MOE (Ministry of Education) Statement on AWARE’s CSE (Comprehensive Sexuality Education)
Please see latest (7 May o9) post “AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) : Re Homosexuality, anal sex, pre-marital sex“
======================================================================
( Bold highlights made by Mathialee, not MOE)
===================================================
Reply to Recent Comments and Claims About AWARE’s Sexuality Education Programme in Schools
1We refer to recent claims and comments about AWARE’s sexuality education programme in schools.
2Sexuality education conducted in MOE schools is premised on the importance of the family and respect for the values and beliefs of the different ethnic and religious communities on sexuality issues. The aim is to help students make responsible values-based choices on matters involving sexuality.
3Core programmes are delivered by teachers but schools do collaborate with other agencies in delivering additional modules. However, in doing so, schools must ensure that any programmes run by external agencies are secular and sensitive to the multi-religious make-up of our society. Parents can choose to opt their children out of these programmes.
4Last year, 11 secondary schools engaged AWARE to run workshops for their students. The number of students involved in each school ranged from about 20 to 100, and each workshop lasted 3 hours. The objectives of these workshops were to provide students with accurate information on Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs)/HIV, to help students understand the consequences of premarital sexual activity, and to equip students with skills such as decision-making and resisting negative peer pressure.
5AWARE also conducted assembly talks, typically of 45-minute duration, for students in a few secondary schools. Some of the areas covered in the talks included body image, self-esteem, eating disorders, teenage pregnancies, sexual harassment and the role of women in today’s context.
6The schools that engaged AWARE found that the content and messages of the sessions conducted were appropriate for their students and adhered to guidelines to respect the values of different religious groups. The schools did not receive any negative feedback from students or parents who attended the workshops and talks.
7In particular, MOE has also not received any complaint from parents or Dr Thio Su Mien, who was reported to have made specific claims about sexuality education in our schools. MOE has contacted Dr Thio Su Mien to seek clarifications and facts to substantiate her claims.
8If parents and members of the public know of specific instances where guidelines have not been adhered to, they should report them directly to MOE to investigate. MOE recognises that sexuality education is sensitive. In conducting these programmes, the views of parents will be respected and values taught should not deviate from the social norms accepted by mainstream society in Singapore.
40 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
I am so happy i feel like crying.
I seldom think highly of MOE…. this is one of the few times I am proud of them.
[...] Original post by mathialee [...]
[...] Original post by Mathia Lee ~ Plans and Preoccupations [...]
Congratulations mathia… when Thio made those ridiculous statements when she first came out, I knew that it was only a matter of time before the authorities spoke up. I think a major thrust of the EOGM surely must be to make the new guard account for all the statements that they have made that cannot stand up to scrutiny, and that has caused so much hurt and misunderstanding to so many people.
http://singaporeenquirer.sg/?p=3531
Senior Minister of State for Education S Iswaran said there are guidelines in place for sexuality education programmes in schools.
He was speaking on Tuesday to reporters who asked about workshops run by AWARE – an issue which surfaced in the media recently.
Mr Iswaran, who was visiting Yishun Town Secondary School, said parents have not complained, but the Education Ministry (MOE) will step in if they do.
He urged parties involved in the AWARE saga to get the facts right, before commenting on such programmes in schools.
“The guiding principle for this is very simple. It uses the family as the basic building block, as the basic foundation and helps the students make value-based decision on the whole issue of sexuality and in a manner that’s sensitive to the multiracial, multi-religious environment.
“Clearly, there are different perspectives in our society so MOE takes a very deliberate and cautious approach, and our teachers deliver the core curriculum and core programme in this respect. But beyond that, schools have the flexibility to bring in additional help and courses if they feel it is part of their desire to nurture their students,” he said.
On a separate issue, Yishun Town Secondary School will join 27 other schools to become an Autonomous School next year.
Its students have performed consistently well and the school will have additional funding and flexibility to develop a holistic education programme.
Source: CNA
Thanks!! we feel so vindicated!!
