When I Was Young

This news is raising doubts on the veracity of feng shui ‘masters’… or is anything shrouded in mystery and doubtfulness bound to be uncovered on its appointed day of reckoning?

Read the story here.

Letter from Geraldine Wee

I refer to “Not until Aware regains trust: Education Minister” (May 22). I regret to hear Aware president Dana Lam’s remarks that the association feels the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) move to stop them from teaching sex education classes is “regrettable” and caused by “considerable pressure from parents”.

Perhaps what Ms Lam fails to see is that there were no complaints for two years not because parents agreed to what their syllabus taught, but because they were ill-informed and ignorant about what their kids were being exposed to. Sure, there may have been some good facts on sexually transmitted infections and HIV but that does not excuse the other areas which are against the norm of society and the parameters set by the Government.

I doubt that the MOE was pressured by parents to act; they acted based on the facts they were confronted with in the handbook.

I am relieved though, that the MOE has given very definite guidelines on what will be taught during such classes and that parents will be given handouts clearly stating what is being taught in class. It is not just students who need to be informed, parents too need to be educated on how to support and talk to their children about issues of sexuality.

Parents need to be more open and encouraging so that it does not get awkward for their kids to ask them about sex. Parents must play an active role in guiding their children — it is neither the MOE’s nor the school’s responsibility.

From TODAYOnline.com, Voices – Monday, 25-May-2009; see the source article here.

Trust is an “important issue” — which is why the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) will not be allowed, for now, to teach its comprehensive sexuality programme in schools, said Education Minister Ng Eng Hen.

“For the programmes to be delivered effectively, parents and the Ministry of Education (MOE) must be able to trust that external agencies teach according to the framework and values of MOE’s sexuality education,” he said.

“We will not be able to use Aware until they have gained the public’s trust for their sexuality programmes.”

Moreover, if external agencies disagree with MOE’s approach, it would be “better not to participate in MOE’s programmes”; they should bring their views to the steering committee who would assess their arguments, said Dr Ng.

In response, Aware president Dana Lam said last night that the MOE’s move was “regrettable”, but “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”.

In the two years the programme was run in schools, she noted, there was no negative feedback. The MOE had also earlier acknowledged that Aware’s programme “was accurate on information provided on STIs/HIV, and good in the segment which teaches students to say no to sex”, Ms Lam told Today.

Aware will continue its review of the programme, in consultation with parents, teachers and counsellors, and “at the appropriate time, we may offer it again to the Education Ministry”.

For now, Aware will focus on its other activities — namely research and advocacy, services such as its helpline and legal clinic, and public education such as reviving its forums at public libraries. ALICIA WONG

From TODAYOnline.com, News – Friday, 22-May-2009; see the source article here.

I believe this is the way to go, as highlighted earlier by some parents who vehemently argued that there should be this choice, given that some of the topics in secondary schools are very, very sensitive, and could spell the child’s future as ‘good’ or ‘bad’…

----------

Facts must be taught in the context of mainstream society’s values: Minister

Alicia Wong, alicia@mediacorp.com.sg

THERE will be new layers of stringent vetting, periodic classroom audits, and more information laid out for parents concerned about just what exactly their children are learning about sex and sexuality in school.

Prior to yesterday’s announced enhancements to the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) sexuality education framework, schools had had the autonomy to engage external organisations, both faith-based and secular, to conduct the courses. Two-thirds did so last year.

But recently, some parents were shocked to learn that the Association of Women for Action and Research’s (Aware) programme used by some schools, depicted anal sex as “natural” and “healthy”, and termed “homosexuality” a neutral word.

Clearing all doubt about his ministry’s stance yesterday, Dr Ng emphasised that the guiding principles of the MOE’s framework for sexuality education remained the same as when they were spelt out in 2000: Parents would bear the main responsibility, and facts must be taught in the context of mainstream society’s values.

“Let me make it clear to you what this means, so that there is no ambiguity. This means encouraging heterosexual married couples to have healthy relationships and to build stable nuclear and extended family units,” Dr Ng stressed. At the same time, he warned against groups seeking to use the schools as “proxy arenas” to push their own beliefs.

