Kids clapping between movements in Esplanade concert

From ‘Children need better guidance in arts appreciation’, 15 April 2013, Voices, Today

(Liu Yiru): I watched a wonderful performance at the Esplanade last Friday evening by the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA) Orchestra and Chorus, in celebration of NAFA’s 75th anniversary. Among the audience were distinguished composers, NAFA alumni, as well as guest performers from London’s Royal College of Music.

Also in the audience was a class of Primary 3 or 4 students accompanied by two teachers. I must commend the school and teachers for exposing their students to classical music and cultivating their interest at such a young age.

However, I believe many in the audience were, like me, shocked when the students clapped between rests that marked an end to significant sections in the fourth movement. It is recognised and accepted that the audience applauds only at the end of a piece and not at the end of every movement or worse, whenever they supposed the piece “seemed to end”.

What does this say about the’ teachers? Do the teachers have an understanding of concert etiquette? Do teachers have musical background or basic musical knowledge to guide their students’ appreciation for music in the right direction? Were there enough teachers to handle the number of students? This incident shows that our teachers’ competence in developing and educating Singapore’s future in the arts has much room for improvement.

If in doubt, always take the cue from others when you’re a concert novice. Untimely clapping can earn you dirty looks as much as sitting cross-legged with your shoes off. These kids were just being polite even though they’re likely to be bored stiff, and you’d be sending conflicting instructions if you told them that there are only certain points in a performance when they’re ‘allowed’ to clap, a mentally strenuous task that gets in the way of one’s enjoyment of the classics. It’s like I’m not allowed to use my hands to tuck into the pincer of chilli crab, and can only do so for the purpose of dipping the buns into the gravy.

I doubt the teachers themselves were aware of such a custom, and most people, myself included, would shift nervously in their seat if any performance appears to end and there would be this nagging, awkward pause or the nervous, muffled cough before hesitant applause. As a consolation, even President Obama himself once joked about the No Applause rule, which itself deserves a topic in musicology and seems to have its origins in cranky maestros and composers who abhorred over-clappers and didn’t care about the fact that their salaries were paid for by their audience. Such restrictions were in place even in the 70′s, when intrusive applause ‘disrupts the pattern’ of the programme and found to be ‘very irritating and distracting’, making otherwise harmless applause sound as disruptive as blowing a trumpet into a surgeon’s face while he’s performing emergency heart bypass surgery.

I’ve never attended an SSO concert, but only because I have no idea where to get a monocle, a shiny cane and can’t clap my hands in the dainty manner or timing befitting of concert etiquette.  I’d have to restrain myself from expressing my joy if I were to find a piece so haunting it moves me to tears, that if I couldn’t bear it and had to give a standing ovation clapping my hands sore and weeping my grateful heart out, my outburst of spontaneity would be rewarded with the harsh shushing and tsk-ing from a couple of concert snobs like some menopausal librarians shutting a genius up when he’s having his ‘Eureka’ moment. If I’m really unlucky, the conductor, furious that my clapping cramped his style, would grab the nearest cymbal and try to decapitate me by throwing it in my direction like a frisbee.

According to the SCO website, it is ‘best not to clap’ between movements of a larger composition, but it’s perfectly acceptable, maybe even recommended, to blare ‘Bravo’ and ‘Encore’ as loud as a soccer hooligan when it’s finally completed. No, you can’t wolf-whistle or yell ‘Awesome!’ too. At least the kids didn’t break out into a spell of ‘annoying, distracting’ coughing for a full 80 mins of SSO concert, or play with their mobile phones, munch crackers or giggle among themselves. Clapping between movements has its supporters who deem it a necessary, reverent inconvenience as there are those who dismiss it as fatuous snobbery. If I were in a band I’d imagine playing to a bunch of disadvantaged orphans or handicapped kids to be a more fulfilling experience even if they clapped every 5 minutes, than to some snooty folks who know everything about my music and etiquette, but might as well be ‘enjoying’ themselves with a mp3 recording of my music in the privacy of a cemetery.

About these ads

Vulgar RI teacher reported to Police and 2 Ministers

From ‘RI takes action against teacher’, 8 Dec 2012, article by May Chen, ST

RAFFLES Institution (RI) is taking disciplinary action against one of its teachers, Mr Adrian Chng, for using inappropriate language – even though he did not do so in his capacity as an RI teacher. The Straits Times reported on Thursday that Chew Jee Yang, 17, a Singapore Polytechnic student and member of the national youth softball team, had filed a police report against Mr Chng, the team manager, for his use of expletives in a WhatsApp group chat with three co-captains of the squad. Wang Zheng Rong, 18, also took issue with Mr Chng’s choice of words, although Chin Ken Min, 19, distanced himself from the complaints.

…Mr Chng, RI’s assistant head of the physical education and co-curricular activities department, is also the secretary-general of the Singapore Baseball and Softball Association. Mr Chng and the three players had been discussing preparations for an overseas tournament in Argentina last month in the WhatsApp conversation, which took place in September. In it, he used expletives such as “f***” no fewer than four times.

A complaint against Mr Chng was also later e-mailed to several parties – including Education Minister Heng Swee Keat and Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Lawrence Wong – by Chew and Wang’s mothers.

…AN EXCERPT of one of the exchanges Mr Chng had with his student-athletes.

The conversation was in response to the teacher, who was functioning as a team manager, chasing the boys for jersey and slacks sizes ahead of an overseas trip. He had lamented that time was “tight”.

  • Zheng Rong: Frankly speaking time can’t be tight time runs at a constant speed! HAHAH!
  • Teammate: Lol
  • Adrian Chng: U better make sure ur a** super tight if not de bat I’m gonna stuff in there is gonna fall out

Maybe it’s not Adrian Chng’s profanity that the MOTHERS of these teenagers are worried about, but that he could be a dangerous bat-wielding sodomiser who preys on innocent virgin boys. This is how the accused looks like according to the SBSA (Singapore Baseball and Softball Association) website. You can’t deny the respectability of a suit and tie.

