Current Affairs
Gifted Education Programme to be replaced with new approach for high-ability learners
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/08/18223737/GEP-NDR-FeXRuw.png)
The Gifted Education Programme (GEP), a longstanding initiative designed for intellectually gifted students, will be phased out and replaced with a new framework aimed at supporting high-ability learners in all primary schools.
This announcement was made by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong during his first National Day Rally speech on Sunday, 18 August.
Mr Wong revealed that the GEP will be “discontinued in its current form” as part of a broader effort to make educational opportunities more inclusive and accessible to a larger group of students.
“We will equip the schools to identify their own high-ability learners – so this will benefit more students,” he stated. The new approach will allow students to remain in their current schools, avoiding the need to transfer to specific institutions that offer the GEP.
This change is intended to help students maintain existing relationships with their peers and teachers while receiving enhanced educational support.
The GEP, introduced in 1984, has been a selective programme, identifying around 1% of the student cohort through a rigorous two-stage exercise in Primary 3. Those selected typically join the programme in Primary 4, with nine primary schools currently offering the GEP, including Anglo-Chinese School (Primary) and Raffles Girls’ Primary School.
The decision to overhaul the GEP reflects a significant shift in Singapore’s education philosophy. Mr Wong emphasised that the government’s focus is on catering to the diverse needs of all students, not just those who excel early.
“Every child is different,” he said, “we take care of all of them, not just the early bloomers and high-ability students.” He shared his own experience growing up in the heartlands, attending neighbourhood schools, and highlighted the government’s commitment to helping every child realise their full potential, regardless of their starting point.
Under the new framework, students identified as high-ability learners will have access to specialised school-based programmes designed to stretch their strengths and interests.
Additionally, some students may be invited to participate in after-school enrichment modules at nearby schools, providing opportunities to further develop their skills and interact with other high-ability learners.
While acknowledging the competitive nature of Singapore’s education system, Mr Wong stressed the importance of “refocusing” on the true objectives of education: sparking a joy for learning and helping every child reach their potential. He also underscored the need for strong support for teachers and school leaders, who play a critical role in this process.
This move follows other significant changes in Singapore’s education landscape, including the introduction of a new PSLE scoring system and the removal of streaming in secondary schools.
Despite these changes, Mr Wong acknowledged that not everyone is convinced that “every school is a good school,” citing parents who continue to seek his help in securing spots for their children in preferred schools.
Mr Wong also highlighted the government’s commitment to providing multiple pathways for students, particularly those with vocational and technical talents.
He pointed to success stories like that of Mr Jensen Low, a graduate of ITE who rose through the ranks in the culinary industry to become a vice-president in an international company.
In April, during a parliamentary session, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim inquired about the number of GEP students who had applied for Direct School Admission (DSA) into secondary schools over the past five years. In response, Minister for Education Mr Chan Chun Sing revealed that around 200 GEP students were admitted to secondary schools via DSA-Sec each year, a small proportion of the total student cohort.
The Ministry of Education is expected to announce more details about the new approach for high-ability learners in the coming months
The post Gifted Education Programme to be replaced with new approach for high-ability learners appeared first on Gutzy Asia.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2023/03/26202010/TOC_newlogo_small.webp)
Current Affairs
Reforming Singapore’s defamation laws: Preventing legal weapons against free speech
Opinion: The tragic suicide of Geno Ong, linked to the financial stress from a defamation lawsuit, raises a critical issue: Singapore’s defamation laws need reform. These laws must not be weaponized to silence individuals.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2020/09/27020206/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg)
by Alexandar Chia
This week, we hear the tragic story of the suicide of Geno Ong, with Ong citing the financial stress from the defamation lawsuit against her by Raymond Ng and Iris Koh.
Regardless of who’s right and who’s wrong, this Koh/Ng vs Ong affair raises a wider question at play – the issue of Singapore’s defamation laws and how it needs to be tightened.
Why is this needed? This is because defamation suits cannot be weaponised the way they have been in Singapore law. It cannot be used to threaten people into “shutting up”.
Article 14(2)(a) of the Constitution may permit laws to be passed to restrict free speech in the area of defamation, but it does not remove the fact that Article 14(1)(a) is still law, and it permits freedom of speech.
As such, although Article 14(2)(a) allows restrictions to be placed on freedom of speech with regard to the issue of defamation, it must not be to the extent where Article 14(1)(a)’s rights and liberties are not curtailed completely or heavily infringed on.
Sadly, that is the case with regard to precedence in defamation suits.
Let’s have a look at the defamation suit then-PM Goh Chok Tong filed against Dr Chee Soon Juan after GE 2001 for questions Dr Chee asked publicly about a $17 billion loan made to Suharto.
If we look at point 12 of the above link, in the “lawyer’s letter” sent to Dr Chee, Goh’s case of himself being defamed centred on lines Dr Chee used in his question, such as “you can run but you can’t hide”, and “did he not tell you about the $17 billion loan”?
In the West, such lines of questioning are easily understood at worse as hyperbolically figurative expressions with the gist of the meaning behind such questioning on why the loan to Suharto was made.
Unfortunately, Singapore’s defamation laws saw Dr Chee’s actions of imputing ill motives on Goh, when in the West, it is expected of incumbents to take the kind of questions Dr Chee asked, and such questions asked of incumbent office holders are not uncommon.