Citing how schools were dragged into the recent melee, Dr Ng said parents have the right to express concern if they thought groups like Aware were teaching liberal values “ahead of the mainstream”. But Singapore “must not go down” the United States way, “where schools become the proxy battleground for the Christian right and gay interest groups to settle arguments. Issues will not be resolved that way”.

And likewise, while some parents may learn to embrace their homosexual children, “schools are not the place to try to push for these outcomes, which are ahead of present societal norms”, he said.

Which is why parents will soon be empowered with more information about the programmes being taught, as well as opt-out choices, so they can decide if they want their children to partake of specific activities, or even the entire programme.

But can a programme espousing mainstream values truly engage youth questioning or experimenting with their sexual orientation, or engaging in pre-marital sex?

Dr Ng said, parents of students who require more help will be notified, and given the choice to attend workshops and even have their children provided more information on contraception.

As for students who don’t want their parents to be informed, teachers will have to help in “practical” ways. “Those are problems on the ground ... systems-wise, we would want to stick to a principle where parents must still be responsible for their children,” said Dr Ng.

Mr Edward Ong, president of The Singapore Planned Parenthood Association (SPPA), suggests that students who “develop different sexual orientation or experiment with alternative practices can be referred for appropriate counseling and expert advice that would be most helpful for them”.

The SPPA has offered sexuality education programmes for over 20 years, and Mr Ong believed the new requirements – which include a stringent vetting process of external vendors by the MOE and periodic audits – would not hamper the group’s continued involvement. It is important to reassure parents “considering the recent overblown issues”, he said.

And some parents are, indeed, pleased. Mrs Peggy Ng, in her 40s, said: “It is important that MOE tightens control and vet through the content thoroughly. The teachers teaching these topics should also be screened and trained to teach based on guidelines.”

From TODAYOnline.com – Friday, 22-May-2009; see the source article here.

By Tan Yew Guan, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 21 May 2009 2219 hrs

AWARE President Dana Lam

SINGAPORE: AWARE said it is regrettable that the Education Ministry has decided to drop it as a sexuality education provider.

While it understands the ministry's decision as it has been under considerable pressure from some parents on the matter, AWARE said it still believes that its comprehensive sexuality education programme is a much needed resource for youth.

Dana Lam, president, AWARE, said: "I think it is grossly unfair that the programme has been so misrepresented to the public by a few people who have picked up isolated phrases and then brandied it around. So parents out there may now have a skewed understanding of what the programme is about."

AWARE said it will continue to review its programme in consultation with parents, teachers, counsellors and other relevant parties. It will offer the programme to MOE again "at the appropriate time".

But AWARE is not the only vendor affected by the saga. Other vendors, whose programmes have been suspended for the time being, hope this saga will blow over soon.

Edware Ong, president, Singapore Planned Parenthood Association, said: "For us, this is our core programme and service. We are very concerned that this continues to be ongoing. As it is, our current programmes have already been affected."

On the streets, many welcome MOE's move to tighten its oversight of sexuality programmes. But there were mixed views on whether AWARE's programme has lost the public's trust with its neutral stance towards homosexuality.

"Whether AWARE should be teaching in schools, there should be a neutral stance to it. Given that they are a secular organisation, I think that's fair," said one Singaporean.

"We have to get the right message to our children and that's very important. Like AWARE getting involved and all that, they may send the wrong message to the kids, which is not acceptable by Asians generally," said another.

"I think you have to take into consideration that we import a lot of culture. You want to appear that you are upholding the traditional cultures that we as Singaporeans hold very dear to us, but also you do not want seem like you are backwards," said one man in the street.

But most agree that educating the young about sex is a must. - CNA/vm

From ChannelNewsAsia.com; see the source article here.

By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 21 May 2009 1907 hrs

Students in Singapore

SINGAPORE: Singapore's Education Ministry is reviewing its sexuality education curriculum and tightening controls on the engagement of external agencies for these programmes in schools.

Previously, schools were given the autonomy to engage external agencies to teach sexuality education.

Now these agencies must be approved by the Education Ministry.

