligibility criteria and financial assistance amount for Singaporean students to benefit 31,000 more students from lower- to middle-income households. In total, about 133,000 students will benefit annually. In addition, students from lower-income households can tap on the MOE Opportunity Fund for co-curricular activities, learning experiences and personal learning devices.

Mr David Hoe will be glad to hear that we also have measures to support these students' aspirations. Today, about 100 primary and secondary schools, with a higher proportion of students from lower-income households, receive additional resourcing for after-school programmes. These include mentoring, interest-based activities and learning journeys, which broaden students' perspectives and develop their aspirations.

The Centennial Fund Award also supports polytechnics and ITE students from disadvantaged backgrounds by providing mentorship to guide them on their career and life goals. Let me share with you Sally's journey. Sally, whose name has been changed to protect her privacy, is a Primary 6 student at Naval Base Primary School. She was anxious in school and lacked confidence in her studies because of her challenging home environment and her burden of having to care for her younger brother after school each day.

Sally's teachers encouraged her to join the school's Beacon for Life programme, which is an after-school programme supported by MOE, which offers academic support as well as activities that build teamwork, resilience and emotional well-being. The school also worked with community partners to customise support for Sally and Sally's family also received Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) ComCare and assistance from a Family Service Centre.

The wraparound care and support given to Sally helped build her confidence in school and social interactions. Today, Sally participates actively during lessons and her CCA. Sally's journey illustrates what we can achieve when schools and communities collaborate closely to uplift our students and their families. MOE will strengthen our support for disadvantaged students like Sally and schools' partnership with the community in support of ComLink+.

Existing initiatives, such as Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce (UPLIFT) Enhanced School Resourcing and Guiding and Empowering students for Affiliation and Resilience to Unlock their Potential, which respectively provide additional resourcing and school support, such as afterschool programmes, will be streamlined into one single support package, which we will further enhance.

From this year 2026, we will devote even more resources to schools, expanding the number of schools with additional manpower and funding, from 100 to 157. Our schools will provide customised support to students, by strengthening partnerships with community stakeholders, such as self-help groups and others.

We will also provide stronger and more timely wraparound support for students and their families by tightening coordination between schools and key agencies, such as Social Service Offices and Family Service Centres. Our goal is clear: we want every child in our schools to achieve his or her full potential, regardless of background. But that would mean all of us have to work even more closely together.

Next, we have made significant progress over the years in supporting students with moderate-to-severe SEN, who attend Special Education (SPED) schools. This includes enhanced curriculum quality through a National SPED Curriculum; strengthening partnerships between General Education and SPED schools; and professionalising SPED educators.

We thank families, social service agencies (SSAs) and other Government agencies, who partner us in the broader SPED ecosystem. Through our collective efforts, we help students live independently; learn for life; participate meaningfully in the community; and sustain meaningful employment for those who can access work. We will work with SSAs to build more SPED schools and provide more SPED school places amidst rising demand, while continuing to support students with SEN in our mainstream schools. My colleague, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun will share more details later.

Let me now turn to our efforts to help our students develop holistically. Our education system has long been recognised for its academic rigour and excellence. While these remain important, they have never been our only focus.

As our world rapidly transforms, we do not want our students to simply be good at aceing exams today. We want them to be trailblazers for tomorrow. This calls for a reimagining of education – a reform and refresh of how we prepare our students to be resilient, well-rounded and thoughtful.

To achieve this, one challenge we must first confront honestly is the education arms race. Many parents still regard the PSLE and Direct Schools Admissions (DSA) as measures of success, which is perfectly understandable. If we were to look deeper, these perceptions stem from the belief that getting into popular schools will help their children do well in life. The fixation on grades and achievements and the excessive competition it generates, draws us away from what really matters. It diminishes the joy of learning, it takes time away from character building and it pits our children against one another.

We know it takes more than just academic grades to do well in life and in the workplace. Preparing for the future, especially one that is so uncertain, means anchoring our education system in holistic development.

To reduce the over-emphasis on academic grades, we have, in recent years: replaced PSLE T-scores with broader Achievement Levels; reduced the number of subjects required for junior college admission from six to five from 2028; and allowed students to offer one "Best" subject at minimally G2 level – or Normal (Academic) level equivalent – for polytechnic admission from 2028. We will build on this momentum and study moves to further break away from the education "arms race" in favour of more holistic development.

