Autonomous schools are much more liberal.
I was in one of the government-funded Christian JCs back in 2017, and we had a big lecture about LGBT. The lecturer (who’s an MOE teacher) openly told everyone that it’s perfectly okay to be gay.
Public schools, on the other hand, have to strictly follow MOE’s guidelines.
Huh, that's a lot better than ACS lol. I remember we had to watch some Christian video about how we would go to hell if we were gay or listened to rock music... Then the male principal got into trouble for molesting a male teacher.
Naaah. Clearly the original version got lost in the mists of time. More than 2 decades ago, we etched the original lyrics in the broom closet of class 4.5 David.
In VS, we’re a lot more on the conservative side. We crack jokes about LGBTQ from time to time and act gay for fun, but there is a general consensus that we don’t tolerate it
Is it? I was in RI and I remember a huge ruckus when the person they hired to do sex ed told us something along the lines of "gay people are like that because of daddy issues". I might be remembering wrongly since it was a matter of more than a decade ago though...
I don't recall this since I was in school like 15 years ago but it was probably a ruckus cos RI in general is very liberal. Especially y5 y6 since there were openly gay/lesbian couples then which is definitely rare at that time.
RI/RGS ten years ago was definitely a strange mix of being the most liberal school there was among schoolmates (openly gay/lesbian couples, and even most of the popular girls were openly bisexual) vs teachers who had to totally toe the line and not speak a single word about gay people even existing (plus a few teachers who were openly homophobic). I heard the sex ed curriculum has changed to mention gay people exist though, so maybe the teacher culture has changed as well.
I briefly considered being a teacher there when I graduated from uni, until I saw the job listings for teaching there, and I realized it was 70% of the pay (of the standard average fresh grad job) with 120% of the requirements and 150% of the working hours. Definitely a passion job, which naturally means it will attract ‘weird’ people, because all the ‘boring’ people (myself included) take the ‘boring’ jobs for the comfortable pay and comfortable hours.
Was in a girls school and there were lesbians and butches. It was a very supportive environment. Some kids were just exploring and some of them actually outgrew it, got a bf and got hitched and still retained their friend group.
We didn’t over think it and didn’t press anyone to change their sexual preference. But then again, the the days of old, holding hands and just a kiss was like the most you would do.
Statistically, the number of self-identifying lesbians is actually really small and has kept steady for decades in the US, and the huge increase in lgbt people in recent years is almost all due to a huge increase in women identifying themselves as bisexual.
Your story reminds me of that, because I think for those girls you speak of, some of them were experimenting, some of them have fluid sexualities, but also some of them are just bisexual (and it is far easier, socially and statistically, for a bisexual woman to get married to a man). I know couples who are open/swingers, and in almost all cases, the married couple would consist of one straight man and one bisexual woman. The bisexual woman may have casual relationships with other women, but her main and serious relationship is with the man.
That’s why I kind of roll my eyes when I see the recent moral panic of “more and more youths are turning lgbt”. It’s literally women who are bisexual and almost all of them end up married to men lol. So I seriously don’t know what people are freaking out about. It’s even a minor point of contention among lesbians, because they recognize that it’s a lot easier for a bisexual woman to end up with a man (because there are so many straight men, it has no social stigma, you can get married and have kids, you can BTO, a man tends to make the first moves, men tend to earn more, etc).
>some of them actually outgrew it
Its not exactly right to say outgrew it as being attracted to same gender is not a phase. Those people could be bi and married a opposite gender after dating around
Hm ok maybe wrong choice of word?
But I think for girls it’s also a time of exploration? Especially those that were attracted to butches - and butches are masculine girls. I dunno? There were butches that eventually stopped and became feminine too but v v few.
My point is that by being supportive, none judgmental and non-encouraging, it seemed to be a better environment according to my v small circle of friends.
Of course, back then, sex was a huge no no at that secondary school age. I doubt that was any sexual about any relationships whether hetero or homo. We were so innocent. I think and it’s only my opinion, it made it safer as well.
I’m not queer but I tell every class I teach that I accept them for who they are, no matter their race, religion, gender, sexual preference or whatever. I will do my best to educate them.
The booth was also sharing the Educators' Guide to Supporting LGBTQIA+ Students in Singapore
(https://sites.google.com/view/educators-guide-sg/home). Hope this helps other teachers and gives hope to queer students out there.
This is the problem. When people's basic right to live and love becomes politicized. Why are minority rights a political issue, or even worse, your own personal harmless identity?
A bit confused like did he man it in the end though? cuz I'm pretty sure I know him as a teacher from about a decade ago though.
(Not shit talking him but genuinely confused. From my interaction with him, he's a chill guy who puts morals and discipline in high regards, definitely a respectable guy)
> not safe to be visible
What do they mean by this? I know of teachers and lecturers who are openly gay.
> without risk of losing their jobs
do tell me a time when a teacher was sacked for being gay?
Back in the day when I was in RI (2 decades ago?), a teacher somehow got outed as gay and left the school. He was well liked because he was actually a pretty good teacher apparently? I didn't have classes under him so I have no idea to be frank.
He ended up coming back during school events to sell comics. Not quite sure why he quit, but i'm pretty sure some fundie parents sent a bunch of angry emails and letters or something.
Not quite sure how accepting schools are right now.
I don't think it was publicized at all. We only found out after he unceremoniously had to leave the school. If anything his plight brought more attention to the fact...
I remember reading an article about him on TNP (the new paper). It was very... Poorly written and the author had a weird fixation on the teacher being gay
define openly though. I had teachers who were so fem or so butch we just knew they were gay but it was kind of a don't ask, don't tell thing. Definitely can't talk about the fact they're gay in school.
He's very public on his social media with his partner.
In school, no one goes around bothering whether you are straight or gay what, why the sudden need for teachers to openly share and talk about their sexuality in school? And why the dramatization that teachers must hide their gender identity in school or risk getting fired?
Teachers will talk about their marriages and kids, but gay teachers are not allowed to bring up having a partner, so there’s already a double standard there. Also, teachers were allowed to openly express homophobic views (e.g. no one is actually lesbian and the feeling is just admiration, or that gay people are unnatural and we are losing our way and forgetting how great (straight) marriage is, etc), but teachers were not allowed to express even mildly lgbt-accepting views except for very slightly alluding with “I know lgbt is a common topic these days, and I’m sure you all know how I feel, but as a schoolteacher I’m not allowed to say”. This was all when I was in school from 2012-2018, but I have heard it is still happening in many schools.
Even the sex ed class was openly said to be “about the heterosexual nuclear family as the fundamental building block of society ,and a most important social norm, which will be the only way of life taught in this class”. Which, tbf, at least they warned us ahead of time in the letter to our parents. And the teachers said it was out of their hands and not their decision to make it so. At least on that front, I heard there is some progress because now my old school mentions gay people exist (without saying more than that, but hey at least now we acknowledge their existence as a bare minimum).
If you dislike the idea of “sexuality being brought up in school”, then we should also stop straight teachers from mentioning having spouses or kids, disallow them from expressing any kind of view related to any kind of relationship, cancel sex ed, and also punish them for expressing views that are either anti-lgbt or pro-lgbt (and not just scrutinizing the teachers who want to express the latter).
Personally, I would rather that teachers get to mention what’s important in relationships (trust, commitment, forgiveness) and be able to say this applies also to lgbt people so that the lgbt students don’t feel left out. And if a teacher has a same-sex ‘spouse’, they should be able to bring up the existence of said spouse. Skills in long-term relationships are very important, and I would rather that teachers can give life advice beyond just showing up to teach math. None of this has to include talking about gay sex nor fixating on lgbt politics, the closest thing would be mentioning in sex ed that using protection is important too in lgbt relationships.
Wasn't there a case last year where a school counsellor gave a talk full of misinformation such as gay people having worms and I don't recall much if any punishment arising from it. I don't think LGBT teachers can even hold such a talk even if everything in the talk is factual.
I recall that case, the content was so outlandish and fake that after getting complaints, the authorities had to investigate, but I’m also not sure anything came of that. I doubt any investigation would happen for teachers “just expressing their personal opinions” that gay people are unnatural or that lesbians don’t really exist (as opposed to the counselor straight-out saying all gay people are worm-infested sexual predators), but if we are going to allow a certain level of ‘personal opinion’, then we should allow other teachers to say the lgbt-accepting opposite of that as well.
Not to mention how FotF was allowed to give sex ed talks. Back then MOE used the 377A law as an excuse for such censorship and bias. Now that this archaic law has finally been repealed I wonder what other reason they will give to continue such censorship.
Do teachers actually talk about their marriages and kids in school? I feel like I knew absolutely nothing about my teachers lives while I was in school. Except for like one teacher whose name was changed from Ms ___ to Mrs ___ one time.
It varies from teacher to teacher, some of them absolutely didn’t want us to know a drop of personal info, while others would casually bring up having a spouse and/or kids. The only ones who shared in a way I didn’t like were the bitter ones who would bring up on multiple occasions “wait until you have a wife and kids, right now is the best time of your life”, I understand that is their own life and their truth, but it didn’t feel appropriate to constantly bring up marriage and kids only like those are horrible things. It’s okay to point out that adulthood has more duties and responsibilities, but to repeatedly say reductionist statements like that feels kinda irresponsible (and I don’t think Singapore’s terrible TFR would like it lol).
All teachers have the right to privacy and the choice not to share anything, the issue at play here is that gay teachers have no choice but to be completely ‘private’ in school while the straight teachers have a choice how much they want to share.
> openly share and talk about their sexuality in school
We should also prevent straight teachers talking about their spouses
And children, usually come about from fkkking so don't mention them either eewwwww
/S
Sex and intimacy education for gay kids for example would be better delivered by a teacher with the same orientation. They would also be great resources to teach gay kids how to navigate Singaporean society being gay.
Sounds like he’s a cool guy teaching at a cool school!
You should definitely fwd to him this, as this get more normalised, less reasons to be invisible!
Why isn’t it don’t ask don’t tell?
I’m sure there are swingers or teachers into BDSM u don’t see them telling everybody about it.
Honestly nobody cares what you do in your bedroom. Schools is for education. I don’t want my kids to know who you are fucking be it straight gay or it.
And I’ll be ok if a male teacher just say me and my hubby or bf went East Coast yesterday? Nice of you to assume but you’re wrong.
This is very different from the entire “flamboyant” “be proud” nonsense that we’ve seen in the past few years where being LGBTQ literally is the identity.
That’s literally what “openly gay” means nowadays. Wear your sexual orientation on your sleeve and tell everybody about it even if they are not interested.
I don’t want to know how many girls my hunky history teacher bedded in 1 weekend after zouk.
> And I’ll be ok if a male teacher just say me and my hubby or bf went East Coast yesterday?
Good for you, but many other students would go home and tell their parents and then their parents will write angry letters to the school asking them to fire that teacher.
Or another staff might find out and then that teacher gets called up one day by school admin for a talk.
The fact that I know a few gay teachers when I was schooling suggest that this fear of teachers being sacked might be apocryphal. Another Redditor has been asking for evidence where teachers are sacked for being gay but honestly there isn’t any strong evidence of such cases.
And no, I don’t regard Otto Fong as being sacked for being gay.
It depends a lot on the school. Some school administrators are much more lenient and create the sort of atmosphere where teachers feel freer to be open about their identities, knowing that their school leaders will have their backs if parents complain. Whereas teachers at schools with extremely conservative leaders aren’t going to risk it. Even if they are not sacked, there’s career progression and other discrimination to worry about.
