In the midst of heated public discussions relating to the Singapore government’s purported encroachment of the privacy of its citizens, a petition has cropped up calling for the Ministry of Education (MOE) to halt its plan of installing device management applications (DMA) on personal learning devices of students.

On 23 January, a Singapore student started a petition titled, “Stop MOE from implementing DMA (Device management application) on students’ laptops.”

It garnered over 2,000 signatures in just 14 hours. At the time of writing, it has over 2,300 signatories.

The MOE intends to install these DMAs on students’ devices be it devices that have been purchased or are on loan from the school as well as personal ones that they are using for the purposes of home-based learning.

The MOE touts three main functions of this application which are classroom management, mobile device management and user management. In essence, the application would allow educations to control and monitor the device, remotely deploy programs at their own discretion, and restrict the usage of the devices.

The petition states:

“We students are unhappy that the MOE requires such a program to be installed on our PLDs, be it our personal ones or ones purchased from the school, due to how little control, freedom, and privacy we have.

“This may also put many students’ information and data at risk to hackers, as they can easily access the data if such program is breached.”

Students are expected to have personal learning devices due to the implementation of the National Digital Literacy Programme for schools and institutes of higher learning which aims to strengthen digital literacy.

One component of that is the Personalised Digital Learning Programme (PDLP), which requires that every secondary school student owns a laptop that is either purchased or loaned from the school,  or purchased on their own, by the end of this year.

To help all students afford a personal learning device, a one-off EduSave top-up of S$200 was given to every student last year.

The author of the petition argues that apart from grave security concerns and the breach of privacy, there is still the concern that the DMA doesn’t actually address the root of the problem, which is a lack of self-regulation by students.

The author notes, that even if the DMA is “truly foolproof” and free from security risks, “Blocking the computer will not result in students suddenly acquiring a stupendous amount of self-discipline.”

“Will the DMA help students become more mature? Will it bring about lasting behavioural benefits? Will it solve the root of the problem in the long term? Or will it bring about temporary, superficial, short term consent, at the cost of a permanent opinion malus, a hatred of authority, and a loss of privacy?”

The petition proposes that the money spent on developing and acquiring the DMA could have been better spent on further subsidising laptops for less privileged students and other things like “more in-depth and better training for Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) teachers, researching and developing new and relevant pedagogies, and investing in experiential learning techniques”.

The petition also suggests the MOE to roll out monitoring systems controlled by parents instead, as parents are better able to calibrate suitable time limits for their child, taking into account each individual needs and abilities.

Schools have autonomy to control and restrict PLD usage

TOC understand that schools were informed that the DMA has to be installed in all student devices before they can be used for teaching and learning purposes. Parents are to be briefed about this.

Should parents not allow the DMA to be installed on their child’s personal device, the school has the option of loaning a device to the students, but only during school hours and not beyond that.

On the question of who manages parental control on the device, it was noted that the school should be the one to maintain control and that the school has autonomy in structuring the control of device management.

For example, the school can enable parental controls after school hours, during the weekends, and on school holidays, thus giving parent the option to control and manage the device. However, it is explicitly stated that parents would not be able to override the base restrictions set by the school.

With the DMA, the school and teachers can decide which applications can be installed on students’ devices. They can also block “inappropriate websites with adult and extremist content”, as well as restrict gaming websites and applications. The DMA will also enable teachers to monitor students usage of the device. The discretion on what applications and websites are allowed or disallowed lies with the school.

Netizens outraged by MOE’s policy, deems it unfair and overreaching

On the petition, signatories shared their reasons for supporting this call. Many cited the unfairness of how they have to bear the high cost of these devices out of their own pockets yet will have to relinquish control to school.

Some described it as government overreach.

Others suggested that if the MOE wants to monitor students’ devices, the ministry should pay for it in full.

One person even pointed out that buying these devices from schools are much more expensive than purchasing directly from the store.

Other zeroed in on the issue of privacy and not wanting to give up their privacy. One netizen pointed out that there is a boundary between school and home that should not be crossed.

One person mentioned a student’s right to privacy as stipulated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which Singapore ratified back in 1995.

Others talked about how the DMA would make it much easier for hackers to gain access to multiple devices at a time by simply hacking the teacher’s device, which has remote access via the DMA to all their students’ devices.

 

One person brought up the previous cases of government sites and databases being hacked, resulting in massive data breaches.

One student from Ngee Ann Secondary School described how they have been using devices for learning for several years already and have coped well without the extra features that the MOE now wants to implement.

Subscribe
Notify of
9 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

许连碹部长为临时巴士站主持开幕剪彩

昨早(23日),永续部兼交通部高级政务部长许连碹博士,为一座临时巴士站主持开幕仪式。 这座临时巴士站位于武吉巴督西9道的第460D座组屋。据许连碹的帖文,提及这是基层接到居民的反馈后,决定在这里增设巴士站。 “为了能让居民尽早受惠,我们设法让陆路交通管理局加快步伐。” 许连碹也是丰加北单选区议员。事实上,本月9日,她曾发文解释为何只是增设临时巴士站,而不是正式的车站。她称,这是为了尽早回应该区组屋居民的需求,好让他们可以乘搭160M巴士路线。 他解释,永久有盖巴士车站会建设恐需时更久,在正式动工前,还需得到各相关部门的审批。但临时巴士站就意味着附近居民要乘搭上述路线更为方便,以前往裕廊东转换站。 不过,网民就质问,仅仅临时巴士站,是否有必要费周章办剪彩仪式,这是否意味着,其他临时建设如临时厕所、临时走道等等也需要请部长剪彩? Happy to announce the opening of…

