Since this title like cannot see cannot see hor.. I write the title down.. Its a really interesting yet very debative topic
Title : Student signing a petition against a principal.. And yet because of a lil ween bit of proper english and s/he can anyhow shoot -_-
My one cent worth will be noted as you read =)
1. Definitions
1.1 Within this document, Mr Lee Hak Boon shall be known as ‘the Principal’ or ‘Mr Lee’ unless otherwise stated.
1.2 Catholic High School (Secondary) shall be known as ‘School’ within this document.
1.3 The term ‘We’, and ‘Us’ is a collective term to represent the students, parents of the students, the School Alumni, and teachers of the School.
1.4 “Students” would refer to Students of Catholic High School.
1.5 “Student Leaders” or “SL(s)” means the Student Leaders Board members comprising of Student Councillors, Prefects, and the Class Management Committee.
1.6 “Prefects” would be students appointed by the school who carry school badges with a black strip with the word “Prefect”, and wear the school tie in school at all times when in full school uniform. Their task is to deal with discipline problems in the school by being part of a collective force to apprehend students in breach of them. They are part of the Prefectorial Board, which is part of the Student Leaders Board.
1.7 ‘Student Councillors’ refer to students appointed by the school to deal with affairs including, but not limited to, preparation of school activities and events, coordination of school programmes.
1.8 “Class Management Committee” refers to students who are or were Class Chairmen or Assistant Class Chairmen of their respective classes in school.
1.9 “Class Chairman” and “Assistant Class Chairman” refer to the Class Monitor and Vice-Monitor respectively.
2. State of Request
2.1. We ask that Mr Lee resign with immediate effect.
2.1.1. This is to take place and the Vice-Principal of the Primary School shall take over, either temporarily or permanently.
2.2. We request that Mr Lee to take no further part of School Activities
2.2.1. This includes, but is not limited to:
2.2.1.1. Preparation of events:
2.2.1.1.1. Children’s Day
2.2.1.1.2. Teacher’s Day
2.2.1.1.3. Youth Day
2.2.1.1.4. Racial Harmony Day
2.2.1.1.5. Chinese New Year
2.2.1.2. Catholic High Sports Night
2.2.1.3. Catholic High Annual Cross-Country
2.3. We ask that he present a formal apology to us on basis explained in: (Point 3)
2.4. The use of funds in the upgrading of the school library.
2.4.1. The buying of new books and learning resources
2.4.2. The buying of new storybooks and texts
2.5. The use of funds to get better teaching resources.
2.5.1. Relevant studies and books on subject matter
2.6. The keeping of teachers as follows, unless by choice, the tendering of resignation:
2.6.1. Mrs Alice Long
2.6.2. Mrs Melissa Neo
2.6.3. Mrs Chung Lee Siang
2.6.4. Mrs Anna Tan
2.6.5. Mr Jeffrey Goh
2.6.6. Ms Thian Wan Eng
2.6.7. Ms Leong Se Yean
2.6.8. Mr Yong Kwang Hei
2.6.9. Mr Goh Yong Han
2.6.9.1. This list is not exhaustive.
3. Reasons of Request
3.1. Mr Lee has requested the building of ponds and with due thanks to donations has made them possible. This has been detrimental to the school in the following ways:
3.1.1. These ponds are:
3.1.1.1. Pond at Car Porch in the Secondary School.
3.1.1.2. Pond outside Science Laboratories
3.1.1.3. Pond in the Primary School Premises.
3.1.2. Request for such funds to build ponds was unnecessary. This has diverted funds which could be used in better ways (Point 4).
3.1.3. High maintenance and electrical bill
3.1.4. Poor maintenance of the ponds.
3.1.5. No immediate and tangible benefits of the pond
3.2. Mr Lee has bought statues and stones or requested the donation of these them. They have had no benefit and had been detrimental.
3.2.1. The statues in question:
3.2.1.1. Statue of Eagle at Car Porch of Secondary School.
3.2.1.2. Various stones along sloping path upwards from Secondary School Car Porch to General Office.
3.2.1.3. Statue of ‘Fire’ at Plaza and the bronze statues at the Secondary School General Office car porch running to it.