Congrats! Good that MOE highlighted that (i) schools did not encounter any problems with the courses; (ii) people can choose to opt out if they want to. Onus is now on the new Exco to justify their claims…
[...] it as an education. How cliche of me.When you’re working in agencyland you become consumed MOE (Ministry of Education) Statement on AWARE’s CSE (Comprehensive Sexuality Education) – mathialee.wordpress.com 04/28/2009 ( Bold highlights made by Mathialee, not MOE) [...]
Thinking a bit further, and now that MOE is in the picture, I can’t help but feel that the controversy over CSE is really a proxy debate on the objective of education itself. Briefly, should education present the world (1) as it is; or (2) as it should be?
If the answer is (1), then on the question of homosexuality, it is difficult to have “neutral” or “normal” as the answer. The reality is that overall, it is such a complex topic with a whole spectrum of views, ranging from harsh condemnation to overwhelming acceptance. It is not just the medical or scientific prognosis that matters. People’s perceptions have to be taken into consideration as well. Right now, there is no international consensus on homosexuality. Many countries, including Singapore, still criminalise certain homosexual acts. Some religions have negative views on homosexuality. A majority of Singaporeans, it is said, are not positive about it either. There are some pockets of tolerance and acceptance, but overall, if we take a snapshot of today, I think a dispassionate observer might very well conclude that our society is not very accepting of homosexuality. But is that the picture we want to convey to students?
If the answer is (2), then clearly we are not describing the world as it is. We are in fact presenting a view of the world that we feel is desirable and that we should aim for. This is an important and useful function of education, to shape society in a (hopefully) better direction. Now, it is possible that discrimination of homosexuals is a problem in Singapore, and I believe it is indeed the case. For example, in schools, some students might get bullied or ostracised for being gay, or for being perceived as gay (regardless of whether they really are), and end up with self-esteem issues. I am sure there are other examples of such discrimination. In short, the problem does exist. And if we agree that discrimination of gays is wrong, then wouldn’t it be helpful for CSE to have a “neutral” view, as a way to tackle discrimination?
Going forward, instead of saying that homosexuality is “normal” or “neutral”, why not say something like:
(a) Homosexual practices exist in Singapore (fact).
(b) There is a wide spectrum of positive, neutral and negative views on it (fact).
(c) That said, it is wrong to discriminate against homosexual people. As fellow human beings, we should respect the views of others.
Not sure if this contributes anything… I just had the idea that constructive ambiguity might be useful here
In the same article, it is mentioned that there is a venue change of the EOGM due to large numbers of people expected as well as swelling memberships by the day….
Doe it mean they are still taking in members? If so, is it official or only open to a “select group” (nudge wink)
PS by select group I mean those whetted and likely to be accepted by the new ex-co and their volunteers since the are the ones handling “intake”
Yes still taking in. Please support, thanks! = )
I agree with Fargoal’s suggestions.
Personally I think education should first present the world as it is (i.e. reality), followed by presenting the world as it should be (i.e. hope).
By fully understanding the world as it is, then we can take practical steps to achieve the outcome of the world as it should be.
I think there is not enough medical and scientific understanding on homosexuals. Because if the science makes it is so clear-cut, then it’s no longer a complex issue, right?
In science, we have guesses, hypotheses, theories and laws.
For example, we have the theory of evolution and the laws of gravity. To make evolution a law, the only way is to conduct a time travel experiment. To prove gravity, drop a durian, make measurements and do the calculations.
Therefore people can disagree on evolution but can they disagree on gravity?
I believe the science only need to address one complex issue “that it is impossible to be influenced to be a homosexual”.
I suppose one controversial way of testing this is to have 200 young children (100 girls, 100 boys) placed in an isolated society where it is defined to them that they are homosexuals. The study will then track their lives up to adulthood in this isolated environment.
Given that in our current society, homosexuals “discover” themselves in an heterosexual majority environment, then we should expect the 200 children to “discover” their heterosexual selfs in an homosexual majority environment.
If we are very certain that it is impossible to be influenced to be a homosexual, then this very important experiment is a very safe one too, because the end result should be a normal homosexual minority (4%?) out of the 200 children.
