Education Minister Ng Eng Hen said yesterday parents, from June/July, can have access to them and sit in on the sexuality education classes in school. If they are uncomfortable with what is being taught, they can pull their children out of the classes.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The Foreign Donor Bogeyman
Presumably because NMP Siew Kum Hong was vocal about gay rights and AWARE's stress on gender rather than women's rights per se, his political adversaries shrewdly capitalised on allegations that he and Maruah accepted foreign handouts from a Swede gentleman, Johan Skarendal. Allegations to which Siew Kum Hong angrily denied and strongly objected to. His adversaries were clever enough to open that front to ignite the government's relatively justifiable paranoia, and the police report made by the NMP indicated that he knew enough of the seriousness of the allegations. The Yahoo lawyer categorically denied that he was involved in any inappropriate or illegal funding from the Swede, and by inference as Maruah members were there as well, Maruah was also not implicated in dubious funding, closing the case.
The government's fear of foreign funding of local politicians and activists is not unique. The UK has the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act forcing all parties to be transparent about their donations and outlawed foreign funding. The reasons were to prevent corruption and mitigate public cynicism related to the integrity of political parties and donor influence over politicians. However, other countries are even wary of their NGOs accepting foreign donations. Turkey and Russia are such examples. To be fair and understanding the realist realities of the world, the anxiety over the hidden agenda of foreign donations to political parties and NGOs are not unfounded.
Some foreign public and private philanthropies are designed as catalysts of political change in supposedly less democratic states. The objective of funding is to spur on "democracy" and the US' National Endowment for Democracy, which Dr Chee Soon Juan was a fellow in 2004, is a common example of missionary democracy and the need to convert "ignorant heathens" for their own good. However, at the other extreme, sounding the nationalistic klaxon, less progressive governments typically raise the ghoul of foreign intervention as an excuse to choke and isolate local politicians and activists within their borders. Perhaps the tentative balance is that politicians cannot accept any kind of foreign funding while activists can accept foreign funding as long as it is not directly or indirectly engineered by a foreign government. Perhaps.
Regardless if the recent Swede's visit was an innocuous one or not, it paved the way for further questions on what foreign donations political parties and activists can accept without detonating ethical and legal powder kegs. Who else besides Siew Kum Hong and some Maruah activists did Johan Skarendal meet as part of his Singapore itinerary is not public information. Arguably in the interest of the development of a civil society without a paranoid government taking every chance to jump at shadows and curb the honest work of activists, hopefully other parties that met the Swede are not naive and also followed Maruah's example of financial integrity and independence.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.457
Response to Education Ministry’s decision to drop AWARE as a vendor for sexuality education programmes
Response to Education Ministry’s decision to drop AWARE as a vendor for sexuality education programmes
It is regrettable that the Ministry has seen a need to make this move. However, we recognise that
the ministry has been under considerable pressure from some parents on the matter and we can
understand why it has taken this action.
AWARE still believes our Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme is a much needed resource
for youths. It was drawn up by professionals and, during the two years it was run in schools, there
was no negative feedback. During the furore of recent weeks, many parents made a point of saying
they would be keen for their children to benefit from the objective and frank approach AWARE’s
programme takes to sexuality. We will continue with our review of the programme, and this will be
done in consultation with parents, teachers, counsellors and other relevant parties. At the
appropriate time we may offer it again to the Education Ministry.
The CSE programme, however, is just one of AWARE’s activities. It has been given disproportionate
publicity in recent weeks. It is unfortunate if there are now people in Singapore who associate
AWARE only with sex education.
AWARE has three areas of activity – research and advocacy, direct services, and public education.
The first, research and advocacy, has been AWARE’s hallmark from the start. The work goes on with
the CEDAW shadow report, and research into issues such as sexual harassment at work, work life
balance, the challenges faced by singles in Singapore, and the trafficking of women and children.
The AWARE helpline, along with our counselling service and the Legal Clinic, continues to be
invaluable to women in distress. With our newly expanded membership, we have many new
members who are offering to help in these areas and we hope to improve and expand these services
in the course of this year.
We also plan to step up our efforts in public education, including reviving the talks and forums that
we used to hold in the early years at public libraries and other community locations. The EGM on 2
May showed very clearly that the women of Singapore have strong views on many matters and that
they want to stand up and speak out. AWARE will organise forums and other opportunities for them
to do so. We will make greater use of new media to reach out to members and to create channels
for them to express their views and to network with each other.
Dana Lam, President.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.226
MEDIA STATEMENT – 21 May 2009
Response to Education Ministry’s decision to drop AWARE as a vendor for sexuality education programmes
It is regrettable that the Ministry has seen a need to make this move. However, we recognise that
the ministry has been under considerable pressure from some parents on the matter and we can
understand why it has taken this action.
AWARE still believes our Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme is a much needed resource
for youths. It was drawn up by professionals and, during the two years it was run in schools, there
was no negative feedback. During the furore of recent weeks, many parents made a point of saying
they would be keen for their children to benefit from the objective and frank approach AWARE’s
programme takes to sexuality. We will continue with our review of the programme, and this will be
done in consultation with parents, teachers, counsellors and other relevant parties. At the
appropriate time we may offer it again to the Education Ministry.
The CSE programme, however, is just one of AWARE’s activities. It has been given disproportionate
publicity in recent weeks. It is unfortunate if there are now people in Singapore who associate
AWARE only with sex education.
AWARE has three areas of activity – research and advocacy, direct services, and public education.
