From Catherine Lim’s website.
I had given my views, mainly as a non-partisan, liberal Singaporean during the recent Aware controversy. Some parents had written or called to voice their concern about one issue that had stood out – the use in schools of an Aware program on sexuality, which allegedly promoted homosexuality. The following letter tries to address this concern.
Dear concerned parents,
There must be many of you out there, less interested in the polemics and theatrics of the recent Aware debacle than in the one issue that suddenly surfaced and grabbed your attention as parents: the issue of homosexuality.
You are clearly not against homosexuals (many of you in fact claim to have homosexuals among your friends) but you are, understandably, against any program in the schools that encourages your sons and daughters to become gays and lesbians. This was exactly the charge brought against the Aware Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) program by the Christian group that had seized control of the organization precisely to fight what they perceived as a great evil. They quoted from the program materials to prove their charge, condemning the insidious call to young people to regard homosexuality and its associated practices (including anal sex—ugh!) as ‘neutral’. As parents of young impressionable teens, you must have been aghast.
I would like to begin by commending this concern of yours which is not only natural and understandable but highly laudable at a time when so many parents are just too busy or too indifferent to play an active role in guiding their children’s behaviour, and simply leave everything to the schools. And I would like to add that if there is a good outcome in the Aware fiasco, it must be your new awareness and readiness to seek corrective action.
Read the full letter here.
—-
94, I am not trying to be a spoil-sport to kill off your ‘homosexual life ….’
(a) I am talking in terms of findings that point to the fact that homosexuals are born. I personally did not come across a finding (including hormonal glands), that tells me this conclusively. If you did, I will learn from you.
(b) The other aspect I want to point out is, it does not mean if you are a homosexual, you are entirely irresponsible in all your ways. I am not making heterosexuals out to be perfect, but you need to recognise that there are homosexual practices that cannot be approved, and also used to influence the minds of the younger generations.
My point is this, you need to understand why there are people who do not agree with promoting homosexuality.
(I am trying not to use the same phrase as #97 though I fully agree with him/ her).
“I personally did not come across a finding (including hormonal glands), that tells me this conclusively.”
if you put certain stuff (wrong chemical stuff) into your body system, you may well see angels and saints floating about. our body is all chemically driven and most people are ‘fortunate’ having (borned with ?) the right chemical balance (hormonal) composition to be acting / behaving the right ‘acceptable’ way as far as gender is concerned. Some people may be born with certain inbalance or triggered by external stimulus to act the way they are acting – may not just gender but in other areas also.
conclusively ??? some people also say that smoking does not conclusively lead to cancer and it is not too difficult to find interested lobby to say that it does not.
the very fact that it is not conclusive is because there are just too many kinds of people around with many possibilities and things keep on evolving for you to nail it down conclusively – races, gender, physique, learning abilities, etc. How else did SAR and the current swine virus appear out of a sudden.
can anyone conclusive prove that any type of gland or whatever gene, cell, etc(either top or below) will lead to any specific point along the continum of the many different areas (just to name a few (e.g races, gender, physique, learning abilities, etc.)
Mun Wai (94), I admire your honesty and bravery.
I agree with you totally. I did not choose to be gay. If there is a choice, I would rather be straight, and be embraced by society.
I have a relative who is a closet gay. He succumbed to parental pressure and married. He has since left his wife and kid to work in another country, coming home only once or twice a year. I don’t think he makes love to his wife any more. Is this the choice that society wants?
hello,
kf in repsonse to (102): you’re not being a spoil-sport at all and i do appreciate your comments. Thank you. Yes we do not have conclusive evidence that homosexuals are born. we do not have conclusive evidence of the opposite other (that heterosexuals are born). there’s a plethora of debate out there about where there sexuality is nurture or nature. I’m speaking from my own personal point of view cos i know that I and the few of my homosexual friends who discuss this topic agree that it was nature for us.
like i said in my comments in (94), we still don’t know what causes sexuality leanings and orientations. i know for a fact though that a lot homosexuals i talk to know in their hearts and minds that i was not A LIFESTYLE CHOICE THEY MADE. they just were.
