Discussion on Dr Ong Teck Chin

[autolycus]

toddles:

Hmm... actually on this point, I think when MOE appoints principals, it sees them as CEOs of the school, and expect them to run the school like a CEO rather than to teach/be an educator.

Actually, no. The reason OTC was CEO of ACS(I) is that the principals of independent schools (only) were given the power to hire and fire within the constraints of resources and policies. MOE continues to treat their principals primarily as administrators but also teacher mentors and, in a broader sense, educators beyond what is expected of classroom teachers.

You can find all that on the http://www.moe.gov.sg.

In non-independent schools, normally officers like a specially designated Admin VP would carry out the jobs of HR, operations and so on.

[qizai]

toddles:

3Boys:

[quote=\"jencrs\"] Say a Msian, just for convenience's sake, came to spore, took up citizenship, and promptly became PM. He's a capable person, but encourages our youth to migrate to msia for more opportunities. I certainly wouldn't be pleased no matter what he can do for spore. I'd be thinking, i would rather a sporean who certainly can be equally capable be PM, because the things he does would more likely be tempered with the love of his country.

Alright, as long as we know what it comes down to, which is basically some bruised ego and some ACSians of the time feeling hurt......I agree his tactics were controversial and perhaps he should have known better.

Here's something for you to chew on. ACS does not just belong to ACSians, ACS belongs to Singapore also and all potential future students and parents. OTC's duty is not merely to the the feelings of any incumbent batch of ACSians, but also as a custodian of the future of the school. If he traded the latter for the former, then he would have been derelict in his duty. If OTC trampled on a few egos (not mass murder, by the way) in order to make ACS a school worthy of aspiring to for future generations, including people with no previous connection to the school, then so be it. Ends and Means you say, but its a worthy End (agree?) and not a particularly egregious Means (except perhaps for some ACSians of the day and some of their teachers, but acceptable to the board and presumably parents of the students, agree?).

If you happened to be the generation he trampled on, then you have my sympathies, and thanks also, since ACS(I) is now a school I would actually consider sending my boys to, which certainly was not the case back in my day.

So you have endured a sacrifice, and I can understand your chagrin and resentment, so I thank you again and ask that you perhaps find some place in your heart to forgive and put aside the hurt. Sometimes in emotionally charged youth, in the midst of flag waving at the ruggers match with the arch-enemy at the Padang, passions run high and its hard to accept the arch-enemy as the head of your school. But we grow up and look back with adult eyes and understand, yes?

Cheerio

I agree with 3boys. I know him in his personal capacity, and from what I know of his character, I would say that the advice to top students was sincere.

If he had a nephew who did well, and felt could excel more in RI than AC, then why not advise him to go to RI?

But I know RI and AC well, and the rivalry is intense, and emotions run high. hence, it is disloyal for any AC teacher, not to mention the VP or P, to even dream of suggesting any AC boy choose RI.

What adds insult to injury is that the VP giving that advice was an old RI boy. to AC boys, to have an ex-rafflesian at its helm is anathema. and that wound has festered and rankled over the years.

I would say in this instance (advice to go to RI), Dr ong erred in not considering how his remarks will be taken by staff and fiercely loyal AC boys. he's probably too straight (pun not intended), as seen from how he kept an RI car decal on his car when he was at AC (in the early days at least).

perhaps as an ex-RI guy he didn't think the AC-RI rivalry it was a big deal. But for most AC guys it's a D*MN big deal and continues to be years after they leave the old sch. that's why, rightly or wrongly, the old boy network of 'guanxi' is so strong.[/quote]Interesting discussion here...

I can't agree more with the bold statement in the above post.

In general, we human beings frequently make emotional decisions, and use logic to support them. For seemingly clear cut matters like buying/selling, emotions may play a bigger part than we like to admit, let alone with decisions such as whether you like someone or not, where it's much more emotional than logical.

For ex-ACSians who dislike Dr Ong for some strong reason, his achievements are good but \"so what!\". Dr Ong has let the ACS family down, no matter how good his intentions are. If his biggest motivation is not on bringing honour to the ACS family, it doesn't matter how good he does in the rest.

For friends and associates of Dr Ong, he has a great positive image. They reflect on his strong achievements, his goodwill, and so a little \"blemish\" is really regrettable. He's bound to tread on some toes in his decisions since he's being judged as an outsider.

I would say both camps are right in the way they look at this Ong-gate. It depends on what each camp holds dear. And I think it's important to respect what other people hold dear in their hearts, even though we may not share the same ideals. Easier said than done though, I must add.

I'm an ex-Rafflesian, not of Dr Ong's generation. I know next to nothing about him, apart from reading the news, so I can't say much about him.