3.2.1.4. 2 Statues of Lions at mini-river outside rooms of NPCC, St John’s Ambulance Brigade and NCC (Air)
3.2.1.5. Statue of hands outside of the Primary School General Office
3.2.2. Monies used to buy and maintain these statues could be diverted to other funds.
3.2.3. They have no tangible benefit for the students.
3.3. Mr Lee has scolded teachers for the high electricity bill.
3.3.1. To quote a teacher who has spoken on condition of anonymity, “That time, he complained to us that the electricity bill was high because we were staying in school and marking worksheets past 6 pm.”
3.3.2. This shows contempt for the teachers as the a school, as, to quote several Dictionaries,
3.3.2.1. Oxford Dictionary of English: “an institution for educating children.”
3.3.2.2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary: “a place where children are taught”
3.3.2.3. Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “an institution for the teaching of children”
3.3.3. He has placed the fundamental reason for a school, a place for students to learn, below that of monetary assets. This clearly shows what he valuates. He puts the cost of electricity above student welfare.
3.3.4. According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, after physiological needs, Safety needs need to be met, and under one of them, called the ‘Security of Employment’, is where education lies. A good education is essential to have a good, well paying job in future. Having a good job, especially one where students in future will have would mean that they would have ‘Security of Employment’. Having teachers who are unable to do their job to the best of their ability not only threatens to tarnish their ‘Security of Employment’, also threatens students’ own ‘Security of Employment’. This is of equal importance of ‘Security of revenues and resources’, however because this money comes from the government, and with coffers amounting to millions, what we see is that Mr Lee is placing an insignificant portion of money over the needs of students.
3.4. He is of unreasonable character
3.4.1. He demands a utopia of having zero latecomers.
[ Demand right.. Which school doesn't demand? Well at least mine does.. Thats why theres a limit to the amount of late coming and the punishments laid out -_- ]
3.4.1.1. This is very, very hard to fulfill, considering this idea of Chaos Theory, where there is always an unforeseen circumstance which can disrupt daily life, thanks to a chain of events, of which a student would not be involved in, until he gets affected negatively by being late.
[ If one's being disciplined to fulfil, s/he could definitely do it.. Like for me I make sure I wake up at 6 am and then I wouldn't be late would I? Its not impossible, just hard, not very very hard. Its the mindset and stuffs of one. ]
3.4.1.2. He draws a comparison of being late for school to going to Changi Airport to take a plane to London at 5 am. He tells the students that they would not be late for the plane to London, but would be late school.
3.4.1.2.1. This comparison is ridiculous considering the circumstance surrounding each event. To go to school is almost a daily affair, and monotonous and is further worsened by the fact that the students lack the motivation to go to school due to what they perceive as poor leadership.
[Lets change the school to work.. We'll see living hell and the rate of retrenchment of young adults to up =) ]
3.4.1.2.2. If any student were to London, even at any absurd time, they would be on time, there would be a sense of excitement and anxiousness. This is especially so because a plane ticket is high in cost, especially that of a ticket to Western Europe.
[Which explains why the students isn't afraid of being late nowadays. They are just afraid of the punishments.. Which should be vice-versa! -.- ]
3.4.1.3. He caused the breaking down of a teacher in public, where when he scolded the students of Class 3-9 of 2006 for being late. Mrs Alice Long, as form teacher, defended them, and Mr Lee then blamed Mrs Long for being irresponsible and letting her students to be late. The students then told Mr Lee that it was not the fault of Mrs Long, and that they were fully to blame. He then scolded both Mrs Long, who was totally innocent, and the late students. This trauma of being scolded on absolutely no basis has made her break down.
3.4.1.3.1. Mrs Alice Long’s record as a teacher has been excellent, and has been constantly producing As in the ‘O’ Levels, and is very well respected by the students.
3.4.2. He has threatened to expel students due to a lack of punctuality.
3.4.2.1. This occurred on 14th July, 2006, during morning assembly in the Plaza. Mr Lee threatened to expel students who were late for assembly. This is unprecedented, and has no historical precedence. This is also not a rule in schools all around Singapore, and in other parts of the first world.
[Firstly its just the base of one's perception. It could be warning, threatening or even blackmailing.. So yeah...]