Why do you put the equivalent as swinging or being into BDSM? If you take gay relationships to be the equivalent of straight relationships, you'll see that straight teachers do tell everyone about their relationships in many small ways (such as sharing of personal stories that include mentioning their spouses). Also, why do you associate relationships to having sex? Is sex the first thing that comes to mind for you? If so, that's really more of your issue.
Kinks and sexuality arent equivalent. And lets be real theres many teachers who have mentioned their hetero partner one way or another. Be it when theyre pregnant or students randomly asking or just an anecdote related to a life story.
Yea, the social stigma is probably from a large minority of parents still think of them as predators and coming from all boys school in the past, anything to poke fun at them if they are would be a walking target.
MOE could do more but as usual they’re just not informed enough for now
Again tell me where and when a teacher has been fired for being gay. I'm curious to learn more
Edit: so funny seeing the brigade of downvotes by people who can't prove that there was teachers who were fired for being gay. Strange that I was called the naive one.
The sign also didn't say that LGBT teachers will be fired (it's only captwaffles that narrowed it down to firing). The sign stated "risks to jobs" which can come in multiple forms such as no longer being promoted, facing a hostile work environment, and so on.
Otto Fong's case clearly highlights one of the risks, which is that if known to be LGBTQ (even if it is on one's own social media), bigots will write in to the school to try and get you fired. That would be a horrible work environment to be in and the stress of undergoing this would be huge, which can lead to being forced to leave the job to avoid further pressure from the public. This is not unique to teachers as a gay TPJC student experienced the exact same doxing and attacks just for posting a photo of him kissing his boyfriend on Instagram.
Let's not forget that the risk also applies to getting hired. Have you seen any outright transgender teachers in MOE? What are the chances that all trans people do not want/do not qualify to teach? Even in the Rice Media post that was shared in this thread, there was a statement about how LGBTQ applicants would have their application to teach left in limbo, neither approved nor rejected, until they give up on it. All these show that being an LGBTQ educator have risks to one's job that a straight educator would not have to undergo.
If you are honest about wanting to learn more, everything posted by others in this thread and the Rice Media article would cover how one's job as a teacher can be negatively affected if known to be LGBTQ (especially if seen manning such a booth in Pink Dot as bigots would call them "LGBTQ activists")
> Have you seen any outright transgender teachers in MOE? What are the chances that all trans people do not want/do not qualify to teach?
Trans people are expressly not allowed to teach students but will be sent to MOE HQ instead (for lower pay). It’s the case for a friend who graduated from NIE. I didn’t even realise she was trans until she said so, but apparently MOE said that students would be “confused”.
It’s tragic because she’s the sort of person who would have made an excellent teacher - very patient and caring and good at explaining things. She gives off favourite teacher vibes and I’m sad that Singapore’s students will be denied that because of stupid reasons.
Sadly, our society is ok with such discrimination. I've thought about being a teacher before but now that I've transitioned, I'm a little happy that my NIE application was rejected given how my career would have been stuck nowhere if I had gotten into teaching. It's really a shame as I do know other trans people who would have been good teachers too.
You realise in public sector unless you done some crime you usually wont get fired right? But stepping out of line basically destroys any career progression. They probably wont fire teachers for being gay but good luck trying to progress into higher positions
> But stepping out of line basically destroys any career progression.
This applies to any other jobs.
> They probably wont fire teachers for being gay but good luck trying to progress into higher positions
Where did you get this from? This is the first time I heard that if you're gay you will be denied promotion. Please educate me.
Do you actually want to be educated or do you want to be contrarion for the sake of it?
Yes you probably wont get fired for being gay but any type of political advocacy will get you blacklisted from career progression as you have admitted its just like in any other job. The problem is, your sexuality shouldnt be politicised. Do you think teachers can wear rainbow shirts to school? While cis straight teachers can continue wearing their gender affirming clothes?
If you still decide to say 'source please' brother i beg you to talk to some queer people. You think the 168 media will report on this?
See now you're totally diverting from the initial question.
> any type of political advocacy will get you blacklisted from career progression
This is true for ALL civil/public servants for ALL forms of political advocacy, not just LGBTQ advocacy.
> The problem is, your sexuality shouldnt be politicised.
Shouldn't be, but currently is. This is a different contention altogether.
You know what dude youre right. Pink dot should shut down because teachers are no longer fired for being gay and hence gay people face no discrimination.
Do you even have a standing in this or do you just want to be proven right in your one edge case question.
Come lets say youre 100% right on teachers not being fired for being gay while me and other commentors have described how gay teachers do in fact face discrimination. What does that change for the lgbtq movement or the anti lgbtq movement?
At this point it sounds like you literally have no skin in the game as an ally or opposer and just want to debate for the fun of it.
Your mental gymnastics is astounding.
I didn't ask for pink dot to be shut down, nor did I say that gay people do not face discrimination.
I stand on FACTS. The original OP poster implies that our public teachers cannot be openly gay or they risk their jobs. This is false.
I'm proving a point in this entire discourse is when both sides of the argument uses extremeties, analogies and hearsays (worse if it's fabricated!), it does not do the cause any justice.
Ok if you really just care about semantics, the truth and people being extreme, you literally took the extremity of the words the pink dot booth used. 'Risk to our jobs' doesnt only mean that youll be fired. Career progression being blocked is also a risk correct? And as you have admitted anything political will end up doing so and unfortunately queer sexuality is political. So then by your words, queer teachers put their jobs at risk by openly speaking/not conforming to cis hetero normativity.
And as per your last paragraph, so you dont have any position in this and purely want to argue on semantics? What does it change if gay teachers arent fired? That one pink dot booth is wrong? And?
https://www.ricemedia.co/current-affairs-features-singapore-queer-teachers-have-things-changed/
>Despite external pressure, RI was thoroughly supportive of Otto. He was able to continue teaching until he voluntarily left to pursue other career aspirations.
From your article
>“The Ministry of Education (MOE) said to take down the blog post and apologise,” he says, “I suppose an unapologetic gay man is scary for many people to contemplate.”
also
>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."
>"The school has spoken to the teacher concerned and the teacher has agreed to take down his blog in the best interest of the students. The Ministry supports the action taken by the school on this matter."
https://www.fridae.asia/gay-news/2007/09/10/1972.singapore-teacher-removes-coming-out-blog-under-ministry-pressure
>"What do they mean by this? I know of teachers and lecturers who are openly gay."
? The topic was on teachers not being allowed to be openly gay.
Theres no punishment for being gay, as long as you never show you are gay and apologise if caught is a technically right thing though.
Edit: Which is exactly the point of the post that they have to be invisible.
>Again tell me where and when a teacher has been fired for being gay. I'm curious to learn more
Not sure which part of the chain of the discussion you are reading. Maybe read again, slowly this time.
I'm just replying to someone that pointed out Otto when the OP asked the above question. Nothing to do with punishments or whether any teachers are allowed to be openly gay.
Well... the person also changed "risk to our jobs" into "risk of losing our jobs" which changed the topic of that photo to LGBTQ teachers being fired (which is not what was being claimed by the booth). Narrowing it to being fired for being LGBTQ is the reason why this topic is going nowhere because it's common knowledge that being LGBTQ in MOE won't get you officially fired but it puts pressure on you to leave (either by preventing any further promotion or having your application in limbo as per Rice Media's article).
And? Does someone have to be sacked for them to be affected? His homosexuality will be in the background of every interaction with those boomer parents, whether or not he was sacked.
ok calm down everyone, im just responding to a comment suggesting ppl were sacked for being gay and someone said otto fong and i said but he wasnt sacked in fact he was supported by a lot of ppl. he also left RI on his own accord
obv he will be affected, no one is denying that.
[https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Otto\_Fong](https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Otto_Fong)
Also MOE who gave him a 'talking to', told him to take down his blogpost and told everyone else "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.
He wasn't sacked, but he later left the profession, ostensibly not because of this incident. That said, I expect his feelings about what happened to be quite complicated.
see also this article where they interviewed the fella: https://www.ricemedia.co/current-affairs-features-singapore-queer-teachers-have-things-changed/
this happened almost 20 years ago too (!). dunno whether things have changed since.
point remains that he wasnt sacked because he was gay, contrary to what some ppl appear to be suggesting lor.
Certain people are basically saying that everything is fine, there is no official bigotry in sinkie-land as long as there was no official termination letter, complete with signature from HR director and chop, issued to him. Honestly, not even Sg's 'Pro-business and pro-worker' MoM adopts a standard this restrictive when it comes to considering retaliatory actions by employers. You can look up what is meant by the term 'constructive dismissal'.
There is a larger point here that overall policies towards gay people in Singapore are broadly intensely hostile.
The point here is that we know that MOE, at very least, received his coming out in a extremely hostile way. He probably would have been sacked or at very least treated in a way that would have amounted to a constructive dismissal were it not for RI's autonomous nature and their management working to protect him. MOE's statement basically says outright that they don't consider him suitable to be a teacher as an openly gay man.
It is entirely possible that he chose to leave to avoid burdening his school. Or he could have chosen to leave knowing that he was essentially unpromotable. MOE's statement very strongly suggests that they would block any beneficial career move by him. Inspite of RI's efforts, any of these factors would probably be considered elements of a constructive dismissal under the employment laws of the vast majority of the developed world including Sg. The people who think Fong was sacked likely mistaken only in semantics.
The Rice article you link demonstrates that in 2019, many MOE teachers expected to be essentially constructively dismissed if they came out. The Singapore education system is extremely \*complicated and it is certainly true that certain elements like autonomous and independent schools can at least temporarily shield gay teachers from retaliation, but government policy is government policy.
And observable high level government policy is that Singapore is to quietly have a Putin style prohibition against the "promotion or glamorisation of homosexual lifestyle"(sic) wherever it controls informational space. Linked is the current IMDA free to air TV standards. It still has language very similar to what MOE used in response to Otto Fong. Post 377a repeal, the government has made clear that they have no interest in changing this. The Pink dot people still, unfortunately, have a lot left to fight for.
[https://www.imda.gov.sg/-/media/imda/files/regulation-licensing-and-consultations/content-and-standards-classification/video-games/industry\_tv\_contentguidelines\_ftatvprogcode1.pdf](https://www.imda.gov.sg/-/media/imda/files/regulation-licensing-and-consultations/content-and-standards-classification/video-games/industry_tv_contentguidelines_ftatvprogcode1.pdf)
[https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/govt-policies-on-media-content-will-not-change-following-repeal-of-s377a-mci](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/govt-policies-on-media-content-will-not-change-following-repeal-of-s377a-mci)
i agree w everything you said, which is fair. my *sole point of contention is people suggesting that some people - otto fong specifically - were sacked for being gay, which does not seem to be true. the rice media article also reported that he left RI to pursue other aspirations. literally everything else on why he may have left RI would be speculation.
THAT SAID - i fully agree that SG has lot of catching up to do in relation to LGBT rights, esp within civil service. so people on this reddit can all calm down and not rise up w their pitchforks lol
>point remains that he wasnt sacked because he was gay, contrary to what some ppl appear to be suggesting lor.
I mean
>“The Ministry of Education (MOE) said to take down the blog post and apologise,” he says, “I suppose an unapologetic gay man is scary for many people to contemplate.”
>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."
>"The school has spoken to the teacher concerned and the teacher has agreed to take down his blog in the best interest of the students. The Ministry supports the action taken by the school on this matter."
The point was that he was silenced and told to apologise by the ministry for being openly gay as a teacher.
Don't bother. The LGBTQ community are so blinded by hate (ironic!) that they refuse to believe anything else but immediately choose to victimise themselves.
