No fixed pathways to success as education system continues to evolve: Desmond Lee
SINGAPORE - Learning is not a race, and there are no fixed pathways to success, said Education Minister Desmond Lee, and Singapore's education system is evolving to reflect this.
'Explore your strengths and walk your own path,' Mr Lee said, speaking at the closing ceremony of the Pre-University Seminar 2025, held at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) on June 5.
Addressing 552 students, he encouraged them to 'go back to basics' as they face a changing world, shaped by developments like artificial intelligence, and a more uncertain external environment arising from trade tariffs.
He highlighted the recent actions by the United States administration to revoke Harvard University's ability to take in international students. 'This may have created confusion and anxiety, for those of you who may be interested in studying in the US.'
One way to navigate this new world is to return to fundamentals - to use their five senses as a map, and their hearts as a moral compass, Mr Lee said.
'Even as the world changes, let your heartbeat guide you,' he said. 'Connect with others and always look out for one another as well as those who are more vulnerable.'
He encouraged students to see the world with fresh perspectives and keep asking questions, while staying curious and connected to global developments.
Take action too, he added , and be courageous in trying new things and facing failure. Listen to other people who are there to give support and help sharpen ideas, he said.
And ultimately , 'smell the roses and enjoy the journey', he said.
The closing ceremony on June 5 marked the end of the four-day seminar, attended by students from 30 pre-university institutions. These include junior colleges, polytechnics, and specialised independent schools.
The event, with the 'Re-imagination' theme, was jointly organised by the Ministry of Education and Tampines Meridian Junior College. Students were tasked to come up with innovative solutions to Singapore's future challenges.
Students took part in various workshops, panel discussions and learning journeys held from March to May. This also included a residential programme from June 2 to 5, where they got to stay in the NTU dorms.
This is the 56th edition of the annual seminar.
Minister for Education Desmond Lee (in white) viewing a model of Singapore in 2065 built by students at the Pre-University Seminar 2025 Closing Ceremony on June 5.
ST PHOTO: JASON QUAH
The students' projects, aimed at tackling gaps in society like inclusivity for people with disabilities and accessibility in the public transport system, were presented to Mr Lee during the closing ceremony.
'When we talk about re-imagining Singapore amidst all the uncertainties, we are not starting from scratch,' he said. 'We are continuing a DNA and mindset that has brought us from mudflut to metropolis, from trading port to a distinctive global city, even when our future was never guaranteed.'
'Our challenge now is to apply that same imagination and resolve to the issues of our generation and beyond.'
Two students said that their main takeaway from the seminar was the importance of inclusivity and equal representation in Singapore's future.
Nanyang Junior College student Liew Yan Hon, 17, said that Mr Lee's point about on being more open to individuals with different needs, an idea that aligned with his group's project on creating a more inclusive society.
His project focused on creating equal employment opportunities for youths with mild intellectual disabilities, with the goal of making sure no one is left behind even as Singapore progresses.
Mr Liew said his learning journeys to Rainbow Centre, a social service organisation that works with people with disabilities, and Project Dignity, a food court run by people with disabilities, helped to solidify his passion to help the marginalised in society. He added he hopes to explore volunteering and social work in the future.
'For our group, we want the future of Singapore to be less focused on being efficiency driven,' he said. 'Our main goal is to make an inclusive society, where we pull everyone up together at the same time.'
River Valley High School student Cheng Yok Yong, 17, said he was struck by the analogy Mr Lee used about being guided by one's five senses and heart, and he hopes to carry into a future career in policymaking.
'I felt connected with what he said about leading with direction, with the heart,' he said. 'I feel that policy must be driven by passion, and with this direction, it will definitely help make Singapore a better place.'
Cheng Yok Yong (left), River Valley High School, and Liew Yan Hon, NYJC, pose for a photo at the Pre-University Seminar 2025 Closing Ceremony.
ST PHOTO: JASON QUAH
Mr Cheng said this seminar also taught him in that in building policy, it is not just about the solution but how feasible it is for the people it serves. His project was on a one-stop healthcare tool to help patients and caregivers better manage their health needs.
But the friendships forged were the most memorable part for him, Mr Cheng said.
