MOE not investigating SJI International for student's death during Maldives school trip
The student, 15-year-old Singaporean Jenna Chan, died during a National Youth Achievement Award overseas expedition in the Maldives, Dr Michael Johnston, the school's CEO, previously told CNA.
In response to CNA queries, MOE said it has been "closely engaging" the school's board of governors, which oversees its operations and policies, and that it understands the school has safety processes in place for overseas trips.
These safety processes were adhered to for the Maldives trip, said MOE, and as such, the ministry will not be investigating the school's management.
"We also understand that the Board has convened a board-led review into the incident, which includes a review of SJII's safety processes. We have encouraged the parents and SJII to work together to find out the cause of the incident."
MOE added that privately funded schools (PFSs) - schools catering to international students and local students who prefer an alternative schooling option - such as SJII are "outside the mainstream school system and have autonomy over their operations, policies and governance".
As such, the school's activities are mostly not under MOE's purview.
"To support the safety and well-being of Singaporean students in PFSs, MOE conducts regular exchanges with PFSs to share best practices, including on overseas trips planning considerations and safety measures which they can incorporate into their policies and processes, taking into consideration their specific circumstances and activities," said MOE.
"We will continue to work with SJII to support the family during this difficult period."
MOE also said that the Singapore government has been in contact with the student's family since the incident and is "providing support where possible, within the ambit of our laws and regulations".
It added that while Singapore authorities do not have legal jurisdiction to investigate incidents that happen outside the country, the Singapore Police Force has been assisting the Maldivian authorities, who have primary responsibility and jurisdiction over the case.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
2 hours ago
- CNA
Asia Tonight - Thu 17 Jul 2025
46:21 Min About the show: Top stories of the day with 'live' reports and interviews to keep you up-to-date on what's happening in one of the most dynamic regions of the world. Daily at 8pm (SIN / HK)
CNA
5 hours ago
- CNA
Commentary: Should pedestrians be fined for straying into cycling lanes?
THE LIMITS OF RULES AND FINES Singapore is known for using regulation and enforcement to influence behaviour, be it tray return fines or anti-littering patrols. The active mobility space is no different. Over the past few years, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has introduced clear rules: Cyclists and personal mobility device (PMD) users can only use cycling paths and park connectors; e-scooters are banned from footpaths; and pedestrians have right of way on shared paths. Yet we continue to see friction between riders and pedestrians. Why? Because rules are only one part of the equation. What is missing is a shared understanding of how to behave in public, not from fear of being fined, but a sense of responsibility to others. In cities like Amsterdam or Tokyo, strong social norms guide how people use shared infrastructure. Cyclists slow down when approaching pedestrians. People rarely block pathways or walk in cycling zones. These behaviours are not driven by regulation, but by deeply ingrained expectations of consideration and awareness. In contrast, etiquette on Singapore's shared paths is often overlooked. It is not uncommon to see pedestrians walking abreast on shared paths, delivery riders weaving through foot traffic, or joggers and dog walkers occupying designated cycling lanes. The default response is often: 'There should be a rule about this.' But do we really want to regulate every possible interaction? Relying solely on punitive measures is not only impractical – it is also unsustainable. GRACIOUSNESS AS A CIVIC VALUE The real opportunity lies in strengthening our civic-mindedness. Whether you are a cyclist or a pedestrian, public space is shared space. Graciousness is not just a nicety; it is essential for everyone's safety. It encompasses simple but powerful actions: keeping left unless overtaking, ringing a bell before passing, slowing down near crowded areas and avoiding sudden changes in direction. These are not hard to do. What is hard is making them habitual in a context where we often expect infrastructure or enforcement to do the work for us. Graciousness also means acknowledging the diversity of users. A shared path may be used by a teenager on a bicycle, a senior using a personal mobility aid, a parent pushing a stroller, or a food delivery rider trying to make a living. Observing etiquette will accommodate all these realities, not prioritising one group's convenience over another's. EDUCATION BEFORE ENFORCEMENT To move beyond fines, we must invest in deliberate norm-building. The LTA has educated the public about conduct on shared paths through initiatives such as the Confidence on Wheels programme and Active Mobility Community Ambassadors. Public campaigns and posters on shared paths have also been launched. While these are good starting points, we can foster a culture of shared responsibility through other community-led efforts. For instance, residents, schools and businesses can get involved in placing signage or murals that promote shared path etiquette, such as 'Keep Left' or 'Ring Before You Pass'. This participatory approach builds a sense of ownership and makes the messages more visible and relevant to the local context. Instead of relying on authorities to lay down the law, the goal should be to co-create a civic culture where graciousness becomes the norm, not the exception. When people know what to expect from others, and what is expected of them, behaviour improves naturally. INFRASTRUCTURE CAN PLAY A ROLE Better behaviour must be supported by better infrastructure. Conflicts often emerge not from malice, but from ambiguity. Pathways that are too narrow, poorly demarcated zones, or inconsistent signage can lead to confusion even among well-meaning users. We could expand the use of coloured paths, clear pictograms and better lighting to guide all users. In high-conflict areas, physical separators, such as planter buffers, may help prevent path-crossing without making the space feel unwelcoming or rigid. These have to be balanced against the reality that space comes at a premium in our city. Design can also guide behaviour passively. For example, slight elevation changes between walking and cycling lanes can signal a boundary without the need for barriers. Wider shared paths in parks and residential areas can accommodate mixed users more safely. Another promising approach is to design 'slow zones' at junctions or crowded segments using textured surfaces or even pavement art, encouraging all to be more mindful of their surroundings and to proceed with caution. SHARED SPACES MEAN SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES Ultimately, this is not a debate about whether cyclists or pedestrians are more at fault. It's about how we all contribute to a safer and more respectful mobility culture. Singapore has made admirable progress in promoting active mobility, with a growing network of cycling paths and a car-lite vision that aligns with planetary health. But infrastructure and regulation can only take us so far. To become a city where walking, cycling, and other personal mobility options thrive, we must build a stronger culture of empathy, awareness and personal responsibility. Whether walking your dog, rushing to meet a friend on your bike, or going to the market on a PMA, we all want the same thing: to get to our destination safely. Let us not 'fine' our way toward that vision – let us build it together.
CNA
12 hours ago
- CNA
India investigators say too early to draw conclusions on Air India crash cause
NEW DELHI: India's aircraft accident investigation body said on Thursday (Jul 17) it was too early to reach any "definite conclusions" on what led to the deadly Air India Boeing plane crash last month that killed 260 people. "We urge both the public and the media to refrain from spreading premature narratives that risk undermining the integrity of the investigative process," Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) chief GVG Yugandhar said, adding that the investigation is still not complete. Earlier on Thursday, the Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with United States officials' early assessment of evidence, reported that a cockpit recording of dialogue between the two pilots of the flight indicated that the captain cut the flow of fuel to the plane's engines. The AAIB's preliminary report on the crash on Saturday said one pilot was heard on the cockpit voice recorder asking the other why he cut off the fuel and "the other pilot responded that he did not do so". It did not identify who made those remarks. The two pilots in the flight deck were Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and First Officer Clive Kunder, who had total flying experience of 15,638 hours and 3,403 hours, respectively. Kunder, who was flying the plane, asked Sabharwal why he moved the fuel switches to the "cutoff" position seconds after lifting off the runway, according to the Journal report. The newspaper did not say if there was any evidence that Sabharwal did move the switches, beyond the verbal exchange it cited. But it quoted US pilots who have read the Indian authorities' report as saying that Kunder, the pilot actively flying, likely would have had his hands full pulling back on the Dreamliner's controls at that stage of the flight.