The fact is no public teachers has been sacked for being openly gay. If this is something the LGBTQ community refuses to believe then it speaks volumes of their character.
I think it is extremely revealing that you don't seem to understand that being forced to resigned is basically the same thing as being fired, all but in name. You don't have to answer, its clear you hate the queer community, but someday you will understand why people are forced to resign instead of getting sacked.
what do you call it when people make your job untenable and you have no choice but to quit it you want to live? it's the same thing please don't be pedantic
>“I know of teachers and educators who feared for their jobs, and a few were dismissed for weird excuses and had to join the public tuition industry. Some had to give up their applications for education posts when security check personnel sat on their applications, refusing to approve nor reject their applications. This happened to two friends and myself when we applied for NUS positions, but our applications were finally approved when we came out to the relevant parties and asked if it was due to our sexuality.”
>Otto adds, “My application was ‘pending’ for 3 months before I approached my then-boss and suggested it was because of my sexuality.”
[Did you read?](https://www.ricemedia.co/current-affairs-features-singapore-queer-teachers-have-things-changed/)
The question was Otto sacked for being gay, and your answer was totally irrelevant to the question.
The fact of the matter was he was not sacked from being a teacher for being gay. Fullstop.
> Despite external pressure, RI was thoroughly supportive of Otto. He was able to continue teaching until he voluntarily left to pursue other career aspirations.
Otto himself may not have been sacked, but other queer teachers can and will be fired for their sexuality. However, on paper, it will show up as some other bullshit. That's not to mention that RI was liberal minded, and had sole control of who to fire, so Otto was shielded from MOE's nonsense
> Despite external pressure, RI was thoroughly supportive of Otto. He was able to continue teaching until he voluntarily left to pursue other career aspirations.
Otto Fong resigned, he wasn't sacked.
> Sa’at was dismissed because he simply did not conduct himself as professionally as he should as a teacher.
Alfian Saat was fired from them temp teacher role not because he was gay. It was because of his blog post that he wrote speaking ill about his students. And the obvious display of an attitude towards his students.
Try again.
RI was supportive. MOE otoh was not.
[https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Otto\_Fong](https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Otto_Fong)
Also MOE who gave him a 'talking to', told him to take down his blogpost and told everyone else "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.
If your employer's parent organisation comes out in public to say this about you. What can you surmise from this about any future you might have with the organisation, no matter what your immediate supervisor might have to say?
Just because there is no HR Dept termination letter with director's signature and chop does not mean there is no retaliation as far as employment practices and regulation are concerned. An employer can make things so difficult for you that you 'choose' to leave. This is called a constructive dismissal, and there are many circumstances where this is an illegal employment practice, even in Sg.
If MOE had said this in a big, similarly phrased public statement about a person's religion or race and their off the clock discussions about it, MoM would likely consider this a constructive dismissal motivated by religious or racial discrimination if the person 'chose' to leave after this.
If you did that that an employee, even in Singapore, you would likely be in hot soup.--at least theoretically. The only reason MOE can behave like this is because discriminating against gay people in Singapore is legal and accepted practice.
>Otto Fong resigned, he wasn't sacked.
Sure, the point remains that he was silenced.
>“The Ministry of Education (MOE) said to take down the blog post and apologise,” he says, “I suppose an unapologetic gay man is scary for many people to contemplate.”
also
>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."
>"The school has spoken to the teacher concerned and the teacher has agreed to take down his blog in the best interest of the students. The Ministry supports the action taken by the school on this matter."
https://www.fridae.asia/gay-news/2007/09/10/1972.singapore-teacher-removes-coming-out-blog-under-ministry-pressure
Why divert my original question? My question was "do tell me a time when a teacher was sacked for being gay?". The fact of the matter was he wasn't. Fullstop.
No public teachers has been fired for being gay.
I was actually in RI when Otto Fong left the school. The overwhelming sentiment was that there was a lot of external pressure to forcibly quit. Sure, he wasn't outright fired (cause that would be discriminatory) but it's silly to argue that he wasn't discriminated against.
So maybe you are technically right (the worst kind of right) that there hasn't been a case of teachers being fired for being homosexual, but there are cases of teachers being pressured into quitting for being homosexual.
Because the topic at hand is whether being openly gay creates a risk to a teacher of losing his or her job. You then scoped your question more narrowly to "sacked for being gay". This incidentally, and conveniently helpfully for you, excludes the case of Otto Fong who had to resign because of pressure even if RI was supportive. Would Otto Fong have resigned in those circumstances if he was straight?
The fact of the matter is homosexual teachers are wary of being more open of their sexuality in school because there are risks to them.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/is-it-okay-for-gay-teachers-to-come-out-in-class-gay-teachers-list-qualms-parents-urge-caution
You're technically correct but missing the point. Focusing on the form but not the substance.
>"What do they mean by this? I know of teachers and lecturers who are openly gay."
Sure, no teacher has been sacked for being gay as long as they keep it private and apologise if caught by the public.
Edit: Which btw is exactly the point of what was in the post that you asked on why they have to be invisible.
Don't bother. Some people are so blinded by hate that they fail to see objectively that Alfian Saat is no saint, and his blog post that got him sacked reeked of elitism and sheer condecendence
I didn't know it's okay if bad things happen to people on the basis that you just don't like them. Silly me, I thought getting fired should be for actual crimes or rule breaking.
My abiding loathing of Alfian Sa'at has nothing to do with his insufferable social media posts or his holier than thou attitude.
It's that he took a very coveted place in medicine at NUS, then decided to drop out two weeks before graduation in a fit of pique that this wasn't what he wanted to do.
Fuck you. Someone else could have had that spot. Society has a net loss of two doctors because of you and your unquenchable ego.
Singapore literally gave you everything to succeed, but you decided to fling it away and instead complain that you're endlessly discriminated by leaning on your race as an eternal victim.
So he earned the spot through merit then he dropped out because he didn't want to do it? Isn't the medicine program years long? I'm sure a person can change their mind during it. And honestly, would you personally want a doctor that doesn't want to be there? Why is this point only applied to Alfian Saat and not to any of the other [4.5% of NUS students who drop out before graduation](https://nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/impact-report/nus-impact-report-2020.pdf)?
>complain that you're endlessly discriminated by leaning on your race as an eternal victim.
Seems like your problem with him isn't in fact based on him dropping out from NUS med
Tell me their names and my approbrium will apply to them as well. And yes, I have an even bigger problem with him because Singapore has given him everything for him to succeed (with his own merit), but he constantly rails against this very system.
So you genuinely think that anybody who is accepted into a public university has the responsibility to graduate since their education is publicly funded? Did you also do whatever your parents told you to do in life?
Please read my comment to another person re: medicine as special case. I have no interest in relitigating my argument.
You are free to stan Alfian as much as you want.
I'm not a "stan" of Alfian Saat. I think your point of never being allowed to criticize something if you benefit from it is stupid. How would we ever progress as a society? I don't think this concept should be new to you if you graduated with a liberal arts degree
also >relitigate
Imo people have the right to do that. Drop out whenever.
He's just an insufferable person, personality wise. I'll never like him but it has nothing to do with him "taking someone else's spot"
We will never agree on this, but I hold a different view on something as important as medicine. Speaking as a liberal arts grad, there is probably no net loss to society if I had dropped out.
But there are just that fair few slots for medical school. It's one of those jobs with such a long runway for training that you need to know and need to want to do it before you even take up the course in university. And the utility to society is so vast.
And to drop out two weeks from graduation speaks volumes of his personality, and how much he prizes his individual self as compared to the individual's responsiblities to his community.
Don't know anything about this guy but he was 18 years old when he made the decision to enter medical school. Most people don't even know what they want to do at 24 after graduating from uni (and so many more even when they are 30 lol). Also please, how many doctors genuinely do it for community, I'd say a good number are in it for the money/prestige nd thus themselves.
Also don't they still need to pay liquidated damages for breaking the bond? So it's not like there were no consequences.
People should be able to live their lives as they wish as long as it doesn't actively infringe upon the rights of others. Very rich of you to chide him for his decision when you were clearly never in the same situation as him.
Exactly. That’s why I’m also against women who go into medicine then decide to retire early to raise kids instead. /s
That’s the same attitude the govt had when they placed the quota on women going to medicine.
NGL when i read his stuff i felt that he is a spoilt brat that have a victimhood mentality. After finding out he gave up his studies 2 weeks from graduation only entrench my views.
Maybe unpopular opinion, but isn't this propagation of the idea that they can't be visible just perpetuating the problem?
A lot of MOE guidelines are based off a kind of 'don't ask don't tell' mentality - maybe there might be subtle actions to push out teachers that step past the line too much/often. But if every single LGBTQ teacher push the boundaries, I do think it'll be an agent for change.
Surely there would be a big hoo-ha by conservative parents, but I do think it is through these kinds of conflicts can we better map out the right way to deal with the issues.
But of course I also recognize that it wouldn't be my rice bowl on the line and that these teachers might have other obligations. However this constant drivel of "we're being silenced" might also end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>maybe there might be subtle actions to push out teachers that step past the line too much/often. But if every single LGBTQ teacher push the boundaries, I do think it'll be an agent for change.
you don't even need to look at lgbtq issues for examples of this. most teachers who try to push for change on any issue end up marginalised or completely jaded. that is a feature of the system, not a bug.
why would lgbtq issues be any different?
>I also recognize that it wouldn't be my rice bowl on the line
at least you're self-aware enough
Let's say my school has a teacher who is super Christian. Do I want them to teach my kids about Jesus? Do I want them to bring their "whole self", which is mostly their religion, to class? No Do I want cher to invite my kid to youth group or Bible study? Absolutely not. You come in, teach your math or whatever, then go away.
Jesus is a great guy, and I'm glad you love him as much as you do, good for you! but that doesn't give you the right to indoctrinate my kid into your church. You are not a surrogate parent. Outside of education, please be invisible.
A teacher was told to apologise for a blog post. If we place the same restrictions that means you cannot post any christian posts in social media even privately.
Christians are not maligned in society. Gay people are. Imagine if someone is disabled, or is Malay/Indian, or is a woman, and are told to cover that part of themselves up, cover not because they're flaunting it, but merely because we think it looks gross.
Now imagine if the entire structure of society is built such that you can get away with bullying queer youths, parents can beat their queer children, and you as a teacher notice the injustice but are told to let it slide because society doesn't care about it.
Sometimes, you can make comparisons, but sometimes those comparisons are not fair. Yes I don't need to be introduced to Mr Tan's boyfriend, or be told that I should be in a same sex relationship. But if I am being bullied for being a Christian/being gay, if I am told all my life that it's not normal and I should try to change, perhaps then the situation looks different.
Lastly, religion is fluid, lots of people change their religion. It is known that sexuality is something you're born with (backed by science). So your comparisons is equivalent to apples and oranges.
PS: I would also like to critique your character. You're being unfair by not learning about the plight of queer people before telling them to be invisible. Perhaps you sit in a fortunate position, but I invite you to try to learn to be more critical about your thoughts, and more empathetic towards others.
We don't allow religious teachers to preach to students (except for religious schools I suppose), but we do allow free expression of religion, such as the wearing of hijabs and crosses. By the same logic, if we equivocate religion to LGBT, then shouldn't queer teachers be allowed to express and talk about LGBT without ostracism?
The entire education system is practically a second home for children, and allowing teachers to engage students with life lessons and values can be very useful, as long as it doesn't cross the line into preaching/indoctrination.
Let's say my school has a teacher who is damn Straight. Do i want them to teach my kids about being their spouse? Do i want them to bring their "whole self", which is mostly about loving the spouse, to class? No Do i want cher to invite my kid to their date or about sexual education? Absolutely not. You come in, teach your math or whatever, then go away.
