Hansard, Tuesday, 10 September 2024

1 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Education why the recently announced change in the Gifted Education Programme is not designed into a system where students can elect their choices of subject levels based on their ability, gifting and interest.

2 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the average class size for primary school students in the same cohort (i) enrolled in the existing Gifted Education Programme (GEP) (ii) enrolled in schools offering the existing GEP but are not part of the GEP; and (b) how are average class sizes expected to change with the changes made to the GEP.

Mr Speaker, my response will cover the questions raised by Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Louis Chua, as well as those raised by Ms Denise Phua, Dr Wan Rizal, Ms Foo Mee Har, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Leong Mun Wai for the Sitting on 9 September 2024, and by Mr Mohd Fahmi, which is scheduled for the subsequent Sitting on 13 September 2024.

If need be, I invite Members to seek clarifications following my response.

Please proceed.

Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Leong Mun Wai asked about the lessons learnt and outcomes of the Gifted Education Programme, or GEP. The GEP has generally delivered good student outcomes in the past 40 years, with many students being stretched intellectually and developing holistically. GEP alumni have made significant contributions in diverse fields such as public service, medicine, academia, arts, entrepreneurship and technology. Many GEP alumni are also active leaders in the community and social sectors. However, there were also some students who felt weighed down by the expectations to excel, or could not cope with the rigour of the programme and lost interest in learning. There were also students who were selected for the programme but decided not to join.

Over this time, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has gained useful lessons and experiences in developing higher-ability learners. We have observed that while some students showed high abilities in multiple areas, there are also some students who showed passion and strength in specific single areas, such as in English or Mathematics. Students may also present strengths and potential at different points in their educational journey, rather than at a single point in time. These observations are in line with international research.

Concurrently, over the years, our primary schools have expanded their capacity in nurturing high-ability learners. Today, all primary schools have teachers trained to identify and develop high-ability learners in both cognitive and social-emotional domains.

Hence, it is timely to update our approach to develop higher-ability learners. Instead of a uniform GEP for selected students based on their general abilities in multiple areas, we can now also offer opportunities for those with higher abilities in specific areas. And instead of being selected at a single point, students can join these programmes at any time during their upper primary years.

We want to work with parents to have the proper mindset to allow students to blossom at their own pace, rather than be hot-housed or rushed to be admitted at a particular entry point. The new approach also gives students the option to exit the programme or modules at any time, if they find them unsuitable or wish to pursue other interests, without the stigma of having failed to meet the expectations after being labelled as gifted.

Ms Denise Phua, Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Mariam Jaafar asked about different aspects of our new approach. From the Primary 4 batch in 2027, higher-ability learners will remain in their schools and benefit from school-based development, without having to disrupt their learning environments and the social bonds they have formed. Students who can benefit from further stretch beyond school-based programmes can attend after-school modules at nearby schools. These after-school modules will bring like-minded peers together to interact and inquire more deeply on selected topics. We will ensure a good geographical spread of schools offering these programmes, so that they are accessible to all eligible students regardless of where they study.

Together, these programmes will provide higher-ability learners a more customised suite of development opportunities according to their interests and strengths. They aim to cultivate curiosity, creativity and a love for learning in students. They are not designed to help students perform better in mainstream examinations. Neither is the aim to introduce higher subject levels ahead of time, which would still be bounded by the core curriculum and examination requirements.

I wish to assure Mr Leong Mun Wai, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Mohd Fahmi that MOE will support schools and teachers to deliver this new approach effectively and consistently. MOE will guide them in using multiple sources of information to identify higher-ability learners. These holistic assessments will include the students’ academic abilities and social-emotional readiness for the programme.

MOE will continue to support our primary schools by providing more curriculum resources and professional learning for teachers to support the cognitive and social-emotional development of our higher-ability learners. For example, we will continue to train teachers to understand the cognitive and affective traits of higher-ability learners, establish a classroom climate that encourages exploration, creativity and personal reflection for these students. There will be platforms for schools to share best practices on how they design, implement and monitor their school-based programmes.

With the broadening of access to programmes for higher-ability learners in all schools from 7% to 10% of each cohort and after-school modules being accessible to eligible students from all schools, students will be able to benefit from the new approach regardless of the school they attend.

Dr Wan Rizal asked about resource allocation and Mr Louis Chua asked about class sizes. MOE will continue to resource schools according to the learning needs of their students. While the typical class size in primary schools can go up to 40, the pupil to teacher ratio of 15 is comparable to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Today, schools already have the flexibility to group students for learning based on their needs. For example, Foundation-level classes are typically smaller, with between 10 and 20 students. With this new approach, while there will be no change in the typical class size in schools, schools are able to size classes accordingly for the school-based programmes and after-school modules for higher-ability learners, as well as for learners who need more learning support, to ensure that the programmes achieve the intended outcomes.

Dr Wan Rizal also asked about strengthening access to quality education and support for all students regardless of their backgrounds. These changes to the GEP will indeed broaden the support for higher-ability learners and provide more opportunities for them to maximise their potential, regardless of their background.

Ms Denise Phua.

Thank you, Speaker. I want to thank the Minister for the courage to look into changing the GEP. It has been a sacred cow for many years in our MOE system. It is also aligned with the Minister's vision, which I fully support, of making education pathways to be more student-centric and to bring out the best in each student.

My question to the Minister is: why not go all the way out to let students pick the subjects in which they can have most passion and ability for, at the highest level that they can pursue and attain? Why is there still a need for labelling a programme as for gifted or not gifted, especially if we have the concept that giftedness could be in academics, sports, arts, leadership and so forth? Why not go all the way and scrap all these labels and let each perform to his or her best, and study to his or her best?

I am just concerned that if we continue to now decentralise the GEP to every school for the top 10%, then, would it be possible that it would get back to the old situation where there is a so-called elite class, and families and students will chase that class, and there is this Express stream possibility and the rest?

My question to the Minister is: why not go all the way, according to his vision that many support?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will make three points in response to Ms Denise Phua's comment. I thank her for her support for what MOE is doing.

First, why do we not allow students to pick their subjects? In fact, we actually do. In the new approach, what we are saying is that we look at the students, we look at what they are interested in, where they have strengths in. We want to combine their areas of strength with their areas of interest, in order for them to be enrolled in certain classes. This is to have our education system, where possible, tailored to the respective needs of our students. But, of course, it would not be possible for us to run some of these classes just on the basis of interest, without an assessment of the ability – which brings me to my second point.

For all of us familiar with teaching and teaching pedagogies, we know that it is actually very tough to teach to the average where you have a class of very diverse abilities, from very high-needs students to very high-ability students. What we want to do in our vision going forward is that we are able to cluster the students of generally the same abilities in the same domain for more effective teaching and learning. This will also help to alleviate the workload of our teachers instead of having them to teach to the average across a class with very diverse abilities in a finite period of class time.

Having said that, we come to the third point – which is, we all know that when our children develop, it is not just about learning academically in one area or another area. We also want them to develop holistically. We want to make sure that their social-emotional development commensurates with their academic development. This is why in Singapore, we have moved away from either of the extremes: one extreme is where we mix people of all abilities together and put them in the same class, regardless of abilities and interests; the other extreme is to segregate everyone just according to their specific interest and they never mix with other people with different interests.

