Hanging herself with her own rope?

Hanging herself with her own rope?

SINGAPORE - It was only last week when Dr Thio Su Mien made the following claims regarding AWARE’s comprehensive sexuality (CSE) program especially with regards to her focus on the neutral portrayal of homosexuality:

‘I talked to parents. I said: You better do something about this, otherwise your daughter will come back and say, ‘Mum, I want to marry my girlfriend.’

‘Or your son will say: ‘Dad, I want to marry my boyfriend.”

These parents were flabbergasted, she said, adding that such sexuality education was taking place in the United States and Europe and was not new.

‘What is happening in society is that we are redefining marriage, we are redefining families,’ she said.

‘So I’m a concerned citizen and if people are so ignorant, I think I want to teach them.’

Pointing out that Aware’s programme was already in 30 schools, she said: ‘The suggestion is that in this programme, young girls from 12 to 18 are taught that it’s okay to experiment with each other.

‘And this is something which should concern parents in Singapore. Are we going to have an entire generation of lesbians?’

I was anticipating a response from the Ministry of Education (MOE), and my prediction finally came true. Allow me to kick things off with an elaboration on how MOE-affiliated schools work based on my experience in running workshops in schools, though not in the area of sexuality education. From time to time, schools may decide to run workshops by external bodies or personnels not within the educational service. Such workshops are usually not part of the examinable content within the mandatory syllabus, but are organized to equip students with useful knowledge. Prior to such workshops, the lesson plans and teaching materials are reviewed by the teachers, department heads or their assistants. Thus, any objectionable material will be siphoned out. This review process is meant to ensure that the materials covered during the workshop adhered to set guidelines. MOE was spot on in its reply to queries on AWARE’s CSE, especially on the part in ensuring that the latter adheres to religious sensitivity guidelines. And, it is a norm for other guidelines to be enforced too, such as racial sensitivity.

If a typical man in the street were to read Dr Thio’s statements, he may interpret it in the following way 1) Schools that run AWARE’s CSE promote homosexuality and lesbianism. 2) It seems that MOE is also advocating the promotion of homosexuality and lesbianism in such schools since they are MOE-affiliated. 3) Or MOE isn’t in control of the curriculum and may not have a proper guideline on sexuality education.

Whilst seeking to demolish the old AWARE’s CSE program, what Dr Thio had done at the same time was to cast aspersions on our education service indirectly. She never said it directly, but the inferences can be made. This is a rope she has tried to use to “hang” the old AWARE. But this indirect attack on the education establishment will prompt a response from the latter.

Thus, it didn’t come as a surprise that MOE came out to issue its stand on sexuality education in schools that run AWARE’s workshops. It has also requested Dr Thio to come up with facts to substantiate her claims:

“Last year, 11 secondary schools engaged AWARE to run workshops for their students. The number of students involved in each school ranged from about 20 to 100, and each workshop lasted 3 hours. The objectives of these workshops were to provide students with accurate information on Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs)/HIV, to help students understand the consequences of premarital sexual activity, and to equip students with skills such as decision-making and resisting negative peer pressure.

AWARE also conducted assembly talks, typically of 45-minute duration, for students in a few secondary schools. Some of the areas covered in the talks included body image, self-esteem, eating disorders, teenage pregnancies, sexual harassment and the role of women in today’s context.

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 schools did not receive any negative feedback from students or parents who attended the workshops and talks.

In particular, MOE has also not received any complaint from parents or Dr Thio Su Mien, who was reported to have made specific claims about sexuality education in our schools. MOE has contacted Dr Thio Su Mien to seek clarifications and facts to substantiate her claims.”

Thus, Dr Thio has gotten into some sort of a sticky situation with a government institution with the latter’s disavowal of her claims. Based on the information provided firstly by the old AWARE members and now corroborated by MOE, it is unlikely that Dr Thio is able to substantiate her claims. In other words, she may be hanging herself with the same rope she used to hang the old AWARE.

In light of the new developments, what does that mean for the EOGM? It appears that the anti-homosexuality and anti-lesbianism stance of the new exco and Dr Thio is now becoming some sort of baggage for them. A continual grip on that baggage might prove to be their undoing. And due to the situation with MOE that Dr Thio has gotten herself into, it would seem prudent that the new AWARE exco should start distancing themselves from her. But wouldn’t that mean they would be without a mentor? If they distance themselves from their mentor, would they end up like headless chickens? The build-up to the EOGM on 2nd May is getting interesting by the day.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.141