Ms Denise Phua, Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh and Ms Eileen Chong share our intent to reduce the stakes of our assessment milestones. We are not closed off to any ideas and will consult widely. For example, we are prepared to review how we conduct milestone exams and how the difficulty of such examinations should be calibrated; how DSA can be enhanced to strengthen student development, selection and its accessibility, so that it continues to meet its objectives; and how we post students to secondary schools, including the viability of through-train options, as discussed and suggested by Ms Denise Phua, amongst other areas.

Over the years, many Members of Parliament (MPs), and most recently Mr Foo Cexiang at the Budget debate, have raised questions about why there is a need to set challenging questions at PSLE for secondary school selection. Ms Eileen Chong had also asked to remove the competitive grading element in PSLE.

To address these questions, we must first consider what the role of PSLE is. The PSLE serves as a checkpoint to assess students' understanding of core concepts and skills in the primary school curriculum. It helps guide students into appropriate secondary school subjects and pathways that will best support their learning aspirations and needs. To do this, we need a fair and consistent benchmark across all primary schools in Singapore and for students across all backgrounds.

The PSLE today has a range of questions of varying difficulties, to help us identify students who might need more support with building up their foundations, as well as students who can benefit from further stretch in their next stage of learning. As such, every PSLE paper has a carefully calibrated balance of questions to cater to students of different abilities – 85% are easy and moderate, with 15% challenging questions.

For challenging questions, Members may like to know that students are provided with scaffolding support to help them apply the concepts and skills that they have learned in less familiar contexts. With your permission, Mr Chairman, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a mathematics question?

Please proceed. I hope it is an easy one. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

There is a pen/pencil on the left side of your seat. You may use your calculators on your mobile phones. But AI is not permitted. [Laughter.]

We will give you a few minutes to do page one. Look at page one and not page two, so that I can demonstrate to you what I have just said. Page one shows two rectangular containers, X and Y. Ray poured one-fifth of the water from X into Y to fill it completely, and then, Sarah poured all the water from Y in X, and 120 cm3 of water overflowed from X. What was the height of X? In the spirit of collaboration, you can consult your neighbours, across party lines is fine.

This problem assesses problem-solving skills, by testing how students apply mathematics in less familiar situations. In this case, the overflow of water, with real-world applications in future, such as engineering. As you can see, this question is a bit more challenging. I will give you a few more minutes. Put your name and your seat number, and we will collect it later. [Laughter.]

All ready? Yes? Turn over the sheet and compare this with the question on the next page. This is essentially the same question, but structured, meaning that the question has two parts: (a), two marks; and then, (b), three marks, versus the first question, that dives straight in, five marks at one go.

Part (a), if you look at it, is included to guide students to first find the volume of water in container X, which is the first step to solving the problem. Most students can solve part (a) and this is considered easy. Part (b) is more demanding, because when water was poured back from Y to X, some water overflowed. This assesses students' critical thinking to account for this change. But this is all based on the primary school syllabus and does not require knowledge beyond the syllabus.

The difference between the two questions, on page one and page two, is clear; and the second question, on page two that you are looking at, was a maths question from PSLE back in 2022. To help our students, challenging questions are often structured with scaffolding to help students attempt them progressively.

On this note, we agree with Ms Eileen Chong that examinations, such as the PSLE, should not define students' self-worth. We also agree with Ms Denise Phua and Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh that our schools should not just focus on academic results, and they indeed do not.

Because we recognise that ultimately, while grades might be the boat that gets you out to sea, it is resilience that keeps you afloat when storms hit; it is adaptability that helps you navigate changing currents; it is creativity that helps you spot new horizons; and it is interpersonal skills that will bring others with you in your journey.

And therefore, our schools seek to nurture students for life, and we broadly do it in two ways.

Members can continue working on the questions; we can cross-reference the answers later.

So, what are these two ways? First, we place a lot of emphasis on holistic development. At the primary, secondary and junior college levels, students develop 21st Century Competencies, such as adaptive and inventive thinking and civic literacy through the learning of subjects, Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum, CCAs and school-based programmes. Our institutes of higher learning (IHLs) also build on schools' efforts by infusing life skills, such as interpersonal skills and innovation into curriculum.