Hmm… I can do a very long PhD on this… Who wants to volunteer their children for this very safe experiment?
Hang in there Mathia. You’ve been doing good work, don’t let the bigots get you down. And don’t bother with Solo Bear – he’s a troll. He starts arguments about things he himself calls “non-issues” – it’s impossible to have a good faith conversation with someone like that.
Jolene
I thought this was quite funny… and appropriate too (DISCLAIMER: obviously doesn’t apply to *your blog, mathia… don’t worry hehe):
http://londonist.com/2008/10/bigot_blog_idiocy_exposed.php
Enjoy… =p
Thanks Jolene for the support……….. i really needed it = )
Thanks George for he update
Thanks Dan for your link
Thanks CM for your comments.
Was flipping through the blogs… Woooo… Look at Solo Bear’s blog! It’s worse than marking exam scripts! How to read?!?!
Anyway, was thinking where to post this comment, especially when comments start to get flaming hot…… This is my pathetic attempt to preach… Haha.
Reality view 1 (by Fargoal)
- “…no international consensus on homosexuality…”
Reality view 2 (seem to be copied and pasted from all over the place)
- Possibly the only broad international consensus is that “homosexuality is not a pathology, nor an aberrant or deviant behavioural set”
BUT, by statistical measure, homosexuality is not a socially accepted behaviour for most people.
Example – Spitting or picking your nose or scratching your groin in public is not a pathology, nor an aberrant or deviant behavioural set.
Now that the views are clear… Definition time.
Bigot 1 – A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.
Bigot 2 – A person who is intolerant of any opinions from Bigot 1. Sounds familiar?
Seems like people who have differing views of Old Thio and company and Solo Bear do not treat them as human beings anymore. They have been taught by their predecessors and formed certain views for at least 30 years (For Old Thio is ~70 years). Trying to change their view is not any easier than trying to change your own views.
I actually think Solo Bear has some of the traits of a good negotiator… He has an uncanny ability to grandstand, frustrate and wear his opponents down. All in the name of constructive dialogue
By the way, this is meant to be a neutral statement. I can think of situations where these traits would come in handy.
Mathia – I hope you are not disheartened by all that has been going on. People may rightly disagree with the focus, content (and even the validity) of CSE. But I would like to think that there are enough sensible people out there who will acknowledge that some form of CSE is not only useful but important.
Intolerance of intolerance… sounds interesting.
Perhaps that’s called “frustration”?
There is a very palpable sense of frustration- among both camps. Here’s a simplified version of the situation:
Conservatives feel that change is going too quickly and in the “wrong” direction. The world they’ve grown up in and know is disappearing and being replaced by something worse. To them, cherished principles are giving way to “relativism” and nihlism. Conservatives may feel that liberals have had some good effect on society (civil rights) but are going too far (gay rights). Or they may simply detest what they see as unprincipled, “fad”-ish liberalism. They feel powerless to halt the slow but steady spread of liberal ideas.
Liberals on the other hand, feel that change is going too slowly, even if it’s in the “right” direction. They feel that society is mired in irrational and outdated prejudices. Liberals may feel that conservatives have certain worthy aims (eg preservation of family), but that their approach is flawed (eg stigmatising alternative family units). Or they may simply detest what they see as conservative close-mindedness. They feel powerless in the face of perceived conservative strangleholds on power and influence.
Both camps are angry and feel impotent.
Therefore, when two angry camps meet each other online, what happens? Not surprisingly, blood boils and tempers rise.
This is not meant to judge either camp, only to *describe the situation.
Dan – good description of the deadlock. I think we can make progress in 2 ways:
1) Wait for the government to pronounce itself in favour of either camp, i.e. repeal 377A or not.
2) Get the center more engaged. A critical mass of liberals and conservatives who are more inclined towards the center can get together, give up a bit of what either side wants, and work out a compromise that is equally unhappy for everyone.
Which do we prefer?
