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

Non-disclosure was “due to legal requirement”, says City Harvest

The following is City Harvest Church’s response on the public’s disquiet about…

Sabah snap election: KK High Court dismisses judicial challenge against dissolution of state assembly, polls slated for 26 September

The Kota Kinabalu High Court on Friday (21 August) dismissed a judicial…

设部门日、首相问答时间 马国国会7月迎三大改革

马来西亚国会在来临的7月份,将推行面对三大改革,包括增设部门日、首相问答时间,并准备通过国会服务法令。 国会下议院副议长倪可敏表示,目前的国会过于“浪费资源”,每次开始国会,28名部长无论有无关系都要出席待命,以便随时回答问题。而且,他补充,每次部长出席议会,部门内的相关官员都要劳师动众跟随到国会来,为朝野议员和民众提供最新的资讯。 拒绝“浪费资源” 他指出,目前计划在7月份的国会中推行“部门日”,即在指定的日子进行专司部门的提问以及总结部门法案,例如星期一是财政部或国防部,星期二是其他部门,那么财政或国防部在星期二至星期四可以回到自己的部门和选区办公,相关部门的官员也无需跟随。 “部长不‘当值’的时候就无须出席国会,英国在多年前已经实践此制度,例如今天在针对国防部的提问,15道问题都由部长亲自回答;我们希望可以再7月落实这项措施。” 他分析到,国会每周有4天会议,若将28个部门平均分配,一天就会有7各部门,国会就会把相关部门的问题安排在那一天。部长问答(MQT)时间上,必须是由部长亲自回答,其他环节的提问则可以授权给副部长代回答。 维护知情权 杜绝假新闻 倪可敏指该国国会目前有部长问答时间,但是没有首相问答时间(Prime Minister Time),所以在来临的国会将会设置30分钟的首相问答时间。 这段时间中,首相将亲自到国会回答当周的人民课题,不能授权给副首相代答。媒体和国营电台将会进行直播,以便体现希盟政府施政的透明度,也可以杜绝假新闻。…