About me
I know what (exactly) happened on the very day itself. Yes I support eimerz0506, Amos Chia, CG 22/07, the author of the original STOMP article here.
I do not want to defame Mr. Francis Tong but I do give my honest views on this entire issue. I hope you would see this entire situation in a better light.
I am not a teacher. I am a student who witnessed the very incident at the podium on Wednesday, March 26, 2008.
I'm not Amos himself, or his classmates.
Neither am I X nor J, the two implicated in this matter.
I am just someone who happened to hear and see everything.
Everything in this blog is not staged and based on what I solely saw and heard. It is therefore not "second-hand" as mentioned on STOMP.
I do hope that you would read on and understand the entire situation for yourself and know why and who is at fault.
Before reading on,
Do not blame Mrs Loke for anything. You might think she is lying and said groundless comments without knowing what happened. What she's doing is for the sake of the school. Put yourself in her shoes.
Yes Mr. Tong can have a different perspective to life as compared to us teenagers. Try to understand him too.
DISCLAIMER
This blog accepts no consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Circumstances leading to the Apology on Wendesday, March 26, 2008
Circumstances leading to the Apology
1. Before making an announcement during the morning assembly, students have to demonstrate their announcement to the discipline master prior to the actual announcement.
2. The demonstrated announcement by students have to be approved by the discipline master and given a rating of at least 7.5 out of 10, which is based on his opinion.
3. We are instructed that X and J were told to seek approval from Mr. Francis Tong, the discipline master, before they could make an announcement to the school.
4. The announcement promotes a lunchtime concert put together by the Chamber Ensemble on Wednesday, March 26, 2008.
5. X presented the announcement, which comprises of a short skit, to Mr. Tong on Tuesday, March 25, 2008.
6. Being in their first year, and the first time seeking clearance for an announcement, X and J did not know that they had to demonstrate.
7. J was not present and because they couldn’t demonstrate the skit, it was rejected.
8. After X and J returned, Mr. Tong mentioned to them that they needed to demonstrate the announcement in at least two days in advance and Personal Development Programme (PDP) announcements are forbidden on Wednesdays.
9. However after knowing that the lunchtime concert is only a day away, he allowed them to announce on Wednesday.
10. X and J was instructed to demonstrate without the script.
11. Unprepared and being unable to memorize the lines, the demonstration was not up to satisfaction. X and J were told to look for Mr. Tong at 0740 hours on Wednesday, March 26, 2008, to demonstrate the entire announcement to him before he could give the green light.
12. Both X and J looked for Mr. Tong at 0740 hours, and could not locate him despite trying to look for him in other locations.
13. By the time he was located, it was too late for a demonstration and Mr. Tong willingly permitted them to make the announcement.
14. During the announcement, there was a short physical contact between X and J. X gave J a pat on the shoulder and also a nudge with her elbow.
15. After the morning assembly, Mr. Tong walked towards X and J and told them “you (they) have a big problem now.”
16. He added on saying that there were two problems. The first being what they did during the demonstration was not similar to what they did on stage.
17. While Mr. Tong was explaining to them about the second problem, he reproduced the actions done by X and told them that their actions caused a stir among the student population and there were murmurings. He added on saying that teachers and students will come to ask him why did he allow such a thing to happen as it was not right and there are conservative people in the school. He said that he has to be responsible for what has happened, as he did not view the demonstration a second time before it was announced.
18. He told X and J to write a letter of apology as an indication that they are apologetic for such a thing that has happened and he can explain that he has already reprimanded the students.
19. Both students mentioned that they were apologetic that their actions have caused a domino effect on the school population and Mr. Tong and were sorry.
1. Before making an announcement during the morning assembly, students have to demonstrate their announcement to the discipline master prior to the actual announcement.
2. The demonstrated announcement by students have to be approved by the discipline master and given a rating of at least 7.5 out of 10, which is based on his opinion.
3. We are instructed that X and J were told to seek approval from Mr. Francis Tong, the discipline master, before they could make an announcement to the school.
4. The announcement promotes a lunchtime concert put together by the Chamber Ensemble on Wednesday, March 26, 2008.
5. X presented the announcement, which comprises of a short skit, to Mr. Tong on Tuesday, March 25, 2008.
6. Being in their first year, and the first time seeking clearance for an announcement, X and J did not know that they had to demonstrate.
7. J was not present and because they couldn’t demonstrate the skit, it was rejected.
8. After X and J returned, Mr. Tong mentioned to them that they needed to demonstrate the announcement in at least two days in advance and Personal Development Programme (PDP) announcements are forbidden on Wednesdays.
9. However after knowing that the lunchtime concert is only a day away, he allowed them to announce on Wednesday.
10. X and J was instructed to demonstrate without the script.
11. Unprepared and being unable to memorize the lines, the demonstration was not up to satisfaction. X and J were told to look for Mr. Tong at 0740 hours on Wednesday, March 26, 2008, to demonstrate the entire announcement to him before he could give the green light.
12. Both X and J looked for Mr. Tong at 0740 hours, and could not locate him despite trying to look for him in other locations.
13. By the time he was located, it was too late for a demonstration and Mr. Tong willingly permitted them to make the announcement.
14. During the announcement, there was a short physical contact between X and J. X gave J a pat on the shoulder and also a nudge with her elbow.
