Anglo-Chinese School (Independent)
-
autolycus:
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.
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* -
WeiHan:
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?
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:
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*
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. -
autolycus:
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?
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.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*
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. -
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!
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