April 24, 2017, 01:59 PM 
Anyone who follows socio-politics on Facebook would know that Calvin Cheng is undoubtedly a polarising character.
Sometimes he says things we strongly disagree with, but on issues like the collapsing of eight JCs into four, we can't help but find ourselves nodding our heads in agreement with him.
Cheng articulated his view in two Facebook posts — the first was on Saturday:
"MOE says that they chose the JCs to merge by geographical spread.
This is PR spin. But PR spin has to be believable. As many have pointed out, Hwa Chong and NJC are right across the road from each other.
It is obvious that the JCs chosen were the least popular by cut-off points. There is nothing wrong with that. So just admit it instead of spinning an incredulous story.
Note: someone has messaged me to point out that all 8 are non-IP non-mission Government JCs. Which explains inclusion of Anderson."
Indeed. We pointed this out last week, too:
Click image to go to our article
Another group of bloggers pointed this fact out as well. Another point they made segues into what Cheng notes: that the schools chosen were all non-IP, non-mission, government JCs.
That's why St Andrew's and Catholic JCs were spared the chopping board, for instance.
ST forum letter
There was then a Straits Times forum letter published on Monday morning from one Ong Kim Lee, which carries this crucial section:
Screenshot from forum letter page
Indeed, why did the MOE open up a new JC so recently (the one everyone is still struggling to pronounce) when now it has to collapse eight JCs into four?
We also want to know the answer to this question.
Which, incidentally, might possibly have been provided by Cheng, in his latest post on his Facebook page: