Open letter by Tan Joo Hymn (past president)
I joined AWARE in 1999 and have been on the Exco from 2000 to 2008. I was still active over the last year even though I’m no longer on the Exco, helping out in ad hoc projects etc.
To me, there are 2 separate issues here:
1. The way they took over the Exco
2. The allegations made by the new Exco about the old AWARE
____
1. From March 28 to 23 April, they claimed not to know each other before the AGM, and to have no agenda taking over AWARE. But what they said are full of contradictions. Please see www.we-are-aware.sg for more details, and I include some choice ones below.
Yes, I agree that the Old AWARE had many areas for improvement, just like many other NGOs, but that does not mean that we deserve to be taken over. This matter is all the more sensitive because it appears that it was engineered by members of the same church. Not talking about religion here is a bit like not talking about the great big elephant standing in the room. Let me give you 2 hypothetical situations:
* A group of atheists decided that they have had enough of people worshipping what they think is a non-existent God. So, on Sundays, a large group of them go to a church and occupy most of the seats in the church, denying regular church goers the space to sit and listen to the sermon, and receive communion.
* A coalition of butchers think that Buddhists and Hindus are the reason that the sale of beef has gone down, so they carry entire carcasses of cows to Buddhists and Hindu temples demanding that the followers be now allowed to eat beef.
Far-fetched? But not really that different from what’s happened here: A group of (Christian) women believe that homosexuality is a sin to be condemned and engineer a take over of AWARE to ensure that AWARE now sends a message that homosexuality, pre-marital sex and anal sex are now classified as negative (and presumably to say that abortion should be outlawed).
We live in a multi-religious, multi-cultural pluralistic society. It is very dangerous when a vocal minority is allowed to take over another group to silence them and to subvert their mission.
____
2. The allegations made.
The Comprehensive Sexuality Education is but one programme out of many that AWARE does. Homosexuality takes up all of 2 sentences (and less than 5 minutes) in a workshop that lasts 3 hours, 6 if you include the advanced module.
The 2 sentences that have so many people up in arms are: Homosexuality is normal - true. (discusses as a variant like left-handedness). Homosexuality as a word is neutral (not positive or negative).
Taken in the scientific context, these 2 sentences are accurate. We believe in providing as accurate and up to date information as possible for young people to make up their own minds. For eg. Christians believe in the Creation. But evolution is taught in schools. Are schools then teaching children not to believe in the Creation?!
We also tell the students that some religions have their own views about homosexuality and sex, and that they should respect their own religious and cultural norms, but not to impose it on others. Ie. We believe that it is up to parents and families to provide moral and spiritual guidance to students, while we give information.
In any case, this completely detracts from the 24 years of work done by AWARE. See http://www.we-are-aware.sg/achievements
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.235
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Singapore job losses highest in more than a decade
Singapore job losses highest in more than a decade
More Singaporeans are unemployed now than at any time before in the last five years. The jobless rate for Singaporeans and permanent residents hit a five-year high of 4.8 percent in March up from 3.6 percent in December, according to the Ministry of Manpower.
The overall unemployment rate, which includes foreign workers in Singapore, rose from 2.5 percent in December to 3.2 percent in March.
More than 12,000 jobs were lost in the first quarter which ended in March – the highest in more than a decade, according to Ministry of Manpower figures going back to the Asian financial crisis in 1998.
But that's not the biggest news at the moment as far as one local radio station is concerned, which is giving more coverage to the swine flu which has not yet broken out in Singapore.
Singapore's Channel NewsAsia website goes one better. It doesn't even have any reports on uenemployment or joblessness in Singapore at 1.30 pm today! A site search only turned up what labour chief Lim Swee Say had to say two days ago! And nothing about the Manpower Ministry report today!
But here's the hard news.
Employers retrenched 10,800 workers, and another 1,800 were released from their contracts early, bringing total job cuts to 12,600 in the first quarter ended in March – up from 9,410 in the last quarter which ended in December.
That's 3,000 more than the 8,890 jobs lost in the fourth quarter of 2001, the year of 9/11 and the dot-com bust, the previous worst quarterly figure for job losses.