By now, getting the police involved in teacher-student spats isn’t surprising anymore. It has been done for teachers who’re too stern, or those who ruin expensive haircuts before important examinations. What’s disturbing is these budding athletes have their mummies complaining to MINISTERS for abusive, sexually charged, language. When Chew and Wang enlist into the army, is Mummy going to complain to Ng Eng Hen for homophobic verbal abuse by drill sergeants as well? Or feedback to SAF that no one tucks them in to sleep at night?

Perhaps Chng as team manager was doing a favour and prepping the boys for a hard NS life, where threats of sodomy with random objects are used in place of ‘Good Morning Recruits!’. Or he was just doing what most sports team managers would do to discipline their charges, regardless of whether their day job was teaching in a prestigious school or preaching from a pulpit. I thought we’ve come to accept that angry, ‘macho’ profanity in the management of competitive sport is all part of team camaraderie, whether it’s boys’ softball, men’s rugby or in a bikini beach volleyball World Cup tournament. The only sports coach who doesn’t need to resort to potty-mouthing is the one in charge of seniors’ Gateball.

What is known is that Chng is apparently doing a good job with RI softball. Earlier this year, the RI team beat Hwa Chong for their fifth national school’s title in 6 years. God knows if a fiery personality and foul language were part of his coaching methodology, but it seems to work for RI. It was just unfortunate that Chng’s obscenities were documented in Whatsapp group chat this time round. If every testosterone-charged team coach or manager was caught F-bombing or mentally ass-raping his squad and summoned by the police or ministers because of distraught parents, what hope is there for youth sports in this country? What if Chng wasn’t from RI but from a ‘neighbourhood school’ instead? Would the boys and their mothers let him off then? Maybe these boys and their parents have been watching too much of Disney’s Angels in the Outfield.

Even if Chng were indeed using foul language on a student in the capacity of an educator, is a police report even necessary? In 2008, a CCA teacher reportedly cursed and sweared at his ex-student for not greeting him properly.  Private tutors have been known to lash out at hopeless students on Facebook.  But in most cases it’s often the teacher at the receiving end of a student’s fury. In a reversal of the case above, a distressed teacher called the police to report a Hokkien-vulgarity spewing pupil in 2008. Another RJC teacher had to respond to a vulgar Facebook post online about not being able to ‘fxxxing control the class’. Many petty obscenities hurled at unpopular teachers are often ignored, because students heaping scorn on a teacher is expected – it even bonds them with fellow students – but not the other way round, even if such ‘motivational’ expletives are the secret to a softball team’s success.

Without a full picture of the relationship between Chng and his boys, one can’t tell if he was indeed abusing his authority or was just being his normal foul-mouthed self and was marked for some unknown reason. I’m guessing that it’s his ties with an elite school which may have inflamed any misgivings between the parties involved. In the meantime, if you’re in the business of playing a sport that uses anything with a handle, be it a softball bat or a croquet mallet, making nerdy jokes to your coach about ‘time-tightness’ may not be the smartest thing to do. If you’re a teacher suffering from Tourette’s syndrome, delete Whatsapp off your phone with immediate effect.

PSLE not a sacred cow but a big elephant

From ‘Scrap PSLE? Not yet, but space out exams’, 22 Sept 2012, Voices, Today

(Ng Ya Ken): We can change the components and emphasis or assessment method of the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), but we cannot eliminate the need for a standardised grading mechanism, at least not now. Scrapping the PSLE may not solve the problems we have now. Neither would replacing it, because parents would hunt for new tuition lessons to help their children score in the new system.

With our competitive education system, after we get rid of one big elephant, another big animal will come to take its place. Perhaps we can only abolish the evaluating mechanism when all secondary schools are perceived by parents as equally good. In the long run, we must close the quality and perception gaps between good and very good schools.

In the meantime, we can think of ways to lessen the tension caused by the PSLE for our young and their parents. For example, we could split the exam into three parts, with the first two parts to be taken at the end of Primary 5 and at the middle of Primary 6.

…Also, let us not label the PSLE a “sacred cow”. The term carries a negative connotation when not aptly used.

Of all the wildlife analogies to describe a life-changing event for most young Singaporeans, the most apt in my opinion is the ‘big bad WEREWOLF’ as suggested by Senior Minister of State Lawrence Wong, when he said ‘there is no silver bullet, no magic solution’ when it comes to the dreaded PSLE. Like the mythical beast ravaging the daily lives of villagers, this academic sieve is often blamed for our pressure-cooker educational system and society in general, though the more pragmatic-minded may defend its existence as a necessary evil, just as a fable needs its proverbial dragon to slay. Despite all these arguments about having a fairer system to pigeonhole our children, and how PM has insisted that children live their childhood, there will still be some with this mindset of conquest and ‘baptism of fire’ when it comes to the PSLE or anything like it. These include not just parents, academics, but even some CHILDREN themselves, who take the exam so seriously and gamely that the cramping of playtime, the tuition expenses, the mental disorders, are all worthy sacrifices in the name of being victorious in what’s essentially a national competition for secondary school placing.

No other trial exemplifies the term ‘pursuit of excellence’ than scoring in the PSLE, and no thanks to the media lauding top scorers annually, green-eyed parents all over the country will feel inadequate if they’re not gearing their little champions for the battle of their lives. For decades we have subjected our kids to ‘survival mode’, and we can’t make drastic changes overnight unless we’re reasonably certain that 6 years of Social Darwinism has done more long-term harm than good. The PSLE is like the Singaporean Hunger Games, except with only sweat and buckets of tears. Like any story of courage and triumph over adversity, the PSLE too has its Heroes’ Hall of Fame, which likens its conquest to that of snaring the Crown jewel, or completing one of the seven tasks of Sinbad. If you take the monster out of a Greek legend, you won’t have an ‘Odyssey’. You’d get the Love Boat instead.

Our champions and Hall of Famers are naturally media darlings, and no congratulatory story is complete without some heartwarming  filler to assure kiasu parents that if top-scorers can pull it off despite their troubles, so could their kids. The current grand champion and record holder is 294 scorer Natasha from St Hilda’s in 2007, whose grandfather died just before she sat for the exam. The media also buzzed over Natasha’s piano and violin lessons, her ambitions to be a paediatrician, and being rewarded for her efforts with a place in RGS. 2009′s champion, China-born Qiu Biqing could hardly speak a word of English, but slew the ‘elephant’ despite coming from a ‘neighbourhood’ school (Qi Fa). Whether you’re disabled, a foreigner, pint-sized, read nothing but Harry Potter in your free time, work part-time at your parents’ hawker stall or suffer from dyslexia, nothing makes a score sweeter than a tale about how you overcame the odds to beat everyone else who requires 3 days of tuition a week.

