Source: MOE / Gilbert Goh

It was reported in the news that the Ministry of Education (MOE) has a “long-standing practice” of withholding the original copy of a student’s Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) results slip if school fees are not paid.
MOE told Yahoo! News Singapore on Tue (26 Nov) in response to queries that the real aim of doing so “stems from the underlying principle that notwithstanding the fact that the cost of education is almost entirely publicly funded, we should still play our part in paying a small fee, and it is not right to ignore that obligation, however small it is”.
“Further, students from lower-income families can apply for financial assistance that covers their miscellaneous fees, uniforms, textbooks, transport and school meals. If it is about money then the easier solution would be to reduce subsidies and financial assistance,” it added.
MOE’s statement was made in response to an earlier case brought up by Gilbert Goh, founder of Transitioning.org – a support site for the unemployed. Mr Goh made a Facebook post highlighting the plight of a student whose original PSLE result slip was withheld by MOE, as her parents had incurred $156 in unpaid school fees. Eventually, a kind member of the public paid the school fees for the student so that she can get her original PSLE result slip.
Mr Goh did not reveal the name of the school she was attending nor her name probably to safeguard her identity.
MOE said the parents of student in question had not settled the miscellaneous school fees for two years in spite of several reminders. Additionally, her parents has also not applied for any financial assistance, which the ministry said “would have covered all the costs”.
MOE added that the student “will still receive a copy of the results”, and “can still apply for secondary schools and will progress like all students”, in response to Mr Goh’s assertion that a student’s original copy is required for admission into secondary school.
MOE also accused Mr Goh of “trying to call into question the intention and values of the MOE” with the Facebook post. MOE said, “Our educators, parents and members of public will have to decide whether the MOE’s action is fair and educationally sound, and what the lesson of this teachable moment for our children is.”
Former NCMP Yee: Many from lower income group not aware of help
After MOE went public asking members of public to decide “what the lesson of this teachable moment for our children is”, former NCMP and opposition member Yee Jenn Jong wrote on his blog the next day (27 Nov) recounting his experience working with the lower income group who sometimes could not even pay for children’s school fees (‘Unpaid school fees – What are the teachable moments?‘).
He said that the reported incident by Mr Goh reminded him of a case he took when helping out at the Meet-People-Session in Aljunied GRC sometime back.
Near closing time one evening at 9.30pm, a 2nd year diploma student rushed desperately seeking help. It turned out that she had unpaid fees and was told by the school that unless she paid up, she would not get her official results which she needed to register for her third and final year courses.
“She was very distressed because the last date to register for her courses was like that next day or very soon after that. She was sobbing as she told her story,” Mr Yee recalled.
She is the eldest in the family with her illiterate mum working part-time supporting the family. Needless to say, the family was constantly in debt, borrowing from relatives. Her previous year fees had been paid by an aunt who was not able to give her another loan so soon. The student had to work part-time but the money earned wasn’t enough to pay for the school fees.
She was naturally worried that she would be kicked out from the school for owing school fees. In fact, she did not even know what her 2nd year results were because the school’s policy was that they wouldn’t release any results with fees outstanding. Luckily Mr Yee has a friend working in the school and was kind enough to go out of his way to help. His friend linked up Mr Yee and the student with the school’s finance manager. The school didn’t know of her financial situation.
“The finance manager was very kind and revealed that she had passed and may register for the third year courses and asked her to apply for a bursary,” Mr Yee said. The school also gave her time to pay up for the previous outstanding fees, which she eventually borrowed from her relatives to pay off. She also got a bursary for her final year of studies. Mr Yee himself tried to help by engaging her on a part-time basis to do work at his company. Eventually, she graduated and found a job in an MNC as a web designer.
Mr Yee opined, “Hers is a happy story that could have turned out badly. I asked why she did not try to apply for any financial assistance before then. She said she was not aware (even though the school had schemes and were indeed kind and fast to act when her situation surfaced).”
“It is hard to blame her as she was not yet an adult then and the family already had so much problems. Relatives were afraid of them requesting for more financial assistance. She only came to the MPS because she shared her problems at a church meeting and her friend suggested going to meet her MP, which she promptly rushed to because the MPS happened to be that evening,” Mr Yee added.
“The problem often is that when there are persistent unpaid fees, there are often some deep issues or dysfunctional family situations. I am not sure if the family would be in a good situation to talk to the child about the learning points of having to pay their dues if they had many other daily stresses or were dysfunctional.”
Mr Yee said he did not know why the PSLE student in Mr Goh’s case didn’t apply for financial assistance.
“I know schools have lots of ways to help low income family pay for fees and even get pocket money allowances because I have been involved in helping to raise such funds for schools. The young lady I had helped could have raised her problems to the school much earlier and she would likely have gotten a bursary from day 1 but she said she was not aware of support schemes and did not know that she would have qualified,” Mr Yee explained.
Kindergarten principal and teacher visit family who hasn’t paid school fees for child