We want the best of both worlds and this is how we have organised the MOE system – which is that for selected topics and subjects, we will group the students of similar abilities together so that it is easier and more manageable for the teachers to teach in a much more focused way. At the same time, beyond those subjects and areas, there will always and there must always be opportunities for them to mix with students with diverse backgrounds, with different abilities so that as they grow up, they also learn to live and work with people with different abilities.

This is the approach that we are adopting to make sure that on one hand, we want the benefits of focused teaching and learning; on the other hand, we want a diversity of backgrounds, of people so that our students can mix and grow up together. We will certainly take into consideration the students' interests and abilities in assigning them to the classes that will best bring out their potential.

Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister. In relation to the new higher-ability programme, can I check again with the Minister if there will be a change in the form class size for those who are in this programme and those who are not in this programme? One of the learning points or points highlighted by many GEP students, past and present, and even parents, is that they shared that the smaller class size of the GEP is one of the key features. I think many educators themselves have also expressed a desire for a smaller class size so that they would be able to, as the Minister said, develop each child to his or her highest potential holistically and I think having that smaller class size will enable them to better do so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I make the following points in response to Mr Louis Chua's comments?

First, I think many of us talk about class size. I want to lay out the context of what we mean by class size in today's Singapore education context. It is true that we organise our class sizes generally on average between 30 and 40 people, depending on primary school to secondary school levels. But actually, if we visit our schools, as I do regularly, you will find that in today's Singapore's education system, we have class sizes, from a few like five, all the way to 40. It all depends on the needs of the students. For the higher-needs students on both ends of the spectrum, we will tend to have smaller class sizes in order to cater to their diverse needs.

That is the first point. Today, we have a range of class sizes, there is no one-size-fits-all class size because it all depends in the needs of the students. In fact, for some of the very high-needs students, we have pull-out classes for one-to-one or one-to-two. Those are for the higher-needs students.

Having said that, let me take a step back and explain how we manage this issue of class size with the finite resources that we have. If we look at the OECD reports and if we look at many of the studies overseas, the main determinant of the quality of our education system, as I explained yesterday during the Adjournment Motion, is not necessarily the class size. The main and most important determinant of the quality of our education outcome is the quality of our teachers and how we support them to enable them to use the most effective pedagogical tools for the different types of classes.

Assuming that this is the average class size that we have resources for the entire system, how do we resource it? We cannot change the average very much because, in every society, there are only so many quality teachers that we can recruit. If we expand the numbers, we do not want to compromise the quality. So, if we cannot change the average, what we need to do is what I call, we "tilt the curve". How do we "tilt the curve"?

For the higher-need students, we have smaller class sizes to cater to their needs. But on the other hand, we must learn to leverage technologies to allow other class sizes that are not so high-needs, in order for the students to do learning on their own to complement what the teachers are teaching them. So, today, actually, there is no such thing as an average class size in our school system.

That is a mathematical concept. But in reality, we have a range of class sizes, from the smaller class sizes to the bigger class sizes, according to the specific needs of our students. And, of course, I would like to thank everyone for your support for MOE to have more resources to support our teachers. But we are very cognisant that the quality of our education outcome is much more dependent on the quality of our teachers and the support that they get, rather than just a class size issue alone.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker. My question actually follows up on this. I am very sensitive to the Minister's response that the class size alone is not a determinant and it is imperative that we also allow quality teachers to address our students. That said, as he acknowledged, it is, and I quote, "difficult to teach to the average".

While we have dedicated significant resources to both ends of the distribution, the lower-ability as well as the higher-ability end, effectively, what we are saying when we have a large class size is that we do not believe that there is enough diversity of ability within the middle of the distribution for us to actually need to have smaller class sizes.

I am wondering if the Minister would agree with me that, actually, if we have smaller class sizes, there can be greater tailoring also for the needs of the middle-ability students.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that is the wrong way to characterise what I have said. Let me explain once again and let me share what MOE is trying to do. We can all agree that the quality of our teachers is most important. We can also all agree that there is a finite number of quality teachers within any system.

MOE will be very happy to be able to recruit many more quality teachers if we can do so and we will continue to do so and expand our recruitment, whether it is from the young graduates to the mid-career people, to expand our teaching pool. But no matter how many teachers we have, it comes back to this concept – we are not applying all the teaching resources evenly to all classes.

Which class requires what class size depends on the needs of the students. It does not matter whether it is one end of the spectrum or the other end of the spectrum or in the middle. The same concept applies. Then the question is: how do we break what I call the "trilemma" of any public education system: achieve quality at scale, achieve speed of innovation and achieve affordability?

Why is it a "trilemma"? Because you can go through it in your mind, in most public education systems, you can, at most, get two out of three. If you have quality and speed, chances are that it is not so affordable. If you have quality and it is affordable, chances are that you cannot scale. If you have scale and you are affordable, chances are that the quality is not very good.

But there is a way for us to break this conventional trilemma and, that is, how we leverage technology to use an adaptive training system. Adaptive training system will be the way that we can break the conventional trilemma, where we want to achieve quality, speed and affordability. What is an example of an adaptive training system? Look at the world of gamification today.

Young people play games up to the level that they are comfortable with and they can be repeatedly stretched until they reach the next level. These same technologies are available today on the market where students with high abilities to high needs can all be taught at a level with the aid of the computer. I will give a simple example: English language learning.

In NorthLight School, there are higher-need students. They need time, they need many more practices in order to get some basic fundamentals right. In the past, it was one teacher to one child in NorthLight School. Today, the teacher can supplement his or her abilities with technology.

The child can repeat the same exercise multiple times without overly taxing the teacher, who has to focus on other students and, yet, at the same time, the child does not have to feel pressurised that he is impinging on the teacher's time nor the stigma that he is repeating the lessons. That same technology can be used for the middle- or the high-end students, where people use the same technology to improve their language proficiency, according to the levels that they are at.

So, for us, I think we need to transcend this debate about whether class size or not class size. In fact, in one of my speeches recently, which I have shared with the National Institute of Education (NIE), we give ourselves this challenge: if in medicine, in the future and now, we can produce a batch of one, that means medicine customised to the one person; in education, can we, one day, asymptotically, arrive at the holy grail, whereby our students can have the pedagogy of one?

Actually, it is not so far-fetched because the pedagogy of one means mass customisation according to the diverse abilities of our students, complemented by technology using artificial intelligence, data science and the science of learning. This is the vision of how we want to go forward to break the conventional trilemma, whereby we have finite numbers of quality teachers that will allow us to scale, achieve quality and make sure that it is affordable.

So, whether it is one end of the curve or the other end of the curve or somewhere in the middle, we will try our best to complement our best teaching resources with the best technology in order for us to mass customise accordingly to bring out the best in each of our students.

We are only at Question No 2. So, I would request for questions to be succinct and answers to be succinct as well. Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Thank you, Speaker. Allow me to have a little bit of a preamble.

Mr Leong, try to keep it short in the interest of time.

