Probe into Incident of 15 July 2026 where Preparation Prompt for O-level English Language Oral Examination Differed from What Was Asked

Name and Constituency of Member of Parliament

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat, Aljunied GRC

Question

To ask the Minister for Education regarding feedback that in the 15 July 2026 O-level English Language oral examination, the preparation prompt differed from what was asked (a) whether the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) examined each candidate’s displayed prompt and contemporaneous planning notes, or only central logs; (b) how many reported the alleged discrepancy to SEAB; and (c) what assistance, if any, will be provided to candidates who gave such feedback.

Name and Constituency of Member of Parliament

Mr David Hoe, Jurong East-Bukit Batok GRC

Question

To ask the Minister for Education following feedback on the 15 July 2026 O-Level English oral examination (a) how many candidates and schools reported a prompt alleged discrepancy; (b) what evidence and checks supported the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board’s (SEAB) finding of no discrepancy; and (c) whether SEAB will consider publicly sharing a fuller account of its verification process to address continuing public concerns.

Name and Constituency of Member of Parliament

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Sengkang GRC

Question

To ask the Minister for Education regarding the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board’s (SEAB) investigation into feedback that candidates in the 15 July 2026 GCE O-level English oral examination were asked a planned response question different from that displayed on candidates’ screens (a) what records and evidence were examined; (b) whether affected candidates and examiners were consulted; and (c) what evidence supported its conclusion that no error occurred.

Name and Constituency of Member of Parliament

Ms Hany Soh, Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC

Question

To ask the Minister for Education with respect to the O-Level English Language oral examination conducted on 15 July 2026 (a) whether any requests for assistance from students or their parents have been received by Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) due to the alleged discrepancy between the question displayed on the candidates’ and the examiners’ screens; and (b) if so, how has SEAB been assisting these students.

Name and Constituency of Member of Parliament

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre, Non-Constituency Member of Parliament

Question

To ask the Minister for Education before the 2026 O-Level English results are finalised (a) whether the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) will compare candidates’ scores and responses from the 15 July 2026 oral session against other sessions; and (b) what remedies will apply if this shows a material session-level or examination-centre-level anomaly despite SEAB’s finding that one version of the examination video and questions was released.