Still, any anxious parent with a child in P6 reading such accolades would instantly, and irrationally, associate smart kids with schools which breed, and accept, PSLE champions, nevermind what people are saying about ‘every school being a good school’ following the recent demolition of the banding system. Clearly, in this case, the best in the country, whichever primary school they’re from, is heading for the best ‘brand name’ school the highest PSLE score can buy. A 2000 Today article described top scorers as ‘St Hilda’s STARS’ (30 Nov 2000), and even till now, you hear of ‘top’ schools being embroiled in scandal, whether it’s teacher-student sex or drugs. There will be a stratum of prestige, the cream of the crop, that will continue to endear as long as top schools only accept top scorers, as long as top scorers are treated like they are the best and brightest brains our country has to offer.

Interestingly, the past 5 years’ PSLE top scorers were all girls (2007, 2008, 2009, 2011), with the exception of Alex Tan in 2010, who was described as the ‘son of two doctors’. Grand champion Natasha and Alex were from GEP as well. Whether as a means to spur or baffle parents with these seemingly mixed signals on what a top scorer is made of, perhaps the Ministry should look into curbing such implicit rankings through blatant top-scorer fanfare as well. Like the 4 four blind men touching different parts of the elephant, we’re still missing the big picture, and if it turns out the PSLE is more a hydra than a marauding beast, scrapping it through brute force alone without addressing the culture of branding, reputation and kiasuism that exists because of it will just mean another ugly head spontaneously regenerating to take its place.

Preschool graduation concerts in expensive hotel ballrooms

From ‘Pre-school concert too costly, say parents’, 3 Sept 2012, article by Melody Zaccheus, ST

PARENTS have sent an open letter to a kindergarten asking why they have to pay $65 for their children to attend a graduation concert. At least 30 of them have signed the document imploring the principal to reduce the price.s

Ms Irene Lum, whose daughter attends the kindergarten, wrote to The Straits Times last month complaining about the cost of the event at Kallang Theatre. “Graduation is an important part of our children’s education journey,” said the 38-year-old. “It doesn’t make sense for the school to charge so much and make it difficult for families to afford.”

The kindergarten is run by the Punggol North PAP Community Foundation (PCF). Its vice-chairman Lily Hugh sent an e-mail to Ms Lum to say the price included snacks, lunch and transport to and from rehearsals, and on the actual day of the concert.

…Five other PCF branches told The Straits Times that parents are charged between $40 and $50 per child. Most of this goes towards paying for costumes….Montessori for Children, which has campuses at Broadrick Road and Newton Road, has booked ballrooms at the Conrad, Sheraton and Swissotel hotels for its graduating pupils.

At Pat’s Schoolhouse, founder Patricia Koh is usually busy at this time of year, putting the finishing touches on the script. This time, the children will be staging a concert based on Roald Dahl’s Charlie And The Chocolate Factory at Raffles Hotel Jubilee Theatre. Tickets are $50 each.

Pat’s Schoolhouse’s $50 ticket only grants you ENTRANCE to the show. In 2010, the same preschool could charge you up to $270 which includes a bundle pack of two tickets (Mommy and Daddy), calendar, video, photo and costumes; an astonishing amount that’s worth more than a front row seat to watch Jay Chou live($228 in 2010). The fact that Pat’s can actually score a ‘Distinction award’ for Group Performance by the London College of Music just goes to show how much pride and effort is spent on posh extravaganzas, though how such an accolade benefits the preschool as a centre for LEARNING and its ‘graduands’ baffles me. It’s a KINDERGARTEN, not a theatre company. If I had wanted my kid to be the next Phantom of the Opera I would have enrolled him in drama nursery or cast him in Drypers ads right away. For a kindergarten performance, my expectations would be along the lines of draping my kid a caterpillar costume that’s made out of a green sleeping bag and have him wriggle around a bit, not recite Shakespeare in a junior toga or giving Mediacorp Channel 8 a run for the money.

Red Cliff: The Next Generation

But perhaps kids like such outlandish, over-the-top theatrics these days, and wouldn’t settle for anything less than sweeping period drama and intricately designed plastic spears. In my time we pranced around in recycled props lip-syncing to nursery rhymes like Old King Cole or Hickory Dickory Dock, where crowns were made of rings of cardboard strips and giftwrap, not an actual headpiece with velvet cushioning inside. There wasn’t any ‘choreography’ to speak of, but now parents part with their money to see their little thespians perform historical epics that they won’t be reading about until at least a decade later, just to humour preschool teachers with closet ambitions to write grand musicals and win Tony awards. Yet not all preschools charge ridiculous admission cum costume fees for their concerts. NTUC’s My First Skool made it free for parents in 2010, where the kids didn’t have to put on silly make up or trudge around in furry robes playing the Last Emperor of China.

Still, I wonder why parents are complaining about a one-off concert ticket when they’ve no qualms paying for enrichment classes IN ADDITION to preschool. Some parents prefer to just have their kid wear an oversized frock, go on stage, grab a scroll and walk off without the entertainment, a rite of passage that even schools like PCF Pioneer dispensed with to make way for the MAIN event of the night; a multi-ethnic, magical spectacular where the actors will grow up to become embarrassed teenagers who wish they had taken the role of the coconut tree in the background rather than the gyrating hula boy or girl.  Other than charging for concerts, Montesorri organises preschool camps which cost at least 1K, in which failure to participate would mean your kid not graduating with the rest of his class. Either way, parents will be sucked dry before the REAL test of primary school even begins. With enough luck, your kid may be inspired from his award-winning performance to want to pursue his TRUE calling, that of a fearless, concubine-collecting, Mongol warrior rather than, you know,  studying for PSLE.