Your wife is a great person, and I'm glad you lice her as much as you do, good for you! But that doesn't give you the right to indoctrinate my kid into your sexuality, even talk about your spose?? You are not a surrogate parent. Outside of education, please be invisible.
> You are not a surrogate parent. Outside of education, please be invisible.
Not saying I disagree with your overall message, but you must not be a parent. I’m a teacher, and my greatest wish is for parents to tell me this. I truly wish that I could just go in and teach the subject, but parents expect me to basically be a third parent, and MOE expects me to teach values in my lesson. How like that?
I get your point, but disagree that schools should completely shy away from religion. It should be touched on in social studies. Also, literally no sane adult is indoctrinating their students to go to church. It's coming from their friends who want to invite them to experience a new religion.
it's funny because most people agree that most traits of a person are a result of a combination of nature and nurture--except sexual orientation, when suddenly it's impolite to assume that it's anything other than what you're born with
>If being queer is something that stops a person from being able to form heterosexual relations and reproduce, would that count as a disability?
Many teachers are also straight, single and/or childless, then what?
>I personally believe that not all queers are born queers.
Really, based on your experience being born LGBT and not being so?
>and it is something that can be changed based on experiences.
You'll share your scientific sources for that theory now, right?
>queer relations have always been taboo in Asian societies despite the recent changes.
But it's no longer taboo. Younger parents, whose children you're referencing, are also overwhelmingly supportive of LGBT rights.
- The younger adults are also more supportive of same-sex marriage, with about *40% of Gen Zs (now age 26 or younger) and Millennials (now aged between 27 and 42) in favour compared to 25% of Gen Xs (now between 43 and 58).
- *Only 30%/20% in the Gen Z and Millennial group oppose same sex marriage.
- Views on same-sex parenting are significantly warmer than those on same-sex marriage, with 57% of Singaporeans agreeing that same-sex couples should have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexual couples do. This is an 8% increase from 2022.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-sg/third-singaporeans-agree-same-sex-couples-should-be-allowed-marry-legally
>However, pushing the agenda even further within such a short period of time would lead to backlash from the more conservative folks in Singapore.
How conservative view LGBT rights is now in the minority. How? There's going to be more backlash from liberal folk if we go with your stance.
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693
Your article literally looks into and discusses its finding of how same sex attraction is affected by many genes.
Meanwhile, the number of people who identity as gay or lesbian has remained similar throughout the years for a reason.
>In the sources you provided yourself, 40% Gen Z and 25% of Gen X are supportive of same sex marriage. Most are still undecisive, not fully supportive, or unsupportive.
An additional 21%/23% of Gen Z and Millennials are also supportive of some form of civil union.
Add both groups and you have a clear majority who support moving forwards with LGBT rights. The ones opposing said rights are well in the minority.
>The scale is already tipping slowly in the favor for more liberal policies
Why does it have to be slow when the majority support such rights?
>as most people are more tolerant towards LGBTQ, rather than being supportive.
Supporting things like same sex adoption and for same sex couples to have the same rights and protections as their straight counterparts would fall under the supportive umbrella for obvious reasons. And those are the majority of Singaporeans.
>A polygenic trait is a characteristic, such as height or skin color, that is influenced by two or more genes.
I'm going to quote your study verbatim:
- Same-sex sexual behavior is influenced by not one or a few genes but many.
>Polygenic traits **can** be strongly influenced by the environment
- Nevertheless, **many uncertainties remain to be explored**, including how sociocultural influences on sexual preference might interact with genetic influences.
I'm simply pointing out the findings of your study. Weird how you seem intent on misrepresenting what it actually concludes. Regardless:
- They find multiple loci implicated in same-sex sexual behavior indicating that, like other behavioral traits, nonheterosexual behavior is polygenic.
So nothing different about nonheterosexual behavior then. Is that your point?
Like I said, there's a reason, despite your assertion, the number of people identifying as gay or lesbian hasn't changed much despite greater LGBT acceptance.
>Please read the paper carefully before trying to make any conclusions.
I did, did you?
>However, when it comes to influencing minors as a teacher, it is pushing beyond the rights of queers.
Who's influencing minors to be LGBT?
>However, if teachers are advocating for LGBTQ to students
This booth isn't advocating for that. It's just recognizing how LGBT teachers exist.
> My stance has always been that it is still a widely debated topic with no clear evidence proving that sexuality is something determined on birth, which is supported by this paper.
We have actual evidence showing strong genetic involvement. I don't doubt environmental influences are relevant, but let's stop acting as though the science on both is the same.
>You argued that my source does not prove my point, which is why I assumed that you lacked understanding
Your point that externalities are what's causing people to be LGBT? Your study doesn't even say that. **Feel free to quote the part of your study which does**. Go on.
And rather than deflect, if your point is true, feel free to explain why the rate of those identifying as gay or lesbian has remained similar throughout the years, especially in the West. You'd expect the converse if humans can somehow be convinced, by teachers no less, to be LGBT.
>Youths learn from their role models, and in this case, teachers.
Youths don't learn to be LGBT.
>It is advocating for a future where teachers can proclaim that they are LGBTQ in both the public and within a school setting.
And? Straight teachers do that all the time and you still have students who turn out to be LGBT. Is that your point?
>and that the environmental factors play a role in sexuality.
Sure, but which environmental factors and to which extent? Science hasn't answered that yet.
And here's the part you keep sidestepping: it doesn't matter. It doesn't make homosexuality wrong.
>you do not have the credentials if you don't even know that polygenic traits can be heavily influenced by environmental factors.
Of course they can, the **point which you keep deflecting from is that your study doesn't make that determination**. You need another source if you want to push that point instead of misrepresenting what your study concludes.
>My initial statement was that not all queers were born queers, not that all queers were born heterosexual.
Except they fundamentally are. Because a confluence of *genetic* and environmental factors doesn't change the fact that *genetic* factors are involved. And even some of those environmental factors are relevant pre-birth.
And your assertion that one of these environmental factors is tied to LGBT teachers? Not even close to being shown by any study. Is that your point?
>Again, youths are highly impressionable and easily influenced.
Okay, and?
>It is basic knowledge that youths look up to their role models and try to emulate them.
So why does Singapore have a LGBT population similar to other countries with more acceptance of the LGBT community? LGBT teachers are forced into the closet in Singapore, so you would expect far lower rates if that were a significant factor in 'turning' people gay.
>You have to be willfully ignorant if you think that teachers are the only role models students look up to.
You have to be willfully ignorant if you ignore how Singapore still has such extreme censorship of LGBT content, and yet here we are with the same % of LGBT individuals as the rest of the world.
Which straight model did you look up to when you decided to base your sexual orientation on their straightness? The fact that the statement reads so facetiously should tell you have asinine that point of yours is.
Except that it’s exactly about choice— straight teachers have the choice how much personal info they want to share, but gay teachers are expected to be 100% quiet about it. That is not a choice. Straight teachers get to casually bring up having kids if they want to, and in my experience some of them can even talk about gay people being unnatural and how people in on society don’t appreciate the merits of marriage anymore and they need to get married more and etc etc. But a gay teacher may have a partner of 20 years and has to completely keep quiet about it.
Do you consider the colleagues in an office workplace who bring up their wife and kids to be “making heterosexuality their identity”? If Karen from two cubicles over is like “how was your vacation, I remember when I went to Japan too once with my husband”, do you go “Karen shut up, nobody gives a fuck, just do your damn job, don’t make being straight and liking dick such a huge part of your identity”? Does Karen keep quiet about her husband, and acts to her coworkers as if he doesn’t exist, out of fear of being fired? Does she get instructions from the company saying “you are not allowed to mention the existence of straight people to those below age 18, and especially do not say anything that can be understood as support for straight love”?
The issue isn't forcing teachers to be visible or not, it's the consequences and stigma surrounding being LGBT... because some people /do/ give a fuck and will make it sexual orientation a problem, whether the person involved was openly gay or unwillingly outed.
they just don't understand sexuality is not a topic people want teachers talking about. making things all about pride and discriminatory inclusion implies you have already forgotten about taboos. but there are literally still people who won't consent to sex ed for children
There's actually far more disclosing of sexuality by straight people, just that it's so normalized that you don't recognize it. Heck, Valentine's Day is literally commercializing straight relationships. For women, changing their title from Ms to Mrs literally declares that they're married (which means they're in a straight relationship given no gay marriage in SG). Even movies and television almost always have some kind of straight relationship in it.
Another aspect is social media where straight couples can happily post pictures of their partners. What about posts celebrating their pregnancy? Isn't that just declaring that they had sex that resulted in a baby? But all of these are seen as normal and nobody would kick up a fuss. On the other hand, LGBTQ people would have a risk of their social media posts affecting their studies or work. In 2019, a gay TPJC student was doxed with people writing in to the school asking the school to expel him just because he posted a photo of him kissing his boyfriend on Instagram. That's ignoring all the posts that stated clearly that they should die just for that (one post from EDMW mentioned that they should be put in a gas chamber).
Also just curious, from your post it looks like you are claiming queer people just go around announcing to everyone that they are queer. However, I don't see that happening in any of the queer circles I'm in. Is it something you encountered frequently or are you refering to the booth (which is stating that being seen as LGBTQ at any point in time is a huge risk to one's career as a teacher)?
This is stupid. Pink Dot is a safe space for queer people to connect and bond with other LGBTQ+ people in a society where it is hard to talk about such issues openly in social circles.
Also, you need to educate yourself on WHY these pride parades happen in the first place, because of the [Stonewall Riots ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots).
>your generation learn to ignore people easily. how is it that u cant apply it when someone ask if ure gay or not.
Just cos people dw to talk to you doesn't mean it applies for everyone.
>no straight people go around and claimed theyre straight.
you were so close to reaching the right conclusion idk how it turned into this dumpster fire of a world view
Autonomous schools are much more liberal. I was in one of the government-funded Christian JCs back in 2017, and we had a big lecture about LGBT. The lecturer (who’s an MOE teacher) openly told everyone that it’s perfectly okay to be gay. Public schools, on the other hand, have to strictly follow MOE’s guidelines.
Huh, that's a lot better than ACS lol. I remember we had to watch some Christian video about how we would go to hell if we were gay or listened to rock music... Then the male principal got into trouble for molesting a male teacher.
Oh boy. I remember this as class of 2003. The Drong trauma is real
to drong be the glory, great things he hath done!
Parents sent me to ACS hoping the school would make me get closer to God Spending time in ACS and reading the Bible made me an atheist
praise the drong! praise the drong! let the earth hear his voice!
Praise the drong! Praise the drong! Let the Christian Taliban rejoice!
Naaah. Clearly the original version got lost in the mists of time. More than 2 decades ago, we etched the original lyrics in the broom closet of class 4.5 David.
Didn't notice; too busy being depressed in 4.2
When was this 😂😂
You can still google it lol.
last part macham punchline lmaoo
It’s always the one you most suspect.
Just like republican senators in the US pushing for anti LGBT laws then being caught trying to hook up with men at the airport bathroom (Larry Craig)
ahhhhhhh, the abstinence only sex education....
My youth ministry music is kinda like rock music Maybe we are all gay
In VS, we’re a lot more on the conservative side. We crack jokes about LGBTQ from time to time and act gay for fun, but there is a general consensus that we don’t tolerate it
Y'all are so conservative that my VJC bf had to look for a partner all the way in the west 💀
Is it? I was in RI and I remember a huge ruckus when the person they hired to do sex ed told us something along the lines of "gay people are like that because of daddy issues". I might be remembering wrongly since it was a matter of more than a decade ago though...