Second, we cultivate students' aspirations. When I visit our schools, I like to ask our students what they dream of becoming when they grow up. Some enjoy coding and say they want to work in IT or AI. Some are inspired by their teachers and want to become educators themselves. I also recall an enterprising student who told me that he dreams of starting his own business.

It is good that our young ones are full of hope and aspirations. Every child should dare to dream. But our children also need to learn that for dreams to become reality, they need to take active steps and be resilient in dealing with challenges and setbacks along the way. We also need to consider those who might not yet be sure about what they want to do when they grow up.

We are therefore aligned with Mr David Hoe and Mr Shawn Huang in providing our students exposure to the next stage of their school or work life. For example, some secondary schools offer Applied Learning Programmes (ALP) in areas, such as business and entrepreneurship, to connect classroom learning with real-world experiences. Our polytechnic and ITE students are required to complete internships and can participate in career fairs, mentorship programmes and industry visits. These give our students exposure to different careers and industries to allow them to make more informed decisions on future pathways.

Today, I have shared some of the moves we are exploring in Government. But no one has a monopoly on good ideas. That is why, in continuation of our efforts from Forward Singapore, we will start a series of Education Conversations. We intend to engage and consult educators, parents, researchers, students and the community. We will review your ideas and suggestions. And we will study other countries and learn from their best practices. Together, we will seek to create solutions that will ensure that our education system continues to meet our current and future needs, in particular with the changing and uncertain environment ahead of us. More details will be shared when ready.

Next, we also want our schools to be active platforms that bring together students from different backgrounds. After all, it is in our classrooms, school halls and sports arenas, where friendships are formed. And when students share their love of sports, music or mathematics, they discover that they are more similar than different. These interactions allow our students to bridge differences and develop social emotional skills.

Our schools intentionally bring together students from different schools and different backgrounds. For instance, we have combined school CCAs or cluster-based CCAs where students from different schools and backgrounds come together to learn and train on a regular basis.

Over the years, we have also made changes to the Primary 1 Registration Framework to expand access for students with no prior connections to enter our primary schools. We had reserved 20 places at Phase 2C in 2014, which is open to students regardless of whether they have prior connections to the school. This was further increased from 20 to 40 in 2022. This has ensured open access to all primary schools via Phase 2C. Today, many of our schools have a good mix of students from families of different socio-economic statuses (SES).

Nevertheless, there are still some schools that are overrepresented by students from higher-SES families. Some of these schools are located in neighbourhoods that comprise mostly private housing, with fewer public housing. If the school is popular with parents, it might be filled first by those living nearest in private housing, because of the home-school distance priority.

Schools cannot just passively reflect the neighbourhoods around them, but they must also actively create diverse environments for our students to mix and mingle and to learn from one another. We have received many suggestions on the Primary 1 Registration Framework. Mr David Hoe, Ms Lee Hui Ying and others have suggested removing the priority phases for children and siblings of alumni, including the affiliation advantage at Secondary 1 posting, as they feel that this is unfair and exclusionary. Others have said the same of children whose parents volunteer for the school and community, because not every parent has the time and resources to do the same. Others support keeping things as they are, believing these connections help build school culture and shared values across generations.

On proximity, we have also heard equally diverse views. Some parents feel that proximity should be the most important consideration, so that students do not spend too much time traveling to and from school. Others want to widen or even remove the home-school distance bands altogether, so that parents who can afford to buy or rent property near their preferred school do not get an unfair advantage.

Some have suggested that the same Primary 1 framework should not be rigidly applied to all schools, especially if the school's neighbourhood comprises mostly some types of housing over others. And some have suggested that others from slightly further away be given some access. For such schools, alumni priority could draw in diverse students from a wider geographical range, instead of only students from the nearby private estate.

These are all well-meaning suggestions and what I have just said is not exhaustive. And we take every one of them seriously. But at the end of the day, we have to find the right balance between these competing views and needs, because there are only a finite number of places in each school and every change we contemplate would affect different groups in different ways. And as society evolves, we need to adjust this balance over time.

Let me assure Members that MOE is reviewing the Primary 1 Registration Framework so that our primary schools remain open to students from different backgrounds. We will announce more details when ready.

Let me talk briefly about AI. The rise of AI has changed the world as we knew it. AI can increasingly accomplish more complex tasks and what once took us hours or days, AI can now accomplish in minutes or even seconds. However, for all its capabilities, and they are growing, AI is not infallible, nor can it totally replace the humans' spirit.