Yes. An ideal education system is one that allows a child to learn over time at his own pace, based on his ability and interest. A high-ability child should be given more stimulation, while a slow-learning one should be given more time to develop. I acknowledge that MOE has slowly moved towards that in recent years. But like what Member Ms Denise Phua had said just now, I think we can do more.

The problem with our current education approach is that it is still very much focused on sorting out the students and labelling them. That has a lot of implication on the subsequent academic advancement of the child. As a result, parents play to the rules and pressure their kids, often at a very young age. So, my question to the Minister is: does the Ministry have plans to reduce the sorting and examination pressure currently experienced by our students?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think if Mr Leong Mun Wai has listened to what I said in the last half an hour, he will understand why there is a need for us to group our students of diverse abilities into groups of roughly similar abilities, in order for us to ease the load and to provide better focus in our teaching.

Our aim to allow different students to be in different groups of roughly the same ability is not to stigmatise them. It is to enable them to be in a learning environment that best suits them. Every examination – and we have been repeating this – is not a competition to compete with other people. I said in my Adjournment Motion yesterday, we want our students to keep having the mental model to surpass themselves, rather than surpass other people in an exam. To surpass themselves in life, rather than to surpass other people in an exam. How we respond, as a society, will complement what MOE is teaching. Whether a student feels stigmatised or not, we all each have a responsibility.

If we do not change our mindset, if we label our students because of the classes that they go to, then we have failed our students and no amount of policy or structural change will help us. The reason why we have Full Subject-based Banding (FSBB) is because we have moved away from grouping students of average abilities together. We do not look at people and say: you are gifted, means you are gifted in everything; you are average, means you are average in everything.

We know that different people have different strengths and this is the spirit behind FSBB. This is the spirit behind what we do in the education system: allow every student to understand each and every of their strengths and weaknesses; know and have in them the mindset that, "while I may be strong in something, I need not be strong in everything and I must respect other people who are strong in other things that are different from me". Together, with our diversity of strengths, we can build a better Singapore.

Last supplementary question. Apologies to Mr Liang, I will give it to Mr Darryl David.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to just ask a supplementary question on a very important point that the Minister made in his opening answer. The Minister mentioned that the students who are going to be selected for the enhanced abilities stream, we should not see this enhanced abilities stream in a way as a kind of streaming that will allow them added advantage for their mainstream subjects. I think this is key.

So, could the Minister share how MOE would design the curriculum of the programme, such that the students who are selected for this programme, that it will not be a programme that will allow them to have added advantage, say, in their English and Mathematics at the Primary School Leaving Examination, should they be selected for the English and Mathematics enhanced stream, or the enhanced programme for these two subjects?

Mr Speaker, Sir, indeed, the selection of all these higher-ability programmes is not to help the students to better prepare for the conventional exams. So, let me say that again. The purpose of selection for these higher-ability, or differently-abled students, is not to better prepare them for the conventional exams. They, on their own, would have done very well for their conventional exams. Our role is to provide them with more opportunities to stretch their abilities in different dimensions.

Let me give an example. If someone is selected for the English programme, that person may be highly, more able in languages and we would like to expose them to different genres of literature, expose them to different kinds of linguistic issues that might challenge them, might stretch their abilities. Likewise, for Mathematics, we may expose the student to different kinds of concepts, different kinds of challenges to see how they respond to these.

We want to make sure that the student understands that when they join a module, there is no stigma to leave the module if they find it unsuitable for themselves or if they want to go and take time to pursue other things during that phase of their life. We want everyone to understand that when you are chosen, you have certain abilities in certain areas. But that does not mean that they have abilities in all areas. So, neither should the student feel, "I must excel in all areas just because I have been chosen".

Finally, I might say this. I have thought very hard and I have not come to an answer yet, because I think whenever we use the phrases "higher-ability programme", "gifted programme", there seems to be a suggestion that, somehow, if there is a high, there must be a low. If you are gifted, there must be a non-gifted. Maybe we should just reframe our mind and say there are different types of abilities, different dimensions of abilities; not whether it is high, whether it is low, left, right, front, centre.

Those are not very helpful. Let us help our children understand and appreciate their diverse abilities, find confidence in developing those abilities so that, in time to come, they can make the best use of those abilities to make a contribution to Singapore.

3 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education whether there are any plans to improve existing well-being-related resources for special education teachers to address stress and burnout risks.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many of us know that the work of our special education (SPED) teachers is emotionally and physically taxing, and we are thankful for their strong commitment. The Ministry of Education (MOE) works closely with the social service agencies (SSAs) running SPED schools to support our teachers' well-being.

In the immediate term, SPED schools will implement the Journeys of Excellence Package. This package was developed by MOE in collaboration with SPED schools and includes funding support for competitive salaries and professional development support to enhance the professionalism of teachers. SPED schools will also appoint a school staff developer to look after the learning needs of our teachers. This package will strengthen the hiring and retention of teachers to help address the high workload in our SPED schools.

SPED schools are also implementing measures to further improve teachers' workload and well-being. Parents are reminded to respect teachers' personal time outside of working hours. During the school holidays, teaching staff are given protected time to recharge. Teachers can also reach out to their school leaders directly for support, including to raise concerns or seek advice.

More importantly, in the medium to longer term, MOE is working with the SSAs and SPED schools on the following efforts, as they may be more effective at the sector level, rather than the individual school level.

First, MOE will work with SSAs and SPED schools to deepen the professional capabilities in our SPED teachers and leaders with deep knowledge and practice in curriculum and some specialisation in the various disability profiles. To be effective, this will be done collectively across the SSAs and SPED schools, rather than each school developing its expertise on its own. This is also a more systematic approach to support the professional development of our SPED teachers and leaders. I look forward to the various SPED schools, serving the same segment of special needs, coming together to lead these Communities of Practice and share their best practices.

Second, SPED educators have told me that it is not easy to take time off work to go for training and professional development. MOE will work with our SPED Schools and SSAs to jointly develop a pool of relief teachers who can step in when needed, so that SPED teachers can go for training and be supported when they need to be away for other reasons such as medical or urgent leave.

Third, to strengthen their manpower resourcing, MOE will explore working with SPED schools to do joint marketing as a sector to better recruit teachers and improve their human resource management and processes. I look forward to working with our SSAs and SPED schools to make the career of our SPED teachers as respected, as professionally enriching and as personally satisfying as being a mainstream teacher. Where SPED teachers and leaders can have the confidence that their progression and development will parallel that of our mainstream teachers as a system at the sector level, rather than just within a SPED school.

Fourth, MOE is also in discussions with SPED schools and SSAs on how we can provide mainstream and SPED teachers with the opportunities to learn from each other, either through attachments or possibly even rotations, so as to appreciate other student profiles and contexts. This is similar to the current arrangement where we have teachers from MOE schools seconded to SPED schools.

Fifth, MOE will work with the SSAs to see how we can better achieve economies of scale in administration and infrastructure support, without losing the nimbleness required to cater to the unique needs for the respective SPED schools.

