An opinion piece published on 26 August 2025 in The Straits Times has ignited public backlash after it appeared to downplay concerns about the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) handling of a bullying case at Sengkang Green Primary School.
The commentary, written by Jason Tan, Associate Professor at the National Institute of Education, argued that punishment cannot be the sole response to bullying. He said schools must also prioritise relationship repair, rehabilitation, and guidance for students involved.
However, the article drew criticism across professional networks such as LinkedIn.
Parents, educators, lawyers, and advocates argued that the piece minimised victim safety, overlooked trauma-informed perspectives, and inadvertently defended MOE, at a time when public concern centred on accountability and protection for the victim.
MOE defends handling of Sengkang Green Primary bullying case amid public outcry
The case first emerged in mid-August 2025, when a mother alleged online that her daughter had been repeatedly bullied by three boys.
The family also reported receiving prank calls and death threats linked to the case.
Public anger spread quickly, with many accusing the school of negligence and a lack of urgency.
MOE later released a timeline showing that the boys involved had been suspended, with one subjected to caning. Despite these disclosures, confidence in the school’s and MOE’s responses had already been undermined.
The controversy echoed earlier viral incidents, including a widely circulated video of a fight at Montfort Secondary School, which had fuelled perceptions that schools were slow or lenient in tackling violence and bullying.
Tan’s framework: three tensions in public reaction
In his article, Tan sought to contextualise the backlash by pointing to three tensions that complicate how the public reacts to bullying.
First, he noted that society often expects a completely safe environment where bullying can be eradicated.
Citing research, he pointed out that one in four upper primary pupils and nearly 30 per cent of secondary school students in Singapore report bullying experiences.
He added that bullying is a global issue, with countries such as Malaysia exploring an Anti-Bullying Act, and South Korea trialling specialist-led investigations in schools.
Second, Tan observed that public discourse tends to equate justice with punishment.
He argued that while suspensions and caning may satisfy calls for accountability, both perpetrators and victims continue to exist within the same school community.
Teachers, he said, must balance victim protection, offender rehabilitation, parental expectations, and fairness.
Third, he highlighted the role of social media, which he said accelerates outrage and amplifies calls for punitive measures.
Once allegations spread online, he argued, schools and MOE face immediate judgement in the “court of public opinion,” regardless of ongoing investigations.
Concluding, Tan wrote: “At the end of the day, children are watching how adults respond. If they see knee-jerk blame and retribution, they learn one lesson. ”
“If they see the public respond with fairness, care and accountability, they learn another. That, perhaps, is the most important long-term test of how we deal with bullying.”
ST editor echoes commentary
The opinion was later shared by ST Opinion Editor Lin Suling, who reflected that her initial frustration as a parent over the Sengkang Green case was premature.
She argued that subsequent disclosures by MOE revealed the complexities behind such incidents.
Lin, drawing from Tan’s framework, stressed that unrealistic expectations of zero bullying, misplaced focus on punishment, and the distorting effect of viral outrage should be recognised in public debate.
Ultimately, she echoed that children learn from whether adults respond with blame and vengeance, or with fairness, care, and accountability.
“Apologia for MOE”
Yet, the commentary was met with widespread pushback on LinkedIn.
Critics argued that it failed to address core questions of victim safety and accountability.
Lawyer Yeoh Lian Chuan described Tan’s article as resembling an “apologia for MOE.”
He said the key issue was not the balance between punishment and rehabilitation but whether the school and MOE provided sufficient assurance of safety to the victim and her family after threats of violence.
Yeoh also criticised MOE’s earlier statement, which suggested that the parent had offered a “one-sided” account.
He said this response left unresolved questions on how death threats were handled.
MOE’s statement criticised as ‘victim-blaming’
Cindy Tay, Director of Home at the Children’s Aid Society, cautioned that MOE’s statement carried unintended nuances of victim-blaming.
She stressed that a victim’s reactions under prolonged stress, even if imperfect, should not be equated with bullying behaviour.
Instead of scrutinising parental responses on social media, she argued, schools and MOE should focus on student safety, trust-building, and preventive systems.
While condemning doxxing incidents linked to the case, Tay said MOE was well placed to lead a broader systemic dialogue on school violence.
She pointed to CNA’s recent documentary on bullying in schools, noting that the current controversy had amplified longstanding unease about how such cases are managed.
“First priority must be to stop the bullying quickly”
Benjamin Tan, Chief Executive Officer of World Vision Singapore, emphasised that “the first priority must be to stop the bullying quickly.”
He noted that in this case, the bullying persisted for months despite parental concerns and even parliamentary intervention.
“Your friend (Jason Tan) is absolutely right that children are watching how adults respond. Or not respond,” he wrote.
Call for trauma-informed approach to bullying
California-based filmmaker Lee Jan Lin also criticised the commentary, arguing that it lacked a trauma-informed perspective.
She said children in such situations do not observe “knee-jerk” adult behaviour but instead learn whether bullies face consequences or escape them.
Stressing that bullying inflicts long-term trauma, she urged MOE to adopt trauma-informed approaches, particularly amid growing risks from cyberbullying and AI.
Public confidence in MOE’s handling remains fragile
Some online commentators highlighted the gravity of the case.
One noted: “For a nine-year-old to issue a death threat goes to show something has been wrong for a long time. It is understandable for the public to question if the school had been remiss before this case came to light.”
The comment argued that “threatening to kill someone is no longer a simple campus bullying case,” and should have triggered stronger interventions earlier.
While some agreed with Tan’s emphasis on repair and community rebuilding, critics stressed that reconciliation can only succeed if victim protection is guaranteed and accountability mechanisms are transparent.
Observers argued that repairing relationships requires both perpetrators and victims to reach common ground, but that such processes must never overshadow immediate safety.
Others said the controversy revealed a broader issue: public confidence in how schools and MOE respond to bullying remains fragile.
The post ST opinion criticised as ‘apologia for MOE’ over Sengkang Green bullying case appeared first on The Online Citizen.
