by: Ghui/

Joachim Gay Chao Hui, husband of the infamous Rachelle Ann Beguai is currently being investigated by the Ministry of Education (MOE) for making “insensitive” comments against Singaporeans through his wife’s Facebook account. MOE has said through a spokesman that it “takes a serious view of Gay’s reported actions and statements on the internet”. They are currently investigating the case and will take appropriate disciplinary action against him.

MOE’s spokesman further stated that MOE expects its teachers to conduct themselves in a manner that upholds the high standing of the profession, both in a personal and professional capacity” and that the same expectations apply to the use of online platforms. I applaud the speed at which MOE has responded to the issue and if at the end of the investigations, MOE concludes that Gay had indeed made those comments and that the comments did contravene his terms of employment, they should have recourse to take whatever disciplinary actions necessary in accordance with their employment guidelines and his employment contract.

However, I would like to draw attention to another incident whereby teachers have made a similar faux pas.

Recently, some teachers came under fire for making indiscreet comments and making fun of a student on Facebook.

While the comments were seemingly innocuous, parents who have seen the comments have remarked that “it was obvious who the teachers were talking about”. While the teachers were ostensibly having a chat about work between colleagues,they should have been mindful of the fact that the chat was on a relatively public forum and that all of their “friends” would have been able to view the contents of that chat.

Some of the teachers were friends with their students and these students would in turn have known who they were discussing (see HERE). Parents who have been notified of the contents of the “chat” have raised concerns that this could lead to bullying.

Whether we like it or not, bullying does occur in schools. It may not be possible to eradicate its presence completely but measures can certainly be taken to alleviate it. The hazards of “chats” such as these would arguably hamper the school’s efforts to clamp down on bullying. One parent involved in the saga has remarked: “teachers are supposed to be inculcating values in our children, and here they are showing themselves to be doing the exact opposite.”

If Gay is to be investigated by MOE, it would only be fair if these teachers also face the same investigation. After all, both incidents involve teachers allegedly engaging in inappropriate discussions on Facebook. In fact, I would argue that what these teachers have done has far more serious repercussions than what Gay has allegedly done.

The teachers were talking about a specific individual who was easily identifiable while Gay was making disparaging remarks at Singaporeans in general. While Gay insulted our pride collectively, the teachers have caused immense heartache to the student they were talking about . They would also have caused undue stress on his parents.

When contacted, the boy’s father,who was trained as a psychologist and is actively involved in the school as a parent volunteer, said that he was “shocked” and “upset”by the incident.

These teachers could also have unwittingly incited other pupils into bullying this pupil! After all, if the teachers do not respect him, why should the other students?

In fact, the principal of South View Primary School, Jenny Yeo, noted that teachers needed to be careful when using social media, especially since students looked to them as role models.

So while I fully understand why Singaporeans are angry with Gay, I would urge people to also look at the bigger picture and be fair. If the issue is with teachers setting good examples to students, then these teachers should face the same consequences as Gay.

If the issue is with causing harm to Singaporeans, then these teachers have caused more harm because they have actually identified an individual to be picked on. Gay on the other hand, made derogatory statements against a mass of Singaporeans and no individual can be singled out and picked on as a result of his remarks.

In comparing these two cases, I would urge MOE to be consistent in meting out punishment and please, not a trial by media.


Picture credit: linkway88

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

FIFA scrutinises S’pore Govt’s interference in football association

In a report by Yahoo Singapore on Thursday, the world football governing…

【选举】设置特别投票时间 让身体不适者履行公民义务

选举局宣布将会设置特别投票时间,让体温过高、因急性呼吸道感染症请病假,以及在家履行居家通知的选民投票,该投票时间为晚间7点至8点左右。 选举局今日(1日)发文告表示,为了避免造成感染,在和卫生部商量后,将会设置特别投票时间,专门让身体不适者、感染患者、履行居家通知者等履行公民义务。 选举局表示,如若在投票日当天,选民在投票站被测量出超过37.5的体温,将无法进入投票站,不过他们可以在晚间7点至8点回到投票站投票。 此外,当局估计,当日将估计有360人正在家中履行居家通知,他们得在离开住家前,先拨打居家通知热线号码(6812-5555)向当局通报。他们与因急性呼吸道感染症请病假者,只能在特别投票时段投票。 而当日的晚间时,工作人员不会为选民进行体温检测,估计当时投票站工作人员较少,而且会穿上全身防护装备。 清洁工也会在每名选民投票后,为投票笔和其他投票用具消毒。 其他选民还是可以在这一个小时到投票站履行公民义务,但当局建议,健康良好的选民最好避免在这个时段投票。 至于各政党的候选人和竞选代理,亦可以在此时段去观察投票情况,并且无需换上防护衣,因为将不会与选民接触。 投票活动将于8点结束,工作人员届时将会封箱,并将投票箱送往投票中心。

“Most unusual” if LKY’s family was always in charge, Tharman says

“The St. Gallen Symposium is a global gathering of Leaders of Today…

调高就业准证薪金门槛 王腾忆称或“过度保护”本地劳动力

昨日(26日)人力部宣布,将进一步调整外籍雇员政策,包括提高S准证和就业准证薪金门槛。 针对PME(专业人士、经理和行政人员)的就业准证,在今年3月刚提高到3900元。至于S准证,(适用于技术人员)目前的薪金门槛,为每月不少于2千400元。 尽管民众欢迎上述举措,仍提醒“上有政策,下有对策”,必须提防雇主“走漏洞”。 然而,新加坡中小企业商会(ASME)会长王腾忆(Kurt Wee)却有不同看法,据《海峡时报》报导,他认为过去八、九年来,本地企业已面对紧缩的外籍劳动力市场。 他更担忧上述政策对本地劳动力“过度保护”,恐怕会对新加坡劳动力的应变和竞争能力带来负面影响。 王腾忆早在2002年便参与中小企业商会,2004年年仅30岁即任副会长,2013年担任升任会长。他涉足投资和私募股权领域,也在一些政府、慈善获学术机构担任委会委员。2011年,他也曾提名官委议员。 曾提出二外籍雇员对一本地人比例 实则,在2017年的一场公共对话会,王腾忆曾提出本地雇员和外籍雇员的理想比例是二比一,意味着职场上三位雇员中有两位是外籍人士。 “当然2:1比例不是最佳的。但我们也不一定要效仿杜拜,九或10位外籍人士对比一名本地雇员的比例。但将来往1比二的比例发展并非不可想象。” 他当时也宣称,两位外籍雇员对比一名本地人的比例,仍是“可以管控且能赋予企业更多产能。”