When I Was Young

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.

MELBOURNE — A doctor in rural Australia (picture, left) used a handyman’s power drill to bore a hole into the skull of a boy with a severe head injury, saving his life.

Nicholas Rossi, 13, fell off his bike on Friday in the city of Maryborough, hitting his head on the pavement. When he got to the hospital, he was slipping in and out of consciousness.

The doctor on duty, Mr Rob Carson, quickly recognised the boy was experiencing potentially fatal bleeding on the brain and knew he had only minutes to make a hole in the boy’s skull to relieve the pressure.

But the small hospital was not equipped with neurological drills, so Dr Carson sent for a household drill from the maintenance room.

Dr Carson called a neurosurgeon in Melbourne for help, who talked him through the procedure which he had never before attempted.

“It was pretty scary. You obviously worry, (are) you pushing hard enough or pushing too hard, but then when some blood came out after we’d gone through the skull, we realised we’d made the right decision,” anesthetist Dr David Tynan, who assisted Dr Carson told Australian Broadcasting Corp. AP

From TODAY, World – Thursday, 21-May-2009

I SAY

Craig D’Souza

I REFER to “Do more to curb ‘red light jumping’” (May 18).

It is of utmost importance to highlight that Mr Martin C Conisbee’s account of red light jumping three times last week is not indicative of the true frequency of this occurrence.

I have noticed this trend increasing within the last year itself, especially since I use public transport frequently and am forced to cross road junctions often.

The day would not be normal if at the traffic light, I do not see a vehicle beat the right-turn green arrow, even after it has turned red.

I wonder if due to high operation costs, the red light cameras have been switched off.

This seems to have emboldened errant drivers who streak across even if the light is not on their side.

This blatant devil-may-care attitude struck home hard last week. My mum was preparing to turn right as the green right-turn arrow lit up, when she noticed that something was amiss on the other side of the road and jammed her brakes just in time to avoid a lorry hurtling across the road. The light was clearly red on his side, and while my mother had the undeniable right of way, it seemed the lorry driver wanted to usurp that right.

With such arrogant and aggressive driving, is there any wonder why there are now more accidents on the road? Or why car insurance premiums are rising?

Why are we driving like Third-World drivers in a First-World country? The risks and harm clearly outweigh the benefits of beating a red light.

I sincerely hope the authorities will take such drivers to task.

More importantly, I urge road users to be responsible and exercise restraint and caution.

The next time you beat a red light, think about the consequences of doing something so reckless and imagine what would happen if a loved one got killed because of a similar act of recklessness.

From TODAY, Voices – Wednesday, 20-May-2009

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.

At this point, not everyone is already sold to the idea of same-sex marriage. Basing on the survey, it seems that older people are voting against this latest craze of same-sex marriage, while younger people go for it. My opinion, hotter blood needs more room for experimentation, while those ‘who are done with it’ needs time for reflection and penitence. Think so?
----------

Updated 1 hour, 37 minutes ago

Four states -- Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and Iowa -- allow same-sex marriages.

(CNN) -- New Hampshire's move to become the most recent state to legalize same-sex marriage hit a bump Wednesday, after the state House of Representatives failed to agree to changes made by the governor.

The House and Senate have approved allowing gay couples to marry.

But Gov. John Lynch, a three-term Democrat, said last week he would sign a same-sex marriage bill only if it provides "the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions."

Lynch said any such measure needs to "make clear that [clergy and other religious officials] cannot be forced to act in ways that violate their deeply held religious principles."

The House on Wednesday fell two votes short of approving Lynch's language, 186-188.

The chamber then voted to send the legislation to a committee to be considered further.

The language would specify that religious organizations can decline to take part in any marriage ceremony without incurring fines or risking lawsuits.

New Hampshire's movement in the gay marriage debate is part of a flurry of recent activity surrounding the issue.

On May 6, same-sex marriage became legal in Maine, as Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill less than an hour after the state legislature approved it.

The District of Columbia voted May 5 to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, though it does not itself give marriage licenses to gay or lesbian couples.

Meanwhile, New York Gov. David Paterson introduced legislation in April to make same-sex marriage legal in New York. A similar bill died in the state Senate in 2007.
Iowa's Supreme Court ruled unanimously on April 3 that it is illegal to discriminate against same-sex couples by denying them the right to marry. The first same-sex marriages in the state took place April 27.

Four states -- Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and Iowa -- allow same-sex marriages. A Vermont law making gay and lesbian marriages legal takes effect in September.

California's state Supreme Court issued a ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in May 2008, and 18,000 gay and lesbian couples got married in the state. But California voters in November approved Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

That state's high court heard arguments earlier this year about whether Proposition 8 was itself constitutional. It has not yet issued a verdict.

A slim majority of Americans are against legal recognition for same-sex marriage, CNN polling found last month. Fifty-four percent of adults questioned in an April 23-26 nationwide CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll said that marriages between gay or lesbian couples should not be recognized as valid, while 44 percent said they should be considered legal.

But there was a huge gap between the opinions of younger and older people, with younger people far more likely to approve of gay marriage. Nearly six in 10 people ages 18 to 34 said same-sex marriages should be legal. Just over four in 10 people ages 35 to 49 agreed, and the number was similar for 50- to 64-year olds. Only 24 percent of people 65 and older agreed.

The survey's sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

From ChannelNewsAsia.com; see the source article here.