The economy shrank a record 19.7 percent between January and March.
Some 9,000 electronics workers lost their jobs, another 2,900 workers were laid off from services and 700 from construction.
The ministry says these are only preliminary estimates.
Worryingly, it says not enough new jobs are being created to make up for the job losses.
The ministry says:
Falling external demand has severely affected the manufacturing sector where employment declined by 19,900, deeper than the 7,000 loss in the earlier quarter. Supported by a strong pipeline of building projects, construction employment grew by 8,500 in the first quarter of 2009, but lower than the gains in the earlier quarters. Services added 10,300 workers, substantially lower than before.
But it's hardly headline news as far as the Singapore radio station 93.8 is concerned. Top of the news this morning was what Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Wong Kan Seng had to say about what businesses should do if the swine flu breaks out in Singapore and, no, the government is not planning to close the borders as yet. The job losses were reported only at the end of the news bulletin.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28214.1
Changing Truth(s) in Batang Kali
Changing Truth(s) in Batang Kali
Future generations rewrite history and facts, and as a result, truth changes, sometimes for the better. The Malayan Emergency version of the My Lai massacre is being re-evaluated on its facts that the counter-insurgency sweep of Batang Kali, Selangor, in 1948 was (not) a massacre of unarmed villagers. Whether the villagers were indeed Communist fighters by night was irrelevant as justice was about whether disproportionate and extreme force was unnecessarily used. At a less extreme level, the Guildford Four and Maguire Seven are infamous examples of governments overzealously locking up people and throwing away the key to show that justice is served. That is the thing with security action in times of supposed crisis when there are exceptions to the rule of law. Whether these exceptions justified and can they be rigorously substantiated still when placed under current and future public scrutiny is hard to say. Some might still and some might not. Looking back at Singapore’s history in fighting communism, what can we say?
Malaysia massacre fight goes on
Wednesday, 29 April 2009 17:31 UK
By Robin Brant
BBC Malaysia correspondent
The UK government is to review evidence about a massacre of unarmed Malaysian villagers by British troops in 1948.
At the time, Britain was war weary. But in thick, humid jungle at the end of a peninsula near the equator in South-East Asia, British soldiers still faced fierce fighting.
What was then called Malaya was a crucial source of tin and rubber for Britain’s crumbling empire.
It was on the rubber estates where an uprising was under way.
Some of the ethnic Chinese were angry at increasing unemployment.
They also resented the way they were being treated by the government of a country where they had led a resistance against the Japanese occupying forces.
An insurgency was born.
They were allied to communists in China who were on the brink of victory in a civil war.
They focused their attacks on tin mines and rubber plantations; the engine of the Malayan economy.
The Malaya Emergency lasted 12 years. Thousands died in a war which eventually ended when the Communist insurgency was quashed.
The conflict was not formally halted until a peace agreement in 1989.
The British strategy to win the conflict has gone down in the annals of military history. It was cited by advisors working with the US forces in Iraq as it tackled a growing insurgency after 2003.
But in the village of Batang Kali on 11 and 12 December, 1948, that sophisticated combination of military capability and diplomatic skill was nowhere to be seen.
A platoon of Scots Guards raided the village just outside of Kuala Lumpur.
There had been intelligence suggesting ‘bandit’ activity in the area. The British were reeling from an attack a few days earlier which left three soldiers dead.
The men of the village - unarmed - were separated from the women and children. All were questioned. It is not clear that they were ever identified as insurgents.
It ended with 24 of them being shot dead. Only one man escaped. The village was set on fire. It is claimed some of the victims were beheaded after they had been killed.
Official version
That the men were killed by the British soldiers is not disputed. Why and in exactly what circumstances they were killed is still not clear.
The official version of events claimed that the patrol of mostly newly-arrived British conscripts had no option but to shoot the men to prevent them fleeing when they tried to run into the jungle.
The unofficial version suggested that the soldiers were ordered to ‘wipe out’ the villagers. It is also claimed this may have been in retaliation for the murder of three British soldiers a few days earlier.
