Discussion on Dr Ong Teck Chin
-
jencrs:
Ha ha! No lah, not old boy. But one of St Andrews ;). I did have a straight talking principal back then too, and if we came up short, he would let us know.....
haha I am struggling to understand why an analogy is needed in the 1st place.3Boys:
I am struggling to understand why not. Perhaps you could cite a more appropriate analogy?
3Boys:
No one's knocking his achievements. They are undeniable.We are losing the plot here a little. One needs to keep in view the results. Yeah, if what he did was not coupled with strong leadership, and let to a meltdown in morale and performance, sure, knock him. But if turned the school around and shot them up the academic rankings, who could argue that the methods did not work? Not everyone could do what he did and get away with it, but he had an end-game in mind, and the faith in his own abilities, so we need to view the tactics in light of winning the war, and not on their own.
So what you're saying is that the end justifies the means? To view tactics not on their own but just to win the war?
This is the part where on surveys I'll put 5 on the scale for strongly disagree
Life is as much a journey as it is the destination. And more so during the early impressionable years of a teenager.
Is what he did really so admirable that after all these years it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth of my ex-teachers and my ex-classmates?
But I'm curious to know where you're coming from. It's easy to be a devil's advocate and to make comments as an armchair general to put a positive spin into almost anything. Given a little time, I'd bet anyone could even come up with a case for the Holocaust. Doesn't mean it's right. So are you an Old Boy?
Analogy helps in placing things in the right context. Particularly if folk did not have the direct experience. You have seen that folk here have crafted quite a few of their own, in order to illustrate why they feel that Dr OTC's actions in this regard do not seem as egregious as you think. You used one of your own, the Holocaust.
The ends never justify the means, however, one needs to be careful not to paint the means as egregiously bad if they are not. I don't think one can compare his methods with Hitler can we? His motive was improved academic performance, not genocide. His method was shaming underperformers, not the gas chamber. To be blunt, so what if he left a bad taste in a few people's mouths? A leader can never lead by consensus, you take some counsel, set your compass and go. Where would Singapore be if MM Lee were a softly softly person and dared not tread on people's toes by speaking too bluntly? Are a few bruised egos too big a price for progress?
Where I am coming from? I do not have direct experience obviously, but I have seen situations and been in a few myself where leaders have benchmarked their own companies against competitors and been transparent with staff and customers about shortcomings and the need to improve. I have also been in situations where I have directed folk who have sought our services to alternate venues which could service them better. So the philosophy and approach Dr OTC is practising and expounding is not alien to me. Yes, analogy again, but without which, there is no discussion to speak of.
Further, I bet the board were feeling the same back then. Who wants another suit cut from the same cloth? They were obviously tired of mediocrity and wanted someone to shake things up a little, someone with few ties to the Old Boy network and somehow felt beholden to the vested interests and traditions. Hence the controversial selection of Dr OTC as Principal. Don't you think the board took heat for that? But they backed him for 16 years, did they not?
Alright, as an ex-Saint, I now defer to the ACSians who are aggrieved by his actions
-
Wah... still going strong eh
I reckon it will be an internal investigation... so doubt they will disclose the findings publicly... unless the male teacher spills the beans again.
Heard from wifey that ZaoBao actually reported the male teacher's identity and interview, couple days back... any1 got that info? I lazy to read chinese papers... haha! -
3Boys:
It cuts both ways. Analogies can easily lead others into thinking in the wrong direction as well. Which is why I said Holocaust. Hitles and Ong, obviously not the same thing, like how purchasing financial products and a school education is not the same thing. I just took it to an extreme, that's all.Ha ha! No lah, not old boy. But one of St Andrews ;). I did have a straight talking principal back then too, and if we came up short, he would let us know.....
Analogy helps in placing things in the right context. Particularly if folk did not have the direct experience. You have seen that folk here have crafted quite a few of their own, in order to illustrate why they feel that Dr OTC's actions in this regard do not seem as egregious as you think. You used one of your own, the Holocaust.
