RI must help students look beyond narrow class-based interests

Chan Poh Meng

PUBLISHED

2 HOURS AGO

Principal Chan Poh Meng delivered a frank critique of the school's efforts in upholding meritocracy. Below is an excerpt of his Founder's Day speech last week.

I would like to take some time to discuss the way forward for RI (Raffles Institution). We stand at an important juncture of Singaporean history. Fifty years into Independence, we are no longer an "improbable country" or an "unlikely nation". We have a public service that is widely admired for its incorruptibility, schools, hospitals, a transportation system and a public housing programme that have served us well.

But there are also gaps and fissures that have emerged in the impressive edifice of our country.

Our system of meritocracy is working less well than it used to two generations in. Families that have been successful financially have been able to create advantages for their children; the PSLE and other gatekeeping examinations are no longer the level playing field that they once were, thanks to an explosion in the numbers of tuition and enrichment centres. An influx of new immigrants into our country, judged to be important for our country's economic health, has led to feelings of displacement among Singaporeans who have been here longer.

The key question for us is how RI fits into all this.

Our current students should not bear the full brunt of accusations of elitism - we as alumni, parents, staff must ask ourselves : what example have we given them in the expectations that we impose on them, in the system that we run, in the way that we treat other people? If we must have blame for the current state of the school, we must each accept our share of it.

CLASS AND COMPLACENCY

As a school, we have prided ourselves on being the jewel in MOE's (the Ministry of Education) crown. For a long time, we have measured our success by how high our PSLE cut-off is, by how well our students do in the A levels, by the number of "top" scholarships and places in the Oxbridge and Ivy League universities they secure. We were comfortably supported by a stratified education system that gave extra funding to the best and brightest.

As a school with its secondary and JC (junior college) entry points defined in terms of academic merit, we cruised for many years with an untroubled conscience, serene in the faith that we were teaching the students who deserved to be here. We were a special school with a spiralling host of special programmes for the gifted and talented. One might ask if we have become insular - a school unto ourselves.

But given what we know today about how meritocracy's effectiveness is faltering, can we in good conscience go on with business as usual?

To our alumni who frequently lament how the school is no longer the school they remember, I want to say, like you, as an alumnus, I, too, ask the same question.

Yet, it is pointless and futile to deny the existence of class in RI.

RI has become a middle-class school - that is the current reality. What matters more now is what we do with this reality and this knowledge.

HOPE FOR ALL, NOT JUST FOR SOME

If we can no longer afford the comfortable illusion that RI is truly representative of Singapore, then the more pressing question that must now be asked and answered is: How does RI maintain a breadth and generosity of vision in its students? How do we continue being the hope of a better age for ALL of Singapore and not just some part, some group, some class of Singaporeans?

Are we able, as a school, to help our students look beyond narrow class-based interests? Our success in this area will affect the health of our country in approximately two to three decades hence.

This was something which the first principal of the reintegrated

RI and RJC, Mrs Lim Lai Cheng, frequently noted. I quote: "Given the numbers of doctors, lawyers and public servants that we produce, if as a school, we fail to instil a wider concern and care in our students, it is Singapore at large that suffers."

The ideals that we have - for RI to be non-elitist, for it to be a beacon of openness and inclusivity - all these are good ideals, but they cannot be accomplished overnight. A long period of conditioning means that we often fail to see elitism even when it is staring at us in the face.

Our current students should not bear the full brunt of accusations of elitism - we as alumni, parents, staff must ask ourselves : what example have we given them in the expectations that we impose on them, in the system that we run, in the way that we treat other people? If we must have blame for the current state of the school, we must each accept our share of it.

The process begins now: The externally-imposed financial austerity which our school is undergoing is both a challenge and an opportunity.

The path forward

In support of these goals, I want to lay out certain vectors to guide the school in the years ahead. Briefly, I would describe these as duty, purpose and gratitude - but allow me to delve deeper into each of these vectors.

A duty to diversity: In saying that our school has a duty to diversity, I mean this in two senses. First and foremost, we have a duty to maintain the socio-economic diversity of our school to the best of our ability.