Perhaps our ministers had something to do with this whole graduation concert ‘tradition’. VIPs started making special appearances in the early seventies to attend ‘costume parades’ at PAP kindergartens.   In the eighties, kindergartens went all out to impress guests of honour such as Goh Chok Tong and Yeo Cheow Tong, a time when PCF was already holding such concerts at the Kallang Theatre instead of community centres of the past. To entertain Tony Tan, PAP Sembawang had kids crooning the rousing number ‘Count on Me Singapore’ in 1986, and it wasn’t even NATIONAL DAY.  Since then, you may no longer settle for Jack and Jill went up the Hill anymore. Someone on stage must play superstar, there must be exploding glitter at the finale, even an INTERMISSION if need be, parents will erupt in thunderous applause with their camera-phones in one hand, overpriced memorabilia in the other, and pockets as empty as the memories that their kids will have of the entire event.

Teachers have no business cutting students’ hair

From ‘Teacher cuts pupil’s hair, mum files police report’, 23 Aug 2012, article by Lua Jia Min, ST

A MOTHER has lodged a police report after her 12-year-old son’s teacher cut his hair an hour before his PSLE oral exam last Thursday. The mother, Madam Serene Ong, is outraged that the teacher did this just before a crucial exam, that it was done without her knowledge – and that it ruined the boy’s $60 haircut.

She claimed the teacher – Ms Belinda Cheng of Unity Primary – also threatened to deduct marks from the boy’s exam if he refused to have his hair cut. Yesterday, the school’s principal, Mrs Jasmail Singh Gill, agreed with Madam Ong that the teacher had no business cutting the boy’s hair.

But, she said, Primary 6 pupils had been warned before about sporting long hair, and Ms Cheng had the right intentions. “The teacher cut the boys’ hair as she wanted them to look neat,” said Mrs Gill.

…Madam Ong, 39, a sales manager, said she received a call from her son Ryan Ang at about 10am on the day of the exam. His oral exam was at 11am. He was crying and told her that Ms Cheng, who is one of his form teachers, had cut his fringe and sideburns. He and the two other boys had been pulled up during a spot check for long hair.

“The teacher had no right to cut his hair,” said Madam Ong. “She showed me no respect by not telling me that she was going to cut his hair beforehand,” she said. “Worse, she threatened to deduct his oral marks if he didn’t agree to let her cut his hair. It was an hour before his PSLE oral exam. What if it had affected his performance?”

She said she was so upset she made a police report and complained to the Ministry of Education that night. She said Ryan did not dare to step out of the house for two days “because he thought he looked funny“.

Ms Cheng, she added, had also wasted the $60 she had spent on Ryan’s hair just five days before the incident. He has been going to a hairstylist at Reds Hairdressing for several years. Madam Ong spent another $60 getting his hair restyled on Saturday.

…”Doing this is like going back hundreds of years,” said Dr Foo Suan Fong, principal of Dunman High. His students are given a warning and a deadline to get their hair cut. If they do not do so, the school will contact their parents, whom it regards as “our education partners”.

Earlier this year, the police were hauled in to investigate a case of verbal abuse when a teacher told a student that he ‘didn’t want to see her face’. In the case of a vainpot Ryan who spent the equivalent of my entire year’s haircut budget ($120) at Red’s, my concern is not so much whether his teacher went overboard or if his mum overreacted (parents always do these days), but how his reaction to the ordeal of a teacher manhandling his funky mop speaks for kids of his generation, kids whose parents resist till this day from calling them ‘BABY’, though ‘babies’ are exactly what they behave like.

What bugs me is that he’s TWELVE, CRIED and LOCKED himself at home for DAYS as if it weren’t a few snips of a scissors but a crude lopping and scalping with pruning shears. Ever heard of a CAP, boy? God, it’s like the apocalypse just befell us all. I mean, just look at his pose. Look at it. I don’t blame the teacher for having the urge to run his head through with a motorised grass-cutter.

The police didn’t notice that in some countries this is an obscene gesture

And then take a look at this. Both images make you want to hurt someone real bad.

Cuteness in Spades

Having teachers multitasking as hairdressers is not a ‘hundred year old’ practice as one principal claimed. Hair-snipping as a last-resort punishment has been meted out as late as the early eighties, when long hair was a bane of society, associated with delinquency, truancy and Satanic rock music. Sometimes, even the vice-principals joined in the sadistic fun of seeing girls weep when their fringes are chopped off. In fact, it was only early this year that a similar case of police reporting occurred when a SEC TWO boy went home crying to mommy that the school’s stand-in hairdresser did a cut so patchy it looked like he singed his head over a BBQ fire. Hey, at least you didn’t get EXPELLED for unruly hair, eh? On the bright side, if you’re a kiasu parent volunteer balloting for Primary 1 next year and happen to be a PROFESSIONAL hairdresser, you have a high chance of landing your kid a spot, if only to prevent other kids from calling the police on teachers whose only crime is giving kids haircuts so awful they can’t face the world bearing them. How on earth are they going to post flirty pics of themselves on Facebook with such embarrassingly crappy hairdos?

Oh I know it’s blase to lament about how spoilt modern children have become, living a high-strung life of mollycoddling privilege with a sense of entitlement, cam-whoring narcissism and inflated self-esteem, brought up like little dainty princes and princesses with maids at their beck and call to carry schoolbags for them. Still, it’s totally unwise and unnecessary in my opinion that the police be involved in this matter even if the teacher got a touch too physical and intimidating at the worst possible time. Ryan wasn’t groped on the buttocks or hung upside down for days without food as punishment.  If the police call-operators had any sense of proportion, such petty calls should have been directed to the kind folks at IMH, who specialise in managing not only pediatric mental disorders like body (or hair) dysmorphic depressive disorder but anxiety management for the parents as well. Maybe they have special packages for such parent-son treatments, buy one sedative get 1 anti-depressant free.

Well all the best for your PSLE, Ryan. I’m sure you’ll do fine, this after all not being a test of your MANHOOD.

Aristocare founder ‘not very sure’ if he was from GEP

From ‘Private tutor who charges high fees: I was in gifted education programme’ 29 July 2012, article by Jane Ng, Sunday Times

A private tutor charging high fees to help children get into the Gifted Education Programme (GEP) has been warned to stop telling lies about himself. Mr Kelvin Ong Wee Loong, 36, has long claimed that he was admitted into the gifted programme as a child and went on to be a teacher in the programme as well.

