The Paradox at the Heart of Singapore’s Education System
In October 2024, the Ministry of Education released findings from the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS 2024), and the numbers told a troubling story. Singapore’s teachers work an average of 47.3 hours per week—significantly more than the OECD average of 41 hours. Yet of those 47 hours, they spend only 17.7 hours in actual classroom teaching, compared to the OECD average of 23 hours. This gap, a full five hours less than their international peers, exposes a fundamental crisis in how teaching has evolved in Singapore’s education system.
The data reveal a profession fundamentally transformed from its core mission. While the notion of teachers spending time on non-classroom duties is not new, the scale and nature of these demands in Singapore suggests a system where the profession has been pulled in so many directions that its essential function—teaching students—now occupies less than 40 percent of a teacher’s working week. For a nation that has built its reputation on educational excellence and teacher quality, this represents a critical inflection point that demands urgent examination and action.
The Numbers Behind the Transformation
The TALIS 2024 data, drawn from a representative sample of approximately 3,500 teachers across 145 public secondary schools and 10 private secondary schools surveyed between April and August 2024, provides the most comprehensive picture of Singapore’s teaching landscape in recent years.
The headline figures are striking. Teachers in Singapore work roughly 47 hours per week during term time, an increase of one hour from the 46 hours reported in 2018. This places them six hours above the OECD average, yet remarkably, they spend two hours less on marking (down from 7 hours to 6 hours) and maintain the same administrative load (around 4 hours). This apparent paradox—working more hours but spending less time on traditionally defined teaching duties—suggests that the missing hours are being absorbed by newer, less visible forms of work.
The comparison with 2018 data reveals the exact nature of this shift. Where have these additional hours gone? According to MOE’s analysis, teachers in 2024 reported spending more time on lesson planning, student counselling (including education and career guidance), co-curricular activities, and communication with parents compared to 2018. These are not the marked tests and administrative forms that characterized teaching workload in previous decades. They represent an expansion of the teacher’s role into pastoral care, career mentorship, activity coordination, and community engagement.
Beyond the Classroom: The New Demands on Teaching
To understand the crisis embedded in these statistics, it is essential to recognize how the teaching profession has fundamentally evolved. The 29.3 hours per week that Singapore’s teachers spend outside the classroom (the difference between 47 total hours and 17.7 teaching hours) is distributed across a complex ecosystem of responsibilities that have accumulated over time, each justified as necessary, each individually reasonable, but collectively creating a profession that has expanded far beyond recognition.
Lesson Planning and Preparation: Singapore’s education system is highly structured and curriculum-driven. Teachers spend substantial time planning lessons, often with the expectation that they tailor instruction to diverse learner needs while meeting rigorous academic standards. The integration of digital technologies and AI has added new layers of complexity—teachers must now master platforms and tools in addition to traditional pedagogical preparation.
Student Counselling and Pastoral Care: In recent years, Singapore’s education system has placed increasing emphasis on student well-being, mental health, and holistic development. This represents a philosophical shift from exam-driven education toward a more comprehensive view of student development. Teachers have been assigned responsibilities traditionally held by counsellors, such as detecting early warning signs of distress, providing initial emotional support, and coordinating with parents and external agencies. These duties are deeply important but fall outside the teacher’s area of formal expertise and require emotional labor that traditional teaching preparation never addressed.
Co-curricular Activities: Schools increasingly expect teachers to serve as mentors, supervisors, and organizers of student clubs, community service projects, and extracurricular programs. While these activities enriched student experience, they represent a substantial time commitment, often conducted outside regular teaching hours.
Parent Communication and Engagement: The modern school landscape involves far greater parent engagement than previous generations. Teachers manage emails, messaging platforms, parent-teacher meetings, and increasingly, WhatsApp groups and other instant messaging systems. The boundaries between school and home have become blurred, with communications extending into evenings and weekends.
Administrative Tasks and Compliance: Despite efforts to streamline, teachers still spend approximately 4 hours per week on administrative work. This includes attendance records, grade recording, submission of reports, and compliance with various school and ministry initiatives. While marking time has decreased, the administrative burden has remained stubbornly constant.
Professional Development and AI Integration: A remarkable 76 percent of Singapore teachers have participated in professional development on using AI for teaching and learning, far exceeding the OECD average of 38 percent. While this investment in teacher capability is commendable, the time required to develop competence with AI tools, adapt lesson plans for technology integration, and evaluate new platforms represents a significant workload investment.
The Geographic and Contextual Factors Unique to Singapore
Singapore presents a distinctive context that compounds these pressures. As a small, wealthy nation with a highly competitive education system, the country faces particular constraints and demands that intensify teacher workload in ways not necessarily experienced to the same degree in larger systems.
Population Density and Urbanization: Singapore’s concentrated population and prosperous economy create high parental expectations and significant demand for educational excellence. Parents, many of whom are highly educated professionals, maintain high engagement with schools and often expect personalized attention for their children. This intensity of parental involvement translates directly into greater demands on teachers’ time for communication, consultation, and explanation of curricula and progress.
Economic Competitiveness and Career Pressure: Singapore’s small population and competitive economy mean that educational performance is viewed as directly linked to national competitiveness. This creates systemic pressure throughout the education system to maintain high standards, develop multiple skills in students, and ensure that graduates are globally competitive. Teachers are expected to develop students not just academically, but in character, leadership, and technical skills, all of which expand their responsibilities.
Rapid Technological Integration: Singapore’s status as a highly developed, technology-forward nation means that schools and MOE are early adopters of educational technology. The Singapore Student Learning Space (SLS), AI assessment tools, digital platforms, and hybrid learning modalities are now embedded in routine practice. Teachers must maintain competence with these systems in addition to traditional teaching skills, creating an additional layer of professional responsibility.
