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

[bic_cherry]

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

i'll say it again, when one makes a deal - honour it, period. I think you would expect this from your friends and family yes? Whether the girls shaved their pubic hair, exposed their twats and then fight with the principal not to wear knickers because of the itch is not the concern here. That choice, whether Hobson's or otherwise, is theirs alone to make.

Hello, not so simple...

We all know that when U join army, it's implied that you have to take orders from superior... however, there is ample case law I believe to show that is superior ordered U to do smth illegal and you did it... the 'promise'(/rule) that U will obey superior instructions is bogus as an excuse for doing wrong (e.g. excuse by Nazi's that they were just obeying Hitler's orders to kill Jews).

Likewise the rule of not talking loudly in library. This rule immediately becomes secondary to the need to shout to warn others if a fire occurs since the moral considerations behind of each act changes as the situation may be.

Thus whilst it is generally the right thing to follow common rules or existing promises, this is all in the context of the situation being the same... but life situation is always affect by outside occurences... e.g. Bangladeshi clothes factory walls begins to show cracks... workers who made the right moral choice (protect their own life/ family than earn more $$$), listened to their hearts and decided the building was unsafe and willing to sacrifice the job (workers who didn't work were threatened with pay cuts/ retrenchment)- these workers survived, but as for 1127 others, knowing/ unknowingly, they died... so in life, a respect for morals is important.

In this case, the principal's reluctance to participation, let alone the contract she created. The Principal was immoral on both these occasions.
Despite the students efforts to comply, indeed there was no practical reason for them to comply really.

 

[Semaj2357]

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

Hello, not so simple...

We all know that when U join army, it's implied that you have to take orders from superior... however, there is ample case law I believe to show that is superior ordered U to do smth illegal and you did it... the 'promise'(/rule) that U will obey superior instructions is bogus as an excuse for doing wrong (e.g. excuse by Nazi's that they were just obeying Hitler's orders to kill Jews).

Likewise the rule of not talking loudly in library. This rule immediately becomes secondary to the need to shout to warn others if a fire occurs since the moral considerations behind of each act changes as the situation may be.

e.g. Bangladeshi clothes factory walls begins to show cracks... workers who made the right moral choice (protect their own life/ family than earn more $$$), listened to their hearts and decided the building was unsafe and willing to sacrifice the job (workers who didn't work were threatened with pay cuts/ retrenchment)- these workers survived, but as for 1127 others, knowing/ unknowingly, they died... so in life, a respect for morals is important.

In this case, the principal's reluctance to participation, let alone the contract she created. The Principal was immoral on both these occasions.
Despite the students efforts to comply, indeed there was no practical reason for them to comply really.

eh hullo, I sincerely hope that you've read my posts. It's not about following orders in the army (I also hope you are aware that you cannot be charged for offence if you're under occifer orders, but not the point here) and the silly example about in the library....it's common sense but alas, not so common nowsadays.

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

I don't know why you keep on repeating these silly examples, it doesn't help prove your point, ditto when you quote psalms. Refer to post 38 and today's ST's forum for the diff perspectives.

Thus whilst it is generally the right thing to follow common rules or existing promises, this is all in the context of the situation being the same... but life situation is always affect by outside occurences...

depending on the circumstance, if someone dear to you is at death's door, I don't see why not.

Refer post 60.

Lastly, I've stated that personally, I agree that this is a noble cause, refer post 52. Again I say, my point is:
Don't make promises you can't keep, so unless you're not keeping to this principle / value to your kids, family, friends or religion, I'm afraid I cannot humour you any further. Ciao!

 

[bryanlim1972]

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

i'll say it again, when one makes a deal - honour it, period. I think you would expect this from your friends and family yes? Whether the girls shaved their pubic hair, exposed their twats and then fight with the principal not to wear knickers because of the itch is not the concern here. That choice, whether Hobson's or otherwise, is theirs alone to make.

No, i would never expect my friends or family to say yes to a hobson's choice unless its a matter of life/death. it shows weak character and poor cognitive function.

it is clear the girls should never have approached the principal for permission - they should have turned up botak. i hope they learnt an important lesson - don't approach the authorities when you know the answer is no. fight the powers via social media.

 

[Semaj2357]

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

No, i would never expect my friends or family to say yes to a hobson's choice unless its a matter of life/death. it shows weak character and poor cognitive function.

I've clearly stated that in post 60 when it's a matter of life and death.
sure, no one wants a hobson's or should be put in that position - given the choice

it is clear the girls should never have approached the principal for permission - they should have turned up botak. i hope they learnt an important lesson - don't approach the authorities when you know the answer is no. fight the powers via social media.

I think the parents should have used this approach and rocked the establishment, afterall if not stated clearly, one can try unless the pappies say no. As they say, hindsight is 20/20.

 

[bic_cherry]

Following ‘ladylike’ rule to the letter worrying

TODAYonline; voices
Following ‘ladylike’ rule to the letter worrying

FROM STEFANIE YUEN THIO - 07 AUGUST2013.
Hair For Hope is an initiative to support children with cancer who lose their hair due to chemotherapy. (“Case-by-case approach for pupils who want to support causes: Schools”; Aug 3)
They are already devastated by this disease; standing out because they are bald makes matters worse.
Hair For Hope allows members of the public to expr ess empathy and solidarity with these children. It has grown into a movement where awareness and funds can be raised for the cause.
I applaud the young ladies who had the personal courage to be shorn for this cause.
I confess that I lack the bravery to do this. And so I read with dismay and disbelief that St Margaret’s Secondary School had taken three students to task for not wearing a wig to school.
First, wearing a wig defeats the purpose of shaving one’s head for the cause.
Second, it takes even more courage to appear in public without hair than with a wig, which should have been factored into the evaluation of the students’ actions.
Third, surely an act of charity trumps technical compliance with rules on ladylike appearance.
Fourth, it is important that educators espouse and communicate the substantive objectives behind rules.
The rule was to avoid “punk, unfeminine or sloppy hairstyles”. If it was apparent that the reason for a bald head was not a style choice but for a good cause, then the mischief the rule was intended to prevent was not a relevant consideration.
I would point out that, based on the principal’s application of the rule, students who lose their hair from chemotherapy would be required to wear a wig at St Margaret’s.
It is also worth noting that the school’s website speaks of its mission: “Building character” and “inspiring grace” to build “a community of learners growing and glowing for God”.
It worries me that this form of technical rule compliance is the mindset of our leading educators. I hope that this is an isolated incident, unrepresentative of our educational system.
I ask the Education Minister to make clear that his ministry values the sacrifice, charity and community-spiritedness these girls exhibited. We cannot teach our children well if we do not start with foundational values.
A longer version of this was first posted on the writer’s Facebook page. The letter is published with permission.
http://www.todayonline.com/voices/following-ladylike-rule-letter-worrying