Tag: Ministry of Education

  • How Have Ong Ye Kung And Ng Chee Meng Showed Themselves Worthy Of Promotion To Full Ministers?

    How Have Ong Ye Kung And Ng Chee Meng Showed Themselves Worthy Of Promotion To Full Ministers?

    Two new ministers, Ong Ye Kung and Ng Chee Meng ascended to heaven, pardon me, appointed ministers 1 year after they were elected MPs. What have they proven in that 1 year – nothing except the usual political obfuscation and motherhood speeches.

    The former can even be said to have failed first time round back in 2011 – only be reassigned to a shoo-in in 2015.

    Like many of the next generation ministers, unproven in a one for one in an election contest and within the PAP uncontested for the ministerial positions they have now been appointed to. From this, the overweening sense of entitlement springs.

    Well if you are an MP and especially if one who have serve 2 or more terms, would you not be mightily pissed off? This says service to the nation, ideas, hardwork for the constituents if that way inclined, ambitions for oneself, and fellow citizens, count for nothing so these products of the faux meritocracy based on nothing much more than a set of examination results get an automatic entrance to the cabinet.

    The party leader don’t seem even to deem necessary to address the MPs of the merits of these appointments. Forget that the annointed ones even feel the need to persuade the MPs they are deserving. To top it off, the anointed ones will chose the new Prime Minister and the MPs will just have to nod and agree.

    Woeful is our bunch of PAP MPs. What utter contempt. That’s what it means to be taken for granted. It is the consequence for being slavishly obedient and being unable or unwilling to stand out. Maybe that part-time job.is just too well paid. Maybe serving the nation is confused with being a nodding head.

    * Loyalty to party is a prerequisite to get selected but not to the extent of slavish obedience and lack of dissent. The PAP stands out for not having dissent, very unusual for politics involving alpha-males and queen bees. Or there is no public airing of dissent – also not good for understanding the choices before the nation.

    Facebook post by Chris Kuan

     

    Source: www.tremeritus.com

  • Ex-Teacher Jailed For Tricking 13 Year Old Girl To Send Nude Photos

    Ex-Teacher Jailed For Tricking 13 Year Old Girl To Send Nude Photos

    To those who knew him, Kuang Liang Yong was a married secondary school teacher with two young children.

    But behind that respectable facade lurked a sexual predator who set out to snare naive young girls.

    He took on different personas and spun a web of lies to flatter them or gain their sympathy so that he could sexually exploit them.

    And he was patient and persistent.

    To manipulate a 13-year-old girl into sending him 57 nude photos and videos of herself, he kept in touch with her for almost two years while pretending to be an accident victim with erectile dysfunction.

    When he later turned his sights on a Primary 6 schoolgirl, who was his daughter’s schoolmate, he pretended to be a boy the same age as her.

    He never met his two victims, relying only on text messages to communicate with them.

    Kuang’s devious deeds came to light when the second girl’s father made a police report after finding out about his text messages to her.

    His mobile phone was later found to contain evidence that incriminated him over the sexual exploitation of his first victim.

    Yesterday, Kuang, 47, was jailed for 22 months after he pleaded guilty last month to three charges of getting a minor to commit an indecent act under the Children And Young Persons Act, and one count under the Protection From Harassment Act.

    Kuang, who resigned from his teaching post at Admiralty Secondary School after his arrest, was also fined $500 for disorderly behaviour towards a police officer at his home.

    ADORABLE

    Court papers said Kuang met his first victim, who cannot be named because of a gag order, in early 2012 while he was with his wife and two children at Sun Plaza shopping centre in Sembawang.

    After overhearing her tell the counter staff she had lost her mobile phone, Kuang approached her to offer his phone so she could call hers.

    But his true intention was to get her phone number.

    After his arrest, he told the authorities that he found her adorable and had taken a liking to her, despite knowing that she was only 13.

    Between February 2012 and December 2013, Kuang communicated with her via WhatsApp using the moniker “Sean Romeo”.

    The chat log between them was so long that it totalled more than 400 pages, the court heard.

    When he first contacted her, he lied that he had got her number and name from her friends, and claimed he was interested in her.

    He would chat with her about sex, telling her things like: “I want you to make love with me, forever…”

    While she said she had not even kissed a boy and intended to remain a virgin until marriage, Kuang suggested that she do sexually explicit acts, such as send him nude photos or videos of herself in the shower.

    In August 2012, he lied that a road accident had left him with erectile dysfunction and depression.

    He peppered her with messages – often lengthy ones – and their conversations grew more explicit. (See report, below, for some of his less explicit messages.)