Just as in the mainstream education sector, teachers are key in the SPED sector. We must continue to take care of our SPED teachers and strengthen the professional capabilities in SPED so that SPED students can grow up to be active in the community or the workplace and valued by society. Achieving this will require the collective effort of the SSAs and SPED schools, which MOE is committed to support.

The key to managing the workload must be our ability to grow and work together, not just on the quantity of our SPED teachers, but also the quality of our SPED teachers, beyond the respective SPED school level. I am glad to share that we have gotten in-principle support from our SPED school community to work towards these collective goals as a sector.

Mr Patrick Tay.

Thank you to the Minister for sharing on how we can upgrade the SPED fraternity. Just two supplementary questions. Firstly, many of our SPED teachers are exposed to a lot of risks, including physical risks. How is MOE stepping to mitigate that? Secondly, is MOE already working with mental health, trained professionals to better look after the mental well-being and stress burnout of our SPED educators?

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me address the two supplementary questions from Mr Patrick Tay. On the second issue, yes, MOE is making available and expanding our resources available to all our teachers from both mainstream and SPED schools to see how we can better help them manage their mental health, because only with well-balanced happy teachers, will we have well-balanced and happy students.

On the first issue, yes, we acknowledge that for some of the SPED schools, the physical risks to our teachers can be much higher than the rest. And we will have to tackle these issues in various ways. First, it will be the kind of teaching support that we give to our teachers. Second, it is the kind of training that we give to our teachers and the Allied Professionals. And third, it is the kind of infrastructure design that we have in order to allow our teachers to have the comfort and the peace of mind that should something happen, there are ways that we can support them. This can range from rooms for the child who is having a meltdown to calm down, to places whereby our teachers can also have a respite from their duties, taking care of the special needs children, who are also very high-needs children.

Ms Denise Phua.

I need to declare that I am a volunteer helping two special schools. It is true that burnout, physical risks are quite common amongst the SPED schools. And, in fact, a number of the staff are female; so, where physical risk is involved, they are, indeed, at risk. So, we need to make sure that we protect them.

My second point is, the Journeys of Excellence Package that was mentioned by the Minister, covers mostly SPED teachers. But within the SPED schools setting, there are speech pathologists, occupational therapists, coaches and psychologists. Many of them work in the exact same setting. In fact, they handle even higher risk or more challenging cases. So, we must include them in whatever we come up with, in terms of the excellence for SPED schools.

My third point is also with the increase in parental leave, maternity leave and so forth, which we must support at the national level, we have also increased the workload of many of the SPED staff, because it is not easy to just create or develop a relief pool who can just move into the class and replace the usual staff. So, there are issues which are of concern in the SPED school setting.

I know it is important and I thank the Minister for saying that you have formed a group to look into these, but can this group who looks into these issues include the other non-teachers, the other staff as well. And also, look at the best in the world, best in class resources and hear from the staff themselves as to what might be useful when developing these packages of help.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Ms Denise Phua for the three points. We agree with the three points. The first point is that we are indeed looking at the non-teaching staff as part of the entire ecosystem. So, I want to assure everyone that it is not that we are just looking at the SPED or the mainstream teachers alone. Both the SPED and the mainstream sectors, both the teachers and the non-teaching staff, we are looking at it holistically, because they all form the collective community who take care of our children, SPED or otherwise. That is the first point.

Second, indeed, one of the reasons why we want to form these Communities of Practice is because the SPED specialisations are much more finely calibrated than in the mainstream schools. This is where a different SPED profile will require teachers with different background and training. We have collective agreement with all the SPED schools and the SSAs that we must come together. We can no longer just operate as a fragmented sector, where each and every one of us are just trying to do the best for ourselves. That, in itself, is necessary, but not sufficient. We need to come together as a sector and ask ourselves, how can we share the best practices and also learn from other countries where there are better or different practices from us.

For example, even just within autism, Ms Denise Phua will know that there is a wide spectrum of different needs, from mild to serious. There are also different intervention techniques. We want to be able to level up the professional competencies of our SPED school teachers and community, and this is why coming together, having each other as partners in the journey is so important to levelling up the competencies and professionalism of our SPED sector.

Last but not least, the third point. MOE, both for the mainstream schools and in the SPED schools, is keenly aware that the increase in shared parental leave and other leave schemes will have an impact on our workforce because many of the people at the child-bearing age are with us in MOE and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF). I think we are the largest shareholder in this segment of the population.

Having said that, that is why we need to make sure that we put in place measures, particularly, in the SPED schools, to make sure that we have a pool of relief teachers who can come in and help our SPED teachers when they need to go on leave – if they go on maternity leave, on urgent medical leave, or if they just have to take some time off to go and attend courses.

But I must say this, and we need the support of everyone here, because finding relief teachers to come into the SPED schools is one order of magnitude more difficult than finding relief teachers for the mainstream schools. A Math teacher can go in and teach Math in a larger number of mainstream schools. A SPED teacher that specialises in a special needs profile is more likely to only be able to cater to that profile of students and their needs. So, for us to build up that pool, it is not something that is easy, but it is something that MOE is committed to working on with MSF, the SSAs and our SPED schools, to build this up progressively. I look forward to everyone's support.

4 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport what is the Government’s assessment on whether the Point-to-Point Transport sector’s current capacity is sustainable in the long term.

5 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Government monitors the trend in the number of drivers in the Point-to-Point (P2P) sector on the road in the past year; and (b) if so, what is its assessment on how the supply of P2P drivers compares with the demand for their services.

6 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry monitors the earnings of point-to-point (P2P) taxi and private hire car drivers; (b) if so, what is the average trip fare earned by such drivers in the second quarter of 2024; and (c) how does this compare to previous quarters in 2023.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 4 to 6 in today's Order Paper together?

Yes, please do.

Thank you. The point-to-point transport, or P2P, sector complements our public transport network, with an average of 606,000 daily trips made by some 67,000 taxis and chauffeured private hire cars, or PHCs, in 2023. We watch developments in this sector closely, but the Government does not set fares for the P2P sector, as these are determined by the P2P operators, based on market competition.

We also do not cap the number of P2P drivers, but instead allow the supply of P2P drivers to move in tandem with commuter demand and price signals. The appropriate level of supply for the sector depends on the level of commuter demand and the fares that they are willing to pay. When demand is higher and fares increase, we can expect more drivers to enter the market. Conversely, when there is an excess supply of drivers, fares will drop and some drivers may decide to exit the market.

Following the easing of COVID-19 measures in March and April 2022, demand for P2P services rose along with other transport services, which led to higher fares from surge pricing. In the past two years, P2P operators had also adjusted fares to help drivers cope with higher operating and fuel costs, such as the temporary driver's fee implemented by ride-hail operators and the increase in taxi fares and surcharges by street-hail operators.

In response to higher fares, more drivers entered the market. Between the second quarter of 2023 and the second quarter of 2024, the number of active PHCs and taxis increased by 8%. However, the average daily number of P2P trips increased by only 1% during the same period.

As a result, P2P fares and consequently drivers' earnings have moderated. From a peak at the start of 2023, average surge prices and net ride-hail fares had declined in the first half of 2023, back to levels we saw in the first half of 2022.