But there is also the broader sense of "diversity" as a range of different things. When groups and individuals are different from one another and have little contact, there is the chance for misunderstanding to arise and mistrust to fester. I put it to you that this is our wider duty to Singapore in 2015 and beyond - to serve as a social glue between parts of the community that have little or no contact with each other. Between Singaporeans new and old. Between Singaporeans and the community of foreign workers and expatriates. Between rich and poor, the haves and the have-nots. I would like to invite the school to channel its service efforts into these pressing areas.

Thus, let us consider not just the question of who we can serve, but who we can serve alongside, who we can serve together with. If we can undertake such meaningful projects with peers from other schools, then I think the project is doubly meaningful, as it also helps us to move out of our insularity.

Awakened purpose: One of the great concerns that I have is that our students - and perhaps even teachers - see community service as one more check box to be ticked in a string of accomplishments, or as a chore, something boring and mundane, that must be done because the system says so.

There seems to me a better approach that we can take if we see community service as a vital way for us to grow socially, emotionally and spiritually. These aspects often take a backseat because our system has for so long emphasised the intellectual dimension to the exclusion of these other areas.

Principal Philip Liau spoke of (a higher summit). To go beyond acting out of a sense of duty, to acting upon the lived conviction of an awakened sense of purpose. To do what is right, rather than what is easy.

Mindful gratitude: This brings me to the final vector of gratitude. To cite (Buddhism teacher) Jack Kornfield, when our circle of care is expanded, when we recognise the blood of our own family in everything that lives, our heart is filled with gratitude, love and compassion. We receive physical and spiritual sustenance from the world around us; this is like breathing in. Then, because each of us is born with certain gifts, part of our happiness is to use these to give back - to our community, family, friends, as well as to the earth. This is like breathing out. As we grow in interconnectedness, the integrity and responsibility of a citizen - whether that of Singapore or of the world - naturally grows in us.

I am well aware of how hectic our lives are as a school community. We are caught up in a ceaseless cycle of classes, competitions, common tests, concerts and CCA practices.

Is there time for us to become aware? Are we able to make that time, to prioritise it, if we know that this awareness, this growing in gratitude is what gives everything else meaning? That is the question that we must answer both individually and collectively as a school.

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on August 05, 2015, with the headline 'RI must help students look beyond narrow class-based interests'. Print Edition

Behind the scenes: What led to separation in 1965

Edmund Lim 

PUBLISHED

1 HOUR AGO

Was Singapore expelled from the Malaysia federation or was the split based on mutual consent? A PhD student pieces together a behind-the-scenes version of events to suggest it was the latter.

On Aug 9, 1965, towards the end of a press conference after Singapore became independent, Mr Lee Kuan Yew said: "There is nothing to be worried about. Many things will go on just as usual. But be firm, be calm. We are going to have a multiracial nation in Singapore. We will set the example. This is not a Malay nation, this is not a Chinese nation, this is not an Indian nation. Everybody will have his place: equal; language, culture, religion."

Mr Lee's call for unity amid diversity in our multiracial society remains relevant half a century later. Fifty years on, as we near the jubilee year of Independence, it's timely to look back at events leading to the Aug 9 separation.

What were the events and the plans that led to that pivotal break?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew at a press conference at TV Singapore on the separation of Singapore from Malaysia on Aug 9, 1965. ST FILE PHOTO

What happened behind the scenes? Was Singapore "booted out" by Malaysia or was it a mutually agreed decision?

While researching for my doctorate in history, I set myself the task of piecing together, from available records, a picture of what happened in the weeks leading up to Aug 9, 1965.

With the right will, proactive attitude and purposeful plans, we can succeed, even in the midst of great difficulty and challenges. The determination to succeed and the united perseverance to work for the benefit of our nation are among the key factors which contributed to the nation's development.

NEGOTIATING THE FUTURE

In July and September 1964, there were racial riots which led to damage, serious injuries and loss of lives in Singapore. On the economic front, the common market of Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore did not materialise.

In November 1964, the then Malaysian Finance Minister Tan Siew Sin proposed raising an extra RM147 million in taxes.

This could have led to Singapore taxpayers contributing more than 35 per cent towards the federal budget, although the Singapore population comprised only about 17 per cent of the whole population in Malaysia at that time.