    At some point, he told the girl that a doctor said he needed to look at photographs of young girls – particularly aged 12 to 16 – regularly to recover from his erectile dysfunction.

    She finally relented and sent him 57 nude photographs of herself and videos of her doing sexual acts, despite being uncomfortable while doing so.

    In return, he told her that he considered her his girlfriend and wife from the day she started sending him these obscene materials.

    In time, she became frustrated because she knew nothing about him.

    JAILED: Kuang Liang Yong was sentenced to 22 months’ jail. PHOTO: THE STRAITS TIMES

    She even visited the address where “Sean Romeo” lived, only to be told there was no such person.

    Distressed and heartbroken, she contacted Kuang and threatened to cut herself with penknives.

    The last time Kuang contacted her was on Christmas Day in 2013, when he asked her for the phone numbers of three of her female friends.

    She refused, and Kuang stopped texting her, even though she sporadically messaged him to tell him that she missed him and hoped to speak to him again.

    Two years later, his lust had found a new target, which would prove to be his downfall. (See report, right.)

    NEIGHBOUR

    When The New Paper went to his Admiralty Drive HDB flat yesterday afternoon, no one answered the door.

    A neighbour, who declined to be named, said: “He’s always very friendly, very polite… He seemed an okay person. Every time I see him with his wife and two children, they were very nice to everyone.”

    She said Kuang told her he had stopped teaching, citing health issues, about two months ago.

    “I’m just shocked,” she said.

    – Additional reporting by Joseph Lee

     

    Source: www.tnp.sg

  • Study: Kids From Rich Families More Likely To Attend IP And GEP

    Study: Kids From Rich Families More Likely To Attend IP And GEP

    Children from higher socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to attend Integrated Programme (IP) secondary schools and their affiliated primary schools, as well as those that offer the Gifted Education Programme (GEP).

    This was a key finding of a recent study that examined class stratification in schools and if students from different schools had different levels of educational aspirations.

    The study was done by Ms Ong Xiang Ling, its principal investigator who is a Singapore Children’s Society research officer, and Dr Cheung Hoi Shan, a post-doctoral fellow at the National University of Singapore.

    Their work pointed to a disproportionate number of students from affluent backgrounds in IP and GEP schools.

    In the study, schools were divided into three groups and about 200 students from each group were polled. Type 1 were IP schools, their affiliated primary schools, as well as primary schools which offered the GEP. Type 2 were government-aided schools and autonomous schools which did not offer the IP, and Type 3 were government schools.

    Data showed that nearly 41 per cent of Type 1 secondary school students came from families with a monthly household income that exceeded $10,000, compared to 7 per cent in Type 3 schools. About 31 per cent of Type 1 students lived in private homes, compared to 2 per cent in Type 3. About 54 per cent of Type 1 students had at least one parent with university education, compared to 17 per cent in Type 3.

    The fact that there is a significant disparity in secondary schools, where entry is supposed to be by merit, points to a possible perpetuation of class differences in schools, said the researchers. Dr Cheung said: “The observation from many news reports… does point to some form of social stratification in our schools; so in elite schools you tend to have families represented by higher socio-economic status (SES) and in other neighbourhood schools you tend to have the reverse.”

    She added: “We see SES differences also in secondary schools, where entry is supposed to be determined in large part by the children’s results in the PSLE. Entry is not about distance or alumni associations, yet we also see marked SES differences in elite secondary schools. So it may point to a perpetuation – if you started off with high SES, chances are because you have more resources, you are better prepared for PSLE, so you are more likely to get into good secondary schools.”

    Said Ms Ong: “Higher SES children are more likely to be in Type 1 schools, and being in Type 1 schools makes them more likely to have high confidence in attaining at least a university degree. Then it would mean that there could be a perpetuation of class differences, because research has shown that if you have high confidence of attaining a university degree, you are more likely to actually get a university degree.”

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

     

  • Schools Should Not Be Platforms For Partisan Politics

    Schools Should Not Be Platforms For Partisan Politics

    SDP approached “our schools and educational institutions to initiate a conversation with our youth on national issues that concern them and their future”. This initiative was “aimed at bringing politics and policy-making closer to our students, challenging them to engage in thoughtful analysis on issues facing Singapore”.

    As expected, MOE has rejected SDP’s most gracious offer to help educate our students in political matters. Their reason? Schools should be “neutral places for learning and not platforms for partisan politics.” As such, talks by members of opposition parties should not be allowed.

    And I agree with MOE’s position completely. We don’t want our education system, at least up to the JC and polytechnic level, to be turned into a battlefield where political parties campaign for support. Our kids are too immature to wrap their minds around the issues involved.

