SINGAPORE: Netizens have questioned the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) statement on the bullying case at Sengkang Green Primary School, particularly its emphasis on the victim’s hurtful behaviour, with some asking if it implied that victims of bullying should remain silent.
MOE released a detailed timeline and public statement following intense scrutiny over the Primary 3 bullying incident at the school.
On 20 August 2025, the ministry addressed the controversy, confirming that three nine-year-old students had been suspended for making graphic death threats against a classmate and her mother.
The student’s mother, Ni Yin, had earlier shared a viral Facebook post detailing the abuse her daughter allegedly endured over several months, accusing the school of failing to respond adequately.
MOE later revealed that a four-hour meeting had taken place between school officials and the parents of the affected student.
During the meeting, the full sequence of events was reviewed, including what MOE referred to as the “hurtful behaviours” the victimised student had also engaged in.
According to the ministry, the parents eventually agreed that their daughter would return to school under an “enhanced safety plan,” withdrawing their earlier request for a transfer.
Death Threats and Harassment
The case had already drawn widespread attention after Ni’s 14 August post went viral.
Matters escalated further when she revealed that she had received graphic voice messages, allegedly from one of the boys involved, threatening to “dissect” her daughter.
Ni said the recordings were traced back to the mother of one of the alleged bullies, who had leaked her contact details. She reported the threats to the police, and the Singapore Police Force confirmed that investigations are ongoing.
Despite the suspensions, Ni alleged her daughter was physically assaulted three times in August, once returning home with a visible bruise. The child has since stopped attending school and is receiving psychological support.
School Response and Parent’s Plea
On 15 August, the school acknowledged the suspensions but also claimed that the affected student had displayed “hurtful behaviours.”
Ni strongly rebutted this statement, accusing the school of shifting blame onto the victim and demanding evidence of any alleged misconduct, noting that such claims had never been raised before the case went public.
In her appeal, she called for her daughter’s immediate transfer, counselling and disciplinary action for the bullies, accountability for staff who failed to act, and a transparent anti-bullying reporting system across schools.
MOE Defends School’s Actions
MOE defended the school’s handling, stating that each incident was addressed in a timely and firm manner, including the immediate suspension of the students involved.
Further disciplinary measures, including caning, are being considered.
“The affected student had herself engaged in hurtful behaviour on some occasions, and the school had similarly handled these episodes in an even-handed manner,” MOE said.
The ministry stressed that the school remained in contact with all parents, providing updates on safety measures and support mechanisms.
Responding to the surge of public outrage, MOE criticised the dissemination of one-sided accounts on social media, warning that such posts had led to online attacks and doxxing of staff and students.
“These are bullying behaviours and send the wrong signal to children on what appropriate behaviour looks like,” the ministry said, reaffirming its commitment to act firmly against bullying.
Public Criticism of MOE Statement
The MOE statement drew criticism on social media platforms such as Reddit and Facebook. Some netizens described the response as dismissive and passive-aggressive.
“Reading the article and I honestly feel this is quite a passive-aggressive statement,” one user commented.
“You’d expect a statement from the ministry such as the MOE to be more understanding and to just stick to the facts, but opinion is dished. The use of ‘dramatised’ is judgy and dismissive,” another added.
Netizens Question MOE Highlighting Victim’s Behaviour
Many netizens questioned why MOE highlighted the victim’s “hurtful behaviour,” expressing concern that such framing could discourage children from speaking up.
“If someone bullies my kid and my kid defends herself, what is wrong? And why force the victim to mend a friendship with a bully?” one user asked.
“I believe it is acceptable for my child to defend herself when she is bullied, as this is an act of standing up for oneself. The importance of self-defence should be acknowledged and not misinterpreted as a ‘hurtful action,’” another commented.
“Should the Victim Just Be Quiet?”
Some users questioned whether portraying the girl’s defence as hurtful behaviour implied that victims of bullying were expected to remain silent.
One user noted that the poor victim was up against three bullies all by herself, yet MOE was calling out her behaviour.
“This is victim-blaming at its best. Are we expecting her to behave like a doormat and not react to the constant intimidation?” the user added.
Another user remarked that the timeline revealed a systematic failure by the school to protect the student.
Verbal abuse occurred in April, harassment continued in July, death threats were made to the family, and physical violence took place in August, yet each incident was treated as isolated and resolved only through mutual apologies and friendship-mending.
“What message does this send? That victims should stay silent while being harassed? That defensive reactions are equally wrong as death threats?” the user asked.
One user expressed concern that the ministry’s framing would make children more reluctant to speak up about bullying.
“Ever thought that putting such statements out just makes other kids more afraid to speak up when they’re bullied? It shifts the blame back onto the victim — ‘because you misbehaved, you triggered the bully’,” the user highlighted.
Another user added that, while MOE does not condone bullying and hurtful behaviour, the statement appeared to shift blame onto the victim.
The repeated focus on the victim’s own missteps diverted attention from the fact that she was the one being targeted.
Netizens Question If Case Would Matter Without Online Exposure
Many also questioned whether the case would have been taken seriously without social media exposure.
Some users noted that if MOE or schools acted faster when issues first arose, matters would not have escalated online.
Another user commented that posting the case online was likely the parents’ last resort when the school and MOE could not provide a satisfactory response.
“From a parent’s perspective, it often feels that most of the time schools tend to downplay such incidents in order to protect their reputation, preferring to seek an amicable settlement or take no action at all,” another remarked.
Calls for Victim-Centred Approach
Devanantthan, Executive Director and Co-Founder of Mental ACT, a non-profit supporting the South Asian community in Singapore, weighed in on the Sengkang Green Primary School case through a LinkedIn post.
Reading MOE’s official timeline, he noted that almost none of the victim-centred steps that should have been standard practice were reflected in the report.
He argued that immediate safety should have been the top priority — separating the victim from the bullies, conducting a same-day threat assessment, and ensuring supervised transitions with trusted adult check-ins.
Devanantthan also stressed the need for clear consequences and victim-centred support.
He said threats of violence should have triggered an immediate police report, suspension from all school activities, and re-entry only after counselling and a behaviour contract.
Similarly, the victim should have been offered trauma-informed counselling, flexible schooling arrangements, and a single point of contact.
He called for whole-school education on aggression, bystander roles, and staff training, rather than the repeated emphasis on “restoring friendships” and “character development.”
The post MOE’s defence of Sengkang Green Primary bullying case faces scrutiny over victim-blaming and dismissive tone appeared first on The Online Citizen.