The first, research and advocacy, has been AWARE’s hallmark from the start. The work goes on with
the CEDAW shadow report, and research into issues such as sexual harassment at work, work life
balance, the challenges faced by singles in Singapore, and the trafficking of women and children.
The AWARE helpline, along with our counselling service and the Legal Clinic, continues to be
invaluable to women in distress. With our newly expanded membership, we have many new
members who are offering to help in these areas and we hope to improve and expand these services
in the course of this year.
We also plan to step up our efforts in public education, including reviving the talks and forums that
we used to hold in the early years at public libraries and other community locations. The EGM on 2
May showed very clearly that the women of Singapore have strong views on many matters and that
they want to stand up and speak out. AWARE will organise forums and other opportunities for them
to do so. We will make greater use of new media to reach out to members and to create channels
for them to express their views and to network with each other.
Dana Lam, President.
'Sexually challenged' isn't an offensive term referring to gays
I WISH to comment on Dr Thio Su Mien's reference to homosexuals as sexually challenged people ('Gay activists a key constituency of Aware', May 18).
Unlike one letter writer to Forum, I do not think that is offensive. It is a fact that homosexuality is an abnormality for the simple reason that it is against the laws of nature. Nature intended each species to reproduce itself and homosexuality does not do the job.
It is possible that some people are born with homosexual inclinations but that does not make them normal. They are in the same category as people born mentally retarded or blind or deaf or mute. While we may sympathise with them, we do not think of them as normal.
This is an important point we need to convey to children in school. Human behaviour is malleable. According to many historians, homosexuality was rampant in ancient Greece because it was socially acceptable.
So if teachers and parents do not teach our young that homosexuality is unnatural, our young may decide to experiment and opt for the homosexual lifestyle.
Tan Keng Soon
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.450
Aware's response to MOE regrettable
I AM disappointed by the response from the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) to the Ministry of Education's decision not to use Aware's sexuality education programme until the public had regained its trust in it.
Aware's response to the issue - as highlighted in last Friday's report, 'Minister slams rival sides in Aware tussle', and as published on Aware's website - is in stark contrast to that of the Ministry of Education (MOE).
After receiving feedback from concerned parents and the public, MOE took quick, decisive and well-considered actions to stop all such programmes, review them carefully and re-examine the internal processes and controls of such programmes at the school and ministry levels. The outcome is a tightening of MOE's processes to vet and approve external agencies providing sexuality education in schools.
Regrettably, Aware has not changed its attitude. It still has not acknowledged that it was in the wrong.
The group has affirmed that 'during the two years it (Aware's Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme) was run in schools, there was no negative feedback' and stated that 'we recognise that the ministry has been under considerable pressure from some parents on the matter and we can understand why it has taken this action'.
This shows that Aware still believes the fault lies with the parents (who gave negative feedback) and that MOE acted only because of pressure from these parents.
Aware seems to have put the blame on the parents and MOE, while saying Aware itself has done no wrong.
Aware's attitude and reaction will not help re-establish the trust of MOE and parents in the group. Nor will it help the public to see Aware as a responsible part of Singapore's civil society.
Lee Kai Yin
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.222
SEXUALITY EDUCATION: Parents, please clue in
SEXUALITY EDUCATION
Parents, please clue in
LAST Saturday's reports ('Most parents clueless about sexuality programme', 'Sex education: Experts identify 2 'weak links' ' and 'Parents unaware of kids' Net risks') prompt a question: Are parents too busy with work and do they have no time to find out what is happening in their children's lives?
Parenting is a tough, tiring, frustrating, demanding and complex job which has no fixed hours.
But like a job, parenting must be learnt and the process is usually on the basis of trial and error on the job, which is also why it is the most stressful job an average individual can have.
How then can we support parents in parenting?
Government agencies like social service departments from the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, the family service centres and non-profit organisations like the Singapore Planned Parenthood Association should be able to provide the information required.
If the reports are a measure, most parents avoid the subject, which is a cause for concern as children may pick up the wrong information and values via the Internet and other sources.
Parents today are better educated than their own parents and grandparents. A better education should equip them better in clueing into the need to discuss sexuality with their children, thereby improving the parenting process.
Cecilia Ko (Ms)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.221
Monday, May 25, 2009
Sexuality education: Materials to be online soon
![]() | Education Minister Ng Eng Hen said on Sunday that parents, from June or July, can have access to the materials and sit in on their children's sexuality education classes in school. -- PHOTO: BH |
Education Minister Ng Eng Hen said on Sunday that parents, from June or July, can have access to the materials and sit in on their children's sexuality education classes in school. If they are uncomfortable with what is being taught, they can pull their children out of the classes.
| Quote |
Dr Ng told reporters the materials had been sold at bookshops and made into VCDs and DVDs, but they had not been 'very interesting for the parents'. He felt it was a 'good opportunity' to relaunch the materials, make them more available and put them online.
He was speaking at a community event on Sunday morning where he reaffirmed his ministry's commitment to being open about what schools were teaching regarding sexuality and that parents could decide if they wanted their children to be involved in the programme.
He was addressing about 300 residents and grassroots leaders at a dialogue at the Nanyang Community Centre in Jurong West.
During the session, one resident raised the issue of sexuality education taught in schools.
The issue was thrust into the spotlight following some parents' concerns about sexuality education courses offered in schools by external vendors.