And the law permits pretty flimsy reasons such as “withdrawal of allegations” to be used as a deciding factor if a statement is defamatory or not – this is as per points 66-69 of the judgement.
This is not to imply or impute ill intent on Singapore courts. Rather, it shows how defamation laws in Singapore needs to be tightened, to ensure that a possible future scenario where it is weaponised as a “shut-up tool”, occurs.
These are how I suggest it is to be done –
- The law has to make mandatory, that for a case to go into a full lawsuit, there has to be a 3-round exchange of talking points and two attempts at legal mediation.
- Summary judgment should be banned from defamation suits, unless if one party fails to adduce evidence or a defence.
- A statement is to be proven false, hence, defamatory, if there is strictly material along with circumstantial evidence showing that the statement is false. Apologies and related should not be used as main determinants, given how many of these statements are made in the heat of the moment, from the natural feelings of threat and intimidation from a defamation suit.
- A question should only be considered defamatory if it has been repeated, after material facts of evidence are produced showing, beyond reasonable doubt, that the message behind the question, is “not so”, and if there is a directly mentioned subject in the question. For example, if an Opposition MP, Mr A, was found to be poisoned with a banned substance, and I ask openly on how Mr A got access to that substance, given that its banned, I can’t be found to have “defamed the government” with the question as 1) the government was not mentioned directly and 2) if the government has not produced material evidence that they indeed had no role in the poisoning affair, if they were directly mentioned.
- Damages should be tiered, with these tiers coded into the Defamation Act – the highest quantum of damages (i.e. those of a six-figured nature) is only to be reserved if the subject of defamation lost any form of office, revenue or position, or directly quantifiable public standing, or was subjected to criminal action, because of the act of defamation. If none of such occur, the maximum amount of damages a plaintiff in a defamation can claim is a 4-figure amount capped at $2000. This will prevent rich and powerful figures from using defamation suits and 6-figure damages to intimidate their questioners and detractors.
- All defendants of defamation suit should be allowed full access to legal aid schemes.
Again, this piece does not suggest bad-faith malpractice by the courts in Singapore. Rather, it is to suggest how to tighten up defamation laws to avoid it being used as the silencing hatchet.
Current Affairs
Man arrested for alleged housebreaking and theft of mobile phones in Yishun
A 23-year-old man was arrested for allegedly breaking into a Yishun Ring Road rental flat and stealing eight mobile phones worth S$3,400 from five tenants. The Singapore Police responded swiftly on 1 September, identifying and apprehending the suspect on the same day. The man has been charged with housebreaking, which carries a potential 10-year jail term.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/09/03132151/PHONE3.jpg)
SINGAPORE: A 23-year-old man has been arrested for allegedly breaking into a rental flat along Yishun Ring Road and stealing eight mobile phones from five tenants.
The incident occurred in the early hours on Sunday (1 September), according to a statement from the Singapore Police Force.
The authorities reported that they received a call for assistance at around 5 a.m. on that day.
Officers from the Woodlands Police Division quickly responded and, through ground enquiries and police camera footage, were able to identify and apprehend the suspect on the same day.
The stolen mobile phones, with an estimated total value of approximately S$3,400, were recovered hidden under a nearby bin.
The suspect was charged in court on Monday with housebreaking with the intent to commit theft.
If convicted, he could face a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.
In light of this incident, the police have advised property owners to take precautions to prevent similar crimes.
They recommend securing all doors, windows, and other openings with good quality grilles and padlocks when leaving premises unattended, even for short periods.
The installation of burglar alarms, motion sensor lights, and CCTV cameras to cover access points is also advised. Additionally, residents are urged to avoid keeping large sums of cash and valuables in their homes.
The investigation is ongoing.
Last month, police disclosed that a recent uptick in housebreaking incidents in private residential estates across Singapore has been traced to foreign syndicates, primarily involving Chinese nationals.
Preliminary investigations indicate that these syndicates operate in small groups, targeting homes by scaling perimeter walls or fences.
The suspects are believed to be transient travelers who enter Singapore on Social Visit Passes, typically just a day or two before committing the crimes.
Before this recent surge in break-ins, housebreaking cases were on the decline, with 59 reported in the first half of this year compared to 70 during the same period last year.
However, between 1 June and 4 August 2024, there were 10 reported housebreaking incidents, predominantly in private estates around the Rail Corridor and Bukit Timah Road.
The SPF has intensified efforts to engage residents near high-risk areas by distributing crime prevention advisories, erecting alert signs, and training them to patrol their neighborhoods, leading to an increase in reports of suspicious activity.
-
Singapore4 days ago
Singapore woman’s suicide amidst legal battle raises concerns over legal system
-
Diplomacy7 days ago
India PM Narendra Modi meets with PM Lawrence Wong; Four MoUs signed
-
Opinion1 week ago
Singaporean voters and the ‘Battered Wife Syndrome’
-
Parliament2 days ago
Minister Shanmugam rejects request for detailed information on visa-free visitor offences: Cites bilateral considerations
-
Parliament3 days ago
PAP MPs attack WP Gerald Giam in Parliament over NTUC independence from ruling party
-
Politics6 days ago
PAP adopts SDP policies after criticizing them: Dr Chee urges Singaporeans to see through tactics
-
Food1 week ago
NTU stall food prices questioned after parent pays S$6.30 for meal
-
Civil Society1 week ago
CIVICUS Monitor labels Singapore as ‘repressed’ for crackdown on civic freedoms