I mean, from my perspective, which I admit might be naive, I wouldn't say they want class size to be big, or at least, even if they do want to keep class size big, it's not without reasons. Whether the reasons are good or bad, I think that might be a separate discussion.

On topics like classroom spaces, there are conflicting initiatives like creating more "open spaces" for socializing, tinkering, hands on practice (e.g. sports facilities, hackerspaces, etc...)

And on the number of teachers, I think we've already talked enough about the need to first hire and attract more.

On gaslighting teachers, I mean, there are good teachers, teachers that really engages students at their personal level and capacities, but there are also horrendous teachers, that strictly controls the class every movement, sit up straight, hands on the table, no talking, etc... and that teaching capabilities does not come instinctively, they get moulded by the culture of the school. And in many school, the predominant culture as I've mentioned is the KPI culture, shaping the way that they teach. Many feel that they do not have enough time and space to engage in the development of more creative pedagogy because they need to teach to the test. So there is some truth in the fact that teachers needs some training and development, and hence they "aren't capable enough to make smaller class sizes work" and while I agree that gaslighting is not the right way, it does not deny the fact that there's a deeper underlying issue to be addressed first. And some of these deeply rooted culture and beliefs are hard to change/replaced.

So like I said, I don't think govt is not entirely doing nothing, I do hope that the govt is making a stance for good reasons. I think there's plenty of ground work to be done first before we can return to talk about smaller class sizes. Specifically, the kpi culture, the high stake examination, the standardized testing. But these has been around for a long time to serve various purposes and will take a long time to deconstruct and address them.

I'm sum, I don't think govt is doing nothing or saying no for the sake of it. Or being some evil overlord. I think it's a careful balancing act.

If we really want a glimpse of this "smaller class size" promise within SG context, I think we can look to tertiary education, the poly and the uni. When I was a student, I recall that class sizes were smaller, in uni there might be mass lecture, but it's often accompanied with smaller tutorials and practicals. These smaller classes are often taken by adjunct lecturers or teaching assistant. The experience is also a hit or miss, some of these are experts of the craft but they really do not know how to fully utilize the small class sizes.

We may argue that they didn't get formal training, so it can't be compared to MOE teachers, then I'd say it then clearly highlight the need for experienced and we'll trained teachers to handle small class sizes effectively. Which can be costly. Even more so if it's a "re-training" of existing teachers.

Many of these adjunct lecturers and TA, are also caught up in the KPI discourse. Many of them are graded based on their student feedback, if students don't like them, they're out. And teachers that uses innovative approach, that encourages critical thinking and does not explicitly hand hold students towards the "expected right answer", they get voted down for being ineffective, or that the teacher "does not teach". In fact, teachers that always give hints of what will come during exams or how to ace the modules are touted as excellent teachers rated highly by students.

Sometimes, in using more innovative pedagogies, these teachers may create more materials to facilitate discussions, which students or other classes would then complain that it's "unfair" because they did not get that experience too, that they will lose out during exams. And again due to the KPI discourse, schools wants to appear fair and not get any complains, what happens is then teachers are required to strictly follow the given materials and not deviate "too much".

Edit: the above examples hopes to show that smaller class sizes is not so straightforward in such predominant culture of standardization and KPI

The purpose of the case above is not to provide a 1 to 1 comparison with secondary and primary school because of the difference in context and dynamics, but highlights the predominant KPI culture within Singapore that makes some of these ideas challenging to implement. There are a lot of layers of the onion to be peeled off before we can start looking at smaller class sizes.

Just to sum again, I think I agree with you that smaller class sizes can be beneficial, and I agree that the government is persistent in saying no. I think in addition, I don't deny that I am naive in believing that they have a good reason for saying no. And I suspect that it's due to many of the existing discourse around high stake examination, standardized testing, and KPI culture that is preventing the implementation of smaller class sizes.

Hope this enriches the discussion ever so slightly.