To prepare our workforce for an AI-transformed future, our schools and IHLs will equip our students to harness AI through the four "Learns".

First, learn about AI. Students will learn what AI is, how it works, what its impact is and what the limitations are.

Second, learn to use AI. Students will learn how to harness AI tools effectively and responsibly, in partnership with the industry.

Third, learn with AI. Educators will use AI in teaching and learning to enhance students' learning outcomes.

And fourth, perhaps the most important, learn beyond AI. Educators will help students develop other critical skills, so that they can add human value and use AI to amplify their impact.

My colleague, Minister of State Jasmin Lau will provide further details about MOE's AI-related moves and you must see them in the context of the overall national moves and national strategy on AI.

Next, since we started the SkillsFuture movement in 2015, training participation from both individuals and employers has significantly increased. We have provided significant financial support to empower individuals to take charge of their learning. In 2024, we introduced the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme to further lower their opportunity costs of training for mid-career workers. We will continue to strengthen accessibility of a larger range of courses for mid-career workers to upskill. My colleague, Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary, will share more later.

While we have done well, we can, must do more and do better, to support Singaporeans in navigating an increasingly complex economic landscape and one that is changing in an ever faster clip.

At Budget 2026, Prime Minister announced that SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) and Workforce Singapore (WSG) would be reorganised into a new Statutory Board, jointly overseen by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and MOE. The new agency will integrate SSG's training and skills development capabilities, and WSG's employment facilitation ecosystem to provide stronger end-to-end support for Singaporeans in bridging skills to jobs. My colleague, Minister Tan See Leng, will share more details at MOM's Committee of Supply debate.

MOE will continue to steer the SkillsFuture movement together with MOM and the new agency and work with our IHLs, to provide high-quality, industry-relevant and accessible training for Singaporeans to upskill.

Finally, let me talk about working together for a stronger education system. The plans that I have outlined today cannot be achieved by MOE and our schools alone. Everyone has a part to play. Let me thank some of our key partners, in addition to the community partners and SSAs whom I had mentioned earlier.

We are grateful to our industry partners who closely collaborate with our IHLs to provide our learners with industry-relevant curriculum and real-world experiences that prepare our students for the future. We also appreciate our parent and school volunteers who plan engaging activities that strengthen student support and build stronger parent-child relationships.

And in particular, I would like to recognise and affirm our educators for the important and hard work that they do day in, day out. To our school leaders and teachers, you are the core of our education system. You nurture our students and support their learning – from lessons to remedials, from CCAs to camps, from building trust to journeying with students through difficulties and so much more. We will continue to ensure that our teachers are fairly recognised for their hard work and dedication. MOE is reviewing the salaries of our educators, including our Allied Educators and MOE Kindergarten Educators and will share more when ready.

We also recognise that all the things you do for our students take time, effort and sacrifices. It is therefore important that our teachers' workload remains manageable and sustainable and we have had extensive debates in this House before. I have been sharing at length on our commitment in this front and we are making steady headway. For instance, by leveraging technology and AI, alongside the Reimagining the Teaching Profession Taskforce's recommendations, we will continue to help recalibrate what teachers do.

These include streamlining administrative processes, increasing support structures and protecting after-work hours, so that our teachers can better balance their professional responsibilities with their personal well-being. We will continue to listen to our teachers and do more to support you. Mr Chairman, I will now speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Colleagues, first, I want to wish everyone a Happy "Chap Goh Meh" and good health in the Year of Horse.

The various initiatives that we are sharing today aim to support Singaporeans' learning needs and aspirations. Regardless of our student's starting point, we will ensure everyone has the opportunity to fulfil their potential, as we build a “we first” society. We will do our best to cater to students with different strengths and needs, and uplift those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Currently, all primary schools offer school-based programmes to develop and challenge students who have strengths and talents in English, mathematics and science. We will broaden access to existing school-based programmes. With this, around 10% of the cohort will benefit, up from 7% today.

Students who can benefit from further stretch can choose to attend designated centres after school to participate in advanced modules. This way, students can continue studying at their original primary school without having to transfer.

These centres will also offer interdisciplinary modules. These modules guide students to approach and solve real-life problems by making connections across different subjects. Whether students have strengths in a specific area or multiple areas, they can choose to participate in interdisciplinary modules during school holidays.