The ends never justify the means, however, one needs to be careful not to paint the means as egregiously bad if they are not. I don't think one can compare his methods with Hitler can we? His motive was improved academic performance, not genocide. His method was shaming underperformers, not the gas chamber. To be blunt, so what if he left a bad taste in a few people's mouths? A leader can never lead by consensus, you take some counsel, set your compass and go. Where would Singapore be if MM Lee were a softly softly person and dared not tread on people's toes by speaking too bluntly? Are a few bruised egos too big a price for progress?
Where I am coming from? I do not have direct experience obviously, but I have seen situations and been in a few myself where leaders have benchmarked their own companies against competitors and been transparent with staff and customers about shortcomings and the need to improve. I have also been in situations where I have directed folk who have sought our services to alternate venues which could service them better. So the philosophy and approach Dr OTC is practising and expounding is not alien to me. Yes, analogy again, but without which, there is no discussion to speak of.
Further, I bet the board were feeling the same back then. Who wants another suit cut from the same cloth? They were obviously tired of mediocrity and wanted someone to shake things up a little, someone with few ties to the Old Boy network and somehow felt beholden to the vested interests and traditions. Hence the controversial selection of Dr OTC as Principal. Don't you think the board took heat for that? But they backed him for 16 years, did they not?
Alright, as an ex-Saint, I now defer to the ACSians who are aggrieved by his actions
I don't think an analogy was necessary then, because it wasn't a difficult issue to understand, an analogy would unnecessarily complicate the issue. And the more differences we picked out, the further away we stray from the topic at hand.
Would Spore be better or worse off now if MM Lee were different? I don't know, and neither do you. So why go there?
Anyway, ACS is not a country, and should not be governed that way.
Neither is ACS a company, and should not be treated as such. Appointed principals are educators, not CEOs. Which is why I disagree with your analogies and think them misleading. So let's talk about something else. St Andrews were the dominant rugby team some 2 decades ago. Then ACS started to catch up and win more games. How would you feel if your Principal then encourages your players to go join ACS? And how would you feel if that Principal was an ACS old boy?
You seem to be fairly sure of what the board was thinking then. I mean, you said you bet that's how they felt, that obviously they were tired of mediocrity, and that they meant to find someone who wasn't an Old Boy. Any secrets you want to reveal?
I don't presume to know what the board was thinking. Were they unanimous in backing him for all those years? Did the Board have any change of members who were more likely to be supportive of the current mindset and decisions then? Did Ong have any influence on that at all? All guesses and no one outside the board knows. But just because he has the Board's support doesn't mean it's alright.
Now all things being equal, if it meant picking an AC boy or RI boy as principal, I would pick the AC boy for obvious reasons. But like I said before, if he while VP encouraged students to stay, to build a school together instead of jumping ship, and among other things, then ex-RI boy or not, I'd give him a pat on the back and support him as well. -
Anyway, we’re just going to go around in circles. I just hear a lot of OTC is good, OTC is great, and based on the past few years, I can see why he seems that way.
I just wanted to present a different side of Ong, from personal experience, that many do not know about. -
jencrs:
I actually couldn't care less which school my Principal came from. Having a history can both be a help and a hindrance. The right man for the right job is all that matters, I say. Maybe that's where you an I differ, I don't have a hang-up about which old boy was my headmaster.
It cuts both ways. Analogies can easily lead others into thinking in the wrong direction as well. Which is why I said Holocaust. Hitles and Ong, obviously not the same thing, like how purchasing financial products and a school education is not the same thing. I just took it to an extreme, that's all.3Boys:
Ha ha! No lah, not old boy. But one of St Andrews ;). I did have a straight talking principal back then too, and if we came up short, he would let us know.....
Analogy helps in placing things in the right context. Particularly if folk did not have the direct experience. You have seen that folk here have crafted quite a few of their own, in order to illustrate why they feel that Dr OTC's actions in this regard do not seem as egregious as you think. You used one of your own, the Holocaust.
