Letter to the MOE: Sexual Education In Schools
May 7, 2009
Dear Sir,
I am a student who has been following the recent issues involving sexual education in schools, and have read the latest news of a suspension of all third party programs with no small concern. I would like to preface this letter with acknowledge that a temporary suspension at very least to reassess the vetting procedure is necessary, and that I no quarrel with the wisdom of the Ministry in taking that step. I pen this instead, with the future in mind and how the Ministry shall be moving forward.
It would be presumptuous for a mere student to make calls on educational policy, but as the final product of the entire education system, I believe that students too have valuable insights in this matter. Throughout my schooling years, I have been privileged to be taught by excellent teachers to whom I simply cannot thank enough, no matter how many Teacher’s Days may pass. Quite simply, I owe my teachers for having painted colour in my eyes. As many frustrated students can attest, in later parts of one’s education very often a teacher will merely say “there is no right answer” – a notion that is almost anathema to students so used to10 year series and assessment books. Looking back, I realise that rather than simply being difficult, my teachers were are that point making me realise that we do not live in a drab, black and white world of MCQ questions and answers. We live in a world of open ended essay questions, or vibrancy and colour and at times, of murky greyness.
Such colour is really the quintessence of a Liberal education. In these recent times, many people have misappropriated the term “Liberal” as one necessarily being subversive or championing certain views that are incompatible with our Asian values. Surely they have mistaken, for a Liberal education is not premised on rights or wrongs, but rather on an openness of approaches. Just as we cannot say that green is a better colour than red, neither can we say that fiscal economic policies are necessarily better than monetary economic policies. In school, we are taught that each has their short comings and may be appropriate in different areas, but we are never told (short of something being scientifically and factually wrong) that an approach is wrong. Our education system equips students nuanced and adaptable thinking skills, rather than a blunt blanket approach that is ill-equipped for the real world.
Sir, I mentioned above that our educational system has embraced life in all its vibrant colours as well as its greyness. We are now walking in such a area of greyness, where the answer is far from clear, and the pressure to get out of such an unclear position immense. I do not for once envy the Ministry’s position these weeks, in that it must be almost besieged by a flood of letters and complaints by concerned parents. No one can blame the distances a parent would go to for their child, but I write to urge sensibility on the part of the Ministry when considering the future of the sex education program in Singapore. The Ministry cannot bend to an outcry no matter how loud from parents who may, with the best intentions, assuming that they are representing the predominant view of Singaporeans.
More than numbers, the Ministry should not step down from controversial issues simply because of complaint as this sets the unwanted precedent that Ministry policies can be swayed by popular outcry. It may be sexual education today, but one can only speculate where such a trend will take us in the future. Any JC student will relate to GP issues such as abortion, euthanasia, terrorism or evolution. Will such topics also see their removal or censor on future protests from groups emboldened by their “victory” with sexual education? The slippery slopes slides both ways, and surely all the accusations levelled at those with a “gay-agenda” as eventually pushing for gay marriage, can similarly be levelled at religious groups. One need only looks to the American experience to see lobby groups pushing for Creationism,to be taught in schools.
**this paragraph is no in the original letter owing to time constraints at the time of writing. I have added in ex post for a sense of greater completeness. The following paragraph has also received mild edits for the sake of cohesion***
There is no call from any group present now for a censure of views from a religious organisation, or for that matter any association who many think that abstinence is the appropriate method of sexual education. There has never been one, and religious groups have long enjoyed certain influences in our schools. The entire issue today isn’t whether which view is correct and hence should be preferred, but rather than one view is simply wrong and should be censured. This is a significant and weighty difference, and goes against the entire notion of a Liberal education. Just as we do not seek to censore religious programs in schools, surely the same treatment can be expected for non-religious organisations as well. Prefering one on the basis that it is inherently good and the other bad again takes away educational Liberty.
I thus urge the Ministry to take the case of sexual education on its merits, and not under the pressure of anyone. I have no doubt that the Ministry is already doing so, and write mainly to reinforce that there are people in the public who are concerned as to the future of a Liberal education in Singapore. On the facts of the issue, there are many fallacious claims being made right now, and all of them should be set aside when making educational policy. Even accepting for a moment the controversial claim that homosexuality can be influenced, there is the difficult proposition that 3-4 minutes out of a one time 3 hour workshop can truly shake the entire moral fiber of a child whose parents have certainly imparted certain moral values upon. There are no doubt grounds for abuse, and if an instructor were to exploit her position to actively “homosexualise” a student, then these instructors should be taken to task. I stress however that such instructers have to be seen as incidences of human failure rather than systemic error of the entire program. Just as how a reasonable person can differentaite between a jihadist and a moderate religious person, we must also accept that to paint the homosexual community as child predators is a mistake.
Sir, I plea to the Ministry adhere to the same policy of an open and Liberal education as it has had in the past. The task at hand is not about the censoring of views, but the facilitation of views. It is not about which view to chose, but how to ensure both views are presented to students. I write this such that future generations of students can similar see the world in all its colour and diversity. There are few greater crime than to raise a generation who only sees in monochrome.
Yours sincerely,
Leon Ryan
Leon, my dear boy: this surely isn’t the Epic poem on Aware?
FYI: http://new.we-are-aware.sg/2009/05/08/leon-ryan/
I am one of the mass parents in Singapore. Sex education in its proper way or path with moderation in the school is a MUST. Of course the eventual decision is the parents of the children. But make it more transparant with constant local media as well as eduaction agencies about information data to reach the mass polulation so that most if not all Singaporeans are aware of its existence. The connection must be constantly atached with clear explanation through qualified & registered media or agencies. Another thing we must NOT follow blindly about Western way of education. We must have ‘the kind of balancing role’ to “ALL human beings” on earth inclusive the minority abnormal existence that we cannot deny!
David, I’m afraid you’re… kinda incoherent on your points, and I’m not sure what you’re going at. I would say though: our entire education system is imported from the UK, including 2 major examinations that are still being marked by UK examiners. Isn’t then your worries about a western education really a moot point? Besides, is a liberal education really a western concept?
O don’t worry auntielucia. I’ve been busy arranging some times for school next term. I think i really shouldn’t indulge in yet another AWARE related piece of writing. So i’ll have to take that back. But something is in the works!
Leon, you are right in that what is actually being taught by instructors are key. But short of a video or tape recording, we would not know what was the actual message imparted during these workshops … which might have been more than or less than what is in the Instructor Guide.
The only objective basis for evaluating AWARE’s CSE is their Instructor Guide. Take a look at it. Like MOE said, some suggested responses in the guide “convey messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex”.
You can read my critique of the CSE Instructor Guide at http://www.vtaide.com/blessing/AWARE-cse.htm
>> The only objective basis for evaluating AWARE’s CSE is their Instructor Guide.
The only objective basis for evaluating AWARE’s CSE is to sit through it and see what it has to say.
Indeed, there is no point in making unsubstantiated allegations as to what is being taught in the CSE program unless you have some actual proof. Conceivably anything can be used as a tangent to promote any kind of agenda. A biology lesson can become a homosexual front, just as lessons on evolution can be seen as “anti-christian.” Your critique does bring up plenty of valid points, but all this assumes that the instructor is personally trying to push across a certain agenda. If one sticks to the CSE, then all the stuff that people will find offensive really takes no more than at very most half and hour, a mere 1/6 of the total time of the whole CSE.
But that is where problems can arise because insufficient time is devoted to it.
When the statements are made (see my critique) but not carefully elaborated and explained to different groups in the target audience (e.g., those who had sex, those having sex and those who have not had sex) then these statements become “explosives” in the hands of teenagers.