Mr Yee then told a second story, also about a family who owed school fees. Apparently, one family had not paid their child’s kindergarten school fees nor the school bus fees. The school bus refused to pick the boy up and he stopped attending the kindergarten altogether. The principal and the form teacher then decided to visit the family.
Mr Yee recounted, “They reached the home of the family just as the father and son were stepping out. The father was apologetic and promised to pay up the fees. He thought that the school had come to chase for the debts. The school explained that they were not there for the fees as they had already asked the Board for permission to waive off the fees.”
“They just wanted to ask the child to go back to school as they did not want him to miss out the memorable final weeks. They even asked the bus company if they could sponsor the bus trips for the final period for the family,” explained Mr Yee.
So, what are the teachable moments?
“It can be to tell the family and child that they need to pay for all financial obligations. It can also be to tell them that there’s grace in the society if there are truly situations that call for it,” Mr Yee said.
“I hope the young preschool boy will grow up well and one day remember that the school (kindergarten) he attended reached out because they did not want him to fall behind no matter what the family circumstances were; that if he is financially capable one day, he can pay it back to others.”
Mr Yee did not think that many families like to owe money especially over education. It is embarrassing to the child. “With persistent unpaid fees, there are often stories behind these which can only be known if we probe further. Probing needs time,” Mr Yee further opined.
“As much as there are teachable moments to the families, there are also engagement opportunities by the schools and by social welfare organisations to use these as trigger points to dig further and to help families work a way out of problems.”
In fact, this was exactly what Mr Goh did – to help those low income families who especially are not aware of the many confusing government schemes available.
Rather then accusing Mr Goh of having ulterior motives, perhaps MOE should thank people like Mr Goh for surfacing such cases which apparently fell through the crack. MOE should be asking why the PSLE student had owed 2 years of school fees. Did the school principal or teacher bother to find out like what the kindergarten principal and teacher did for the family of the preschool kid?
 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

港机场集会现混乱 落单警察被围一度拔枪

过去两日,反《逃犯条例》示威者占据机场,令机场瘫痪,甚至导致航班被取消。有示威者在昨晚涉及殴打两名中国籍男子,其中一人证实是《环球时报》的记者。 据了解,事缘一名被怀疑是中国公安的男子,昨晚在抵达香港机场时被示威者包围,期间该男子被殴打并以索带绑手。有示威者搜其钱包,指他的名字和网上一份公安名单名字一样,但事主否认自己是公安,只是在深圳工作,到香港机场为朋友送机。他甚至一度被禁止送医,机场管理员只得向警方求助。 接近11时,多名警员到机场为这名中国籍男子解围。不过,警员撤离时,有示威者向他们投掷杂物,又设路障不让警车离开,还打破警员座车的后玻璃窗。 此时,另有一批示威者在客运大楼袭击警员,导致有警员一度拔枪警告。“速龙小队”接著到场增援,驱散了在客运大楼外的示威者,并制服数人。 网络和一些媒体广传警察被围殴的片段,不过从另一视频角度则可发现, 该警察在被围之前数秒,曾冲向一名妇女,在该妇女倒地后,相信是为了“解救”该名女士,示威者趋前围住警察。在被袭击下,该警员一度拔枪,袭击者才肯散开。警员看似受到惊吓,跌坐地上,随后该警员在其他同僚护送下离开。 以下是《亚洲新闻台》剪接的视频(原视频来自路透社): 港警解释非清场 而香港警方昨晚在脸书专页解释,一名旅客较早前被示威者包围及殴打,虽然他需要接受治疗,但现场示威者不让救护员为这名旅客送院,并强调昨晚并非清场行动,而是要护送该旅客安全离开送院。 不过,立场新闻在现场拍摄的视频,则显示警方在被民众围殴之前的数秒钟前,曾冲向一名穿着草绿色上衣的妇女。但该名妇女背对警察,似乎正在搜寻背包里物件,并未作出任何看似攻击性的举动。 警察冲向该名妇女后,妇女倒在地上,正当警察打算将他扶起时,就有示威者趋前围殴警察。不过,当时这名警察何以会冲向该妇女,就不得而知。 警方退场后,约凌晨12时,又有另一内地人被包围。他当时身着媒体反光背心,在近距离拍摄示威者时被质疑身份,一开始他否认称自己是旅客,也没出示记者证,结果被搜身、捆绑、围殴,近一小时才离开。…