Now the Education Ministry has refuted those claims, saying it has checked and found no record that he was ever a pupil or teacher in the programme. Nor is he even a qualified teacher. The ministry has told him to remove the lies from the website of his AristoCare centre, and he has complied.

…This is not the first time that the ministry has taken issue with Mr Ong. In 2010, it was alerted to AristoCare’s website after it advertised the sale of the 2009 GEP Screening and Selection Test papers. The ministry checked and found that those were not the actual papers. It subsequently alerted parents that there was a website giving the impression that it had past GEP papers for sale, but they were not genuine.

It is not known if he will face further action. Asked what he had to say about the ministry’s latest checks, Mr Ong told The Sunday Times it was his mother who had told him that he had been in the gifted programme. ‘I’m not very sure. According to my mum, I was from GEP. When MOE called me, I tried to check but couldn’t because I don’t have records from the past,’ he said.

Now it’s common for tuition agencies to hard-sell when it comes to advertising just like any business, and God knows how many private tutors out there are conning parents into buying their programmes with exaggerated qualifications. In a previous post, I questioned what Kelvin Ong was doing being a ‘GEP trainer’ having supposedly gone through the system, and here he confesses following a background check (rightly so and about time, MOE) that he never really had any teaching experience at all. How flabbergasting. Would you pay for a flight manned by an unlicensed pilot? No? Because entrusting Ong with your kid is the promise of business class without the guarantee of you ever reaching your destination.

Instead of the whiz-kid-turned-GEP mentor persona that he created for himself, what we have here is really a shrewd businessman exploiting the tuition craze, emptying the pockets of gullible, and desperate, parents with a ruse that appears to me as clearly a case of false, manipulative advertising. In other words, a liar and a fraud. If I were a parent who spent my hard earned money on his bogus programmes and didn’t get anything out of it, I’d probably want to recoup my losses by slapping a lawsuit and set this scamming liar’s pants on fire. I might as well have consulted a celebrity crystal ball gazer for GEP exam questions. In 1990, a tuition con artist and jobless woman fleeced customers of more than $10k, landing herself a six-month jail sentence (Tuition-scam woman gets six months jail, 2 June 1990, ST). In 2001, a Today reader was deceived by a tutor with a D7 for English but told to lie by the agency that she had a distinction instead. It remains to be seen if any legal action will be taken further here other than ‘cleaning’ up the website.

But that’s not the end of it. Making false claims isn’t the only charge that we should level at Ong. What’s more criminal in my opinion is a grown 36 year old man bringing his MUMMY into it. Not only is your child in the hands of a serial liar, but 1) Someone with an affliction of selective amnesia, in which case, you shouldn’t trust his ability to even teach ABCs, not to mention Maths Olympiad problems, and 2) Someone who blames his mother for implanting false GEP memories into his brain. For $1K lessons you would expect someone with not just the smarts and experience, but at least some shred of moral fibre, and the decency to leave one’s parents out of a con job of your own making as well.

Nonetheless, this nab is a timely wake up call for parents to be wary and know the difference between tuition ‘agencies’ and ‘centres’. Agencies are profit-driven commercial entities registered with ACRA, while centres are registered as schools by MOE. Don’t be seduced by flashy qualifications, colourful testimonials (which seem to be faked in this case) or regal company names. If their expensive educational methods are like psychic lobotomies turning your kid into a Night of the Living Dead zombie, you have every right to complain to CASE. A little official snooping around may be more useful than trawling social media platforms or checking with friends who have already invested in agencies like AristoSCAM. It’s also possible that your kid may be better off emotionally and psychologically without any tuition at all, and that our education system, together with anxious parents, contribute to a festering nation-wide addiction to tuition serving as a lucrative market for agencies making a quick buck out of a chronic fear of being left behind , like drug dealers selling users adulterated crack. If there’s any ‘help’ to be sought, it’s for parents so blinded by kiasuism and peer pressure that it doesn’t matter how much it costs, even if the agency’s founder looks like the Riddler from a Batman movie.

The Riddler Unriddled

Postscript: In a follow up Sunday Times article (Not a maths grad either..5 Aug 2012), it was revealed that Ong was never a NUS ‘double Math major’ grad either and was really a Nanyang Poly trained physiotherapist, apparently applying the skill of manipulation to lucrative effect. Turns out that Aristocare is actually a home-run scam where Ong crammed his clients in his BEDROOM. Sleazy! Surely someone would have sounded him out, if they were the least bit concerned of their kids’ safety. As if pushing blame on his own mother wasn’t enough, Ong pointed out that the qualifications in the credits of his assessment book was a printing error. According to the ‘About the Author’ section in the preface of his ‘Know your Maths Methods!’ book, Ong supposedly has a Postgraduate Diploma in EDUCATION as well.  What, no Grandmaster Wizard Professor of Hogwarts? One of his methods is called ‘The Alphabet Method’. It looks like damn ALGEBRA to me.

Meanwhile the Aristocare site is permanently shut down, with the error message ’404 Not Found’, which describes Ong’s degree perfectly.  If there’s a lesson to be learnt from this fiasco, it’s that no matter how desperately kiasu you are, it always pays to do your own homework first before placing your trust in bogus tutors who teach out of their bedrooms. It also means that if your child did in fact score in GEP after hothousing in an unqualified person’s bedroom, it’s likely that he or she could have done it on their own without anyone’s help.

NUS Law professor’s $740 Mont Blanc pen

From ‘Law Prof charged with corruption’, 28 July 2012, article by Bryna Sim, ST

IT STARTED with a $740 Montblanc pen and ended with sex. Yesterday, National University of Singapore (NUS) law professor and former district judge Tey Tsun Hang was charged with six counts of corruptly obtaining gratification from a student in 2010. Two involved sexual gratification.

The gifts and sex were allegedly inducements for Tey to show favour in his assessment of the academic performance of then NUS law student Darinne Ko Wen Hui. Ms Ko, 23, graduated last month and is said to be holding a summer associate position in a law firm in New York. She has not been charged.

