勿忘培华的孩子是特选的。


https://postimg.cc/6yHL3Hw7

https://postimg.cc/Hc4bCzBk

Jennifer:

Has PH ever told parents/students to get out if you do not attend devotion?


I know I suggested \"if all things fails, you might want to consider transferring the child out\". This is my personal suggestion before the concerned parent received a reply from the school.

Just want to clarify.

I'm glad PHPPS understands that it is a first and foremost a secular school, so the VP personally called me about a month back to assure me of the optionality of devotion sessions, and that this is a singular case of miscommunication (though I would rather categorised it as a case of non-communication).

The following is what I emailed to the P and VPs after our call:

\"Thank you Mrs Hiew for your prompt phone call and reassurance.

I’m glad to hear from you that the devotion activity is optional, and that this is simply a singular case of miscommunication where the optionality of planned religious activities in the school has not been clearly communicated to parents.

I understand from our conversation that attendance is taken after the devotion, and the children are only marked as late if they failed to turn up for pledge-taking. As the devotion for afternoon classes begins from 12:30pm and last till 12:50pm, we can plan for our child to be in the hall by 12:50pm before pledge-taking. Due to CCAs, there are certain days where the children will be send to school earlier and will have to be in the hall by 12:30pm. Or when children taking school buses have to uniformly arrived in school by 12:30pm. In such cases, I understand that the form teacher will approach the child of non-religious parents and sit them out from the devotion period.

Religious activities in public governmental schools is a sensitive issue that I feel have to be handled with care. I hope the school can clearly inform non-religious parents of any future religious activities scheduled by the school before they are carried out, and how we can arrange for our children to opt out of such activities.

Thank you again for your clarification.\"

I'm glad that PHPPS understands this is the right thing to do, and that future instances of \"miscommunication\" can be avoided.

farmermum:

The school has been having devotion session everyday since I was a student there 30 yrs ago, and much longer before that. We even have bible studies lessons within the timetable. As much as I believe non believers should be allowed to do their silent reading during this time, and I understand this to be the current practice, I also believe that if parents are not comfortable, they shouldnt be sending their children to study in the school in the first place. Give up the slot, there'll be many who are eager to take it up with no complains.

Not trying to start a war here. Just my point of view.

And here's my point of view, well... actually it's just repeating what I've said before:

\"Government schools with religious affiliations are still public institutions, and if they are allowed to proselytize to their pupil regardless of the pupils or parents' religion, and then say \"if you don't like it, get out!\", that akin to hijacking governmental resource and infrastructure (i.e. taxpayer's money and the government school system) to promote individual religious agenda. To tell parents and students that the option is either to accept the school's proselytising or to get out is blatant bigotry in a public institution.\"

As I've said, it's quite clear that PHPPS is a school with religious affiliation, and hence it is totally understandable that they would have devotion sessions and CVE (Christian Values Education) programmes available in the school. There's no problem with having these programmes. These programmes becomes an issue when, as brainkuku so succinctly puts it, the school/ principal consciously or not \"withheld\" the nature of their optionality from parents, by not overtly announcing their optionality and hence depriving parents from exercising that option. It is an disingenuous action. And to Jennifer's comment, yes I do think it is a gross mistake to make, regardless of whether it is an oversight. Because when schools will provide clear information and give out consent forms to parents for a single school outing, it is unthinkable that they will make such an \"oversight\" on a programme that is conducted on a everyday basis.

So I totally agree with brainkuku and janet88, transparency is the issue here, not religion. Religion cannot, must not, be the basis for telling people if they should or should not be sending their children to a public secular school (albeit one with religious affiliation). Saying \"stop complaining or get out\" is the beginning of religious bigotry, something that I refuse to condone (and actually find hideously frightening in a society like Singapore), especially when it pertains to a public school open to all citizens.

And yes, the school could also do a better job at portraying itself as the SAP school that it is. It is one of only 15 primary schools to be gifted with the programme by MOE, and the school has an important and obligatory responsibility to cultivate strong bilingual abilities in their students.

Jennifer:

Maybe I was lucky that the preacher was sensitive to the fact that there were non-Christian pupils in the class and did not introduce radical beliefs......


By the time my younger boy enrolled in PH, the CV sessions was conducted by a parent volunteer, not a preacher from the church next door. Somehow the CV curriculum was not the same as my elder boy's time and I feel that the younger boy did not get a neutral perspective from the parent volunteer. Subsequently, I did not see CV on the time table for the other years.

Does the time table have a dedicated CV period now? Or only devotion before the class starts?