The ends never justify the means, however, one needs to be careful not to paint the means as egregiously bad if they are not. I don't think one can compare his methods with Hitler can we? His motive was improved academic performance, not genocide. His method was shaming underperformers, not the gas chamber. To be blunt, so what if he left a bad taste in a few people's mouths? A leader can never lead by consensus, you take some counsel, set your compass and go. Where would Singapore be if MM Lee were a softly softly person and dared not tread on people's toes by speaking too bluntly? Are a few bruised egos too big a price for progress?
Where I am coming from? I do not have direct experience obviously, but I have seen situations and been in a few myself where leaders have benchmarked their own companies against competitors and been transparent with staff and customers about shortcomings and the need to improve. I have also been in situations where I have directed folk who have sought our services to alternate venues which could service them better. So the philosophy and approach Dr OTC is practising and expounding is not alien to me. Yes, analogy again, but without which, there is no discussion to speak of.
Further, I bet the board were feeling the same back then. Who wants another suit cut from the same cloth? They were obviously tired of mediocrity and wanted someone to shake things up a little, someone with few ties to the Old Boy network and somehow felt beholden to the vested interests and traditions. Hence the controversial selection of Dr OTC as Principal. Don't you think the board took heat for that? But they backed him for 16 years, did they not?
Alright, as an ex-Saint, I now defer to the ACSians who are aggrieved by his actions
I don't think an analogy was necessary then, because it wasn't a difficult issue to understand, an analogy would unnecessarily complicate the issue. And the more differences we picked out, the further away we stray from the topic at hand.
Would Spore be better or worse off now if MM Lee were different? I don't know, and neither do you. So why go there?
Anyway, ACS is not a country, and should not be governed that way.
Neither is ACS a company, and should not be treated as such. Appointed principals are educators, not CEOs. Which is why I disagree with your analogies and think them misleading. So let's talk about something else. St Andrews were the dominant rugby team some 2 decades ago. Then ACS started to catch up and win more games. How would you feel if your Principal then encourages your players to go join ACS? And how would you feel if that Principal was an ACS old boy?
You seem to be fairly sure of what the board was thinking then. I mean, you said you bet that's how they felt, that obviously they were tired of mediocrity, and that they meant to find someone who wasn't an Old Boy. Any secrets you want to reveal?
I don't presume to know what the board was thinking. Were they unanimous in backing him for all those years? Did the Board have any change of members who were more likely to be supportive of the current mindset and decisions then? Did Ong have any influence on that at all? All guesses and no one outside the board knows. But just because he has the Board's support doesn't mean it's alright.
Now all things being equal, if it meant picking an AC boy or RI boy as principal, I would pick the AC boy for obvious reasons. But like I said before, if he while VP encouraged students to stay, to build a school together instead of jumping ship, and among other things, then ex-RI boy or not, I'd give him a pat on the back and support him as well.
As to the board, yes, I am speculating, but I have seen similar inside vs outside hiring decisions at the top level and the reasons are invariably as I have mentioned above. I am open to your and other suggestions as to their motive for appointing him. I had a quick scan of some of the present board members, and there are a fair number of industry luminaries. Yes, ACS is a school, the primary goal is education and holistic upbringing. However, many aspects of running a school are similar to running a company. Why else is the set-up at the governance level like that of a company? Actually there is an article I read somewhere that school principals do need some elements of CEO behaviour or the place would just fall apart. Anyway, are you critiquing his credentials as an educator? Because that was not apparent earlier.
MM Lee? I shudder to think how we would be if he were Lily-livered. Why does Singapore have any right to be different from our neighbours? On the strength of its people? This is the most laughable lie told to gullible S'poreans who can't take a few hard truths in the name of progress.
Alright, not my fight....so I am out of this sub-discussion.
Edit;
reflecting over a nice glass of cabernet at dinner , speaking with the missus, thought I'd just add this. Actually, if OTC had been the principal of St Andrews instead, and the price of shooting up the academic league tables was a few harsh words and bruised egos, I would have taken it anytime.
jencrs, the irony is that he DID deliver, perhaps not for you, but for the generations of ACSians after you.