P2P fares are also subject to seasonal fluctuations in demand. In months where there are major events, such as the Taylor Swift and Coldplay concerts in the first quarter of 2024, or during festive seasons, such as Chinese New Year, there tends to be an increase in travel among locals and visitors, which leads to higher P2P demand and higher fares. Conversely, demand tends to decline during the school holidays where many Singaporeans are abroad. These seasonal effects are another source of fluctuations in drivers' income.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) understands the concerns of the affected P2P drivers. As part of the ongoing P2P review, we will continue to look at ways to support the smooth and efficient functioning of the market. These include measures to reduce operating costs, such as the extension of the statutory lifespan for taxis, which we announced earlier this year. The operators should pass through these cost savings to drivers via lower rentals. Some drivers have also voiced concerns about foreign vehicles providing illegal P2P services which affect demand. LTA has stepped up enforcement against these errant drivers in recent months and will continue to do so.

For drivers who are considering alternative forms of employment, we will also work with the operators and the Labour Movement to assist them. These drivers can tap on various Government programmes to support their career transition, such as the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme.

Mr Desmond Choo.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for her very comprehensive reply. I have two supplementary questions.

The first is on the feedback from taxi and PHC drivers. They have told the Labour Movement that over the last six months especially, their earnings and bookings have dropped by more than 30%. They certainly understand that market forces are at work, but they also hope to have the Ministry's view on how it can support the P2P drivers during times of protracted low fares. How do we balance between adequate supply and the livelihoods of these drivers? And secondly, in establishing the optimal capacity for P2P vis-a-vis other public transportation modes, what are the key considerations by the Ministry?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. On the first question, as I have said earlier in my reply, the supply of drivers has increased much faster than the increase in the number of trips over the last one year till the second quarter of this year. That obviously means that some drivers will see a decline in earnings.

But we need to take this in context in terms of the P2P market trends since the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, in the middle of 2022, the situation was reversed. That was a time when the demand for P2P services increased significantly, when many of the P2P drivers had not returned back to the market. So, we saw higher fares and hence, higher drivers' earnings, and commuters actually faced difficulties in getting a ride. But as more drivers enter the market, the mismatch between demand and supply has moderated. P2P is fundamentally a demand-responsive transport mode and changes in fares are a reflection of the market forces at work.

While average fares have declined in recent months, there are fluctuations across the year. So, there are times when fares do peak, as I have said, when there are major events or during festive seasons. Even during the day itself, there are periods when demand is high and drivers see higher surge prices. Hence, it is important to look at total earnings across time instead of just lower fare periods.

Having said that, as I have noted, we understand the concerns of the drivers. So, what the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and LTA do are to make sure that we enable the drivers to be able to make informed decisions, decide on when to drive and what rides to take. And to do that, our regulations on the operators in terms of transparency for commission as well as fares charged on the drivers and commuters, that is important. Also, our rules regarding multi-homing are to ensure that the drivers are not locked into any operators' platform. Therefore, they can then decide which platform to use to maximise their earnings, based on their driving preferences. That is the way we ensure that fares really reflect the value of P2P services and that the drivers are paid fairly for their efforts.

In our ongoing P2P review, we will continue to look at ways to see how we can ensure the smooth and efficient functioning of the market and reduce friction, so that existing as well as new drivers can stay in the sector to match evolving demand.

With regard to optimal supply, as I have said, we do not limit the supply of drivers or the number of drivers that come into the market. So, the optimal supply will depend on evolving demand. In our case, when there is an ageing population, because P2P actually complements the mass public transport sector, one of the options or demands that P2P can meet is, like taking the elderly patients for medical check-ups and so on. We think that demand could rise from seniors and caregivers for P2P services as the population ages.

But at the same time, because we will continue to improve and expand on our public transport system, and if more households are within a shorter distance from an Mass Rapid Transit station, that could negatively impact on P2P demand within that area. So, instead of pre-determining supply, again, what we want to do is to ensure that the P2P sector remains open and dynamic so that the market remains contestable for new and innovative players so that there is competition.

Also, if drivers wish to enter the market, they will be subjected to very reasonable vocational licensing requirements as well as access to vehicles. And as I have said, coupled with our regulations about transparent commissions and fares as well as multi-homing rules, that will help to ensure that supply will adjust to demand.

Ms Jean See.

I just wanted to touch on the point on the projection of demand. One of the things which is quite challenging is relating to projected demand. As drivers tend to rent vehicles and for the vehicle rental contracts, for these to be sustainable, it is typically for a six-month period or longer. I have two supplementary questions.

One, what measures can MOT introduce to help P2P drivers have better visibility of projected demand?

The second is relating to the vehicle leasing contracts, they are sometimes crafted in a way that makes it difficult for the drivers to exit the contracts. So, would the Government consider providing affordable mediation to assist drivers who are locked into such unfair leasing contracts?

I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. As I have said earlier in my reply, we do not pre-determine supply. It is a market-based approach. What we do is to help the market function, as much as possible, efficiently and smoothly, so that supply responds to demand based on price signals.

For the drivers, we have constant dialogue with the associations, the Labour Movement as well as the operators, and also look into information that is provided by the P2P operators to see how we can help to ensure that supply will match evolving demand.

As I have said, we are undertaking a P2P review and one of the things that we are looking at is how to ensure that supply will continue to match evolving demand, including, for instance, looking even at our regulations and rules about how operators can make sure that their commissions and fares are transparent, and how we can ensure that the drivers are not locked into any platform of the operators, whether these rules and regulations need to be refined, as well as those that we have already announced earlier at the Committee of Supply.

With regard to vehicle contracts, indeed, we have also been talking to the associations and operators to look at how we can assist, educate and enlighten prospective drivers to be aware of the contracts that they take up with the car rental companies, for instance,. And we will continue the conversation and see how we can assist.

I am moving things along. Sorry, Mr Ang Wei Neng. Next question, Ms Hany Soh.

7 Ms Hany Soh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with regard to the new shared parental leave scheme (NSPL) announced on 18 August 2024 (a) what is the rationale for commencing the NSPL on 1 April 2025; (b) whether the Government will consider bringing forward the NSPL commencement date to 2024; and (c) if the commencement date cannot be brought forward, whether there are alternative support measures available to prospective parents who will otherwise miss out on the NSPL benefits.

8 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what are the planned efforts with the tripartite partners to drive support for the new shared parental leave scheme, especially on the utilisation of paternity leave.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Parliamentary Question Nos 7 and 8 together?

Yes, please.

Thank you. The new Shared Parental Leave (SPL) scheme is a significant enhancement of our parental leave provisions, providing 10 additional weeks of paid leave that can be shared between both parents to care for their infant.

The implementation date of 1 April 2025 was set after extensive consultation with the tripartite partners. We had considered implementing the new scheme earlier so that more parents can benefit. However, employers had requested for a longer lead time to prepare for this change, as companies need to update their administrative processes and to put in place new measures to manage their employees’ extended absences. This is especially so because the new SPL scheme involves a leave-sharing feature, which requires coordination between both parents and their respective employers. Time is also needed for the Government to effect various legislative and operational changes.