It was a brutal event which marked the beginning of a long campaign.
It was claimed that there was a military investigation in the immediate aftermath of the killings. All the soldiers were vindicated, but there was never a broader inquiry into any wrongdoing.
Little was known publicly about the events in that tiny village on the edge of a rubber estate until a British newspaper published in 1970 harrowing testimony of some of the soldiers who took part.
Four of the Scots Guards gave sworn testimony, confirming that the shootings took place, confirming that the victims were unarmed.
Britain’s defence secretary ordered a police investigation. That investigation was halted after a change of government in a general election later that year.
In 2008, a fresh campaign was launched for a public inquiry into what happened.
Tham Yong is at the forefront of that campaign, as she has been for previous efforts over five decades.
She was 17 when her brother-in-law was among those killed. She witnessed some of the shooting. Her husband was the only man to escape.
She wants an independent public inquiry to establish why it happened and to try to clear the names of the dead. Along with relatives of some of those who died, she also wants compensation and an apology from the British government.
Early this year, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office said there would be no inquiry.
They said there was no new evidence and no need for further investigation beyond what had been carried out both in the days after the attack in 1948/49 and in 1970.
Now Tham Yong and the relatives have turned to the English courts. They want a judicial review of that decision.
As they await the outcome of that process, the government has decided to review all the evidence relating to the shootings.
Mrs Tham is approaching 80 and dying of throat cancer. Her testimony is among those which will be reconsidered by the British government.
Her memory of the event is still vivid. Her resentment of the British soldiers is still strong.
‘Terrified’
Last year she told the AFP news agency: “The soldiers came in the evening as we were preparing our meal.
“They rounded us all up and we were terrified.
“Even though we said we were not communists and we had no weapons, they killed one of the young men in cold blood in front of my eyes because he had a permit to collect durians, written in Chinese.
“I think the British soldiers must have thought it was a communist document,” she said.
“The soldiers then told him to run away but he didn’t want to, but they pushed him and when he did run, they shot him from the back.”
Tham Yong said the soldiers then locked the men, women and children in a small room overnight.
The women and children were herded into a truck and driven away the next morning. They heard gunshots as they were driven away and knew the men had been killed, she claimed.
“We were kept away for a week and when we returned we found the bloated bodies, half eaten by animals with most of them looking as if they were running away when shot.
“Even today when I think of what happens, it hurts so much.”
The British government hopes to conclude its reconsideration of the decision to deny a public inquiry in a few months time.
In a letter sent to Tham Yong’s lawyers, it emphasised that the decision to reconsider should “not be taken as any indication, one way or another, whether an inquiry will be established”.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28256.1
Are you willing to take the plunge?
Nothing is impossible. It is difficult but not impossible. I have be working abroad for 4.5 years now. I left during a time when many of my peers will having a good time in Singapore. Singaporeans will only look to overseas when times are bad in Singapore, but not pro-actively seek to work abroad as part of the career development plan. let me list down a list of issues, challenges and mindset issues that Singaporeans face:
1) unless you are the lucky ones posted by some big companies, you need to plan this way ahead. May take years. Most Singaporeans wait until they lose their job or they hit a plateau in the career and start looking abroad. It doesn't work that way. Planning ahead means, do you need to learn or improve your 2nd language, do you need to invest in an overseas education, do you need to start attending overseas job fairs etc You don't just suddenly want to work abroad and start looking at a list of challenges and come back whining that it is difficult. Most Singaporeans just do not plan early enough until it is too late or they are too old.
2) instead of buying a flat, are you willing to spend most of your net worth in an overseas education?
3) are you willing to leave your wife and kids in Singapore while you rough it out alone for a few years?
4) are you willing accept local terms and package and compete against foreigners? are you willing to take a step back in terms of pay and aim for longer term benefits.
5) are you willing to delay your marriage and strike it alone abroad?
Chances are, many of us don't want to make sacrifices or don't know what is involved when working abroad.Unless you are posted by your company, most of us take a reactive approach. It never works and hence it is 'difficult'. It is difficult because:
1) most of us expect to find overseas jobs on some classified page and apply for it.