On Sunday, Dr Ng reiterated the importance of parents in their children's sexuality education, though many were uncomfortable about it.
He told the audience: 'If parents are willing to teach their children about sexuality education, please go ahead. Then my schools don't have to do it. But I know parents - I'm a parent - some of you are very shy.'
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.220
Let's have a code to ensure transparency of societies
THE AWARE saga suggests the usefulness of instituting a "code for takeovers" for registered charities and registered societies, similar to the code which applies primarily to listed public companies and listed registered business trusts.
Charities and registered societies play a vital role in supporting a flourishing civil polity by delivering aid to the needy, providing advocacy on behalf of marginalised groups and serving as an intermediary between the state and the people.
If the boards and trustees of charities and registered societies are protected from challengers, they would tend to become complacent, if not negligent, and society would lose out.
What is crucial is transparency.
- First, the slate of candidates (both incumbent and newcomers) for the board or executive committee of a charity or registered society should be made known to the members at least one month prior to an election.
- Second, candidates should disclose whether, and with whom, they are "acting in concert".
- Third, candidates should disclose their intentions concerning the organisation and whether they plan to make any major changes to its direction or programmes.
The members of the charity or registered society can then make an informed decision at the election, and the crisis of legitimacy as was faced by the "new guard" at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) will be less likely to occur.
Joseph Wong Kok Sen
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.441
Why teaching youth about condoms is important
I REFER to last Wednesday's Forum Online letter, "Useful programme except for condom excerpt" by Mr Steven Tan, in which he argues that teaching youth about condom use will "confuse" them into unprotected sexual activity.
Last November, it was reported in the media that one in four sexually active women does not use birth control.
A 2002 profile of women going for abortions at the National University Hospital found that 75.5 per cent were married and a large proportion did not use birth control regularly.
According to Ministry of Health statistics, most women in Singapore who contracted the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are married.
It is clear from the above�that many sexually active people in Singapore, including those who are married,�are not adequately informed�about the importance of using condoms.
The message of sexual abstinence�is not sufficient - young people must be taught about condoms so that they are�adequately prepared�when they do become sexually active.
The claim that teaching condom use "confuses" young people is the�same argument that persuaded Uganda�to abandon its strategy of�encouraging condom use in favour of "abstinence-only" education. After the change in strategy in 2001, HIV infection rates shot up.� About 130,000 new infections were identified in 2005, in comparison to 70,000 in 2002.
The World Health Organisation, Doctors Without Borders, and UNAids (a joint programme among several United Nations bodies) all take the position that the promotion of condom use is vital to securing public health.
The Health Promotion Board is right to teach our youth about condoms in accordance with�international expert medical consensus.�
We should not allow our discomfort with sensitive topics prevent us from protecting the health of our nation.
Jolene Tan Siyu (Ms)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.212
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Email from Mr Siew Kum Hong
To: REACH
18 May 2009
Dear Sirs/Madams,
My name is Siew Kum Hong. I am currently a Nominated Member of Parliament.
Your website is currently hosting various comments that are highly defamatory of me and that are in breach of your Terms of Use, in particular, the comments suggesting or insinuating that I have received or am receiving foreign funding (including but not limited to the comments posted by "Right versus Wrong" on 16 May 09 at 12:45 PM, "Margret wong" on 16 May 09 at 15:50 PM, "James Lim" on 16 May 09 at 17:53 PM, "pinkdot" on 16 May 09 at 18:39 PM, "piss off" on 17 May 09 at 12:52 PM, and "GET THE FACT RIGHT" on 17 May 09 at 17:46 PM) at the URL http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/TalkAbuzz/SnapshotsofHotIssues/tabid/233/ctl/Details/mid/917/ItemID/82/Default.aspx Please note that I have made a police report about this matter.
I hereby request that:
(a) you immediately remove either the entire thread, or at least the offending comments and all associated comments at the above URL, and provide e-mail confirmation of the same immediately upon removal;
(b) you produce all particulars in your possession, custody or control pertaining to the users listed above, including all registration particulars and IP addresses (and corresponding dates and times) associated with these users and/or their comments, as soon as possible and in any event not later than close of business on Wednesday 20 May 2009; and
(c) you immediately preserve all information in your possession, custody or control relating to this matter (including the particulars referred to in paragraph (b)), in view of potential criminal investigations and civil proceedings that may require the production of this information.
Please feel free to contact me at my email should you have any queries or require any clarifications. Please send the confirmation requested for in paragraph (a) above, and the information requested for in paragraph (b) above to, to this e-mail address.
Thank you for your attention.
Siew Kum Hong
Response from REACH
Mr Siew Kum Hong has written to REACH to request the removal of postings which made specific allegations against him that he felt were defamatory. Mr Siew has disputed the allegations and informed us that he has filed a police report.
Mr Siew has also asked REACH to furnish him with the IP addresses and particulars of the netizens who made the alleged postings on the REACH website. As his request will breach our website's privacy policy, we are unable to accede to it.
As the administrator of the REACH website, we have the right to remove any postings, including those which we consider to be in breach of the Terms of Use of the website, or otherwise objectionable. We have exercised this right and removed some postings.