I rather my children know about other religions, then decide for themselves which beliefs they like to adopt. I do not mind them getting the exposure from the school itself.

The school now have devotion everyday before class starts, lasting 20-30 mins I believe, but I'm unsure who conducts these sessions.

However, I must point out that it is not about whether the person preaching is qualified or sensitive to non-Christians (though getting someone who understands less about the religion is detrimental on its own), or if the religion has \"radical beliefs\" (But are you saying if the preacher had only Christian pupils in the class, then he'll start to introduce radical beliefs!?!?). I think everyone is in agreement that Christianity is an excellent religion that teaches some good values and beliefs, and the same can be said for Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism etc. But the very act of proselytising a religion to non-believers or people who do not wish to be proselytised to, even if the act of proselytising is concealed in the guise of \"sharing\" or \"story-telling\", is already offensive and insensitive in itself, regardless of how sensitive or qualified the proselytiser is. This is because there is no such thing as a neutral religious belief.

The point is: Government schools, even if they are mission school with religious affiliation, should not and must not exploit the school apparatus to proselytize. These schools can, of course, provide activities and programmes that reflect their religious beliefs and construct their unique school identity. However, these activities and programmes based on religious contents cannot be mandatorily enforced on parents and students across the board via the school curriculum and system. Families with aligned religious beliefs are free to take advantage of these religious programmes provided by the school, but non-believers must be free from the duress of having a religion forced down their throats, especially if it's being strong-armed by a school system that is supposed to be secular.

I think it would be fair to say that \"devotion\" every single day in the morning or afternoon for 6 years is more than simply \"exposure\" to religion.

phtthp:

limnieng:

I'm not that upset about my child's outburst, I understand they're dealing with instructions (sometimes contradictory) from different people.

However, I must disagree that I have to adhere to school policy on this matter. This is not simply a matter of schools having the freedom to determine how they want to run their school. This is an issue that violates MOE's directive that all school have to be secular schools and refrain from proselytising regardless of religious affiliation!

Government schools with religious affiliations are still public institutions, and if they are allowed to proselytize to their pupil regardless of the pupils or parents' religion, and then say \"if you don't like it, get out!\", that akin to hijacking governmental resource and infrastructure (i.e. taxpayer's money and the government school system) to promote individual religious agenda. To tell parents and students that the option is either to accept the school's proselytising or to get out is blatant bigotry in a public institution.

Allow me to repost an extract from the PM's National Day Rally speech in 2009:

\"Our schools are another example where we have common space, and where all races and religions interact. In government schools, but even in mission schools. Even in church schools run by religious groups, there are clear rules which MOE has set so that students of all faiths will feel comfortable. You might ask: Why not allow mission schools to introduce prayers or Bible studies as compulsory parts of the school’s activity or as part of school assembly. Why not?

Why not let those who are not Christian or do not want a Christian environment go to a government school or go to a Buddhist school? Well, the reason why not is because if we do that, then we will have Christians in Christian schools, Buddhists in Buddhist schools, Muslims in schools with only Muslim children and so on. And I think that that is not good for Singapore.

Therefore, we have rules to keep all our schools secular and the religious groups understand and accept this. Take for example SJI. It is a St Joseph’s Catholics brother school, but it has many non-Catholic students including quite a number of Malay students who study there. And one year the Josephian of the year in 2003 was a Malay student, Salman Mohamed Khair. And he told Berita Harian that initially his family was somewhat worried about admitting him to a Catholic school and he himself was worried, afraid because he did not know what to expect but he still went because of SJI’s good record. He said “Now, I feel fortunate to be in SJI. Although I was educated in a Catholic environment, religion never became an issue”.

So indeed that is how it should work and I know it works because I understand that Malay students in SJI often attend Friday prayers at Ba’alwi Mosque nearby, still wearing their school uniforms. And SJI thinks it is fine, the mosque thinks it is find, the students think it is fine and I think it is fine too. That is the way it should be.\"

So I think MOE and the government's stance on this issue is very clear, and if my understanding on what PHPPS is doing is accurate, it is in direct violation of school guidelines and causing harm to the social fabric of our multi-religious society.

currently, are there any Malay students from Muslim family, or any Indian students from Hindu family, studying inside Pei Hwa Presbyterian primary, but taking Chinese as 2nd language ?

(these Malay & Indian students : possible that one of their parents may be a Chinese, can be a Chinese father or a Chinese mother)

during devotion time early morning, where do these students go & occupy their time ?
surely there must be an option to opt out, if students & families totally feel un-comfortable, attending devotion time

The VP of PHPPS just gave me a call to assure me that devotion is optional. She informs me that parents of P1 and P2 students can opt to send their children to school after devotion which ends at 12:50pm but before pledge-taking starts. Also, the form teacher may be informed to sit your child aside from the devotion to do \"silent reading\" during devotion. These were not clearly communicated, intentionally or not, during the 1st day of school.

