Wednesday, May 6, 2009

MOE suspends sexuality education programmes by external vendors

MOE suspends sexuality education programmes by external vendors
By Pearl Forss & Hoe Yeen Nie, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 06 May 2009 1835 hrs

Photos 1 of 1 > " onclick="Next();" src="http://www.channelnewsasia.com/images/butt_next.gif" type="image" width="18" height="15">

Related News

MOE investigates complaints over AWARE's sex ed programme

Controversial content in AWARE's sex education programme sparks debate

MOE seeks clarification on claims on AWARE's programmes
Special Report
AWARE Dispute

SINGAPORE : The Ministry of Education (MOE) has decided to suspend the engagement of external vendors running sexuality programmes in schools, until it completes the vetting of their content.

The move comes after investigating feedback it received on the school sexuality education programme conducted by women's advocacy group AWARE, and other lesson materials not by AWARE.

For the past few years, schools have been allowed to engage external vendors to supplement their sexuality education programmes.

The ministry said it has reviewed schools' internal processes for selecting and monitoring vendors, and found that it can be improved.

It said it will put in place more stringent processes to ensure that training materials and programmes delivered in schools are in line with the MOE's framework on sexuality education.

MOE said its framework reflects the mainstream values of Singapore society, where the social norm consists of the married heterosexual family unit. It added that schools do not promote alternative lifestyles to students.

On AWARE's sexuality education programme, the ministry found some aspects of it positive, while other parts did not conform to guidelines.

It cited as positive examples such as role-play practice for students to say no to sex. However it found other instances, such as some suggested responses in the instructor guide explicit and inappropriate, as they conveyed messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex.

In response, AWARE said it is "disappointed", as instructors were trained to use language appropriate to their audience.

It had also offered on Tuesday to meet with ministry officials, but have yet to receive a response.

"I hope it doesn't mean they are going to discontinue using such comprehensive programmes as ours. And I hope it doesn't mean they are going to bring sexual education back a couple of centuries," said Dana Lam, AWARE's president.

The ministry is also reviewing ways to provide parents with more information about sexuality education taught in schools.

It added however that parents are ultimately responsible for inculcating values to their children, and that MOE's sexuality education programme aims to complement parents' role in helping students make informed, responsible and values-based decisions regarding sexuality.

Separately, the MOE also said it has investigated feedback on materials used in junior colleges' General Paper (GP) lessons which carry information on alternative lifestyles, not provided by AWARE.

The ministry said GP lessons are meant to promote critical thinking and discussion on contemporary issues.

It added that the teachers had used these materials to initiate discussion on family structures and not to promote alternative lifestyles.

It will however remind school leaders and teachers to exercise greater professional discretion in guiding their students when such topics are discussed, and that they should adhere to social norms and values of our mainstream society. - CNA /ls

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.6

Singapore healthcare spending compared with other countries

Singapore healthcare spending compared with other countries

Singapore's total health expenditure amounts to just 3.4 percent of its gross domestic product. That's not only a fraction of what Western nations spend; even Malaysia, China and India spend more.

Malaysia spends 4.3 percent of its GDP on health care, China 4.5 percent and India 4.9 percent.

But Singapore spends more per head in dollars -- $1,228 -- than Malaysia, China and India. (All figures here date back to 2006 and are taken from World Health Statistics 2008.)

Life expectancy in Singapore is as high as in America, Britain and other Western nations and Japan and South Korea. So though Singapore spends far less than those countries on health care, it is getting good results.

America spends as much as 15.3 percent of its GDP on health care, Switzerland 11.3 percent, France 11.1 percent, Germany 10.4 percent, Canada 10 percent, Portugal 10 percent, Denmark 9.5 percent, New Zealand 9.4 percent, the Netherlands 9.3 percent, Italy 9 percent, Sweden 8.9 percent, Norway 8.7 percent, Australia 8.7 percent, Britain 8.4 percent, Spain 8.1 percent, Japan 7.9 percent, Israel 7.8 percent, Ireland 7.5 percent, South Korea 6.5 percent.

