I have a few friends who are going to be teachers, and looking at them, I fear for the future of the generations to come. One of them told me how stupid trainee teachers can be.

And I kind of agree.

My friend's colleague who just finished his school observation/attachment for his NIE course was shocked when he found that his amiable, reserved HOD had through the vice principal wrote a complaint letter to NIE against him. He was said to be too close to the students without drawing a professional distance and boundary with the students.

He did not know how to react to the accusations when he communicates to the students solely through emails and in school. He did not go out with the students and had no involvement with them outside campus.

I just learnt that the principal and I think the vice principal have the power to submit a negative comment about any teacher without their knowledge. This comment will be kept in the teacher's profile, accessible to any institution or principal interested in viewing the file. This remark will be kept in the file for 5 years till it is purged. The said teacher will not be informed of the negative remark. The only visible signs would be a lower pay raise or a delayed promotion.

This raises disturbing issues. In an institution where honest, open, frank dialogue and compromise are encouraged as substitutes to violent, physical means of settling conflict, the authorities are empowered to penalize a staff without proper dialogue, assessment or forewarning. It seems to contradict its very own principles. The physical violence is transformed into a covet, silent form of equally violent punishment.

It grants the administrators unchecked power over the staff, for the staff cannot defend themselves. They are not notified of their mistakes or punishment. It can be said that the instrument itself is a tool for tyranny and terror, where the staff are kept in line, in fear, in the dark.

Once again the example of the panopticon comes to my mind.

It gets worse. Work cultures vary from institutions to instutitions. A teacher can never get used to the school culture for a general school culture does not exist. Every school has their very own way of doing things, their very own beliefs, priorities and traditions, all of which change with changing principals or administrators.

It was some time ago that a MP told the press that Out-Of-Bound markers cannot be clearly defined or spelled out, even if it will allow the public to know what is allowable and what is punishable. His reason was that social norms change from time to time, and so does the definition of what is acceptable, so it is impossible to pen down the OB markers.

Social norms was also cited as the reason for why male civil servants can extend their medical benefits to their family members and not female civil servants. It is, according to the spokesman, that it has always been the traditional male role to provide for the family and that the government does not want to change or upset the usual, socially acceptable way of doing things.

Whereas in other countries, the people, the deep rooted history and practices decide the social norms, in Singapore, our government has both hands in shaping our history, beliefs and values. And having them throw qualitatively unverified statements attributing rationale to prevailing intangible social norms which no one can define, somehow absolves them of their responsibility to correct unjust treatment, of their fault in propagating sexist gender roles and their duty to change the socio-political climate to allow for fair and equal treatment on the basis of our being.