'Listening to the different stories that they have is very insightful,' he said, adding how a group member with eczema shared his experience with the healthcare system in Singapore, which helped the team refine their solution .
Mr Cheng said: 'This showed me why having equal representation in Singapore is important, because we need these people to shape our policies so we can make a better Singapore.'
Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
Jacinda Ardern thinks world leaders need more kindness
Jacinda Ardern at Harvard University's campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 31. After she resigned as prime minister of New Zealand, she got married, temporarily relocated to the United States and now has three fellowships at Harvard. PHOTO: LAUREN O'NEIL/NYTIMES CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts – It is easy to forget that Jacinda Ardern is a former prime minister of New Zealand. Standing in line at a cafe in Cambridge, Massachusetts, wearing a suit by New Zealand designer Juliette Hogan, with sneakers and gold hoops, she flashes a disarming smile and says to call her 'just Jacinda'. As she orders a cappuccino, the cashier wonders why she looks so familiar. Was she, by any chance, that person on TV? 'Toni Collette?' they ask, referring to an Australian actress. Ardern, without security detail, waves off the misidentification and does not set the record straight. The cafe is a 10-minute walk from Harvard University, where Ardern, who resigned as prime minister in 2023, now holds three fellowships. In the aftermath of her voluntary resignation, she married her long-time partner Clarke Gayford and temporarily moved her family to Massachusetts. The day before we met, students and faculty had gathered for their commencement and remnants of the ceremony are everywhere: tents, stacks of foldable chairs lying in yards and students milling around with cardboard boxes . The ceremony capped a school year in which the institution has been entangled in a legal stand-off with United States President Donald Trump's administration over allegations of anti-Semitism, with federal funding and the visas of international students enrolled at the university in jeopardy. It is in that tense environment that Ardern, who during her time in power was frequently referred to as the 'anti-Trump', is publishing her memoir, A Different Kind Of Power. The book, which was released on June 3 , makes the case that leading with empathy and kindness might be the solution for a range of global crises – an argument that has also been the subject of one of her fellowships at Harvard Kennedy School. Whether such a book will resonate in a highly charged moment is an open question. Ardern said she has been relishing the relative anonymity of life in the US. A step back has allowed her to spend more time with her six-year-old daughter, who, she said, has a 'greater awareness now' of the fact that her mother was prime minister, yet 'doesn't dwell on it'. But the book and a global tour are part of what appears to be a re-emergence into public life, which also includes a documentary about her, called Prime Minister, that will be released later in June . In the book, Ardern, 44, gets into the granular details of what it was like to lead a country through multiple crises, including a live-streamed terrorist attack in Christchurch, a major volcanic eruption and the Covid-19 pandemic. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. We are sitting so close to Harvard, which has been at the centre of heated debates, and now you are releasing a book about kindness and empathy in leadership. How does this all fit together? I started writing it after I left office – in early to mid-2023. Though there was a lot of difficulty in the world, now feels vastly different from then. So it's not lost on me, the environment it's going into. But I would have written the same book regardless. Because, even then, ideas of empathy, compassion and kindness in leadership were treated as if there was a naivete there, and probably even more so now, and I just push back on that. How do you push back? First, I think there's a disconnect. People make an assumption that because we have a particular type of leadership on display at the moment, that must be what voters are seeking. And I don't think that's true. There are very real issues that need to be addressed that I summarise as deep financial insecurity and uncertainty in the face of a very changeable world. Politicians can come into that space either with a message of fear and blame or they can take on the very difficult issue of finding genuine solutions. I think it would be wrong to say people don't want to see kindness and compassion in their politics, and that they don't want to see politics done differently. It's not naive. In the book, you say you worried that your compassion could be seen as a weakness and, by extension, that weakness could be seen as female. I decided early on that I was just only ever going to be myself. And in New Zealand, if you're not yourself, they can sniff out inauthenticity – there's so much proximity to politicians and leaders that you need to be yourself. So that was the environment. But did it come easy? Not necessarily, because I remember moments when I thought, I cannot let my emotions be on display. And there were certain times when it just wouldn't have been appropriate because it wasn't about me; it was about the situation, the victims, the circumstance. But