Alfian Sa'at writes:
"I was told that the school had received a telephone call from the MOE requesting the immediate termination of my services as a relief teacher. He [the principal] was unable to give me the grounds for such a decision. When I queried him as to whether this was based on my performance in school, he assured me, in his own words, that 'professionally and pedagogically, we had no problems with you'.
I asked if there had been any complaints made against me by any student or parent. Again, I was told that the school had been very satisfied with my performance, and based on feedback from students and teachers, acknowledged the fact that I had often gone beyond the minimum expectations for a relief teacher—including producing extra classroom material and marking the examination papers. He acknowledged that the school was in a very difficult position, because they would have problems procuring the services of another relief teacher at such short notice. "
If the person were me, I would be extremely indignant. I'm sure this guy is very angry too, but he manages to stay cool and fire off a cool-headed letter to the MOE, but the reply he got was another TYPICAL dodgy governmental answer. No Alfian, I did not have fun reading your correspondence. I was boiling with rage.
Why is the Civil Service like that? Is it that they have a standard protocol to follow (and again, this begets the question on WHO sets this policy) and that this practice is pick one of several "standard" replies and send it back to any letter writers, regardless what the matter at hand is?
The administration who are in the Civil Service are those with a handicap in the language - is that it? I'm wondering if the Government has a reply about this postulation, what with their INCREASE in Civil Service salaries to attract talent and retain existing ones. Are you equating talent to those equipped with the skill to write inane replies which "communicate maximum bureaucratic reticence", in Alfian's words? If so, their salaries really need not be that high - you could hire any JC kid on summer vacation to fill in those posts.
So where are the people who are actually equipped with the proper command of grammar and vocabulary and who are able to better answer queries than... an advanced robot with pre-set generalized replies to respond to ANY kind of situation? Note that I am not even talking about verbal sparring or debating, most people just want a decent reply that actually ANSWERS the questions swimming in their heads!
To me, what Alfian has asked is plain and simple. I reproduce his questions.
"I am thus writing to you to seek some answers.
1) What are the reasons for my termination as a relief teacher? I have satisfied the eligibility requirement as stated on your website, which stated a minimum of 5 'O' Level passes. As a matter of fact, I had garnered ten A1 distinctions for my 'O' Level results. I do not have a criminal record. To the best of my knowledge, I have not committed an infraction during the course of my teaching so grievous as to warrant such abrupt termination.
2) Today I received a letter from the Personnel Division informing me that I have not been 'successful for (my) applicaton'. This of course came after the fact; I had already been teaching for a month. Obviously, I would like to know why this letter is sent to me only after my employment.
3) When your directive arrived at the school, I was in the midst of marking the first semestral exam papers for 16 classes. I would like to know why you had urged my termination with such alacrity, without considering how this would affect the school and the student population. I felt a natural responsibility to review with the students the papers that I had marked. In light of these considerations, would it not have been more humane and less disruptive to provide me with a grace period so as to tie up loose ends before my departure?
4) I can only speculate that I have been somewhat blacklisted—as a relief teacher for now—by the MOE. I do not know the basis of this blacklisting, and whether it was generated via any kind of inter-ministerial communication and information-sharing. Does this mean that I will not be able to enter the teaching profession, and that an avenue for possible gainful employment in the civil service has been forever closed to me?"
To MOE's credit, they DID manage to answer one of his questions - q2! WOW, wonders of an automated generalized reply!
Quote:
"In the processing of relief teacher applicatons, we will usually give provisional approval due to the urgency of need at school level, pending further registration formalities. This is why you were initially appointed by East View Sec from 16 Apr to 11 May 07. Upon consideration of your application, we were not able to approve your registration as a relief teacher. Unfortunately, due to an oversight, the school has appointed you again on 14 May 07. We would like to apologise for the inconvenience caused."
But I think, maybe it's just me, or did I see points 1 - 4 neatly organized into paragraphs, and all waiting to be answered?
However, I read one of the comments at the bottom. And it was enough to chill me to the bone. Next, just to convince myself, I googled for Alfian Sa'at - sure, I've heard of his name, but I'm just not familiar with what he does. And here might be a more plausible reason (although not necessarily palatable) which MOE neglected to include in their reply to Mr Sa'at - reputed in Wikipedia to be Singapore's enfant terrible -that people who are known to be anti-establishment/have alternative views might not be suited to teach our young and malleable minds. Goddamn it, I'm cold, I'm shuddering at the thought of the insidiousness of it all.
If anyone would like to clarify my conjectures with me (I only put two and two together), I will oblige and will be more than happy to answer any queries to my best of my knowledge. I will not be dodgy because... I'm not a "Civil-ized Servant".
No comments:
Post a Comment