Small System, High Visibility: As a small education system, Singapore’s MOE can implement systematic initiatives across all schools with relative ease, but this also means that every new policy initiative, every new framework, and every new pedagogical approach is rapidly diffused throughout the system. Teachers do not have the luxury of gradual adoption or selective implementation—they must adapt quickly to system-wide changes.
The Impact on Teacher Retention and Professional Well-being
Despite the demanding workload, the TALIS 2024 data reveal a nuanced picture regarding teacher retention. Twenty-nine percent of Singapore’s teachers reported an intention to leave teaching, which is actually comparable to the global average of 27 percent and represents stability compared to 2018, when 30 percent reported intentions to leave.
However, this statistic masks important underlying trends. The primary reasons teachers cite for leaving are revealing. Seventy-one percent cite personal or family matters, 50 percent express interest in pursuing further education, and 46 percent mention moving to a non-teaching position within education. The first reason—personal or family matters—is particularly significant in Singapore’s context. With teachers working 47 hours per week and many of those hours falling outside the standard 8.5-hour school day, the work-life balance implications are profound. Teachers struggling to manage family responsibilities in the context of long working hours may attribute their departure to “personal reasons,” but the underlying cause is often the inflexible demands of the profession.
Most concerning is the 50 percent who express interest in pursuing further education as a reason for leaving. This suggests that many Singapore teachers view leaving the profession as an opportunity to invest in themselves—pursuing higher qualifications, developing new skills, or changing career direction. This indicates a profession that may be experienced as limiting professional growth, despite MOE’s significant investment in ongoing professional development.
Moreover, the data on intentions to leave must be contextualized within Singapore’s teaching population. While 29 percent is within the international range, Singapore’s particular advantage in teaching recruitment lies in the high social standing of teachers and the perception of teaching as an attractive career. Seventy-five percent of Singapore’s teachers indicated that teaching was their first-choice career, and 87 percent report satisfaction with their jobs. Yet maintaining satisfaction and retention while workload intensifies is a delicate balance. The system is currently holding, but the long-term sustainability remains uncertain.
The Complex Effects on Teaching and Learning Quality
One of the most significant implications of the reduced classroom teaching time is its potential impact on teaching and learning quality. With only 17.7 hours per week on classroom instruction, teachers have less time to know their students deeply, to diagnose learning gaps, to provide individualized feedback, and to develop the kind of responsive teaching that research suggests is most effective.
The relationship between teacher workload and instructional quality is not linear—a teacher may teach fewer hours but teach them very effectively. However, when non-teaching duties consume nearly 30 hours per week, the cognitive and emotional resources available for classroom instruction inevitably diminish. Teachers experiencing high levels of stress and fatigue, as reflected in TALIS 2024 data (which identified administrative duties and marking as main sources of stress), are less likely to employ innovative teaching strategies, engage in dynamic interactions with students, or maintain the patience and presence that characterize excellent teaching.
Furthermore, the extensive time spent on pastoral care, while important for student well-being, means that teaching specialists are functioning as quasi-counsellors without formal training in mental health. This can lead to missed opportunities for expert support and may place teachers in positions where they are delivering services that would be better provided by trained mental health professionals.
MOE’s Response: Incremental Measures or Systemic Reform?
The Ministry of Education has implemented several initiatives designed to alleviate workload pressures. These include piloting a feature in Parents Gateway to allow electronic submission of documents, establishing clearer guidelines for after-hours communication between teachers and parents, investing in automated marking features and AI assessment tools in the Singapore Student Learning Space (SLS), and working with schools on workload management strategies.
These measures are well-intentioned and address specific pain points. Reducing the administrative burden of document collection and establishing boundaries on after-hours communication are practical steps that can incrementally reduce workload. However, they represent incremental adjustments rather than systemic reform. They do not address the fundamental question: What is the core purpose of teaching in Singapore’s education system, and how should the profession be organized to achieve that purpose?
The data suggesting that teachers spend time on student counselling, career guidance, and co-curricular activities suggests that society has decided that teachers should be responsible for these functions. Yet this decision has been made incrementally, through the accumulation of various policies and expectations, rather than through deliberate redesign of the profession. There is no coherent philosophy driving the current structure of teaching work—it is rather the residue of successive additions to the teacher’s role without corresponding subtractions.
International Comparisons and Alternative Models
Examining how other high-performing education systems manage teacher workload provides useful perspective. The OECD average of 23 hours per week spent on classroom teaching suggests that teachers in other systems are maintaining a more balanced allocation of time between direct instruction and other professional activities. This does not necessarily mean that teachers in those systems work fewer hours overall, but rather that their additional hours are distributed differently.
Finland’s education system, often cited as a model for teacher professionalism and well-being, operates on a principle of concentrated classroom teaching time with protected planning periods, professional autonomy in curriculum decisions, and a strong culture of teacher collaboration. Teachers in Finland work reasonable hours and maintain high job satisfaction, yet Finnish students perform exceptionally well on international assessments. This model suggests that maintaining classroom teaching time as the central professional activity, while providing adequate support for planning and collaboration, can achieve both teacher well-being and educational excellence.
Germany’s dual system of education, combining academic and vocational pathways, employs teachers who specialize in specific tracks and have more focused roles. This specialization allows for greater depth in subject expertise and more manageable workloads compared to generalist teachers who teach multiple subjects and manage diverse learner needs.
Singapore’s education system, by contrast, emphasizes breadth of teacher capability and comprehensive student development. Teachers are expected to teach multiple subjects at the secondary level (or multiple learning areas at the primary level), mentor students, coordinate activities, and contribute to school-wide initiatives. While this model has advantages in terms of teacher versatility and student relationships, it also creates inherent complexity and multiplicity in the teacher’s role.
The Particular Challenge for Young Teachers
The Straits Times article that prompted this analysis focused specifically on young teachers and their likely longevity in the profession. This focus is particularly important because young teachers face unique challenges in managing an expanded professional role.
Early career teachers are still developing pedagogical expertise and confidence in classroom management. The significant time demands outside the classroom can be especially overwhelming for novice teachers who are still establishing themselves in their core role. The TALIS 2024 data indicates that 42 percent of novice teachers in Singapore have an assigned mentor (compared to 26 percent in OECD countries), which is a positive support mechanism. However, mentoring, however, valuable, cannot fully compensate for the time pressures that novice teachers face.
Young teachers also typically have fewer established systems and shortcuts for managing routine tasks. Experienced teachers develop efficient approaches to planning, marking, and administrative work that reduce the time these activities consume. Young teachers are still developing these efficiencies and may find themselves working longer hours than their experienced colleagues while producing similar outputs. This can be demoralizing and may contribute to the perception that the profession is unsustainable.
Additionally, young teachers are more likely to be at the stage of life when they are establishing families, pursuing further education, or exploring alternative career options. The constraints imposed by a 47-hour work week can make it difficult to pursue these life goals, contributing to the departure from teaching that occurs in the early years of the profession.
The Path Forward: Towards Systemic Reform
The TALIS 2024 data reveals a profession in need of fundamental reflection about its purpose and structure. Several potential approaches could address the current challenges:
Refocusing on Core Teaching Responsibilities: The education system could explicitly define teaching as centered on classroom instruction and learning facilitation, with other functions—pastoral care, career guidance, administrative coordination—assigned to specialized roles or shared through school-wide systems. This would require a philosophical shift away from the model of the teacher as an all-purpose educator toward a model of the teacher as an instructional specialist.
Expanding School-Based Support Roles: Rather than expecting classroom teachers to handle pastoral care and counselling, schools could employ dedicated counsellors, social workers, and support specialists. This model recognizes that diverse expertise is needed to serve the whole student, and that these roles are better filled by trained specialists than by classroom teachers adding to their already extensive responsibilities.
Redesigning Professional Development: Rather than adding new professional development obligations to teachers’ plates (such as AI integration), the system could move toward more efficient models of teacher learning, such as job-embedded professional development conducted during school hours, or structured collaboration periods where teachers learn from each other.
Restructuring School Calendars and Time: The traditional school calendar, with lengthy holidays and concentrated teaching hours during school sessions, could be reconsidered. Alternative structures, such as year-round schooling with staggered holidays, could potentially distribute teacher workload more evenly throughout the year and reduce the intensity of demands during term time.
Creating Alternative Teaching Roles: The system could develop a range of teaching roles with different expectations and configurations. Some teachers might work full-time in classroom instruction with limited additional responsibilities, while others might transition into leadership roles that involve less direct teaching but more administrative and mentoring work. This would allow for different career trajectories and accommodate varying life circumstances.
Establishing Clear Boundaries: MOE’s move to establish guidelines for after-hours communication is a step in this direction, but clearer boundaries are needed around which tasks are and are not the responsibility of classroom teachers, which tasks can be conducted outside designated work hours, and how workload will be monitored to ensure it remains within sustainable bounds.
Conclusion: The Urgency of Professional Sustainability
Singapore’s education system stands at a crossroads. The TALIS 2024 data paint a picture of a profession populated by dedicated professionals who love their work, feel valued by society, and maintain high job satisfaction despite substantial workload pressures. The system’s ability to attract excellent teachers and maintain high standards is evident in the data. Yet beneath the surface satisfaction lie unsustainable pressures that threaten the profession’s long-term viability.
The fact that teachers spend only 17.7 hours per week teaching, despite working 47 hours per week, is not primarily a problem of inefficiency or poor time management. It reflects deliberate policy choices that have assigned teachers responsibilities far beyond classroom instruction. Each of these responsibilities—student counselling, career guidance, co-curricular coordination, parent engagement—is justifiable on its own. Yet collectively, they have created a role so broad that it is difficult to execute any aspect of it excellently.
The challenge for Singapore’s education system is not to add more initiatives or more professional development, but to make hard choices about what teaching should be and to design the profession accordingly. This requires acknowledging that teachers cannot do everything and that some functions currently assigned to teachers might be better served through alternative structures or specialist roles.
For young teachers entering the profession, the current structure presents particular challenges. The ability to attract and retain excellent early-career teachers will depend on whether the system can create a sustainable professional environment where teaching remains the central activity, and where the professionalization of teachers is enhanced rather than diluted by ever-expanding collateral responsibilities.
Singapore has built an education system of which it can be justifiably proud. The quality of its teachers, the performance of its students, and the system’s ability to continuously adapt and innovate are all internationally recognized. Yet excellence built on the unsustainable effort of exhausted professionals is not truly sustainable. The moment has come for the system to reflect deeply on how to sustain both excellence and the well-being of the professionals who make that excellence possible.
On October 11, 2025, Coordinating Minister for Social Policies Ong Ye Kung addressed recipients of the Anugerah Mendaki awards at the NUS University Cultural Centre, outlining Singapore’s educational trajectory and the nation’s commitment to evolving its education system for future challenges. His remarks, delivered to 529 award-winning Malay/Muslim students and their families, offer profound insights into how Singapore views education as a foundational pillar of national development and social cohesion. This analysis examines the significance of his statements within the broader context of Singapore’s development strategy and their implications for the nation’s future.