This is too funny, an SA boy defending a Rafflesian from criticisms of a ACSian.... :lol: -
3Boys:
reflecting over a nice glass of cabernet at dinner
, speaking with the missus, thought I'd just add this. Actually, if OTC had been the principal of St Andrews instead, and the price of shooting up the academic league tables was a few harsh words and bruised egos, I would have taken it anytime.
jencrs, the irony is that he DID deliver, perhaps not for you, but for the generations of ACSians after you.
This is too funny, an SA boy defending a Rafflesian from criticisms of a ACSian.... :lol:
Yes it's pretty funny. But I think you may be defending an illusion. If you look at the results from 1991 (ranking starts) to 2002 (ranking ends for IP schools), you'll see this trend:
20, 14, 8, 11, 11, 14, 14, 8, 9, 10, 9, 9
That is, after the first ranking exercise, Prof Chia got the school in order so that by 1993, ACS(I) were ranked 8th. At that time, OTC was VP for Pastoral Care and Mrs Lenie Cho was VP/Acad.
OTC took over in 1994. As you can see, he never did better than 8th, despite having a better intake each year (smaller affiliated intake, higher average PSLE score, more scholars).
Obviously, a school is a lot more complex than this, and there are many other factors to consider. But I'm just following your CEO-producing-results argument and deciding that a lot of those results can be put down to factors other than the CEO.
I'm obviously one of those 'kaypoh' people who likes examining things more closely before I buy into media hype about anybody or anything. Up and on!
-
3Boys:
ok, but you haven't said how you'd feel if your principal tells your rugby team to leave for ACS. I guessing you'd be fine with it?I actually couldn't care less which school my Principal came from. Having a history can both be a help and a hindrance. The right man for the right job is all that matters, I say. Maybe that's where you an I differ, I don't have a hang-up about which old boy was my headmaster.
As to the board, yes, I am speculating, but I have seen similar inside vs outside hiring decisions at the top level and the reasons are invariably as I have mentioned above. I am open to your and other suggestions as to their motive for appointing him. I had a quick scan of some of the present board members, and there are a fair number of industry luminaries. Yes, ACS is a school, the primary goal is education and holistic upbringing. However, many aspects of running a school are similar to running a company. Why else is the set-up at the governance level like that of a company? Actually there is an article I read somewhere that school principals do not some elements of CEO behaviour or the place would just fall apart. Anyway, are you critiquing his credentials as an educator? Because that was not apparent earlier.
MM Lee? I shudder to think how we would be if he were Lily-livered. Why does Singapore have any right to be different from our neighbours? On the strength of its people? This is the most laughable lie told to gullible S'poreans who can't take a few hard truths in the name of progress.
Alright, not my fight....so I am out of this sub-discussion.
So you're speculating about the board? Fair enough, but when you say this is obvious, or that is obvious, I start to believe that you have some inside information, and I start to have serious self doubt as I am unable to discern something so obvious. I'm gullible that way Anyway, I have no suggestions since I'm not privy to any of that information, so what's the point of such speculation?
You see why I hate to be dragged into analogies? I'm speaking at the level of a lowly ex-student and old boy, and suddenly we're talking about corporate governance in a school? And about governing S'pore in her formative years? No no too high level for me liao. Btw a softer approach doesn't mean lily-livered, and how soft does one have to be to be considered lily-livered. Because I want to avoid that. ACS didn't teach us how to look into alternate universes so I can't tell for sure if we'd be better off or not in bizarro singapore.
I'm speculating that what you meant above is that principals can exhibit some elements of a CEO's behaviour. Well yes, since they are leaders, i would be mildly surprised if they didn't exhibit err.... leadership qualities.
Ya I guess it's not really apparent that I'm critiquing his credentials as an educator. It's probably mainly because I'm not critiquing his credentials as an educator. Because if I'm critiquing his credentials as an educator, then it would be apparent. And obviously so.
