The good (and bad) of the Alpha issue
I am baffled at some of the comments and responses I have been seeing and hearing in regard to the Alpha Boys' Home Saga. It is the belief of many that the minister did the right thing; I agree to an extent. However I am not in agreement with the approach taken. Did the minister really have to be that detailed? Why did she neglect to speak of the financial issues? Is it that in revealing the financial troubles of the institution it would have publicised the lack of attention from the relevant ministry?
My main issue with this particular case is what can stem from the labelling of persons affiliated with the home and/or school. We in a society dubbed worldwide as homophobic. Why can't people see the danger in the pronouncements of the minister in "one of the most homophobic" societies?
Let's weigh the pros and the cons. I applaud the minister for making an attempt at the concept of transparency. I believe it is fair that she announced the closure of the home, a place known to many for its 100 plus years of contributions. She seemingly attended to her ministerial duties by being available for consultations with the beloved sisters at the home.
On the other hand, complete transparency was not necessary in this instance, as it produced potential long-term trauma for an already vulnerable group. The negative impacts of labelling/stereotyping have already taken effect. The 'good will have to suffer for the bad' maxim is brought to life, ie all boys affiliated with the home and school will be seen as sexual predators.
It really doesn't take a magnifying glass for one to see the disaster in the minister's pronouncements. This is not about covering up what is deviant, but rather protecting what is good. the purpose of the home.