Education as Singapore’s Social Equaliser
Minister Ong’s characterization of education as “the most powerful social equaliser” encapsulates a fundamental belief that has guided Singapore’s nation-building efforts since independence. This statement carries particular weight in Singapore’s multicultural, multiethnic context, where education serves not only as a mechanism for economic mobility but also as a tool for social integration and national unity.
For a city-state with limited natural resources, education has been the primary driver of economic competitiveness and human capital development. Singapore’s transformation from a colonial trading post to a advanced global economy has depended almost entirely on the quality and adaptability of its workforce. Education systems that fail to provide equitable opportunities would undermine both economic productivity and social stability—two pillars essential to Singapore’s survival and prosperity.
The emphasis on education as an equaliser reflects Singapore’s meritocratic ideology, where individuals from all backgrounds are theoretically able to advance based on ability and effort rather than family connections or inherited privilege. This is particularly significant for minority communities in Singapore. The Anugerah Mendaki awards themselves, established in 1982, represent four decades of institutional commitment to recognizing and supporting excellence within the Malay/Muslim community, ensuring that merit is identified and nurtured across all segments of society.
Historical Context: From Fragmentation to Integration
Minister Ong’s historical overview of Singapore’s education system reveals a deliberate, phased approach to building a coherent national education framework. The early fragmentation he describes—where different communities received education in different languages and to different standards—was not merely an administrative challenge but a potential threat to national cohesion in a newly independent nation (1965) that was ethnically and religiously diverse.
The transition to a unified system with a national curriculum and bilingualism represents a sophisticated policy response to multiple competing objectives. By adopting English as the common working language, Singapore ensured linguistic unity and positioned itself competitively in global commerce and technology. Simultaneously, by maintaining mother tongue languages, the government preserved cultural identity and prevented the erasure of heritage—critical for maintaining social harmony in a multicultural society.
This dual-language approach has become a cornerstone of Singapore’s education policy and a model studied globally. It demonstrates an understanding that national integration and cultural preservation need not be mutually exclusive objectives. For minority communities, the maintenance of mother tongue education signals official recognition of their cultural legitimacy within the nation-state, even as all citizens learn a common language of national discourse.
Structural Reforms and the Expansion of Technical Education
The introduction of streaming in the 1970s marked a pivotal moment in Singapore’s education evolution. High dropout rates in that era indicated that a one-size-fits-all academic curriculum was failing significant portions of the student population. Rather than viewing this as a failure of students, Singapore’s policymakers recognized it as a signal that different students had different aptitudes and learning needs.
The development of polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) represented a fundamental shift in how Singapore valued different career pathways. Rather than treating technical and vocational education as a second-class option for academically unsuccessful students, Singapore invested heavily in infrastructure, teaching quality, and industry partnerships to make these pathways attractive and prestigious.
Today’s statistic that three in four Singapore students pursue technical education at either ITE or polytechnics represents a remarkable reorientation of the education system. This reflects both the design of the system and the evolving nature of economic opportunity in Singapore. The expansion of technical education pathways has had several impacts:
Economic Competitiveness: Singapore’s strong vocational training produces skilled workers in sectors critical to the economy—manufacturing, marine industries, hospitality, healthcare, and increasingly, green technology and renewable energy.
Social Mobility: Technical education offers genuine pathways to middle-class employment and financial security, not merely as consolation prizes for academically weaker students but as legitimate routes to valued careers and comfortable livelihoods.
Workforce Diversity: The prominence of technical education creates a more balanced, diverse workforce aligned with actual labor market needs rather than producing an oversupply of university graduates in fields with limited job opportunities.
Reduced Social Tension: By creating multiple pathways to success, Singapore avoids the social stratification and resentment that can arise in systems where a narrow academic route is valorized and alternative paths stigmatized.
The Knowledge Economy Transition and Holistic Development
The 1990s marked Singapore’s intentional transition to a knowledge-based economy, driven by technological advancement and globalization. This transition required a fundamental reimagining of education’s purpose. The shift from rote learning and examination performance to emphasizing critical thinking, creativity, and independent learning represented a substantial pedagogical change.
This evolution reflects an understanding that in a knowledge-based economy, the ability to learn, adapt, and innovate matters more than the specific facts one has memorized. As information becomes increasingly accessible and technology obsolescence accelerates, workers must be capable of continuous learning and creative problem-solving. Singapore’s education system adapted to develop these capacities in students from an earlier age.
Recent Systemic Reforms: Reducing High-Stakes Testing
The reduction of examinations and the replacement of the PSLE T-Score with a broader Achievement Level scoring system represent more recent, significant reforms that address a mounting concern in high-performing education systems: the mental health and psychological toll of intense academic competition.
Singapore, like several other East Asian economies, has historically employed highly competitive, examination-driven education systems. While these systems produced high academic achievement and strong international test scores, they also generated significant student stress, anxiety, and in some cases, self-harm. The shift to fewer examinations and a less finely differentiated scoring system suggests a policy recognition that optimal educational outcomes require balancing academic achievement with psychological well-being.
The phasing out of secondary school streaming similarly reflects recognition that rigid educational tracking at younger ages can become self-fulfilling prophecies, limiting opportunities for students who develop differently or who were incorrectly classified earlier. More flexible pathways allow students to demonstrate capability across different subjects and contexts.
The introduction of early admission exercises for institutes of higher learning based on talents and interests represents a particularly important reform. By valuing non-academic attributes—artistic talent, leadership, athletic ability, entrepreneurship—Singapore’s education system signals that success and contribution take multiple forms. This diversifies the population entering higher education and helps ensure that talent in domains beyond academic subjects is recognized and developed.
The AI Imperative: Education for the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Minister Ong’s extended discussion of artificial intelligence reflects a critical challenge facing education systems globally. AI’s rapid advancement raises fundamental questions about what skills remain valuable, how education should prepare students, and how to balance AI-enhanced learning with the development of distinctly human capabilities.