Wonder where you got that impression though, all I said was they appoint educators as principals and not CEOs. -
3Boys:
Irony? There's no irony. I didn't say he didn't deliver, neither did I say he did a bad job. It just irks me to hear so many waxing lyrical about Ong, without any idea of what he was like.jencrs, the irony is that he DID deliver, perhaps not for you, but for the generations of ACSians after you.
This is too funny, an SA boy defending a Rafflesian from criticisms of a ACSian.... :lol:
And yes, too funny haha. I also have too much time on my hands and it has always been my bane. -
jencrs:
Ha ha, you caught me out on some hyperbole. However, you have offered nothing up to defend your position.
ok, but you haven't said how you'd feel if your principal tells your rugby team to leave for ACS. I guessing you'd be fine with it?3Boys:
I actually couldn't care less which school my Principal came from. Having a history can both be a help and a hindrance. The right man for the right job is all that matters, I say. Maybe that's where you an I differ, I don't have a hang-up about which old boy was my headmaster.
As to the board, yes, I am speculating, but I have seen similar inside vs outside hiring decisions at the top level and the reasons are invariably as I have mentioned above. I am open to your and other suggestions as to their motive for appointing him. I had a quick scan of some of the present board members, and there are a fair number of industry luminaries. Yes, ACS is a school, the primary goal is education and holistic upbringing. However, many aspects of running a school are similar to running a company. Why else is the set-up at the governance level like that of a company? Actually there is an article I read somewhere that school principals do not some elements of CEO behaviour or the place would just fall apart. Anyway, are you critiquing his credentials as an educator? Because that was not apparent earlier.
MM Lee? I shudder to think how we would be if he were Lily-livered. Why does Singapore have any right to be different from our neighbours? On the strength of its people? This is the most laughable lie told to gullible S'poreans who can't take a few hard truths in the name of progress.
Alright, not my fight....so I am out of this sub-discussion.
So you're speculating about the board? Fair enough, but when you say this is obvious, or that is obvious, I start to believe that you have some inside information, and I start to have serious self doubt as I am unable to discern something so obvious. I'm gullible that way Anyway, I have no suggestions since I'm not privy to any of that information, so what's the point of such speculation?
You see why I hate to be dragged into analogies? I'm speaking at the level of a lowly ex-student and old boy, and suddenly we're talking about corporate governance in a school? And about governing S'pore in her formative years? No no too high level for me liao. Btw a softer approach doesn't mean lily-livered, and how soft does one have to be to be considered lily-livered. Because I want to avoid that. ACS didn't teach us how to look into alternate universes so I can't tell for sure if we'd be better off or not in bizarro singapore.
I'm speculating that what you meant above is that principals can exhibit some elements of a CEO's behaviour. Well yes, since they are leaders, i would be mildly surprised if they didn't exhibit err.... leadership qualities.
Ya I guess it's not really apparent that I'm critiquing his credentials as an educator. It's probably mainly because I'm not critiquing his credentials as an educator. Because if I'm critiquing his credentials as an educator, then it would be apparent. And obviously so.
Wonder where you got that impression though, all I said was they appoint educators as principals and not CEOs.
I mentioned CEO because you opened the door on a school being an institute of education as opposed to being a company, and I assumed you were speaking from a position of understanding corporate governance.
You are not critiquing his credentials as an educator, you don't know why the board appointed him, and you don't disagree that he needs to exhibit CEO behaviours......
so your quibble comes down to.....? Hurt feelings that he suggested that the better students go elsewhere? -
jencrs:
You are too right. I do know nothing at all about the man......and have too much time on my hands also.
Irony? There's no irony. I didn't say he didn't deliver, neither did I say he did a bad job. It just irks me to hear so many waxing lyrical about Ong, without any idea of what he was like.3Boys:
jencrs, the irony is that he DID deliver, perhaps not for you, but for the generations of ACSians after you.
This is too funny, an SA boy defending a Rafflesian from criticisms of a ACSian.... :lol:
And yes, too funny haha. I also have too much time on my hands and it has always been my bane.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login