I have decided to go back to Blog Spot. This particular entry in Live Journal will be my last entry here. You can visit me at http://footsteps1970.blogspot.com from henceforth.
The second of my 2 unselected letter to the Straits Times Forum
I refer to the ST Editorial on the recent MOE's suspension of the Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme conducted by external vendors, particularly that by AWARE, and wish to highlight some of the misconceptions perpetuated by both AWARE and ST.
Firstly, post-65er parents like myself are not rubbishing the entire CSE syllabus as it currently stands nor are we advocating an abstinence-only syllabus for sexuality education. If this was the case, we would have objected to the teaching of condom use and the role playing training in teaching a teenage girl how to persuade her partner to put on a condom before sex. This is also to assure current AWARE president Dana Lam that we are “not going to bring sexual education back a couple of centuries”.
We recognised the importance of such teachings since, despite our best intentions and advice, our children faced real internal and peer pressures to keep up with current trends and fads. Our issue with the CSE syllabus, as advocated by AWARE, is their insistence on introducing value-loaded statements contrary to existing societal and moral norms such as “anal sex can be healthy or neutral if practised with consent and with a condom”, “pain ... becomes positive when there is mutual consent and pleasure” and “homosexuality is perfectly normal ... it's simply the way you are”.
Secondly, contrary to what AWARE and ST would want Singaporeans to take away, these statements are not merely references in the AWARE CSE trainer guide that are not communicated to the students. The quoted statements above came from the ice-breaking activity module where trainers are instructed to ask the students to categorise 20 sexuality terms as positive, neutral or negative. In fact, if the students are 12-13 years-old, the trainers “must take the lead in explaining the meaning of the terms used”. The level of flexibility the trainers have is best inferred from one of the interview questions posed to these trainers - “Do you feel comfortable presenting on material you don’t necessarily agree with?”.
As MOE reviews its internal vetting processes, it should also look into the track record of the external vendors providing such services to see if it conforms to existing societal norms. Beyond the actual CSE syllabus, AWARE's, as well as other external vendor's, continued participation in the schools' CSE programme would need to be scrutinised based on their espoused values, background and wider advocacy focus.
I refer to the ST Editorial on the recent MOE's suspension of the Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme conducted by external vendors, particularly that by AWARE, and wish to highlight some of the misconceptions perpetuated by both AWARE and ST.
Firstly, post-65er parents like myself are not rubbishing the entire CSE syllabus as it currently stands nor are we advocating an abstinence-only syllabus for sexuality education. If this was the case, we would have objected to the teaching of condom use and the role playing training in teaching a teenage girl how to persuade her partner to put on a condom before sex. This is also to assure current AWARE president Dana Lam that we are “not going to bring sexual education back a couple of centuries”.
We recognised the importance of such teachings since, despite our best intentions and advice, our children faced real internal and peer pressures to keep up with current trends and fads. Our issue with the CSE syllabus, as advocated by AWARE, is their insistence on introducing value-loaded statements contrary to existing societal and moral norms such as “anal sex can be healthy or neutral if practised with consent and with a condom”, “pain ... becomes positive when there is mutual consent and pleasure” and “homosexuality is perfectly normal ... it's simply the way you are”.
Secondly, contrary to what AWARE and ST would want Singaporeans to take away, these statements are not merely references in the AWARE CSE trainer guide that are not communicated to the students. The quoted statements above came from the ice-breaking activity module where trainers are instructed to ask the students to categorise 20 sexuality terms as positive, neutral or negative. In fact, if the students are 12-13 years-old, the trainers “must take the lead in explaining the meaning of the terms used”. The level of flexibility the trainers have is best inferred from one of the interview questions posed to these trainers - “Do you feel comfortable presenting on material you don’t necessarily agree with?”.
As MOE reviews its internal vetting processes, it should also look into the track record of the external vendors providing such services to see if it conforms to existing societal norms. Beyond the actual CSE syllabus, AWARE's, as well as other external vendor's, continued participation in the schools' CSE programme would need to be scrutinised based on their espoused values, background and wider advocacy focus.