We fully understand that parents who miss out on the enhancements could feel disappointed. However, the deferred start date is necessary to ensure that all stakeholders involved are ready to implement the changes. Implementing the new SPL from 1 April 2025 strikes a balance between giving employers sufficient time to make the necessary adjustments in this tight labour market and allowing parents to benefit from the enhancements as soon as possible. As such, we are not able to bring forward the implementation date.

Parents whose babies are born before 1 April 2025 will still be eligible for comprehensive support under the Marriage and Parenthood package. These include the recent enhancements to the Baby Bonus Scheme that provides for higher financial support, as well as the doubling of Government-Paid Paternity Leave, on a voluntary basis, and Unpaid Infant Care Leave since 1 January 2024 to give parents more time to care for their newborn or to settle caregiving arrangements.

During this transition period, before the new SPL takes effect, we encourage employers to update their manpower and business approaches to facilitate more progressive workplace practices and to foster a more family-friendly culture. Employers who can provide more than the current legislated provisions, whether in the form of leave or other support, are encouraged to do so as this can position them as employers of choice.

The Government will continue to work closely with the tripartite partners to support the implementation of the enhanced parental leave provisions. We will organise webinars for employers to understand the operational details of the scheme and to provide more information on existing grants and resources employers can tap on to strengthen their manpower planning capabilities and to support their operational and system adjustments.

Our research has shown that utilisation of parental leave is often dependent on workplace support. We will work with the tripartite partners to shape workplace norms and culture, including to establish the norm of fathers taking leave to care for and bond with their infants.

We will also emphasise the need for good communication and responsible behaviour on the part of both employers and employees. Employees should be mindful of their employers’ operational needs and act responsibly by informing their employers as early as possible once they know that they are expecting a child. Employers, on their part, should be facilitative and supportive of employees’ parental leave plans. Employers and employees should work together to put in place covering arrangements that best meet the needs and constraints on both sides.

We need to work together as a society to create a culture that embraces families and children, and supports fathers in playing a greater role in child-raising while meeting employers’ needs. Together, let us build a Singapore Made For Families.

Ms Hany Soh.

I thank Minister Indranee for the response. I believe there are a lot of employers out there who welcome these ideas and are thinking of ways on how to adopt them. But on the other hand, there will also be employers who adopt a wait-and-see situation to see how the situation develops by the time the implementation is in place next year.

So, I am thinking, whether the Government is working closely with the tripartite partners to identify the good practices of current and existing employers or those who are already ready to adopt these practices to share and amplify such good practices, so as to encourage more employers to come onboard and embrace this in time and ahead of the timelines?

I thank Ms Hany Soh for her supplementary question. The answer is, yes, we are working with the employers and the unions on this. In fact, I think the point Ms Soh made was that some employers may not be acting proactively, they may adopt a wait-and-see approach. But what employers should bear in mind is that come 1 April 2025, it is mandatory, it comes into effect.

So, they should use the time between now and 1 April 2025 to get their processes in place. In fact, that start date of 1 April 2025 was at the request of the Singapore National Employers' Federation and the other employers that we spoke to – because they needed the time to put this in place. We are also, as I mentioned earlier, conducting webinars for the employers because many of the employers do have questions. In the engagements that I have had with them, I found that many of the questions are actually operational ones. They are the detailed, technical ones and sometimes, they ask what happens in this situation, what happens in that situation. We thought that the best way to deal with that is to have these webinars for them, so it allows all the employers to come, ask their questions and share their best practices with each other.

Mr Desmond Choo.

I thank the Minister for her reply. Just one supplementary question. Across the Labour Movement, both the younger workers appreciate the move and the older workers similarly understand the reason why this has to be done. For a workforce that is ageing and could shrink over time, the worry among the older workers or those who already have children and do not intend to have more, their worry is, "I have to cover more duties and I might need to do this for many more years to come if the Government policies work as well as they are supposed to".

So, would the Ministry provide guidance on how employers can better support these workers, the existing ones, in carrying the additional load? How can some of the support from the Government be better shared with the workers and can we expect further support for these workers?

I thank Mr Desmond Choo for his supplementary question, which is a very valid concern. Because in the post-announcement engagements that we have done, a number of employers have asked us how will they cope. Mr Choo is representing the viewpoint of the older employees; or maybe not older, because it could also be the single employees who will have to take up some of the slack.

So, there are a few things. The first thing to remember is that this is Government-Paid Parental Leave, or Shared Parental Leave, which means that the employers do not have to bear the salary for the period when the employee is on Shared Parental Leave. That means that frees up the money that they would otherwise have had to pay. With this money, you could hire other workers to come in as substitutes. That is one possible solution. Another possible solution would be, those who have to cover for their colleagues, you could pay them extra, which is fair, because they are carrying an additional load. And you remunerate and you compensate them for that. So, yes, for the period of time when their colleague is away, they have to work harder but at least you are compensating them.

We also encourage employers to continue to invest in technology and systems that would help with automation, digitalisation – anything that lightens the workload. For those, they can tap on things like the Productivity Solutions Grant and all the other grants that the Government has made available.

Finally, this is more under the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) than the Prime Minister's Office, but MOM has been putting aside training and packages that employers can tap on, for their human resource departments to know how to do this better and to plan for this. Because it is not just the Shared Parental Leave; do not forget, there is also the flexible work arrangements – all of which have a common feature, which is this flexibility and how do you replace people or cover in their absence. So, these are resources and tools which the employers can tap on.

I am trying to get as many Parliamentary Questions (PQs) to be answered today as possible. So, I will only allow Members who filed PQs to ask supplementary questions for today.

9 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education in respect of the recent cybersecurity incident involving the Mobile Guardian Device Management Application which has affected students in Singapore (a) what is the Ministry doing to help students who have had their study notes wiped out; (b) whether the Ministry has reviewed such software installed in tablets used by students to ensure that similar incidents do not recur; and (c) what necessary action will the Ministry take against the supplier of the software.

10 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Education (a) why was Mobile Guardian's device management app continued to be used after its data security breach in April 2024 which caused the exfiltration of personal data of parents and staff from 127 schools; (b) whether contingency plans were instituted prior to the loss of Internet access and classroom materials from students’ personal learning devices in July 2024 and the cybersecurity incident causing students’ devices to be remotely wiped in August 2024; and (c) whether affected students are adequately supported.

11 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education with regard to the recent cybersecurity incident involving the Mobile Guardian Device Management Application that has affected students in Singapore (a) whether an update can be provided on how the Ministry is helping students who have been affected; and (b) what steps are being taken to ensure that similar incidents do not occur again in the future.

12 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Education following the cybersecurity incident involving the Mobile Guardian application (a) what targeted support is being offered to affected students experiencing distress, particularly those with existing mental health conditions; (b) for students whose data is unrecoverable, how is the Ministry assisting them to prepare for their upcoming examinations and ensuring their access to adequate learning materials; and (c) whether examination grades for the affected students will be moderated this year.

13 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education whether there will be a review of the usage of technology by our students after the global cyber-security breach of the Mobile Guardian Device Management Application that affected our secondary students.