This year's Primary 3 students are the first cohort to participate in the refreshed identification process. They will take a standardised test in August. Even if they are not selected the first time, students can still join the programme in Primary 4 and 5 if they are identified through other sources of information, such as teacher observations and their daily work. This allows students to develop their strengths at their own pace.

Education is an important driver of social equality. Regardless of their family background, our education system must give every child the opportunity to rise above their circumstances and achieve upward social mobility.

From this year, we will devote more resources to support schools' after-school activities, providing mentoring, interest-based activities and learning journeys for students from low-income families to broaden their horizons and cultivate their aspirations. Schools receiving these additional resources will increase from the current 100 to 157.

Schools will work closely with community stakeholders to provide more timely and comprehensive support for disadvantaged students and their families. We will strengthen coordination and collaboration between schools, Social Service Offices and Family Service Centres.

Next, we will increase special education school places and establish new schools to support more students with moderate to severe special educational needs.

In an increasingly fragmented world, bilingualism allows us to serve as a bridge between the East and the West, while helping us stay rooted in our local culture and strengthen our identity as Singaporeans. Therefore, we will increase funding for the Mother Tongue Language Learning and Promotion Committees over the next five years to strengthen bilingualism through a wider range of activities.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun will share details on our efforts for special education and promotion of Mother Tongue languages later.

(In English): Mr Chairman, the collective efforts of Singaporeans have helped to support and strengthen our students' learning experiences. In the spirit of "we first", we will keep working together with Singaporeans to improve our education system and weave a stronger social fabric. This work is more critical and urgent this fast-changing and uncertain world. [Applause.]

Senior Minister of State David Neo.

Mr Chairman, this year, MOE's COS theme is "We Learn for Life Together". It reflects MOE's commitment to lifelong learning, which is salient given the rapid pace of change in technology in the world today.

But there is also another interpretation – which is apt given the many conversations we have had in this Chamber about AI – that we are nurturing our students to learn to live life the way life was supposed to be lived and to live together as friends, as a community, as one united people.

How do we want to nurture our students to live life? We want to help our students find meaning, purpose and the motivation to pursue growth, so they can thrive. We want our students to not be defined by their pasts but have the courage to make the most of every situation. We want our students to forge and build human connections with their friends.

How do we want to nurture our students to live together? I think there is much for us to learn from our pioneers. We are all very familiar with the Singapore story. We started out as a migrant society. Our forefathers of different races and religions had to learn to live together with each other. Was there friction? Certainly. But our Pioneers overcame it, and Singapore flourished as a result. And we need to build on their spirit and values.

We have heard much over this debate about how the world has changed. Against this backdrop, we need to nurture our students to be just as exceptional as our pioneers, if not more, and continue to have the same spirit and value of wanting to contribute to something bigger than ourselves.

While the world builds walls, we must build bridges, starting in our classrooms. When we prioritise our unity, harmony and stability, we create space for every student's holistic growth so that they can achieve their full potential, regardless of their starting point.

Schools are one of the first places where children experience being in a community. Our schools offer shared experiences, which fosters our shared identity as Singaporeans. Our schools also offer the opportunity for students of different interests, talents and backgrounds to come together.

Singaporeans come from many walks of life. Regardless of race, language or religion, we bring with us a diverse range of talents. We must celebrate and nurture this. Under the Forward Singapore agenda, MOE will continue to enhance our education system and schools to help every child reach their full potential and make our system more student centric.

Minister Desmond Lee spoke about plans to refresh, improve and broaden access to different modalities of support. This includes refreshed support for primary school students with strengths in the academic domain, as well as expansion of the SPED school capacity.

Beyond that, students who need more academic support also receive targeted intervention in schools. Support programmes are delivered in small groups using customised resources and are taught by specially trained teachers. Recent improvements include the extension of the Reading Remediation Programme to Primary 5, as well as the Learning Support for Mathematics programme to Primary 3 and 4. The Primary 3 and 4 Mother Tongue Support Programme will also be refreshed to better engage students and narrow learning gaps.

Another key initiative is Full SBB. Full SBB was implemented in 2024 for secondary schools, as part of MOE's efforts to nurture the joy of learning and develop multiple pathways to cater to the different strengths and interest of our students so they can achieve their full potential.