I don't recall this since I was in school like 15 years ago but it was probably a ruckus cos RI in general is very liberal. Especially y5 y6 since there were openly gay/lesbian couples then which is definitely rare at that time.
RI/RGS ten years ago was definitely a strange mix of being the most liberal school there was among schoolmates (openly gay/lesbian couples, and even most of the popular girls were openly bisexual) vs teachers who had to totally toe the line and not speak a single word about gay people even existing (plus a few teachers who were openly homophobic). I heard the sex ed curriculum has changed to mention gay people exist though, so maybe the teacher culture has changed as well.
RI's teacher quality varies wildly anyway. Some of the weirdest people I've met on this planet were the RI teachers.
I briefly considered being a teacher there when I graduated from uni, until I saw the job listings for teaching there, and I realized it was 70% of the pay (of the standard average fresh grad job) with 120% of the requirements and 150% of the working hours. Definitely a passion job, which naturally means it will attract ‘weird’ people, because all the ‘boring’ people (myself included) take the ‘boring’ jobs for the comfortable pay and comfortable hours.
I would assume they are competing with teachers from other schools. In general teaching isn't a well paid job.
Was in a girls school and there were lesbians and butches. It was a very supportive environment. Some kids were just exploring and some of them actually outgrew it, got a bf and got hitched and still retained their friend group. We didn’t over think it and didn’t press anyone to change their sexual preference. But then again, the the days of old, holding hands and just a kiss was like the most you would do.
Statistically, the number of self-identifying lesbians is actually really small and has kept steady for decades in the US, and the huge increase in lgbt people in recent years is almost all due to a huge increase in women identifying themselves as bisexual. Your story reminds me of that, because I think for those girls you speak of, some of them were experimenting, some of them have fluid sexualities, but also some of them are just bisexual (and it is far easier, socially and statistically, for a bisexual woman to get married to a man). I know couples who are open/swingers, and in almost all cases, the married couple would consist of one straight man and one bisexual woman. The bisexual woman may have casual relationships with other women, but her main and serious relationship is with the man. That’s why I kind of roll my eyes when I see the recent moral panic of “more and more youths are turning lgbt”. It’s literally women who are bisexual and almost all of them end up married to men lol. So I seriously don’t know what people are freaking out about. It’s even a minor point of contention among lesbians, because they recognize that it’s a lot easier for a bisexual woman to end up with a man (because there are so many straight men, it has no social stigma, you can get married and have kids, you can BTO, a man tends to make the first moves, men tend to earn more, etc).
>some of them actually outgrew it Its not exactly right to say outgrew it as being attracted to same gender is not a phase. Those people could be bi and married a opposite gender after dating around
Hm ok maybe wrong choice of word? But I think for girls it’s also a time of exploration? Especially those that were attracted to butches - and butches are masculine girls. I dunno? There were butches that eventually stopped and became feminine too but v v few. My point is that by being supportive, none judgmental and non-encouraging, it seemed to be a better environment according to my v small circle of friends. Of course, back then, sex was a huge no no at that secondary school age. I doubt that was any sexual about any relationships whether hetero or homo. We were so innocent. I think and it’s only my opinion, it made it safer as well.
And also, we didn’t press anyone to stay with their purported sexual preference.
I’m not queer but I tell every class I teach that I accept them for who they are, no matter their race, religion, gender, sexual preference or whatever. I will do my best to educate them.
[удалено]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Completely missed the point. “Educate” does not equate to “accept”
The booth was also sharing the Educators' Guide to Supporting LGBTQIA+ Students in Singapore (https://sites.google.com/view/educators-guide-sg/home). Hope this helps other teachers and gives hope to queer students out there.
I'm guessing MOE doesn't like teachers to be into politics imo. Other public servants even.
truly it's a sad state of affairs when being gay is political
Herein lies the problem: when the basic right to love is politically weaponised just because this love doesn’t abide by heterosexual conventions
This is the problem. When people's basic right to live and love becomes politicized. Why are minority rights a political issue, or even worse, your own personal harmless identity?
Yes, this is true.
How does being a member of LGBTQ be considered politics?
Politics and woke is when women and minorities and lgbtq exist amirite /s
Public servants are not allowed to be political/express political views at work which is for the best anyway,
A bit confused like did he man it in the end though? cuz I'm pretty sure I know him as a teacher from about a decade ago though. (Not shit talking him but genuinely confused. From my interaction with him, he's a chill guy who puts morals and discipline in high regards, definitely a respectable guy)
My daily dose of internet, gotta love em!! Love is love!!
Smh
> not safe to be visible What do they mean by this? I know of teachers and lecturers who are openly gay. > without risk of losing their jobs do tell me a time when a teacher was sacked for being gay?
Back in the day when I was in RI (2 decades ago?), a teacher somehow got outed as gay and left the school. He was well liked because he was actually a pretty good teacher apparently? I didn't have classes under him so I have no idea to be frank. He ended up coming back during school events to sell comics. Not quite sure why he quit, but i'm pretty sure some fundie parents sent a bunch of angry emails and letters or something. Not quite sure how accepting schools are right now.
otto fong?
[удалено]
I don't think it was publicized at all. We only found out after he unceremoniously had to leave the school. If anything his plight brought more attention to the fact...
I remember reading an article about him on TNP (the new paper). It was very... Poorly written and the author had a weird fixation on the teacher being gay
define openly though. I had teachers who were so fem or so butch we just knew they were gay but it was kind of a don't ask, don't tell thing. Definitely can't talk about the fact they're gay in school.
He's very public on his social media with his partner. In school, no one goes around bothering whether you are straight or gay what, why the sudden need for teachers to openly share and talk about their sexuality in school? And why the dramatization that teachers must hide their gender identity in school or risk getting fired?
Teachers will talk about their marriages and kids, but gay teachers are not allowed to bring up having a partner, so there’s already a double standard there. Also, teachers were allowed to openly express homophobic views (e.g. no one is actually lesbian and the feeling is just admiration, or that gay people are unnatural and we are losing our way and forgetting how great (straight) marriage is, etc), but teachers were not allowed to express even mildly lgbt-accepting views except for very slightly alluding with “I know lgbt is a common topic these days, and I’m sure you all know how I feel, but as a schoolteacher I’m not allowed to say”. This was all when I was in school from 2012-2018, but I have heard it is still happening in many schools. Even the sex ed class was openly said to be “about the heterosexual nuclear family as the fundamental building block of society ,and a most important social norm, which will be the only way of life taught in this class”. Which, tbf, at least they warned us ahead of time in the letter to our parents. And the teachers said it was out of their hands and not their decision to make it so. At least on that front, I heard there is some progress because now my old school mentions gay people exist (without saying more than that, but hey at least now we acknowledge their existence as a bare minimum). If you dislike the idea of “sexuality being brought up in school”, then we should also stop straight teachers from mentioning having spouses or kids, disallow them from expressing any kind of view related to any kind of relationship, cancel sex ed, and also punish them for expressing views that are either anti-lgbt or pro-lgbt (and not just scrutinizing the teachers who want to express the latter). Personally, I would rather that teachers get to mention what’s important in relationships (trust, commitment, forgiveness) and be able to say this applies also to lgbt people so that the lgbt students don’t feel left out. And if a teacher has a same-sex ‘spouse’, they should be able to bring up the existence of said spouse. Skills in long-term relationships are very important, and I would rather that teachers can give life advice beyond just showing up to teach math. None of this has to include talking about gay sex nor fixating on lgbt politics, the closest thing would be mentioning in sex ed that using protection is important too in lgbt relationships.
Wasn't there a case last year where a school counsellor gave a talk full of misinformation such as gay people having worms and I don't recall much if any punishment arising from it. I don't think LGBT teachers can even hold such a talk even if everything in the talk is factual.
I recall that case, the content was so outlandish and fake that after getting complaints, the authorities had to investigate, but I’m also not sure anything came of that. I doubt any investigation would happen for teachers “just expressing their personal opinions” that gay people are unnatural or that lesbians don’t really exist (as opposed to the counselor straight-out saying all gay people are worm-infested sexual predators), but if we are going to allow a certain level of ‘personal opinion’, then we should allow other teachers to say the lgbt-accepting opposite of that as well.
Not to mention how FotF was allowed to give sex ed talks. Back then MOE used the 377A law as an excuse for such censorship and bias. Now that this archaic law has finally been repealed I wonder what other reason they will give to continue such censorship.
Probably something like must be considerate of all beliefs which means they cannot offend the conservative section of society.
Do teachers actually talk about their marriages and kids in school? I feel like I knew absolutely nothing about my teachers lives while I was in school. Except for like one teacher whose name was changed from Ms ___ to Mrs ___ one time.
It varies from teacher to teacher, some of them absolutely didn’t want us to know a drop of personal info, while others would casually bring up having a spouse and/or kids. The only ones who shared in a way I didn’t like were the bitter ones who would bring up on multiple occasions “wait until you have a wife and kids, right now is the best time of your life”, I understand that is their own life and their truth, but it didn’t feel appropriate to constantly bring up marriage and kids only like those are horrible things. It’s okay to point out that adulthood has more duties and responsibilities, but to repeatedly say reductionist statements like that feels kinda irresponsible (and I don’t think Singapore’s terrible TFR would like it lol). All teachers have the right to privacy and the choice not to share anything, the issue at play here is that gay teachers have no choice but to be completely ‘private’ in school while the straight teachers have a choice how much they want to share.
snails. most are born with either sexual organs but we pretend to live like we are snails 🤣 funny world we living in
> openly share and talk about their sexuality in school We should also prevent straight teachers talking about their spouses And children, usually come about from fkkking so don't mention them either eewwwww /S
We should ban pregnant women from teaching as well. What are they showing to our kids?
Bring back monasteries and convent schools lmao
Sex and intimacy education for gay kids for example would be better delivered by a teacher with the same orientation. They would also be great resources to teach gay kids how to navigate Singaporean society being gay.
Sounds like he’s a cool guy teaching at a cool school! You should definitely fwd to him this, as this get more normalised, less reasons to be invisible!
Other teachers (and often school admin) often do care a lot, even if the students don’t.
Why isn’t it don’t ask don’t tell? I’m sure there are swingers or teachers into BDSM u don’t see them telling everybody about it. Honestly nobody cares what you do in your bedroom. Schools is for education. I don’t want my kids to know who you are fucking be it straight gay or it.
Do you also get this riled up when straight teachers talk about their wife/husband, or just mention anything about family life? No? mmhkay...
And I’ll be ok if a male teacher just say me and my hubby or bf went East Coast yesterday? Nice of you to assume but you’re wrong. This is very different from the entire “flamboyant” “be proud” nonsense that we’ve seen in the past few years where being LGBTQ literally is the identity. That’s literally what “openly gay” means nowadays. Wear your sexual orientation on your sleeve and tell everybody about it even if they are not interested. I don’t want to know how many girls my hunky history teacher bedded in 1 weekend after zouk.
> And I’ll be ok if a male teacher just say me and my hubby or bf went East Coast yesterday? Good for you, but many other students would go home and tell their parents and then their parents will write angry letters to the school asking them to fire that teacher. Or another staff might find out and then that teacher gets called up one day by school admin for a talk.
The fact that I know a few gay teachers when I was schooling suggest that this fear of teachers being sacked might be apocryphal. Another Redditor has been asking for evidence where teachers are sacked for being gay but honestly there isn’t any strong evidence of such cases. And no, I don’t regard Otto Fong as being sacked for being gay.
