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

【选举】各选区抽样计票结果【即时更新】

我国投票站在今晚(7月10日)10时正,全部关闭,并在约11时30分,抽样结果陆续出炉。 所谓的抽样计票结果,是指每个投票站的计票助理,在各党监票员和候选人面前随机抽取100张选票进行计算,之后再结合同一选区内所有投票站的抽样成绩,平均统计出候选人或候选团队的得票率。 截至目前为止,所接获的抽样结果成绩如下: 武吉巴督: 人民行动党57%  对   民主党43% 丰加北:  人民行动党 63% 对   前进党…

Dr Paul Tambyah clarifies against allegation made by former NMP Calvin Cheng’s comment, but Cheng still insists in his claim

On 10 April (Wednesday), former Nominated Member of Parliament Calvin Cheng took…

Reconsider CCTVs at Hong Lim Park

Security cameras in park do not bode well for S’pore’s reputation. Leong Sze Hian.

台湾赠口罩何晶“呃…”回应 台外交部:双边政策不受个人发言影响

日前,台湾政府宣布有意落实下一波口罩捐赠计划,将对有提出需求的新南向国家捐赠总计100万片的口罩,这些国家包括新加坡、马来西亚、菲律宾、越南、印度、缅甸、印尼等七国。 此前台湾已捐赠口罩给美国200万片、部分疫情严重欧洲国家700万片、友邦国家100万片等,支援这些国家的医护人员。 不过,我国总理夫人何晶昨日下午的一则贴文,却引起新加坡和台湾网民热议,事缘何晶在脸书分享有关台湾将捐赠口罩给新加坡的新闻报导,但贴文并未提及感谢、评论等,仅以“Errr…”带过。 相信连本地网民对于总理夫人兼淡马锡控股首席执行长的言论都感到“惊吓”,有者留言认为这种反应是否有欠妥当?即便“礼物不合心意”也至少出于礼貌表达谢意。 有者则揣测,有可能是基于早前有传言台湾在宣布禁止出口口罩时,新科工程设于台湾的两条生产线无法及时运返,直至二月初在移回我国;有者则酸台方只是在争取“政治分数”等。 不过根据台湾中央社报导,台湾外交部则回应,新加坡政府当时出于防疫需求,也因应台湾的口罩禁令,当时已将在台湾的两条生产线转移回新加坡。再者,生产口罩的机器设备并不在限制出口范围。 台湾外交部则强调,台湾和新加坡关系“长远深厚,不论政府或民间的关系都相当密切”,也指兩地政府也极为珍惜此特殊友谊,双边政策将持续以政府发言为主,不会受到任何个人发言影响。台湾外交部也呼吁珍惜新台两地得来不易的情谊。