Source : Yee Jenn Jong Facebook account.

Former Non-constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Yee Jenn Jong wrote in his blog on Tuesday (21 March) about the flyers that were recently circulated by the residents’ committee of Fengshan constituency, and the privileges that seem to come with serving as a grassroots volunteer.
In his post, he mentioned that the issue over priority given to Primary 1 students whose parents are active community leaders was something that he addressed in Parliament in 2012. Subsequently in 2013, Yee joined in on the debate and asked “if it can be a criterion for community leaders to have first made specific contributions to the schools before they are being considered for priority” to then-Senior Minister of State for Education (SMS), Ms Indranee Rajah.
The flyers from the residents’ committee of Fengshan constituency not only drew a response from Yee, but also from the Worker’s Party (WP), which had contested the single seat during the previous election. WP’s response was the flyer pictured on the right, aimed to mimic the recruitment efforts.
Below is Yee Jenn Jong’s blog post in full:
We have often heard, “Do what I say, but don’t do as I do.”
Sometimes the messaging can be quite subtle. Those in leadership positions may not realise it if we are not sensitive enough. The recent viral publicity over flyers by a Residents’ Committee touting the benefits of serving as grassroots volunteers such as car parking privileges and priority registration in primary schools for their children, comes to my mind.
The issue of priority registration for primary 1 for community leaders is something that I had been concerned about, and had raised in parliament several times. In 2012, then-Education Minister Heng Swee Keat had a written reply for my question on this privilege for grassroots leaders. He said that an average of 330 children were admitted yearly under the active community leaders scheme, just less than 1% of the primary 1 cohort (we have around 30,000 babies born each year). They only need to have served for one year as a community leader.
In 2013, I joined in the debate on this issue with a supplementary question for then-Senior Minister of State for Education (SMS), Ms Indranee Rajah. I had asked if the Ministry has done any survey to see how many community leaders have actively contributed to the schools that their children are enrolled in, and ‘if it can be a criterion for community leaders to have first made specific contributions to the schools before they are being considered for priority’. The reply was that the SMS was not aware of any such survey and that the criterion is based on contribution to the community, as opposed to contributions specifically to the school. In other words, the community leaders need not contribute any time or service to the school the child is enrolled into under priority registration. This is strictly a reward for ‘contribution to the community’.
During Committee of Supply debate in 2013, I had also spoken on the topic as I asked for a general review of the Primary 1 admission system. Specifically on the issue of community leaders, I had said “I feel community leaders need not be given priority. Being a community leader for the purpose of getting into top primary schools does not gel with the spirit of community service.”
I felt so because they do not necessarily add value to the primary school, unless they are also actively helping in the school in their position as a community leader. It becomes very transactional; the priority is a reward for the community leader, and a backdoor to get an edge to enter desired primary schools.
MOE has been touting that “Every School is a Good School” for several years already. So every school should be good enough for the community leaders’ children. Yet allowing for such privileges sends exactly the wrong signal, even if in a subtle way. That’s the same way ordinary folks will feel when a leader says that every school is a good school but they see that the leader’s own children are in preferred schools.
I agree with former Nominated MP Calvin Cheng, who, as reported in the Straits Time article of this flyers episode, had left a pointed comment on his Facebook saying: “‘Selfless dedication’ does not need to be rewarded by preferential access to primary schools. Just saying.”
I think it is time to do what we say.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Gatherings and services in all Anglican churches suspended for 2 weeks amid COVID-19 outbreak

On Thursday (19 March), the Anglican Diocese of Singapore announced that all…

Chinese doctor who was reprimanded for raising early alarm over outbreak, dies from virus infection

One of the Chinese doctors, an ophthalmologist, who had tried to warn…

王乙康分享与牛犊合照 民众提醒最近路面多坑洞

近两周内因频频大雨,马路表面上出现了许多坑坑洞洞,导致路面不平,对道路使用者构成威胁,引发民众忧虑。 根据《Mothership》报道,路面坑洞出现在各地,如加冷-巴耶利巴快速公路(KPE)、兀兰北(north woodlands link)等。这些坑洞有大有小,甚至能放下一把雨伞。 例如摩托车骑士,他们很可能会为了避免路面坑洞,导致失控而发生意外,或是可能会导致轮胎漏气。 针对路面坑洞的问题,陆路交通局则称若发现可拨打电话通报,并于24小时内修补坑洞。 然而,在民众每日都可能因为路面坑洞而“深陷危险“时,我国交通部长王乙康则在和小牛自拍,被网友提醒是时候要”办正事”。 王乙康今日(14日)在脸书上发文庆祝印度丰收节(Pongal),并祝贺人民丰收节快乐。 他表示,印度丰收节是以农耕为生的南印度人民庆祝丰收的节日,过去几年内,一直与人民共同庆祝,并相当期待牛的环节,今年也不会错过这重要的部分。 他也晒出一张于2019年与黄牛自拍的照片,引发热议。许多网民除了留言丰收节快乐外,也有部分网民“提醒”,如今路面上出现许多坑洞,请尽快处理,欲提醒他“办正事”。 “部长,照片很好看,谢谢你的祝福。与此同时,已经看到有关路面坑洞的报导,真的很像第三世界水准。请把路修好,因为我是一名新手骑士。我不想要因为路面坑洞而发生意外,谢谢你,我想你会尽快修理的吧。” “部长早安,外面真的很多路面坑洞。对于你的关注和行动不胜感激,这无疑威胁了骑士的生命安全。谢谢您。”…

马国呈修宪案 降投票年龄至18岁

马来西亚政府于昨日(7月4日),在国会下议院提呈“2019年宪法(修正)法案”,寻求修宪降低该国投票年龄至18岁。 此法案由青年及体育部部长赛沙迪·赛阿都拉曼提呈并进行一读。如果法案通过,“联邦宪法”中的第119(1)条文将会被修改,选民注册年龄将从21岁降低至18岁。当然,投票年龄也随着下降到18岁。 有关法案的二读将会在7月16日进行。法案阐述,若通过该法案,将会有更多马来西亚国民有权通过投票选出政府,符合进步的民主制度。 《新海峡时报》指出,修正案要获得三分之二的票数,即148票才算通过。 反对党促通过两个议案 于7月3日的相关报导指出,国会反对党领袖拿督斯里依斯迈沙比利表示,虽然政府提出降低投票年龄的举措是积极的,但由于将近400万人,即大量的合格国民还未注册成为选民,因此应该实施自动选民自动注册制度。 他昨日在国会大厅对记者指出:“我们赞成政府将投票年龄降到18岁的议案,但是如果它(选民注册)没有自动进行,我们不会给予支持”。 “每个人都有投票的权力,我们不应该阻止他们……”。他随后补充,“而且我们应该修正第47条文,让竞选候选人的年龄也降至18岁”。 这项修宪法案是希望联盟的竞选承诺之一,他们在希盟宣言第17项中指出,承诺保障廉政的选举体制,其中一项就是将现有的最低投票年龄从21岁降至18岁。 这也是希盟政府执政后,第二次提呈修宪建议。首次提呈是落在今年4月份,要求恢复沙巴和砂拉越的“邦”地位,惟在野党放弃投票,导致有关修正案无法获得三分之二通过票数。