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

客工分享宿舍内消毒情况

客工Ganeshthala18,在社交媒体抖音(Tik Tok)分享一段15秒的视频,显示可供宿舍内消毒的作业情况。相信有关视频是在回利阁客工宿舍(Toh Guan Dormitory)拍摄。 管理层为了照顾客工们的健康安全,展开逐个房间清理和消毒工作。 视频中只见四名身穿全白隔离服、戴着口罩和防护面具、穿着黄色塑胶鞋的消毒人员在一间客工宿舍外,门口还有一名消毒人员正在进行工作。 为遏止冠状病毒疫情进一步恶化,回利阁客工宿舍自4月初传出病例后,已被列为隔离区。

TOC’s statement on MDA licensing of online news sites

We refer to the new licensing requirements announced by the Media Development…

许连碹:安装摄像逮垃圾虫 高空抛物情况受控制

2016年至2018年间有超过7700起高空抛物的投诉,惟基于每年有约2300至2800起高空抛物的投诉,因此这个数字仍属 “正常” ,而当局的 “成功破案率” 在随着监控摄像头的增加后,有明显提升。 环境及水源部高级政务部长许连碹昨日(9月3日)在国会中指出,高空抛物情况在经过当局努力提醒民众后有所改善。 而国家环境局在2012年装置监控摄像机后,在逮捕知法犯法的嫌犯上有着显着的提升。“2012年8月至2018年12月期间,共有逾2200名高空抛物罪犯被逮捕,其中52人是重犯。” 她指出,为了防止高空抛物,当局摄下严厉的处罚措施,首次违例者将被罚款2000元,重犯者将被罚款不超过一万元,或垃圾虫劳改(CWO),或两者兼施。 许连碹指出,当局去年共发出2600张垃圾虫劳改通知。 上个月在丹戎巴葛,一名澳大利亚籍男子安德鲁涉嫌在七层楼升降机等候处,高空抛下一支葡萄酒瓶,导致73岁长者身亡,使得高空抛物课题再次成为众人焦点题。 许连碹指出,环境局在2018年,共接获2万6000起乱丢垃圾的投报,及2700起在公共场所处理大型垃圾物件的投诉,当局展开的执法行动分别约3万9000次和30次执法行动。 她在回答义顺集选区议员李美花的询问时指出,当局是在证据确凿后才采取执法行动,而根据案件的复杂程度、提控线索和嫌疑的反应时间,执法过程通常需耗费10周至半年。…

My Wish List for S-league 2011

By Damon Yeo The S-league is widely expected to kick off its…