Furthermore, the proposed turnover and payroll tax would seriously affect businessmen in Singapore. The Malaysian Finance Minister also wanted to increase the contribution of Singapore to the federal government from 40 to 60 per cent of its revenue.

In addition, there were increasing tension and differences between the People's Action Party leaders in Singapore and the leaders in the Malaysian central government.

According to Ms Tan Siok Sun's biography, Goh Keng Swee: A Portrait, on Jan 22, 1965, Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman wrote to Dr Goh Keng Swee and offered Singapore full autonomy, except in foreign and defence matters, in exchange for Singapore giving up its seats in the Federal Parliament.

Singapore Prime Minister Lee was involved in a series of discussions with the Malaysian leaders but "all these (negotiations) came to nought", as noted by Dr Goh. Dr Goh recalled, during his interview with Dr Melanie Chew in the book Leaders Of Singapore: "In the early days there were a lot of discussions about changing the terms of Malaysia by the Prime Minister, Rajaratnam and Toh Chin Chye. It got nowhere."

On June 6, 1965, there was the Malaysian Solidarity Convention at the Singapore National Theatre, where Mr Lee advocated a "Malaysian Malaysia". This upset certain Malaysian Umno leaders.

Around July 13, Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Tun Razak asked Dr Goh, who was then Singapore's Minister for Finance, to visit him in his Kuala Lumpur home. The then Malaysian Minister for Home Affairs Ismail Abdul Rahman was also present at that meeting.

Ms Tan wrote that during this critical discussion, Tun Razak commented: "We can't go on like this."

LET'S CALL IT QUITS

Dr Goh said that when he and Mr Lee first proposed the merger, they did not expect the situation with Malaysia to deteriorate to this level, "so the best thing would be to call it quits; we should go our separate ways". Dr Goh recalled: "I just want to get out. I could see no future in it; the political cost was dreadful and the economic benefits, well, didn't exist."

Dr Goh proposed: "Well, we leave Malaysia, become an independent state, and you will be relieved of all these troubles, and we would also be relieved of troubles from you. All these tensions that have built up, communal tensions, will all be over. We are on our own, you are on your own."

Tun Razak requested Dr Goh to ask Mr Lee about his views on this matter. On July 20, 1965, there was a second meeting in Tun Razak's office. Dr Goh met Tun Razak and Dr Ismail. Dr Goh said Mr Lee was in favour of the secession of Singapore to become independent. This was to be done no later than Aug 9 as Parliament would reconvene that day and the Bill for the Independence of Singapore would be introduced.

According to Dr Chew, Dr Goh was recorded as saying: "Now on the 20th of July 1965, I met Tun Razak and Dr Ismail. Now this is the 20th July 1965. I persuaded him that the only way out was for Singapore to secede completely."

Dr Goh stated: "You want to get Singapore out and it must be done very quickly. And very quietly, and presented as fait accompli."

Dr Goh commented that Tun Razak and Dr Ismail agreed with the separation. "In fact, they themselves had come to the conclusion that Singapore must get out. The question was how to get Singapore out," said Dr Goh.

In that oral history interview, Dr Chew remarked: "So the secession of Singapore was well planned by you and Tun Razak! It was not foisted on Singapore."

Dr Goh responded: "No, it was not."

Mr Lee stated in his memoirs, The Singapore Story: "Keng Swee came back to report that Razak wanted a total hiving-off. Razak had made two points: first, he wanted Keng Swee to confirm I was in favour. Keng Swee said, 'Yes, provided it is done quickly before Lee's commitment and involvement in the Solidarity Convention makes it impossible for him to get out.' Ismail accepted this point. Razak appeared both relieved and incredulous because, according to Keng Swee, he half-expected me to reject the idea. Keng Swee said I was realistic enough to see that a collision was imminent and that the consequences were incalculable."

Specific plans were made from July onwards. For the third meeting on July 27, Dr Goh took along a letter of authorisation signed by Mr Lee dated July 26. The letter stated: "I authorise Goh Keng Swee to discuss with Tun Razak, Dato Ismail and such other federal ministers of comparable authority concerned in these matters in Central Government any proposal for any constitutional arrangements of Malaysia."