But if what jencrs said is true, if Dr Ong really encouraged good students to jump ship (whether it's for the students' own sake or not), his intentions may be sincere but he is letting the ACS fraternity down. Why? I may be wrong, but I'm sure one of his job requirements as VP/principal is to glorify and bring honour to the ACS family and spirit (Well, it may not be these exact words, but it should be something like that). And even if his intentions are good for the students, he's not seen to be glorifying the ACS family. If anything, he's seen to be demeaning the ACS spirit.

I don't know much about the ACS spirit, but I do respect it somewhat.

It may not mean much to people outside of the ACS family, and therefore Dr Ong's actions of encouraging students to jump ship may seem trivial. But it's a big deal to ACSians, and so I can understand their anger and indignation.

If I were still a student, and if the principal or VP encouraged the RI swim team members to join ACJC because they have a better chance of making to the national team to represent Singapore, I would also feel annoyed.

[jencrs]

3Boys:

Alright, as long as we know what it comes down to, which is basically some bruised ego and some ACSians of the time feeling hurt.

We? Probably better if you just spoke for yourself, since I've been saying that it's more than that. I hope that we are clear on that. Unless you are royalty, then \"we\" is ok. I'm royalty too, but only for about 15min a day.


I'm a little hurt that you've not talked about my little analogy with the ex-Msian as Sporean PM. You quoted it, but didn't address it. If it'll make it easier for you, let's just say the ex-Msian used to be a CEO in Msia who prefers 7Up to coke.

autolycus came up with some interesting numbers and a good point as well. (agree? (I hope so(but why the brackets(better effect if i shrink the front (agree?(sorry can't go any smaller)))))

[Nebbermind]

I was just wondering if OTC had asked the boys to jump ship in the midst of their sec education or did he ask them to move on to RJC after their 'O'. Although both are unacceptable for most ACSians, especially way back in the 80s coz they were the top 2 'ang moh pai' schools, I feel that the former is an almost unforgivable SIN!!

:shock:

[autolycus]

I wonder what your reaction might have been if you had been sitting down there at one of his staff meetings where he cut loose and made scathing remarks about his former boss (about five years after the man had left) and also about a fellow principal from a brother school (in 2002, during an ongoing court case). I remember him saying things like, "Why does everyone give A the credit when I did so much work also?" and "B is a bad man, he deserves whatever happens to him."


Whether warranted or not (and in my view, considering the evidence, completely unwarranted), it was a stunning display of lack of professionalism. But that is only my opinion. Then again, many of the 100+ people sitting there felt the same way.

[Nebbermind]

:shock:

[verykiasu2010]

once you start washing dirty linen, you start to see dirt every where

[corneyAmber]

verykiasu2010:

once you start washing dirty linen, you start to see dirt every where

:offtopic: Wah you are reaching GM III soon!

[verykiasu2010]

ksi:

verykiasu2010:

once you start washing dirty linen, you start to see dirt every where

:offtopic: Wah you are reaching GM III soon!

:offtopic: you are 66 posts away from 10k....is it still grand master or becomes SKS GM ? lol

[3Boys]

jencrs:

3Boys:

Alright, as long as we know what it comes down to, which is basically some bruised ego and some ACSians of the time feeling hurt.

We? Probably better if you just spoke for yourself, since I've been saying that it's more than that. I hope that we are clear on that. Unless you are royalty, then \"we\" is ok. I'm royalty too, but only for about 15min a day.


I'm a little hurt that you've not talked about my little analogy with the ex-Msian as Sporean PM. You quoted it, but didn't address it. If it'll make it easier for you, let's just say the ex-Msian used to be a CEO in Msia who prefers 7Up to coke.

autolycus came up with some interesting numbers and a good point as well. (agree? (I hope so(but why the brackets(better effect if i shrink the front (agree?(sorry can't go any smaller)))))

Save the snarkiness please, it merely obfuscates and I have dealt with far worse. If you want to talk about the issues, then talk about the issues.

You say that it is more than hurt feelings, but when I asked in a previous post about what your quibble was, you demurred on critiquing his credentials as a educationist, and his need to exhibit leadership behaviours. When I offered up that the board had possibly taken a broader view, you mumbled something nondescript but made no attempt to perhaps make some consideration as to their actions. In short, you do not seem to have much of an issue with anything that perhaps is supportive of OTC being appointed to that role, and the only thing you have cited thus far against it is that you did not like to hear him tell top students to go to RI. What other conclusion should I draw? Pray tell.

The question you posed is not an analogy, it is hypothetical. There is a difference. But if you must, my view is that being 'disloyal' to a school is different from being disloyal to a nation by some magnitude, in some countries you can get hanged for that, as the stakes are much higher. That's why there is no law in preventing CEOs from switching companies, but there are laws in many countries that only citizens can hold top office. What is the stake in OTC advising a top ACSian to go to RI? A better developed individual for Singapore perhaps? I am finding it hard to see the downside of that. You claim ACS for your own, but it is much bigger than that, and perhaps at that point in time, someone needed to be in place who understood that.