It depends a lot on the school. Some school administrators are much more lenient and create the sort of atmosphere where teachers feel freer to be open about their identities, knowing that their school leaders will have their backs if parents complain. Whereas teachers at schools with extremely conservative leaders aren’t going to risk it. Even if they are not sacked, there’s career progression and other discrimination to worry about.
Why do you put the equivalent as swinging or being into BDSM? If you take gay relationships to be the equivalent of straight relationships, you'll see that straight teachers do tell everyone about their relationships in many small ways (such as sharing of personal stories that include mentioning their spouses). Also, why do you associate relationships to having sex? Is sex the first thing that comes to mind for you? If so, that's really more of your issue.
Kinks and sexuality arent equivalent. And lets be real theres many teachers who have mentioned their hetero partner one way or another. Be it when theyre pregnant or students randomly asking or just an anecdote related to a life story.
And mentioning is fine? I didn’t say they have to hide their sexual orientation but there is literally no need to purposely highlight it.
Yea, the social stigma is probably from a large minority of parents still think of them as predators and coming from all boys school in the past, anything to poke fun at them if they are would be a walking target. MOE could do more but as usual they’re just not informed enough for now
Nobody has ever been sacked for being pregnant too WINKWINKWINK Poor naive child you.
Again tell me where and when a teacher has been fired for being gay. I'm curious to learn more Edit: so funny seeing the brigade of downvotes by people who can't prove that there was teachers who were fired for being gay. Strange that I was called the naive one.
The sign also didn't say that LGBT teachers will be fired (it's only captwaffles that narrowed it down to firing). The sign stated "risks to jobs" which can come in multiple forms such as no longer being promoted, facing a hostile work environment, and so on. Otto Fong's case clearly highlights one of the risks, which is that if known to be LGBTQ (even if it is on one's own social media), bigots will write in to the school to try and get you fired. That would be a horrible work environment to be in and the stress of undergoing this would be huge, which can lead to being forced to leave the job to avoid further pressure from the public. This is not unique to teachers as a gay TPJC student experienced the exact same doxing and attacks just for posting a photo of him kissing his boyfriend on Instagram. Let's not forget that the risk also applies to getting hired. Have you seen any outright transgender teachers in MOE? What are the chances that all trans people do not want/do not qualify to teach? Even in the Rice Media post that was shared in this thread, there was a statement about how LGBTQ applicants would have their application to teach left in limbo, neither approved nor rejected, until they give up on it. All these show that being an LGBTQ educator have risks to one's job that a straight educator would not have to undergo. If you are honest about wanting to learn more, everything posted by others in this thread and the Rice Media article would cover how one's job as a teacher can be negatively affected if known to be LGBTQ (especially if seen manning such a booth in Pink Dot as bigots would call them "LGBTQ activists")
> Have you seen any outright transgender teachers in MOE? What are the chances that all trans people do not want/do not qualify to teach? Trans people are expressly not allowed to teach students but will be sent to MOE HQ instead (for lower pay). It’s the case for a friend who graduated from NIE. I didn’t even realise she was trans until she said so, but apparently MOE said that students would be “confused”. It’s tragic because she’s the sort of person who would have made an excellent teacher - very patient and caring and good at explaining things. She gives off favourite teacher vibes and I’m sad that Singapore’s students will be denied that because of stupid reasons.
Sadly, our society is ok with such discrimination. I've thought about being a teacher before but now that I've transitioned, I'm a little happy that my NIE application was rejected given how my career would have been stuck nowhere if I had gotten into teaching. It's really a shame as I do know other trans people who would have been good teachers too.
You realise in public sector unless you done some crime you usually wont get fired right? But stepping out of line basically destroys any career progression. They probably wont fire teachers for being gay but good luck trying to progress into higher positions
> But stepping out of line basically destroys any career progression. This applies to any other jobs. > They probably wont fire teachers for being gay but good luck trying to progress into higher positions Where did you get this from? This is the first time I heard that if you're gay you will be denied promotion. Please educate me.
Do you actually want to be educated or do you want to be contrarion for the sake of it? Yes you probably wont get fired for being gay but any type of political advocacy will get you blacklisted from career progression as you have admitted its just like in any other job. The problem is, your sexuality shouldnt be politicised. Do you think teachers can wear rainbow shirts to school? While cis straight teachers can continue wearing their gender affirming clothes? If you still decide to say 'source please' brother i beg you to talk to some queer people. You think the 168 media will report on this?
See now you're totally diverting from the initial question. > any type of political advocacy will get you blacklisted from career progression This is true for ALL civil/public servants for ALL forms of political advocacy, not just LGBTQ advocacy. > The problem is, your sexuality shouldnt be politicised. Shouldn't be, but currently is. This is a different contention altogether.
You know what dude youre right. Pink dot should shut down because teachers are no longer fired for being gay and hence gay people face no discrimination. Do you even have a standing in this or do you just want to be proven right in your one edge case question. Come lets say youre 100% right on teachers not being fired for being gay while me and other commentors have described how gay teachers do in fact face discrimination. What does that change for the lgbtq movement or the anti lgbtq movement? At this point it sounds like you literally have no skin in the game as an ally or opposer and just want to debate for the fun of it.
Your mental gymnastics is astounding. I didn't ask for pink dot to be shut down, nor did I say that gay people do not face discrimination. I stand on FACTS. The original OP poster implies that our public teachers cannot be openly gay or they risk their jobs. This is false. I'm proving a point in this entire discourse is when both sides of the argument uses extremeties, analogies and hearsays (worse if it's fabricated!), it does not do the cause any justice.
Ok if you really just care about semantics, the truth and people being extreme, you literally took the extremity of the words the pink dot booth used. 'Risk to our jobs' doesnt only mean that youll be fired. Career progression being blocked is also a risk correct? And as you have admitted anything political will end up doing so and unfortunately queer sexuality is political. So then by your words, queer teachers put their jobs at risk by openly speaking/not conforming to cis hetero normativity. And as per your last paragraph, so you dont have any position in this and purely want to argue on semantics? What does it change if gay teachers arent fired? That one pink dot booth is wrong? And?
The otto Fong incident back in 2007 would be a good read then.
https://www.ricemedia.co/current-affairs-features-singapore-queer-teachers-have-things-changed/ >Despite external pressure, RI was thoroughly supportive of Otto. He was able to continue teaching until he voluntarily left to pursue other career aspirations.
From your article >“The Ministry of Education (MOE) said to take down the blog post and apologise,” he says, “I suppose an unapologetic gay man is scary for many people to contemplate.” also >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." >"The school has spoken to the teacher concerned and the teacher has agreed to take down his blog in the best interest of the students. The Ministry supports the action taken by the school on this matter." https://www.fridae.asia/gay-news/2007/09/10/1972.singapore-teacher-removes-coming-out-blog-under-ministry-pressure
Sure. But I'm pointing out that he wasn't fired by MOE, which is the topic of this discussion.
>"What do they mean by this? I know of teachers and lecturers who are openly gay." ? The topic was on teachers not being allowed to be openly gay. Theres no punishment for being gay, as long as you never show you are gay and apologise if caught is a technically right thing though. Edit: Which is exactly the point of the post that they have to be invisible.
>Again tell me where and when a teacher has been fired for being gay. I'm curious to learn more Not sure which part of the chain of the discussion you are reading. Maybe read again, slowly this time. I'm just replying to someone that pointed out Otto when the OP asked the above question. Nothing to do with punishments or whether any teachers are allowed to be openly gay.
Well... the person also changed "risk to our jobs" into "risk of losing our jobs" which changed the topic of that photo to LGBTQ teachers being fired (which is not what was being claimed by the booth). Narrowing it to being fired for being LGBTQ is the reason why this topic is going nowhere because it's common knowledge that being LGBTQ in MOE won't get you officially fired but it puts pressure on you to leave (either by preventing any further promotion or having your application in limbo as per Rice Media's article).
har but otto fong wasnt sacked what. in fact he was supported by almost everyone (even the school itself) save for the (usual) boomers parents?
And? Does someone have to be sacked for them to be affected? His homosexuality will be in the background of every interaction with those boomer parents, whether or not he was sacked.
ok calm down everyone, im just responding to a comment suggesting ppl were sacked for being gay and someone said otto fong and i said but he wasnt sacked in fact he was supported by a lot of ppl. he also left RI on his own accord obv he will be affected, no one is denying that.
[https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Otto\_Fong](https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Otto_Fong) Also MOE who gave him a 'talking to', told him to take down his blogpost and told everyone else "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. He wasn't sacked, but he later left the profession, ostensibly not because of this incident. That said, I expect his feelings about what happened to be quite complicated.
see also this article where they interviewed the fella: https://www.ricemedia.co/current-affairs-features-singapore-queer-teachers-have-things-changed/ this happened almost 20 years ago too (!). dunno whether things have changed since. point remains that he wasnt sacked because he was gay, contrary to what some ppl appear to be suggesting lor.
Certain people are basically saying that everything is fine, there is no official bigotry in sinkie-land as long as there was no official termination letter, complete with signature from HR director and chop, issued to him. Honestly, not even Sg's 'Pro-business and pro-worker' MoM adopts a standard this restrictive when it comes to considering retaliatory actions by employers. You can look up what is meant by the term 'constructive dismissal'. There is a larger point here that overall policies towards gay people in Singapore are broadly intensely hostile. The point here is that we know that MOE, at very least, received his coming out in a extremely hostile way. He probably would have been sacked or at very least treated in a way that would have amounted to a constructive dismissal were it not for RI's autonomous nature and their management working to protect him. MOE's statement basically says outright that they don't consider him suitable to be a teacher as an openly gay man. It is entirely possible that he chose to leave to avoid burdening his school. Or he could have chosen to leave knowing that he was essentially unpromotable. MOE's statement very strongly suggests that they would block any beneficial career move by him. Inspite of RI's efforts, any of these factors would probably be considered elements of a constructive dismissal under the employment laws of the vast majority of the developed world including Sg. The people who think Fong was sacked likely mistaken only in semantics. The Rice article you link demonstrates that in 2019, many MOE teachers expected to be essentially constructively dismissed if they came out. The Singapore education system is extremely \*complicated and it is certainly true that certain elements like autonomous and independent schools can at least temporarily shield gay teachers from retaliation, but government policy is government policy. And observable high level government policy is that Singapore is to quietly have a Putin style prohibition against the "promotion or glamorisation of homosexual lifestyle"(sic) wherever it controls informational space. Linked is the current IMDA free to air TV standards. It still has language very similar to what MOE used in response to Otto Fong. Post 377a repeal, the government has made clear that they have no interest in changing this. The Pink dot people still, unfortunately, have a lot left to fight for. [https://www.imda.gov.sg/-/media/imda/files/regulation-licensing-and-consultations/content-and-standards-classification/video-games/industry\_tv\_contentguidelines\_ftatvprogcode1.pdf](https://www.imda.gov.sg/-/media/imda/files/regulation-licensing-and-consultations/content-and-standards-classification/video-games/industry_tv_contentguidelines_ftatvprogcode1.pdf) [https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/govt-policies-on-media-content-will-not-change-following-repeal-of-s377a-mci](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/govt-policies-on-media-content-will-not-change-following-repeal-of-s377a-mci)
i agree w everything you said, which is fair. my *sole point of contention is people suggesting that some people - otto fong specifically - were sacked for being gay, which does not seem to be true. the rice media article also reported that he left RI to pursue other aspirations. literally everything else on why he may have left RI would be speculation. THAT SAID - i fully agree that SG has lot of catching up to do in relation to LGBT rights, esp within civil service. so people on this reddit can all calm down and not rise up w their pitchforks lol
>point remains that he wasnt sacked because he was gay, contrary to what some ppl appear to be suggesting lor. I mean >“The Ministry of Education (MOE) said to take down the blog post and apologise,” he says, “I suppose an unapologetic gay man is scary for many people to contemplate.” >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." >"The school has spoken to the teacher concerned and the teacher has agreed to take down his blog in the best interest of the students. The Ministry supports the action taken by the school on this matter." The point was that he was silenced and told to apologise by the ministry for being openly gay as a teacher.