REACH offers an open platform for Singaporeans to engage the Government on issues as well as to engage one another freely with their views and ideas. We encourage responsible online discourse, and we would expect netizens to act with decorum, observe acceptable norms of cyber etiquette, and avoid making irresponsible comments. For meaningful and constructive engagement, netizens have to be accountable and responsible for the comments they make.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28866.72
2 'weak links' in sex ed
| By Amelia Tan , Theresa Tan and Yeo Sam Jo | ||
![]() | Most parents, they said, are simply not comfortable discussing the birds and the bees with their children. -- ST PHOTO: DESMOND WEE | |
PSYCHOLOGISTS, counsellors and other experts on Friday welcomed tighter checks by the Education Ministry on sexuality education programmes in schools, but said more attention should be paid to two weak links in the system: parents and teachers.
| Most parents clueless about sexuality programme AS SEXUALITY education comes under scrutiny in schools, parents say what they welcome most is the fact that they are now getting more information about such programmes. Many of the 20 parents interviewed by The Straits Times on Friday said they had no idea what went on during sexuality education classes in school. |
Most parents, they said, are simply not comfortable discussing the birds and the bees with their children. What is worse is that many simply abdicate responsibility, and tell their children to get answers from teachers instead.
They added that teachers need more training to overcome the awkwardness many feel about discussing sex in class.
Said Madam Evelyn Khong, a manager and family life educator at Fei Yue Community Services, a group that holds sexuality education classes for students: 'Parents are uncomfortable talking about sex because they were taught by their parents not to talk about it. They don't understand sex fully, and think it's only about making babies.
'But sex is much more than that; it's an emotional, physical and psychological thing.'
Singapore Planned Parenthood Association president Edward Ong agreed, calling it a 'generational problem'.
Several parents interviewed admitted as much. Housewife Pricillia Ting, 44, who has two daughters aged 11 and 13, said: 'They are so young, they may not understand what sex is and may even get the wrong idea.'
Experts noted that this leads to the very situation Education Minister Ng Eng Hen said on Thursday should be avoided: Curious children turning to sources like the Internet and their friends for answers, and sometimes ending up with wrong solutions.
Meanwhile, teachers interviewed - all did not want to be named - said they would welcome more training.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.200
Teach sex education in context of meaningful relationships
Teach sex education in context of meaningful relationships
I READ with interest the reports on how sex education is needed to counter worrying trends and the approaches to be taken.
There is one important factor missing in all the discussions and that is the context in which sex happens - in a relationship.
Sex education is not just about teaching how sex takes place or when sexuality is aroused. Nor is it about accepting the barrage of emotions involved in exploring alternative lifestyles. These make up only one component of sex education.
The reason there's such a mess is because the programme should be entitled "Relationships", with sex, sexuality and so on as sub-topics. If sex education is taught in isolation, our children will never see the importance of abstinence or why precautions are to be taken when engaging in sex.
Relationships should be the anchor to sex and sex education should be taught in the context of a relationship and all its intricacies, such as self-esteem, values and beliefs.
First, a complete and wholesome view of what a balanced relationship should be must be shared so that children from various backgrounds understand the goal and aim of having a relationship. The choices of abstinence and the consequences of indulging in premarital sex should be shared and revealed.
Share what happens when abstinence is not practised and when relationships are not honoured. Provide our children with a reference point for a good and wise choice.
Whatever the choice is, it is ultimately their choice and they should enter these scenarios with their eyes wide open.
Don't advocate options like wearing a condom as a choice for premarital sex. Instead, educate them on what is premarital sex in the context of a relationship so that our children know why it is not encouraged.
If they do eventually engage in it, it is their personal choice but one where they are made fully aware of the consequences. They need to be ready to deal with the situation after that.
So, it's really not sex education that needs to be taught. It's the importance of being in a responsible adult relationship that needs to be shared.
We, as a society, need to be brave to stand up for what's right, to communicate clearly what's right and allow our children to make the choices themselves and subsequently handle the various consequences of their choices.
Karen Chew (Mrs)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.195
Friday, May 22, 2009
What a secular organisation means in Singapore
YESTERDAY'S letter, "Challenging logic" by Mrs Carolyn Tan begs for a disagreement.
Mrs Tan had noted that the fact that the ousted executive committee of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) came from the same church did not mean that there was a "grand design to gobble up Aware".
What is important is that the ousted exco comprised Christians from the same church and all of them are Chinese.
Aware ought to comprise leaders from different races and religions because it is a secular organisation which aims help all women in Singapore regardless of race, language, religion, nationality and profession.
If all its exco members were Christian and Chinese from the same church, I believe non-Christians and non-Chinese would be less comfortable in approaching Aware for help. Aware, which claims to be diverse, would therefore lose in its mission.
No secular organisation ought to have an exco comprising members from the same race and same religious background.
Ace Kindred Cheong
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.426
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Quantum Leaps Of Logic
Forum writer Mrs Carolyn Tan saw through the “quantum leap of logic” in Kishore Mahbubani’s article (The Virtues of Secularism, Straits Times 20 May), wherein the Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at National University of Singapore alleged that “there was a grand design by a religious group to venture into the secular domain and gobble up Aware,” just because the ladies involved happened to attend the same congregational services.
So what else is new? After all, while being Singapore’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, he also wrote another article (”Following Singapore’s Lead on the Road of Development”, Earth Times, January 15, 2001) which boasted: “There are no homeless, destitute or starving people in Singapore. Poverty has been eradicated, not through an entitlements program (there are virtually none) but through a unique partnership between the government, corporate citizens, self-help groups and voluntary initiatives.”
