St Margaret's Principal (Marion Tan): life after the botakgate.

[lianbeng]

Agree. It really set a bad precedent. Next time parents can all by-pass school principle and go straight to higher up in MOE to get things done in their way.

lianbeng feels sad for that principal liao! :( like that how to command respect in the school leh? might as well let Minister be principal!

 

[Semaj2357]

Agree. It really set a bad precedent. Next time parents can all by-pass school principle and go straight to higher up in MOE to get things done in their way.

agree if it's only justifiable (in this case the parents thought so and did so) but in the context of being politically correct, the bigger picture is allowing school kids to renege on their promise, now this is bad precedence...

 

[Narong Wongwan]

Principal done right or wrong - jury is still out there.
Minister's action - 100% wrong. Showed himself and MOE in bad light. Also seen as trying to score political point.

 

[po2wq]

... Rules are rules and they should be followed to the letter. What's the point of having rules if they aren't enforced in an impartial manner.

ya, man! ...

wen it cum 2 rules, principal proposes, minister disposes ...

 

[po2wq]

Re: Botakgate, how one principal can live on

dat multi-million $ salaried minister has shown dat he's juz another stoopig burger ...

by coming down on ze principal, he has made it no choice 4 ze principal ... if ze principal remains defiant, he'll lose his face! ... if ze principal doesnt relent, she fears 4 her gud-paying job! ... ofcos, no principal in sinkielan wil dare go against a minister ... dat burger has succeeded in showing parens he can make principals n skools succumb 2 his powers as he throws his weight around ...

parens now noes who 2 go 2 wen dey cant get their way wif principals ... by juz making demselves rook pitiful n painting sum sob stories, dey noe dat dey can manipulate dat stoopig burger 2 their advantage ...

now, he, heng swee kiat, rooks gud lor! ... principal rooks bad, lor! ... other ppl rooks bad never mind! ... he, heng swee kiat, rooks gud can oredi la ... ppl dun nid 2 respect dat principal any mor oso lor ... dey noe dey got multi-million $ ministerz support ...

 

[bic_cherry]

Re: St Margaret's Principal (Marion Tan): life after the botakgate saga.

let's not take the moral high ground here. Rules are there for a purpose - just because eg mosque vicinities are packed with vehicles on Fridays does not mean that there are exceptions to the rules. I've seen vehicles booked near mosques when it caused a jam, ditto for those vehicles parked near funeral wakes, everyone understands but when it causes inconvenience to others, a call to LTA and someone comes on a bike to book these vehicles. It's a given that that emergency vehicles are allowed to exceed speed limits and beat traffic lights...tell me something that we already don't know, duh!

When talking about rules, on cannot help but speak of moral high ground.
In the ideal state, all laws must be moral but laws alone cannot police everything immoral... e.g. there are more minor immoralities that cannot be logically policed: e.g. adultery/ contract breech (normally attracts civil action, not criminal complaint).
As for parking near Mosques on Fridays or funeral processions (walking on road by pedestrians)- that is the concept of hierarchy of laws... the state deems it necessary to allow, for short durations, exemptions to the rule simply because like no-parking rules which are appropriate most of the time, there are times whereby exceptions have to be made for the good of human-kind. Muslims are happy because with the exception, they have retained their right to park near mosque on Fridays, a tradition probably started since rickshaws were used and funeral mourners get to perform essential last rites- infrequent though these events maybe, they are equally important for public order as are the no-parking rules that apply at other times of the day.

Apart from being general guidelines, rules are enforceable, so if one commits a traffic violation - be prepared to get fined unless one has a good reason for doing so. If one is lucky not to be caught (SAF doctrine, thank you), thank your lucky stars but again, one must be prepared to pay the time if you do the crime.
now, let's come to the crux of this issue - the principal did not make a wrong judgement call, there were rules to be adhered to, eg if it states that white shoes are to be worn, then shoes that comes with coloured stripes even if these are predominantly white, are not allowed. This also provides for a level playing field amongst poor and rich students.