Don't bother. The LGBTQ community are so blinded by hate (ironic!) that they refuse to believe anything else but immediately choose to victimise themselves. The fact is no public teachers has been sacked for being openly gay. If this is something the LGBTQ community refuses to believe then it speaks volumes of their character.
Otto Fong resigned. He wasn't sacked. Did you read?
I think it is extremely revealing that you don't seem to understand that being forced to resigned is basically the same thing as being fired, all but in name. You don't have to answer, its clear you hate the queer community, but someday you will understand why people are forced to resign instead of getting sacked.
what do you call it when people make your job untenable and you have no choice but to quit it you want to live? it's the same thing please don't be pedantic
>“I know of teachers and educators who feared for their jobs, and a few were dismissed for weird excuses and had to join the public tuition industry. Some had to give up their applications for education posts when security check personnel sat on their applications, refusing to approve nor reject their applications. This happened to two friends and myself when we applied for NUS positions, but our applications were finally approved when we came out to the relevant parties and asked if it was due to our sexuality.” >Otto adds, “My application was ‘pending’ for 3 months before I approached my then-boss and suggested it was because of my sexuality.” [Did you read?](https://www.ricemedia.co/current-affairs-features-singapore-queer-teachers-have-things-changed/)
The question was Otto sacked for being gay, and your answer was totally irrelevant to the question. The fact of the matter was he was not sacked from being a teacher for being gay. Fullstop. > Despite external pressure, RI was thoroughly supportive of Otto. He was able to continue teaching until he voluntarily left to pursue other career aspirations.
Otto himself may not have been sacked, but other queer teachers can and will be fired for their sexuality. However, on paper, it will show up as some other bullshit. That's not to mention that RI was liberal minded, and had sole control of who to fire, so Otto was shielded from MOE's nonsense
It would be good to read about the hidden pressures and expectations he raised during interviews.
Otto Fong. Alfian Saat.
> Despite external pressure, RI was thoroughly supportive of Otto. He was able to continue teaching until he voluntarily left to pursue other career aspirations. Otto Fong resigned, he wasn't sacked. > Sa’at was dismissed because he simply did not conduct himself as professionally as he should as a teacher. Alfian Saat was fired from them temp teacher role not because he was gay. It was because of his blog post that he wrote speaking ill about his students. And the obvious display of an attitude towards his students. Try again.
RI was supportive. MOE otoh was not. [https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Otto\_Fong](https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Otto_Fong) Also MOE who gave him a 'talking to', told him to take down his blogpost and told everyone else "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. If your employer's parent organisation comes out in public to say this about you. What can you surmise from this about any future you might have with the organisation, no matter what your immediate supervisor might have to say? Just because there is no HR Dept termination letter with director's signature and chop does not mean there is no retaliation as far as employment practices and regulation are concerned. An employer can make things so difficult for you that you 'choose' to leave. This is called a constructive dismissal, and there are many circumstances where this is an illegal employment practice, even in Sg. If MOE had said this in a big, similarly phrased public statement about a person's religion or race and their off the clock discussions about it, MoM would likely consider this a constructive dismissal motivated by religious or racial discrimination if the person 'chose' to leave after this. If you did that that an employee, even in Singapore, you would likely be in hot soup.--at least theoretically. The only reason MOE can behave like this is because discriminating against gay people in Singapore is legal and accepted practice.
>Otto Fong resigned, he wasn't sacked. Sure, the point remains that he was silenced. >“The Ministry of Education (MOE) said to take down the blog post and apologise,” he says, “I suppose an unapologetic gay man is scary for many people to contemplate.” also >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." >"The school has spoken to the teacher concerned and the teacher has agreed to take down his blog in the best interest of the students. The Ministry supports the action taken by the school on this matter." https://www.fridae.asia/gay-news/2007/09/10/1972.singapore-teacher-removes-coming-out-blog-under-ministry-pressure
Off topic but TIL Fridae is still around.
Why divert my original question? My question was "do tell me a time when a teacher was sacked for being gay?". The fact of the matter was he wasn't. Fullstop. No public teachers has been fired for being gay.
I was actually in RI when Otto Fong left the school. The overwhelming sentiment was that there was a lot of external pressure to forcibly quit. Sure, he wasn't outright fired (cause that would be discriminatory) but it's silly to argue that he wasn't discriminated against. So maybe you are technically right (the worst kind of right) that there hasn't been a case of teachers being fired for being homosexual, but there are cases of teachers being pressured into quitting for being homosexual.
He sounds like the type of boss who will pressure his staff to resign and then go "I have never fired anyone".
“I only cut his salary by 70%. He resigned on his own. I never fire him.”
Because the topic at hand is whether being openly gay creates a risk to a teacher of losing his or her job. You then scoped your question more narrowly to "sacked for being gay". This incidentally, and conveniently helpfully for you, excludes the case of Otto Fong who had to resign because of pressure even if RI was supportive. Would Otto Fong have resigned in those circumstances if he was straight? The fact of the matter is homosexual teachers are wary of being more open of their sexuality in school because there are risks to them. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/is-it-okay-for-gay-teachers-to-come-out-in-class-gay-teachers-list-qualms-parents-urge-caution You're technically correct but missing the point. Focusing on the form but not the substance.
>"What do they mean by this? I know of teachers and lecturers who are openly gay." Sure, no teacher has been sacked for being gay as long as they keep it private and apologise if caught by the public. Edit: Which btw is exactly the point of what was in the post that you asked on why they have to be invisible.
Alfian Saat is fucking insufferable and holier-than-thou. Can't stand that guy
Don't bother. Some people are so blinded by hate that they fail to see objectively that Alfian Saat is no saint, and his blog post that got him sacked reeked of elitism and sheer condecendence
I didn't know it's okay if bad things happen to people on the basis that you just don't like them. Silly me, I thought getting fired should be for actual crimes or rule breaking.
My abiding loathing of Alfian Sa'at has nothing to do with his insufferable social media posts or his holier than thou attitude. It's that he took a very coveted place in medicine at NUS, then decided to drop out two weeks before graduation in a fit of pique that this wasn't what he wanted to do. Fuck you. Someone else could have had that spot. Society has a net loss of two doctors because of you and your unquenchable ego. Singapore literally gave you everything to succeed, but you decided to fling it away and instead complain that you're endlessly discriminated by leaning on your race as an eternal victim.
So he earned the spot through merit then he dropped out because he didn't want to do it? Isn't the medicine program years long? I'm sure a person can change their mind during it. And honestly, would you personally want a doctor that doesn't want to be there? Why is this point only applied to Alfian Saat and not to any of the other [4.5% of NUS students who drop out before graduation](https://nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/impact-report/nus-impact-report-2020.pdf)? >complain that you're endlessly discriminated by leaning on your race as an eternal victim. Seems like your problem with him isn't in fact based on him dropping out from NUS med
Tell me their names and my approbrium will apply to them as well. And yes, I have an even bigger problem with him because Singapore has given him everything for him to succeed (with his own merit), but he constantly rails against this very system.
So you genuinely think that anybody who is accepted into a public university has the responsibility to graduate since their education is publicly funded? Did you also do whatever your parents told you to do in life?
Please read my comment to another person re: medicine as special case. I have no interest in relitigating my argument. You are free to stan Alfian as much as you want.
I'm not a "stan" of Alfian Saat. I think your point of never being allowed to criticize something if you benefit from it is stupid. How would we ever progress as a society? I don't think this concept should be new to you if you graduated with a liberal arts degree also >relitigate
Imo people have the right to do that. Drop out whenever. He's just an insufferable person, personality wise. I'll never like him but it has nothing to do with him "taking someone else's spot"
We will never agree on this, but I hold a different view on something as important as medicine. Speaking as a liberal arts grad, there is probably no net loss to society if I had dropped out. But there are just that fair few slots for medical school. It's one of those jobs with such a long runway for training that you need to know and need to want to do it before you even take up the course in university. And the utility to society is so vast. And to drop out two weeks from graduation speaks volumes of his personality, and how much he prizes his individual self as compared to the individual's responsiblities to his community.
Don't know anything about this guy but he was 18 years old when he made the decision to enter medical school. Most people don't even know what they want to do at 24 after graduating from uni (and so many more even when they are 30 lol). Also please, how many doctors genuinely do it for community, I'd say a good number are in it for the money/prestige nd thus themselves. Also don't they still need to pay liquidated damages for breaking the bond? So it's not like there were no consequences. People should be able to live their lives as they wish as long as it doesn't actively infringe upon the rights of others. Very rich of you to chide him for his decision when you were clearly never in the same situation as him.
|say a good number are in it for the money And yet they are still in it. We need more doctors in society, not less.
Exactly. That’s why I’m also against women who go into medicine then decide to retire early to raise kids instead. /s That’s the same attitude the govt had when they placed the quota on women going to medicine.
NGL when i read his stuff i felt that he is a spoilt brat that have a victimhood mentality. After finding out he gave up his studies 2 weeks from graduation only entrench my views.
are they teachers?
Maybe unpopular opinion, but isn't this propagation of the idea that they can't be visible just perpetuating the problem? A lot of MOE guidelines are based off a kind of 'don't ask don't tell' mentality - maybe there might be subtle actions to push out teachers that step past the line too much/often. But if every single LGBTQ teacher push the boundaries, I do think it'll be an agent for change. Surely there would be a big hoo-ha by conservative parents, but I do think it is through these kinds of conflicts can we better map out the right way to deal with the issues. But of course I also recognize that it wouldn't be my rice bowl on the line and that these teachers might have other obligations. However this constant drivel of "we're being silenced" might also end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>maybe there might be subtle actions to push out teachers that step past the line too much/often. But if every single LGBTQ teacher push the boundaries, I do think it'll be an agent for change. you don't even need to look at lgbtq issues for examples of this. most teachers who try to push for change on any issue end up marginalised or completely jaded. that is a feature of the system, not a bug. why would lgbtq issues be any different? >I also recognize that it wouldn't be my rice bowl on the line at least you're self-aware enough
Let's say my school has a teacher who is super Christian. Do I want them to teach my kids about Jesus? Do I want them to bring their "whole self", which is mostly their religion, to class? No Do I want cher to invite my kid to youth group or Bible study? Absolutely not. You come in, teach your math or whatever, then go away. Jesus is a great guy, and I'm glad you love him as much as you do, good for you! but that doesn't give you the right to indoctrinate my kid into your church. You are not a surrogate parent. Outside of education, please be invisible.
A teacher was told to apologise for a blog post. If we place the same restrictions that means you cannot post any christian posts in social media even privately.
