In July 2003, Time magazine published an interview with then-Prime minister Goh Chok Tong. "Prime Minister Goh says his government now allows gay employees into its ranks, even in sensitive positions," the magazine reported.

Taking it up, the Straits Times had a story on 4 July 2003, Govt more open to employing gays now, in which the opening sentence said, "Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong has disclosed that the Government is now employing openly homosexual people, even in sensitive jobs." (My emphasis)

Current prime minister Lee Hsien Loong endorsed Goh's position on 6 October 2005 when he said, "I agree with Mr. Goh Chok Tong that homosexuals are people like you and me."

On 10 September 2007, Otto Fong, a science teacher with Raffles Institution, a premier secondary school, was told by his principal to take down a blogpost [1] that he had written just 2 days before. In that post, Fong openly declared that he was gay.

The government, as reported by the New Paper on 13 September 2007, said:

The Ministry of Education does not condone an open espousal of homosexuality by a teacher through any form. This is because teachers are in an unique position of authority and have influence over their students. They are often seen as role models by their students. In the present case, MOE supports the school's handling of the case and advice to the teacher, which is consistent with the Ministry's stance.

Can you reconcile Goh's 2003 statement with the government's 2007 statement? Do we have cause once again to seriously question the sincerity and integrity of our government's words?

* * * * *

 
Interestingly, there's a difference between the earlier version of the Ministry's statement, as published on Fridae.com on 10 September 2007, and the New Paper's 13 September version.

On Fridae:

In  a statement, the ministry said it "does not condone any open espousal of homosexual values by teachers in any form" as "teachers are in a unique position of authority" and "are often seen as role models by their students." 

(my emphasis)

Notice the words "open espousal of homosexual values" in Fridae.com became "open espousal of homosexuality" in the New Paper a few days later.

What might have caused the change might have been a letter by Prof Khoo Hoon Eng, Associate Director of the National University of Singapore's Centre for Development of Teaching and Learning. She wrote the headmaster of Raffles Institution:

As for MOE's decision to ask Mr. Fong to withdraw his blog entry because teachers are role models and should not espouse 'homosexual' values, I would like to know which of Mr. Fong's values that he so eloquently wrote about in his blog are 'homosexual' ones. Were these the values that the MOE meant? His desire to serve Singapore? His passion to educate the young? His not wanting to lie? His desire to stop hate from being perpetuated?

Indeed, Khoo's question was so pointed, one could imagine the ministry quickly changing "open espousal of homosexual values" to "open espousal of homosexuality".

Yet, what is wrong with open espousal of homosexuality?

To be open is to be honest. In every time and culture, honesty is always a highly-praised virtue. Moreover, it is widely recognised that honesty can demand enormous courage -- another highly-praised virtue.

As Fong said on his blog, "I felt that in order to reach my fullest potential as a useful human being, I must first fully accept myself, and face the world honestly.

If he didn't, he'd always be a bonsai tree: "An imitation of a real tree. It is kept in a small pot with limited nutrients, trimmed constantly to fit someone else’s whim. It looks like a real tree, except it can’t do many things a real tree can."

You could sense that he had reached that point in his life, when he had to break free. But more, he also felt that by remaining in the closet, he was not doing his professional best. The heterosexual boys in his school had all the role models they needed. But what about the gay boys?

Despite Fong's long and clear exposition of his thoughts, the authorities evidently failed to grasp what he was saying. Instead they saw in his honesty the spectre of a gay teacher out to "espouse homosexual values" or "advocate homosexuality". In other words,

• To cause schoolboys to think more positively of gay people rather than remain prejudiced. Indeed, Fong's coming out would do that. Actually, demolishing prejudice would be a good outcome, but for the authorities who want to sustain homophobia in society, that wouldn't be desirable in their eyes.
    
• To cause schoolboys to experiment with homosexual sex. Indeed, increasing positive images of gay sexual orientation may result in that. But it would be a harmless thing. After all, countless generations of gay boys and girls have experimented with straight sex; they still turned out gay. Rest assured, even if straight kids experiment with gay sex, they'd still turn out straight. This fear of experimentation only haunts those adults afflicted with sexual insecurity.

* * * * *

 
So why did Otto Fong take down his blog? According to online reports, Fong was called into the principal's office on 10 September, immediately after which he deleted the post. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to assume that he had been arm twisted to do so. As comment #129 said, "I doubt the principal called him into the office just to chit chat."

Such a policy of never allowing any teacher to be openly gay, or to speak objectively about homosexual orientation -- as opposed to always giving the "homosexuality is immoral and unacceptable" spiel -- is highly reminiscent of the controversy over Section 28 in the UK.

This was the section in the Local Government Act enacted in 1988, which stated that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".

While no one was ever prosecuted under this law, it nevertheless caused school administrators and teachers to be extremely cautious when anything touched on sexual orientation, for fear of losing state funding. Support groups for gay pupils were shut down. Teaching materials that failed to condemn homosexuality were withdrawn.

It quickly became evident that not only was such a law failing to promote education -- i.e. learning, thinking, understanding -- there were cases of students bullying their classmates because they were gay and schools felt unable to stop such bullying lest they be accused of speaking up for homosexuality!

In short, Section 28 -- and Singapore's current policy -- served to efface gays and lesbians from society. It insisted that they remain invisible and not speak up for themselves. It even warned off any straight person should he feel moved to voice his thoughts in support.

Eventually, the British realised that by doing so, it left the gay minority open to abuse and prejudice, since saying negative things about them was allowed, but saying positive things would be against law and policy. Section 28 was repealed in Scotland in 2000 and in the rest of the UK in 2003.

Why can't we learn from others ahead of us? Why must we make the same mistakes?

© Yawning Bread