They must submit their materials to the ministry for vetting in June.

Approved agencies will be appointed by mid-August.

The ministry said sexuality education must be secular and reflect the values of mainstream society.

Abstinence is the key message but information on contraception must also be included.

Education Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen, said: “Our schools and educational institutions cannot become proxy battlegrounds for groups with contending ideologies. What we must stringently and strictly avoid is allowing our school to go the way in some other countries, for example United States, where different groups with different views try to square off and settle their arguments in schools. If we allow this to happen, our school and education system will be casualties and will be worse off.” - CNA/vm

From ChannelNewsAsia.com; see the source article here.

Letter from Edmund Kwan

05:55 AM May 11, 2009

I REFER to “Aware’s, other sex ed courses put on hold (May 7) and “Did MOE do its homework?” (May 8).

I am certain the Ministry of Education (MOE) and schools would have been prudent in dealing with external vendors. How is it then that a “slip-up” occurred? Could it be that teachers and educators are overworked, despite the fact that more manpower and resources have been dedicated?

I have a child in primary school. His lessons were behind schedule because teachers across subjects did not complete the syllabus in time.

Homework was “dumped” on the pupils right up to the day before the commencement of the current mid-year assessments. My son’s classmates told me a teacher had not taught much during curriculum time and had asked the pupils to do their school work at home.

Teachers were in a rush to complete their lesson plans so that they could be accountable to their head of department. A form teacher told pupils verbally that exam dates had to be changed in spite of an official timetable posted on the school’s website earlier. After that had caused some “panic”, she apologised and said it was based on hearsay from another teacher. Could it be that she had too many things on her mind? Colleagues relate similar incidents in other schools too.

Taking off from the recent Comprehensive Sexuality Education issue, parents should take a greater interest in their child’s school work as well as actively engage with the school. This must go beyond just the parent support group role. In some countries, parents form national associations to seek a say in school affairs and education policies.

I hope that more parents are now encouraged to step forward to contribute towards an education tripartism, comprising MOE, educators and parents and pupils.

From TODAY, Voices – Monday, 11-May-2009

Letter from James Ray

04:02 PM May 08, 2009

I REFER to “Don’t skirt the issue by shielding children,” (May 6).

It seems Mr Joseph Wong has missed the main point of “conservative” parents’ concerns.

As a conservative parent who has worked with and counselled teenagers for more than 20 years, I am not against my children learning about sex in general and homosexuality in particular, once they are old enough to understand such issues. Sex and homosexuality are not “taboo” topics to be avoided.

However, they must be addressed carefully, and parents such as myself are concerned about who is teaching our children and what is being taught.

I do not know any of Aware’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) trainers, so I cannot comment on whether or not they are “experienced professionals”. But I have seen a copy of Aware’s CSE training materials pertaining to sex. The fact that homosexuality is listed as “neutral” is of concern to me. Considering the physical nature of sex, the sexual union of a man and a woman has the potential to create another human being. This is natural. As such, I cannot consider homosexuality as “neutral”.

In addition, Singapore law classifies homosexual acts as illegal, so how can any material used in public schools teach that homosexuality is neutral?

I am not against my children attending a talk on homosexuality, if the talk is based on the fact that homosexual acts are not normal. However, if the talk promotes homosexuality and other unusual sexual acts as “neutral”, then I am against my children attending such a talk, because they are still young and impressionable.

Personally, I believe topics such as sex should be taught at home rather than at school, as morality must be considered.

From TODAY, Voices – Friday, 08-May-2009

‘Contradictory’ statements lead reader to conclude Ministry was unaware

Letter from Henry Koh Chiew Phor

04:02 PM May 08, 2009

I REFER to “Aware’s, other sex ed courses put on hold” (May 7).

It was reported that the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) assessment was that in some other aspects, the instructors’ guide does not conform to MOE’s guidelines. In particular, some suggested responses in the instructor’s guide are explicit and inappropriate, and convey messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex.

If the guide does not conform to MOE’s guidelines and the responses in the guide are inappropriate, why did MOE issue an earlier statement - published in both The Straits Times and Today on April 29 - stating that “the 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 two statements, disclosed within a short span of about one week, are contradictory.

