Basket.

Gay teacher comes out of closet on personal weblog - of course, the media are on to it like jackals. There will inevitably be fallout in the form of angry homophobic forum letters in the days to come. Surprisingly, little outright homophobia was expressed in the New Paper article today; what criticism there was mostly centered around him outing himself on a public site which his students could easily view. It is somewhat encouraging, because for now at least we have been spared that whole shtick about how society has been/will be doomed to irreversible moral decay and debauchery due to the existence of homosexuals etc etc. Unfortunately, there are still problems with this relatively moderate viewpoint that whatever he does in his personal life is his, but he should not publicly out himself and influence impressionable young minds.

Incidentally, that is the stand that MOE took. It is a disturbing stand if you look at it closely. Firstly, it assumes that homosexuality is a matter of choice - which it could well be, but evidence at the moment is weighing towards a genetic cause. Secondly, it seems to treat homosexuality as something of a disease; a disease of the mind which can be spread, as impressionable young teens pick up "the gay" from indiscreet elders. Last of all, it seems to indicate homosexuality as a choice is undesirable - which is really a very backward social attitude to take. Essentially, it is saying that: "Fine, you're gay. We can't do anything about that, but please don't make our children gay too." As if it were a contagion; as if human sexuality were a black-and-white situation, divided into two parts of "LIKES THOSE OF THE SAME SEX" and "LIKES THOSE OF A DIFFERENT SEX" with a line down the centre. As anyone with some knowledge in biology can tell you, that isn't the case. It's not that simple.

For the record, he eventually removed his posting. No doubt pressure was applied on him to do so, and the media circus would not have made things any easier. It just goes to show how backward social attitudes remain: homosexuals are still treated as an underclass here, despite the announcement made years back that gays would be able to work in the civil service. One outs himself now, and the result is a media circus and a classic MOE press statement that contains little of value yet carries a vague hint of menace. It can't be easy being gay in Singapore.

Personally, I believe that our country has quite a disturbing tendency to see teachers as something more than human. Every time a teacher does something very mortal, such as break down in a fit of rage and give an annoying student what for, it is national news. Previously, even a teacher posting and making fun of student mistakes on her weblog made it into the papers. Other people have nervous breakdowns at their jobs, and other people relate humorous incidents that happen to them at work. Why the special treatment for teachers? The old argument runs that this is because they (we?) are responsible for the education of the young and thus must set a good example. True enough, but teachers have personal lives too. They are human and have emotions, pet peeves, prejudices, wicked senses of humour et al. It is unfair to expect them to always be shining paragons of virtue. Give them a little space.

That said, it is true that teachers have to exercise a lot more restraint, if only because students these days are so incredibly tech-savvy. There are always many things which cannot be mentioned, and for very good reason. Unfortunately for us, students don't always know their limits in this regard (I have been fortunate enough that mine, somewhat, do). A little fun now and then - know when to stop.

Towards a fairer, more open, more progressive Singapore.