Clarification: Raffles Junior College has clarified with TOC that the dialogue was initiated by the school’s administration, and not by the students. TOC will be publishing an interview with the principal, Mrs Lim Lai Cheng, at a later date.
Cassandra Eng
Displeased with the planned merger of Raffles Institution (RI) and Raffles Junior College (RJC) next year, students are raising their objections on the Internet.
Also, a dialogue session with current RJC principal Mrs Lim Lai Cheng – scheduled to be held on 15 November – will be arranged by students to allow both sides to air their views. Late last month, the same student organisers from RJC met Mrs Lim to table the student body’s concerns and displeasure over the merger.
This unease has led to the setting up of three groups on social networking site, Facebook. They express strong resentment for the merger and wish that students “will be given more say in the running of the school”. (See here, here and here.)
The largest of the three groups has attracted more than 2,000 students so far.
It was announced on 13 October that RI and RJC will merge into a single entity and be called Raffles Institution. RI will be known as Raffles Institution (Secondary) while RJC will become Raffles Institution (Junior College).
Raffles Girls’ School (RGS) will not be subsumed under the same institution but will continue to work closely with the merged schools.
Speaking to students and alumni of both institutions, some of the unhappiness stemmed from both the possible impact of the merger and the lack of consultation with the student body. As parties who will be directly affected, they felt that their opinions should have been sought first.
Mr Andrew Foo, a 20-year-old RI alumnus, is not optimistic. He felt that even if the school had sought the students ‘ opinions first, “it would not have changed anything”. Furthermore, the only effect of an earlier announcement would be lesser backlash from students and concerned parents, he said.
Another alumnus, 21-year-old Melvin Lam – who is neutral about the merger, thought that if the school had first consulted with the students, many things could have been done to stop it.
Though he does not object to the merger, he does not see the reason behind it if the schools are only going to merge on the administrative level. He is, however, vehemently opposed to the change in name. He suggests a compromise – a merge but retention of the original names of each school.
“It doesn’t make sense. What is Raffles Secondary? It just spoils the heritage of our school, and there’s no more identity,” he said.
Mr Daniel Lim, Corporate Communications Manager for RJC, explained that the name ‘Raffles Institution’ will be reflective of the future long-term collaboration between the two schools.
Aside from its historical and cultural significance, the name was also retained because it is recognised internationally, and this is in keeping with the Raffles vision of taking the school beyond Singapore.
The ‘Secondary’ and “Junior College’ tags are to distinguish the schools for administrative purposes, said Mr Lim.
He added that the school will have no qualms about RI boys calling themselves their namesake and that the RJC students are equally free to address themselves as RJC students.
However, ex-RGS and RJC student Venetia Lee, who is 19, said she does not understand why the schools have to merge. “As it is, RI and RJC are already sharing a lot of facilities,” she said.
The greatest concern amongst student, – past and present – is the clash of culture between both schools. Both Venetia and Andrew agreed that the culture in a boy’s school is distinctly different from that of a junior college.
Mr Foo explained that an all boys’ school has a distinctly different atmosphere from a co-ed junior college. Not only are the age groups different, the boys from RI will also have to learn how to react to their female seniors in RJC.
Miss Lee said the worst part is the plan to change the school song. She feels that changing the lyrics from ‘sons of Singapore’ to ‘youths of Singapore’ would erode their strong culture.
A current RI student, who declined to be named, noted that the merger has its merits.
He explained that the merger would translate into a smoother curriculum plan for the Raffles Programme.
He also said that the combined funds of both institutions will mean that more money is available to procure newer and better facilities that will benefit students of both schools.
Despite all the concerns about a possible merger, he said that he has no plans to leave the Raffles Programme.
“My friends will all be here anyway, and that’s the most important thing,” he said.
Cassandra Eng is a first-year student at Wee Kim Wee School of Communication & Information (WKWSCI).
——–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Years ago, my cohorts and I rejected the proposal to change RI into an independent school. While the proposal would only take place a few years later and not affect our time in RI, we were concerned what that change would mean.