14 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education whether there will be a review done of our students' usage of technology for learning to assess if there has been an over-reliance on technology to the detriment of our students, including losing learning notes that the students have recorded and kept on their school-issued devices.

15 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Education (a) on what date did the Ministry first become aware of security vulnerabilities in the Mobile Guardian system; (b) what immediate steps were taken within the first 24 hours upon discovery; and (c) whether the vulnerability was immediately verified and patched, bearing in mind its critical nature and ease of exploitation and, if not, why not.

16 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there is an update to the number of students in Singapore who had their devices wiped remotely as a result of the Mobile Guardian cybersecurity breach in August 2024 and, if so, how many; (b) how many students were unable to recover their data; (c) what impact did this incident have on these students’ preparation for weighted assessments and examinations; (d) whether the Ministry has any backups of students’ data; and (e) if not, why not.

17 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education (a) how are schools managing the devices of students after the Mobile Guardian Device Management Application was removed from their devices following the security breach in August 2024; (b) whether the Ministry has plans to involve parents more in the management of their children's devices; and (c) what specific steps will the Ministry take to empower parents with the knowledge and tools to effectively manage their children's devices.

18 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there is an update on the efforts to restore devices that are affected by the Mobile Guardian system glitch and cybersecurity breach; and (b) in particular, whether students taking their national examinations have all been able to restore their devices.

19 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Education (a) how many students are unable to recover data from their devices following the Mobile Guardian cybersecurity incident in August 2024; (b) how will the Ministry assist these students; and (c) how will the Ministry manage mobile device security to prevent future incidents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take the next 11 Parliamentary Questions (PQs) together?

Yes, go ahead.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my response will cover the Oral PQs raised by Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Darryl David, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Gerald Giam, Ms He Ting Ru and Ms Hazel Poa.

In addition, I will also address two Written PQs by Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Gerald Giam, and I invite Members to seek clarifications, as needed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members have asked for the reasons behind the continued use of Mobile Guardians' Device Management Application, or DMA, after the data breach incident in April this year; details of the technical issue in July; the cybersecurity incident in August; and the support provided to affected students and our approach to using technology for teaching and learning following this episode.

Sir, let me, first, recap the purpose of the DMA.

The DMA supports students, as they learn, to use their personal learning devices (PLDs) safely and responsibly. For example, DMA blocks students' access to undesirable Internet content, such as gambling or pornography, and sets screen time limits. I will now share what happened in April and the actions taken by the Ministry of Education (MOE).

The incident in April was due to poor password management practice within Mobile Guardian, allowing the attacker to gain unauthorised access to Mobile Guardians' Management Portal, which led to the data breach. To ensure continued safe use, Mobile Guardian immediately locked down its admin accounts and mandated all account holders to change their passwords. As I had told this House in May, Mobile Guardians' Management Portal is used for administrative purposes and does not have the ability to change any configuration on students' PLDs. The Mobile Guardian app was, thus, not affected during the April incident.

MOE immediately registered strong dissatisfaction to Mobile Guardian over the incident and asked that an independent forensic investigator be appointed to evaluate Mobile Guardian systems and processes, and make recommendations to prevent a recurrence. Subsequent findings from the forensic investigator pointed to poor password management practices and Mobile Guardian responded by implementing additional security measures, such as strengthening authentication controls and fixing vulnerabilities.

These enhancements were deployed on 31 May. On the night of 30 May, a member of the public reported a potential vulnerability in the Mobile Guardian app to MOE. Our information technology (IT) security team immediately investigated the report in the morning of 31 May. However, as explained earlier, because Mobile Guardian had rolled out a patch just before, attempts to replicate the vulnerability disclosed by the member of public was not successful.

An independent certified penetration tester engaged by Mobile Guardian to conduct additional penetration tests in June further confirmed that this vulnerability reported by the member of the public, had been closed. The independent test uncovered new vulnerabilities, which Mobile Guardian had committed to fix. However, before it could complete the work, some schools started reporting, on 30 July, that some PLDs had lost the ability to connect to the Internet and, in some cases, total loss of usage.

We quickly established then that this glitch was not related to the April data breach incident, neither was it a cyberattack. Instead, it was due to a human error by a Mobile Guardian engineer, who configured a wrong expiry date, causing the app to stop working. To rectify the misconfiguration, an online update to the Mobile Guardian application was immediately deployed to all iPad users.

Five days later, on 4 August, Mobile Guardian suffered a cyberattack, which remotely wiped out the iPads of some of their global customers, including 13,000 PLDs in our schools or approximately 8% of devices used by our secondary school population. To contain the breach, Mobile Guardian immediately shut down their servers.

As a precautionary measure, MOE embarked on the systematic removal of the Mobile Guardian app from all iPad and Chromebook PLDs the next day. Our priority was to help affected students, particularly those sitting for national examinations, so that learning and revision could continue. We deployed over 300 additional IT engineers and staff to schools to help students restore their devices as well as provided instruction sheets to those students who wanted to troubleshoot their own devices.

All devices have since been restored for use last month. About one in six of the 13,000 affected PLDs lost some degree of data and less than 5% were unable to recover all their data, as their devices had previously not been backed up. During this period, schools made available hard copy learning resources while supporting students who were emotionally affected. Deadlines for assignments were extended and weighted assessments postponed, where needed.

Students can continue to access learning resources on the Singapore Student Learning Space, or SLS. Through this episode, it was most heartening to see many of our students step forward and proactively share their personal notes with classmates and organise study sessions to do revision for their tests and examinations together.

We thank the vigilant members of the public who had flagged the potential vulnerability, our colleagues in the Government Technology Agency (GovTech) and the Cybersecurity Agency (CSA), and also the media community, who rallied around MOE to give the much-needed support, which helped our students learn the positives during this incident.

MOE requires our IT service providers to keep our systems and data safe. Our forensic investigations with GovTech and CSA into the 4 August incident, found a new vulnerability in the Mobile Guardian system that could allow an individual to carry out the attack. This is a timely reminder that cyber threats can evolve quickly. While no security test can be entirely exhaustive, MOE expects its contractors to regularly assess and strengthen their system's security posture.

Due to this incident, MOE has decided to cease the use of Mobile Guardian in all PLDs. MOE has also taken legal actions against the relevant contractors. MOE is currently studying options for an alternative DMA solution for iPad and Chromebook PLDs. We will work towards rolling out the new DMA solution by the new school year in January 2025.

Until the new DMA solution is in place, schools have instituted additional processes to ensure that the PLDs are used safely and responsibly during school hours. MOE has activated web filtering through the Google Admin Console or Chromebook PLDs and through Parents Gateway, shared instructions on how to activate Apple's built-in parental controls on iPads. This way, parents can set boundaries, like screen time, routines and restrict access to unsavoury sites.

While the recent spate of incidents was highly unfortunate, this must not deter us from delivering education through technology as they enrich our students' learning experiences. We must learn to embrace educational technology in our teaching and learning so that our students grow up to be digitally savvy, able to navigate digital environments and take on the opportunities and challenges of the future.

All of us can learn from this incident. It is an important reminder for all of us to practise good digital hygiene, including the regular backing up of information.

Mr Patrick Tay.