This leads me to conclude that either MOE does not have stringent internal processes in place for selecting and monitoring vendors and vetting training materials, and hence, is totally unaware of what is taking place in schools with regard to sex education. Or, MOE is taking a liberal stand towards sex by approving Aware to conduct a sex education programme that promotes homosexual behaviour, and then assessing it only after petitioning from parents.

Given that MOE’s earlier release has given parents the wrong impression and does not reflect the true content of Aware’s sex education programme, it would be appropriate for the Ministry to give an explanation and put to rest any apprehension.

From TODAY, Voices – Friday, 08-May-2009

SEX EDUCATION PROGRAMME

Letter from Jennifer Chan

Press Secretary to Minister for Education

-----

IN RECENT weeks, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has received feedback on the Sexuality Education Programme conducted by Aware, as well as other lesson material not involving Aware. MOE has done a thorough investigation and the following are the Ministry's findings and future steps.

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.

Today, schools are allowed to engage external vendors to supplement MOE's sexuality education programme. MOE has reviewed the internal processes for selecting and monitoring vendors and found that they can be improved. MOE will put in more stringent processes to ensure that training materials and programmes delivered in schools are in line with the Ministry's framework on sexuality education. Schools will suspend the engagement of external vendors until the new vetting processes are completed.

The Ministry is also reviewing ways to provide parents with more information about sexuality education in the specific schools that their children are in.

MOE has examined Aware's "Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Basic Instructor Guide". The Guide contains some positive aspects, like the accurate information provided on STIs/HIV and role-play practice for students to say no to sex.

However, MOE's assessment is that in some other aspects, the Guide does not conform to MOE's guidelines. In particular, some suggested responses in the instructor guide are explicit and inappropriate, and convey messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of premarital sex.

In view of this, Aware's programmes in schools will be suspended and subjected to the new vetting processes.

MOE has also investigated feedback about materials used during General Paper (GP) lessons in junior colleges which carry information on alternative lifestyles. These materials and lessons did not involve Aware. GP lessons are meant to promote critical thinking and discussion on contemporary issues.

MOE investigations showed that the teachers had used these materials to initiate discussion on family structures, and not to promote alternative lifestyles.

Nevertheless, MOE will remind school leaders and teachers to exercise greater professional discretion in guiding their students when such topics are discussed. They should also adhere to social norms and values of our mainstream society.

Parents are ultimately responsible for inculcating values to their children. MOE's sexuality education programme aims to complement parents' role in helping students make informed, responsible and values-based decisions regarding sexuality.

-----

From TODAY, Voices – Thursday, 07-May-2009

Ong Dai Lin and Alicia Wong, dailin@mediacorp.com.sg

-----

THE schools had found the workshops appropriate and did not get any negative feedback from pupils and parents.

But now, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has suspended the sex education programme by the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) after looking at its instructors' guide.

Sex education programmes by all other external vendors have also been suspended so they can be subjected to a more stringent vetting process.

The MOE has found a need for improvement in the "internal processes" for selecting and monitoring vendors to ensure they follow its framework for sexuality programmes.

Aware's Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme did not conform "in some aspects" to these guidelines, the MOE said in a letter to the media. In particular, parts of Aware's instructors' guide "convey messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex".

Aware president Dana Lam told Today she is "not surprised" by the MOE's decision. "It goes to reason MOE will have to do something (given the public interest in the programme). We're also open to seeing what has to be done," said Ms Lam.

As the women's group prepares to review and modify its instructor guide if needed, it will keep the CSE's key principle of informing young people to make choices according to the values of their upbringing, Ms Lam added. "We stand by the programme. After all, we've been running it for almost two years."

In a statement yesterday, Aware said, "Like all instructor guides, ours contains far more information than is used.

"The guide includes possible responses for instructors should certain topics, such as homosexuality and premarital sex, be raised during the sessions. They're not necessarily the responses actually used, as our instructors always use language and terms appropriate to their audience."

Ms Charlotte Wong, vice-president of the ousted Aware executive committee, told Today that MOE "is doing the right thing".