I decided that sometimes, you're just going to have a human response and that's okay. In fact, maybe it builds trust, because people can see then that you're human. Do you think people now expect this style from female leaders? I get asked a lot whether these traits are gendered. I've worked with a number of politicians, and I see empathetic leadership in men and women. In fact, I like to think of it within the frame of what we teach our kids. If you ask a room of parents, 'What are the values that you think are really important for your kids?', you'll hear the same things. People want their kids to share, they want them to be generous, they want them to be kind and empathetic, they want them to be brave, courageous. Those values that we teach our kids, we then see somehow as weaknesses in leaders? I was struck by the push and pull you describe in the book between what parts of yourself to share with the public and what parts to hide away. In hindsight, when I look back on those moments, it's very clear to me that, if you are, for instance, only the second woman in the world to give birth while in office, you feel a burden of responsibility to still demonstrate that it's possible. And so I did hold back anything that might allow someone to question that I could be both a mother and a prime minister. But the thing that conflicted with that was also my desire to make sure that it didn't look like I was doing everything on my own. You know, the Wonder Woman fram e. NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
AsiaOne
4 hours ago
- AsiaOne
South Korea's Lee Jae-myung, Trump agree to work towards swift tariff deal, Lee's office says, World News
SEOUL/WASHINGTON - US President Donald Trump and South Korea's new president Lee Jae-myung agreed to work toward a swift tariff deal in their first phone call since Lee was elected this week, Lee's office said on Friday (June 6). Trump has imposed tariffs on South Korea, a long time ally with which it has a bilateral free trade deal, and pressed it to pay more for the 28,500 US troops stationed there. Separately, Trump allies have aired concerns about Lee's more conciliatory stance towards China, Washington's main geopolitical rival. Lee, a liberal, was elected on June 3 after former conservative leader, Yoon Suk Yeol, was impeached and ousted. The future of South Korea's export-oriented economy may hinge on what kind of deal Lee can strike with Trump, with all of his country's key sectors from chips to autos and shipbuilding heavily exposed to global trade. His term began on Wednesday. "The two presidents agreed to make an effort to reach a satisfactory agreement on tariff consultations as soon as possible that both countries can be satisfied with," Lee's office said in a statement. "To this end, they decided to encourage working-level negotiations to yield tangible results." Trump invited Lee to a summit in the US and they plan to meet soon, according to a White House official. Analysts say the first opportunity for the two to meet could be at a G7 summit in Canada in mid-June. Lee's office said the two leaders also discussed the assassination attempts they both experienced last year as well as their enthusiasm for golf. Lee underwent surgery after he was stabbed in the neck by a man in January last year, while Trump was wounded in the ear by a bullet fired by a would-be assassin in July. South Korea, a major US ally and one of the first countries after Japan to engage with Washington on trade talks, agreed in late April to craft a "July package" scrapping levies before the 90-day pause on Trump's reciprocal tariffs is lifted, but progress was disrupted by the change of governments in Seoul. Lee said on the eve of the elections that "the most pressing matter is trade negotiations with the United States." Lee's camp has said, however, that they intend to seek more time to negotiate on trade with Trump. While reiterating the importance of the US-South Korea alliance, Lee has also expressed more conciliatory plans for ties with China and North Korea, singling out the importance of China as a major trading partner while indicating a reluctance to take a firm stance on security tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Political analysts say that while Trump and Lee may share a desire to try to re-engage with North Korea, Lee's stance on China could cause friction with the US A White House official said this week that South Korea's election was fair, but expressed concern about Chinese interference in what analysts said may have been a cautionary message to Lee. Speaking in Singapore last week, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said many countries were tempted by the idea of seeking economic co-operation with China and defence co-operation with the United States, and warned that such entanglement complicated defence co-operation. [[nid:718821]]
Business Times
9 hours ago
- Business Times
Tackling America's diploma divide