Thank you to the Minister for the sharing. In light of the Mobile Guardian incident, what is MOE's plan moving forward, particularly, whether the Ministry is going to require or mandate students to re-install a DMA moving forward?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is yes. We would like to re-install a DMA for all devices and the reason is very simple. With the experience that we have gained, a DMA has been very helpful in helping us to deter people from entering unsavoury sites, maybe intentionally or unintentionally.

Every year, every month, not an insignificant amount of sites or attempts at entry to such sites were blocked. So, there is a need for the cybersecurity, the cyber hygiene and the cyber wellness of our students that they have such a DMA. Having said that, I would also want to say that a DMA also provides a range of options that MOE can work with parents on their desired and appropriate level of controls.

By and large, about three quarters of all parents will adopt the baseline default settings of a DMA for the devices. The other 25%, or one quarter of them, are split between some who wanted stricter controls; and some who want less strict controls. We are able to cater to the different needs of the parents.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. I can declare that there are Clementi students who are affected by this and a number could not recover some of their lost data. Can I ask the Minister two supplementary questions on behalf of these Clementi students and their parents?

Firstly, following the data breach in May 2024, the Minister in his answer mentioned that MOE required Mobile Guardian to have an independent forensic investigation. Can I ask if the forensic investigation contractor was nominated by Mobile Guardian or nominated by MOE? Did MOE have any say in the choice of the contractor to do the audit for the May 2024 data breach incident?

Secondly, Mr Speaker, in an era of outsourcing to vendors, we of course must be mindful that the cyber threat surface is no longer within just the Government domain, but also the sub-contractor domain. Can I ask the Minister if MOE is working with CSA and the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) to ensure that the same standards of cybersecurity for Government networks that face the public, these same standards are also being applied to contractors such as Mobile Guardian or whatever replaces it in the future, so that the attack surface for cyber threats is contained and has the same level of safety, regardless of whether it is a contractor or whether it is Government's own device management technology?

Mr Speaker, Sir, one short answer to the first supplementary question and a slightly longer elaboration to the second.

First, we asked Mobile Guardian to do the independent forensic investigation and we also did our own. That is the short answer. So that we can see the results of both and that is why I have explained in my answer that we have found new vulnerabilities. I want to explain that every time we do regular penetration tests, we will have to regularly update the app. It is not possible to say you do a test one time and you will be safe forever. That is not the concept in cybersecurity. Threats are emerging every day, every other moment and we have to just make sure we regularly do our checks to make sure that things are okay.

On the second question, I would rephrase what Dr Tan had said slightly differently. When you say same level of safety and security for all systems, I think that is not the right basis for us to work on. Let me explain.

The attack surface is wide in the cyber security domain. It is not possible for us to defend everywhere with the same resources, with the same level of focus. In the military, there is a saying that if you defend everywhere, you defend nowhere. In any system, whether big or small, personal or national, government or non-government, we will have to prioritise our resources to see where are the most critical areas that we need to defend against and invest more resources in.

For example, in our national framework – in a separate PQ answer, I think MDDI will share this – is that at the highest level, we have what we call the Critical Information Infrastructure, the CII. This is the type of systems we will devote the most resources to, to make sure that they are the most robust. Then, there are cascading, different levels of security required. It is a risk-based approach that we adopt. In managing our cybersecurity, from the highest CII level to the other levels, there will be different resources required, there will be different areas of focus required. We cannot be adopting the same defence posture for all the different systems. I just hope that we have a shared understanding in this House on this.

Having said that, while there might be differing levels of security and resources devoted to different systems, whenever there is an incident, it is in the collective interest of all of us to learn from it to see how the system might have been compromised or penetrated. This is why when something like that happens, we require any contractor to do their own independent forensic investigation, let us know the results. We will also do our own independent forensic to see whether the results match or whether there are blind spots that each of us may not have been able to detect prior to that.

It is a tiered and risk-based approach. I would not use the phrase that we have the same level of security and safety for all systems because I do not think that will be practical and I do not think that is the end goal of what we are trying to achieve.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Sir, our students take examinations very seriously and an erasure of years of study notes on the eve of an examination date must have been horrifying for so many of them. Because the Mobile Guardian has full control over the devices, including to remote wipe the device, it is more akin to a corporate managed device which should be regularly backed up by MOE in case of a malicious data attack. Did MOE take back-ups of the data on student devices during the time that Mobile Guardian was installed?

Secondly, the Minister mentioned that there was a Vulnerability Assessment and Penetration Test (VAPT) conducted on 30 June, after the vulnerabilities were reported by the member of the public. Was this a full VAPT and were all the vulnerabilities discovered patched before the August cyber attack?

And was there a VAPT conducted on Mobile Guardian before it was first rolled out?

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me answer the three supplementary questions in reverse order.

For any software as a system, before we acquire the system — and by the way, I think nowadays, all of us use software as a service, SAAS. Today, in all our mobile devices or otherwise, we have such things there.

Before we acquire a service, we do various tests and we make sure that the various systems are also up to the international standards. That is what we do, before we subscribe to any service. Similar to Mobile Guardian, similar to other services, we look at the price quality matrices to see which service meets our needs and is at a price that is reasonable for our needs.

The second one is that in any penetration test, be it the one in June or subsequent to it, whenever there is a penetration test and the results are found, then there will be a series of patches that will be implemented progressively to fix the issues. What we can say is that the issues that were found in June, July onwards, were progressively being fixed. Did any of this contribute directly or indirectly to the subsequent cyber attack? I will not be able to comment on this at this point in time, until the full forensic is out.

On his first supplementary question, I think it is an important lesson that in an era where we are all dependent on technology, to regularly back up our own systems. I would say that even before technology comes about, even once upon a time when we take notes with pen and paper, I think we also did the necessary back-up because it is just a good habit for us to do so.

Having said that, we also know just as how we manage our own personal devices and Government devices, there are two levels of back-up. Every one of us have to do our own individual back-up on certain parts of the notes that we want and there are also system level back-ups on the system level issues. But it will not be possible for the system to back up the individual one, all the time, because the individual, you need to decide what you want to back up. You will need to decide.

Take our smartphone as an example. I am quite sure all of us will store some things in our smartphones. We will back up what we want in a smartphone, be it photos or notes, but it would not be that Apple will back up everything for us, unless you do an auto setting for everything to be backed up onto the cloud storage.

This is the reason why most of our students, the vast majority of our students have been able to back up their notes and information on the cloud, and most of them were able to recover most of the information. There is only a very small percentage of students who were unable to recover data because they did not back up individually and those parts of the data were not backed up. The numbers, I have stated in my answer.

Mr Christopher de Souza.

This is a major issue and had major consequences. So, I would like to ask the Minister, are we over reliant on iPads and IT to the prejudice of our students and conventional teaching?

Point number two, so much is now being deflected to screen time for learning.

Point number three, I have been told that even some primary schools issue iPads to Primary 4 students.

Fourth supplementary question, I have studied this – over reliance on screen learning dulls the mind. The abacus or the calculator in the mind becomes slow. Even Minister Chan talks about doing mathematics in Cantonese in his mind.