I wrote about this “intolerance of intolerance” business a few months ago:
http://www.glass-castle.org/blog/2008/10/on-privilege-and-transphobia.html
I suspect the young can’t differentiate between acceptance and tolerance with approval and sanction. One can be kind and loving towards any person without having to agree with their lifestyle, especially when you believe it to be inherently dangerous, unhealthy or immoral. That person can be a family member, your boyfriend, hell, their lifestyle is immoral, but you love them anyway.
It is when a certain group (say liberals) turn the hitherto centre to right’s quiet acceptance and tolerance into a demand that they also must approve and sanction ; that’s when the problems begin. And when a ‘group’ and their supporters then try and inculcate and superimpose their lifestyle values on the centre to right’s own children behind their backs; well then you have an explosion of anger and a fight on your hands.
Fargoal, you have a child. You love your child, you would protect your child with your life. if someone were to put a syringe in your child’s hands and tell them to inject themselves with heroin, beacuse it is pleasurable, fun and healthy, I am pretty sure you would rush to your child’s defense. Why? because you know heroin is bad and your child is being violated against your will. The example may be extreme, but the reaction conservative parents are now giving is along the same vein. Don’t touch my child, they are saying, I may not like your lifestyle but I can tolerate you and your right to live in peace , I am not anti-gay, but don’t poison my child with your brand of heroin.
Everyone can live in peace in harmony in whatever way they choose so long as everyone knows where the line is drawn. Conservatives, liberals, gays, feminists, moralists, hedonists, the religous, athiests and just plain bo chaps. Everyone in the same society, not stepping on each other’s toes. Singapore, basically, if left alone.
I think Singapore scores high on the acceptance of homosexuality in general, people do have a live and let live mentality. The kind of furore that has erupted over CSE cannot help the liberal cause, it has focused society on homosexuality but nothing good for that cause will come of it. It has pushed the ‘critical mass’ mentioned above off centre because the liberal left chose the wrong target; the centr to right’s children.
My little obscure blog – exclusively centered on the en bloc laws – has had over 1,500 hits in the last 2 days. An astounding number, and I have no idea how people stumbled into my corner. But it just goes to show that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands out there hungry for real information as everyone knows the media is PAP controlled and biased in this matter. A good number probably went on to sign that petition, 99% of the comments received were against the CSE. I posted the link to the manual in it’s entirety, so people could read and come to their own decision. Alas, the site was taken down tonight, so people are left with heresay and a miserable 3 pages. The window of transparancy has closed.
There are only a few things in life that the silent majority will rise and defend when threatened:-.
1) Country 2) Family 3) Home and for many 4) their God
In the last 3 years, I have been called to arms on 3) and 2). I have won the first battle, and I am pretty sure the MOE will take the controversial elements out of the CSE, remove AWARE quietly, and go back to teaching about STDs and sex in a non-threateneing way the ‘electorate’ can stomach.
tell me one thing, all you who would call homosexuality immoral.
what wrong has homosexuality done you?
how have you been harmed by homosexuality ?
and don’t tell me about disgust.
if you disgust me, shall i then label you immoral too?
TELL ME.
I totally agree with itshometome, pending further satisfactory scientific evidence.
I think most of the conservative majority do not define homosexuality as immoral.
For them, it is undesirable behaviour. That’s a whole world of difference.
Undesirable behaviour does not equate to sin/immoral.
Every parent who cares for their children will have some form of expectations for their children. With regards to the conservative majority, who would want their children to be homosexual? This then points to the next series of questions.
I’ve asked the following questions somewhere on this blog. Nobody has answered them in a satisfactory way or answered them at all. Really, this is all that is needed to convince the conservative majority:
—————————————————————
The conservative majority can accept that there are homosexuals that are born homosexuals (i.e. these people cannot choose their sexual orientation). Very easy to explain, very easy to accept.
But are ALL homosexuals like that?
How many are influenced to be homosexual? Is it possible to be influenced to be homosexual in the first place?
How many become homosexual because of certain tragic events that happen in their lives?
The conservative majority will not bother those who are genetic homosexuals and circumstantial homosexuals. They are only concern about their children being influenced to be homosexuals.
With regards to influence, there are many kinds. It seems those who are parents and part of the conservative majority define influence differently from those who trumpet the anti-discrimination message.
