Tuesday, September 11, 2007

not unreasonable to ask otto fong to take down letter

I'm tight for time, but I feel really inclined to write something short about all this furor going on about Otto Fong, and his taking down of his open letter. I've been trying to find the official MOE press release about this incident but failed to locate it [can somebody help me?]. I read an excerpt of the press release on a comment in an article on TOC, but that article has been deleted (in view of updated information) so that comment is lost, and also that excerpt of the press release. Here is another excerpt, by Mollymeek, which is from Fridae.

Even though I am somewhat sympathetic to Otto's cause, I think it is not unreasonable for RI, or MOE for that matter, to ask him to take down his letter. There has been some sentiments on the blogosphere about how MOE and RI are gay-hating bigots, and I have no evidence that proves them otherwise. Nevertheless, I think what they have done is not unreasonable. Bear in mind that Otto Fong has not been fired, and I doubt he will be. I have no idea to what extent he has been reprimanded or in other ways punished, which is why I need to look at the official press release.

Here is why I think MOE/RI are not totally unreasonable: this whole incident is creating a lot of unwanted attention on RI and Mr Fong himself, and this in the long run, will hurt his students more than help his students. Please bear in mind that Otto Fong did not write an open letter as a political protest. He wrote his letter, and admirable step of courage no doubt, to "confess" to his friends and his colleagues. Perhaps he was not aware of the online frenzy his blog would cause. I suspect that if he knew, he would not have blogged or he would have blogged differently.

Issues about homosexuality are complicated. Or at least I think so. A good deal of Singaporeans, perhaps even the majority, are still not too receptive to the idea of homosexuality. [All the more reason why there should be more gay activism? Perhaps. But Otto Fong wasn't trying to be an activist. Or so I believe.] So what happens when you say "I am gay, and I teach in RI." in this backdrop? There will be a public outcry. Parents will call the school and demand an explanation. Maybe some parents will threaten to take their kids out of the school. Colleagues will be harassed by their own peers. The 12-16 year old students, even though more mature and probably more liberal minded than their peers, will be confused and pulled in different directions. End-of-year exams and O levels are coming up in just weeks, and this happens to them.

I think like any true educator, Otto Fong places the interests of his students first, and he realizes that the controversy he has created may probably harm students more than help them. I think that was why he was convinced to take down the letter, to minimize the damage caused. There are other ways to educate the young about tolerance, discrimination, human rights and gay rights as a teacher. I just think putting up a blog and saying "I am gay and I teach in RI" isn't the best way to do so. I think he thinks so too. Read what he says carefully.

[addendum: Singapore Kopi Tok seems to have some inside info that Otto Fong's letter was intended to be political after all.]

4 comments:

Aaron said...

I think it remains an open debate as to how much of the motivation behind the removal was due to a knee-jerk, irrational anti-gay reaction or a genuine desire to protect the interests of the students. It would be very easy to cloak the former under the latter.

I guess perhaps this is where you and I differ. Since it's almost impossible to get a definite answer to the question of motivation, we can only assess the situation based on our beliefs and values. Even though I don't necessarily agree with you, I think you've presented a very important perspective for those in the pro-homosexual rights camp to think about (and that includes myself).

cognitivedissonance said...

Hi FO,

this whole incident is creating a lot of unwanted attention on RI and Mr Fong himself, and this in the long run, will hurt his students more than help his students.

Why?

Similarly,

There will be a public outcry. Parents will call the school and demand an explanation. Maybe some parents will threaten to take their kids out of the school. Colleagues will be harassed by their own peers. The 12-16 year old students, even though more mature and probably more liberal minded than their peers, will be confused and pulled in different directions. End-of-year exams and O levels are coming up in just weeks, and this happens to them.

So you are protesting the contents of his letter, or just the timing?

Which brings up a thought, is MOE and/or RI protesting the contents of his letter, or just the timing? And how would we know?

There is also a question of how people as individuals would handle the following problem for themselves: "If I have a good and pure reason A and a self-interested reason B for doing X, would I do X anyway?" Much of Otto's letter that'd struck a chord in me was that he was coming out for the sake of showing gay teenagers that they need not kill themselves nor fear homophobic peer ridicule, that they are people as much as any other people are people and that they have the right and ability to live good peaceful lives. The Guardian's commentary on peer persecution of gay teenagers in schools may be of interest.

cognitivedissonance said...

*sorry, the Independent's commentary

Fearfully Opinionated said...

Aaron,

let's say I give you that MOE's motivations were totally and utterly due to anti-gay dispositions (which I believe not to be true). If it turns out that Otto Fong's letter is really indeed harming students more than helping them, then isn't taking the letter down, in consequentialist calculations, more desirable (at least for the students), no matter what MOE's ulterior motivations might be?

CG,

I protest neither the contents of the letter nor the timing. In fact, the only thing I protest is the hasty drawing of conclusions.

What does RI/MOE protest? I cannot know. Does it matter? (read above reply to Aaron).

Of course I am working on the premise that such a commotion is indeed harmful to students. Perhaps this premise is mistaken. That is possible.

Also, I claim that taking the letter down is helpful for the general student population, but no doubt this is harmful for the gay community at large, those who wish to advocate gay rights and other related causes, and perhaps harmful most of all to gay students.

So do you propose a utilitarian calculation of the total harm done (to gay rights groups, gay students) vs harm avoided (to other students) before we should protest or not protest Otto Fong, and/or RI/MOE?

I don't think it matters, since at the end of the day RI (and MOE) are answerable to their stakeholders, who are (for the most part) the students. RI does not answer to gay-rights groups, although that in itself has no bearing whatsoever about the members of RI being discriminatory towards homosexuals or not.

For gay students, I do not wish to trivialize the amount of difficulty they have growing up in local schools. They probably have lots of problems. But, I don't think it is fair to compare the cases of gay-bullying in UK schools to that of Singaporean schools. Or at least, until we have more data about such cases in Singapore. And secondly, I think there are ways to educate the young which are gay-affirming, without having to cause such a commotion. Otto Fong could, for example, talk to his students in confidence about his sexuality on the last day of school, perhaps.

I know not Otto Fong's intentions. I was of the impression that he was not planning this move as a political protest or a gambit. Singapore Kopi Talk (see my link) claims differently. If I was right that Mr Fong has no political agendas, then I think it is not unreasonable to appeal to his role as an educator to put the interests of his students first.

You may disagree (and I think it is perfectly fine for you to think so) that such an action is JUSTIFIED, but I don't think you can call it unreasonable.