But it was scary to read that he once upset the Cubans by telling them that if it is legitimate for Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan, it will also be legitimate for the United States to invade Cuba. That was the result of his interpretation of the so-called simple rule of logic: All specific propositions can be universalised. In reality, the British philosopher he quoted, R.M. Hare in his book “The Language Of Morals”, was talking about the principle of universality of moral statements, not perverse twists of logic. Example of the latter: we don’t want our ministers to be tempted by money, so we pay them obscene sums of money.
In the same article that spoilt Mrs Tan’s day, Mahbubani also wrote that a logical argument in one culture is equally logical in another culture, “just as mathematical truths are equally valid in all cultures.” Oh yeah, the Talibans find it very logical to blow up the girls’ schools and not those for boys, since girls’ school teach promiscuity, a conspiracy of the West to inflict the Muslim children with deadly diseases. Let’s see Mahbubani embrace that in his culture.
It all goes to show that having your name prefixed with a “dean” doesn’t mean zilch. Remember the first female dean of the law faculty, the one featured on page 73?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.422
Changes to sex education programmes: Schools not proxy battleground
![]() | Education Minister Ng Eng Hen (left) cautioned that if they do not adhere to this rule strictly, Singapore's students and educational system will end up the losers. --PHOTO: ZAOBAO |
'We must not go down the way as has happened in the US? Issues will not resolved that way,' said Education Minister Ng Eng Hen on Thursday, at a press conference to announce changes to the sex education programmes in schools.
| RELATED LINKS |
'If we do not adhere to this rule strictly, our students and educational system will end up the losers,' he cautioned.
'Our students grow and learn best in an environment where they can develop their own beliefs in an objective manner, with adequate time to reflect on difficult issues, free from the rhetoric and emotional upheavals of contending parties.'
Dr Ng said the sexuality education package for schools was developed carefully by professionals and in consultation with many groups, taking into account the sensitivities Singapore?s multi-religious and multiracial country.
Even then, he conceded that there may be some who still disagree with the approach or contents.
'We respect their rights to decide as parents and to opt-out. But what we must avoid is different groups with competing ideologies using our schools and young as proxy arenas to push their own set of beliefs,' he stressed, citing the recent Association of Women for Action and Research?s (Aware) saga.
Dr Ng said the Aware episode showed clearly how easily contentious issues can inflame supporters and spin out of control.
'This applies to religion, politics, and controversial topics in sexuality education alike. All should recognise that access to students is a privilege which MOE accords, and carries with it responsibilities and accountability,' he added.
'We do have religion-based schools, and they openly teach their beliefs but parents who enrol their children in these schools do so knowingly. Even then, students can opt-out of religious programs.
'We need to preserve and protect the shared space in our schools and educational institutions.'
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.178
| By Theresa Tan | ||
![]() | Education Minister Ng Eng Hen (left) announced schools will no longer have the autonomy to hire external groups to teach sexuality education to their students. --PHOTO: ST | |
Education Minister Ng Eng Hen announced these changes on Thursday afternoon, after parents complained of the controversial material contained in the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) sexuality education programme instructor's guide earlier this month.
| RELATED LINKS |
The ministry told the media then that Aware's programme failed to conform to MOE's guidelines on sexuality education.
"In particular, some suggested responses in the instructor guide are explicit and inappropriate and convey messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex," the MOE said.
Going forward, the MOE will provide parents with more information on sexuality education programmes taught in school and parents can pull their children out of these programmes if they don't feel comfortable with it.
However, the MOE's core sexuality education programme will continue and Dr Ng explained why. The number of teens down with sexually transmitted diseases jumped from 238 in 2002 to 787 in 2008, HIV among teens is on the rise and some 2,000 teens get pregnant every year.
Dr Ng said: "If you don't give them information, they will get it elsewhere. So schools must be a source of information, giving students a healthy perspective on sexuality education."
Dr Ng also had very strong words for parties involved in the Aware saga.
"Schools were dragged into this melee and could have become the proxy arena for competing ideologies. Issues became muddled, emotions ran high. This is an unhealthy, unproductive way to try to resolve issues that are inherently divisive," he said.http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.177
Why sex education is needed
| By Amelia Tan | ||
![]() | The number of teenage pregnancies in Singapore has held steady, averaging about 8.4 per 1,000. --PHOTO: FARHAN SYSTEM | |
Education Minister Ng Eng Hen on Thursday released data on teens' sexual habits to underscore the need for it and how it has changed, for example, the MOE recently included the use of contraception in the curriculum.
| RELATED LINKS |
What is worrying is that the sexually transmitted infections (STIs) have jumped 2.5 times from 238 cases in 2002 to 787 in 2008. The number of HIV cases has also gone up from one case in 2002 to nine in 2007.
A survey conducted by the Health Promotion Board and MOE in 2006 showed 8 per cent of 4,000 students aged between 14 and 19 years admitted that they were having sex. And fewer than a quarter of these sexually active youths used any protection.
Dr Ng said in response to these trends, the ministry decided in 2007 that students should know about the repercussions of unwanted pregnancies and STIs.
He added: When we started, the key message was abstinence, reflecting the conservative social tone of our Asian society where liberal values on sex are not espoused. This is not a negative facet of our society. It is not prudish, regressive or naive.'
'But it was clear that abstinence as the only focus was not an effective strategy in reducing the number of teenage pregnancies and STIs.
' In 2007, messages were added - beyond knowing how to say no, students were also taught the repercussions of unwanted pregnancies and STIs and HIV and how to prevent them. This is now a key focus of sexuality education, and should continue to be moving forward.'