The following is what I emailed to the P and VPs after our communication:

\"Thank you Mrs Hiew for your prompt phone call and reassurance.

I’m glad to hear from you that the devotion activity is optional, and that this is simply a singular case of miscommunication where the optionality of planned religious activities in the school has not been clearly communicated to parents.

I understand from our conversation that attendance is taken after the devotion, and the children are only marked as late if they failed to turn up for pledge-taking. As the devotion for afternoon classes begins from 12:30pm and last till 12:50pm, we can plan for our child to be in the hall by 12:50pm before pledge-taking. Due to CCAs, there are certain days where the children will be send to school earlier and will have to be in the hall by 12:30pm. Or when children taking school buses have to uniformly arrived in school by 12:30pm. In such cases, I understand that the form teacher will approach the child of non-religious parents and sit them out from the devotion period.

Religious activities in public governmental schools is a sensitive issue that I feel have to be handled with care. I hope the school can clearly inform non-religious parents of any future religious activities scheduled by the school before they are carried out, and how we can arrange for our children to opt out of such activities.

Thank you again for your clarification.\"

I'm glad that PHPPS understands this is the right thing to do, and that future instances of \"miscommunication\" can be avoided.

Jennifer:

I do understand your point of view.


Hope you and the school can reach a solution soon.

Thanks Jennifer.

It is interesting though that you said you understand my point of view, which actually means that you understand but don't agree with it, which is fine.

But I'm actually very interested to hear another point of view on this matter of no proselytising activities in governmental schools based on MOE's directives. I'm open to the possibility that my view may be deficient.

Hope to hear from you.

Jennifer:

If the school admin dept is still manned by the same group of staff, then I won't be surprised if you do not get a reply at all.


Do call up to request to meet the Form Teacher to bring up your concerns n to understand exactly the school policy on excusing non-Christians pupils during devotion and what options are available to your child, or whether you can request for alternatives.

If all else fails, then your option might be to transfer to a non-mission school.

As for your child wanting to change parent due to one incident, I like to say, many times, little children see the formal school setting as more respectful and might say things which upset the parents at times.

I remembered telling my boys to go n live with their teachers as they were more obedient in school under the supervision of teachers than at home :rotflmao:

Thanks Jennifer for your response.

I'm not that upset about my child's outburst, I understand they're dealing with instructions (sometimes contradictory) from different people.

However, I must disagree that I have to adhere to school policy on this matter. This is not simply a matter of schools having the freedom to determine how they want to run their school. This is an issue that violates MOE's directive that all school have to be secular schools and refrain from proselytising regardless of religious affiliation!

Government schools with religious affiliations are still public institutions, and if they are allowed to proselytize to their pupil regardless of the pupils or parents' religion, and then say \"if you don't like it, get out!\", that akin to hijacking governmental resource and infrastructure (i.e. taxpayer's money and the government school system) to promote individual religious agenda. To tell parents and students that the option is either to accept the school's proselytising or to get out is blatant bigotry in a public institution.

Allow me to repost an extract from the PM's National Day Rally speech in 2009:

\"Our schools are another example where we have common space, and where all races and religions interact. In government schools, but even in mission schools. Even in church schools run by religious groups, there are clear rules which MOE has set so that students of all faiths will feel comfortable. You might ask: Why not allow mission schools to introduce prayers or Bible studies as compulsory parts of the school’s activity or as part of school assembly. Why not?

Why not let those who are not Christian or do not want a Christian environment go to a government school or go to a Buddhist school? Well, the reason why not is because if we do that, then we will have Christians in Christian schools, Buddhists in Buddhist schools, Muslims in schools with only Muslim children and so on. And I think that that is not good for Singapore.

Therefore, we have rules to keep all our schools secular and the religious groups understand and accept this. Take for example SJI. It is a St Joseph’s Catholics brother school, but it has many non-Catholic students including quite a number of Malay students who study there. And one year the Josephian of the year in 2003 was a Malay student, Salman Mohamed Khair. And he told Berita Harian that initially his family was somewhat worried about admitting him to a Catholic school and he himself was worried, afraid because he did not know what to expect but he still went because of SJI’s good record. He said “Now, I feel fortunate to be in SJI. Although I was educated in a Catholic environment, religion never became an issue”.

