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

Chan Chun Sing deflects challenge by Dr Tan Cheng Bock on live debate, asking them to present their plans to the voters

People’s Action Party (PAP) candidate for Tanjong Pagar GRC Chan Chun Sing…

【冠状病毒19】9月3日新增48确诊 五例入境病例

根据卫生部文告,截至本月3日中午12时,本地新增48例冠状病毒19确诊病例,其中有五例为入境病例,两例社区病例,包括一名本地公民与一名工作证件持有人。 本地累计确诊已增至5万6908例。 入境病例者在抵境后已遵守居家通知。当局将在今晚公布更多细节。

S’pore and HK may expect rise in imported cases of COVID-19 as more travellers flow into each city

In light of the coronavirus pandemic worldwide, Hong Kong and Singapore seem…

应符合国人利益、顾虑群众健康 工人党:召开大选决定宜慎重

有鉴于武汉冠状病毒(COVID-19)疫情肆虐,新加坡工人党昨日(15日)发文告,提醒政府作出召开大选的决定时宜慎重。 选区范围检讨委员会报告在本月13日出炉,坊间根据以往委会公布新选区地图、再到宣布大选的时程,揣测选举可能最早在一个月后召开。 至于新加坡总理李显龙也在14日于脸书释放信息,指何时召开大选将取决于疫情。但也表示“如需要在疫情过去前召开选举,必须采取必要防疫措施,确保各政党能有效率地竞选、民众可安全投票。” 对此,工人党表示无意参与对选举时间的揣测,但意识到当前新加坡面对的状况和过去截然不同,且人们也忧心疫情对经济带来的冲击。 故此,工人党提醒政府,在作出召开大选的决定时宜慎重(take caution and exercise judiciousness),任何决定都应符合新加坡的利益,以及顾虑到国人的公共健康和民主。 不过,工人党放话任何时候召开选举,该党都枕戈待旦,“我们为此准备了四年”。再者该党强调将采取必要防疫措施,确保竞选活动公平且安全。 陈清木:疫情当前举行选举是否合理? 除了工人党,也有其他在野党纷纷发声,表态认为疫情当前应全心抗疫,并非召开选举的时机。…