Thank you for agreeing that where exceptions to the rule are relevant and sufficient "one has a good reason for doing so" a waiver of the rule might apply. The shoes example is a trivial one which pales in moral significance to that of the cancer cause. Another good example would be drinking fluids in the MRT (even plain water is not allowed), however, MRT has reassured repeatedly that anyone consuming prescribed medications will not be penalized... ostensibly they do not want anyone to collapse due to skipped medication and result in service suspension as the SCDF as called in to perform resuscitation- so where a higher moral cause occurs, rules do bend in accommodation (the creator of rules would have said the same). Ditto talking loudly in the library, anyone who witnesses a fire does not speak softly about it.

Ditto for hairstyles, eg if another cause says for one to keep one's hair till waist length (unless turbanised), what gives? But here is something much more important to be addressed - the element of a promise (to wear a wig after shaving bald). This lesson is much more important than associating with a cause, however strongly one feels for it. This lesson is lost on the girls and going forward, it is not the values that we want for our children. Heck, the girls and their parents may even feel that they are champions now, in getting a minister to reverse the principal's decision (and to her detriment), smug in the belief that a promise does not need to be fulfilled, thanks to the support by the education minister.

Regarding the issue of contract, firstly, it must be presented as evidence, secondarily, who are the witnesses to the contract (duress?). Thirdly, do the girls understand the clauses to the contract... kids are kids, counseling is more important than contracts... in this case I see no counseling made whatsoever. Principal here is behaving as a selfish, oppressive authoritarian, not a leader or guide- her mentality: 'if U really need to, then do your dirty little act and cover it up'- this is not the standard of practice befitting of a school principal.

Also, under age 18, cannot even give consent for sex/ marriage etc, how can one be sure that they even know where to buy wigs? Use daddy's credit card to order online or tell daddy that principal doesn't want the school to know that I attended DPM Mr Tharman's cancer charity awareness event.

The principal should have asked another junior staff to investigate and then escalate the issue accordingly (or is no other staff in school competent to understand the girls enthusiasm for cancer awareness)- if indeed it was the case that no other staff were competent- then the principal, not a naive vagrant, should have properly assessed the students intentions and the authenticity of the event. 'Hair for Hope' is a national publicized event and even "16 schools had participated as satellite partners" with DPM Mr Tharman being officiating at the main event at VivoCity, so the authenticity of the campaign is beyond reproach. What mattered was whether the girls were participating with the right mindset, this was what the principal should have concerned herself wish rather than treating the whole campaign as a dirty secret or one that was obstructive to her undisturbed agenda in running the school.

It is sad also to read bout the principal's first reaction towards the enthusiasm of her students, treating them like convicts first, saints later. "School principal Marion Tan has said that if the girls were allowed to go bald, others might take advantage. "School principal Marion Tan has said that if the girls were allowed to go bald, others might take advantage. 'Can you imagine if I were to say 'yes', I'd have everybody come to school with a bald head,' she told The Straits Times" ['Why make bald stand a hairy issue?'(TNP, 06Aug2013)]- the comment befitting someone managing convicted criminals rather than an educational establishment for teenage students.

No one would stop the principal from personally calling up each girl's parent to better understand the nature of the event and whether they are comfortable with their child/ ward having to spend $70 on the purchase of a wig- by definition a mere cosmetic instrument just to conform tho the unbending school rules that today oddly represent the monolithic cult ego that the principal has since built instead of its purported aim- that for the purpose of creating girls with a compassionate and moral disposition that every girl ought indeed graduate from sMSS with.

The skeleton has escaped out of the closet, its now hard to stuff it back in.

Caption: Ms Marion's skeletons, very hard to put back[pict source]

[pict source]

[pict source]

 

[winnipegjets]

To hell with empathy. Rules are rules and they should be followed to the letter. What's the point of having rules if they aren't enforced in an impartial manner.

Yah lor ...give it to the PAP!

 

[winnipegjets]

agree if it's only justifiable (in this case the parents thought so and did so) but in the context of being politically correct, the bigger picture is allowing school kids to renege on their promise, now this is bad precedence...

Why can't the kids have second thoughts? Don't we want our kids to admit to mistakes and make the corrections?

 

[winnipegjets]

This I wondered too, why did the Minister Of Education stepped into this, when they set the rules, the school principal enforces them. I agree wholeheartedly with you, if she can't enforce the rules..then what is the use of having them? What kind of example are they giving to the younger ones??. Next time around, any enforcement of rules they will go complaining to the Ministry & then to the Minister.