I came across these figures on the World Health Organization website today while checking on its swine flu updates.

Singapore will lower the swine flu alert level from orange to yellow next Monday, reported the Straits Times today. That's why I visited the WHO website to get more information. The Singapore newspaper's website seldom carries much detail.

These WHO country profiles, for example, I haven't seen in the Straits Times. If you want to know about any country, visit WHO and check Countries.

Singapore

Total population: 4,382,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 43,300

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 78/83

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 69/71

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 3

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 83/50

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 1,228

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 3.4

USA

Total population: 302,841,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 44,070

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/80

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 67/71

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 137/80

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 6,714

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 15.3

UK

Statistics:

Total population: 60,512,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 33,650

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/81

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 69/72

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 6

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 98/61

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 2,784

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 8.4

Australia

Total population: 20,530,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 33,940

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 79/84

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 71/74

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 6

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 82/47

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,122

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 8.7

Austria

Total population: 8,327,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 36,040

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/83

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 69/74

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 4

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 105/51

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,545

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 9.9

Belgium

Total population: 10,430,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 33,860

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/82

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 69/73

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 5

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 111/61

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,183

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 9.5

Canada

Total population: 32,577,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 36,280

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 78/83

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 70/74

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 6

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 89/55

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,672

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 10.0

Denmark

Total population: 5,430,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 36,190

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 76/81

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 69/71

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 4

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 111/65

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,349

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 9.5

France

Total population: 61,330,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 32,240

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/84

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 69/75

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 5

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 124/57

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,554

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 11.1

Germany

Total population: 82,641,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 32,680

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/82

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 70/74

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 5

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 106/55

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,328

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 10.4

Ireland

Total population: 4,221,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 34,730

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/82

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 68/72

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 4

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 88/56

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,082

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 7.5

Italy

Total population: 58,779,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 28,970

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 78/84

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 71/75

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 4

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 83/44

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 2,623

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 9.0

Netherlands

Total population: 16,379,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 37,940

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 78/82

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 70/73

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 5

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 81/59

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,383

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 9.3

New Zealand

Total population: 4,140,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 25,750

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 78/82

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 69/72

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 6

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 91/59

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 2,447

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 9.4

Norway

Total population: 4,669,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 50,070

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 78/83

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 70/74

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 4

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 86/53

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 4,521

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 8.7

Portugal

Total population: 10,579,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 19,960

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/82

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 67/72

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 4

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 133/53

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 2,080

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 10.0

Spain

Total population: 43,887,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 28,200

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 78/84

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 70/75

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 4

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 105/44

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 2,388

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 8.1

Sweden

Total population: 9,078,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 34,310

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 79/83

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 72/75

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 4

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 78/49

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,119

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 8.9

Switzerland

Total population: 7,455,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 40,840

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 79/84

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 71/75

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 5

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 80/47

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 4,312

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 11.3

Japan

Total population: 127,953,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 32,840

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 79/86

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 72/78

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 4

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 89/44

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 2,514

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 7.9

South Korea

Total population: 48,050,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 22,990

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/82

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 65/71

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 5

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 119/47

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 1,487

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 6.5

Malaysia

Total population: 26,114,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 12,160

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 69/74

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 62/65

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 12

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 197/109

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 500

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 4.3

Brunei

Total population: 382,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 49,900

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 76/79

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 65/66

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 9

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 100/74

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 394

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 1.8

Indonesia

Total population: 228,864,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 3,310

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 66/69

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 57/59

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 34

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 231/192

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 87

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 2.2

Philippines

Total population: 86,264,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 3,430

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 64/71

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 57/62

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 32

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 277/157

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 223

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 3.3

Thailand

Total population: 63,444,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 7,440