3.4.2.2. This harsh reality brought forward is unforgiving, where for a minute offence, a student may be expelled. This message is negative and is of resemblance to a totalitarian state.
[People just don't understand the consequences of being late for work]
3.5. Intentional demoralisation of the students.
3.5.1. As an educator, he knows that making harsh comments at students would result in a demoralization, which would lead to underperformance.
3.5.1.1. During the collection of the ‘O’ Level Results of 2005, to those whom came late, he called them ‘insolent brats’. This is a direct attack on a person’s morals. As an educator, he should not have done so.
3.5.1.2. During talks with the Secondary 4s of 2006, he ridiculed and insulted them for doing poorly in the ‘O’ Levels. He lashed out at many people which the Secondary 4s of 2006 respected, their direct seniors, of whom they have very good relationships with.
[Insult? Since its a petition the writer should probably write out what the insults are.. It is just the attacking of one's pride. To spur them to work harder. But some people chose to look at the negative side ]
3.5.1.3. He has called latecomers to school ‘useless’ and ‘stupid’. These words, coming from someone whom they should respect are harsh, critical, and unforgiving. It creates a negative sentiment among the students and can affect results. This is not helpful to the school environment.
[Do look at who the latecomers are.. If they are frequent. Then I don't know =/ ]
3.6. Collection of monies without proper accountability
3.6.1. He gives red packets to students during Chinese New Year, demanding that students donate money to the school. If one were to not pay up, they were to face disciplinary action.
3.6.2. The money has never been accounted for by Mr Lee, and the claim of the use of this money is the building of the school and for the funds for CCAs.
3.6.3. Money has never reached the coffers of certain CCAs which have not been performing well.
3.6.3.1. Money has been unfairly distributed where CCAs with better track records get more money. This creates a rich-poor divide between the good and the weak CCAs.
3.6.3.2. Poorer CCAs, with less funds, are unable to purchase better resources and exploit the full potential of the students. This is very detrimental to the students, as they would be unable to:
3.6.3.2.1. Maximise their full potential
3.6.3.2.2. Earn CCA Points
3.6.3.2.3. Get exposure
3.6.3.3. 2 students, during the Chinese New Year of 2005, did not adhere to the school’s demands, and were brought out for disciplinary action because they did not donate to the school
3.6.3.3.1. To donate is an act of charity, stemmed from the Latin word, charitas.
3.6.3.3.2. Charitas essentially means ‘to give’, and when a person gives, without any connotations, it can be said that he or she would give on his or her own free will.
3.6.3.3.3. This is an act of extortion, and is illegal under the Penal Code (Chapter 224), Chapter XVII, 383.
3.6.3.3.4. This form of injury is in the form of disciplinary action, which can result in caning, or worse.
3.7. Lack of standardisation and discipline
3.7.1. During the course of the 4 years Mr Lee has been here, punishment for offences has been wide-ranging and varying.
3.7.1.1. Penalty for the smuggling food out of canteen:
[Uh okay.. Self-explainatory.. Most school just HAVE that -_-]
3.7.1.1.1. There has never been a standard punishment for those caught smuggling food outside of the canteen during recess.
[So far never, but doesn't mean don't have. Smuggle is already a wrong word. It is of something sneaky and stuffs.. And usually the principal can connect that this acts can lead to something of smuggling drugs or cigerattes. Which would turn the tables around anyway. So this point is totally useless for a petition that is written to request for the resignation of the principal ]
3.7.1.1.2. Prefects on duty have shown lack of focus on the job. They allow people blatantly eating food out of the canteen, and only request them to go back to the canteen. When they do not do so, they do not take any action.
[ Seriously, being lenient is not good? Wow, first you don't want the principal to be harsh, next you are complaining that the prefects to be lenient.. ]
3.7.1.2. There is no check in the Student Lounge to disallow the smuggling of food to class.
[ Read the word smuggling repeatedly.. If you still don't understand.. Too bad =) Otherwise, an argumentative comment against this. Not everywhere IS updated with the current rules. Rules are made to be enforced, not to be broken. It is the student's responsibilities NOT to break the rules.]
3.7.1.2.1. This is unlike the policy of the prohibition of the removal of food from the canteen during recess. Both areas are places which students go to during recess for meals or food.