中秋灯饰祝福语再闹笑话 网友斥主办方推卸责任

一年一度中秋来临,总会“热闹”起来,特别是众人会特别“期待”牛车水中秋灯饰,会有什么“震惊世人”的创意?🤣 桥南路一带现“奇葩祝福语”,一路上可见一些看似不太适合庆中秋的祝福语,例如“亮亮堂堂”、“国家欢乐”、“星光闪耀”等等。民众都开始疑惑,这些祝福语到底想要表达什么意思? 就连本地作曲家潘耀田都不禁感叹,这些祝福语不伦不类,是否意味着中文水平“无下限的朝着地府方向下降?” 如今“亮亮堂堂”和“国家欢乐”等祝福语已被撤下。此前,牛车水庆中秋筹委会灯饰组负责人李玉凤称,这些装饰是由中国承包商负责灯饰,筹委会也曾要求他们删除部分不当的祝福语,然而,于上周五11日,筹委会才发现未作出任何修改。 除了部分不当的祝福语以外,李玉凤也提及其余较具争议的祝福语,如“星光闪耀”。她解释尽管这看似不恰当,但旨在重现香港复古的氛围,即当地霓虹灯标志的重要特色。 她也谈及桥南路的装饰风格,也是借鉴了香港霓虹灯标志的特色。 与此同时,网友也开始“抓错处”,例如有网友于13日上传了一张祝福语照片,其内容为,写道“月到是秋分外明”,明显出现错误,应将其改为“月到中秋分外明”。 对此,筹委会也回应了该网友的要求,并表示将会严正以待。 当然,这并非是筹委会首次出现纰漏,去年的“找吴刚代嫦娥值班”引发热议,许多网民对于嫦娥的形象过于阳刚而开始批评筹委会,甚至一度成为国人的“打卡”地点。 而今年奇葩祝福语传开后,许多网民也在《联合早报》下方,批评主办方推卸责任,认为是因为筹委会的疏忽才会导致奇葩祝福语出现,属于人为失误,应为此负起责任。 然而,去年引发争议的“吴刚代班嫦娥”的灯饰,今年又如何?根据《联合早报》报道,比起去年,今年的灯饰略显可爱,嫦娥的形象则以Q版的方式出现,但又眼尖的公众发现,嫦娥今年好像“怀孕了”! 有者笑言,是阻断期间吃胖的,还是怀孕?…

柔州务大臣登新马海域边界执勤船只

柔佛州务大臣奥斯曼沙比安,于昨日登上马国浮标船MV PEDOMAN慰问船员。 奥斯曼在脸书分享,他聆听船长解说新马争议性边界事项,也感谢船员的付出和牺牲,“捍卫海域”。 《联合早报》报导指柔大臣此举“具一定挑衅意味”,可能影响新马解决领海纠纷的努力。 不过,根据马国官媒马新社报导,马国海事局驳斥本周三一则网络报导,指马国船只目前位处新加坡海域。 马海事局企业通讯主任优斯南指出,由于需要重新补给,原本停泊在原有海域的北极星号(Polaris)航标船已开往位于柔佛丹绒巴勒斯的海事局港口。 马坚称Pedoman仍在柔港口界限内 北极星号的停泊岗位,则由航标船Pedoman 填补,但该国海事局仍坚称,船只的方位仍处在柔佛港口界限内。 优斯南称,Pedoman肩负监督柔佛港口界限内海上交通和安全的责任。 马国在去年10月25日颁佈修改柔佛新山港口海域界限宪报,我国则指柔佛港口海域界限侵犯大士一带领海范围,而马国船只也多次侵入大士水域,违反国际法,与此同时在12月6日宣布扩大大士一带港口海域界限。 而在本月8日,马国外交部长到访我国,与外长维文商讨,双方同意设立海事工作团队,研究和商讨海域问题的法律和运作事宜,并缓解局势,为进一步的谈判建立基础。有关海事团队的研究报告会在两个月内提呈给部长。…

考量体弱者应对医疗开销 读者吁屋契回购计划应更弹性化

建屋发展局处长(分局运作)林丽丽,于本月17日在《海峡时报》回应一读者观点,重申符合屋契回购计划(LBS)的年龄为65岁,不过该局将检讨让年龄标准更为弹性化,特别是让那些面对健康和财务问题的群体能受惠。 事缘一名读者撰写评论,提出屋契回购计划应该对乐龄群体更为亲善些。 名为郑春斐(译音)的民众,提出老一辈许多夫妇,丈夫多年长于妻子,假设丈夫已65岁,但是妻子才53岁,夫妇俩都不能参与屋契回购计划。 “直到妻子也迈入65岁,两人才符合资格,这时丈夫都已经77岁了。”只要丈夫与妻子间年龄差距越大,其中一人能透过屋契回购,享有退休福利的时间就越短。 体弱年长者面对医疗和生活双负担 为此,他建议有关计划的合格条件应更弹性些,特别是有者也因为健康原因提早退休,是否也能够让他们善用计划来保障退休后的收入?特别是他们还要面对医疗和生活开销的双负担? 同时,郑春斐也质疑,为何透过售卖屋契的所得,非得注入公积金退休户口不可? 这让年长者的财务管理选择不多,一些年长者公积金户口本本就没有多少储蓄、且急需现钱用在医疗和退休生活开销。 “屋契回购计划的设定,应让年长者获得更实质的帮助,让他们拥有可支配收入。” 该读者也提出,建屋局并没有阐明,在出售部分屋契后,屋主是否还能出租整间房子,如此屋主可以和子女一起居住,又能从房租中获取额外收入。 对此,林丽丽强调,屋契回购计划让年长者,可回售组屋部分屋契给政府,藉此为退休生活换取稳定、持续的收入。 回售组屋的所得,…