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 69/75

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 58/62

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 264/155

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 346

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 3.5

India

Total population: 1,151,751,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 2,460

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 62/64

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 53/54

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 76

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 276/203

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 109

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 4.9

China

Total population: 1,328,474,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 4,660

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 72/75

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 63/65

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 24

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 143/87

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 342

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 4.5

Israel

Total population: 6,810,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 23,840

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 79/82

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 70/72

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 5

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 89/48

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 2,263

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 7.8

UAE

Total population: 4,248,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 31,190

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/80

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 64/64

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 84/62

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 673

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 2.6

Qatar

Total population: 821,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): not available

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/77

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 67/64

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 11

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 72/64

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 1,426

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 4.3

Bahrain

Total population: 739,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 34,310

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 74/76

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 64/64

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 10

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 116/84

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 1,008

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 3.8

Saudi Arabia

Total population: 24,175,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 22,300

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 68/73

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 60/63

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 26

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 205/136

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 607

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 3.4

Kuwait

Total population: 2,779,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 48,310

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/79

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 67/67

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 11

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 68/52

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 535

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 2.2

Mexico

Total population: 105,342,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 11,990

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 72/77

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 63/68

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 35

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 155/89

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 756

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 6.2

South Africa

Total population: 48,282,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 8,900

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 50/53

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 43/45

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 69

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 598/531

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 869

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 8.6

Mauritius

Total population: 1,252,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 10,640

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 69/76

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 60/65

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 15

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 212/108

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 581

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 4.3

Lebanon

Total population: 4,055,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 9,600

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 68/72

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 59/62

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 31

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 193/133

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 608

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 8.9
















Figures are for 2006 unless indicated. Source: World Health Statistics 2008



Jamaica

Statistics:

Total population: 2,699,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 7,050

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 69/75

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 64/66

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 32

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 224/130

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 240

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 5.1

Figures are for 2006 unless indicated. Source: World Health Statistics 2008

Nga Thio Ping's email to PM Lee

Dear PM Lee,

I am writing as a concerned parent with regards to the gay community and activists having again staged another push of their homosexual agenda into the schools and education; through hijacking “sex education” in our public school curriculum and in doing so, trying to purport and redefine the meaning of marriage and the meaning of family.

Our definition on Family and Marriage is unequivocal; “The family is the basic building block of our society and we want to keep it so. And by “family” in Singapore, we mean one man one woman, marrying, having children and bringing up children within that framework of a stable family unit.” This stand is in absolute agreement and uniform to your Government policy’s stand on Family and Marriage.

Prime Minister, in your policy statement on the debate on Homosexuality in Parliament on 23 Oct 2007, you explained succinctly the Government’s stand and why 377A was not repeal. In your speech you also rightly preempted this present move by the gay activist to PUSH FOR MORE, “to change what taught in schools, to advocate same-sex marriages and parenting”.

Again quoting from your same speech, Mr. Prime Minister, on the Government’s stand and on Singaporean society’s stand and definition on Marriage and Family; you stated, “Many Members have said this, but it is true and it is worth saying again. Singapore is basically a conservative society. The family is the basic building block of our society. It has been so and, by policy, we have reinforced this and we want to keep it so. And by “family” in Singapore, we mean one man one woman, marrying, having children and bringing up children within that framework of a stable family unit.”

Further in your statement, you reiterated; “But a heterosexual stable family is a social norm. It is what we teach in schools. It is also what parents want their children to see as their children grow
up, to set their expectations and encourage them to develop in this direction. I think the vast majority of Singaporeans want to keep it this way. They want to keep our society like this, and so does the Government.” … “This is the way Singapore society is today. This is the way the majority of Singaporeans want it to be. So, we should strive to maintain a balance, to uphold a stable society with traditional, heterosexual family values, but with space for homosexuals to live their lives and contribute to the society.”

