Anglo-Chinese School (Independent)

[autolycus]

ACS(I) IB Diploma results are out. They’ll be officially released to students at noon tomorrow. Heh heh heh.

[Kiasu Friend]

Hi all,


I was told that for Year-1 students in ACS-I, attending the Chapel is included as part of the Time-table and attending the Chapel is compulsory. I do not know how far it is true.

But can non-Christian students appeal for exemption? If so to whom?

Thank you very much.

[Chirunner]

autolycus:

ACS(I) IB Diploma results are out. They'll be officially released to students at noon tomorrow. Heh heh heh.

My son came home today n told me 28 perfect scores from ACSI- Incredible!

[autolycus]

Kiasu Friend:

Hi all,


I was told that for Year-1 students in ACS-I, attending the Chapel is included as part of the Time-table and attending the Chapel is compulsory. I do not know how far it is true.

But can non-Christian students appeal for exemption? If so to whom?

Thank you very much.

Yes, it's compulsory. After all, ACS(I) is a Methodist institution. However, in compliance with Singapore being a secular state, there is an exemption clause for those who have another religion. Write a letter requesting that your son be exempted from Chapel on religious grounds. Address it to:

Mrs Fanny Tan
Acting Principal
Anglo-Chinese School (Independent)
121 Dover Road
Singapore 139650

She will reply to you and file the letter for future reference.

Personally, though, I sometimes wonder why anyone would want to put their child in a mission school and then avoid the things that make a mission school a mission school... *grin*

[autolycus]

Chirunner:

autolycus:

ACS(I) IB Diploma results are out. They'll be officially released to students at noon tomorrow. Heh heh heh.

My son came home today n told me 28 perfect scores from ACSI- Incredible!

You can download the details from http://www.acs.sch.edu.sg/acs_indep/news.php?id=138.

[WeiHan]

autolycus:

Personally, though, I sometimes wonder why anyone would want to put their child in a mission school and then avoid the things that make a mission school a mission school... *grin*

It is not the first time I heard people raising this point. However, my point is that, in Singapore, even mission schools accept funding from the government which is tax payers money. Moreover, people may be going forthe school because of other reasons such as they believes it provides good academic standard.

[autolycus]

WeiHan:

autolycus:

Personally, though, I sometimes wonder why anyone would want to put their child in a mission school and then avoid the things that make a mission school a mission school... *grin*

It is not the first time I heard people raising this point. However, my point is that, in Singapore, even mission schools accept funding from the government which is tax payers money. Moreover, people may be going forthe school because of other reasons such as they believes it provides good academic standard.

This is where you may be wrong. Funding for anything is not necessarily taxpayers' money, since the government has http://www.betternetworker.com/articles/view/personal-development/leadership/singapore-home-largest-proportion-high-earning-expats which are quite separate from taxing the locals. That cannot be an issue simply because if that were so, a lot of people are paying taxes for things which other people enjoy. Consider the proportion of us who actually do pay taxes, and how much. Does it mean that an NSman who gets a tax 'discount' is therefore less entitled to enjoy what the government finances?

Similarly, does it mean that the lower-income people who don't pay income tax are not entitled to subsidised schooling?

Basically, every morning at ACS(I) and all the other mission schools in Singapore, there are prayers said, devotions read out, spiritual ideas from a specific religion shared. You don't have to take part. When, in a Catholic school, Mass is celebrated, those of us who are not Catholics just sit there without taking part.

Going for a school because it provides a good academic standard but opposing the culture of what made that school the way it is? That is like marrying someone for their success (or their money) and not their character. It is not illegal, but it does say something about the person doing it.

[WeiHan]

autolycus:

WeiHan:

[quote=\"autolycus\"]

Personally, though, I sometimes wonder why anyone would want to put their child in a mission school and then avoid the things that make a mission school a mission school... *grin*

It is not the first time I heard people raising this point. However, my point is that, in Singapore, even mission schools accept funding from the government which is tax payers money. Moreover, people may be going forthe school because of other reasons such as they believes it provides good academic standard.