This is the first of my 2 unselected letter to the Straits Times Forum
I would like to share my perspective surrounding the recent AWARE saga.
It seems to me that AWARE has been caught up, “blissfully” unaware, in the battle between conservatives and liberals till now. Whatever good works AWARE had done for gender equality in the past 25 years have been hijacked by 2 fringe issues – homosexuality and the approach to sex education.
Whether because of its inclusivity, liberalism or camaraderie, AWARE has thrown its weight, back in 2006/2007, with local NGOs such as Action for Aids, Free Community Church and People Like Us (PLU) to campaign actively for the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code. Former AWARE President, Tan Joo Hymn, said then, “how consenting adults choose to express their sexuality in private should not be a concern of the state… we should be mature enough not to pry into the intimate behaviours of consenting adults”.
Similarly, in the area of sex education, AWARE’s position has been to adopt a “Comprehensive Sexuality Education” (CSE) rather than a pure abstinence approach for teens. Former AWARE President, Constance Singam, said that CSE was to “equip young women aged 12-19 with the knowledge and skills to make healthy decisions about their lives”.
Mr Ho Chi Sam summarised this most succinctly in his online ST Forum letter (14 Apr 09) when he reduced the AWARE saga to these 2 fringe issues.
The new AWARE EXCO, whatever their motives and methods, probably felt that AWARE should not allow itself to be hijacked by these fringe issues and sought, through existing AWARE constitutional processes, to campaign for the society’s leadership and re-focus the organisation back to its original vision of “gender equality for all”.
While former AWARE President, Dana Lim, could state that “ AWARE is not about whether we are for or against Christianity; AWARE is not about whether we are for or against homosexuality”, its public stand has stated unequivocally that AWARE is for homosexuality and AWARE is against what Christianity stands for.
However the AWARE saga pans out, the damage to the society has been done. The Old Guard could wrestle AWARE back from the Young Turks but the Old Guard would need to convince Singaporeans that AWARE have the wider interests of women at the heart of their mission and not just on these fringe issues.
I would like to share my perspective surrounding the recent AWARE saga.
It seems to me that AWARE has been caught up, “blissfully” unaware, in the battle between conservatives and liberals till now. Whatever good works AWARE had done for gender equality in the past 25 years have been hijacked by 2 fringe issues – homosexuality and the approach to sex education.
Whether because of its inclusivity, liberalism or camaraderie, AWARE has thrown its weight, back in 2006/2007, with local NGOs such as Action for Aids, Free Community Church and People Like Us (PLU) to campaign actively for the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code. Former AWARE President, Tan Joo Hymn, said then, “how consenting adults choose to express their sexuality in private should not be a concern of the state… we should be mature enough not to pry into the intimate behaviours of consenting adults”.
Similarly, in the area of sex education, AWARE’s position has been to adopt a “Comprehensive Sexuality Education” (CSE) rather than a pure abstinence approach for teens. Former AWARE President, Constance Singam, said that CSE was to “equip young women aged 12-19 with the knowledge and skills to make healthy decisions about their lives”.
Mr Ho Chi Sam summarised this most succinctly in his online ST Forum letter (14 Apr 09) when he reduced the AWARE saga to these 2 fringe issues.
The new AWARE EXCO, whatever their motives and methods, probably felt that AWARE should not allow itself to be hijacked by these fringe issues and sought, through existing AWARE constitutional processes, to campaign for the society’s leadership and re-focus the organisation back to its original vision of “gender equality for all”.
While former AWARE President, Dana Lim, could state that “ AWARE is not about whether we are for or against Christianity; AWARE is not about whether we are for or against homosexuality”, its public stand has stated unequivocally that AWARE is for homosexuality and AWARE is against what Christianity stands for.
However the AWARE saga pans out, the damage to the society has been done. The Old Guard could wrestle AWARE back from the Young Turks but the Old Guard would need to convince Singaporeans that AWARE have the wider interests of women at the heart of their mission and not just on these fringe issues.