本社要求内政部撤回更正指示 遭高庭驳回

新加坡内政部于22日援引《防止网络假信息和防止网络操纵法案》(POFMA),对于马国捍卫自由律师团(LHL)、《网络公民》、雅虎新闻以及新闻工作者韩俐颖,发出更正指示。 本社已向内政部长尚穆根要求撤回指示,不过被部长驳回,为此本社在上月28日转向高庭上诉。即便准备法庭文件,都需要989元六角的费用,约占了本社运营成本的10巴仙。 昨日(19日)高庭作出判决,驳回本社的申请,高庭法官洪素燕(Belinda Ang)称本社的辩驳出现“两个严重错误”,首先误以为在《防假消息法》下对于“陈述”(Statement)还有其他诠释,实则在该法第17项下只有两种:“事实(fact)”和“意见(opinion)” 至于其他理智人士阅读本社有关报导,都会以为那是“事实陈述”。故此法官裁定本社在这一论点的辩述失败。 上月16日,本社报导捍卫自由律师团发表一篇新闻稿,指责樟宜监狱以残酷和不合法方式处决囚犯。包括本社、雅虎新闻以及马国主流媒体,都有报导上述律师组织的声明。 本社在申诉中强调,报导中已对资讯作出均衡报导,也强调那是来自上述组织的的第三方指控,且本社亦有向内政部求证,惟未获得后者核实。 根据判决书,法官也认为本社应证实有关陈述的真实性,而不是由被告(指内政部)证实。 在《防假消息法》第17(5)项下,如有关人士未在新加坡传播有关陈述、有关陈述不是事实陈述/确实是真相,又或者技术上无法发出更正指示,高庭才可裁决撤回指示。 总检察署的论点是,内政部长对本社发出的更正指示,是针对有关樟宜监狱行刑手法的指控。且本社未能提出任何证据,来抵消举证的责任。 对此法官认为,本社的“举报辩护”(reporting defence)是基于对有关陈述的误解。…

“We must stop this brutality,” says Human Rights Lawyer

by Deborah Choo Human rights lawyer Mr M. Ravi will apply to…

傅海燕为“反霸位运动”站台 惟被指过去曾“霸”红格车位

文化、社区及青年部长傅海燕日前出席日行一善理事会举办的“友善嘉年华”(Kindness Carnival)活动,活动期间也为“反霸位运动” (Anti-Chope Movement)宣传站台。 “反霸位运动”的创办人张瑞旂,上周四在脸书帖文表示,对于能邀请到部长为“反霸位”醒觉宣导站台感荣幸 ,并上载与部长的合照,标记#antichopemovement。 傅海燕作为活动的荣誉贵宾,对类似宣导活动表示赞赏,他认为是在提倡更多礼貌行为。他表示“希望友善文化不要仅限于活动中,更多的是将友善文化融入到社会当中,将新加坡朔造为包容和谐的环境。” 张瑞旂也提出“反霸位行动”的缘由,“一开始我对于”霸位“行为感到非常困扰,所以我决定展开宣导行动,希望能够由此而得到一些改善。” 他认为,霸位并非日常生活的一部分,而是一种贪小便宜的自私行为。而霸位出现在各个角落如摊贩中心、咖啡店、快餐店等地方。 有别于高级餐厅,这些地点让民众享有廉价美食,那么免费提供给顾客们的座位,就理应是先到先得,等待位置,而不是将各种东西放在座位上占据。 他呼吁,“请不要霸位,这是非常不礼貌的行为“。 傅海燕曾出现占停车位行为…