The definition of influence to the conservative majority include exposure to people and statements (being homosexual is OK/normal, it’s OK to experiment), peer-pressure, exposure to material/knowledge and leading to experimentation. When you hear people say “western influence”, that is exactly the complex kind of influence that the conservative majority define it as. All these on impressionable young children.
This “category” of influence is similar to that which gets minors into sex, drugs, smoking and alcohol. Now, do you see why itshometome’s comment is making a lot of sense?
Ask around, do a comprehensive unbias survey and you will find what I say about the conservative majority (minus some Christians and Muslims) is true.
Of course, one can argue that if one does not have homosexual genes, they cannot be influenced to be homosexuals or become homosexuals through certain tragic events. Aha, that can also mean that in the absence of influence and certain events, these people follow mainstream society as heterosexuals.
This then points to the question, are human beings born mentally and/or emotionally bisexual? Perhaps that is the reason that it is so hard to find homosexual genes?
TELL ME GOOD SCIENTIFIC ANSWERS.
Have been waiting damn long since my comments on April 26th.
In case things go up in flames, let me add some background information and state my purpose in getting answers.
I am a parent of 2 babies. Eventually, they will grow up, and one day they will ask me and/or my wife about these issues. They will ask about our opinions, facts, what is taught in school, what is brought up by activists, statistics, probably everything.
My wife is a free thinker, yet she feels that impressionable youngsters can be influenced by homosexuality “propaganda”. She also agrees that there are rare genetic homosexuals who cannot do anything about their sexuality. By and large she reflects what itshometome described as silent majority. In fact, my in-laws hold the same view.
Now, for lack of better scientific answers. Tell me, how do I answer my children’s question in a satisfactory manner next time?
For lack of better scientific answers, the mindset of the silent majority will be propagated, period.
Looks like the AWARE saga is far from over! I would first congratulate Mathia and AWARE for the outcome of the EOGM. On balance, it is a positive development. I trust that AWARE, as a practitioner of pluralism and inclusivity, will continue to listen to the many voices in society, especially when there are differences in views.
I did not intend to post any further on this thread, but since itshometome referred to me as an example in one of the posts above, I thought I should share some thoughts as well. So I would respectfully seek our host Mathia’s indulgence…
As a parent of a toddler son, I can definitely emphatise (but not necessarily agree 100%) with some of the negative reactions that have emerged following the disclosure of the CSE manual. Parenting is not an easy task. It’s not a walk in the park for me right now, and I suspect it will be just as challenging in the future as my son grows up. We would do well to listen to those concerned voices.
On the CSE itself, I have looked through the manual when it became available online. On balance, it is not a bad document, with some good informative points here and there. For sure, it can be improved. I have a few concerns here and there about the language, e.g. I found it rather odd to describe “anal sex” as “healthy”. Why not “safer”? And why imply a value judgement by describing “premarital sex” as “neutral”? But by and large I can live with the overall package, even the inclusion of homosexuality, which anyway only takes up a small percentage of the entire CSE. A lot depends on how the instructor conveys the message. But at the end of the day, I know also that children nowadays are bombarded by so many different sources of information, first-hand, second-hand or otherwise. It is not always possible to “shield” them completely from influences or ideas that I as a parent do not particularly like! At some point, my son will have to learn how to judge for himself, taking the CSE as one of many sources. I can now hear Solo Bear and others saying I am a pseudo-parent!
But in all seriousness, I am fully convinced, from a health perspective alone, that *some* form of CSE is useful and important.
Therefore, in the interest of transparency and accountability, it is critical for MOE and AWARE to clarify those issues that have been raised by parents. Ultimately, CSE can only be viable if it gets “buy-in” and support from parents. MOE, AWARE and the parents should start a dialogue to address their concerns as soon as possible. Otherwise, it will only feed more confusion and mistrust. This we hardly need at this point.
