When I Was Young

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.

You can’t please everyone… and certainly when it is about being “free”, free to express and think for yourself, and to decide on your own…

-----

AWARE SAGA

Letter from Gavin Lee

I WAS very disappointed with Today’s decision to feature a four-page answer to the Aware saga from Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng.

I believe civil society has shown unprecedented maturity over the past few weeks. First, the media caught wind of the unsavoury takeover of a women’s advocacy group and reported on it. Second, Singaporeans were alarmed by the religious slant in a civil rights group. Then, Singaporean women voted out the new Exco who had orchestrated a coup to oust several longtime, well-respected figures.

All this has shown that civil society is capable of regulating itself. It is clear that the majority of both Christian and non-Christian Singaporeans wish for a clear separation between civil and religious space. And they took action to ensure that this separation is preserved.

Why is it that in this scenario, Today felt the need for an official conclusion, and Mr Wong still felt the need to step in?

Undoubtedly, the issue of homosexuality did a lot to obfuscate the bigger issues at hand. But if Singaporeans have already shown that they are mature enough to handle the prickly topic of religious versus civil space, why can’t we be trusted to handle issues like sexuality?

I bet many students are memorising Mr Wong’s responses for use in their General Paper works. Bear in mind that these are Singapore’s future leaders.

I, for one, don’t see any point in blaming the youth on being apathetic if society is bent on spoon-feeding them. Let society find its own outlets for handling these tricky issues.

From TODAY, Voices – Monday, 18-May-2009

Their stand is clear: “Aware has never promoted homosexuality”.

In a statement yesterday evening, the 24-year-old Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) stressed that its stand has always “been identical to that of the Government”.

“We agree that the heterosexual family is the norm for our society,” the women’s advocacy group stated. “But homosexuals are also part of our society and they should be able to live freely and happily, free of any discrimination.”

Their comments come in response to Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng’s comment that homosexuality was “clearly a major issue to both sides” in the Aware saga.

While welcoming Mr Wong’s reminder of the need for restraint, respect and tolerance, Aware said it was “most regrettable” that some people now think it has a “gay agenda”, and that “wrongful allegations” continue to be perpetuated online and through other channels.

“This is totally unfounded,” it stressed. The allegations by Dr Thio Su Mien and those she “handpicked” to take over Aware’s leadership were based “on the strength of bits of information taken out of context and strung together to create an imaginary and inaccurate picture of Aware’s activities”, said Aware.

But, the current executive committee is moving on, they said. With an expanded membership, they are now putting together programmes for the year. ALICIA WONG

From TODAY-Weekend, News – 16/17-May-2009

By Alicia Wong, TODAY | Posted: 16 May 2009 0741 hrs

AWARE's new exco - elected at EGM on May 2, 2009

SINGAPORE: Their stand is clear: "AWARE has never promoted homosexuality".

In a statement on Friday evening, the 24-year-old Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) stressed that its stand has always "been identical to that of the government".

"We agree that the heterosexual family is the norm for our society," the women's advocacy group stated. "But homosexuals are also part of our society and they should be able to live freely and happily, free of any discrimination."

Their comments come in response to Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng's comment that homosexuality was "clearly a major issue to both sides" in the AWARE saga.

While welcoming Mr Wong's reminder of the need for restraint, respect and tolerance, AWARE said it was "most regrettable" that some people now think it has a "gay agenda" and that "wrongful allegations" continue to be perpetuated online and through other channels.

"This is totally unfounded," it stressed. The allegations by Dr Thio Su Mien and those she "handpicked" to take over AWARE's leadership were based "on the strength of bits of information taken out of context and strung together to create an imaginary and inaccurate picture of AWARE's activities", said AWARE.

But, the current executive committee is moving on, they said. With an expanded membership, they are now putting together programmes for the year.
- TODAY/so

From ChannelNewsAsia.com; see the source article here.

Channel NewsAsia - Thursday, May 14

Three NMP hopefuls come under fire

SINGAPORE: Barely had they thrown their names into the hat for the post of Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) when the criticisms began on the government feedback website, REACH.

NMP hopefuls Loretta Chen and Beatrice Chia—Richmond — along with incumbent Siew Kum Hong, who is seeking a second term — have been accused of being "homosexuality activists" by some Netizens.

Postings on REACH questioned if their applications, in the words of one, were "a back door for more pro—LGBTs (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender)" to have a voice in Parliament. The debate has set REACH’s thread on NMP candidates abuzz.

First opened for comments on May 1, the thread picked up steam since last Thursday and has attracted 93 postings and more than 1,400 page views as of last night. In comparison, the thread on Influenza A (H1N1) has attracted eight comments.

With his role as a legal adviser in the recent AWARE leadership saga, Mr Siew, 34, bore the brunt of the criticisms; many accused him of "pushing homosexual lifestyle" and of being "against the majority Singaporean".

On the other hand, Ms Chia—Richmond, 34, and Ms Chen, 32, both arts practitioners, came under fire for their past projects, which forumer ’Very Worried!!’ alleged about Ms Chia—Richmond’s application "is far more serious and worrying than Siew Kum Hong being re—nominated".

Ms Chen, a theatre director, has been charged as being "no different". "She’s openly gay and has also directed films with mainly controversial themes," wrote forumer ’isay’.

When asked about this, Ms Chen said, "I am who I am and I don’t intend to pretend to be someone that I am not. If you can be honest to yourself, you can then be honest to the team you are leading and only then you can be honest to society at large."