We felt that unlike other Aided/semi-independent schools, RI’s heritage and tradition had always been that it was the school where the poor and under-privileged could come and receive the best education without worrying about the financial burden on their parents.
But that plea fell on deaf ears.
Years later, I spoke to some of my older teachers and I realized our fears had become a reality.
While the higher school fees could be subsidized to some extent for the poorer students, there was a whole different culture that permeated throughout other aspects of the school.
For instance, the cost of participating in some extra-curricular club activities had gone through the roof, meaning that a student without the means could not afford to participate fully in all the school had to offer. When the students holding offices all came from families with sufficient wealth, they planned activities they could afford, without realizing not everyone was able to.
IMHO, a school is more than just the subjects you learn during regular classes. The socialization, the leadership skills from extra curricular activities all help
I know this post is off topic, but I just needed a place to rant.
And this new proposal to merge RI and RJC just smacks of the usual high handedness of the school authorities, without comprehending the full extent of such changes.
I also shared the same sentiments as Ahkao.
While government strongly tout the ‘USAVE vouchers / scholarship / bursaries / no poor student will be denied a place tagline for potential poorer RI students, many will self censor and apply for other schools.
That is why I feel schools like Anglican, Victoria etc has taken over as the premier school for the masses, not those elite independant schools.
And also the ‘gifted’ programme has allowed many to skip the rigours of the olden times…..
Could not find the right place to provide my feedback on TOC.
1. TOC has done a great job of providing a platform for people to discuss and comment on social issues.
2. However, I feel there is some constraints with this blog.
a. unlike a forum, it seems harder to continue discussing on older articles as new articles replace the older ones as articles of the day / week. Forums are more dynamic and forummers can add new comments to older issues allowing a form of continuity.
b.after comments are received , there seems to be no follow up on the issues discussed after a few days or even 1 day. People soon forget and move on. The momentum is lost.
Thus, I congratulate TOC for having done a great job while at the same time I personally feel that there is room for improvement.
regards
Selamat Lee
I find this comment by the RJC Corporate Communications Manager illuminating:
“Aside from its historical and cultural significance, the name was also retained because it is recognised internationally, and this is in keeping with the Raffles vision of taking the school beyond Singapore. ”
This smacks of commercialisation and turning the Raffles franchise into a business opportunity. What is the mission of RI/RJC? To educate Singaporeans or to become a for-profit educational institution that capitalises on the Raffles branding to make MONEY?
Increasingly, the reason for any decision appears to be economic. Make more money. Who cares about traditions, cultures and history when it all falls down in pursuit of money and profits.
Auspicium melioris aevi. Hope for a better age. And it appears to the powers that be that a better age translates into making-money-with-the-Raffles-brand-name.
RJC alumni (class of 1989)
Panzer, u are already old bird already from 1989, why not let young people decide?
Is there no other school of communication in Singapore other than Wee Kim Wee School of Communication & Information (WKWSCI)?
Sorry, haven’t read the article fully. Don’t blame me lah – former SJI boy.
Even RI/RJC is mimicking the Hwachong Institution.
3) Lee Mong Mong
Agreed.
Let’s give TOC some space to work around this. I can see that the people at TOC are attempting to make improvements to the interface of this blog.
One suggestion:
a. how about archiving threads that have stop receiving comments for say, up to a week?.
b. TOC might want to find a way to have someone give a summary of each of these threads? I am sure some bloggers would be happy to help out.
c. give the active threads priority space and visibility; in other word, easy access.
I’m sure others must have other ides for improvements?
I find one wall post from one of the facebook groups very informative:
The name? The school’s not going to retain it. The new logo has already been uploaded on Raffles Connect. Discussions are just weak attempts to appease us. – Goh Tian (RJC)
Hi Lee, gemami,
We’ve been working for awhile on a way to foreground the discussions that have been generated in the comment boxes. We recognize the importance of this, as evident from the fact that some of the strongest material on this site actually comes from the quality of the comments posted. Will keep you posted on developments.
Zheng Xi
chin hwee… why go to this extent…
can you imagine – Raffles Institution has become Raffles Institution Secondary School. (RISS)
All the dead alumni will turn in their graves…
Are the RI ministers aware of this?