_____
Now, on homosexuality. I would state for the record that I have no fundamental objections to homosexuality. But I also recognise that it is a very complicated and touchy subject for many. I have put down my concrete proposal on how we as a society can move forward in one of Mathia’s earlier posts (see link). There may be an unhappy truth in CM’s assessment of the conservative majority, which is why any solution needs to take into account their concerns. I have no serious attachment to my idea; it is just my own assessment of a possible way forward.
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/they-came-for-me/#comment-1123
Looking at the tone of the discussion and drawing from my recent experiences, it seems that a lot of times, discussions get deadlocked when both sides try to convince one another of the moral superiority of their own argument. Broadly, the “pro” brings out the scientific/medical/human rights arguments and tries to portray the “anti” as bigots, while the “anti” burnish their “pro-family” credentials and castigate the “pro” for trying to destroy those values. Frankly, this sort of approach is usually a non-starter. Both sides end up talking past each other, rather than to each other.
I wonder if there is a different way to do this… Why not start from a more practical angle? What are the problems faced by homosexuals in Singapore? How can we alleviate those problems? For example, I understand that discrimination is a problem. How serious is it? If we do X in order to solve the problem of discrimination, others will have concerns about Y. In that case, let’s put in place Z to handle concerns about Y. Something along those lines… This might be a more fruitful approach? Just another suggestion…
The AWARE saga is over, because people knew that it was just a power struggle between the feminist liberals and the Christian fundamentalists. AWARE does not matter in the bigger picture, It was the media that fanned the flames. A moderate like myself, while grateful to the extreme right for bringing this to our attention, did not rush to their support because we can take the battle from here – and place it at the MOE’s door. Adversary can make strange bedfellows, but moderates are not about to jump into bed with extremists of any stripe.
About the Instruction guide:
1. Anal sex: Given that the overall tone of the instruction manual is to soften the ground for gay indoctrination, it is not surprising that anal sex has to be first established as normal and healthy. It is a gross example of misinformation.You cannot later legitimise homosexual sex if the very act iitself s taught as unnatural and detrimental to health. A smart cookie in a class might join the dots and show up the hypocrisy otherwise.
In a class of 12 /13 yr olds, it can safely be assumed that no parent worth his salt would have broached such a subject at home – so the instructor has an opening and virgin ground to conquer. If you had to plan a psychological stratagy for grabbing young minds, this is the logical place to start.
Anal sex is top of the list for this reason.
13. is equally pernicious, Establishing pain as being an acceptable part of sex builds on the earlier idea that anal sex is healthy; pain is assiciated with anal sex. Unless a female has a medical condition or has sex against her will, heterosexual sex is never painful.
If anal sex is ‘healthy’ and the pain is ‘pleasurable’, then young minds can readily accept that homosexual sex is normal, healthy and pleasurable.
.
After laying the groundwork that anal sex is healthy, and pain is okay , the socail issues of homosexuality are added. A few universal truths ( everybody deserves respect etc)are mixed in with controversial ideas (homsexualks are the same as heterosexuals) and before you know it, you have a group who can’t tell fact from fiction, right from wrong.
I am a scientist by training, and never take statements at face value. I like to see original documents and corroborating evidence. I have read the guide and there is an awful lot of bad science, falacious emotional reasoning, facile and erroneous conclusions in the CSE.
I find the validation of statements through seemingly simple logic particulary noxious.
The trainers are adults, they know what they are saying is wrong, they know they are leading children to erroneous conclusions they can’t possibly counter-argue. Try this argument on an adult and it does not wash.
eg
“Some foolishly suggest that maybe a person turned lesbian because she had a bad experience with a man, or a man becomes gay because a woman mistreated him. If this were truly the case, then there should be many more lesbians and gay people, shouldn’t there?
To mattiaLee:
I have nothing against homosexuals, they are as unimportant to me as trees in the park. I really don’t give a hoot what they do in their private life. Most conservative moderates think the same. They have never done me any harm nor I them.
Until now that is. Their world has crossed over onto my turf and into my child’s life and I will not tolerate that. If Islam or fundamental christianity were being surrupticiously taught in school I would be equally up in arms.
.
Take a leaf out of the moderate’s book of tolerance – stick to your side of the fence and all is well.