This is a bad rule in this instance. Principal failed to use common sense.

MOE should have left it as it is, allowed the principal to enforce the rules, now she is effectively useless, MOE had made her 'impotent'. She might as well resigned & go work somewhere else.

She could use this as a teaching lesson ...that we should not be afraid to admit wrong and correct the decision.

Did the girls ask the school permission to take part in the charity event & know that, there are school rules with regards to Punk hair styles?? Did the organizer of that event aware of the school rules or any rules..surely they must have made the participants sign a disclaimer.

How is being bald be associated to punk culture in this case?

The school is right in enforcing the rules...the minister should have stayed out of it...just to gain some 'brownie points' made the school rules useless...St. Magaret's might as well throw in out..and each time they want to enforce any rules..call the Minister of Education.

It was a bad call by the principal and intervention by MOE was a good thing. Elsewhere, parents can go to court to force a change.

 

[winnipegjets]

Agree. It really set a bad precedent. Next time parents can all by-pass school principle and go straight to higher up in MOE to get things done in their way.

There must always be a higher authority to appeal to. That's a good system to prevent dictators from thriving.

 

[Fishypie]

..next the the PrincipaL wouLd kena shaVed Botak and maked to wear a Wig..

 

[po2wq]

dammit! ... y muz tis charity force ppl 2 cut their head botak? ...

ppl like community chest, nkf, wateva ... oni ask ppl 2 slip moni in2 their tin cans ... dey never ask ppl 4 a piece of demselves ... chinese got 1 o teaching: 「身體髮膚，受之父母，不敢毀傷，孝之始也」 ... it means ur body, hair n skin is from ur parents, u cannot destroy it, datz ze beginning of being filial! ... y do tis charity die-die make u part wif ur hair given 2 u from ur parents? ... y muz dey force u 2 gif dem sumting ur parents haf given u? ... y dun dey like evry1 else, take moni oni? ...

chinese got another saying: 钱财身外物 ... it means moni n wealth r body outside tings ... dey dun belong 2 ur body ... y dun dey juz take sumting dat dun belong 2 ur body from u? ...

now, dey oredi coz so much prob wif juz 1 skool ... it can oso coz same prob 2 organisations ... organisations haf their organisation culture ... ze big bosses wil surely dun allow their staff 2 show up botak if iz against their org culture ... if dey sack their staff, which minister gonna go n stick 1 leg in? ...

tis kind of charity muz b banned 4 iz weird ways of doing tings ...

who noes, 1 day, sum of dem may ask 4 n arm n a leg from u! ...

 

[Seee3]

dammit! ... y muz tis charity force ppl 2 cut their head botak? ...

....

tis kind of charity muz b banned 4 iz weird ways of doing tings ...

who noes, 1 day, sum of dem may ask 4 n arm n a leg from u! ...

Ya I agree. This is no charity nor empathy. It's just a big wayang to tell the people around that they care.

Maybe one day they will start a cut off the lj or stitch up the cb drive to fight against vice.

 

[ginfreely]

I think the school rules are outdated, girls should be allowed to go botak for any reason... in today age, promise count very little, no need for everything to be cast in stone...

 

[bryanlim1972]

Agree. It really set a bad precedent. Next time parents can all by-pass school principle and go straight to higher up in MOE to get things done in their way.

On the contrary, this sets a wonderful precedent for citizens to challenge unjust rules. Power to the students.

 

[steffychun]

should get vaginal cancer. Then have to shave CB hair

 

[Scrooball (clone)]

Am I the only one who feel that the principal was right?

We have a bunch of asshole kids who think shaving their heads mean a thing in preventing or showing support for cancer sufferers. This is stupid. If kids behave this way then they should have their heads checked.

 

[Semaj2357]

Re: St Margaret's Principal (Marion Tan): life after the botakgate saga.