2) it is difficult because most of us expect companies to pay for 'hardship' allowances and have 'family considerations'.
3) it is difficult, because most of us do not have the right skills and exposure to undertake the overseas job. Gosh what have you been doing the last few years? Planning to retire and work in Singapore your whole life? well, you reap what you sow.
4) It is difficult, because most wives cringe with fear whenever husbands travel to China and forbid them for overseas assignments or posting.
5) our ideal of overseas jobs is - expatriate package, children education taken care of, great lifestyle.
I apologise if I have offended anyone in the process, but I think some of us need a wake up call and do something about their lives if they are serious about going abroad.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28255.1
1) unless you are the lucky ones posted by some big companies, you need to plan this way ahead. May take years. Most Singaporeans wait until they lose their job or they hit a plateau in the career and start looking abroad. It doesn't work that way. Planning ahead means, do you need to learn or improve your 2nd language, do you need to invest in an overseas education, do you need to start attending overseas job fairs etc You don't just suddenly want to work abroad and start looking at a list of challenges and come back whining that it is difficult. Most Singaporeans just do not plan early enough until it is too late or they are too old.
2) instead of buying a flat, are you willing to spend most of your net worth in an overseas education?
3) are you willing to leave your wife and kids in Singapore while you rough it out alone for a few years?
4) are you willing accept local terms and package and compete against foreigners? are you willing to take a step back in terms of pay and aim for longer term benefits.
5) are you willing to delay your marriage and strike it alone abroad?
Chances are, many of us don't want to make sacrifices or don't know what is involved when working abroad.Unless you are posted by your company, most of us take a reactive approach. It never works and hence it is 'difficult'. It is difficult because:
1) most of us expect to find overseas jobs on some classified page and apply for it.
2) it is difficult because most of us expect companies to pay for 'hardship' allowances and have 'family considerations'.
3) it is difficult, because most of us do not have the right skills and exposure to undertake the overseas job. Gosh what have you been doing the last few years? Planning to retire and work in Singapore your whole life? well, you reap what you sow.
4) It is difficult, because most wives cringe with fear whenever husbands travel to China and forbid them for overseas assignments or posting.
5) our ideal of overseas jobs is - expatriate package, children education taken care of, great lifestyle.
I apologise if I have offended anyone in the process, but I think some of us need a wake up call and do something about their lives if they are serious about going abroad.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28255.1
Foreigners: Your Opinion Matters! Locals: Not So Much.
Foreigners: Your Opinion Matters! Locals: Not So Much.
That’s the message I get from how the Citizenship and Population Unit is rewarding foreigners for giving their opinions on life in Singapore.
The Citizenship & Population Unit, Prime Minister’s Office (CPU/PMO) is conducting an e-survey for A*STAR’s foreign researchers to know you better and introduce global talents like yourself to the various aspects of life in Singapore through their privileged events. The e-survey will also help CPU/PMO to plan their upcoming events based on your feedback. These events are specially organised only for CPU/PMO’s partner organisations which include A*STAR.
The survey should take less than 10 mins to complete and they are giving away a stored value coffeebean card to every respondent. You may click on the link to start the e-survey.
—-
GREETINGS!
We are from the Citizenship and Population Unit (CPU). We hope to get to know you better and introduce global talents like yourself to the various aspects of life in Singapore, so as to enhance your living experience here!
I wonder if the CPU (oh, what a cute acronym) is also supposed to help decrease emigration. Going by their website there’s some mention of engaging overseas Singaporeans (in addition to the usual suspects of babies and immigration), but none on engaging disengaged citizens who live in Singapore.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28254.1
That’s the message I get from how the Citizenship and Population Unit is rewarding foreigners for giving their opinions on life in Singapore.
The Citizenship & Population Unit, Prime Minister’s Office (CPU/PMO) is conducting an e-survey for A*STAR’s foreign researchers to know you better and introduce global talents like yourself to the various aspects of life in Singapore through their privileged events. The e-survey will also help CPU/PMO to plan their upcoming events based on your feedback. These events are specially organised only for CPU/PMO’s partner organisations which include A*STAR.
