Teacher's termination still unaccounted for

State the obvious, rehash the already-stated and obfuscate with irrelevant stuff. This is the survival kit for politicians who need to duck and evade difficult questions.

The next time you see the Singapore government boast about their honesty, transparency, integrity and so on, remember Lui Tuck Yew's answer to questions by two Nominated Members of Parliament.

The questions were about Alfian Sa'at's case, which had been mentioned in the article Teacher unaccountably terminated.

28 August 2007

MOE rejects about 100 relief teachers a year 
By Jeremy Au Yong 

Minister of State (Education) Lui Tuck Yew yesterday declined to be drawn into the subject of why playwright Alfian Sa'at was rejected as a relief teacher earlier this year. 

However, said about 100 people, or roughly 3 per cent of 3,000 applicants, are turned down each year by the Ministry of Education (MOE). 

The reasons for their rejection vary, though applicants may not be told specifically what these might be. 

Why not? Why is it policy not to reveal reasons? What is the ministry trying to hide? 

The topic was raised by two Nominated MPs - Ms Eunice Olsen and Mr Siew Kum Hong - who tabled questions related to Mr Alfian's case and MOE's criteria in hiring relief teachers. 

In his reply, Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui declined to broach the details of Mr Alfian's application, saying it was not the appropriate place to do so: 'It is not appropriate to discuss individual cases of teachers or relief teachers in this House.' 

If the ministry takes the view that they shouldn't discuss individual cases in Parliament out of concerns for personal privacy, then at least they could have answered Alfian's direct query substantively when he wrote to them in May, and leave it to Alfian to publicise it if he wished.

After Mr Siew posed a supplementary question, RADM Lui responded: 'On Mr Alfian's case, I think the most appropriate thing to do would be for him to engage MOE directly and we can deal with the case on an individual basis.' 

This was really too much. As most readers would know, Alfian did write to the ministry as soon as he was terminated, asking for a reason. It was the brick wall of an answer that he got (see the earlier article) which made his case so suspicious. For Lui to now suggest that he should "engage MOE directly" as if he had not, is most unbecoming.

Was Lui unaware that Alfian had written to his ministry already and gotten an opaque reply? If so, you could ask if Lui is incompetent. Or did Lui know that Alfian had already attempted to engage, but still chose to gave the two NMPs a misleading reply? If so, you have to ask if he was halfway to contempt of Parliament. [1]

Further on,

Asked what some of the typical reasons for rejecting applicants are, he replied: 'Some of them because the applicants do not meet the minimum education criteria. Or sometimes it is really because of a variety of reasons, for example, their past record, discipline cases and so on.' 

[snip]

He gave an outline of the criteria they look for in teachers: 'To be engaged as teachers, applicants need to have the requisite educational qualifications, an acceptable content mastery of subjects they intend to teach, and demonstrate the aptitude and a genuine passion for teaching.' 

Well, Alfian had the requisite educational qualifications, but surely no one expects relief teachers to "demonstrate the aptitude and a genuine passion for teaching"? Was Lui attempting to obfuscate hiring for fulltime teaching positions with relief teaching?

He added: 'The values they hold and espouse are also an important consideration as they are important role models for our children.'

-- Straits Times, 28 August 2007, MOE rejects
about 100 relief teachers a year 

The Straits Times' last paragraph may be the key. I had speculated before that Alfian was being shut out because he was outspoken on politics and gay issues (in Singapore it is impossible to be outspoken on gay issues without being political -- it comes with the terrain). This "role model" excuse that Lui referred to is notorious the world over for its handy use in discriminating against people you don't like.

See also Alfian's thoughts on "Should a gay teacher be allowed to teach in schools?" and his recounting of Francis' story, here. 

* * * * *

 
Journalist Peh Shing Huei's comments hit the nail on the head.

28 August 2007
Straits Times

Debates that could have been... 

By Peh Shing Huei 

A fair amount of business was conducted by the House yesterday, but one couldn't shake off the feeling that several issues ended almost abruptly without proper closure. 

To be sure, there were opportunities for good debate but it never got going beyond the first round of arguments. 

Further down his commentary, he noted that after Lui had said it was 'not appropriate' to discuss individual cases, 

The pair of NMPs did not question this explanation and left it at that, leaving this gallery watcher wondering why they had brought up Mr Alfian's case in the first place. 

I wonder whether the obsession with time-keeping in parliamentary sessions might have had something to do with the cursory way in which issues are dealt with. It would certainly serve the executive to allow only limited time for MPs to question them. But does it serve the people?

* * * * *

 
On another matter, the government gave similarly nonsensical replies.

28 August 2007
Straits Times

Outdoor events by political parties banned

A permit application by the Workers' Party (WP) to hold a cycling event for its 50th anniversary was rejected because political parties are banned from organising outdoor activities. 

This is a longstanding position, as outdoor gatherings by parties have the potential to cause a public disturbance, said Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee yesterday. 

He was responding to Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim, who wanted to know why the WP could not get a police permit for a mass cycling event at East Coast Park. 

Said Associate Professor Ho: 'The East Coast Park is a recreational park for Singaporeans and their families. It is not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause. 

'Apart from displacing the usual recreational users...it is an open area where there is greater potential for breach of the peace, public disorder and unruly behaviour.' 

[truncated]

This sounds awfully like the reasoning used by the government when they banned the picnic and the run organised for Indignation, the Gay Pride season.

Pursuing his party's beef, opposition MP Low Thia Kiang asked the minister why political events in public places were deemed to cause disturbances. 

"You may be well-behaving," Ho Peng Kee said in reply, "but there may be other people whom you come across when you cycle who may stop you, may want to debate with you and that may attract a crowd, and therefore will result in problems the police want to avoid."

Ho is over-reaching, trying to defend the indefensible. There are crowds and obstructions everywhere in Singapore, from sidewalks in front of shopping malls to Chinatown bazaars to National Day celebrations. People jostle and shove. Why is a simple cycling event considered more likely to lead to a breach of the peace?

The next time you see a minister flagging off any event, attracting a crowd with well-wishers, reporters and photographers huddling around him, remember to call the police.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

1. In Parliamentary tradition, lying to Parliament is treated as a serious offence, in some cases meriting jailtime.
   Return to where you left off

Addenda

None