So as the silent majority of Singaporean of many whom are not anti-gay; but who are strenuously opposed to these follow-up moves by the gay campaigners to push their agenda “to change what is taught in the schools, to advocate same-sex marriages and parenting”; firstly, we strongly stated our unequivocal support to you, our Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Hsien Loong, and the abovementioned Government’s policy on Marriage and Family; and secondly to urge the Minister of Education and the Ministry of Education to come into alignment, promote and educate our children in strict adherent to this policy in all their schools’ syllabus and sex education programs.

We want to further remind you Mr. Prime Minister of your own pragmatic balance to this issue that can polarize our society; and strongly urge you not to allow or encourage activists to champion gay rights as they do in the West so that there is space in Singapore and room for us to live harmoniously and practically, all as Singapore citizens together.

“I think we have also been right to adapt, to accommodate homosexuals in our society, but not to allow or encourage activists to champion gay rights as they do in the West. So I suggest, Mr Speaker, and I suggest to the Members of the House, we keep this balance, leave section 377A alone. I think there is space in Singapore and room for us to live harmoniously and practically, all as Singapore citizens together.” Lee Hsien Loong in Parliament on 23 Oct 2007 as recorded by
Official Parliamentary Reports (Hansard).

I must stress most emphatically: The love all Singaporeans should extend to those who are afflicted with homosexualism or lesbianism should only be that of loving these homosexuals and
lesbians, enough - to most seriously and lovingly help them to be freed from homosexualism or lesbianism. No different from those who are afflicted with drug addiction, alcohol addiction, sex addiction and etc.

Should Singaporeans also tolerate any introduction of “Comprehensive Health Programme” that regards drug addiction, alcohol addiction, sex addiction and etc to be “neutral“? I must also stress: Those religious leaders who openly teach homosexualism and lesbianism to be sins, and who demonstrate genuine love for homosexuals and lesbians by reaching out to free them from such addictions - are the precious honest, truthful religious leaders Singapore and humanity need.

Majulah Singapura!

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Nga Thio Ping

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.107

Leaked email from Mary Loh

Derek HONG to COOS, cscc, eugene, graman, lawchua, visioncity, rswd2
From: Derek HONG
To: COOS English Church Staff - DL
cccscc@pacific.net.sg,
eugene@touch.org.sg,
graman@pacific.net.sg,
lawchua@lsbc.org.sg,
visioncity@pacific.net.sg,
rswd2@yahoo.com.sg
Date: Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Subject: FW: For your information

Hi everyone
Please alert our friends and members to register their concern with the MHA.

God bless
Derek

From: Tan Thuan Seng [mailto:thuanseng@family.org.sg]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 2:12 PM
To: ‘Mary Loh’
Cc:Derek HONG
Subject: RE: For your information

Hi Mary,

Thanks for the alert. Regrettably its not the first time as its part of their “’Indignation”’ activities that they organize to coincide with National Day. I will lodge a complaint with MHA but perhaps you should also register your concern as it may be helpful for more people to write to the Police or MHA. If they have a good turnout and try to turn it into an impromptu Speakers Corner the police may take action to break it up.

Tan Thuan Seng | Chairman| T (65) 6336 1444 | M 9430 5345 | www.family.org.sg
9, Bishan Place, #08-03, Junction 8 Office Tower, Singapore 579837

—–Original Message—–
From: Mary Loh [mailto:kwuanloh@pacific.net.sg]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:20 PM
To: Tan Thuan Seng
Cc:Derek Hong
Subject: For your information

Dear Thuan Seng

You may wish to alert the relevant authorities that the gay community are planning a unofficial “Pink Picnic” at Botanic Gardens on National Day from 4.30 – 6.30 pm next to the symphony stage. I was unwittingly invited.