25 Dec 2008 - The Straits Times Online Forum
I REFER to Mr Jonathan Lin's response to my online forum letter on Monday.
I appreciate his candour regarding my "diatribe" on how secularism has not provided a clear moral compass for societies at large. However, I fail to see which part of my letter caused him to conclude that we have failed as a society on "how its members treat one another, despite their differences". I certainly hope it was not because I had expressed my objections to euthanasia from the sanctity of life principle.
Secularism is generally the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious beliefs. Correspondingly, secular ethics make the assertion that human beings, through thought and logic, are capable of deriving normative principles of behaviour, outside of religion.
Nowhere in my letter did I espouse a universal or single moral compass for societies based on any particular religious belief. I had merely juxtaposed the euthanasia issue with the sanctity of life principle which emanates from the major religions practised in Singapore. Because secular ethics must obtain its inspiration from non-religious sources, Mr Lin's secular logic caused him to view euthanasia "solely around whether the freedom of choice is violated" and that "everyone is also entitled to live and behave in any way, including subscription to moral standards (or not), as long as others are not harmed".
This is exactly the poverty of secularism in its attempt to address the various moral issues confronting our societies.
If societies at large employ such secular mantras as a basis for legislative codification, then there is nothing to stop us - once we put the necessary safeguards in place - from decriminalising attempted suicides to legalising responsible drug usage, allowing abortions beyond the current 24-week limit as well as liberalising divorce laws and bio-medical research legislation.
Secularism is not the reason various religious groups can co-exist harmoniously in Singapore. By its own definition, secularism does no such thing. The religious harmony that we enjoy today is simply a case of pragmatism, tolerance and mutual respect shown by many in Singapore.
Participating in the euthanasia debate, opposing its legalisation and stating the possible ramifications of such actions do not equate to showing disrespect or having an intolerant attitude towards others holding alternative views. It is also certainly not a case of forcing one's belief on another.
I REFER to Mr Jonathan Lin's response to my online forum letter on Monday.
I appreciate his candour regarding my "diatribe" on how secularism has not provided a clear moral compass for societies at large. However, I fail to see which part of my letter caused him to conclude that we have failed as a society on "how its members treat one another, despite their differences". I certainly hope it was not because I had expressed my objections to euthanasia from the sanctity of life principle.
Secularism is generally the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious beliefs. Correspondingly, secular ethics make the assertion that human beings, through thought and logic, are capable of deriving normative principles of behaviour, outside of religion.
Nowhere in my letter did I espouse a universal or single moral compass for societies based on any particular religious belief. I had merely juxtaposed the euthanasia issue with the sanctity of life principle which emanates from the major religions practised in Singapore. Because secular ethics must obtain its inspiration from non-religious sources, Mr Lin's secular logic caused him to view euthanasia "solely around whether the freedom of choice is violated" and that "everyone is also entitled to live and behave in any way, including subscription to moral standards (or not), as long as others are not harmed".
This is exactly the poverty of secularism in its attempt to address the various moral issues confronting our societies.
If societies at large employ such secular mantras as a basis for legislative codification, then there is nothing to stop us - once we put the necessary safeguards in place - from decriminalising attempted suicides to legalising responsible drug usage, allowing abortions beyond the current 24-week limit as well as liberalising divorce laws and bio-medical research legislation.
Secularism is not the reason various religious groups can co-exist harmoniously in Singapore. By its own definition, secularism does no such thing. The religious harmony that we enjoy today is simply a case of pragmatism, tolerance and mutual respect shown by many in Singapore.
Participating in the euthanasia debate, opposing its legalisation and stating the possible ramifications of such actions do not equate to showing disrespect or having an intolerant attitude towards others holding alternative views. It is also certainly not a case of forcing one's belief on another.
17 Dec 08 - The Straits Times Online Forum
I WRITE to share my personal reflections on the special report on euthanasia by Ms Sandra Davie last Saturday ('Right to die... or right to kill?').
