SINGAPORE – The Direct School Admission (DSA) process in Singapore, designed to allow students to gain entry into secondary schools or junior colleges (JCs) based on their talents in sports, arts, or leadership, has come under scrutiny following allegations of bribery in the basketball selection process. The case has raised concerns about the fairness, transparency, and equity of the system, especially as some coaches reportedly had significant influence over the admission decisions.
The DSA, introduced in 2004, offers students the opportunity to bypass traditional exams by using their talents to secure a place in schools. Last year, approximately 14,500 students from the Primary 6 cohort applied for the scheme, with around one-third succeeding. Despite its well-meaning intentions, the process has been questioned for its subjective nature, particularly in team sports and arts-related fields, where decisions often rest heavily on the judgment of individual coaches or teachers.
A former basketball coach, who spoke anonymously, shared that the coach involved in the bribery case had significant control over the selection process, with some teachers deferring to the coach’s judgment due to time constraints. This highlights the potential for bias and manipulation when a single person has the final say. The Ministry of Education (MOE) responded by stating that schools must form selection panels led by their leadership teams to evaluate DSA applicants, with coaches playing a supportive role. This adjustment aims to ensure a more balanced and transparent decision-making process, although individual schools still retain some autonomy in their methods.
Read more : Indonesia Sets Sights on Weightlifting Gold at Paris Olympics
Some former DSA students have shared their experiences, highlighting how subjective the process can be. One badminton athlete recalled how her selection was based primarily on her coach’s assessment of her skills, while another former student in the literary arts noted that personal biases often influence the selection process, particularly in fields where styles and preferences can differ greatly. While some students feel the DSA process is inherently flawed, others argue that it is not entirely broken and needs only minor improvements.
In response to the bribery scandal, some parents have urged for a measured approach, suggesting that the actions of one individual should not discredit the entire DSA system. However, the issue has prompted Members of Parliament (MPs) to raise questions about the transparency and fairness of the process, with calls for clearer guidelines and greater oversight.
Experts have long pointed out that students from more affluent backgrounds have a significant advantage in the DSA process, as they are often able to access better coaching, resources, and networks. To address these disparities, some have called for enhanced financial assistance and bursary schemes to ensure that students from all backgrounds have an equal chance of succeeding.
The National Institute of Education’s Associate Professor Jason Tan emphasized that the DSA system, while offering opportunities for talented students, must be continually assessed to ensure it is equitable and transparent. He suggested that schools should also consider broader qualities such as character, resilience, and leadership when selecting DSA candidates, as outlined by former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in 2013.