This is where you may be wrong. Funding for anything is not necessarily taxpayers' money, since the government has http://www.betternetworker.com/articles/view/personal-development/leadership/singapore-home-largest-proportion-high-earning-expats which are quite separate from taxing the locals. That cannot be an issue simply because if that were so, a lot of people are paying taxes for things which other people enjoy. Consider the proportion of us who actually do pay taxes, and how much. Does it mean that an NSman who gets a tax 'discount' is therefore less entitled to enjoy what the government finances?

Similarly, does it mean that the lower-income people who don't pay income tax are not entitled to subsidised schooling?

Basically, every morning at ACS(I) and all the other mission schools in Singapore, there are prayers said, devotions read out, spiritual ideas from a specific religion shared. You don't have to take part. When, in a Catholic school, Mass is celebrated, those of us who are not Catholics just sit there without taking part.

Going for a school because it provides a good academic standard but opposing the culture of what made that school the way it is? That is like marrying someone for their success (or their money) and not their character. It is not illegal, but it does say something about the person doing it.[/quote]Your reasoning and examples given are too convoluted and quite irrelevant actually. It is not whether who pay the tax and who enjoy it. The point is simply that public government funding in a secular state cannot be seen to be intentionally used to promote one specific religion or worse still forcing it into another person of a different religion. It is fair that there are prayer sessions because as you said it is a mission school but to receive government funding and force it on non-believers students is inappropriate. But if the school is completely self-funded, then I think every student who chose to be enrolled in the school should follow the rules.

[autolycus]

WeiHan:

Your reasoning and examples given are too convoluted and quite irrelevant actually. It is not whether who pay the tax and who enjoy it. The point is simply that public government funding in a secular state cannot be seen to be intentionally used to promote one specific religion or worse still forcing it into another person of a different religion. It is fair that there are prayer sessions because as you said it is a mission school but to receive government funding and force it on non-believers students is inappropriate. But if the school is completely self-funded, then I think every student who chose to be enrolled in the school should follow the rules.

The point is the school is not completely government-funded. So how do you know which parts of the school are self-funded and which parts are government-funded?

Are you saying that if the government disburses funds to any organisation, that organisation must 100% be expressing the philosophy of the government? Really?

In that case, the fact that time is spent from 0730-0740 (for example) saying prayers and devotions means that a school is already forcing it on non-believing students using government support. Which is of course not the case.

I think that if the whole school attends assembly and prayers are said and hymns are sung, students can just tune those parts out. After all, we all know some students can do that even in class.

[WeiHan]

autolycus:

The point is the school is not completely government-funded. So how do you know which parts of the school are self-funded and which parts are government-funded?

Even proselytisng too aggressively using your own money is considered wrong. Don't you find it odd to push further, even if it is just partial usage, of government fund for that purpose? Since the chapel is funded by the church and not by the government, maybe students can opt out from attending any events held in the church? Maybe it is this ambiguity that some people are arguing that religions be totally kept out from education?

autolycus:

Are you saying that if the government disburses funds to any organisation, that organisation must 100% be expressing the philosophy of the government? Really?

This is really a distraction, a digression. Aren't we talking about using government funding for propagating specific religion here? As I have said, even using own funding for aggressive proselytising is wrong enough. Not to even dream about using government funding.

autolycus:

In that case, the fact that time is spent from 0730-0740 (for example) saying prayers and devotions means that a school is already forcing it on non-believing students using government support. Which is of course not the case.

If the students can be excused during that period, we can arguably say that the school isn't forcing.

autolycus:

I think that if the whole school attends assembly and prayers are said and hymns are sung, students can just tune those parts out. After all, we all know some students can do that even in class.

That is only if the students are willing to tune off. In principle, the students should be allowed to excuse themselves during that short period.

Personally, if I am a non-believer and if I don't think that a physical chapel benefits me in any way, I will not choose to go to a mission. Think about this, a government funded piece of grass field originally intended for all kind of sports (which I can use) was suddenly replaced by a church sponsored chapel. My portion of the government subsidised fund for sports education is replaced by the chapel.

===

Moreover, technically, there will always be a group of students with no bargaining power for their choice of schools because of their low t-scores. So it isn't fair to say that all students who enrol in mission schools, knows the fact, and so is intentional, and should therefore attend chapel sessions.