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.176
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Why Wayang Party is a Piece of Shit
BREAKING: Group claiming to represent “Singaporean citizens and permanent residents concerned with the continuing existence of a secular civil society in Singapore” launched a petition to remove the new Aware exco (or: Why Wayang Party is a Piece of Shit)
From The Informant Network Team
The Aware AGM which saw a new guards gaining control of the organization did not end, precipitating an aggressive counter-strike by the self-proclaimed “concerned with the continuing existence of a secular civil society in Singapore” group to exert pressure on the exco to accede to their demands.
An online petition started by Singaporeans overseas garnered 2,700 signatures in less than two weeks, forcing Aware to stop all activities and hold an EGM.
A smear campaign was launched against the new exco in retaliation for their successful and democratic bid for power to derail their plans for Aware.
The rampant character assassination reached a boiling point when netizens wrote in to DBS to put pressure on Ms Josie Lau's job and made death threats against the new exco, culminating in their filing a police report (read article here)
Undaunted, the group has started a petition - to exert pressure on the new Aware exco quit Aware as soon as possible:



The identity of the petition starter is unknown. However, he/she claims that they are “Singaporeans overseas and at home [who] are very concerned about the take-over of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) on 28 March 2009 by a group of people, whose values are opposed to what AWARE stands for.”
This is the usual astroturfing at play again to create a “fake grassroot” support under the cloak of “progressive contingent” to impose their own liberal values onto mainstream society.
In spite of earlier warnings given by the Government to keep religion and politics separate, and that our laws do not derive from religious authority, but reflect the judgments and decisions of the secular government, these groups continue to sow discord and promote division within our society by pressing on with their agenda.
In spite, too, of earlier warnings given by the Government that we are a Conservative Society which Frowns Upon Homosexuality, these groups are trying to push their Gay and Liberal Agenda on society, and impose their Western Values upon us, which will ultimately lead to the Legalization of Gay Marriage.
Aware should simply ignore the petitions started by anonymous individuals. They are probably circulated amongst the same group of people who are responsible for the earlier petition to repeal 377A.
As we have observed previously, these zealots are extremely tenacious, unreasonable and aggressive. Once a precedent is set, they will take it as a sign of weakness to push the boundaries further.
What next after they are done with Aware? Will they seek to impose their views on other policies such as gay marriage, euthanasia, drugs and men with long hair?
Never before had our peaceful, harmonious and stable society been wrecked by so much tension and discord within a short span of time.
The authorities should nip the problem quickly in the bud before it festers like an ugly sore in our fragile social fabric. These people are not amenable to reasoning and they will not stop until they achieve their aims.
The astroturfing is probably masterminded by a few people in positions of authority. Identify them and their links with one another and the truth will be out.
What are their intentions? Why are they bent to create havoc and unrest in the midst of an economic turmoil? Don’t they have other things to worry about other than homosexual and anal sex?
Aware’s reputation has suffered irreparable damage with the malicious, vile and baseless accusations that it will now pursue an anti-feminist, anti-gay agenda through promoting homosexuality to our school children through its CSE and other activities. It is unbelievable that a NGO which traces its roots to the PAP and has no real power anyway can do much to hurt women or gays.
The new guards should seriously consider suing certain people for criminal defamation to salvage Aware’s battered reputation. It is pointless to reason with people who is only interested in imposing their world views on those who disagree with them.
The government cannot sit idly by allowing these groups to run amok in our country. They are highly motivated, organized and efficient which make them a powerful lobby group in future elections. Will the PAP allow its policies to be held ransom constantly by these liberal zealots?
It is time to break them up before they become uncontrollable. A line has clearly been crossed. Procrastination will only embolden them to go further. A strong message need to be send across that liberalism should be kept solely within the confines of their own respective institutions and our social arena must always be a conservative one.
Original piece of shit:
BREAKING: Group claiming to repKresent “conservative majority” of Singaporeans launched another petition to MOE to remove Aware as sex education provider : The Wayang Party (大戏党)
Commentary:
I may not agree with practically everything the "conservatives" are for, but even a serial killer deserves a fair trial.
Since many of my points will admittedly be hard to grasp, here're most of them:
- Wayang Party has bad grammar
- Wayang Party promiscuously demonises those with opposing views
- Wayang Party flippantly dismisses those with “pro-family” views (yes, these people do exist, and they are non-negligible), raising a cry of astro-turfing which could justifiably be applied to stands they themselves are sympathetic to
- When people accuse and condemn PAP MPs, this is transparency and democracy in action and they shouldn't complain. When people accuse and condemn non-PAP MPs, it's character assassination (I can't point to specific instances, but this is my overall assessment)
- They condemn the government repeatedly, unreservedly and sometimes contradictorily and incoherently. See, for example: Amazing speed at which Rojak seller is charged diverts attention away from role of authorities vs More serious questions to be asked about Mas Selamat’s stunning escape from Singapore; as with Creationism, all is made clear when you understand that they are working backwards from a conclusion (the government sucks/is evil) to come up with a semblance of an argument. This is one reason why I eschew identifying either as "pro-government/PAP" or "anti-government/PAP", since the former are mindlessly pro-government and the latter mindlessly anti-. (See also: the time I got called a "smart ass NUS rubbish pro-PAP scholar")
- The above notwithstanding, they call on it to take action when it suits them to have other people hit with a big stick; "sow discord and promote division within our society by pressing on with their agenda" - that's a great excuse to shut Wayang Party itself down. What's sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander (see also: advocating the use of defamation suits)
- They feverishly fling nonsensical accusations in the hope that at least some of them will stick. For example, what does saying we're a Conservative Society have to do with mixing religion and politics?! See also: the other hysterical hyperbole.
