Rilek1Corner

Tag: SDP

  • SDP: PAP Clearly Violating MOE Policy Of Maintaining Apolitical Schools

    SDP: PAP Clearly Violating MOE Policy Of Maintaining Apolitical Schools

    Singapore Democrats

    In 2009, the Straits Times reported that Minister for Law K Shanmugam had warned his party members in an editorial in Petir, the PAP’s newsletter, that “younger voters can erode its dominant position should the party fail to convince them that Singapore…needs a strong leadership and a political system that allows for effective and speedy decisions to be made”.

    Mr Shanmugam felt that for the PAP to prolong its power, it needed to “provide greater political education for Singaporeans, in particular, students”.

    Another Straits Times report said that Mr Shanmugam proposed that schools teach “comparative political systems” but to do this in the context of “improving the Government’s effectiveness in reaching out to younger Singaporeans”.

    This is why the SDP applied to the Ministry of Education (MOE) to allow us to conduct talks with students and to present another point of view. The MOE, however, says that “schools are neutral places for learning and not platforms for partisan politics”. The SDP documents here how biased and partisan history and social studies textbook are.

    Educate students about politics, says Shanmugam
    By Zakir Hussain
    Straits Times
    19 December 2009

    For 50 years, the PAP has stayed in power because it has delivered progress to the people, its leaders often point out.

    But Law Minister K. Shanmugam feels younger voters can erode its dominant position should the party fail to convince them that Singapore, more than most countries, needs a strong leadership and a political system that allows for effective and speedy decisions to be made.

    He gave this warning to his party members in an editorial in the latest People’s Action Party bi-monthly magazine, Petir.

    Mr Shanmugam appears to have his eye on the clock when he issued his word of caution, saying no political party had stayed in power continuously for more than 70 years.

    The way for the PAP to outlive this record, he feels, is to provide greater political education for Singaporeans, in particular, students.

    However, he said: ‘The education should not trumpet the virtues of any particular system.’

    Instead, students should be taught, among other things, how political systems work in different cultures, the impact of geographical and social factors on societies and why city states rise and fall.

    ‘This will make people look carefully at the liberal democratic model and help them decide which aspects best suit Singapore,’ he said as he set out how the PAP can communicate better its message that Singapore needs good governance and that only the PAP can deliver it.

    His concern comes at a time when a younger generation of better-educated voters feels the political process and system in a democratic state should be based on the Western model of liberal democracy.

    Mr Shanmugam and government leaders reject the view, arguing that the best systems are those that fit the society they govern.

    ‘Not every aspect can be transplanted in toto across cultures, without regard to different economic, social and geostrategic situations,’ said the Law Minister.

    It is a position he has argued vigorously in favour of in the past three months: first to a group of international lawyers meeting here in October, then the Harvard alumni in Singapore last week, and now, PAP members.

    Mr Shanmugam, who is also Second Home Affairs Minister, said the PAP’s message had resonated with the older generation who experienced the turmoil of Singapore’s early years.

    ‘But the collective memory of this is not as strong among newer generations, whose viewpoints will increasingly influence the political process,’ he added.

    Younger Singaporeans may therefore believe that the Western model of liberal democracy can be adopted without trade-offs, he said.

    ‘Singaporeans are entitled to decide whether they want the trade-offs.

    ‘And if the majority chooses slower development and a lower quality of life, and is willing to accept more tensions within our society in return for changes in the political system, then so be it,’ he said.

    ‘But that choice must be an informed one,’ he added.

     

    Source: http://yoursdp.org

  • Government’s stand on Tudung is untenable in this day and age

    Government’s stand on Tudung is untenable in this day and age

    Since my post rebutting the position of Minister Masagos Zulkifli on the Tudung issue, I have received much support from members of the public, majority of who are Muslims, indicative of the frustration within the community towards the continued disregard of the feelings of the community on the Muslim women being discriminated against. The Muslim community has for many years patiently expressed our collective disapproval of the discriminatory policies within the channels possible in the community as well as via national platforms whenever there was a chance to do so. Each time, the community is left disappointed by the government’s response.