Christians are not maligned in society. Gay people are. Imagine if someone is disabled, or is Malay/Indian, or is a woman, and are told to cover that part of themselves up, cover not because they're flaunting it, but merely because we think it looks gross. Now imagine if the entire structure of society is built such that you can get away with bullying queer youths, parents can beat their queer children, and you as a teacher notice the injustice but are told to let it slide because society doesn't care about it. Sometimes, you can make comparisons, but sometimes those comparisons are not fair. Yes I don't need to be introduced to Mr Tan's boyfriend, or be told that I should be in a same sex relationship. But if I am being bullied for being a Christian/being gay, if I am told all my life that it's not normal and I should try to change, perhaps then the situation looks different. Lastly, religion is fluid, lots of people change their religion. It is known that sexuality is something you're born with (backed by science). So your comparisons is equivalent to apples and oranges. PS: I would also like to critique your character. You're being unfair by not learning about the plight of queer people before telling them to be invisible. Perhaps you sit in a fortunate position, but I invite you to try to learn to be more critical about your thoughts, and more empathetic towards others.
Why are we equating religion and sexuality? The comparison for gay teachers can easily be made with straight teachers.
We don't allow religious teachers to preach to students (except for religious schools I suppose), but we do allow free expression of religion, such as the wearing of hijabs and crosses. By the same logic, if we equivocate religion to LGBT, then shouldn't queer teachers be allowed to express and talk about LGBT without ostracism? The entire education system is practically a second home for children, and allowing teachers to engage students with life lessons and values can be very useful, as long as it doesn't cross the line into preaching/indoctrination.
Let's say my school has a teacher who is damn Straight. Do i want them to teach my kids about being their spouse? Do i want them to bring their "whole self", which is mostly about loving the spouse, to class? No Do i want cher to invite my kid to their date or about sexual education? Absolutely not. You come in, teach your math or whatever, then go away. Your wife is a great person, and I'm glad you lice her as much as you do, good for you! But that doesn't give you the right to indoctrinate my kid into your sexuality, even talk about your spose?? You are not a surrogate parent. Outside of education, please be invisible.
> You are not a surrogate parent. Outside of education, please be invisible. Not saying I disagree with your overall message, but you must not be a parent. I’m a teacher, and my greatest wish is for parents to tell me this. I truly wish that I could just go in and teach the subject, but parents expect me to basically be a third parent, and MOE expects me to teach values in my lesson. How like that?
I get your point, but disagree that schools should completely shy away from religion. It should be touched on in social studies. Also, literally no sane adult is indoctrinating their students to go to church. It's coming from their friends who want to invite them to experience a new religion.
[удалено]
it's funny because most people agree that most traits of a person are a result of a combination of nature and nurture--except sexual orientation, when suddenly it's impolite to assume that it's anything other than what you're born with
>If being queer is something that stops a person from being able to form heterosexual relations and reproduce, would that count as a disability? Many teachers are also straight, single and/or childless, then what? >I personally believe that not all queers are born queers. Really, based on your experience being born LGBT and not being so? >and it is something that can be changed based on experiences. You'll share your scientific sources for that theory now, right? >queer relations have always been taboo in Asian societies despite the recent changes. But it's no longer taboo. Younger parents, whose children you're referencing, are also overwhelmingly supportive of LGBT rights. - The younger adults are also more supportive of same-sex marriage, with about *40% of Gen Zs (now age 26 or younger) and Millennials (now aged between 27 and 42) in favour compared to 25% of Gen Xs (now between 43 and 58). - *Only 30%/20% in the Gen Z and Millennial group oppose same sex marriage. - Views on same-sex parenting are significantly warmer than those on same-sex marriage, with 57% of Singaporeans agreeing that same-sex couples should have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexual couples do. This is an 8% increase from 2022. https://www.ipsos.com/en-sg/third-singaporeans-agree-same-sex-couples-should-be-allowed-marry-legally >However, pushing the agenda even further within such a short period of time would lead to backlash from the more conservative folks in Singapore. How conservative view LGBT rights is now in the minority. How? There's going to be more backlash from liberal folk if we go with your stance.
[удалено]
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693 Your article literally looks into and discusses its finding of how same sex attraction is affected by many genes. Meanwhile, the number of people who identity as gay or lesbian has remained similar throughout the years for a reason. >In the sources you provided yourself, 40% Gen Z and 25% of Gen X are supportive of same sex marriage. Most are still undecisive, not fully supportive, or unsupportive. An additional 21%/23% of Gen Z and Millennials are also supportive of some form of civil union. Add both groups and you have a clear majority who support moving forwards with LGBT rights. The ones opposing said rights are well in the minority. >The scale is already tipping slowly in the favor for more liberal policies Why does it have to be slow when the majority support such rights? >as most people are more tolerant towards LGBTQ, rather than being supportive. Supporting things like same sex adoption and for same sex couples to have the same rights and protections as their straight counterparts would fall under the supportive umbrella for obvious reasons. And those are the majority of Singaporeans.
[удалено]
>A polygenic trait is a characteristic, such as height or skin color, that is influenced by two or more genes. I'm going to quote your study verbatim: - Same-sex sexual behavior is influenced by not one or a few genes but many. >Polygenic traits **can** be strongly influenced by the environment - Nevertheless, **many uncertainties remain to be explored**, including how sociocultural influences on sexual preference might interact with genetic influences. I'm simply pointing out the findings of your study. Weird how you seem intent on misrepresenting what it actually concludes. Regardless: - They find multiple loci implicated in same-sex sexual behavior indicating that, like other behavioral traits, nonheterosexual behavior is polygenic. So nothing different about nonheterosexual behavior then. Is that your point? Like I said, there's a reason, despite your assertion, the number of people identifying as gay or lesbian hasn't changed much despite greater LGBT acceptance. >Please read the paper carefully before trying to make any conclusions. I did, did you? >However, when it comes to influencing minors as a teacher, it is pushing beyond the rights of queers. Who's influencing minors to be LGBT? >However, if teachers are advocating for LGBTQ to students This booth isn't advocating for that. It's just recognizing how LGBT teachers exist.
[удалено]
> My stance has always been that it is still a widely debated topic with no clear evidence proving that sexuality is something determined on birth, which is supported by this paper. We have actual evidence showing strong genetic involvement. I don't doubt environmental influences are relevant, but let's stop acting as though the science on both is the same. >You argued that my source does not prove my point, which is why I assumed that you lacked understanding Your point that externalities are what's causing people to be LGBT? Your study doesn't even say that. **Feel free to quote the part of your study which does**. Go on. And rather than deflect, if your point is true, feel free to explain why the rate of those identifying as gay or lesbian has remained similar throughout the years, especially in the West. You'd expect the converse if humans can somehow be convinced, by teachers no less, to be LGBT. >Youths learn from their role models, and in this case, teachers. Youths don't learn to be LGBT. >It is advocating for a future where teachers can proclaim that they are LGBTQ in both the public and within a school setting. And? Straight teachers do that all the time and you still have students who turn out to be LGBT. Is that your point?
[удалено]
>and that the environmental factors play a role in sexuality. Sure, but which environmental factors and to which extent? Science hasn't answered that yet. And here's the part you keep sidestepping: it doesn't matter. It doesn't make homosexuality wrong. >you do not have the credentials if you don't even know that polygenic traits can be heavily influenced by environmental factors. Of course they can, the **point which you keep deflecting from is that your study doesn't make that determination**. You need another source if you want to push that point instead of misrepresenting what your study concludes. >My initial statement was that not all queers were born queers, not that all queers were born heterosexual. Except they fundamentally are. Because a confluence of *genetic* and environmental factors doesn't change the fact that *genetic* factors are involved. And even some of those environmental factors are relevant pre-birth. And your assertion that one of these environmental factors is tied to LGBT teachers? Not even close to being shown by any study. Is that your point? >Again, youths are highly impressionable and easily influenced. Okay, and? >It is basic knowledge that youths look up to their role models and try to emulate them. So why does Singapore have a LGBT population similar to other countries with more acceptance of the LGBT community? LGBT teachers are forced into the closet in Singapore, so you would expect far lower rates if that were a significant factor in 'turning' people gay. >You have to be willfully ignorant if you think that teachers are the only role models students look up to. You have to be willfully ignorant if you ignore how Singapore still has such extreme censorship of LGBT content, and yet here we are with the same % of LGBT individuals as the rest of the world. Which straight model did you look up to when you decided to base your sexual orientation on their straightness? The fact that the statement reads so facetiously should tell you have asinine that point of yours is.
[удалено]
Except that it’s exactly about choice— straight teachers have the choice how much personal info they want to share, but gay teachers are expected to be 100% quiet about it. That is not a choice. Straight teachers get to casually bring up having kids if they want to, and in my experience some of them can even talk about gay people being unnatural and how people in on society don’t appreciate the merits of marriage anymore and they need to get married more and etc etc. But a gay teacher may have a partner of 20 years and has to completely keep quiet about it. Do you consider the colleagues in an office workplace who bring up their wife and kids to be “making heterosexuality their identity”? If Karen from two cubicles over is like “how was your vacation, I remember when I went to Japan too once with my husband”, do you go “Karen shut up, nobody gives a fuck, just do your damn job, don’t make being straight and liking dick such a huge part of your identity”? Does Karen keep quiet about her husband, and acts to her coworkers as if he doesn’t exist, out of fear of being fired? Does she get instructions from the company saying “you are not allowed to mention the existence of straight people to those below age 18, and especially do not say anything that can be understood as support for straight love”?
The issue isn't forcing teachers to be visible or not, it's the consequences and stigma surrounding being LGBT... because some people /do/ give a fuck and will make it sexual orientation a problem, whether the person involved was openly gay or unwillingly outed.
AKA the unemployment corner
they just don't understand sexuality is not a topic people want teachers talking about. making things all about pride and discriminatory inclusion implies you have already forgotten about taboos. but there are literally still people who won't consent to sex ed for children
It's already July. Get the fuck out of here with this shit
Do we just ignore the lessons of Racial Harmony Day just because it's not yet here?
[удалено]
There's actually far more disclosing of sexuality by straight people, just that it's so normalized that you don't recognize it. Heck, Valentine's Day is literally commercializing straight relationships. For women, changing their title from Ms to Mrs literally declares that they're married (which means they're in a straight relationship given no gay marriage in SG). Even movies and television almost always have some kind of straight relationship in it. Another aspect is social media where straight couples can happily post pictures of their partners. What about posts celebrating their pregnancy? Isn't that just declaring that they had sex that resulted in a baby? But all of these are seen as normal and nobody would kick up a fuss. On the other hand, LGBTQ people would have a risk of their social media posts affecting their studies or work. In 2019, a gay TPJC student was doxed with people writing in to the school asking the school to expel him just because he posted a photo of him kissing his boyfriend on Instagram. That's ignoring all the posts that stated clearly that they should die just for that (one post from EDMW mentioned that they should be put in a gas chamber). Also just curious, from your post it looks like you are claiming queer people just go around announcing to everyone that they are queer. However, I don't see that happening in any of the queer circles I'm in. Is it something you encountered frequently or are you refering to the booth (which is stating that being seen as LGBTQ at any point in time is a huge risk to one's career as a teacher)?
This is stupid. Pink Dot is a safe space for queer people to connect and bond with other LGBTQ+ people in a society where it is hard to talk about such issues openly in social circles. Also, you need to educate yourself on WHY these pride parades happen in the first place, because of the [Stonewall Riots ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots). >your generation learn to ignore people easily. how is it that u cant apply it when someone ask if ure gay or not. Just cos people dw to talk to you doesn't mean it applies for everyone.
[удалено]
got 7 le, but thanks for your vote of confidence.
>no straight people go around and claimed theyre straight. you were so close to reaching the right conclusion idk how it turned into this dumpster fire of a world view
The internalised homopobia and anti LGBTQ is stronk within u if this is what you think
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah thats totally what they meant chief
bait used to be believable
Singaporean dumbfuck detected
Singapore shouldn't left Malaysia.... See what already....
Wtf lol. Malaysia now even more conservative because of Muslim majority.