[There are usually two recesses. One for lower secondaries, one for upper. So there is no reason for one to go OUTSIDE the canteen in the first place.. Its like leaving your dining table with your food on your bowl and watch t.v or play computer.. Its totally unrespectful. Same morals and thingies, juz different situations ]
3.7.1.2.2. It is a double-standard, where one has a check-and-balance, albeit weak, while the other does not altogether.
3.7.1.3. Ankle socks are prohibited without reason in the school, yet the school is lax in the apprehension of students who do not follow this rule.
[Ankle socks are not within the school's proper dressing code. A proper attire for the school would be one's uniform and trousers/pants. The skirt shouldn't be three fingers above the knee. THATS the proper school dressing code. YET it is not an offense so serious that would destroy the school reputation. As it is probably just a trend or fashion, just like wrist bands. Hence not much punishments being laid out for wearing ankle socks is proper.. I mean.. you want to be caned or expelled for wearing ankle socks? ]
3.7.1.3.1. Student leaders have pressed for the lifting on the prohibition of ankle-length socks, however, there is no official reason as to the ban of it.
[An act of improper school dressing code is already ridiculous.. Still want lifting ban meh.. Might as well ask why Singapore banned Chewing Gums.. ]
3.7.1.3.2. Students caught have multiple punishments, without a standard process of defining what punishment for when.
3.7.1.4. The consumption of food is banned in classrooms
3.7.1.4.1. This rule is not enforced within the school, and is, like the previous 2 rules, (3.7.1.1. and 3.7.1.3), tokenistic in nature.
3.7.1.4.2. The Class Chairman does not take action when this rule is broken. Student leaders are also sometimes guilty of breaking this rule.
[ So you're being idiotic because they are being lenient? What the.. Irrationality my friend.. ]
3.7.1.5. The students are not allowed to change into the School Uniform or PE Attire in the classrooms.
[Changing of clothes or bare naked, half naked or whatsoever is an immoral act. Being so is already breaking the law. ]
3.7.1.5.1. This rule is tokenistic in nature, as there are students who change within the classroom.
[ Since you're complaining so much INFORM THE PRINCIPAL LAH ]
3.7.1.5.2. Even against the urges of the Student Leaders, this continues.
3.7.2. Latecomers to school have never had a proper punishment.
[ First you say the utopia bla bla bla too much.. Then you want proper punishment.. If proper punishment you say the things are too what what what .. -_-
3.7.2.1. For one, they had to sleep on the sick bay bed for a certain period of time, before they were let off to class.
[School have every rights.. If you don't like can change.. ]
3.7.2.2. That was scrapped and students were forced to walk around the school with a sign, and using a loudhailer, saying, “Let me not be the one who is late”.
[This is to injure one's pride so they'll be sure not to be late again.. Look up again =)]
3.7.2.3. It was then changed to have students being forced to stand in front of the school in morning assembly in the next day.
[Again...]
3.7.2.4. This lack of proper punishment systems does not help the school.
[This is getting old.. ]
3.7.3. The moderation of the Preliminary results of the Secondary 4 batch of 2005.
3.7.3.1. Mr Lee demanded the moderation of the Prelim papers to such an extent that the Prelims were a farce.
3.7.3.2. A student with 15 points in the Prelims was allowed to enter Hwa Chong Junior College.
3.7.3.3. He refused to listen to the opinions of the other teachers and accused them of having ‘no team spirit’, and inducing ‘negative sentiment’.
3.7.4. The safety hazards within the school
3.7.4.1. As Principal, his primary concern should be the welfare of the students, and this has not been the case. He has allowed the following:
3.7.4.1.1. Inadequacy of fire extinguishers
3.7.4.1.2. Available fire extinguishers are empty
3.7.4.1.3. Usage of hose reel area for storage
3.7.4.1.4. Lack of medical equipment in first-aid kits
[These are to be reported by students, or inspecting DMs or DMs and teachers and stuffs. It is one of their responsibility.. Lets not forget the paperwork the principals have to do and alot of stuffs.. ]
Sincerely,
Ho Wee Seng, Class 3-6, 2006.
And,
The undersigned.
=================================================
I was like.. wth?