    I have personally engaged on the issue even before I decided to join politics by directly being involved with individual efforts within the nursing professions as well as with undergraduate nursing students. These individuals suffered direct discrimination for not being allowed to don the Tudung as a Professional nurse or during practical exams in their Professional Nursing undergraduate program. They have resorted to communicate to the Institutions within the Nursing profession on the matter. These Institutions share the views of the Muslim women nurses on the fact that there is no Professional basis to disallow the Muslim nurses who wishes to put on the Tudung and that the policy that forbid the Muslim women should not continue as it is discriminatory. However their hands are tight to undo the policy.

    The government on the other hand has kept repeating the same mantra to justify prolonging the discriminatory policy. It uses the excuse of potential social agitation among races and communities should they change the policy. Each time they only offer anecdotal evidence that highlights the so-called social ramification that worries them. However, this reliance on social scenarios is not in anyway backed by analysis and studies, which interestingly are available on such, related intra-community relations and whose findings points otherwise. (I have referred to 2 such studies done in my earlier posting on the issue) In fact the corresponding implication should the government reason be true means there is a serious problem with the majority community for still maintaining an intolerant, biased and almost negative perception towards other minority communities. Thus a glaring failure of so-called community trust-building initiatives, which wrongly focused on the minority rather than the majority.

    Prior to the views of the Minister, which has angered the Muslim community, 3 other Muslim PAP MPs mentioned in their speeches in parliament directly or indirectly echoing the sentiments of the Muslim community on the Tudung issue. Those speeches by the 3 MPs were very much welcomed by the community and were in fact offering much hope that a policy shift seems to be on the card. However sadly, the recent statement made by the Minister directly addressing the community via national TV on the matter was a cruel denial of the desire of the community to see the overdue changes take place. What is most frustrating for the community is the clear reference to non-professional related reasons to justify the policy continuation. Thus it therefore becomes incumbent upon us to scrutinize the validity of the secondary reasons forwarded by the Minister as justification for the government’s position.

    The Minister mentioned too the need to ensure that the demands of the Malay/Muslim community on the Tudung be equitably responded in relation to “similar” demands by other communities. In particular he mentioned the LGBT group’s call to repeal the 377A penal code that criminalizes gay sex. Let us look at how accurate it is for the Minister to compare the 2 issues and call for the entire Malay/Muslim community to accept the tradeoff that he implied are a fair and equitable deal.

    The Malay/Muslim community call for lifting the Tudung ban on the nursing profession is primarily based on the lack of evidence to support its continuation from a Professional point of view. As mentioned earlier, the Professional nursing body as well as the Medical institutions found no legitimate grounds to justify any ban for nurses to put on the Tudung and perform their nursing role professionally. There are in fact many examples of other majority non-Muslim secular countries in the world that have already allowed Muslim nurses who desire to put on the Tudung to do so. This is simply done by making modification to the uniform of the nurses in hospital to have versions that suited the dressing requirements of Muslim women who wants to put on the Tudung.

    The other arguments that the Muslim community put forth to challenge the government is that contrary to what they claim, a women nurse wearing a Tudung and doing her professional role as a nurse in public or private hospital are not seen as undesirable by the majority that may require their nursing services in anyway. While no known surveys were done specifically to enquire about this so-called unhappiness by the majority who happened to encounter a women nurse in Tudung, it would suffice to draw some ideas about the most likely outcome of such a survey, by opening our eyes to observe what kind of social attitudes do the majority of people, especially non-Muslim have towards other Muslim women in Tudung that are currently employed in Medical facilities such as Nursing attendants and Doctors. To date, we are unaware of any untoward incidences or complaints made on any such Muslim women in Medical facilities already allowed to wear the Tudung, especially those that are professionally related.