All you RI/RJC people can complain, this is one moment where I am quietly happy for the decision of *my* alma mater (with the stoopid blue uniform: guess).
That said, it’s not like that school’s been free from unpopular and silly decisions anyway. And who knows if they decided to stay out of this because of physical location – but I hope they stay separate!
Also if the people dissing the ‘gifted’ programme are talking about the ‘through-train’ thing – don’t think it has no rigour hor. Ask any student who is concerned about learning and not chasing papers (mind you there’s a lot of the latter), and I’m pretty sure most will say it’s much more challenging and rigorous than the boxed-up routine mug-your-ass-off O level route. IMO the old system has been outdated and irrelevant for YEARS and should’ve been thrown out long ago. Time to stop before I continue off the wrong track.
Meh…they can create a super duper Raffles University for anyone who may care…why not a Raffles Human Breeding Institution? Heh, they can be the dream institution that will feed PAP with many potential candidates and Perm Secs, Deputy Perm Secs, what else do they contribute to make Singapore, don’t even think about the world, a better place?
I was part of Ah Kao’s cohort. Then, we definitively rejected independence for RI, but of course, we all know RI went on to implement the policy anyway.
Now I look back with the benefit of some years on my brow. Certainly there were changes in the school culture and while it is very romantic to reflect on RI’s meritocratic policy, I cannot believe that remaining in the fold of a government body and shackled by its rules and policies would necessarily have been a good thing.
not sure if it was possible – not to be shackled by rules and regulations of govt body – but still maintain govt school fees, and not independant school fees?
Through train – At P4 – gifted programme, it is more or less ‘thru train to RI’ and what with DSA etc – I am not sure if non GEP had an equal fighting chance, and if you are rich, with $50 to spare – you could try the DSA route – easy revenue for RI actually.
If you are poor – a hawker, a cleaner – you would not think of spending $50 for a DSA form – and so, the rigour of PSLE is no longer there.
GEP at Pri 3
$50 for DSA form
$XX as the processes / results of DSA is not as ‘meritocratic’ as a common PSLE system.
What is the percentage of students entering outside of pure PSLE system – ie without DSA / Gifted DSA
Not sure if you know what I mean.
An ex-Rafflesian. (Graduate 1981.)
>>5) Plumber on November 11th, 2008 3.19 pm
>>Panzer, u are already old bird already from 1989, why not let young people decide?
Who said anything about not letting young people decide?
I am under no illusion that my comment in this post here will result in any policy changes.
Why so many Singaporeans feel the rootlessness of being Singaporean is that your history, ties and links are all tied to foundations that keep changing. Even your old school name disappears. Streets and neighbours disappear. Old buildings get demolished to make way for progress.
Yes, we need new infrastructure and new buildings but we also need to strike a balance between creating the new and preserving the old because that gives us the emotional connection that is priceless.
NTU pissed off so many of the old nantah alumni when they changed the name. Now that some of these nantah alumni are rich, they court them again but the damage has been done. Why is it that many nantah alumni gatherings happen OUTSIDE Singapore?
We are destroying our past without realising it. That is the sad part of being a citizen of Singapore Inc.
3) Lee Mong Mong on November 11th, 2008 11.52 am
8) gemami on November 11th, 2008 4.00 pm
10) Zheng Xi on November 11th, 2008 4.32 pm
1st of all, thanks to Cassandra for her article in helping the displeased RI RJC students voice up.
Its reassuring to hear that TOC people like Zheng Xi are working on improving the viewer experience for this Blog.
I look forward to the new Blog user interface and wish that it will help to engage the youths and netizens more effectively and create a momentum for Change.
Personally, I feel that older articles may still be relevant and viewers may still be interested to continue the discussion and comment on the issues raised. For instance, TC investment – how much is not much? Very logical Questions were raised. Where are the answers? Other logical questions is when Resident employment rate is published, why is it sometimes , if not most of the time, Citizen employment rate is not published clearly? Resident = Citizen + Foreigner PRs . If Resident figure is known, Citizen figure should also be known. We also need to continue asking what is the REALity of Alternative voice in Parl.
