Rilek1Corner

Tag: schools

  • Osman Sulaiman: Government Must Work For, Not Against, Singaporeans To Foster Nation Building

    Osman Sulaiman: Government Must Work For, Not Against, Singaporeans To Foster Nation Building

    The coming presidential election reserved for Malay candidates has divided the nation with some polarised views.

    Often enough, the PAP gov has been quick to accuse the alternatives as playing racial politics. But the mother of all racist policies originated and created by this gov.

    Our pride from being a multi-racial society, living side by side, co-existing happily is all but a facade that this gov would want us to believe.

    Its brand of politics is never about empowering the people but rather to divide us against each other.

    How else would we explain this?

    1. The existence of SAP schools where those who are not able to speak mandarin are not eligible

    2. The subtle exclusion of the Malay/Muslim citizens in the Navy through its hollow reasoning of not being able to accommodate space for halal diet.

    3. Its perverse reasoning that the society is not ready for a minority Prime Minister.

    4. The appalling act of discrimination through its policy to deny job opportunities for those wearing the tudung.

    5. We are further divided in schools through elitism and streaming of students at a young age.

    The society will never be able to progress as a nation until our leaders act for us. Not against us.

     

    Source: Khan Osman Sulaiman

  • Dilema Seorang Ayah – Jika Anak Dibuli, Nasihat Apa Yang Patut Diberi?

    Dilema Seorang Ayah – Jika Anak Dibuli, Nasihat Apa Yang Patut Diberi?

    Saya dapat tahu yang anak saya dibuli seorang pelajar lain di tadikanya.

    Saya tanya dia kenapa tidak laporkan kepada guru.

    Dia mungkin seorang yang pemalu.

    Saya sarankan agar beliau melawan balik apabila ditolak dan dipukul hingga jatuh.

    Namun si ibu membangkang dan mengatakan saya tidak seharusnya mengajar dia sedemikian.

    Saya menyuruh anak lelaki saya untuk membuat aduan kepada gurunya. Memang watak anak lelaki saya ini tidak suka mengadu walaupun di rumah apabila bergaduh dengan kakaknya.

    Namun, “bermain” dan “bergurau” itu perlu setimpal. Saya tidak ingin si pemukul meneruskan penindasan itu.

    Saya mahu anak lelaki saya “bergurau” kembali.

    “What If he is rougher?” Tanya si Boy.

    Saya menyuruh beliau untuk “bergurau” lebih ganas daripada dia. Kerana dengan pukulan yang dibalas akan mengingatkan si pemukul bahawa sakit rasanya apabila dipukul dan jatuh ke lantai.

    Saya tidak mahu anak saya berlaku ganas terhadap orang lain namun biar dia dapat mempertahankan dirinya daripada terus menerus dianiaya orang lain.

    Maka kini saya sudah tahu kenapa dia sering ada lebam-lebam di badan dan kakinya.

    Adakah saya seorang ayah yang jahat?

     

    Source: Zan Sofiyan Original

  • Goh Meng Seng: Do Not Divert Attention From Real Issues In Benjamin Lim’s Case

    Goh Meng Seng: Do Not Divert Attention From Real Issues In Benjamin Lim’s Case

    I am utterly disappointed by the Minister for Home Affairs (who is also the Minister of Law, which I always feel is totally inappropriate as it may constitute a conflict of interests but this article is not about this) Mr. Shanmugam’s statement made in parliament with regards to the case of Benjamin Lim Jun Hui.

    Instead of addressing the many valid pertinent concerns raised by the public, on and off-line, he has put up a barrage of fire attacks at The Online Citizen (TOC) and the President of Law Society, Mr. Thio Shen Yi with totally irrelevant petty details of bickering.

    Whether there were 4 or 5 policemen went to the school, wearing police uniforms or plain clothes are really irrelevant to the pertinent questions asked by TOC, Mr Thio and the public at large.

    It is even more ridiculous for the Minister to cast doubts on TOC’s intent by raising the fact that it has reported that the Police refused to comment on the matter when approached!

    For whatever reasons the police refused to comment (such as those reasons presented by the Minister himself), it should just say so when TOC asked them! A good and competent Public Relations Officer from the Police would have made simple comment like “We cannot comment on this case as internal investigation is still ongoing.” or “We cannot comment on this case as there will be Coroner Inquiry, please wait for the result of Coroner Inquiry”…etc.

    The total ignore or silence from the Police is smacked of either arrogance or complete incompetency in Public Relations communication.

    The Police has its own Pubic Relations officers. If the Police refused to answer to TOC’s inquiries, then the Minister cannot blame the TOC for reporting so (the truth that the police refused to comment) and the public will have their own discretion to form their own opinion.