    Thus based on the 2 reasons forwarded above, one on Professional grounds and the other on social grounds, the government’s position is untenable. Then we have the curious reason of the wider implication on harmony should the government be seen to be uneven-handed towards specifically the LGBT community if they agree to submit to the demands of the Muslim community by allowing the Muslim women to wear Tudung as nurses. Lets us analyze this strange logic. To impose an equitable clause would require the comparison to be of equal merit, which in the case of the Tudung and the LGBT are a real stretch.

    The Tudung ban for nursing are professionally and socially unjustified as they are, on both grounds invalid arguments as explained and evidenced clearly above. The demand by the Muslim community for a policy change on the Tudung ban for the nursing profession stands on its own merit. For the case of the LBGT, on both medical and social grounds there are reasons to keep the law even though the law essentially is irrelevant as gay sex can easily take place in the privacy of hotels and homes and it is only a criminal offense when it is reported which seems most unlikely as they would have mostly been done in private by consenting adults. The only likelihood of any possible penal case would be if a public arrest was made for such an act in public and that criminal offense applies to both gay and straight sex. Thus to compare the Tudung case to the LGBT case clearly shows that they are not similar. Before the LGBT group protest, let me state clearly that the above explanation in no way intended to disrespect the LGBT group, the example is used only because it was raised as a comparison by the learned Minister.

    Putting the 2 issues by the Minister as comparable cases worthy of tradeoff is clearly a bad call. A like and like analysis above goes to show how unlike and unlike the 2 issues are. Inevitably we have to wonder what other hidden reasons there is, which makes the government so reluctant to change and remain intransigent on the Tudung issue.

    For the Malay/Muslim community, this continued refusal to explain clearly and honestly inevitably could only imply that the government itself do not wish to allow Tudung to be worn by nurses or any other uniformed services for reasons that it continues to hide behind the notion of sensitivity. This prolonged silence and elusiveness are unhealthy as it only invites speculations on the part of the Malay/Muslim community as well as other communities as to what could be the probable reason. Worst of all it conveys a subtle but demeaning message of arrogance and distrust on the part of the government in dealing with a minority community. Above all, the continuation of this ban for Tudung on the nursing profession is ultimately discriminatory towards Muslim women and the Muslim community as a whole.

    The above suffice for now as additions to my earlier post in response to the Minister. I offer more clarity to my initial posting in order to avoid any potential misunderstanding from anyone who may instead of dealing with my arguments, once again chooses to adopt the conventional ‘we know better coz we are the government’ approach which is not in the spirit of openness that our President and the Prime Minister have clearly highlighted as their preferred ways for this newly elected government during their recent speeches in Parliament. Majulah Singapura!!!

    Source: Damanhuri Abas

  • SDP: MOE Textbooks Are More Biased And Partisan

    SDP: MOE Textbooks Are More Biased And Partisan

    The SDP had written to the Ministry of Education (MOE) for permission to conduct talks to students in schools. The MOE turned down the request saying that “schools are neutral places for learning and not platforms for partisan politics”.

    The MOE also stated that the history textbook cited by the SDP as being partisan towards the PAP is not an MOE-approved textbook.

    That being the case, the SDP will cite textbooks that are indisputably published by the MOE and used in our secondary schools in history and social studies classes. They are written by the Curriculum Planning & Development Division of the MOE:

    1. Singapore: The Making Of A Nation-State, 1300-1975
    2. Singapore: From Settlement To Nation Pre-1819 to 1971
    3. Upper Secondary Social Studies 3 (2nd edition)

    The truth of the matter is that the content in these textbooks is even more biased and partisan than the one that the Ministry says is not an MOE-approved book. There is a pattern of using of opinion as facts in the MOE textbooks, especially the social studies one. This is often done to the exclusion of contrary views – and even contradictory evidence. In other words, our children are told what to think rather than how to critically evaluate what they read.