So, in conclusion, Wayang Party is even more shitty than The Online Citizen and you should read it for the same reason you slow down to look at a car crash.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.420
Useful programme except for condom excerpt
I RECENTLY came to know that upper secondary and junior college students go through an educational programme on Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (Aids), called Breaking Down Barriers, by the Health Promotion Board (HPB).
Besides providing accurate facts about STIs, the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and Aids, the programme also imparts useful skills to students, such as decision-making and the right places to obtain reliable information, as well as assertiveness and strategies on how not to succumb to persuasion.
I was truly heartened to learn that the students were taught that the best way to avoid STIs and Aids is to avoid casual sex, sex with multiple partners and unprotected sex, and to stay faithful to a partner within the context of marriage.
However, the students were subsequently taught how to use a condom.
While I understand HPB's good intention to curb the rising incidence of STIs among the young, I wish to express my concerns as a parent that students are being taught how to use condoms in school.
- It gives a mixed and confusing message. Is it not better to encourage students to avoid pre-marital sex altogether, since the programme also teaches that the use of condom is not 100 per cent safe?
- Students are not likely to heed or remember to practise safe sex just because they have attended a lesson on condom use.
- Even if they do use a condom, they are not likely - in the heat of the moment - to remember or follow the steps to use a condom correctly.
I truly appreciate the HPB's efforts for creating such a programme and hope that it will review and consider whether it is really necessary or useful to teach students how to use a condom.
This confuses, contradicts and compromises the good advice to avoid pre-marital sex as the only foolproof protection against STIs and Aids.
Steven Tan
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.173
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
An open letter to the Ministry of Education, petitioning for the removal of AWARE as a sex education provider
An open letter to the Ministry of Education, petitioning for the removal of AWARE as a sex education provider
The petition
Please sign the petition below if you agree that MOE should not allow AWARE to continue being a sexuality education provider to schools.
Deadline for submission to MOE: 31 May 2009
Thank you for your support!
*************************************************
To: The Minister for Education
Dear Sir
OPEN LETTER TO MOE REQUESTING FOR REMOVAL OF AWARE AS SEXUALITY EDUCATION PROVIDER
We refer to the Press Release of the Ministry of Education (“MOE”) dated 7th May 2009. We thank the MOE for its clear statement and reassurance that “MOE and the schools do not promote alternative lifestyles to our students. MOE’s framework for sexuality education reflects the mainstream views and values of Singapore society, where the social norm consists of the married heterosexual family unit”. We also appreciate the MOE’s decisive move in swiftly suspending all sexuality education programs by external providers.
Nevertheless, we note that AWARE is unapologetic for its non-conformance with MOE’s guidelines. In this regard we refer to the ongoing petition against AWARE at http://www.ipetitions.com/peti...
AWARE’s:
(a) consistent wilful or negligent non-compliance with MOE’s guidelines over 2 years;
(b) unapologetic stance with respect to the above; and
(c) continuing assertions that they stand by their erroneous CSE programme
together indicate a lack of regard for the severity of their actions. More importantly, such behaviour gives parents no confidence that AWARE will respect or comply with MOE guidelines in the future. We are also not confident that values contrary to Singapore’s mainstream views and values will not be introduced by AWARE or its trainers into its programs in future under the guise of ‘discussion’ or in a manner such as would escape detection by MOE, parents or schools.
In other words, AWARE has not only betrayed our trust but has also completely lost the trust of parents to continue delivering sexuality education programmes to our children. As responsible parents, we cannot accept or tolerate any further contact between an untrustworthy provider such as AWARE and our impressionable children, particularly on sensitive areas such as sexuality education that can have far-reaching impact on our childrens’ values and lives.
In the circumstances, we:
(1) strongly urge the MOE to remove AWARE as a sexuality education programme provider. Apart from providing much-needed reassurance to parents that they need no longer fear the intrusion of AWARE into our children’s schools, we believe that this is also necessary to send a clear deterrent message to all external providers that MOE’s guidelines are to be strictly adhered to, and that there will be consequences for failing to do so.
(2) respectfully request that MOE procures the release and full disclosure of all CSE programme materials, including all instructor guides and notes, to parents whose children have been through the CSE programme. This is so that parents will be informed of the full extent to which the CSE programme departed from Singapore’s mainstream values and be equipped to remedy any damage or confusion, or correct any wrong thinking resulting from their children’s exposure to the CSE programme. We believe that AWARE should be fully accountable to parents for the contents of the CSE Programme, and have reason to believe that there are other materials apart from the Basic Instructor Guide which should be made available for parental and MOE scrutiny, including an advanced instructor guide.
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
Yours faithfully
cc. The Prime Minister’s Office
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ban_aware_from_schools/
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.168
Petition AWARE for Public Apology and Disclosure
Petition AWARE for Public Apology and Disclosure
The petition
Please sign this petition by 31 MAY 2009 if you agree that AWARE (1) owes parents a public apology for running the CSE Programme in breach of MOE guidelines; and
(2) should take full responsibility for the CSE Programme instead of citing the lack of complaints;
(3) should fully disclose all relevant CSE materials to parents and MOE and be fully accountable to them for the contents.