Regards

Mary


http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.106

Leaked email of Josie Lau's supporter

Dear friends,

I attended the EGM yesterday and would like to share my own impressions versus what was reported in the media today. I was there because of my concern with regard to certain teachings of homosexuality that has insidiously crept into our school system by way of the CSE (Comprehensive Sexual Education) Program. I am glad I went because it convinced me that we cannot leave it to others to watch over our beliefs and values. We need to be personally engaged. It enabled me to witness that the pro-lesbian/pro-gay lobby is indeed vocal, articulate, united and well-organized. If we are not watchful, acceptance of homosexuality will be the norm. It is already at our door step.

The CSE (initiated by the previous old guard committee) was brought to light by a group of Christian women who were elected as new exco members headed by Josie Lau. Contents of the CSE syllabus include:

- homosexuality is “perfectly normal.. people are born like this… its simply the way you are”

- anal sex – “can be healthy or neutral if practiced with consent and with a condom”

- pre-marital sex – “is really neutral”

Unfortunately, the press made Josie & her team to be a group of power-grabbing women who were out to grab control of AWARE to promote their own religious agenda. It was this perception that was the main focus that led to feelings of anger & hostility at the EGM, even by fellow Christians who sided with the old guard. Sadly, it was the old guard and media that painted their agenda as religious rather than concern about wrong values being promoted to our children.

Do not believe everything you read in the newspapers or forums.

The following were very evident at the EGM:

1) I got to witness first hand, the unity of the homosexuals/gays in attendance, the hooliganism bordering on lawlessness that prevailed throughout the EGM even as these people very forcefully and in a very unruly manner, sought to tear down the new exco at every turn, giving them no chance to speak or even talk about their plans. There was no respect for order but instead, chaos prevailed.

2) The new exco was booed, harassed, prevented from speaking, drowned out and blocked at every turn….simply because the other side was more boisterous, vocal, articulate, at times even physical (grabbing microphones, etc) and certainly well organized and orchestrated. Many in the audience were simply intimidated by the actions of the old guard’s supporters. Old guard’s supporters dominated the microphone, at times, forcibly snatching from others who wanted to speak. It was indeed shocking!

Yet, Josie Lau and the exco reflected calm & grace, though one of them did “lose” it initially, which the media highlighted while failing to mention the antics of the old guard’s supporters. It was really shameful and saddening. The old guard talked of being a civil society but the meeting was anything but civil. They asked for respect but showed none at all. Josie and her team should be commended for the way they conducted themselves throughout, with dignity and decorum.

3) The EGM was effectively hijacked by the old guard and supporters and I am personally glad that Josie and her team have decided to step down. They have served their purpose and they really paid a high personal price; they and their families. The focus should now be on the latest exco. I am thankful, at least, that Josie and her team have brought the homosexual agenda of the old guard to the surface and it is now up to each of us to continue the watch, if we really care.

Though I could not stay till the very end, it was very obvious to me that the Josie and her team consisted of women who were willing to rise up and be counted and, as a result, persecuted for their convictions as stated in Ephesians 5:8-11 :

” ….but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light…and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them”

The homosexual slant in the CSE program has been exposed and we parents hope the MOE will re-examine the content of the program with a fine toothcomb. If you are concerned that such programs have been brought into our schools, and taught to our children, you can join in a petition to the MOE at

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/parents_sex_ed_appeal/

At the same time, precious lessons have been learnt by us especially those who were present at the EGM. We need to rise up to our responsibilities and calling if we are to be effective Marketplace Ministers. It is not one of confrontation but one of blessing and redemption; yet at the same time not surrendering the grounds that God has given to us.