    Even when attempts are made at presenting two sides of an issue, students are often asked loaded and leading questions that shepherd their answers towards the desired ends. Partisan references to the PAP leave no doubt that the textbooks are meant to promote the values and thinking of the ruling party.

    This is a tragic outcome for Singapore’s future as we mould an entire generation of citizens crippled in their analytical ability and unable to think independently outside the PAP worldview.

    For brevity, we highlight just 10 examples of the partisan nature of the textbooks:

    Example 1: Lim Chin Siong

    One of the history books paints Lim Chin Siong and Fong Swee Suan as violent troublemakers:

    “The Communists had control of two powerful trade unions, namely Singapore Factory and Shop Workers’ Union (SFSWU) and Singapore Bus Workers’ Union (SBWU). These unions were led by Lim Chin Siong and Fong Swee Suan.

    On the same day (24 October 1956), the pro-communist leader, Lim Chin Siong had organised a workers’ meeting a short distance away from the Chinese High School. When the meeting ended, some of the workers joined the students in creating disorder.

    The riots came to an end when the police arrested almost all the union leaders, including Lim Chin Siong and Fong Swee Suan. During the riots, 13 people died and more than 100 were injured.”

    It has emerged from declassified documents by the British government that it was Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock who “had provoked the riots and this had enabled the detention of Lim Chin Siong.” Documents also “show these were the tactics of provocation that were employed in the 1956 riots that led to Lim Chin Siong’s arrest.”

    Shouldn’t our students be given this information and encouraged to do more reading and research before forming their conclusions? We need to stop the practice of glorifying the PAP and demonising its opponents in our schools.

    Example 2: Photos and illustrations

    The texts carry these illustrations:

     

     

     

     

    In the section ‘What Is The Role Of The People?’, students are told that the people “have the power and responsibility to choose the right leaders for Singapore”. Accompanying the text is a photograph of PAP MP Mr Christopher de Souza.

     In depicting how the PAP had split in 1962, the book labelled the faction led by Lim Chin Siong as “radicals” versus that of Lee Kuan Yew’s “moderates”. The “radicals” then went on to form the Barisan Sosialis.
    Example 3: Principles of governance

    In the chapter on governance, the book asked “What Are The Guiding Principles Of Governance?” It proceeds to cite the four areas that Lee Hsien Loong enumerated in his 2004 National Day Rally speech:

    • Leadership is key
    • Anticipate change and stay relevant
    • Reward for work and work for reward
    • A stake for everyone and opportunities for all
    Under ‘Leader is key’ the book states:

    “Honest and capable leaders are needed to maintain stability in the government and to make the right decisions for the country. These leaders must have moral courage and integrity to do what is right and not what is popular with the people. What would happen to Singapore if the leaders only make decisions that are popular with the people?

    The government has realised that good leadership and good government do not occur by chance. Potential leaders are specially selected and groomed. Besides talent and ability, leaders are also selected based on their good character.”

    The paragraphs seem more suited for the Petir, the PAP’s party organ, than a school textbook. Worse, there was no attempt to help students evaluate the statement. Given that the PAP has produced Ministers and MPs like Phey Yew Kok, Tan Kia Gan, Wee Toon Boon, Teh Cheang Wan, Choo Wee Kiang, and Michael Palmer, is the text accurate and valid? Why are students presented only one side of the story?

    Example 4: Representative democracy

    On the subject of governance, the text says: “Singapore practices representative democracy.” But this is only half the story. For a democracy to function meaningfully and effectively, there must also be a free media and a free and fair electoral process. The people must also enjoy fundamental freedoms of speech, association and assembly. All these are not practised in Singapore. Given such a circumstance, can Singapore still be considered a democracy, much less a representative one?

    This subject is not addressed anywhere in the textbooks. The basic rights of citizens that are enshrined in our Constitution are not presented and the students are not invited to have a deeper discussion on what it means to be a citizen of this country other than on the PAP’s terms.

