15 September 2007
The Straits Times

THINKING ALOUD
A teacher's disclosure and the issue is out in the open

By Paul Jacob, Deputy Political Editor

We are supposed to be a society that is evolving and becoming more accepting of changing social norms.

But Mr Otto Fong should know that we remain largely and deeply conservative.

Despite what blog- and Net-savvy Internet users are calling a brave outing online last week by the teacher at a top all-boys school about his being gay, there is a larger and quieter majority more apt to regard the recent actions of Mr Fong as some kind of misguided honesty or stunt, one that they worry could cause more harm to those students that the disclosure purports to help.

By all the accounts that I have seen online and in The New Paper, Mr Fong, 38, is an A-one teacher; one who has continued to receive the support of those students who blog, or who have responded to discussion threads on the numerous sites that picked up on his outing.

While he has removed his posting from his blog, reportedly after discussions with his superiors, many others have posted copies, so it continues to generate debate.

There are those who salute his decision and the honesty with which he has put his case across.

It must be a difficult decision to go public about being gay.

But it is one thing to do so to those nearest and dearest - family, relatives, friends - and another to do so on an openly accessible platform like the Internet.

It is apt to spark all manner of responses and consequences, as Mr Fong has now found out - most immediately, of course, in the reaction from his employers.

It is not just in the nature of Singapore society and the variegated opinions that exist here about how we feel towards those who are gay.

The outcome of that debate continues to be moulded, with the loudest voices not surprisingly coming from those at both ends of the spectrum of tolerance.

But in the issue at hand, it is also being shaped by the nature of the job that Mr Fong holds and, with that, the kind of interactions and influence he can have over his classes.

No one has made any accusations and nothing untoward exists about his conduct, it must be emphasised here.

But it is in the perceptions, the fertile imaginations, the what-ifs - all of which colour the discussions.

Let me illustrate with the case of Senator Larry Craig of Idaho in that most often-cited bastion of tolerance and openness, the United States.

He pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in a Minnesota airport men's room after being arrested for lewd conduct. He then withdrew his confession, strenuously denied he was gay, and said he did nothing inappropriate.

But under pressure from a Republican Party concerned about the damage to its image and that of the legislature he represents, he resigned.

Clearly, over there, the private conduct of a public individual matters.

What about here in Singapore?

Mr Fong recognises and has acknowledged that he is part of a profession and an institution that 'moulds the future generation of Singapore leaders'.

What puzzles me is what he hoped to achieve in making his announcement. Was it to demonstrate that there is no shame in being of a different sexual orientation? Or was it to show that there is no bar on what profession you can be in?

Or that he believes that if senior politicians have become more accommodating with the presence and contributions that gays are making to society, then it is fine to out oneself?

Or maybe, as he appears to indicate, he was prompted by a point made by a young adult at a forum about the lack of guidance he had growing up as a gay teenager.

Was that the trigger? That in outing himself, he would be in a position to be of help to those youths in school who may be uncertain about their orientation at this stage of their lives?

If so, what then would he tell those who seek his advice?

One has to question the ability and the appropriateness of someone who has outed himself being able to provide neutral, unbiased advice - and the wisdom of whichever direction it is that the puzzled student has been pointed towards.

His supporters, admirers and students provide strong backing for his continued value as an educator. Some would argue that he is, after all, the same person he was before.

Perhaps Mr Fong's decision to out himself has a simpler and more fundamental basis. It springs from a natural desire to be part of a society which accepts someone for what he or she is. It was a difficult decision that he made.

But this does not obscure the fact that he is the only full-time teacher, as far as I am aware, who has gone public about his sexual orientation.

Like it or not, fair or unfair, that has now changed the dynamics of how he will be viewed by those with whom he interacts, colleagues and parents included.

Ditto, I think, for others in the profession. Because let's be honest about this: Mr Fong is not the only gay teacher in the system.

His decision may not have the well-meaning effect he intended. He should have thought about how it could affect colleagues elsewhere before making his arbitrary decision.

Many here remember the position espoused by former prime minister Goh Chok Tong in 2003 about the Government employing openly homosexual people, even in sensitive jobs.

