Don’t let Dr Thio Su Mien off the hook

Don’t let Dr Thio Su Mien off the hook: MOE should not allow itself to be held hostage by a vocal minority to serve their own selfish agenda

The Ministry of Education (MOE) is investigating the sexuality education programme run in some schools by the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) after receiving “complaints” from parents. (read article here)

Some parents had expressed concern about the content found in an instructor guide for Aware’s programme, which had been posted online.

Actually, MOE should conduct a probe into the background of these so-called parents before taking further action so as not to capitulate to the demands of a vocal minority.

The CSE was conducted way back in 2006 - 2007 and there were no complaints from the students, teachers or parents.

Why then are there so many complaints in the past two days?

This seemed to emanate from segments of the CSE instructor guide which were posted on AWARE website earlier.

AWARE website does not enjoy particularly high volume of traffic. Its alexa.com traffic ranking in Singapore is only 6,119 at last check which translates to less than two thousand views a day.

At the same time, a petition has been circulating online which wants the Education Minister to probe Aware’s programme. In just a few days, more than 1,200 people have put their names on it.

It is highly unlikely that all the petitioners came to be alerted about the CSE guide from the website itself.

Since the ministry’s letter was published on Wednesday, the new guard of Aware has encouraged parents to make their concerns known to MOE .

It is pretty obvious that the latest petition is another ruse orchestrated behind the scene by somebody to justify her earlier statement that the old guards of aware are promoting homosexuality at the expense of family values.

How many of these parents who submitted feedback to MOE are genuinely concerned about the content of the CSE? How many are even remotely aware of the purpose of the programme?

The presentation on the CSE which is posted on AWARE’s website is downright biased, misleading and distorted to serve the insidious motives of the mastermind, that is to misrepresent the good work done by AWARE in order to defend their unconstitutional takeover of the organization.

AWARE’s former programme manager Deeksha Vasundhra said that the guide is meant to be “private and confidential” and was never given to students.

What are the motives of the person(s) to put up such sensitive materials on the internet?

Isn’t it a contradiction to post something it deemed offensive to students online for the public to view, some of whom may be students?

Some well-meaning parents may be misled by the presentation to make a complaint. Are they given the opportunity to study the CSE programme as a whole?

The CSE guide is meant for the instructors only and not for the students. By revealing its details to students, isn’t the perpetuator more guilty of “promoting homosexuality” as accused by the new exco?

MOE should not allowed itself to be held hostage by a minority of self-righteous moral vilgantes who is only interested to impose their own self-serving values and beliefs onto the majority in Singapore who do not subscribe to their creed.

We cannot rule out that a certain proportion of the petitioners are members of COOS who have been egged on by their peers to pen their names down.

According to AWARE’s first president, Lena Cheng, the group had consulted religious groups, academics, social workers and teachers when they adapted the guide from the 25-year-old International Women’s Health Coalition, which promotes and protects girls’ and women’s sexual and reproductive rights and health. (read article here)

The International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC) promotes and protects the sexual and reproductive rights and health (SRRH) of all women and young people, particularly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, by helping to develop effective health and population policies, programs, and funding. (read about IWHC here)

In other words, AWARE’s CSE is not made up by the old guards themselves, but adapted from an international, secular and non-sectatarian NGO with 25 years of history behind them serving 179 countries all over the world.

How can programme which is widely accepted and promulgated by the international community be deemed inappropriate and offensive in cosmopolitan Singapore?

MOE has already said its programmes reflect ‘the mainstream views and values of Singapore society, where the majority of Singaporeans hold conservative views of sexuality’.

I suggest MOE conduct a survey amongst the general populace across the board from all races and religion to study the appropriateness of the CSE programme.

In a multi-racial and multi-cultural society like Singapore, it is impossible for everybody to share the same views of sexuality.

The wishes and sentiments of the silent majority should not be compromised by some with a holier-than-thou attitude who are able to exert seemingly more influence on the government because of better organization and cohesion.

The latest fracas is nothing more than a smokescreen to deflect public pressure on the group’s ‘feminist mentor’ Dr Thio Su Mien to reply to MOE’s questions directly.

Till today, Dr Thio still hasn’t replied to MOE’s call to substantiate her claims that the CSE is promoting homosexuality in schools and that complaints had been made to MOE in the past.

The complaints which surfaced lately after the leak of the CSE guidebook online doesn’t absolve Dr Thio from the responsibility to clarify herself.

Show us the proof! Don’t hide behind the church or your ‘feminist group’ to scandalize our national institutions with impunity!

Why didn’t the parents complained to MOE earlier had there been any problems with the CSE’s teaching materials?

Mobilizing a troop of blind flock who came to know about the CSE only through your own colored lenses to lend support to your initial allegation does not validate its authenticity at all.

The fact remained that no parents had lodged a complaint during the two years in which the CSE was taught in 11 schools.

These are two separate issues altogether and I hope MOE will not allow the latest staged “furore” from the ground to obsfuscate the matter proper.

On one hand, the concerns of the parents must be looked into to assess if there are any merits in the complaints. However, Dr Thio should not be let off the hook simply like this.

Should Dr Thio continue to remain reticent, MOE should consider going through proper legal channels in order to seek redress.

After all, 3 Singaporeans went to jail last year for ’scandalizing’ the judiciary by wearing Kangaroo T-shirts outside the court. The same standard must be applied to all government institutions.

As a vital ministry responsible for nurturing our future generation, MOE should not allowed public trust and confidence in its system to be eroded by frivolous and unreasonable actions of an individual.

Dr Thio Su Mien, where are you? Come out now and reply to MOE’s questions! We are waiting to hear from you! As a senior lawyer with many years of experience, surely you do not need so long a time to give us a decent, honest and reasonable explanation?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.268