    So my dear Minister, it is the FAILURE of Police Public Relations officers in responding to the matter in timely manner that created public perception, not TOC. TOC merely reported the NO RESPONSE from the police!

    It is of course the prerogative of the Police in keeping silence but it must also understand that keeping quiet will have its consequences and implications.

    By the way, the Main stream media also reported 5 officers went to the school! Please lah! Why not fire at the Main stream media as well?

    As for the President of Law Society, the point made was the necessity of the police making the arrest at the school! So, don’t try to divert from this pertinent question by going into the irrelevant bickering. Do you think it is appropriate or necessary for the police to send 4 or 5 police officers to the school to make the arrest?

    There are more important questions raised by the public and I expect the Minister to address them, instead of using diversion tactic to dodge from these questions and public anger:

    1) Does the Minister think it is RIGHT (never mind if it is legal or not) for policemen to go to school to arrest students who are just suspects of crimes?

    2) Does the Minster think it is RIGHT (never mind if it is legal or not) for the police to interrogate minors without the presence of guardian or legal representative? In fact, is it right for police to deny legal representation or aid to suspects, regardless of age, during interrogation?

    These are the two important issues raised by the President of Law Society and they are valid questions to be addressed fully. These questions raised does NOT constitute sub judice but it is of GREAT PUBLIC INTERESTS.

    I hope the Minister could address these real issues instead of wasting time trying to divert attention to inconsequential minor details and bickering.

    Oh, by the way, the poor boy was just investigated but NO OFFICIAL JUDGMENT has been made about him just yet. I do not understand why the Minister would insinuate him as “guilty” in parliament just because, according to the police interrogation, he “confessed” to the crime. His confession could be contested in court if there was really a court case but unfortunately, he won’t have that trial now. So I would urge the Minister not to put judgment on the poor dead boy in parliament even though he is also the Minister of Law, but he is not the judge nor the case has been heard.

    Goh Meng Seng

     

    Source: People’s Power Party – PPP

  • 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

  • Parents Of Malaysian Students In Singapore Considering Options Due To Higher Costs

    Parents Of Malaysian Students In Singapore Considering Options Due To Higher Costs

    JOHOR BARU – Thousands of parents whose children are schooling in Singapore will have to fork out more, not just because of the weakening ringgit, but also due to the increase in school fees beginning next year.

    Many of them are now scouting for local private or international schools as the school fees and transportation cost have now come up to almost RM2,000 per child per month.

    More than 10,000 children from Johor brave predawn and afternoon traffic jams at the Causeway to attend school in Singapore.

    They are picked up at designated areas around the city by about 4.30am to 5am so that they can make it in time for school which starts at 7.10am.

    Housewife V. Meena, 47, whose two children are studying in the island republic, said it would now cost her an additional S$120 (RM360) for both her children.

    “One of my sons is in primary and another in secondary school there,” she said, adding that her younger child’s new fees would be S$370 (RM1,110), S$20 (RM60) more while fees for her elder child would be S$550 (RM1,650), an increase of S$100 (RM300).

    Meena said she would have to look at other options such as putting them in local private or international schools.

    “Whatever I do, I need to think about them as surely they will miss their schoolmates whom they are close to,” she said.

    Lawyer L.M. Looi, 46, said he too was looking at other options for his son who is in Primary 5 in Singapore.

    “It is not just the increase in school fees next year, but the cost of transportation has also gone up to almost RM900 per month this year,” he said.

    Gregory Lui, 47, said that his son would be going to secondary school and the S$100 increase to S$550 per month would be a burden.

    “When my son started in Primary One, we were paying about S$125 per month. The fees seem to be always increasing,” he said.

    Lui is also considering Malaysian private or international schools in the state.

    Another parent who wanted to be known as Mrs Chang, 39, said she would have to bear with the increase as it was too late to take out her 11-year-old son.

    “My 13-year-old son, who was initially there, opted to come back to Malaysia as he was unable to cope with the stress of studying there. He is now studying in an international school here,” she said, adding that she pays about RM1,300 per month for his school fees.

    Singapore’s Ministry of Education in a statement on Tuesday announced that it would be revising the school fees for students who are Permanent Residents (PRs) and international students (IS) in government and government-aided schools from January 2016.

    The increase is part of its periodic review of school fees and to further differentiate fees by citizenship.

    Fees will increase by between S$20 (RM60)and S$60 (RM180) per month for PR students and by between S$20 and S$150 (RM450) per month for IS.

    School fees for Singapore citizens remain unchanged – it is free at primary level, S$5 (RM15) for secondary level and S$6 (RM18) for pre-university level.

     

    Source: http://news.asiaone.com