We should continue to Ask until the wall of Apathy is torn down. The more unanswered questions are repeatedly asked, its possible that the apathetic may also start to question.
Zheng Xi:
Why don’t you create a page for people to post suggestions on how to improve the TOC’s website interface?
Cheers
Donald
Seems like recent articles are not as of public interest as :
1. TC investments
2. Tertiary Student (means earning power) fares
3. Lehman investor fiasco
4. etc
I born long ago wan.
I set up one of the 3 Facebook groups mentioned, with the original intent of providing a platform where people who are related to the Raffles schools in any way and are unhappy about the Raffles merger can express their displeasure about the merger openly.
I found out about this article today through the Facebook group I created. Well-written article, which provides a balanced view of the merger, in my opinion.
However, I would like to clarify about the school song. I understand that the origin of the rumour about the school song came from Wikipedia, and the rumour spread. According to the principal, the school song will not be changed. Hope that clears up doubts about the school song.
Anyway, I am rather bemused about what has happened so far, honestly.
Why so many Singaporeans feel the rootlessness of being Singaporean is that your history, ties and links are all tied to foundations that keep changing. Even your old school name disappears. Streets and neighbours disappear. Old buildings get demolished to make way for progress. – Panzer (#17),
Well said. We have to claim ownership over our identity.
To comments #18, #19,
Thanks for the suggestions, we’re currently low on tech support but we’ll try our best to accomodate the suggestion for an interface suggestion page.
We’re actually currently experimenting with a different content management system, hopefully can debut by first half of next year.
To 18) Any body Home? hallooo? on November 11th, 2008 10.19 pm,
A compilation of unanswered questions is an excellent idea. Would you like to help us compile such a feature as part of the TOC team?
We can make it something like the square on our mainpage on “the rising cost of living”, something like a tracker for unanswered questions. Drop us an email at theonlinecitizen@gmail.com.
Hi Chin Hwee,
I’ll be doing an in-person interview with Lim Lai Cheng tomorrow morning. Are there any questions you’d specifically like addressed?
I completely agree with Panzer about how losing our past leads to rootlessness. I have been living abroad for the last eight years, and my desire to go back to Singapore decreases as time goes by. Within a few years of leaving my primary school, it had moved to a different estate. The year after I left my JC, it moved almost halfway across Singapore. The memories that I have can no longer be refreshed by visits back to old haunts. The places I used to frequent have been torn down. The wet markets have been supplanted by condominiums. I feel no better than a clueless tourist exploring Singapore every time I return. Perhaps this is the reason why so many people are ready to leave. Other than the people, connections that are easy to maintain these days with flights and skype, there really is nothing to keep us here in Singapore
It is rather surprising that students from a premier school are protesting over an administrative merger of the 2 schools. In every change, there are bound to have advantages and disadvantages. I find the various reasons given for the disagreement tenuous and, dare I say, rather frivolous. Young people should learn how to be more flexible and adaptable. For every change presents an opportunity for improvement.
if one recall the RI of the 1970s and 1980s, the 6 levels were also in 1 school. 8ack then, RI had a much stronger identity.
Only the old and the senile are afraid of change.
Hi Zheng Xi. Here are the questions that I have collated:
1. Why couldn’t the name “Raffles Junior College” be kept and used alongside “Raffles Institution”?
2. The strong distinctive cultural identity of the 2 schools would clash with each other and be compromised, leading to a cultural conflict, and the cultures of both schools would be eroded. Have the cultural aspects of both schools been neglected for the sake of administrative efficiency?
3. Even though the merger brings about some benifits to the current student population,do you feel that it is somewhat unfair for RGS students and students from other schools to graduate into RI? Isn’t RJC assuming the role of a mediator in that context?
4. The merger means that the name “RJC” will cease to exist. This constitutes a negation of RJC’s existance and history, Would it not overlooks the significance and recognition of the name and negate the name and the heritage it stands for?
5. There has been quite a big issue about the lack of consultation with the student body. Why is it that the student body isn’t actively and openly consulted, or even sufficiently informed on the progress of the merger, especially since it will affect them?
Anyway, kindly don’t disclose my name when you do the interview with Mrs Lim Lai Cheng. Thanks.
