CSE and the role of MOE
Get your facts right on what is happening in Singapore schools when it comes to sex education, and do not base comments on ‘innuendo or information received on the fly’.
It is sad that this comment came from my favorite minister. Ironically, the above comment would somewhat also apply to Mr Iswaran himself, now that the CSE has been suspended by the MOE (Ministry of Education) after a thorough investigation.
I would really hope that Mr Iswaran had gave the above advise only because he was replying on the fly, sort of a knee-jerk action to defend his ministry and not because he was ill-advised by officials ‘ocifails’ working under him. If it was the latter case, then the individual(s) responsible for stumbling my favorite minister should be investigated and dealt with like those who were found to be responsible for the screw-ups leading to Mas Selamat’s escape.
Anyway, Mr Iswaran justified the ministry’s lack of action by because it had not received any complaints about CSE, and thus had no reason to intervene. Did the minister actually think the lack of complaints mean parents are aware of what their children has been taught in school?
It is really hard to believe most children know right from wrong, when it comes to sexual mores, especially when they are in their teens. Furthermore, given the fact that children and teens nowadays already have some form of wayward sex education, no thanks to the liberal arts and media and the proliferation of pornography on the Internet, would most of them provide feedback to parents who are otherwise too busy to give them the required attention during their formative years? I certainly don’t recall going home to tell my parents what I have been taught in school every day when I was schooling.
Chua Mui Hoong, of the abominable Straits Stooge Times, wrote that parents who hold the MOE or other groups responsible for teaching their children morals are simply turning over their parental responsibility to the state. But the point is, when parents are not aware that their children are taught something (or do something) that are in conflict with their own moral views, how are these parents supposed to exercise their responsibilities? Certainly, schools do not keep video recordings of the days’ classes to be made available to parents for review later, do they? Not to mention, we often found parents or family members of suspects talking about just good these people were, while completely oblivious of their other activities. But please, do not issue ‘time sheets’ to write a summary on what they have been taught each day in school as an attempt to correct this oversight. Frankly, I would be horrified if that is done!
Of course, parents has a part to play in educating their children and cannot push that responsibility to schools. A consensus must therefore be reached between parents and the schools when it comes to such issues. There’s no point in having confused kids being taught that homosexuality is a sin by their parents or elders, but is then told it is ‘neutral’ in school.
Based on the above, it is my considered opinion that the usual suspects for government gahmen propaganda can stop telling us that MOE is absolved of all responsibilities in this matter. MOE must answer to not just parents, but the general public whether ‘ocifail(s)’ of the MOE had actually studied and vetted the CSE program in the first place to make sure it conformed to MOE’s guidelines. It appeared to me though, that it was simply all left to the decisions of the schools. After all, MOE wrote in a letter: ‘the schools 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‘. It had said nothing about its role in deciding on this matter.
If the assumption above is correct, the public must be informed on how the schools which adopted this programme come to their decisions. Was it a committee or an individual who made the decision? Beyond that, is there any mechanism in place by MOE to audit any of these processes and decisions? If the general public has no clue what goes on in this particular ‘black box’ just like me, it is clear that once again that Singapore’s main stream media (and in particular the Stooge Times) is found to be wanting in investigative journalism. Call it deteriorating journalism too, if you wish!
So, it is really is quite amazing to see that in less than a week, the MOE now decides that CSE ‘did not conform to MOE’s guidelines in some aspects’ after a thorough investigation. Does this mean that CSE was never thoroughly reviewed before its approval? Is someone either sleeping on his job or simply negligent? Or more ominously, is someone within MOE or a teacher usng his / her position to push the homosexual agenda through the backdoor? A programme which promotes homosexuality - technically still illegal under the laws of Singapore - went under the radar of the ministry and entered our schools right under our noses! Without Josie Lau and her now much vilified ex-ExCo, would we even be aware of this matter? Pity these female-activist equivalent of the 82nd or 101st Airborne… they got sort of massacre and no one even shed a tear for them!
The gahmen, and not just the MOE, should really take a more serious views on this matter and conduct an investigation to identify those responsible. This material has not only offended the sensibilities of both Muslims and Christians, but also promoted activities that are against our laws. In fact, there’s a term for this kind of activities: subversion, if not sedition.
It is my fear that if such subversive activities are unchecked, this will embolden certain elements within society to continue in such activities that will threaten and destabilised social and religious harmony in our country.
On a lighter note, two different friends (who are less extreme than I) have also expressed concern that certain undesirable developments might take place from here. The first friend expressed concern that the gahmen may take the results of the AWARE EGM as indication that our society is now more open and accepting of homosexuality and thus take action to that effect. The second friend is concerned that Singapore’s low birthrate will be further aggravated with the increase acceptance of homosexuality. In the end, he is concerned there could only be a further relaxing of laws to allow more immigrants - who may have no respect to our values and traditions, and our way of life - to make up for the loss of population.
In both cases, both have expressed that these are developments they do not wish to see.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.33