I am not trying to sound diadactic to you and i no way am i trying to change you. You don’t have to “learn from me” even if one fine day the studies finally prove this or that.
as to your point (b), I ask you: what about the heterosexual activities that cannot be condoned what about those? but before we launch into yet another “pot calling the kettle black” type arguments, I want to extend a big thank you to you for being the type that recognises that homosexuality does not equate to less than favrouable behaviour. I only wish there were more like you because the truth is right now, the “some portions” of the society that i referred to in my posting (94) perfer to only focus on our negative aspects and not our positive. This is what makes me indignant.
not “agree[ing] with promoting homosexuality” is one thing (and something i can agree with you cos i sure as hell know that i do not have any moral authority over another) but not completely understanding the situation of the party is another. And what i’m trying to correct is this misconception help by some sections of society who believe being homosexual is a LIFESTYLE CHOICE.
still, I totally understand where you’re coming from KF and i’ll bear in mind what you said.
In general response: After re-reading my post in view of some responses directed to me, i’d like to say that there was no part in my posting where did i urge/coerce/force anyone to be like me. (read: joe, posting (99) ). My posting was just about indignance over the supposed view that homosexuality is seen AS A LIFESTYLE CHOICE held by some sections of society.
I am pretty aware of the general views that singaporean society holds with regards to being gay. Hell, i’ve been gay all my life. Such views aren’t life threatening and i am aware of the need for asian style restraint on my part when dealing with such matters (traditional views, orthodox elders, blah blah blah) but wouldn’t it be better if we all met halfway? Views have changed, there is increased tolerance but we just have to work on it some more. Hence my post.
in response to Gemini (101): thanks for your views. let’s try to get them to see our point, slowly. Some people still don’t get it that it’s not about conversion but about increased understanding, that’s all. Like you said, people once thought the earth was flat *wink*
in response to gemami (97): glad to know your stance on how you want to project yourself publicly.
in response to joe (99): i will ‘stay cool’ like you’ve suggested. I can’t say the same for you though, resorting to supposed violence when met with unfamiliarity. Maybe the ‘stay cool’ part should be said to you?
stay cool, pal.
Lee Mun Wai
#105,
“What about the heterosexual activities that cannot be condoned what about those?”
That’s why, I thought earlier, I already put a comment in 102, anticipating your response in 105….., but could have been more explicit :
As a heterosexual, “I am not making heterosexuals out to be perfect…….”
Why do non-homosexuals focus on the negative aspects ? (note : the question is not why do you think non-homosexuals focus on the negatve aspects)
In order to answer this question, you first need to list down various traits/ behaviours that are different between a homosexual and a non-homosexual. Then you will find that the mainstream society actually doesn’t reject some of them. (They may raise eyebrows, but doesn’t mean strong disapprovals).
The issue starts when homosexuals have practices which are beyond mere frowns, and of which are defended tightly.
At this point, it is more appropriate for me to exercise restraint instead of going deeper into specifics cos some discussions can be unduly explicit, and my priority is to respect the general audience here. Hope you understand.
The other point concerns frustrations you have when people talk about homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. I cannot be sure this explanation helps. In the early days when homosexuality first started, I can tell you that there were proponents who came in to stamp it as a lifestyle choice. I do not deny that there are people out there who do not even know this :-) Until you realise this is the case, (I think) you will still feel frustrated…..
Dear All,
I respect that everyone have their own choice of lifestyle and we should accept each others.
For those stealthy and deceitful “people” quietly go to school to influence and recruit young innocent children to increase your life style population. You are not a human being.
Looks like there’s alot of people here who is trying to hijack the discussion.
The question is whether CSE is appropriate.
The confusion ruse is being played out again as always – a typical dirty tactic by losers.
The question is if the positioning of Homosexuality to be stated as neutral is right for sex education for students. Its not a statement to adults. Its not to condemn the gay community.