As an ex-Rafflesian ( of both RI and RJC, class of 2002), and an ex-archivist of the RI museum, I would want to point out that those RJCians who opposed the name change are forgetting history. The junior college system unnecessarily dismembered what used to be schools which taught both O levels and A levels ( RI, Victoria, Anglo Chinese etc). Renaming RJC brings RJ back to where it was before 1982. Placed against the long history of two other Raffles secondary schools ( RI has been around in one form or another since 1826, and RGS 1843), and given that RI had provided A level classes for longer than the entire existence of RJC, the name change is relatively insignificant if you think about it.
The assertion that RJC’s culture is somehow significantly different from that of its main feeder secondary schools strikes me as a really odd one. You could say that this sixth-form school has a different cultural dynamic because it has has even more winning-obsessed students than its secondary school counterparts. But that would be silly.
RJC used to be a bit of a culture shock for some of my classmates who DIDN’T come from the Raffles secondary schools. They felt like they were outsiders initially, but I am glad that at the end of the 2 years, it no longer mattered.
I believe I too benefited from a more diverse community of students. Let’s face it: RI does attract a particular “archetype” of students and in turn, generates another but similar type.
RJC’s student population was far more multi-faceted. Different stratas of society. Myriad views.
I worry that with such a merger, with such strong links with RI, it would put a damper on those students joining. All we end up with is just a “cocoon” of “elite-wannabes” with no clue what the rest of society is like.
15) I remember, I agree with what 16) thru train has said. Why is it not possible for RI to continue to be funded for the poorer students, and yet have some freedom on how they choose to be run.
let me put it simply, when you talk about RI and RJ, yes they were one and the same in good old days, all-boys elite school. Then they opened up the doors.
Now they close the doors.
You can argue about history, you can argue about tradition. I can argue about slavery, i can argue about feudal china.
The fact that RGS was one of the feeder schools of RJC and there is a long-standing relationship. I wonder where RGS girls should go now….perhaps they should just go to Hwa Chong/Temasek/National.
It is regressive, sexist and elitist exclusivity here. Perhaps it makes business sense, if that is all there is to it.
26) smallvoice585 on November 12th, 2008 12.33 am
It is rather surprising that students from a premier school are protesting over an administrative merger of the 2 schools. In every change, there are bound to have advantages and disadvantages. I find the various reasons given for the disagreement tenuous and, dare I say, rather frivolous. Young people should learn how to be more flexible and adaptable. For every change presents an opportunity for improvement.
You know what? For once, I am in agreement with you, 1001%.
Putting RI and RJC together might be bringing it back to “what it was”, but I think RJC and RI have gotten distinct enough that it’s worthy considering why people want it kept apart…
And really I guess the biggest point was that none of the students were consulted in any way about this. They don’t have to look for an impossible consensus but at least seriously consider what the students think about it…
shibuyume – AFAIK, RGS declined to be part of the merger on their own will.
Now to read the interview… :/
someone mentioned that RGS would prefer not to merge cos the girls may step back from leadership roles if there were more guys around.
I guess at the end of the day, (sexist) pride prevails. Why should the top daughters of Singapore lie back and be fused into a single boy’s institution?
Hwa Chong Institute – do they have girls in their midst for sec school??
I guess problem is not there cos Hwa Chong JC was always co-ed.
Hi.. I’m from RGS, and I remember that when principal Mrs Hoo announced the merger to us everybody was scared to death that we’d merge with RI. The sigh of relief and cheering after this fear was dispelled was resounding. As far as I know nobody from RGS wants to merge with RI, and even fewer want to be known as RI girls in the future.
I understand RI and RJ used to be one school. But after the implementation of the JC system, RJ has inevitably developed a different culture; you cannot use the excuse of history to negate this. A somewhat strange and probably inappropriate metaphor, I know, but would you remerge Singapore and Malaysia and say that, oh yes, we were one country some 43 years ago and thus it’s perfectly legit by history and we are naturally One Country?
I look forward to knowing why the names had to be changed. ‘Secondary’ affixed on RI just spoils the whole Raffles image.