Anglo-Chinese School (Independent)
-
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.
-
autolycus:
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?
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?autolycus:
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.Are you saying that if the government disburses funds to any organisation, that organisation must 100% be expressing the philosophy of the government? Really?
autolycus:
If the students can be excused during that period, we can arguably say that the school isn't forcing.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.
autolycus:
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.
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.
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. -
It's arguable that without missions, there would be much less education in Singapore. This is why people should learn some history.
To make my point clear, a mission school has intrinsic properties. These properties were not paid for by the Government, they were paid for by others. How do we know? Because they were founded before Singapore became independent.
When you choose such a school, you make a tacit agreement to expose yourself to such properties. If you want to opt out, you can, as I pointed out several posts back. Just write a letter. It seems odd to call it \"aggressive proselytizing\" when the chapel stays where it is and you go to chapel, not the chapel chasing after you!
What I pointed out as well was that it seemed odd to go to such a school, which has one specific obvious defining characteristic, publicly known and acknowledged, and then choose to go against that very characteristic.
You should ask yourself why the Government chooses to continue funding all such institutions. You might want to look into the history of such institutions. You might also want to ask why RI has this line, \"...with God to guide the way...\" in its school song. Does that offend you?
You can argue that religion should be kept out of schools. But historically speaking, why would you argue that? It is akin to rationalising from current circumstances without looking at prior events. My point is that schools established by a secular state should be secular. Schools which were religious before this state was formed can be maintained by a secular state as long as they teach whatever the state requires and nothing against that.
In Singapore, the three fundamentals are 1) national education, 2) bilingualism, and 3) meritocracy. The state will support all religions as long as they do not sabotage societal harmony or security.
I do not see how any mission school currently functioning as such would sabotage societal harmony or destroy any of the fundamentals. Hence, together with the power of opting-out, there is http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/forum/2005/20051025a.htm. To be fair, this is not to be taken for granted.
But you would still wonder about people who would want to treat such schools as if they were not mission schools. Why not just transfer out? -
Thanks autolycus and WeiHan for a lively discussion on this issue. I agree with WeiHan in this. And I want to submit my replies to autolycus below:
(1) If a boy wants to pursue Integrated Program leading to A-level, he has many schools to choose from. But if he wants to pursue Integrated Program leading to IB-Diploma, ACS-I is the only choice. So, a boy may join ACS-I, not because he belives in a Methodist institution, but because he has nowhere to go for an Integrated Program leading to IB Diploma (of course International schools are excluded here on grounds of their huge fees).
(2) autolycus asked - ‘Why not transfer out?’ Because of the reason stated above, the boy has nowhere to ‘transfer out’ since no other school (participating in PSLE Centralised S-1 Posting Exzercise) is offering IP leading to IB Diploma.
(3) Another question is - "Why not just sit in the Chapel and just ‘tune out’"?
If left with no choice, non-Christian students may do that. But the question is - ‘Is it fair to leave them with no choice?’ Should not the school respect the religious sentiments of the non-Christian students? In fact from what I know, "respecting the religious sentiments of others" is in fact a noble Christian value. Why not display that true Christian spirit?
(4) Regarding the discussion on whether Acs-I is using taxpayers money or not, I think WeiHan has explained the issues brilliantly. There is nothing to add.
On the overall thanks to all for their views and lively discussion. -
Wisedad, with due respect to your argument, it does not apply.
1. ACS(I) is just one of many mission schools. It is the only mainstream one that offers the IBDP, true. That is what does not allow your argument to answer the general case.
2. ACS(I) only offered the IP from 2004. Are you saying that the specific argument did not apply to ACS(I) before 2004? In which case, you are saying that offering the IP with IB is what makes ACS(I) chapel services so undesirable. -
[quote]1) If a boy wants to pursue Integrated Program leading to A-level, he has many schools to choose from. But if he wants to pursue Integrated Program leading to IB-Diploma, ACS-I is the only choice. So, a boy may join ACS-I, not because he belives in a Methodist institution, but because he has nowhere to go for an Integrated Program leading to IB Diploma (of course International schools are excluded here on grounds of their huge fees).
(2) autolycus asked - 'Why not transfer out?' Because of the reason stated above, the boy has nowhere to 'transfer out' since no other school (participating in PSLE Centralised S-1 Posting Exzercise) is offering IP leading to IB Diploma.
[/quote]There is still a choice. If the conviction of not wanting to attend the chapel service is so strong, one can always go ahead with the \"A' levels instead of the IB diploma. :lol:
It's a matter of sacrificial choice
-
kinda reminds me of those PR who chose to come here to work and then complain non stop about the local policies. Cannot imagine if they argue along the 'I also pay tax' line!
-
it is like any British passport holders refuses to acknowledge their national anthem as \"God Saves the Queen\".....then renounce their British citizenship lor ....
or like the US American, if they are so offended by their money, \"In God We Trust\"....then they just use foreign currencies on US soil and make sure they don't carry US currency or has anything denominated in USD.....lor
sorry I am just adding oil to the fire.... :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: -
It’s a free choice!
Can opt not to attend service by writing in. Alternatively, can attend physically but heart is not there. As long as students are not force to embrace the faith, ACSI does nothing wrong.
If don’t like chapel service, do not join this school. Very simple, no need further argument. -
My son is and has been with the ACS family for the last 8 years and attends their assembly and chapel(whenever-usually Once a week).till date I have not found him being pushed into following the service.initially in the p1 and2 years he would have ALOT of questions but our continuous stress to respect other faiths and teaching him more on ours quietened him and now he knows.I feel that if as a parent if u have taught him to believe in your religion, than as a teenager he should not be torn or you should not have the fear.parents have to do their homework first.
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