The first reflection is why the renewed debate on euthanasia is taking place now. Ms Davie pointed to the declining role of religion in politics and daily life as one reason for this renewed debate. This is an indictment that secularism and postmodernism have failed to provide a clear moral compass for societies at large. When one subscribes to a philosophy that denies the existence of objective truths, and that truth is a product of a person's culture, secular societies are left paralysed by the individual's clamour to decide his own fate. It also led to Ms Davie to conclude in her blog that 'there is no right or wrong in this issue'. This is indeed a profound statement from secularists. If this is the best that secularism can muster, then I suggest there should be no reason why Singapore society needs to be so uptight and queasy on this issue. As Ms Davie suggested in her blog, this issue just 'requires a full and informed debate'.
The second reflection is the question of sanctity of life in the euthanasia debate. It is disingenuous for doctors who take the Hippocratic Oath to 'do no harm', to oppose euthanasia and yet in the same breath, remain silent with regard to abortion. To objections that we will set ourselves on a slippery slope if Singapore legalises euthanasia, I would venture to suggest that we already started on the slippery slope in 1974 when the Government passed the Termination of Unwanted Pregnancy Act. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan, in a parliamentary speech, said the Act was 'to provide for the safe termination of unwanted pregnancies by trained persons in appropriately equipped facilities. It is to safeguard the health and well-being of the woman who has, for various reasons, decided to terminate her pregnancy. This is intended to ensure that all children born in Singapore are wanted children, who will be properly cared for, and will have opportunities to develop to their full potential'. I suggest we consider Mr Khaw's advice regarding abortion to euthanasia by 'basing our decision purely on science so we take the emotion out of this particular subject'.
I am against euthanasia. Granted there are emotive, passionate and seemingly heart-rending reasons why it should be legalised, two wrongs do not make a right.
Sanctity of life has an 'in-your-face' logic that Singaporeans and societies at large choose to ignore at their peril.
I WRITE to share my personal reflections on the special report on euthanasia by Ms Sandra Davie last Saturday ('Right to die... or right to kill?').
The first reflection is why the renewed debate on euthanasia is taking place now. Ms Davie pointed to the declining role of religion in politics and daily life as one reason for this renewed debate. This is an indictment that secularism and postmodernism have failed to provide a clear moral compass for societies at large. When one subscribes to a philosophy that denies the existence of objective truths, and that truth is a product of a person's culture, secular societies are left paralysed by the individual's clamour to decide his own fate. It also led to Ms Davie to conclude in her blog that 'there is no right or wrong in this issue'. This is indeed a profound statement from secularists. If this is the best that secularism can muster, then I suggest there should be no reason why Singapore society needs to be so uptight and queasy on this issue. As Ms Davie suggested in her blog, this issue just 'requires a full and informed debate'.
The second reflection is the question of sanctity of life in the euthanasia debate. It is disingenuous for doctors who take the Hippocratic Oath to 'do no harm', to oppose euthanasia and yet in the same breath, remain silent with regard to abortion. To objections that we will set ourselves on a slippery slope if Singapore legalises euthanasia, I would venture to suggest that we already started on the slippery slope in 1974 when the Government passed the Termination of Unwanted Pregnancy Act. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan, in a parliamentary speech, said the Act was 'to provide for the safe termination of unwanted pregnancies by trained persons in appropriately equipped facilities. It is to safeguard the health and well-being of the woman who has, for various reasons, decided to terminate her pregnancy. This is intended to ensure that all children born in Singapore are wanted children, who will be properly cared for, and will have opportunities to develop to their full potential'. I suggest we consider Mr Khaw's advice regarding abortion to euthanasia by 'basing our decision purely on science so we take the emotion out of this particular subject'.
I am against euthanasia. Granted there are emotive, passionate and seemingly heart-rending reasons why it should be legalised, two wrongs do not make a right.
Sanctity of life has an 'in-your-face' logic that Singaporeans and societies at large choose to ignore at their peril.
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.7)
footsteps1970- Alex Tan
Syndicate