She said through her lawyers Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan yesterday that she ‘strenuously denies any corrupt wrongdoing’. Tey, 41, is accused of receiving the Montblanc pen from Ms Ko in May 2010. In the same month, he got an iPod worth $160 from her, and on June 22, he got two tailored shirts valued at $236.20. On July 1, she paid a bill of $1,278.60 for him.

Two prominent lawyers are hogging the headlines as we speak. One, an author of a book titled ‘TRUSTS, TRUSTEES and Equitable Remedies’ (worth $267.50. If you sell 3 of those you could get yourself luxury stationery), and a certain M Ravi with a personal mission to bring down the Law Society while dancing at Speaker’s Corner as a sideline. But I refrain from saying much about Ravi’s antics, since aside from the occasional derangement, he seems to know perfectly well what he’s doing especially when it comes to writing letters of complaint. Preferring to describe his mania as ‘eccentricity’ instead, he’s apparently a fan of evergreen Mandopop songs as well. I can’t think of a better actor to play him in a biopic than Kumar.

The ‘NUS Sex for Grades’ scandal is an extreme case of what we used to call ‘favouritism’, with Darrine Ko taking on the role of the ‘teacher’s pet’. Before such deeds were labelled as corruption, presenting gifts to teachers with the hope for ‘more lenient’ grading was something that even PARENTS would do. Back in 1989, the issue of ‘tokens of appreciation’ masked as ‘bribes’ was raised, when teachers were presented with CARTIER pens and expensive watches by wealthy parents via their kids. In Thailand, you can buy an ‘A’ grade with a bottle of whisky.

Bribery starts even before children pick up their first textbook. In 1971, for a measly $100, you could get a teacher to pull strings and get your kid in a branded school. Today’s parents may decide to go beyond ‘volunteering’ in schools to earn admission rights short of giving teachers red packets or ‘tea money’. In fact, if every subtle case of ‘you scratch my back and I scratch yours’ were classified as gratification in the legal sense, most of us who have ever volunteered to clean the classroom’s fish tank, carry our teachers’ books or treated our boss to lunch would risk getting embroiled in scandal though to us such acts are nothing more than ass-kissing, groveling, bootlicking, ball-cradling or in local parlance ‘sakar’.

To quote the writer of the above article, ‘Corruption may not be the oldest profession, it is certainly the oldest vice, for was not Eve tempted by an apple?’ In the seventies, students themselves had already learnt how to ‘score points’ with teacher, showing random acts of kindness such as buying food or being the first to clean the blackboard or replenish used chalk.  You didn’t need to pay their bills, buy them clothing or seduce them for a glowing testimonial. The problem with ‘acting on the ball’ for benefits, obviously, is that you will get noticed. Darrine Ko got noticed, and then some. This incident has brought new meaning to PET in ‘teacher’s pet’. If indeed Darrine had the motive and desired pay off but never got whistleblown, one can imagine how applying the same ‘soft skill’ in her current position would boost her career prospects. If another infamous RGS alumnus, retired pornstar Annabel Chong  had used her appetite for sex in a more discreet manner, she probably would have gotten more out of life than say, a reputation of  screwing 251 random men at one go.

Principal stalking students on Facebook

From ‘Parent claims principal stalks ex-students on Facebook’, 16 June 2012, article in asiaone.com Edvantage

…Another principal has made the news with his Facebook exploits – namely  for posting comments on pictures of his ex-students that a parent claimed to be “sexy and seductive”. The parent added the principal had made these comments when he was Physical Education teacher and is now a principal of a secondary school in the North.

A parent only known as Nel voiced his concerns on local citizen journalism site, Stomp. He said, “We (Nel and his wife) were prowling through our teenage daughter’s Facebook when we saw her ex-PE teacher making the comment ‘Nice!’ on one of her profile photos!

“Feeling uneasy about such a comment, we went into his Facebook account and discovered that he has been stalking his secondary students on Facebook, visiting their photo albums repeatedly and posting comments like ‘Nice!’, ‘Cute!’, ‘Sweet!’, ‘Pretty!’ on their sexy and seductive photos!” The parent added that the principal had crossed a line by commenting on these pictures. He also drew references to senior education officials Lee Lip Hong and Chua Ren Cheng who were charged for sleeping with the underage prostitute.

He concluded by saying, “What kind of message is this educator sending to his pupils when these postings can be openly viewed by all? “

No sane figure of authority will risk his reputation flirting stupidly with young girls on Facebook, and this overprotective, self-confessed ‘prowling’ parent should ask himself if these postings were in fact the work of an imposter latching onto the principal’s real account, or some prankster creating a fake account just to sabotage a man’s career, rather than jumping the gun and accuse the head of a school of preying on young girls. Flirting principals aside, what about the problem of his attention-seeking camwhore daughter posing ‘sexily and seductively’ and thriving on cheap flattery from random strangers? Or perhaps he’s using his daughter’s  narcissism as bait to lure curious boys and suitors for him to lash out at and revenge-stalk later, whether or not they’re pimply classmates or grown men with a weakness for underaged prostitutes.

Still, as a worried parent, such fears are not totally unfounded. In 2010, a relief teacher who added a student to his Facebook contacts ended up making indecent proposals once he got her mobile phone number. Anyone with filthy intentions would opt for the more personal mobile phone approach rather than soliciting through Facebook for all to see. So if ‘Nel’ needs to know if his sexy daughter is being stalked for real, I’d suggest he probe her phone’s message list first, instead of telling the whole world there’s another pervert principal on the loose and tarnishing the profession. Other parents would run a sneaky background check on teachers with Facebook accounts, and raise alarm bells if they discover he’s somewhat of a ladies’ man who poses with random women in clubs in his free time. Yet nobody rummages through parents’ Facebook accounts to expose what bad parenting skills, dress sense or taste in music they have. We have a Faces of Haters already, maybe it’s time for a ‘Faces of Kamchiong Parents’.

As if pupils and teachers haven’t had enough of each other’s faces during schooltime, social media has somehow morphed into a after-hours badmouthing battleground for students to rally against bad teachers, teachers to rally against nuisance or difficult students, or parents to shame overbearing teachers on their kids’ behalf. All this puts our educators at a sorry disadvantage. Some parents would forgo Stomp or Facebook altogether and make a police report directly for cases of ‘verbal abuse’.  A teacher with a Facebook account used to be ‘cool’ at some point. Today, he’s a potential pedophile who’ll tell you how ‘nice’ you look when he’s actually thinking, and maybe doing, something else while viewing your deliberately jaw-dropping photo which alone could pass off as a CV for a lucrative career in amateur porn.