    So. We definitely want to ensure that our schools do not become platforms for partisan politics. We need to ensure that nothing in our school promotes the support for any political party. For the sake of being politically neutral, we need to scrutinise every single activity that happens in school to ensure that there aren’t any activity in school that predisposes the students to support any political party.

    Let’s start with history and social studies then. We need to ensure that these two subjects are taught in a way that is politically neutral. Are they? According to what SDP claims, the history textbooks approved by MOE aren’t exactly politically neutral. According to the excerpts provided by SDP, the textbook suggests that Singapore would not have been as prosperous and successful as we are if not for the PAP and Lee Kuan Yew. How is that not being a platform for partisan politics? How is that being politically neutral?

    “But that’s history! Immutable facts!” Ok. Perhaps. So let’s talk facts.

    Edusave is a fantastic scheme by our government to maximise educational opportunities to all Singaporean students. One part of the Edusave scheme comes in the form of scholarships and awards. The money for the awards come from our national budget. Taxpayers’ money. The awards, being part of the entire Edusave scheme, come under the ambit of MOE. Many of Singaporean students are come into contact with the Edusave awards throughout their schooling years.

    What is strange is that the awards aren’t presented to the students by the teachers or the school principals. The awards are presented to the students by the advisor of the grassroots organisations of the area the student stays in. All the advisors of the grassroots organisations in Singapore are members of PAP.

    In areas where the MPs are from the opposition, it’s not the MP who presents the Edusave awards to the students. It’s the advisor of the grassroots organisation. Don’t believe me? Here’s Victor Lye, PAP candidate who contestedand lost to the WP team in Aljunied GRC in GE2015, presenting the Edusave awards to students earlier this year in his capacity as advisor to grassroots organisation of Bedok Reservoir-Punggol area.

    I’m sure that the other PAP candidates who lost in Aljunied would have had similar ceremonies to present Edusave awards to students. In other words, the Edusave award presentation ceremonies have become a platform for politicians from PAP to interact with students and their parents. In other words, the Edusave award presentation ceremonies have been perverted into platforms for partisan politics in favour of PAP.

    This needs to stop. MOE and our schools cannot be platforms for partisan politics. They MUST remain politically neutral. To be consistent with the reason that MOE has given in refusing SDP’s offer to conduct talks to students, we need to stop the practice of having PAP members being the ones to present students with their Edusave awards, right? I hope MOE truly believes in what they have said publicly and does something to rectify this gross perversion.

    Because I truly believe that our schools and MOE should NOT be platforms for partisan politics.

     

    Source: http://crazyrandomchatter.com

  • MOE: SDP’s Request To Conduct Socio-Political Talks In School Rejected

    MOE: SDP’s Request To Conduct Socio-Political Talks In School Rejected

    The Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) request to conduct talks in schools to engage youth on socio-political issues has been has been turned down by the Ministry of Education (MOE).

    Responding to TODAY’s queries, an MOE spokesperson said today (Feb 12): “We cannot allow it because schools are neutral places for learning and not platforms for partisan politics.”

    On Feb 2, the SDP had said in a press statement that the party will “approach our schools and educational institutions to initiate a conversation with our youth on national issues that concern them and their future”.

    Titled “Foster, Forge, Future: Conversations With Our Youth”, the initiative was “aimed at bringing politics and policy-making closer to our students, challenging them to engage in thoughtful analysis on issues facing Singapore”.

    In the statement, the party said that “exposure to alternative points of view is essential”, if the “goal is to cultivate independent thinking” among students”.

    “And if the objective is to foster creative thought, injecting open-minded enquiry into the educational system is necessary,” they added. The party said they would write to the MOE as well as secondary schools, junior colleges, polytechnics and universities with the request.

    Two days later, the party said in a post on its website it had been rejected by the MOE, and that the ministry had said schools are neutral places for learning. While the party was “gratified” by this, it said it was puzzled that “history textbooks approved by the MOE for secondary school students are so partisan”.

    According to the SDP, one textbook stated that the late David Marshall, Singapore’s first Chief Minister and founder of the Workers’ Party, was a “weak and indecisive leader”, and that opposition politician Lim Chin Siong “adopted violent strategies through riots and street demonstrations”, among other things.

    It also cited some questions and answers from a self-study revision book for Secondary 2 students “based on the new syllabus by Ministry of Education”, to highlight its point about history textbooks being partisan.

    In its reply, the MOE said that the textbook segments quoted by the SDP in its post “are not from a MOE history textbook”, while the self-study revision book in question is not endorsed by them.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

deneme bonusu