God bless


http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.105

MOE Statement on Sexuality Education Programme

6 May 2009
MOE Statement on Sexuality Education Programme

1. In recent weeks, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has received feedback on the Sexuality Education Programme conducted by AWARE, as well as other lesson material not involving AWARE. MOE has done a thorough investigation. This statement presents the Ministry’s findings and future steps.
2. MOE and the schools do not promote alternative lifestyles to our students. MOE’s framework for sexuality education reflects the mainstream views and values of Singapore society, where the social norm consists of the married heterosexual family unit.
3. Today, schools are allowed to engage external vendors to supplement MOE’s sexuality education programme. MOE has reviewed the internal processes for selecting and monitoring vendors and found that they can be improved. MOE will put in more stringent processes to ensure that training materials and programmes delivered in schools are in line with the Ministry’s framework on sexuality education. Schools will suspend the engagement of external vendors until the new vetting processes are completed. The Ministry is also reviewing ways to provide parents with more information about sexuality education in the specific schools that their children are in.
4. MOE has examined AWARE’s “Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Basic Instructor Guide”. The Guide contains some positive aspects, like the accurate information provided on STIs/HIV and role-play practice for students to say no to sex. However, MOE’s assessment is that in some other aspects, the Guide does not conform to MOE’s guidelines. In particular, some suggested responses in the instructor guide are explicit and inappropriate, and convey messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex.
5. In view of this, AWARE's programmes in schools will be suspended and subjected to the new vetting processes.
6. MOE has also investigated feedback about materials used during General Paper (GP) lessons in junior colleges which carry information on alternative lifestyles. These materials and lessons did not involve AWARE. GP lessons are meant to promote critical thinking and discussion on contemporary issues. MOE investigations showed that the teachers had used these materials to initiate discussion on family structures, and not to promote alternative lifestyles. Nevertheless, MOE will remind school leaders and teachers to exercise greater professional discretion in guiding their
students when such topics are discussed. They should also adhere to social norms and values of our mainstream society.
7. Parents are ultimately responsible for inculcating values to their children. MOE’s sexuality education programme aims to complement parents’ role in helping students make informed, responsible and values-based decisions regarding sexuality.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.3

Aware sex guide suspended

May 6, 2009
Aware sex guide suspended
By Diana Othman
The Ministry of Education (MOE) has suspended the sexuality education programme run by the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) in some schools. --PHOTO: ST
THE Ministry of Education (MOE) has suspended the sexuality education programme run by the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) in some schools, saying it does not conform to the MOE's guidelines.

In particular, MOE found some suggested responses in the guide 'too explicit and inappropriate, and convey messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex'.

RELATED LINKS
'In view of the contents of the manual, Aware's programmes will be suspended in schools and subject to the new vetting processes,' said the ministry in a letter to The Straits Times Forum section on Wednesday.

The MOE's decision came barely a week after it said it was investigating the Aware programme, following complaints from parents. But two days before that, MOE had said it saw no reason to intervene because it had not received any complaints.

In the letter to ST Forum, MOE said it has received feedback against the Aware's Sexuality Education programme as well as other materials from elsewhere. It carried out a thorough investigation on these complaints and also reviewed the internal processes for selecting and monitoring external vendors engaged by schools to supplement the ministry's sex education programme.

It found that the process could be improved and it would be putting in more stringent steps to ensure that training materials and programmes delivered in school are in line with the ministry's framework. 'The ministry is also reviewing ways to provide parents with more information about sexuality education in the specific schools that their children are in,' said MOE.

On Aware's instructor guide for the sex education programme, MOE said it contains some positive aspects like the accurate information provided on sexually transmitted infections and HIV, and the role play practice for students to say no to sex. But in some other aspects, 'the guide does not conform to MOE's guidelines', it said.

Feedback on materials used during General Paper (GP) lessons in junior colleges which carry information on alternative lifestyles was also investigated.

MOE's investigations also found that some teachers had used such materials to initiate discussion on family structures, and not to promote alternative lifestyles.

The Ministry urged school leaders and teachers to exercise greater professional discretion in guiding students when such topics are discussed and that they should also adhere to social norms and values of our mainstream society.

'MOE and its schools do not promote alternative lifestyles to our students. MOE's framework for sexuality education reflects the mainstream views and values of Singapore society, where the social norm consists of the married heterosexual family unit,' it said.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_373200.html

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.2