Fargoal, the practical angle that you suggested will hit the first barrier (the series of questions that I’ve posted) and will not progress further until those questions are answered.
Here’s why. Let me first put forth hypothetical answers to some of the questions.
————————————————–
* Hypothetical answer (1) ALL cases of homosexuals are genetic. No such thing as circumstantial homosexuals nor is it possible to be influenced to be homosexuals even from an impressionable young age – You can lie to and brainwash a heterosexual child from the age of 6 all the way to adulthood that he/she is a homosexual and has homosexual genes, but the child will still tell you that he/she is not. Fantastic!
-> Hypothetical outcome (1) This is really easy. It means homosexual genes are unique. Once tested positive, it becomes a scientific fact, discrimination will cease because it becomes a fact that brainwashing a heterosexual will not make him/her homosexual.
—————————————————
* Hypothetical answer (2) Some cases of homosexuals are genetic, some influenced, some circumstantial.
-> Hypothetical outcome (2) Once there is strong evidence of any little inkling of influence, the natural action of parents would be to call for measures to eliminate such influence. Discrimination will become even more prevalent. The worst case scenario for homosexuals. Perhaps only the genetic homosexuals are safe if specific genes are found and they wear some sort of tag to clearly state that they are genetic homosexuals.
—————————————————
* Hypothetical answer (3) Almost all human beings are born physically male or female, but are born mentally without any sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is a plastic behaviour that can go in any direction depending on genetics (hormone levels, etc) and influence.
-> Hypothetical outcome (3) This will spark a great debate. Which direction do will go from here? Do we follow our physical features and enforce rules/laws based on our physical features? Or do we give freedom of choice? Would the current conservative majority dictate the outcome?
—————————————————
I speculate that the conservative majority assumes the answer to be (2). It is really up to the homosexuals and pro-homosexuals to prove the point with unbias studies.
HOWEVER, do we really want to know the answers?
What if it is really (2) or (3)? Who suffers?
That is why, in this thread
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/they-came-for-me/#comment-1115
I proposed status quo for the homosexuality cause in Singapore.
Ask around, before the liberals raised these issues, how many people know
- Section 377A
- That certain homosexuality acts are illegal
Now that these issues are raised, people then need to put a yes/no to it because children will eventually ask.
Status quo – No issue raised equates to less attention, less discrimination. It’s not wise to be greedy for zero discrimination.
For the record, no homosexuals in Singapore was arrested for engaging in homosexual sex.
Hmmm… Sometimes I do wish the pro-homosexuals would take things further. Very intrigued to see whether discrimination will reach volatile levels, then do a body count.
Well, let’s see how the CSE story turns out shall we?
I did briefly mention it being a target board regardless Josie and team goes or stays.
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/they-came-for-me/#comment-1149
Although I don’t really like labels… I guess I must be a conservative moderate!
itshometome put it short and sweet… “…Their world has crossed over onto my turf…”
I had something slightly similar on April 24th.
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/they-came-for-me/#comment-1115
Hmm… A storm is coming.
Fargoal said, on May 4, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Seconded.
Sensible and nuanced approach to a touchy matter.
The CSE got suspended.
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2009/05/moes-statement-on-sexuality-ed.php
Since majority of the population depend on offline news, once this statement gets to the newspapers, it may trigger a huge storm. Then MOE may have to do another embarassing press release to settle the mess.
It’s going to be 50/50 now. Let’s see how much drama there will be.
Just as there are activists who push for liberal issues, there will also be activists who push for conservative issues. I shudder at the possible torrent of aggression if there is a massive outcry by the conservative majority.
———————————————
I manage to get my grubby hands on the CSE manual.
I found this statement inside “…We do not know what causes homosexuality, or heterosexuality for that matter…”
That means I can forget about getting any answers to the questions I raised.
Too bad then, status quo will be my educational message to my children.
I don’t know why you would be so happy about this.
Frankly speaking, CSE trainers don’t do it for their own profit or benefit — its all voluntary work. In fact, without this, we have more time to work on other stuff. We don’t even earn a cent from the workshops — it’s provided free.