Singapore’s policy approach demonstrates several priorities:
AI Literacy: All educators must understand AI’s capabilities and limitations well enough to harness it as a teaching tool. This requires substantial professional development and ongoing teacher support.
Responsible AI Use: Students must learn not merely how to use AI but how to use it wisely—understanding when AI assistance is appropriate and when it constitutes intellectual shortcutting or abrogation of responsibility.
Preservation of Human Capabilities: Minister Ong’s caution against over-reliance on AI—”such that we lose our basic skills as human beings to communicate, to try, to make mistakes, learn and master a skill”—reflects concern that AI’s convenience could atrophy human capacity. Learning fundamentally requires struggle, failure, and persistence; students cannot develop mastery or resilience through AI-mediated shortcuts.
Workforce Adaptation: As AI automates routine cognitive tasks, workers must develop higher-order skills: complex problem-solving, emotional intelligence, ethical reasoning, and creative thinking. Education must prioritize these capacities.
This represents a delicate balancing act. Singapore must position itself at the forefront of AI adoption and innovation while ensuring that students develop the human capabilities that remain irreplaceable and valuable. The nation that successfully navigates this balance will have significant competitive advantage.
Mental Health and Holistic Development: Addressing Student Wellbeing
Minister Ong’s emphasis on strengthening students’ holistic development, particularly their mental health and well-being, indicates official recognition of emerging challenges in Singapore’s education system and society more broadly.
Singapore, despite its economic success, has grappled with student mental health issues. The pressures of a competitive education system, high parental expectations, and intensive academic schedules have been linked to rising anxiety, depression, and self-harm among young people. Additionally, the ubiquity of smart devices and social media introduces new psychosocial challenges: cyberbullying, social comparison, sleep disruption, and addiction-like patterns.
The government’s emphasis on mental health represents both a humanitarian concern and a pragmatic recognition that students who struggle psychologically cannot learn effectively. Schools, families, and communities must collaborate to create supportive environments and provide intervention for struggling youth.
This represents a significant cultural shift in a society traditionally focused on academic achievement and economic productivity. Acknowledging that well-being matters alongside achievement signals that Singapore values its youth as complete human beings, not merely as economic inputs.
Multiple Pathways and Vulnerable Populations
Minister Ong’s emphasis on creating “multiple pathways to success” and his specific mention of vulnerable students and those with special educational needs reflect important equity commitments. These statements acknowledge that students arrive at school with vastly different starting points and that a system designed only for typical learners will inevitably fail significant populations.
Special educational needs constitute a particular focus area. Singapore has expanded inclusive education, integrating students with disabilities into mainstream schools while providing specialized support. This approach benefits both students with disabilities, who gain exposure to diverse peers and mainstream curricula, and non-disabled students, who develop understanding of human diversity and inclusive practices.
Vulnerable students—those from low-income families, experiencing housing instability, or facing other socioeconomic challenges—require targeted support to access educational opportunities. The role of community organizations like Yayasan Mendaki (which Minister Ong explicitly acknowledged) is critical here. By providing scholarships, counseling, mentoring, and family support services, such organizations help ensure that capability isn’t wasted due to circumstance.
Mendaki’s Role and Community Partnership
The Anugerah Mendaki awards themselves exemplify how Singapore approaches education through community partnerships. For over four decades, Mendaki has worked to ensure that Malay/Muslim students are recognized for excellence and supported in their educational pursuits. By 2025, the awards ceremony honored 529 recipients—a substantial number suggesting either significant growth in the awards program or consistently high achievement within the community.
The government’s partnership with community organizations like Mendaki reflects recognition that education cannot be the sole responsibility of schools. Families, religious organizations, self-help groups, and community networks all contribute to educational outcomes. By formally recognizing and supporting these partnerships, the government leverages resources and cultural capital beyond what the state could provide alone.
For minority communities in Singapore, such institutional recognition carries symbolic significance beyond the material support provided. It signals that the state values their participation and recognizes their distinct identity within the national framework.
Implications and Future Challenges
Economic Competitiveness
Singapore’s education reforms position the nation to maintain competitiveness in a rapidly changing global economy. By emphasizing AI literacy, creativity, critical thinking, and technical skills, the system aims to produce workers capable of innovation and adaptation. However, Singapore faces competition from other rapidly developing economies and must ensure continuous system improvement.
Social Cohesion
A robust education system that provides genuine opportunities for all Singaporeans regardless of background strengthens social cohesion. The explicit focus on vulnerable populations and minority communities signals inclusive values. However, maintaining harmony in a multicultural society requires ongoing attention to equity and recognition of all communities’ contributions.
Psychological Well-being
The shift toward emphasizing mental health represents important progress but faces implementation challenges. Teachers require training in recognizing and responding to mental health issues. Competitive pressures from families and culture persist even when school systems reduce high-stakes testing. Integration of mental health support requires systemic changes across schools, families, and communities.
AI Integration
As education integrates AI tools, the challenge lies in using technology to enhance learning without diminishing the distinctly human elements that education uniquely provides. Determining which educational tasks should be AI-supported and which should remain primarily human-mediated will require ongoing research and reflection.
Global Context
Singapore’s education reforms occur within a global context of education transformation. The nation benefits from learning from international best practices while maintaining awareness of its unique context. Continued attention to comparative education research and international partnerships will be important.
Conclusion
Minister Ong Ye Kung’s address to the Anugerah Mendaki award recipients encapsulates Singapore’s sophisticated approach to education as a foundational national institution. The government views education not merely as a mechanism for individual economic advancement but as critical infrastructure for national development, social cohesion, and competitive advantage in a rapidly changing world.
