Manifestion of this first emerged when parents in neighbourhood schools started talking about overaged foreign students emerging at top of the standard. This was some 10 years. These kids were actually 2 years older than their cohort.
The reason they were placed in classes that were up to 2 years in junior to their age was their poor command of english. Naturally being 2 years more mature, they would outperform most kids who are 2 years younger in other subjects.
Then there was the case of the 14 year vietnamese "man" who was competing in School athletics programme beating the tiny tots in the sprint and short distance events and interesting not in the long distance event where long legs does not necessary mean an advantage compared to short distances. Key to that episode was that he displayed maturity not associated with that of 14 years.
Maybe the humane thing for the PAP is to shoot all Singaporeans that they believe can't contribute to the PAP vision of a nation. That will put them out of their misery and not go through life and NS thinking that those whose roots are in Singapore and have come from a generation of Singapore citizens actually have a stake in this country and have some reasonable advantage compared to foreigners.
Then comes the story below. If I was JJC PE teacher or principal, I cover my head with a paperbag and tell my family not to reveal my vocation and name.
http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=3751
Warning signs of unhappy sentiments against foreigners
By Kelvin Teo ⋅ June 2, 2009
⋅ Print This Story ⋅ Email This Story ⋅ Share (Facebook) ⋅ Post a comment
SINGAPORE - Last week, the National Inter-school ‘A’ division badminton finals featured a showdown between Jurong Junior College (JJC) and Raffles Institution (RJC). What was supposed to be a simple final duel between 2 schools ended up being polarized into a Singapore versus China showdown. How did that happen? The boys’ and girls’ teams from RJC consisted of Singaporeans, while the girls’ team line-up from JJC wholly consisted of Chinese nationals. Of the 7 members in the JJC boys’ team, 4 were from China, 1 from South Korea and 2 were Singaporeans.
JJC made history with its first appearance in a badminton final. However, the line-up of its teams came under heavy criticism, and there were hints of unhappy sentiments. Vice-captain of the Anglo-Chinese Junior College (ACJC) badminton team, John Low, echoed the sentiments of his team:”‘It’s unfair and we do feel a little resentful.” RJC coach Hamid Khan agreed with Low’s unfair assessment, adding that there should have been a cap in the number of foreign players allowed to participate. Others felt that a cap in number of foreign players would have the advantage of improving sporting standards without adversely affecting the participation of local players. The polarized contest between Singapore and China was summed up by Lim Boon Tiong, an RJC reserve player:”A lot of us feel like we’re playing for Singapore, not just Raffles”.
The resentment went to the level that even supporters from ACJC cheered on RJC. This is a thought that any ACSian in his right frame of mind would never ever entertain given the rivalry between ACS and Raffles. The fact that the former cheered for the latter just showed how polarized the contest is, which transcended inter-school rivalries.
Such unhappy sentiments were reminiscent of those expressed in the wake of the open door policy, which opened the floodgates for waves of foreign employees into our work force. These sentiments were expressed occasionally in our very own Straits Times forums, and online in blogs and other popular Internet forums. Like those who were concerned over the badminton showdown between JJC and RJC, there were repeated calls to exercise a strict cap or quota on the number of foreign employees a company can hire. Like local badminton players losing out on the opportunity to represent their school, local employees fear losing their rice bowls to foreign employees. If the calls remained unheeded, such unhappy sentiments against foreigners will rear its ugly head. The events at the badminton final provided a stark reminder to all.
The reason they were placed in classes that were up to 2 years in junior to their age was their poor command of english. Naturally being 2 years more mature, they would outperform most kids who are 2 years younger in other subjects.
Then there was the case of the 14 year vietnamese "man" who was competing in School athletics programme beating the tiny tots in the sprint and short distance events and interesting not in the long distance event where long legs does not necessary mean an advantage compared to short distances. Key to that episode was that he displayed maturity not associated with that of 14 years.
Maybe the humane thing for the PAP is to shoot all Singaporeans that they believe can't contribute to the PAP vision of a nation. That will put them out of their misery and not go through life and NS thinking that those whose roots are in Singapore and have come from a generation of Singapore citizens actually have a stake in this country and have some reasonable advantage compared to foreigners.
Then comes the story below. If I was JJC PE teacher or principal, I cover my head with a paperbag and tell my family not to reveal my vocation and name.
http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=3751
Warning signs of unhappy sentiments against foreigners
By Kelvin Teo ⋅ June 2, 2009
⋅ Print This Story ⋅ Email This Story ⋅ Share (Facebook) ⋅ Post a comment
SINGAPORE - Last week, the National Inter-school ‘A’ division badminton finals featured a showdown between Jurong Junior College (JJC) and Raffles Institution (RJC). What was supposed to be a simple final duel between 2 schools ended up being polarized into a Singapore versus China showdown. How did that happen? The boys’ and girls’ teams from RJC consisted of Singaporeans, while the girls’ team line-up from JJC wholly consisted of Chinese nationals. Of the 7 members in the JJC boys’ team, 4 were from China, 1 from South Korea and 2 were Singaporeans.
JJC made history with its first appearance in a badminton final. However, the line-up of its teams came under heavy criticism, and there were hints of unhappy sentiments. Vice-captain of the Anglo-Chinese Junior College (ACJC) badminton team, John Low, echoed the sentiments of his team:”‘It’s unfair and we do feel a little resentful.” RJC coach Hamid Khan agreed with Low’s unfair assessment, adding that there should have been a cap in the number of foreign players allowed to participate. Others felt that a cap in number of foreign players would have the advantage of improving sporting standards without adversely affecting the participation of local players. The polarized contest between Singapore and China was summed up by Lim Boon Tiong, an RJC reserve player:”A lot of us feel like we’re playing for Singapore, not just Raffles”.
The resentment went to the level that even supporters from ACJC cheered on RJC. This is a thought that any ACSian in his right frame of mind would never ever entertain given the rivalry between ACS and Raffles. The fact that the former cheered for the latter just showed how polarized the contest is, which transcended inter-school rivalries.
Such unhappy sentiments were reminiscent of those expressed in the wake of the open door policy, which opened the floodgates for waves of foreign employees into our work force. These sentiments were expressed occasionally in our very own Straits Times forums, and online in blogs and other popular Internet forums. Like those who were concerned over the badminton showdown between JJC and RJC, there were repeated calls to exercise a strict cap or quota on the number of foreign employees a company can hire. Like local badminton players losing out on the opportunity to represent their school, local employees fear losing their rice bowls to foreign employees. If the calls remained unheeded, such unhappy sentiments against foreigners will rear its ugly head. The events at the badminton final provided a stark reminder to all.