THE SECRET DRAFT

From July to August 1965, Mr Eddie Barker, the Singapore Minister for Law, prepared the constitutional documents and agreements for separation. In the oral history interview with the National Archives, Mr Barker said: "Sometime in the middle of July 1965, I was summoned by the Prime Minister to his office. He asked me whether I thought our Attorney-General could be asked to draft an agreement for the separation of Singapore from Malaysia, and if he did, whether we could keep it a secret. I replied that the Attorney-General was the best man for the job but I was afraid others would get to know about the proposal. The Prime Minister then asked whether I could draft the agreement. I replied that I would try."

Mr Lee recalled: "Eddie drafted the two documents, but I asked him to draw up a third, a proclamation of independence."

There was a fourth meeting on Aug 3, 1965, at Tun Razak's office, again involving Dr Goh. Tun Razak confirmed that Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman was in favour of the separation plan.

Dr Goh also discussed with Tun Razak and Dr Ismail the defence proposals. Few people in Singapore were aware of these plans for separation. The British leaders were not aware of these separation plans until Aug 8.

On Aug 6, 1965, Dr Goh and Mr Barker had a final meeting with the Malaysian leaders such as Tun Razak, Dr Ismail and Malaysian Attorney-General Abdul Kadir Yusof to discuss the draft of the Separation Agreement.

Dr Goh said: "My role as a negotiator was to get the Malay leaders into a mood in which they will accept the Separation Agreement with the minimum fuss and bother… And so far as the drafting and discussions of the actual text of the Agreement, well, Mr Eddie Barker had to do that."

Mr Lee recounted in an interview with Fred Emery at the studios of Television Singapore: "On Friday (Aug 6), my Finance Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee, rang me… He is now Minister for Defence and Security… He said I have to come down (from Cameron Highlands). It was very urgent. So that afternoon, I packed my bag and came down alone, leaving my family up there. I came down that afternoon and arrived at about dinner time… In Kuala Lumpur, he told me, 'This is it'."

BLOODLESS COUP

The drafting of the agreement of separation of Singapore from Malaysia was started in July 1965, at the instruction of Mr Lee. The Independence of Singapore Agreement 1965 was signed and dated Aug 7.

When Mr Barker handed the signed documents to Mr Lee, Mr Lee recalled saying to him: "Thanks, Eddie, we have pulled off a bloodless coup."

In his memoirs, Mr Lee stated: "At very little notice, we had thought of a way to achieve what the Tunku could not accomplish with his own staff because it had to be carried out in great secrecy and the shortest possible time, including three readings of a Bill in one session of Parliament on a certificate of urgency, or it could never have succeeded."

Dr Ooi Kee Beng from the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies stated a key point regarding the separation in his biography of Dr Ismail.

In the memoirs of Tun Dr Ismail, then Malaysian Home Affairs Minister who later became Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Ismail noted as a first-hand witness and participant of these historical developments that "in spite of what was believed, the separation of Singapore from Malaysia was by mutual agreement".

In Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's eulogy speech on March 29 this year, he recalled: "I remember the night the children slept on the floor in my parents' bedroom at Temasek House in Kuala Lumpur, because the house was full of ministers who had come up from Singapore. Every so often, my father would get up from the bed to make a note about something, before lying down to rest again. But obviously he wasn't asleep. The date was 7 August 1965, two days before Separation."

It was indeed a very challenging time.

On the eve of Aug 9, 1965, Mr Lee Kuan Yew prepared the coded messages that were to be sent to three Commonwealth prime ministers to inform them of the separation. The first sentence of the message to the Australian leader went thus: "By the time you have decoded this message you will know that the Tunku has proclaimed and I have agreed and simultaneously also proclaimed Singapore as a separate and sovereign nation."

On Aug 9, 1965, at 10am, the Malaysian Parliament reconvened and Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman explained the nature and details of the Separation. There was a vote on the Constitution of Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Bill 1965 to allow Singapore to separate from the Malaysian federation. It was unanimous, 126-0.

Singapore became an independent and sovereign state.

That morning, Mr Lee explained the reasons for separation to the British, Australian, Indian and New Zealand High Commission representatives.