Singapore’s evolution from a fragmented, colonial education system to a unified, comprehensive system offering multiple pathways reflects thoughtful policy-making responsive to changing needs. The recent reforms emphasizing well-being, creativity, and diverse talents signal maturation in how the system understands human development and flourishing.
The explicit mention of AI, mental health, and vulnerable populations indicates that Singapore’s policymakers are grappling seriously with contemporary challenges. The nation seeks to balance achievement with well-being, embrace technological change while preserving human capability, and ensure opportunity for all Singaporeans regardless of background.
As Singapore moves forward, the education system will likely face continued pressure to innovate and adapt. The success of these efforts will significantly influence the nation’s ability to maintain prosperity, preserve social harmony, and enable all Singaporeans to flourish in an uncertain future. The government’s demonstrated willingness to reform, reflect, and refocus on holistic human development suggests that Singapore possesses the adaptive capacity necessary to navigate these challenges.
The Future of Tomorrow: A Singapore Education Story
Part One: The Weight of Expectations
The morning sun filtered through the floor-to-ceiling windows of Priya’s family apartment in Bukit Panjang, casting long shadows across the dining table. She sat with her laptop open, pretending to review her notes for the upcoming Achievement Level assessments, but her fingers drummed anxiously against the table instead. Outside, Singapore’s skyline gleamed with glass and steel—a monument to progress that sometimes felt more like a burden than an inspiration.
At seventeen, Priya Krishnamurthy represented Singapore’s meritocratic promise. She was bright, hardworking, and the first in her family to be born in Singapore. Her parents, who had immigrated from India, had sacrificed enormously to give her opportunities they’d never had. But opportunities, Priya had learned, came with their own weight.
“Priya, have you finished the Chemistry questions I printed for you?” her mother called from the kitchen. It was Saturday morning, and there was always more to study, always another subject to master, always another exam around the corner.
Priya sighed. She had finished the questions—all thirty of them—but there would be more tomorrow. This was the rhythm of her life: wake, attend school, attend tuition, study, sleep, repeat. The algorithm of achievement.
What Priya didn’t know was that somewhere in the corridors of power, the system she’d inhabited her entire life was beginning to transform.
Part Two: Seeds of Change
Two weeks earlier, in the Ministry of Education building in Buona Vista, a team of education specialists had gathered for a quarterly strategic meeting. Among them was Mr. Rajesh Tan, a deputy director who had spent the last decade studying education systems across the world—from Finland to South Korea, from Estonia to New Zealand.
“The data is clear,” Rajesh presented, clicking through slides of student wellbeing surveys. “We’re seeing rising rates of anxiety, sleep deprivation, and depression among our secondary students. Our academic results are excellent, but our students’ psychological profiles are concerning. We have brilliant minds that are burning out.”
The Ministry had begun tracking not just exam scores but holistic indicators of student flourishing. The picture was mixed—academically strong, but emotionally fragile. Young people were achieving external markers of success while experiencing internal distress.
“What troubles me,” continued Rajesh, “is that these trends are showing up even among our top students. We’re creating a generation that knows how to succeed but not how to live.”
Dr. Patricia Goh, the head of curriculum innovation, leaned forward. “We’ve already begun reforms—fewer exams, broader Achievement Levels instead of T-scores, more flexible pathways. But I think we need to go deeper. We need to fundamentally rethink what we’re optimizing for as a system.”
This conversation had been happening quietly for months, sparked by research, international comparisons, and most importantly, feedback from teachers and counselors who worked directly with students day after day.
The decision had been made: Singapore’s education system would undergo its most comprehensive transformation in decades. But unlike previous reforms, this one would be designed from the ground up with student wellbeing at its center, not as an afterthought.
Part Three: The Trial
Priya’s school, Meridian Secondary, was selected as one of twelve pilot schools for the new “Flourish Framework.” She didn’t know this when she arrived on Monday morning in March, when her form teacher, Mrs. Lim, made an announcement that would eventually reshape her entire understanding of what education could be.
“This year, we’re trying something different,” Mrs. Lim explained to the class. “We’re still going to prepare you well for your final exams, but we’re also going to focus on something that’s been missing: your actual well-being and happiness.”
The first change was subtle but significant: the school reduced the number of formal examinations by half. Instead of multiple monthly tests across all subjects, there would be fewer, more comprehensive assessments. The space freed up by fewer exams would be used for something called “Integrated Learning Projects.”
“What’s an Integrated Learning Project?” asked Akmal, raising his hand.
“Glad you asked,” said Mrs. Lim, her eyes brightening. “Instead of studying Chemistry, Literature, and History in isolation, you’ll work on real-world problems that require knowledge from multiple subjects. For example, next month, you’ll be investigating Singapore’s food security challenges. You’ll use Chemistry to understand soil composition and hydroponic systems, History to learn how Singapore’s food strategy has evolved, Geography to map supply chain vulnerabilities, and even Literature to analyze how food appears in storytelling across cultures.”
For the first time, Priya felt a spark of genuine curiosity. Food security was actually interesting. It mattered. It was real.
But the changes went deeper. The school brought in a full-time counselor, increased recess time, introduced mandatory “mind-body” periods three times a week where students could choose between meditation, yoga, tai chi, or simply sitting quietly in the garden. Teachers received training in recognizing signs of student distress and responding with compassion rather than punishment.
Perhaps most radically, the school introduced something called “Failure Fridays.” Once a week, students were invited to share something they’d failed at—a project that didn’t work, a performance that flopped, a test they’d bombed. Other students would listen and ask questions, and collectively, the group would analyze what could be learned.