Apart from the Basic Instructors' Guide, there are other CSE materials including, we believe, an advanced instructor's guide.
***********************************************************
To: The President, AWARE
Dear Sir
In its Press Release on 6 May 2009, the Ministry of Education (“MOE”) stated that AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education (“CSE”): Basic Instructor Guide (“Guide”) did not conform to the Ministry’s guidelines, and that it contained explicit and inappropriate responses that “could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex”.
However, we note that AWARE has not issued an apology to parents for its breach of MOE guidelines, but has instead defiantly maintained that they stand by their CSE Programme. AWARE’s unapologetic stance is evident from the following public statements:
1. “We stand by our CSE programme” (AWARE President’s message, 7 May 2009)
In trumpeting the above, AWARE ignores the severity of its actions and its grave betrayal of the trust of many parents. The fact is, AWARE’s CSE Programme:
(a) is non-compliant with MOE’s guidelines;
(b) goes against the mainstream views and values of Singapore society;
(c) goes against the Government's position as stated by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in Parliament in October 2007; and
(d) contained explicit and inappropriate content.
(collectively “Non-compliant”)
AWARE has no business or right to place its own agenda over and above those stipulated by MOE or to impose its own views on children entrusted to them. Not only was an apology not forthcoming for its actions, AWARE audaciously retorted that they stand by their CSE Programme. In other words, it appears to us that AWARE:
(a) affirms the offending content found in their Guide;
(b) confirms that the Guide has always represented the official position of AWARE and the offending content was inserted deliberately and with due consideration contrary to MOE guidelines.
2. “As I’ve said to the press, we’ve been running the programme for two years without complains [sic].” (AWARE President’s message, 7 May 2009)
“Furthermore, parents can opt for their children not to attend the programme” (ST interview with AWARE, 10 May 2009)
Instead of taking full responsibility for their non-compliance, AWARE repeatedly cites the fact that they have not received complaints as if that exonerates their CSE Programme. In our view, it does not for the following reasons:
(a) The lack of complaints by parents does not excuse AWARE from breach of MOE guidelines. Failure or delay in detecting a breach does not mean the breach did not happen and does not justify the continuation of that breach.
(b) Parents did not complain because they were not aware or apprised of the contents of the CSE Programme. AWARE has itself stated that the Guide is confidential.
(c) If AWARE did not specifically request or invite teachers and parents to sit in on CSE sessions, and only students were present, AWARE cannot reasonably expect students to lodge complaints. In any case, the lack of complaints by students does not exculpate AWARE but only confirms that students are impressionable, especially with respect to programmes run under the legitimacy of authorised educational providers.
(d) Parents, without being informed of the contents of the CSE Programme, would not generally have had reason to ‘opt for their children not to attend the programme’, precisely because they trusted that AWARE would comply with MOE guidelines.
AWARE cannot expect parents to actively scrutinise and police every letter and detail of every educational programme run by schools and authorised providers. A large part of the relationship between parents, schools and such providers is based on trust. Parents trust that authorised providers will comply with MOE guidelines. AWARE has betrayed that trust.
3. “We are prepared to review these and make any necessary changes so long as the principles and objectives of the CSE are not compromised...” (AWARE President’s message, 7 May 2009)
It is worrying that AWARE’s commitment to make changes to the CSE Programme based on MOE guidelines is not unconditional, but only “…so long as the principles and objectives of the CSE are not compromised…” We fail to see how AWARE can conscionably continue to uphold “principles and objectives” which were the foundation of a Non-compliant CSE Programme.
4. “The information (in the Basic Instructor’s Guide) was taken from a confidential instructor’s booklet, illegally released online, pounced on and distorted…. the accusations by … parents, that AWARE’s programme promoted homosexuality, were based on information taken out of context...” (Straits Times interview with AWARE, 10th May 2009)
It appears to us that:
a) AWARE is not sorry that their CSE Programme was Non-compliant, but only that its contents were exposed.
b) By keeping the CSE Programme materials confidential, AWARE demonstrates a lack of transparency which is inconsistent with AWARE’s own recognition of the importance of transparency in recent events.
c) AWARE does not claim responsibility for its Guide’s non-compliance but accuses others of having ‘distorted’ the Guide. Further, AWARE appears to take the view that its CSE Programme and Guide are without reproach and that the fault lies rather with parents for reading it ‘out of context’.
If AWARE feels that information has been taken out of context, AWARE should make fully disclose CSE Programme materials so that everyone can properly review the Guide in its full context. Further, no less than full disclosure of such materials, and full accountability for its contents, is owed to parents whose children have attended the CSE Programme. Such disclosure must include all instructor guides since these form the basis on which lessons conducted.
In the circumstances, we call on AWARE to:
1) Issue an unequivocal public apology to parents for its negligent or wilful non-compliance with MOE guidelines and take full responsibility for such breach;
2) Retract its statement that “we stand by our CSE programme”; and
3) Release all CSE Programme materials in the interest of full disclosure and accountability, as parents of children who attended the CSE programme have the right to know exactly how and what their children have been taught.
Perhaps AWARE has not had opportunity to fully reflect on the wisdom and implications of its recent press statements. If so, providing an appropriate response of contrition, responsibility and accountability towards parents as requested above will go far towards repairing public perception of AWARE and showing that AWARE is not unwilling to admit and learn from its mistakes.
Yours faithfully
(Signatures appended)
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/aware_to_apologise/
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.167