Some teachers, assuming their FB identities are genuine, turn out to be pretty immature cyberbullies themselves.  In 2009, one mocked the atrocious standards of grammar in her students’ assignments.  Some of a more sadistic nature bragged about the number of lines their student were made to write out of punishment, or resorted to insults like ‘My stupid student is such a goner’. In a reversal of the above incident, another posted an exchange between herself and a student over a mysterious smell, hinting at sexual harassment by the student in 2011 (What’s that smell? Your pxxxy!).

Yet, just as there should be a penalty for teachers acting like angry teenagers, the ones who don’t bitch about their students online or even own a Facebook account should be protected against busybody parents or being maliciously framed by anyone with a grudge, even if these pranksters were students themselves. Facebook has no place in a teacher-student relationship, just as it has no place between a subordinate and a boss.  Anyone caught defaming an educator through FB should be dealt with as it were a ruthless slap across the face, just as any disgruntled teacher expressing their violent slapping fantasies online deserves to be disciplined. The cost of ‘losing touch’ with your FB-savvy students by not communicating online is nothing compared to the ordeal of just ONE parent reporting you for harassment if you so much as ‘act cute’ online or if your FB profile is not Virgin Mary enough. Even a smiley face may be misconstrued as a sly invitation to strip live on cam, not to mention a ‘Niiiicceeee!’

Parents sending kids for GEP tuition

From ‘My child is GIFTED’, 3 June 2012, article by Jane Ng, Sunday Times

Parents desperate to get their children into the Gifted Education Programme (GEP) are turning to tuition centres that claim they can help bright nine-year-olds ace the screening test. A growing number of enrichment centres are offering these classes at monthly fees of between $200 and $1,000.

…Mr Kelvin Ong, 36, went from being a GEP student to a GEP teacher before he quit to start his tuition agency, AristoCare. He decides whether to accept a pupil only after a month of lessons which cost $1,000.…He has even started GEP ‘foundation classes’ for kindergarten pupils priced at $600 a month.

At Doctor Peh Associates, a 10-year-old outfit started by Mr Allen Peh – who does not have a doctorate – children who want to sign up for the ‘GEP clinic’ must have English and mathematics scores above 90, while kindergarten pupils must have an IQ score of 130 and above.

‘If they don’t meet those criteria, the GEP is not suitable for them as their foundation is not there,’ said Mr Peh, 51, who has a science degree from the University of Toronto and an MBA from the University of Warwick….He charges $2,600 for 10 lessons.

Enrichment school Morris Allen offers an annual two-week GEP intensive preparation course in June, after selecting its pupils through an IQ test…. ‘With practice under pressure, and repeated exposure to the questions, they show significant improvement and become more confident in answering them,’ said Mr Scarrott (Principal). The fee for 10 days: $888.

Housewife Cindy Tan, 40, is among the hopeful parents whose children are attending GEP preparation classes ahead of the ministry’s screening test in August….’Every mother has hopes for her child. Since we can’t help him at home, we have to get some help for him,’ said Mrs Tan…Adrin, who scored above 95 in his English and mathematics mid-year exams, is getting help at AristoCare. He also has tuition. ‘He has the occasional tantrum but I’ll tell him to finish his homework and I’ll take him out for a McDonald’s treat,’ said Mrs Tan, who has O-level qualification.

What if Adrin does not make it to GEP in the end? ‘I’ll be very sad and disappointed – after all the money spent and we get nothing,’ she said.

I vaguely remember going through the GEP screening test myself and I had no idea what to expect, though I spent most of the time flipping my paper around to work on picture puzzles.  I might as well be deciphering hieroglyphics or Matrix alien squiggles. Not being naturally GIFTED, I flunked out of the first round. Now, if I had MONEY then, that could have been a different matter altogether. I would be out there, you know, making a DIFFERENCE, instead of writing a blog post complaining about GEP.

‘Gifted’ used to describe individuals ‘born’ with a special ‘talent’, and implies extraordinariness and exclusiveness, not something anyone can attain purely through ‘hard work’, or in this case, the help of an ex-GEP student turned tuition teacher with a ‘gift’ for business. One would expect an ex GEP student to do something more worthwhile with his intelligence, like solving the problems plaguing the world today (and getting a doctorate while at it), but that’s besides the point. It’s obvious that having a scorching IQ as determined by some screening test doesn’t guarantee that you’ll do anything particularly useful for humanity. There are so many exceptions to the rule, game-changers, high school dropouts turned self-made billionaires or Nobel-prize winning authors or scientists, people who excelled not just through IQ alone, but mostly through creative innovation, inspiration and sheer luck, things which all these tuition centres and GEP programmes can’t deliver in an entire lifetime no matter how many derivative puzzles they drill their gifted brethren with. Yet these ‘geniuses’ and ‘icons’, though having qualities of the ‘gifted’,  remain, in all appearances, perfectly NORMAL save a few eccentricities without anyone seeing the need to classify them as higher evolved beings in school.

Being a prodigy and working on your ‘gift’ go hand in hand, and one shouldn’t deny kids with a genuine obsession for complex maths puzzles from achieving one’s fullest potential in this scheme, at the risk of being oestracised from their ‘mainstream’ peers, which is an inevitable side effect of being cleverer than your age group. A screening test alone isn’t THE litmus test for genius, and selects for only a certain skill-set that may or may not qualify you as being ‘highly intelligent’.  If you can buy IQ scores through very specific practices like training an archer how to shoot arrows, one trivialises the GEP programme to that of a very expensive, elite mind-sports fraternity. You may well get a couple of sharpshooters in the end, though you’ll also have some singed by their own arrows, victims so worn out by the demands of the programme that their behaviour changes completely, some into angry little recluses who ignore their families. Moreover, the Ministry clearly feels that you’re wasting your time with ‘normal’ students, as what is stated in their GEP webpage.

The intellectually gifted need a high degree of mental stimulation. This need may not be met in the mainstream classroom and the gifted child may become mediocre, indifferent or disruptive in class.