“Failure Fridays are designed to normalize the fact that failure is part of learning,” explained Mr. Goh, the school’s new wellbeing coordinator, who had trained in positive psychology before transitioning to education. “Right now, many of you have been taught that failure is shameful, something to hide. But actually, failure is where the most important learning happens.”
Priya’s first Failure Friday, she shared how she’d attempted to learn coding through an online platform but had given up after two weeks, frustrated by bugs she couldn’t fix.
“Why did you want to learn coding?” asked another student.
“I don’t know, honestly. I thought I should, because tech skills are important. But it turned out I really hated it,” Priya admitted.
“So the failure taught you something about yourself,” reflected Mr. Goh. “That’s valuable information. How many people go through university in fields they chose out of obligation rather than genuine interest? Your failure here just saved you years of potential misalignment.”
Part Four: The Ripple Effect
Three months into the Flourish Framework, something unexpected happened. Instead of academic performance declining, it actually improved—not dramatically, but measurably. Teachers observed that students who felt psychologically safer and more engaged were actually more willing to attempt challenging material and more resilient when they encountered difficulties.
But the most striking change was qualitative. Students seemed different. Lighter. More curious. They asked more questions in class, questions that came from genuine puzzlement rather than strategic test preparation. They started forming study groups around interests rather than just need. They laughed more.
Priya’s mother, Mrs. Krishnamurthy, noticed the change in her daughter first. One evening, Priya was eating dinner and talking enthusiastically about an Integrated Learning Project on water management in Southeast Asia. She was animated, engaged, asking her mother questions about water scarcity in India.
“You seem happy,” her mother said, surprised.
“I am,” Priya replied, then paused. “I know I’m still studying a lot, but it feels different. Like I’m actually interested in what I’m learning. Does that make sense?”
Mrs. Krishnamurthy felt tears prick her eyes. When had her daughter last spoken about her studies with joy rather than anxiety?
As the Flourish Framework expanded to more schools across Singapore, similar observations emerged. Parents reported their children sleeping better, experiencing less anxiety, showing more enthusiasm for school. Teachers reported enjoying their jobs more, feeling they could actually teach rather than just coaching for exams.
The system began to shift.
Part Five: The Broader Transformation
By the end of Priya’s secondary school years, the Flourish Framework had been rolled out to every school in Singapore. The Ministry of Education had revised its mission statement to explicitly prioritize student flourishing alongside academic achievement.
Key changes had been institutionalized:
The national examinations had been restructured around achievement levels and competency-based assessment rather than norm-referenced rankings. Universities had adapted their admission processes to value diverse talents—admitting students for their artistic ability, leadership potential, or entrepreneurial initiatives, not just academic grades.
Technical education pathways—through ITE and polytechnics—were now genuinely prestigious. The cultural narrative had shifted such that choosing a vocational path was seen as a smart alignment of interests and abilities, not a failure to make the academic cut.
AI had been integrated thoughtfully into education. Rather than replacing teachers, AI systems provided personalized learning support, flagged students who might be struggling, and helped identify each student’s learning profile and optimal pathways. Teachers used AI to reduce administrative burden, freeing them to focus on the deeply human work of mentoring, inspiring, and caring for students.
Mental health professionals were embedded in schools. Students experiencing anxiety or depression could access support quickly, not after months of waiting. The stigma around mental health challenges had diminished as the system normalized the fact that psychological struggles were part of being human.
Most importantly, the definition of student success had expanded. Students were encouraged to explore their genuine interests and strengths rather than conforming to narrow measures of achievement. Multiple pathways to fulfilling lives and productive careers were equally valued.
Part Six: Years Later
When Priya graduated from Meridian Secondary, she didn’t have the highest grades in her cohort. But she had something more valuable: she knew herself. She understood her strengths and limitations, her passions and aversions. She had experienced struggle and learned from it rather than being crushed by it.
She chose to pursue engineering at a polytechnic, not because she felt she had to, but because she loved designing systems. During her studies, she also took electives in environmental science and social entrepreneurship because those subjects fascinated her.
Her friend Akmal, who had initially aimed for medicine because his parents expected it, discovered during his secondary school years that he actually wanted to study music production. With the new framework, this wasn’t seen as a waste of his academic ability but as an authentic alignment of his gifts with his passion. He pursued sound engineering at one of Singapore’s technical institutes and now works for a major entertainment company, producing high-quality content.
Mei-Lin, who had struggled with anxiety and depression in her earlier years, benefited from the enhanced mental health support now available in schools. With counseling and peer support, she worked through her challenges and discovered a strength for caring for others. She’s now training to become a healthcare professional, motivated by genuine compassion rather than external pressure.
Ten years after the Flourish Framework’s initial rollout, Singapore had experienced a quiet transformation. The education system still produced academically excellent students who performed well on international assessments. Universities still received well-prepared graduates. The economy still benefited from a skilled, productive workforce.
But something else had changed. Singaporeans now reported higher levels of life satisfaction, better mental health outcomes, and greater alignment between their work and their values. Young people still worked hard, but they did so more sustainably. They experienced success and failure as natural parts of learning and growth rather than as existential threats.
The nation’s social fabric had been strengthened. By prioritizing the flourishing of individuals, the system had inadvertently strengthened social cohesion. When people felt genuinely cared for by institutions, when their whole selves—not just their academic output—were valued, they became more invested in community and country.
Part Seven: The Uncertain Future
Yet the story doesn’t end here, because the future remains uncertain. Education never stops evolving, and new challenges continually emerge.
Artificial intelligence continued to advance at breakneck speed. The question of what uniquely human capabilities remained important—and how to cultivate them in an age of computational power—remained urgent. Some feared that even with safeguards, students might become intellectually lazy, outsourcing thinking to machines. Others worried about growing economic inequality as some sectors demanded advanced skills while others automated away entirely.