When talking about rules, on cannot help but speak of moral high ground.
In the ideal state, all laws must be moral but laws alone cannot police everything immoral... e.g. there are more minor immoralities that cannot be logically policed: e.g. adultery/ contract breech (normally attracts civil action, not criminal complaint).
As for parking near Mosques on Fridays or funeral processions (walking on road by pedestrians)- that is the concept of hierarchy of laws... the state deems it necessary to allow, for short durations, exemptions to the rule simply because like no-parking rules which are appropriate most of the time, there are times whereby exceptions have to be made for the good of human-kind. Muslims are happy because with the exception, they have retained their right to park near mosque on Fridays, a tradition probably started since rickshaws were used and funeral mourners get to perform essential last rites- infrequent though these events maybe, they are equally important for public order as are the no-parking rules that apply at other times of the day.
- yes, the road... (pun intended) is paved with good intentions - and as I've stated, perfectly fine and understandable for the above situations, only till it causes inconvenience and then it becomes an unpleasant situation for those being booked and the official issuing the summons, forced to do something against what is morally right vs upholding the law.

Thank you for agreeing that where exceptions to the rule are relevant and sufficient "one has a good reason for doing so" a waiver of the rule might apply. The shoes example is a trivial one which pales in moral significance to that of the cancer cause. Another good example would be drinking fluids in the MRT (even plain water is not allowed), however, MRT has reassured repeatedly that anyone consuming prescribed medications will not be penalized... ostensibly they do not want anyone to collapse due to skipped medication and result in service suspension as the SCDF as called in to perform resuscitation- so where a higher moral cause occurs, rules do bend in accommodation (the creator of rules would have said the same). Ditto talking loudly in the library, anyone who witnesses a fire does not speak softly about it.

- thanks for stating the obvious no-brainer, unless common sense is sadly lacking in these circumstances.

Regarding the issue of contract, firstly, it must be presented as evidence, secondarily, who are the witnesses to the contract (duress?). Thirdly, do the girls understand the clauses to the contract... kids are kids, counseling is more important than contracts... in this case I see no counseling made whatsoever. Principal here is behaving as a selfish, oppressive authoritarian, not a leader or guide- her mentality: 'if U really need to, then do your dirty little act and cover it up'- this is not the standard of practice befitting of a school principal.


- kids being kids are allowed to make mistakes but here we are talking about a promise that's reneged, a main emphasis of being morally upright and self-worth, not just educational pursuits and pedantics. We even educate them at home by having them do something good / useful eg clean your room and eat your veggies etc etc and fulfil whatever our promises to them after they complete these tasks, a small example but significant lesson no0netheless towards contractual terms in its simplest form. As for counselling them, by the same token - I would've counselled them as to why it's important to fulfil a promise.

Also, under age 18, cannot even give consent for sex/ marriage etc, how can one be sure that they even know where to buy wigs? Use daddy's credit card to order online or tell daddy that principal doesn't want the school to know that I attended DPM Mr Tharman's cancer charity awareness event.

- same like you, I would question as to whether these under 18's even know what they're getting into, supporting and associating with the cause of going bald, much less understand the implications of doing so. I am sure their daddies goaded them into it and now pay the price by having their c-cards charged, now here's where counselling is required.

i would not criminalise the principal for upholding the rules and holding the students to keep their promise, much less shoot the messenger.

 

[winnipegjets]

Re: St Margaret's Principal (Marion Tan): life after the botakgate saga.

- kids being kids are allowed to make mistakes but here we are talking about a promise that's reneged, a main emphasis of being morally upright and self-worth, not just educational pursuits and pedantics. We even educate them at home by having them do something good / useful eg clean your room and eat your veggies etc etc and fulfil whatever our promises to them after they complete these tasks, a small example but significant lesson no0netheless towards contractual terms in its simplest form. As for counselling them, by the same token - I would've counselled them as to why it's important to fulfil a promise.

This pedantic adherence to rules is so typically sinkee. It is a rule that didn't make any sense in this case. Why would the 'wise' principal even impose it on the girls baffle me.
The girl committed to a rule but then they realized that they could do more good by showing up bald. So, why shouldn't they pursue that? They did and they got common sense to prevail instead of adhering to a rule blindly.

i would not criminalise the principal for upholding the rules and holding the students to keep their promise, much less shoot the messenger.

The teaching lesson is that don't follow rules blindly.

 

[steffychun]

Am I the only one who feel that the principal was right?

We have a bunch of asshole kids who think shaving their heads mean a thing in preventing or showing support for cancer sufferers. This is stupid. If kids behave this way then they should have their heads checked.

yes you are the only one.