Ms Chen, who hopes to speak up on arts, youth and elderly issues, added, "I don’t see this NMP as a backdoor (for LGBT issues). Human beings are capable of being multi—dimensional, multi—perspective and multi—layered. I think it’s sad when some Singaporeans choose to be so single—minded and so single—focused that you can only be defined by your sexuality or by your race or your religion."

Ms Chia, who is married and a mother of one, could not be reached for comment last night.

When contacted, Mr Siew said he had not seen the full comments posted on REACH, but has seen similar objections to his re—application online. He also received several emails.

"It seems there’s some effort to organise a campaign to target me," he said. "It does bother me to be a target, to be singled out for expressing a sincerely held opinion."

Mr Siew, who is married and is a corporate lawyer, reiterated that he does not support homosexuality but is rather against discrimination, which is why he sought to repeal the law against gay sex in 2007.

The criticisms on REACH is another sign that the two camps — those with concerns over the gay agenda and those seeking more equality for gays — are turning to "mainstream portals" as their sounding boards, according to Singapore Management University assistant professor Eugene Tan.

"The two groups are fairly educated and are not afraid to use the new media to draw and canvass for support," he said.

Feedback on REACH is typically passed to the relevant agencies.

But Mr Siew hopes the Special Select Committee of eight MPs will evaluate his record in Parliament, which he feels "speaks for itself" as he had spoken out on numerous topics.

"The only thing I hope is that rational minds will prevail," he added.

The panel, led by Speaker Abdullah Tarmugi, will make its recommendations to President SR Nathan after it has interviewed the candidates. The new NMP term begins in July.

From Yahoo! News; see the source article here.

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

AWARE SAGA

Letter From Sabina-Leah Fernandez

I REFER to 'What Women Really Want' (May 2). While it is true that we have the recession and Influenza A (H1N1) outbreak to worry about, I hope the 2,000 people who showed up at last Saturday's Aware's EGM, queueing for two to three hours and sitting in a room for several more, are testament to the fact that this issue matters to Singaporean men and women.

While the debate has centred on homosexuality, the crux of what we was discussed on Saturday by men and women of every race, religion and sexual orientation was this: There is a place for religion and a place for secularism, and while those two spaces can live harmoniously side by side, they must be kept separate. It is not acceptable for anyone of any religious affiliation to enforce their beliefs on others, particularly in a secular environment.

If the new exco had not been voted out, if 1,000 people had not shouted and screamed to have ex-president Josie Lau's executive committee removed, it would have set an unhealthy precedent to others with strong opinions. It would have sent the message that it is okay to steamroll into any organisation and enforce your personal beliefs.

Singaporeans standing up for what they believe in is a win for civil society, for Non-Governmental Organisations, for keeping secular organisations secular and religious organisations, religious.

Most of all, it shows people care enough to fight for what they believe is right. And this beats an apathetic I'm-too-busy-worrying-about-my-bottom-line society any day.

The implications of the Aware issue concerned not only women, but men too. It encouraged mature, professional open-minded engagement between various groups of differing opinions.

From TODAY, Voices – Tuesday, 05-May-2009

AWARE'S CSE PROGRAMME

Reach will send feedback to 'relevant ministries'

ESTHER NG, estherng@mediacorp.com.sg

OVER the past month, the Aware saga has spawned a fringe festival of views and petitions on various blogs and Internet discussion boards, including the Government's feedback portal.

The Reach portal has received about 50 postings about Aware's Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme, most of them critical.

Many of the postings take issue with statements from Aware's guide for trainers, such as "anal sex — can be healthy and neutral if practised with consent and with a condom" and "homosexuality is perfectly normal". One parent asked: "What is going on in our society? … It is so perverted. Is Singapore going down this slippery road as well?"

Another forum contributor, what_aware_show_your_kids, questioned how the Ministry of Education (MOE) could view the Aware course as "promoting pro-family values in young kids".

On April 29, the MOE said that it had not received any objections from parents about Aware's CSE programme. Many parents took issue with this statement, saying that the fact there had not been any complaints did not mean Aware's content was appropriate.

One irate parent wrote: "MOE better uphold what it preaches — that it observes and value good morals as taught by the major religions here — that homosexuality has no place in early teens' minds."

Last Friday, the MOE announced it was investigating Aware's sexuality education programme run in some schools after receiving "some" complaints from parents.

Apart from homosexuality, the manual's statement on premarital sex being "neutral" also upset some. "They encourage girls to carry condoms with them, for what? To avoid pregnancy? To avoid abortion? Or is it to encourage sex?" wrote Wrong Stuff. "In the first place, the correct approach is to avoid sex. Sex before marriage is wrong."

A few congratulated Ms Josie Lau and her team for "standing up against homosexual values". Despite the team being voted out last Saturday, they agreed that the short-lived new Aware exco had achieved its objective of highlighting issues within CSE programme.

They were interested to know "how MOE and parents can engage to develop a comprehensive sex education programme for schools which reflects the mainstream views and values of Singapore society".

So, what will Reach do with all this feedback that it has received?

Reach chairman Amy Khor told Today that when "substantial feedback is received on a particular issue, Reach will collate and send the feedback in a timely manner to the relevant ministries" to respond and for "follow-up action where they deem appropriate".

Ms Khor noted that while the posts about the Aware issue, over three separate discussion threads, were emotive, there were no racially and religiously offensive comments.

"Reach did not remove any of the Aware threads on our discussion forum. As a norm, we will only delete comments which are clearly meant to create mischief, seditious, personal attacks or attacks against a race or religion," said Dr Khor.

From TODAY, News – Tuesday, 05-May-2009