The only people that benefited were the students, and society. The only people now who are disadvantaged, are the students who should have heard this, but now do not get to.
I feel sorry for all your children.
I feel sorry that parents think they are doing their children a favor.
As I’ve mentioned in
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/they-came-for-me/#comment-1149
I have my own hypotheses. Simply testing hypotheses and intrigued by the predictability and unpredictability of human behavior.
As Fargoal said “Ultimately, CSE can only be viable if it gets “buy-in” and support from parents.” I agree with MOE’s statement paragraph 4.
If the objective is to prevent and protect against STI, reduce teenage/unwanted pregnancies, empower the girls with knowledge, I suggest this:
1) Provide comprehensive knowledge of common STI. Using AWARE’s network, if possible, let those who have contracted STI and are willing, to have dialogue with these students. Seeing an actual human being suffering makes a longer lasting impact. And this also allows for those who have contracted incurable STI to make positive contributions, if they are willing.
2) Since you already have role play, and if you really want to teach abstinence, then show how difficult it is for 2 passionate people engaging in sex to avoid contact with body fluids even with the use of condom. Tell them how herpes is more easily transmitted than HIV.
3) Using AWARE’s network, let the students track and interact with pregnant women volunteers. Let them understand the toll pregnancy takes on a women’s body and how much stress a growing teenage body receives in competition with pregnancy. Let them have some experience how tough it is to cope with a newborn for the first 100 days. (Now you know why some of my posts are up at 4am). Let them share in the birth of the child then followed by another talk/field-trip on what happens during abortion.
4) Use drama to show different instances of men/boys asking for sex. Have some happy and sad endings to it, like how Korean drama makes people cry. This will let the students realise different possibilities and scenarios. That will help empower them to make future decisions.
This is what I call impact, with real human beings and situations rather than some distant topic and simlulations.
I do not think what I’ve suggested will be disapproved by MOE or the conservative majority.
If you want to benefit people, you have to do it in an effective way, not the way you think it must be.
Hi Mathia
I am calling for people to write to MOE to support effective CSE.
http://www.glass-castle.org/blog/2009/05/support-effective-cse-write-to-moe.html
In my opinion, the feelings of discomfort of some parents should not be prioritised over saving lives and ensuring the health of youths. International medical consensus is firmly on the side of non-judgmental comprehensive sex education which factually addresses a variety of sexual behaviour.
Jolene
MOE’s decision to suspend was probably intertwined with political considerations, i.e. assuage public anger in order to avoid losing voter support.
From my perspective, MOE seems to have left one important issue hanging. MOE did acknowledge the positive aspects of the CSE guide, i.e. “the accurate information provided on STIs/HIV and role-play practice for students to say no to sex”. So if MOE suspends AWARE’s CSE, are there any alternative programmes that can teach these positive aspects to our youth? Needs further clarification I think.
i agree with — i think they’re just fire-fighting right now….. i.e. assuage public anger in order to avoid losing voter support.
it’s really sad, when it’s all a misunderstanding
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/awares-comprehensive-sexuality-education-cse-re-homosexuality
On a side note Fargoal, you’re in NYC aren’t you? How’s the flu situation?
I might be going there in June; does your cup of coffee invitation still stand ? = )
Flu situation appears to be stabilising… it was quite scary when it first broke, because a few dozen students in Queens apparently got infected after coming back from Mexico. But everything seems under control now. The strain we have here is quite mild compared to the Mexican version. If you are travelling to NYC, you might want to e-register at the Singapore MFA website and buy travel insurance. Singapore maintains a Consulate in NYC so help is not far even if things suddenly get worse.
Of course my coffee invitation still stands… Just drop me a note at my email to work out a convenient time
Unfortunately, it often boils down to appeasing the “many”- regardless of whether they have a rational basis for their opinions. By and large, i try to respect their concerns, but i have a concern of my own…
…essentially, appeasement is all well and good when you’re just dealing with morals, but not when your decision will have a real impact on real people (homosexuals) who go through real pain.
I wish we could consider that more deeply. But given the way our society works, i don’t blame people for failing to do so.