15. After the morning assembly, Mr. Tong walked towards X and J and told them “you (they) have a big problem now.”
16. He added on saying that there were two problems. The first being what they did during the demonstration was not similar to what they did on stage.
17. While Mr. Tong was explaining to them about the second problem, he reproduced the actions done by X and told them that their actions caused a stir among the student population and there were murmurings. He added on saying that teachers and students will come to ask him why did he allow such a thing to happen as it was not right and there are conservative people in the school. He said that he has to be responsible for what has happened, as he did not view the demonstration a second time before it was announced.
18. He told X and J to write a letter of apology as an indication that they are apologetic for such a thing that has happened and he can explain that he has already reprimanded the students.
19. Both students mentioned that they were apologetic that their actions have caused a domino effect on the school population and Mr. Tong and were sorry.
Facts; as of Wednesday, April 2, 2008
1. The STOMPer, Amos from CG 22/07, apologized for implicating the school in this matter but did not apologize for making the wrong assumptions.
2. The STOMPer did not apologize directly to STOMP but to the school.
3. The college handbook did not state that all letters has to be vetted and cleared by the school before submitting them to the media.
4. The STOMPer’s intention was to highlight the issue and gather opinions of the public, not to demand an apology from the school or the discipline master or to gather students for a demonstration.
5. Hence he has already apologized for tarnishing the school’s name. (Refer to 1.)
6. He was not compelled to do so.
7. The STOMPer, a.k.a. eimerz0506, accepts no liability for the content of comments not posted by him, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided.
1. The STOMPer, Amos from CG 22/07, apologized for implicating the school in this matter but did not apologize for making the wrong assumptions.
2. The STOMPer did not apologize directly to STOMP but to the school.
3. The college handbook did not state that all letters has to be vetted and cleared by the school before submitting them to the media.
4. The STOMPer’s intention was to highlight the issue and gather opinions of the public, not to demand an apology from the school or the discipline master or to gather students for a demonstration.
5. Hence he has already apologized for tarnishing the school’s name. (Refer to 1.)
6. He was not compelled to do so.
7. The STOMPer, a.k.a. eimerz0506, accepts no liability for the content of comments not posted by him, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided.
Controversies.
1. Based on point 17 and 18 above, Mr. Tong claims that “teachers and students will come to ask him why did he allow such a thing to happen as it was not right and there are conservative people in the school” and hence with the letter of apology/reflection, he would be able to “explain (to whoever may ask) that he has already reprimanded the students.”
2. If the “thing” that happened, which was “not right”, points to point 16 above, (“what they did during the demonstration was not similar to what they did on stage”), making the comment “and there are conservative people in the school” would be absolutely redundant.
3. Does this mean that the Mr. Tong, who is also a tutor teaching General Paper, made a comment that is totally irrelevant to the issue? Why did he make that comment if it doesn’t link to the first part of the sentence then?
4. If the two students were actually made to apologize for the fact that they changed the script at the last minute, they are not entirely at fault as Mr. Tong had allowed them to proceed with the announcement without needing to view it a second time. (Refer to point 12 and 13 above)
5. Is it then all right to make the two students write a letter of apology/reflection because they changed the script, despite getting clearance from Mr. Tong himself? Also, Mr. Tong stated that he has to be responsible for what has happened. Does the act of making the students write a letter, and he using these letters to explain that he was already reprimanded them, responsible in your perspective?
1. Based on point 17 and 18 above, Mr. Tong claims that “teachers and students will come to ask him why did he allow such a thing to happen as it was not right and there are conservative people in the school” and hence with the letter of apology/reflection, he would be able to “explain (to whoever may ask) that he has already reprimanded the students.”
2. If the “thing” that happened, which was “not right”, points to point 16 above, (“what they did during the demonstration was not similar to what they did on stage”), making the comment “and there are conservative people in the school” would be absolutely redundant.
3. Does this mean that the Mr. Tong, who is also a tutor teaching General Paper, made a comment that is totally irrelevant to the issue? Why did he make that comment if it doesn’t link to the first part of the sentence then?
4. If the two students were actually made to apologize for the fact that they changed the script at the last minute, they are not entirely at fault as Mr. Tong had allowed them to proceed with the announcement without needing to view it a second time. (Refer to point 12 and 13 above)
5. Is it then all right to make the two students write a letter of apology/reflection because they changed the script, despite getting clearance from Mr. Tong himself? Also, Mr. Tong stated that he has to be responsible for what has happened. Does the act of making the students write a letter, and he using these letters to explain that he was already reprimanded them, responsible in your perspective?
POSTSCRIPT
The circumstances leading to the apology was compiled on the night of Wednesday, March 26, 2008 and is the combined account of both X and J, the two students involved in this matter. Very little information was left out and the circumstances leading to the apology above have a high credibility and contain much truth in it.
Do not blame the higher authority in the school. They have a responsibility for keeping the school image up. Put yourself in their shoes. What Mrs Loke did today was acceptable. Would you protect your institution if you were the principal? Do not blame them. Point the finger at the right person.
The circumstances leading to the apology was compiled on the night of Wednesday, March 26, 2008 and is the combined account of both X and J, the two students involved in this matter. Very little information was left out and the circumstances leading to the apology above have a high credibility and contain much truth in it.
Do not blame the higher authority in the school. They have a responsibility for keeping the school image up. Put yourself in their shoes. What Mrs Loke did today was acceptable. Would you protect your institution if you were the principal? Do not blame them. Point the finger at the right person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)