[LONDON] Why is US President Donald Trump going after Harvard University and other elite colleges? The official reason is antisemitism, but over 600 Harvard professors, many of them Jewish, think that charge is ludicrous. Economics cannot be the reason, either. Higher education is a wildly successful industry that accounts for 4.5 million American jobs. Leaving that industry without foreign customers by refusing to issue them visas is bonkers. The actual reason is Politics 101. Universities and their graduates are increasingly disliked by broad swaths of the US electorate. Beating up pointy-headed academics makes for excellent politics, even if it is terrible policy. It is a cliche of American politics that Trumpian populism was fuelled by the divide between arrogant college graduates brandishing elite degrees and regular folks with a high-school diploma or less. But it is a cliche that contains more than a kernel of truth. Books with titles like Polarised by Degrees: How the Diploma Divide and the Culture War Transformed American Politics have made the point abundantly, and politicians like Hillary Clinton did not help by calling Trump voters a 'basket of deplorables'. What is to be done? Getting rid of elite educational institutions – as Trump seems to want – is a non-starter. Progressive non-Trumpistas ought to have a better alternative, but they are hemmed in by history. A generation ago, right-wing critics accused the welfare state of handing out benefits indiscriminately. Ronald Reagan's talk of 'welfare queens' was wildly exaggerated, but it left a political mark. Liberal politicians responded by trimming the redistributive state (see Bill Clinton's vow to 'end welfare as we know it') and restricting handouts to the 'deserving' poor. Liberal theorists admitted what they had long denied: that it is legitimate to distinguish between those who deserve and do not deserve help. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up In moral philosophy, how and when people come to deserve their lot in life, and whether desert is a valid criterion for the allocation of honours and material rewards, is a central question. In the 1980s and 1990s, a school of liberal philosophers, known as 'luck egalitarians', argued that justice requires that we distinguish between 'circumstances' and 'choices'. Income inequalities arising from circumstances should be offset, because no one can be blamed for having been born destitute. But if you inherit a fortune and choose to gamble it away, society should not rescue you from your own irresponsibility. This position aligned liberals with the moral intuitions of the middle class. Of course the hard-working citizen who plays by the rules deserves the bankable degrees, the good jobs, the comfy house in a safe neighbourhood! But this position created another problem: hubris. Winners, as philosopher Michael J Sandel put it, tend 'to inhale too deeply of their success, to forget the luck and good fortune that helped them on their way'. Once you have the smug conviction that you deserve your Harvard degree, it won't take much to persuade you that those at the bottom deserve their fate, too. Soon enough, you will be another coastal elitist, looking down on the poor souls who inhabit flyover country. That, in a nutshell, is the contemporary liberal's conundrum: express too little belief in merit and desert, and you seem to betray the American dream; but express too much of it, and you seem to betray those left behind by the American dream – including the downwardly mobile white males without college degrees who ended up voting for Trump. Is there a way out? Can we keep our belief in education as the ultimate source of social uplift while avoiding the uplifted noses of the educated? Yes, as long as we recognise that there is no going back: the solutions will require more faith in merit and responsibility, not less. The ultimate slight elites can perpetrate upon the less fortunate is to doubt their ability to manage their own lives. Want to piss off those not fortunate enough to have gone to university and obtain a well-paying job? Treat them as helpless victims, in the way progressive politicians and activists often have. That is no way to build a society of equals. Universities also have to take merit more seriously. Harvard can rightly be accused of being too woke, but more damning is the charge that it has been insufficiently meritocratic. It is not a coincidence that in the Ivy League, children of the top 1 per cent outnumber those from the bottom half of the income distribution. Admissions preferences for alumni kids and places for athletes in elite sports like rowing and squash keep it that way. The absurd status gap between white-collar and blue-collar jobs must go, too. And it can go because it wasn't always that way. I am the child of academics. One of the first things that struck me after arriving in the United States, many years ago, was that the plumber who came to fix the toilet was not too impressed by the family that had hired him. His car was larger than ours and, judging by his fees, he made quite a bit more money than my professor father. Over the last quarter-century, technology changed this: office workers with knowledge of Word and Excel could now be paid better than a plumber or electrician. But in the next quarter-century, technology may well operate in the opposite direction. AI will research statutes and case law better than the best paralegal, read test results better than the best radiologist, and code better than the best programmer. By contrast, the person who can repair your sink or care for your elderly relative will become ever more valued. A little honesty will go a long way, too. I used to be a Harvard professor, and the list of lucky breaks that put me there is long. To claim otherwise would be a violation of Harvard's motto: veritas, or truth. PROJECT SYNDICATE The writer, a former finance minister of Chile, is dean of the School of Public Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
