- On Aug 5, Workers’ Party MP Jamus Lim asked in Parliament whether the conclusion by the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) that there were no technical issues meant students had experienced a ’collective hallucination, and whether the investigation privileged computer forensic evidence over human testimony.
- Dr Janil rebutted Lim, saying: ’I would ask him to perhaps not put words in my mouth’, and later added that he did not imply ’collective hallucinations’ nor a privileging of one set of data over another.
- Dr Janil said there was ’significant variation’ in students’ recollections and cited the ’widespread variation’ in recalled phrases as a ’very significant data point’; examples included ’Would you visit?’, ’Would you be interested?’ and ’Would you cut your hair?’.
- After WP’s Kenneth Tiong probed whether SEAB examined contemporaneous planning sheets and whether an external investigation would be held, Dr Janil said some sheets showed students had misread the prompt and later corrected themselves, with one sheet showing the original prompt crossed out.
- The Government Technology Agency (GovTech) audited the exam platform and reached the same conclusion as SEAB; Reddit users on SGExams had claimed an ’error’ showed a different prompt, and some said it ’changed’ during preparation.
In a recent parliamentary session, Janil Puthucheary, Senior Minister of State for Education, responded sharply to MP Jamus Lim's comments regarding discrepancies in O-level oral exams.123
Lim questioned whether the SEAB's findings implied that students experienced a 'collective hallucination.' Puthucheary countered, stating, “I would ask him to perhaps not put words in my mouth about collective hallucinations.”
The SEAB investigated claims from 432 candidates across 102 schools, finding no technical faults. The board reviewed its e-system and conducted cybersecurity checks, concluding that all examiners and candidates accessed the same material on July 15.
Dr. Janil noted significant variations in students' recollections of the prompts, which included phrases like “Would you visit?” and “Would you cut your hair?” He emphasized that the discrepancies in testimonies were significant data points.
Lim's inquiry followed reports from students on forums like SGExams, where candidates claimed to have seen different prompts during their preparation. Puthucheary explained that some students misread the prompt but corrected themselves, as indicated in their planning sheets.111213
GovTech also audited the exam's technical platform, corroborating SEAB's findings.
“Dr Janil cited 'significant variation' in students' recollections, with recalled phrases including 'Would you visit?', 'Would you be interested?' and 'Would you cut your hair?' He also revealed some planning sheets showed students misread the prompt and later corrected themselves, crossing out the original prompt and rewriting it.”
AsiaOne