The survey should take less than 10 mins to complete and they are giving away a stored value coffeebean card to every respondent. You may click on the link to start the e-survey.
—-
GREETINGS!
We are from the Citizenship and Population Unit (CPU). We hope to get to know you better and introduce global talents like yourself to the various aspects of life in Singapore, so as to enhance your living experience here!
I wonder if the CPU (oh, what a cute acronym) is also supposed to help decrease emigration. Going by their website there’s some mention of engaging overseas Singaporeans (in addition to the usual suspects of babies and immigration), but none on engaging disengaged citizens who live in Singapore.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28254.1
homosexuality Not 'normal alternative lifestyle'
April 30, 2009
Not 'normal alternative lifestyle'
| By Nur Dianah Suhaimi | |
 |  |
THE Church of Our Saviour takes a stand against those who promote homosexuality as a 'normal alternative lifestyle'.
In a statement to the media on Thursday, its senior pastor Derek Hong said the acceptance of such practices goes against biblical teachings and erodes family values.
'Accepting homosexual practices and endorsing any education programme that teaches our children that such practices are neutral or normal, would lead to the erosion of the sound family values on which Singapore society has been built,' he said.
But he stressed that the church is neither anti-homosexual nor does it have an agenda against homosexuals.
'We believe homosexuals should be extended understanding, kindness and love like every other human being. No homosexual should ever be deprived of any right enjoyed by every other Singaporean,' he said.
There has been much speculation that the church, in Margaret Drive, was involved in the Aware leadership takeover on March 28.
Six of Aware's new executive committee members, including president Josie Lau, are part of the church's 4,000-strong congregation.
Dr Thio Su Mien, a well-known lawyer who claims to be the 'feminist mentor' to these six women, is also a member.
She said Aware's sex education programme in schools encouraged lesbianism and homosexuality.
Although the church has denied its involvement in the saga, online sites are abuzz with news that a pastor has written an e-mail rallying people to attend Aware's extraordinary general meeeting (EGM) this Saturday and vote for the new exco.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.228
Reply to Media Queries on MOE’s Sexuality Education Programme
Reply to Media Queries on MOE’s Sexuality Education Programme
1The Ministry of Education (MOE) has received a number of queries and feedback. Parents were generally asking for clarification on what students are taught during sexuality education programmes in school.
2MOE’s sexuality education programme, conducted from upper primary to pre-university level, reflects the mainstream views and values of Singapore society, where the majority of Singaporeans hold conservative views on sexuality. Thus, MOE’s programme on sexuality education is situated within the context of Singapore society which upholds the family as a key social institution.
3In MOE’s sexuality education programme, homosexuality is covered in one lesson in the lower secondary package. The lesson seeks to inform students of the definition of “homosexual”, and that homosexual acts are illegal under Singapore law. It does not promote homosexuality, but follows social norms of mainstream society.
4In delivering the programme, teachers are guided by the principle that parents are ultimately responsible for the values education of their children and that issues of sexuality often involve a question of values. Thus, students are encouraged to seek guidance from their parents on contentious issues such as homosexuality, so that they clarify their personal values and beliefs and take informed, responsible and values-based decisions regarding sexuality, while being aware of different views and perspectives in society.
5Some parents who wrote in to the Ministry have also expressed concern over the content found in an “AWARE Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Basic Instructor Guide” that has been posted online. MOE is investigating this matter.
6Background information on sexuality education programmes in school (see FAQs) is available on the Ministry’s website for parents’ reference.
FAQs for Sexuality Education in Singapore Schools
A. MOE’s Sexuality Education Programme
1.
What is MOE’s Sexuality Education Programme?
MOE’s sexuality education programme is premised on the importance of the family and respect for the values and beliefs of the different ethnic and religious communities on sexuality issues. The aim is to help students make responsible values-based choices on matters involving sexuality.
Sexuality Education in schools is covered both in the formal curriculum and co-curricular programmes. The formal curriculum subjects in which topics on sexuality are incorporated include Science, Health Education and Civics and Moral Education.