So indeed that is how it should work and I know it works because I understand that Malay students in SJI often attend Friday prayers at Ba’alwi Mosque nearby, still wearing their school uniforms. And SJI thinks it is fine, the mosque thinks it is find, the students think it is fine and I think it is fine too. That is the way it should be.\"

So I think MOE and the government's stance on this issue is very clear, and if my understanding on what PHPPS is doing is accurate, it is in direct violation of school guidelines and causing harm to the social fabric of our multi-religious society.

mummychua:

limnieng:

[quote=\"cherlynang\"]I asked my dd, she say devotion is sang after national anthem. Hence cannot come later. They switch the sequence. Any non-christian encounter this before?

Yes, that's another thing that doesn't quite sit right with me. How can the P say PHPPS adheres to the stipulation by MOE to be a secular school, promise not to proselytize, and then make adjustment to school procedures that forces all students from various religions to do devotion!! To me, that's just religiously insensitive and wrong!!

Coupled with her stance during the P1 presentation, I find her management of the school worrying.

our family is not religious but i do understand why the school do the national anthem before devotion. that's probably to get all students in at the same time. otherwise parent will start opting out and get their kids to sch at a later time. I'm not sure if it's possible, perhaps you could request to have your kids sit out of devotion and do quiet reading instead?[/quote]I'm a P1 parent, so our child starts school in the afternoon. The national anthem is sang after school. However, from what I gathered and information from my child, there is some sort devotion service, religious talk and hymn singing at 12:30pm before class starts.

I emailed the following to the school yesterday but they have yet to respond:

\"Pei Hwa is a government-aided school with religious affiliation, and thus it is understandable that there are devotion service before class.

However, MOE clearly stipulates that such religious activities have to be optional due to the multi-religious nature of our society. The school is also obliged to inform parents of any such activities, and furthermore provide the option for our children to not participate. According to a forum letter dated 8 Jan 2014 written by the Deputy Director-General of Education (Schools), schools also have to provide ‘alternative learning programmes for students who opt out’.

From my discussion with other parents and the information provided to me by my child, the children are being forcefully kept (by means of no other options expressly provided) in the school hall to listen to talks on ‘Jesus’ and engage in the singing of hymns starting at 12:30pm before class starts. I find this to be oppressive and in direct contradiction to MOE’s directives. It also offends the religious sensitivities of both child and parents.

I also refer to the new principal’s (Mdm Elsie Tan) presentation on the first day of school, where she euthusiastically express her religious affiliation and joy at being back at a mission school, but also promises not to proselytize. Yet this current arrangement of compulsory devotion service before class seems to be at odds with what was conveyed.

I do hope my above understanding is a case of miscommunication. If not, can the school please clearly inform parents of the option of not participating in devotion service, and how we are able to exercise this option.

Thank you.\"

Today my child came back and asked me how could the clever fish evolved to be a dinosaur if God created everything (We've been reading a children's book called \"The world's cleverest fish\" to her since young that explains evolution). I asked her why she would ask me that, and she said that's what she was told during the afternoon devotion service. I told her that's a story that some people in the world believe but that she would have to decide for herself. She then asked me what I believe. I said I believe there's evolution. She then said she wants to change a daddy because I contradict what the school says.

I hope the school understands the severity of this problem, and takes the MOE's directive to be a secular school seriously. If not, I'll be forced to escalate the issue.

cherlynang:

I asked my dd, she say devotion is sang after national anthem. Hence cannot come later. They switch the sequence. Any non-christian encounter this before?

Yes, that's another thing that doesn't quite sit right with me. How can the P say PHPPS adheres to the stipulation by MOE to be a secular school, promise not to proselytize, and then make adjustment to school procedures that forces all students from various religions to do devotion!! To me, that's just religiously insensitive and wrong!!

Coupled with her stance during the P1 presentation, I find her management of the school worrying.

Hi, I’m a new parent to PHPPS. Attended the first day of school yesterday and heard the new principal’s (Mdm Tan Quee Wah Elsie) presentation in the morning.


Was quite disappointed actually.

In her presentation, while she enthusiastically identifies with the missionary background of the school (as she should or must), she fails to acknowledge that PHPPS is also one of only 15 primary schools to be accorded the SAP status and have a sacred mission to uphold a high standard of bilingual education.

The school has a distinguished 128 years of history since 1889. It was first and foremost a Chinese school when they switched from Teochew to Mandarin in 1918, named Pei Hwa ‘cultivate chinese’ in 1922, accorded SAP status in 1992, and tasked with the Chinese Arts Programme in 2009.

Concerned about how such a principal would lead such a school…