But in the light of Mr Fong's disclosure, it falls on his employers and, more broadly, the Education Ministry, to manage what fallout there is to come from the episode, including telling the public its stand on gay teachers in its ranks.

Much as I was initially inclined to suggest to Mr Fong that it was best to have let sleeping dogs lie, his decision is generating pertinent discussion on an issue that the ministry now has little choice but to deal with.

Homosexuality and politics

First it was just gossips amongst students. Then comments started appearing on the local blogosphere. Finally, the mainstream media joined in.

Judging from the length of the articles dedicated to the incident as well as the placement of the articles, one would have thought that this had to be an important piece of news; after all, it was on the front page of The New Paper and it took up an entire page in commentary section of The Straits Times. But no, this is no breaking news. It is merely a simple act of an individual coming out of the closet using a blog post. However, it has caused quite a stir and has also started a new round of debates over gay rights in Singapore.

As teenage student, I cannot judge actions of the subject, nor shall I make a stand over issue of homosexuality in teachers and the influence that it has on students. I feel that there have been more than enough discussions on the matter, and it is also difficult, if not impossible, for me, an ex-student of his, to be unbiased towards him when discussing the matter. Instead, I would like to comment on general acceptance of homosexuality in Singapore and how politics, played a part in the acceptance, or the lack thereof, of homosexuality in Singapore

The above mentioned incident is certainly not the first time the issue of homosexuality has been brought up. Indeed gay rights activists have voiced their thoughts time and again. But ever since the last review of the penal code 22 years ago, nothing has changed. Section 377(A) which makes any sexual act between two men an act of “gross indecency”, against the order of nature and thus against the law. The law is still firmly in place, and it is like to remain so for the years to come. However ,the reasoning behind the penal code and the counter-arguments given by the government to defend this code against gay rights activists that perplexes me.

The reason given for the retention of section 377(A) was that, despite an “emotional and divided” debate over the issue, it was found that the majority voice spoke against a repeal, and that it was Parliament’s duty to respect the views of more conservative Singaporeans.

Every time the issue crops up, the gay situation is quickly written off as something that has to develop on its own and something that a majority of Singaporeans are not comfortable with. The recent incident is no exception. “Our society is still a traditional and conservative Asian society, and we must respect the fact that not everyone is ready to accept the homosexual lifestyle” It is the line that is usually used to write off any argument for gay rights. Many gay rights activists have pointed out that following public opinion

Such an argument would have been reasonable, had it been used by the government of a more democratic nation, one that would yield to public opinion easily. However the Singapore government is famous for having its own views and upholding its decisions even if it is against the public opinion. The Intergrated Resort is just one of the more recent examples.

Our government believes that the correct decision, no matter how unpopular, has to be made, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. We have a government that does not make hasty decisions simply to gather more support in order to win the next upcoming election. Instead, our government has always had the courage to oppose the public opinion for the good of our nation, as it realises that the public can often be influenced by the media as well as popular culture.

Thus, it is ironic, if not hypocritical, for the government to use the public opinion to justify Section 377A, since it has never been afraid to oppose public opinion for what it believes to be right and just. It seems that, due to the fact that the issue of homosexuality has no direct consequence on the security or economic progress of Singapore, the government has decided to sacrifice the rights of the gay minority in order to secure support from the majority.

Since the government believes that majority of Singaporeans will not be willing to accept homosexuality, the government, has decided invoke the ire of the largely un-religious gay community rather than to face the complaining (and also lose votes) from religious groups like the Christian and Catholic Churches, as well as Islam community.

PM Lee once said that homosexuality is an issue we have to approach carefully because “some people regard it as a sin” So shall we then starting ignoring the rights of the minority, simply because the religions of the majority consider a “sin”, and the government is afraid to lose votes from this majority? Will this injustice also extend to the other minorities?

Of all these we are still unsure. But one thing is certain. The fact that a minority’s right is being ignored due to political reasons should definitely not go unnoticed, for history has proven time and again that great disasters arise from such ignorance.