MOE’s Growing Years (GY) is the main co-curricular package. It is developmental in nature, spanning the upper primary to post-secondary (JC/CI) levels. It addresses the subject of human sexuality from a holistic perspective, involving the intellectual, emotional, social, physical and ethical aspects of sexuality. It is covered under four main themes: Human Development, Interpersonal Relationships, Sexual Health and Behaviour, and Society and Culture.
The key guiding principles are:
* In accordance with our national values, sexuality education is premised on the importance of the family as the basic unit of society.
* Parents are responsible for sexuality education for their children.
* The teaching of facts is integrated with the teaching of values.
* In recognition of our plural society, pupils will be taught to understand and respect the attitudes, values and beliefs regarding sexuality by other communities.
MOE also collaborates with Health Promotion Board on another co-curricular package - the Breaking Down Barriers programme for Secondary 3 and JC/CI1 pupils, which focuses on STI/HIV education. Students are taught skills such as decision-making, assertiveness and negotiation to say no to pre-marital sex. Abstinence and preserving the basic family values are still the key messages even though there is a segment on protection.
In addition to MOE’s sexuality education programme, schools can also collaborate with other agencies. In doing so, schools must ensure that any programmes run by external agencies are guided by the same principles set out in MOE’s framework for sexuality education. All schools conduct sexuality education and all secondary schools have come on board for the BDB programme in 2008.
2.
What are the goals of MOE’s Sexuality Education Programme?
There are three specific goals to sexuality education, namely:
1. to provide accurate and adequate knowledge about human sexuality and the consequences of sexual activity so that students are able to make carefully considered, informed decisions;
2. to impart intra- and inter-personal skills of problem-solving, decision-making and effective communication so that students are able to build responsible and rewarding relationships; and
3. to inculcate positive values and attitudes of sexuality so that pupils develop a respect for themselves and others as sexual beings, in line with the national value of the family as the basic unit of society.
3.
Does MOE provide any guidelines as to how such topics should be taught?
Yes, teachers are provided with discussion topics and suggested pedagogical approaches on sexuality education. For example, teachers could discuss with their students if chastity is an outdated idea and aim to put across the learning point that students should consider losses not just in the physical dimensions, but also losses in the emotional, social, intellectual and moral dimensions that may result from their decision to engage in premarital sex.
4.
How are parents involved in Sexuality Education in schools?
One of the key principles in Sexuality Education is that parents bear the main responsibility in educating their children in sexuality issues. Students are encouraged to check with their parents on sexuality issues that bear on religious and cultural values, such as homosexuality and abortion. Parents may choose to opt their children out of the sexuality programmes.
5.
How does MOE monitor and review the Sexuality Education programme in schools?
Currently, MOE conducts an annual survey of how sexuality education has been planned, implemented and reviewed in schools. The survey also requests schools to share their good practices and suggestions for improvement so that MOE can provide further support to schools. MOE also reviews its core and co-curricular sexuality education programme periodically to meet the needs of the students.
B. Engaging External Agencies
6.
Why do schools engage external agencies?
As the needs of students vary across schools, schools are given the autonomy to decide on topics that would best meet their students’ needs to augment Sexuality Education in schools; and also on which external agency to engage. For this purpose, guidelines on the engagement of external organisations to conduct sexuality education have been given to schools.
7.
What are the guidelines for schools to engage external vendors?
Sexuality programmes conducted by external agencies should adhere to the guiding principles as set out in the Framework for Sexuality Education. They have to be premised on the importance of the family and respect for the values and beliefs of the different ethnic and religious communities on sexuality issues. Parents may also opt their children out of any sexuality education programme.
8.
What should schools look out for when engaging external vendors?
Specifically, in the selection of external vendors, schools are advised to screen external agencies to ensure that they are of good repute. In addition, the schools should consider a) background of the vendor, b) details of the programme, c) key messages conveyed, d) mode of delivery that would best engage students (e.g. drama, talk, skills practice), e) feedback and evaluation process for future improvements.
