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.

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.

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… :/

You know what? For once, I am in agreement with you, 1001%.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I’ll be doing an in-person interview with Lim Lai Cheng tomorrow morning. Are there any questions you’d specifically like addressed?

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.

Well said. We have to claim ownership over our identity.

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.

1. TC investments
2. Tertiary Student (means earning power) fares
3. Lehman investor fiasco
4. etc

I born long ago wan.

Why don’t you create a page for people to post suggestions on how to improve the TOC’s website interface?

Cheers
Donald

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.

>>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.

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.)

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.