Meaning, if you don’t put your above average kid in GEP, he’ll ROT in class among the minions! Such divisive , sweeping presumptions on what smart kids need for mental nourishment have led many to call the GEP programme ‘elitist’. In fact, the MOE’s statement is copied and pasted wholesale in Kelvin Ong’s Aristocare Gifted programme website. Hell, even the name of his agency has a kingly ring to it.  Here’s a chicken-and-egg argument in reference to those GEP kids who think high and mighty of themselves: Are these kids ‘gifted’ hence arrogant, or did they ‘become’ arrogant once they were labelled and exalted as ‘gifted’ 1%-ters? What have we produced in 30 years that justifies the relevance of a GEP breeding ground in creating mavericks, trailblazers and great thinkers? In an age where brains alone don’t cut it and ‘EQ’ matters more than ever, have we instead LOST ‘functional’ geniuses rather than spawned them through a scheme that cuts them off from the more socially fertile morass that is ‘the rest of us’?

The gifted have been stereotyped as being ‘socially inept’, stick to their own ‘kind’, and summon the image of an awkward, quantum physics textbook totting, bespectacled kid with imaginary friends because all his real ones have left him/her. Meaner ‘mainstream’ kids would refer to them as ‘freaks’.  ‘Gifted’ already has a euphemistic cousin known as ‘high-ability’, which attempts to tone down the lofty suggestions of innate genius but ironically emphasises the disturbing trend that one can be ‘trained’ to qualify for GEP, as long as you’re willing the spend the money and forget about June holidays altogether. One thing these tuition centres dare to boast about is a high success rate of passing tests, but as to what becomes of their students after that, nobody has the slightest clue. High-ability doesn’t equate to hire-ability. From the way they are being groomed and hothoused, they’ve either become stark raving mad scientists  or Phantoms of the Opera.

Adrin above is a high-scoring kid with the occasional lack of interest in homework (like everyone else) but yet nudged by parents to prepare for a programme which he may not be suited, using McDonalds as bait like a  Pavlov dog salivating to the sound of a bell. He may very well ace the screening thanks to some insanely methodical and ultimately meaningless grilling, but end up at the bottom of the GEP pack because his ‘giftedness’ is a product not of his genes or upbringing, but that of a tuition machine. Not to mention having his arteries clogged with all the fat from the ‘reward’ fries he’s been eating to finish his work. His mum may be utterly disappointed from all the wasted money and effort, but failure to get into GEP only means one thing for a face-saving kiasu parent: More enrichment classes.

‘Caring Teacher’ award winner abandoning dying wife

From ‘Baffled by award for teacher who went on trip while wife was dying’, 12 May 2012, ST Forum

(Mark Gregory Rozells): WEDNESDAY’S report (‘Caring teachers win awards’) about a teacher who received the Caring Teacher Award because he accompanied students to a competition abroad, even as his wife was dying of cancer, has left me baffled.

First, no school trip is planned and executed by one teacher alone. There is always a team of teachers for safety and contingency reasons. So how indispensable was that teacher to the trip?

Second, knowing his circumstances, shouldn’t the school’s principal have deployed another teacher to replace him?

Third, wasn’t the safety of the students on the trip a concern when the teacher rushed back to Singapore to see his wife before she died?

Lastly, what signal is the Ministry of Education sending to teachers and the public with this award? Abandon your families for your students?

The ‘caring teacher’ in question is Northland Secondary School’s Allan Yeong, whose wife insisted that he accompany the Boys Brigade Pipe Band because ‘he couldn’t let the children down’ (Caring teachers win awards, 9 May 2012). Whatever decision this teacher has made, he has lived with it for the last 5 years since her death. Without any knowledge of Mr Yeong’s personal affairs nor the exact circumstances leading to him leaving his dying wife, it probably isn’t fair to judge his actions based on what most of us would do, namely forget the pipe band and stay with the wife. The intention of the award is to recognise selfless passion, which Yeong has chosen to pursue in spite of what his wife’s family and friends may think of this untimely decision.

According to the nomination criteria for the ‘Caring teacher’ award,

A caring teacher is someone grounded in values; who cares, shares and shows concern for the academic, moral, social, emotional and mental welfare of his/her students

It doesn’t say anything about ‘sacrifice’, be it working overtime or forsaking your family to be a band chaperone. It also means you can be a total bastard and wife beater at home, but that doesn’t exclude you from becoming a ‘caring’ teacher. Or a cheat. In 2010, an ex ‘Caring teacher’ winner was sentenced to two weeks’ jail for tampering with his fuel gauge at Woodlands Checkpoint. In March this year, another award winner pleaded guilty to penetrating and molesting schoolboys, proof that being the perfect teacher doesn’t necessarily make one more humane than the rest of us. Of course, you can make a mockery of any award after winning one, but all the more scrutiny for a profession so extolled as exemplary citizens and role models as our teachers.

Going the ‘extra mile’ always comes at a cost, and it’s unfortunate that unlike past winners, the media has chosen to dig up the unsettling details of what Yeong’s ‘cost’ entails. God knows how many people have been neglected because their teacher mothers/fathers/sons/daughters have put their careers first. If we were to hear of a teacher working her butt off to the point of forgetting to feed her baby for just one night, we’d probably feel the same outrage. If every professional award were judged based on whether one’s moral conduct  at work applies to personal life, there would be no winners and there would be no point in dishing such things out at all.

Perhaps the writer has a point; that by rushing home to bid his wife farewell, the ‘welfare of his students’ was temporarily compromised. But then again, without knowing if Yeong did in fact take measures to ensure that the students were looked after in his absence, it’s rather premature to question on a technicality if he deserves this award or not, and argue based on the premise that a husband SHOULD look after his cancer-stricken wife instead of other people’s children. Maybe things just aren’t as straightforward as we think, it could have been a very painful but necessary decision for all we know. Furthermore, winners are chosen on the basis of nomination from members of the public including parents, maybe even from the parents of Yeong’s charges who voted out of gratitude/sympathy. So even if the guy lied and didn’t give two hoots about his wife, there’s nothing preventing him from winning Caring teacher of the year anyway, especially if even a sodomising pedophile can do it.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 171 other followers