In the afternoon of Aug 9, 1965, he announced on Caldecott Hill, in the television studio, the independence of Singapore.

In a subsequent television broadcast, Mr Lee stated in his determined manner: "I have a few million people's lives to account for. Singapore will survive."

The separation might appear as a surprise to many. However, it was a mutual agreement between the top leaders of Malaysia and Singapore, with the understanding and support of Singapore Cabinet ministers such as Mr Lim Kim San and Mr Barker.

The other ministers, such as Dr Toh Chin Chye and Mr S. Rajaratnam, were also persuaded to accept this decision for separation. Amid the diversity in the Singapore Cabinet, there was unity.

With the dynamic leadership of Singapore's founding fathers and the strong support of its people, this multiracial nation has survived and thrived, against the odds.

Singaporeans can learn from our founding fathers such as Mr Lee and Dr Goh. With the right will, proactive attitude and purposeful plans, we can succeed, even in the midst of great difficulty and challenges.

The determination to succeed and the united perseverance to work for the benefit of our nation are among the key factors which contributed to the nation's development.

The pioneer team of leaders was made up of talented, capable and committed Singaporeans such as Mr Lee, Dr Goh, Dr Toh, Mr Rajaratnam, Mr Lim, Mr Othman Wok, Mr Barker and Mr Hon Sui Sen. They collaborated and complemented each other, as they contributed actively to the young nation.

During the years after our independence, the evident trust and teamwork among the leaders, together with the support of the people, enabled the country and government to strengthen and grow.

In the final recorded words of Mr Lee at the Aug 9, 1965, press conference at the Broadcasting House: "We unite regardless of race, language, religion, culture."

As we Singaporeans remember our history and celebrate our nation's 50th birthday, let us build on our legacy, plan for the future and work together as one united people, "so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation".

• The writer is a Singaporean pursuing his PhD at Nanyang Technological University.

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on August 05, 2015, with the headline 'Behind the scenes: What led to separation in 1965'. Print Edition |

US plans road shows to help young Asian business leaders: Kerry

US Secretary of State John Kerry at the Singapore Management University on Aug 4, 2015.PHOTO: EPA

PUBLISHED

AUG 4, 2015, 4:17 PM SGT

Chong Koh Ping

SINGAPORE - The United States will be rolling out an innovation road show across Asia to promote entrepreneurship, and its first stop is Southeast Asia.

"Commitment to innovation and entrepreneurship" is one comparative advantage that both Singapore and the US enjoy, its Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday.

He said the US intends to share this model with the rest of Asia by sending senior economic government officials and chief innovation and technology officers from leading US companies to the region on a roadshow to show young entreprenuers how to grow their businesses.

They will also engage government officials how to a favourable environment for entreprenuership and innovation.

Speaking at the Singapore Management University, Mr Kerry, 71, said that trade, investment, clean energy revolution, growing the middle class and connecting these people to the global market place, are the key themes underscoring the prosperity shared by the United States and countries in the Asia-Pacific.

"This is a moment of exceptional opportunity for the Asia-Pacific. We're nearing the completion of a historic Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement on trade...investing at unprecedented levels and promoting high standards when it comes to business practices," said Mr Kerry. "We're doubling down on clean energy and creating the right kind of growth...working together to upgrade education and grow the middle class." he added.

In his 35-minute speech, Mr Kerry said that "economic policy is foreign policy and foreign policy is economic policy", and American business people are some of the best ambassadors the the country has.

The public address 'America and the Asia-Pacific: Partners in Prosperity' was jointly organised by the US embassy, American Chamber of Commerce in Singapore (AmCham Singapore) and the US-Asean Business Council.

Some 270 government officials, diplomats and SMU students attended the event.

This was Mr Kerry's first trip to Singapore since his appointment at Secretary of State in 2013.

He had also met with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Foreign Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam earlier this morning.

From Singapore, Mr Kerry will head to Kuala Lumpur, from Aug 4 to 6, for the Asean Regional Forum (ARF) and wrap up his five-day visit to South-east Asia with a final stop in Vietnam from Aug 6 to 8.

kohping@sph.com.sg