9.
What are the roles of teachers when engaging external agencies?
Teachers should be present during the workshops or talks carried out by external agencies to ensure that the key messages conveyed are consistent with those previously agreed by both parties. It is also recommended that teachers follow-up with students so that there could be a reinforcement of the learning points or further clarification of concerns raised.
10.
What are the common topics covered by the external agencies?
In secondary schools, the common topics include Boy-Girl Relationship, STI/HIV prevention, consequences of premarital sex, internet safety and pornography. Post-secondary schools cover topics on STI/HIV prevention, consequences of premarital sex, dating, love and relationships.
11.
Does MOE audit the programmes by external agencies?
Currently, schools audit the programmes and provide MOE with the feedback. As specified in the guidelines in engaging external agencies, teachers should be present with the students to ensure that the key messages conveyed are consistent with those agreed upon by the school and the external agency. It is good practice for teachers to follow-up with their students after the workshop to clarify any outstanding issues or concerns that were either not addressed during the workshop or were surfaced during the workshop itself. Schools are also advised that they can check with Guidance Branch if they need further information and advice on the programmes conducted by specific vendors.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.276
1The Ministry of Education (MOE) has received a number of queries and feedback. Parents were generally asking for clarification on what students are taught during sexuality education programmes in school.
2MOE’s sexuality education programme, conducted from upper primary to pre-university level, reflects the mainstream views and values of Singapore society, where the majority of Singaporeans hold conservative views on sexuality. Thus, MOE’s programme on sexuality education is situated within the context of Singapore society which upholds the family as a key social institution.
3In MOE’s sexuality education programme, homosexuality is covered in one lesson in the lower secondary package. The lesson seeks to inform students of the definition of “homosexual”, and that homosexual acts are illegal under Singapore law. It does not promote homosexuality, but follows social norms of mainstream society.
4In delivering the programme, teachers are guided by the principle that parents are ultimately responsible for the values education of their children and that issues of sexuality often involve a question of values. Thus, students are encouraged to seek guidance from their parents on contentious issues such as homosexuality, so that they clarify their personal values and beliefs and take informed, responsible and values-based decisions regarding sexuality, while being aware of different views and perspectives in society.
5Some parents who wrote in to the Ministry have also expressed concern over the content found in an “AWARE Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Basic Instructor Guide” that has been posted online. MOE is investigating this matter.
6Background information on sexuality education programmes in school (see FAQs) is available on the Ministry’s website for parents’ reference.
FAQs for Sexuality Education in Singapore Schools
A. MOE’s Sexuality Education Programme
1.
What is MOE’s Sexuality Education Programme?
MOE’s sexuality education programme is premised on the importance of the family and respect for the values and beliefs of the different ethnic and religious communities on sexuality issues. The aim is to help students make responsible values-based choices on matters involving sexuality.
Sexuality Education in schools is covered both in the formal curriculum and co-curricular programmes. The formal curriculum subjects in which topics on sexuality are incorporated include Science, Health Education and Civics and Moral Education.
MOE’s Growing Years (GY) is the main co-curricular package. It is developmental in nature, spanning the upper primary to post-secondary (JC/CI) levels. It addresses the subject of human sexuality from a holistic perspective, involving the intellectual, emotional, social, physical and ethical aspects of sexuality. It is covered under four main themes: Human Development, Interpersonal Relationships, Sexual Health and Behaviour, and Society and Culture.
The key guiding principles are:
* In accordance with our national values, sexuality education is premised on the importance of the family as the basic unit of society.
* Parents are responsible for sexuality education for their children.
* The teaching of facts is integrated with the teaching of values.
* In recognition of our plural society, pupils will be taught to understand and respect the attitudes, values and beliefs regarding sexuality by other communities.
MOE also collaborates with Health Promotion Board on another co-curricular package - the Breaking Down Barriers programme for Secondary 3 and JC/CI1 pupils, which focuses on STI/HIV education. Students are taught skills such as decision-making, assertiveness and negotiation to say no to pre-marital sex. Abstinence and preserving the basic family values are still the key messages even though there is a segment on protection.
