Should the police have told school about his offence?
Police arrested him for a sex offence but freed him with stern warning

By Tracy Sua 

In what lawyers describe as an unusual move, police have sent a letter to a school for disabled children, warning that one of its teachers was once arrested for a sexual offence.

Even though he was let off with a warning and was not charged, police said they acted because the man, Mr Paul Fernandez, 42, deals with young children at The Centre for Exceptional Children, which teaches students with learning disabilities.

However, Mr Fernandez, while openly admitting that he is gay, said that does not make him a paedophile.

He was arrested on Sept 11, 2003, for committing an act of gross indecency on the public staircase landing of a private block of flats in Klang Lane in Little India. He admits being arrested, but is now afraid that the police disclosure will lose him his job.

Police did not reveal the exact nature of the offence, but said that 'after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances in the case, and in consultation with the Attorney-General's Chambers', it was decided last year that Mr Fernandez would be issued with a stern warning in lieu of prosecution.

In addition, police sent a letter to the school around October last year informing it of the action taken against their teacher.

In response, the school did not sack him, but instructed Mr Fernandez to abide by several rules, including teaching in a classroom with a window so he could be monitored by staff.

Mrs Queenie Tan, the school's principal, said the case would be reviewed at a special meeting on Feb 15, when it would be decided whether Mr Fernandez could keep his job.

She said the decision would be made based on whether he complied with the rules set for him, and on parents' sentiments.

She did add, however, that Mr Fernandez had not complied with certain rules, such as teaching in a classroom with a window.

Mrs Tan also said his conduct since he was hired in July last year had been deteriorating. On several occasions, she said, he had failed to turn up for class.

Mr Fernandez refutes the charges, claiming that he had not been told about the new rules. He said the school had intended to fire him from the outset and had concocted a story about the rules to cover up its true intentions.

Mrs Tan denied this, insisting that Mr Fernandez had been given a chance 'to prove himself'.

Lawyers said it was unusual for police to inform private sector employers.

'If the person being investigated is a civil servant and if he is convicted, the police will normally inform his employers. If it is a lawyer, they will inform the Law Society. For private sector employers, it is unusual for the police to inform the employer when it is just a warning,' said criminal lawyer Selva K. Naidu.

However, well-known criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan noted that Mr Fernandez had accepted the warning.

'The fact remains that if you have not done anything wrong, you should not accept the warning,' Mr Subhas said. 'Accepting the warning is practically admitting you are guilty of the charge. In some instances, some people will accept the warning even though they feel the law is not fair, to avoid going to trial.'

Police said they had acted in the best interests of the schoolchildren.

'It was deemed necessary to share this information with the school in view of his role as a teacher to young children,' said police media relations officer Rachel Yeo.

Mr Subhas said the issue was 'a delicate matter'.

'The police feel duty bound to tell because of the sensitive nature of his employment and it is quite fair they did this if he accepted the warning and did not deny the charge,' he said.

'The school has given him a chance, but it has a duty to the kids too... I think he should comply with them.'

* * * * *

9 Feb 2005, Straits Times Forum

We refer to the article 'Should the police have told school about his offence?' (ST, Feb 5) and see a need to inform the public, especially the parents whose children attend lessons at our centre, of points not covered in the news.

First of all, the Centre for Exceptional Children thanks the police for taking the trouble to inform us about the sex offence committed by Mr Paul Fernandez, a part-time teacher with us, on Sept 11, 2003. He was let off with a stern warning.

We came to know about his offence only when we received a police letter on Oct 13 last year. Mr Fernandez joined the centre in July last year.

It must be put on record here that in July last year, during his job interview, when asked of any criminal record, he said nothing. He said he needed a job badly as he had to take care of his elderly mother and a schizophrenic brother.

Mr Fernandez told the reporter he is afraid the police disclosure will cost him his job. We are not prejudiced against anyone with a criminal record. If we were, Mr Fernandez would have been asked to leave when we received the police letter. Instead, the management believes everyone errs, and it is divine, not only to forgive, but also to give him another chance to turn over a new leaf and to prove his worth.

On Oct 18 last year, Mrs Queenie Tan, the principal, arranged for Mr Fernandez to be counselled. During the counselling session, Mr Fernandez told the counsellor he was under police surveillance. That night, he telephoned the principal and told her a different story, that he had been robbed but the police had made a gross mistake in their investigation report.

A call to the police station clarified the issue. The fact remains that Mr Fernandez 'was arrested on Sept 11, 2003, for committing an act of gross indecency' (ST, Feb 5).

On Oct 19 last year, Mrs Tan briefed Mr Fernandez on the working guidelines set for him by the management. These guidelines are set to protect the welfare of children at the centre. The main emphasis is that Mr Fernandez is to teach in a classroom with a window where he can be observed and monitored by staff. However, he did not comply and, in one incident, quarrelled with and shouted at the senior teacher, who supervised him, calling her 'sick in the mind' and reducing her to tears.

Mr Fernandez never mentioned he is gay. We came to know only through The Straits Times report. We are not against gays. Whether he is or is not gay is not an issue.

The main issue is Mr Fernandez's poor work attitude. On several occasions, he came to work late and at other times did not turn up for class or inform parents or the centre of his absenteeism. In the last week of December last year, he was absent from work without informing the centre.

Also, on two separate occasions, on Dec 31 and Jan 9, his breath smelled of alcohol when he reported for work. The principal kindly advised him the Christmas festive season was over and it was time to return to the normal working routine. He agreed but never followed up with appropriate action.

Mr Fernandez's welfare has never been forgotten or ignored by the centre. His needy family has often been given groceries. A single bed and a spring mattress as well as a colour printer were bought and given to him so he can sleep and work well.

It is rather disappointing that Mr Fernandez has chosen not to heed our advice despite repeated reminders. We have given him ample opportunities to explain himself, but he has chosen to give unwarranted explanations such as miscommunication and being unaware.

Chia Kok Hwee 
Honorary Secretary
Centre for Exceptional Children

* * * * *