The Secondary 5 student from Anglo-Chinese School (Barker Road) looks at the other five around him, and adds:
'I truly understand that the Government is doing a good job. We’re prospering, we’re forward-looking.
'But it comes off as propaganda. They’re forcing you to learn this because they want you to know how good they’re doing and how you should vote them in again. Like, there is an entire chapter on good governance.'
His senior by 27 years, also a former ACS boy, nods and concedes: 'It is indeed the truth - to a certain extent.'
The others grin.
It could be any other session of students trashing the education system. Except that the man responding is Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui Tuck Yew, who was appointed Minister of State for Education in May.
Insight organised the informal chat at a Holland Village ice-cream cafe, to let the students quiz the new MOS in a no-holds-barred fashion, in front of The Straits Times.
RADM Lui, a father of two girls aged 13 and 10, did not hesitate, seeing in the encounter an opportunity to engage his constituents.
His role in MOE is threefold: he oversees primary and secondary schools and junior colleges. He heads the English Language Review Committee to improve the teaching of the English language.
And last week, he was asked to chair a committee to review the National Education (NE) programme introduced in 1997.
Through social studies and other subjects, this programme aims to foster a sense of national identity, and help students understand the challenges facing Singapore.
Is National Education working?
Tan Yee Ling, 21, from the Institute of Technical Education, thinks so. She enjoys the subject through activities such as role-playing.
But Muhammad Nabil, 15, a Secondary 3 student from Raffles Institution, says: 'I don't think it’s effective.'
Citing a recent lesson on what the red and white of the Singapore flag stand for, he adds: 'Most of the things that they go through are quite basic. I think we need to move on from there, something that appeals to our intelligence.'
The way it’s taught now makes it 'a waste of time,' declares Robert Straughan, 14, a Secondary 2 student from Fairfield Methodist Secondary.
Despite being sceptical about NE, the students say they do feel a bond to the nation, and miss Singapore when overseas.
An upbeat RADM Lui notes that the situation isn’t too bad, if youngsters feel that sense 'almost of loss' when they are away.
But Robert argues that a distinction has to be made, between the warmth one has for Singapore as one’s home where family and friends are, and Singapore as a nation and the values it stands for.
And indeed, what Singaporeans feel for their country should go beyond 'just this warm fuzzy feeling', says RADM Lui. There should also be a sense of responsibility to do something to bring about an improvement in society.
While critical of the way it’s taught, the students don’t want to see it scrapped, saying it just needs a revamp.
Go beyond the Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others ethnic groupings, and remember the sub-cultures of minority groups such as the Peranakans, says Hanisah Maskon, 16, a Secondary 4 student from Canberra Secondary.
To dispel the image that National Education is propaganda, it needs to embrace a variety of perspectives, says Gayle Goh, 18, of Anglo-Chinese Junior College.
She says: 'Maybe it’s time to look more searchingly at different sides to the Singapore Story.' One example is getting their version of history from Barisan Sosialis activists and communists - 'the sides of the story that don’t often see daylight in our textbooks though these are momentous occasions in our history crucial to nation-building.'
Another suggestion from Benjamin is to incorporate current affairs. Rather than regurgitate a fixed version of history to students, it spurs debate of real-time events and lets students make up their own minds, he argues.
One heated moment occurred during a discussion on whether everyone gets the same opportunities to flourish within the system.
Streaming, for instance, was in principle about letting the fast move faster, while helping the slow progress at their own pace.
But Benjamin, who studies in the Normal (Academic) stream which gives students five years to prepare for their O levels, says N(A) classes 'end up' with less experienced teachers like trainees.
Principals have even been known to ask teachers why they were wasting their time with N(A) classes, he claims.
The hitherto jovial minister turned stern here, saying: 'I would take it very seriously against the principal if I find him telling teachers: Don’t waste time on the N(A) or Normal (Technical) students.' But his impression during school visits was that teachers in these streams are dedicated, he says.
To which Gayle argues that the impressions given to him as a minister can differ greatly from that of students within the system.
And among the students, 'there IS an impression that people in other streams get less qualified teachers'.
Responds RADM Lui: 'Do we dictate to the schools where they should go? No, not as a policy. I would have to find out whether trainee teachers are predominantly pushed into the N(A) and N(T) streams.'
The session yielded food for thought. A day later, when Insight caught up with him, RADM Lui said his committee would consider incorporating current affairs into National Education classes.
He was cheered that the students were keen to debate issues. 'They want to get into discussions, they want to argue about it. Do so.'
Q&A with Minister of State Lui Tuck Yew, a day after his roundtable discussion with students
What do you think of the session yesterday?
To spend a bit more time on current affairs - I think that's useful, because that part of the story is still being written. It's helpful for them to be exposed to different viewpoints, think about it on their own, and then discuss as a class.
We want to infuse this into the curriculum, for example, General Paper, if you are in junior college.
Also, if you visit the Causeway, you talk about the bridge, that is something that's current and people understand why some things are being debated the way it is today. And you use it to reinforce some of the historical perspectives.
Will local politics be included?
I don't know how much of that is being discussed in the schools, but I certainly hope they do some of it.
We want people, those of voting age, to be making informed choices about the future of Singapore.
Some of the teachers may well be a little uncomfortable because they may feel that they're not equipped, they don't quite know what the boundaries are, and so on. These are natural concerns. We will have to find ways to help them, in terms of giving some resource materials.
How will the opposition be portrayed vis-a-vis the ruling party in such classes then?
It really depends on how the lesson evolves, rather than to say, you must cover this about the PAP, you must cover this about the opposition party. I don't think you want to be so prescriptive.
I think you want to be careful about the role of politics with the big P (party politics) being brought into the education system so that the classroom doesn't become a recruitment ground.
This brings me to the next question which is whether National Education is about portraying just one version of the Singapore Story, as one of the students suggests?
I don't think there's only one side of the story and only one set of information is available. I was talking to our ex-ambassador to Moscow, Joe Conceicao, who wrote a book. We're thinking of using excerpts to share with our students. It's useful for them to be reading bits and pieces of the exploits of all these different people who lived through the independence years.
Mr Conceicao was a former PAP MP. Are there any texts that now offer, say, Barisan's point of view about the struggle at the time?
Are there any texts they have written that are suitable for National Education? We'll have to see at what level, if at all, we should introduce this.
You're not going to try and put this, say, at the lower secondary, primary school level, because I think it confuses people.
For selected students who have the maturity to look at these things with an open mind, we may well be prepared to do so.
But I think it will be a mistake to introduce so many different conflicting versions throughout the entire system that it merely confuses more than anything else.
Because don't forget that the objective of NE is really to develop certain instincts in us, instincts for survival, instincts for social cohesion, instincts about the future and the way ahead.
What else are you looking at in the review of NE?
One, messages behind NE. Are they relevant still?
Also, how can we provide better support to the teachers? At the end of the day, it is they who play an absolutely critical role.
We are also looking at how we can involve the community. NE is not just about the school and the students. We can bring in a variety of different speakers, including people from the social sector.
Instruments like webchats are a different way of reaching out.
What's the timeline for the committee?
We will target to complete the review by next February.
Do you foresee a time when NE is no longer necessary?
No, I don't see that. For us as a very young nation, all the more so.
Don't forget also that our society is constantly evolving. We hope that more people will want to become Singaporeans. They come from very different backgrounds, and part of integrating them into society is to help them appreciate the history of the place that they have decided to call home.
You also have new generations of children coming to school. I think it's worthwhile repeating some of these messages.
The way you do it may become different but what instincts you want them to develop, will not change.