Response

1. Mr Speaker, may I please address oral Questions 1 to 3 on today’s order paper?
2. My response will also address related oral and written Questions filed for the Sitting on 4 August 2026.
3. Sir, as the questions are about the O-level English Language oral examination on the 15^th of July, allow me to first explain the examination process. Candidates are first seated at the silent preparation station. The candidates view a computer screen with three components simultaneously displayed: the examination instructions, a text prompt and a video. They are given 10 minutes at this station to prepare a Planned Response for their oral presentation. After 10 minutes, the candidate is called to the examiner station. The oral examiner reads out the same text prompt and invites the candidate to commence the presentation. There is another examiner present. Candidates are given two minutes to deliver their Planned Response. This is followed by the Spoken Interaction component where the candidate engages in a discussion with the oral examiners on a topic based on the video clip.
4. All national examination materials are subjected to a rigorous and secure process of authoring, review and approval. The oral examinations are accessed through the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board’s (SEAB) e-Examination system. Digital logs monitor all activities carried out in the system to ensure integrity of the processes.
5. For each oral examination session, only one version of the examination material is stored on SEAB’s e-Examination system. All examination centres access the same examination material when they log into SEAB’s e-Examination system. The materials are encrypted and can only be accessed by authorised personnel. Before the start of each session, the Assessment Specialist at SEAB checks that the prompt shown onscreen to candidates during the Silent Preparation and the prompt shown to the Oral Examiners tally exactly with the prompt on the question paper in hardcopy. Once the examination has commenced, the material cannot be amended. During the examination, all stations in examination centres, including the candidates’ silent preparation stations and the oral examiners’ stations, access the same approved, secure, encrypted examination material from the e-Examination system.
6. There were 389 oral examination teams across schools, with each team comprising two trained oral examiners, assessing 13 candidates per session. The video presented to candidates depicted street barbers at work. The prompt for the Planned Response segment was: “Who do you think would go to a place like this for a haircut? Why do you say so?”.
7. On the day of the examination, 173 candidates from 76 schools, reported that the prompt for the Planned Response segment displayed on their screen at the silent preparation station was different from the one that was posed by the oral examiners. In the following days, the number of candidates who reported similar issues concerning the 15 July oral examination increased to 432 from 102 schools. Close to 5,000 candidates sat for the GCE O-level English Language oral examination on 15 July 2026.
8. On 15 July, SEAB took immediate actions to investigate. SEAB verified the examination material by making system level checks and by logging into candidates’ individual accounts in the e-Examinations system, which shows the prompt and video accessed by candidates. The investigation showed that the prompt on candidates’ screens matched the prompt in the approved examination materials.
9. SEAB subsequently also reviewed all the digital logs of the authoring and delivery of the examination material from SEAB’s e-Examination system and the digital logs of what was displayed on individual candidate’s screen during the silent preparation for all candidates who reported a discrepancy. In addition, cybersecurity checks were conducted to ascertain if the e-Examination system had been compromised.
10. Investigations showed that in all examination centres, oral examiners and candidates accessed the same examination material during the oral examination on 15 July 2026. There was no evidence of a system malfunction. There was no discrepancy in the prompt displayed to candidates and oral examiners. There was only one source that all candidates’ and examiners’ accounts accessed. There was also no cybersecurity incident detected.
11. We also observed no discernible pattern of these incidents. The 432 candidates who reported a discrepancy came from 200 different oral examiner teams. There was also no particular order to the affected candidates. For instance, it was the 2^nd and 8^th candidate for one oral team, and the 3^rd and 10^th candidate for another oral team.
12. To be clear, the discrepancies reported were not about what the oral examiners asked. Only that the recollection of the text prompt at the preparation station was different from what the oral examiner read out. The reported discrepancies also demonstrated significant variation, with different phrases recalled by different students, including by students that were examined at the same centre and by the same oral examination team. The actual prompt shown was “Who do you think would go to a place like this for a haircut? Why do you say so?”. Some candidates reported reading the prompt as “Would you go...”. Others reported reading the prompt as “Would you visit...”, “Would you be interested…”, “Would you like...”, “Would you want ...”, “Would you cut your hair (at the place shown)?”, “Would you get your haircut...” and “Why would I go...”.
13. Putting together the technical details, the distribution pattern of the incidents across the stations, schools and time, as well as the variety of phrases reported by the students, SEAB has concluded that the cause for these incidents was not technical in nature nor the result of a deliberate or malicious act.
14. We understand that the experience would have been unsettling for the affected candidates. Parents and candidates can be assured that our oral examiners are experienced teachers who assessed candidates based on what they demonstrated during the examination, including how they developed and presented their ideas and opinions, and how effectively they engaged the examiner during the discussion. The preliminary data showed that the mean score for the oral examination on 15 July 2026 is comparable to that of the other four sessions in 2026. In addition, the mean score of the 432 candidates who reported the prompt discrepancy is also comparable to the mean score of the remaining candidates who sat for the oral examination on 15 July 2026. Therefore, as a group, the candidates who reported discrepancies fared as well as other candidates who did not report discrepancies.
15. There might be some candidates who experienced significant distress arising from the circumstances. This might have affected their ability to provide a suitable response. Schools are working with these candidates to apply for Special Consideration. Special Consideration is an established evidenced-based process by examination boards to review the final subject grades for candidates whose performance had been adversely affected by circumstances beyond their control during the examinations. This is to ensure fair assessment. Each application will be evaluated on its merit.
16. We thank candidates, parents and schools for bringing their concerns to our attention. We take these reports seriously. SEAB conducted a thorough investigation before coming to the conclusion that the same prompt was displayed for all candidates. SEAB will review the oral examination processes for students to read the oral prompt more carefully during the 10-minute preparation time. SEAB also remains committed to ensuring that all candidates including those who might have misread the prompt are assessed fairly.