"Aware keeps shouting about providing choice and empowering the youth in decision-making in their sexual life ... On the other hand, CSE does not talk about abstinence; they steer clear from abstinence as choice," said Ms Wong on a personal note. Saying that she felt a "sense of calm" after hearing the news, she added that if the CSE sticks to MOE guidelines and caters to a majority of conservative parents, "we shall be all right".

For some parents, the suspension of the CSE programme is a welcome move. Ms Geraldine Wee, a mother of a seven-year-old boy, said: "It's good that people's views are respected ... Asian parents are generally conservative."

The 29-year-old scriptwriter said: "I was an unwed mother so it's even more important for me that my child has the right values and doesn't make the same mistake."

Soon, parents will know more about the sex education programmes in their child's school. The MOE is looking at ways to provide this information — which Ms Wee welcomed because "we should have a role to decide what the child is taught".

When contacted for further queries on its letter, a MOE spokesperson told Today it has received more than 100 emails and phone calls, "many providing similar feedback".

An online petition expressing concerns about Aware's CSE programme, and supposedly to be given to MOE, is also being circulated — with 7,000 signatories so far.

The debate caused by Aware's workshops for secondary schools has even generated argument about sexuality issues being raised in General Paper (GP) classes in junior colleges.

MOE is investigating materials used during these lessons that carry information on alternative lifestyles.

Pioneer Junior College principal Tan-Kek Lee Yong, for example, told Today the school had removed a presentation slide on family and culture, which showed two females kissing, after feedback from a parent.

Mrs Tan said the context of the slide was "sociological" and "clearly academic" with "factual information next to the picture".

She added: "Such materials, which students can easily retrieve (when they do research for GP), should be contextualized within societal norms for discussion so that students receive appropriate guidance."

-----

From TODAY, News – Thursday, 07-May-2009

SEX EDUCATION

Letter from Joseph Wong

DUE to the Aware saga, the topic of homosexuality has gotten the public's attention.

Having read the views of self-declared "conservative" parents who expressed concern about the openness with which this topic is being discussed — especially in schools — I think these parents need to take a step back and reconsider the big picture.

First of all, stopping a child from attending a talk on homosexuality does not protect the child.

The fact remains that homosexuality exists, whether or not you prevent your children from learning about it through sanctioned talks and discussions.

In fact, you should be thankful that your children are learning about it from experienced professionals and not from misinformed sources.

Secondly, one must learn to consider the religious views on homosexuality and understand why the stand some people take can be so uncompromising.

Thirdly, education is key. Whether this lifestyle is regarded as a choice or a condition, homosexuality is something we cannot deny as a society.

The more we understand it, the better equipped we are to make the decision that conforms to our beliefs and principles without treating the topic as taboo.

From TODAY, Voices – Wednesday, 06-May-2009

Below is an article lifted from Today daily, a comment to a comment to a comment on additional lessons to schoolchildren conducted during school holidays. I agree with this one. Do you?
-----

More lessons are not always better
Letter from HO KONG LOON

I REFER to the letter “Why lament extra school lessons?” (May 29) by Goh Kian Huat. The writer does not understand what goes on in our schools. Generally, in the education sector, the perception is that more is better. The reason is obvious: School heads favour teachers who go the extra mile, giving extra lessons being one of the requisites.

Teachers conduct supplementary and remedial lessons during term time. In some instances, these extra lessons are held three times a week, each one lasting two to three hours. I know of a school where extra lessons were held on weekends.

Even so, during term time, many teachers are finding it increasingly difficult to teach students who are inattentive, disruptive, noisy, quarrelsome, lazy or just indifferent.

Extra lessons do not add to the learners’ academic storehouse if they are just not keen to learn. Extra lessons are only necessary for slower and weaker learners to reinforce key points of lessons or to remedy pupils’ weaknesses through extra tests and discussions.

It is not mandatory to have extra lessons just to assuage the angst of nervous or demanding parents. Equating conducting extra lessons to diligence or commitment misses the issue altogether. The law of diminishing returns negates the assumption that more is always better.