In addition to MOE’s sexuality education programme, schools can also collaborate with other agencies. In doing so, schools must ensure that any programmes run by external agencies are guided by the same principles set out in MOE’s framework for sexuality education. All schools conduct sexuality education and all secondary schools have come on board for the BDB programme in 2008.
2.
What are the goals of MOE’s Sexuality Education Programme?
There are three specific goals to sexuality education, namely:
1. to provide accurate and adequate knowledge about human sexuality and the consequences of sexual activity so that students are able to make carefully considered, informed decisions;
2. to impart intra- and inter-personal skills of problem-solving, decision-making and effective communication so that students are able to build responsible and rewarding relationships; and
3. to inculcate positive values and attitudes of sexuality so that pupils develop a respect for themselves and others as sexual beings, in line with the national value of the family as the basic unit of society.
3.
Does MOE provide any guidelines as to how such topics should be taught?
Yes, teachers are provided with discussion topics and suggested pedagogical approaches on sexuality education. For example, teachers could discuss with their students if chastity is an outdated idea and aim to put across the learning point that students should consider losses not just in the physical dimensions, but also losses in the emotional, social, intellectual and moral dimensions that may result from their decision to engage in premarital sex.
4.
How are parents involved in Sexuality Education in schools?
One of the key principles in Sexuality Education is that parents bear the main responsibility in educating their children in sexuality issues. Students are encouraged to check with their parents on sexuality issues that bear on religious and cultural values, such as homosexuality and abortion. Parents may choose to opt their children out of the sexuality programmes.
5.
How does MOE monitor and review the Sexuality Education programme in schools?
Currently, MOE conducts an annual survey of how sexuality education has been planned, implemented and reviewed in schools. The survey also requests schools to share their good practices and suggestions for improvement so that MOE can provide further support to schools. MOE also reviews its core and co-curricular sexuality education programme periodically to meet the needs of the students.
B. Engaging External Agencies
6.
Why do schools engage external agencies?
As the needs of students vary across schools, schools are given the autonomy to decide on topics that would best meet their students’ needs to augment Sexuality Education in schools; and also on which external agency to engage. For this purpose, guidelines on the engagement of external organisations to conduct sexuality education have been given to schools.
7.
What are the guidelines for schools to engage external vendors?
Sexuality programmes conducted by external agencies should adhere to the guiding principles as set out in the Framework for Sexuality Education. They have to be premised on the importance of the family and respect for the values and beliefs of the different ethnic and religious communities on sexuality issues. Parents may also opt their children out of any sexuality education programme.
8.
What should schools look out for when engaging external vendors?
Specifically, in the selection of external vendors, schools are advised to screen external agencies to ensure that they are of good repute. In addition, the schools should consider a) background of the vendor, b) details of the programme, c) key messages conveyed, d) mode of delivery that would best engage students (e.g. drama, talk, skills practice), e) feedback and evaluation process for future improvements.
9.
What are the roles of teachers when engaging external agencies?
Teachers should be present during the workshops or talks carried out by external agencies to ensure that the key messages conveyed are consistent with those previously agreed by both parties. It is also recommended that teachers follow-up with students so that there could be a reinforcement of the learning points or further clarification of concerns raised.
10.
What are the common topics covered by the external agencies?
In secondary schools, the common topics include Boy-Girl Relationship, STI/HIV prevention, consequences of premarital sex, internet safety and pornography. Post-secondary schools cover topics on STI/HIV prevention, consequences of premarital sex, dating, love and relationships.
11.
Does MOE audit the programmes by external agencies?
Currently, schools audit the programmes and provide MOE with the feedback. As specified in the guidelines in engaging external agencies, teachers should be present with the students to ensure that the key messages conveyed are consistent with those agreed upon by the school and the external agency. It is good practice for teachers to follow-up with their students after the workshop to clarify any outstanding issues or concerns that were either not addressed during the workshop or were surfaced during the workshop itself. Schools are also advised that they can check with Guidance Branch if they need further information and advice on the programmes conducted by specific vendors.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.276
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)