Climate change intensified, bringing new physical and psychological pressures. Students had to grapple with anxiety about an uncertain planetary future while also developing the problem-solving capabilities needed to build solutions.
Singapore’s demographic structure continued to shift. With fewer children born each year, the labor force was aging. Questions emerged about how a smaller cohort of young people could sustain a nation increasingly dependent on imported labor and advanced technology.
Geopolitical tensions rose in Southeast Asia. Singapore’s strategic position, once an advantage, became more precarious as great powers maneuvered for influence. Education had to prepare citizens who could navigate complexity and contribute to regional stability.
Part Eight: Continuity Through Change
But as the Ministry of Education faced these challenges, there was something that hadn’t changed: the commitment to adaptive learning and continuous improvement.
When AI capabilities advanced faster than expected, schools didn’t panic or ban the technology. Instead, they developed curricula specifically focused on AI literacy, ethics in algorithmic decision-making, and the distinctly human capacities that remained irreplaceable.
When climate anxiety became evident in student populations, schools incorporated environmental education and climate action projects into Integrated Learning, helping students move from despair to agency.
When demographic and economic challenges emerged, the system worked with industry partners to anticipate skills needs while maintaining flexibility, knowing that the most important skill was the ability to learn and adapt.
The Ministry convened regular forums with teachers, students, parents, and community leaders to reflect on how well the system was serving its purpose: enabling all Singaporeans to flourish and contribute to the nation.
There were setbacks and failures. Some reforms didn’t work as intended. Some teachers struggled to implement new approaches. Some communities resisted changes they viewed as diluting academic rigor.
But the fundamental commitment remained: Singapore would continue to reform its education system not because the current system was perfect, but because education must continuously evolve to serve both individuals and society. The government had learned that adaptive capacity—the willingness to reflect, reform, and refocus—was perhaps the most important capability the system could cultivate.
Epilogue: The Conversation
Twenty years after the Flourish Framework’s introduction, Priya, now a successful engineer running her own sustainable design firm, participated in a panel discussion about education and the future at the Singapore Education Forum.
“What would you say education gave you?” asked the moderator.
Priya considered carefully. “As a young person, I thought education’s purpose was to give me credentials so I could get a job and be financially secure. And it did that. But looking back, what was truly valuable was that my school eventually helped me understand myself—my genuine interests, my values, my strengths. The framework shifted from ‘How can we make Priya successful by external measures?’ to ‘How can we help Priya discover and develop who she authentically is?’
“And here’s the thing—that second question actually led to greater success by the first measure. Because when I’m doing work that genuinely aligns with who I am, I’m more creative, more persistent, more resilient. And I’m happier. My parents immigrated so their children could have opportunities. The greatest opportunity is the freedom to become yourself.”
As she spoke, young students in the audience listened intently. They had grown up in an education system that already prioritized their flourishing. To them, the idea that education had once been purely achievement-focused seemed strange, almost unimaginable.
But they were also aware that their education was far from perfect. New challenges had emerged. The system continued to evolve. And that, perhaps, was the real victory—not that Singapore had created a perfect education system, but that it had created a system committed to continuous learning and adaptation, mirroring the very capabilities it sought to cultivate in its students.
The future remained uncertain. But Singapore moved into that uncertainty with something it had cultivated through deliberate, thoughtful reform: the adaptive capacity to meet whatever came next, not by clinging to the past, but by continuously reimagining what education could be.
In a small classroom in Bukit Panjang, a fifteen-year-old girl sat down to begin her homework. Instead of feeling the familiar weight of anxiety, she felt something different: curiosity about what she would learn, confidence that her efforts mattered, and hope that the future—her future—was hers to shape.
Maxthon
In an age where the digital world is in constant flux and our interactions online are ever-evolving, the importance of prioritizing individuals as they navigate the expansive internet cannot be overstated. The myriad of elements that shape our online experiences calls for a thoughtful approach to selecting web browsers—one that places a premium on security and user privacy. Amidst the multitude of browsers vying for users’ loyalty, Maxthon emerges as a standout choice, providing a trustworthy solution to these pressing concerns, all without any cost to the user.
Maxthon, with its advanced features, boasts a comprehensive suite of built-in tools designed to enhance your online privacy. Among these tools are a highly effective ad blocker and a range of anti-tracking mechanisms, each meticulously crafted to fortify your digital sanctuary. This browser has carved out a niche for itself, particularly with its seamless compatibility with Windows 11, further solidifying its reputation in an increasingly competitive market.
In a crowded landscape of web browsers, Maxthon has forged a distinct identity through its unwavering dedication to offering a secure and private browsing experience. Fully aware of the myriad threats lurking in the vast expanse of cyberspace, Maxthon works tirelessly to safeguard your personal information. Utilizing state-of-the-art encryption technology, it ensures that your sensitive data remains protected and confidential throughout your online adventures.
What truly sets Maxthon apart is its commitment to enhancing user privacy during every moment spent online. Each feature of this browser has been meticulously designed with the user’s privacy in mind. Its powerful ad-blocking capabilities work diligently to eliminate unwanted advertisements, while its comprehensive anti-tracking measures effectively reduce the presence of invasive scripts that could disrupt your browsing enjoyment. As a result, users can traverse the web with newfound confidence and safety.
Moreover, Maxthon’s incognito mode provides an extra layer of security, granting users enhanced anonymity while engaging in their online pursuits. This specialized mode not only conceals your browsing habits but also ensures that your digital footprint remains minimal, allowing for an unobtrusive and liberating internet experience. With Maxthon as your ally in the digital realm, you can explore the vastness of the internet with peace of mind, knowing that your privacy is being prioritized every step of the way.