    Example 5: The Pledge

    And when the National Pledge is mentioned, the book asks students to:

    “Examine the phrase ‘one united people, regardless of race, language or religion’. What do you understand by this phrase? Why do you think there is a need to stress this idea in the national pledge? Share your opinion with a partner.”

    There seems to be an effort to steer students away from focusing on the part that calls on citizens “to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality”.

    Example 6: Healthcare

    in the chapter on healthcare, a section compares the pros and cons of Medisave and Medishield. At the end, however, a sidebar called Pause and Ponder asks the question: “Why is it important for the government to have support for new policies such as Medisave and Medishield?”

    Why is the question written in such a leading manner? Why are students constantly shepherded into supporting the PAP’s policies? Is there no room for a more open and meaningful discussion on the realities of healthcare affordability in Singapore?

    Example 7: Foreign talent/low birthrate

    As for the PAP’s Foreign Talent Policy, the Social Studies book says: “While Singapore waits for its pro-family measures to show some positive results, there is a need to enhance its competitiveness by bringing in talent from other countries.”

    What the book does not tell students is that the “pro-family measures” have thus far not been effective. Our population size has been shrinking all these years. Can’t the students discuss the effectiveness, or the lack thereof, of the PAP’s family policies?

    The book then instructs the student to “Look at Figure 2.37 for reasons why attracting foreign talent to Singapore is important.” The Figure reads,

    “Singapore faces stiff competition from other industrialising countries and being small, it is not possible to produce all required professionals locally. Thus, we must encourage foreign talent to come here so as to boost the quality of our manpower. Foreign talent can create more jobs and increase productivity.”

    Again, the text misses out crucial information. For example, Lee Kuan Yew says that without foreigners, we cannot attract investments and produce jobs. Should students not be asked how and why we have come to this stage? The book also omits to discuss related topics such as (a) New jobs created going to foreigners, (b) Our city’s infrastructure being unable to cope with the massive influx of foreigners, (c) The difficulty of foreigners integrating with locals, (d) The resultant rise in the cost of living and (e) The PAP’s definition of ‘talent’.

    Instead of stimulating and encouraging our students to analyse what they read, the MOE seems more interested to get students to accept the material as received wisdom and to memorise it for exams.

    Example 8: Media

    On the topic of managing race relations, one of the books relates the case of Maria Hertogh and the riots, writing that, “The events throughout the [Hertogh] court trial had much media coverage in the English, Malay and Tamil newspapers.”

    It shows pictures of overturned cars and houses on fire with the headline “Five dead, 100 hurt in riots”. The Pause and Ponder sidebar then asks: “Why is it important to have a newspaper that is not biased in the reporting of events?” – a clear allusion to the PAP’s justification of controlling the media in Singapore.

    The text does not teach students of the importance for dialogue and debate without resorting to violence no matter how much we may disagree with the other party’s views. In other words, it does not educate students. Rather, it conditions their minds and the inculcates in them the PAP’s partisan values.

    Example 9: Self-help groups

    The book extols the virtues of self-help groups like CDAC, SINDA, Mendaki and the Eurasian Association by quoting an excerpt from “a newspaper”:

    “The self-help groups’ biggest achievement has been in saving students from the under-achievement trap. Dropout rates have fallen, grades have improved and more students have gone on to continue post-secondary education.”

    The textbook does not provide information on how it arrives at the conclusion that self-help groups have achieved what the newspaper quote purports that they have achieved. It simply makes an assertion. Again, students are told what to think and not taught how to think.

    Example 10: People’s Association

    In discussing the role of grassroots organisations, the textbook cites the work of the People’s Association saying that it “creates common space through a wide range of programmes and activities”.

    It makes no mention of the controversy regarding the control of its activities by the PAP – even in wards that the party does not control. Such a topic may not reflect very well on the PAP but isn’t one of the purposes of education – especially in a social studies class – supposed to draw on themes such as equity and fair play for discussion?

     

     

    Source: http://yoursdp.org

  • 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