That question should be answered by parents. Parents who are responsible for their children. Just like how our schools are run, it the parents that should have the say. No, its not for students to have the say because they are not ready.
So, please if you want to be pro-gay, please go somewhere else and push this. Don’t try these underhanded tactics as if you are having some intellectual discussion. Oh, please save your story about how you are gay not by choice and how your upbringing is so so normal and yet you are such.
Finally, the concerned parents are simply saying that CSE should be stating basic information about sex. Anything about homosexuality should be completely silent. If its brought up, its should be stated that it is asked to the parents and for parents to impart the values they want. the trainer must keep his opinions to himself – regardless if he is pro and anti-gay.
Anyway, it is a fact taht homosexuality is not a fundamental basic framework for a stable family and I am sure all parents will feel that teaching homosexuality as neutral is against what they wish for their kids.
So, please focus and stop hijacking the topic.
ok, i’ll try to ‘focus’ as appealed by Sick of Hypocrites (108).
The question at hand being whether CSE appropriate.
i think the CSE in question is very appropriate because finally there are people who are teaching and education not from the angle of fear and taboo but from presenting other sides of the story. NOTE I DID NOT SAY PRESENTING THE FACTS, I SAID PRESENTING OTHER SIDES OF THE STORY. Let’s not argue about what is factual or not anymore, obviously we all have and believe in our own facts. But what i think is good about the way the CSE in question is being taught is that it does not use fear as one of its tactics.
You say “No, its not for students to have the say because they are not ready.” I beg to differ. I teach secondary level kids now and I dare say that they perhaps know (or are willing to know more) than us adults. Parents, yes they have legal right over their children till a certain age. But to doubt the cognitive level of these teenagers is presumptuous. They are capable of much more independent thinking than you credit them for. You can’t fool them. They want and should have the facts laid out bare to them. Then when they go back and discuss it with their parents, they will see many sides of the debate. what side they choose is up to them but at least they saw as many facets as possible.
Parents want to protect their kids, granted. and maybe i’m playing the idiot here cos i’m not a parent yet but i do feel that parents need to take into consideration the times that they and their kids are living in. The method that our mainstream has been using is beginning to look dated in the age of information overload. You won’t be able to shield your kid from all the bullshit being flung at him/her anymore so you might as well make sure he/she knows what’s being flung at him/her.
and that’s what i feel Aware’s CSE was trying to do. Not to tell them to accept, enjoy and like the bullshit flung at them, but to be dully informed about it so they know how to deal with it when they meet it.
you also say “stating basic information about sex” I ask you, what constitutes basic information regarding sex? that the penis of a male human is inserted into the vagina of that of a female? then we list the whole hormonal cycle of the process and stop there? we all know the whole package is more complicated than the mere biological process itself. it entails culture, personality, identity, personal emotions….what about that part of the issue? who’s going to teach that? the parents? ok, fine, but are all parents doing so? who is going to answer the kids’ questions? we were all at that age once and i’m sure we all remember the times we struggled by ourselves when dealing with this topic at that age.
and if CSEs should only limit themselves to “stating basic information about sex” then the MOE might as well not waste money because the science curriculum already deals with this. and if, like you said, “anything about homosexuality should be completely silent” and that if asked the CSEs should refer the kid back to parent for answers.. aren’t you absolving your responsibilty as a sexuality educator? do we necessarily want such sexuality educators? the ones who talk only about the “the basic information about sex” and heterosexuality and then shun all the complications that come along with the topic, referring the kid back to their parents? and what if some of these parents refuse to answer the questions? where does the kid go to? and there you have it, we have another generation repeating the same viscious cycle…. and sometimes you wonder why society takes such a long time to change.
Lee Mun Wai
@Sick of hypocrites… you said:
“As a parent I want control of what my children are taught. … CSE affect only students. Only parents should comment because it affects them.”
That question should be answered by parents. Parents who are responsible for their children. Just like how our schools are run, it the parents that should have the say.
I disagree that parents should have the only say (even though I acknowledge that parents should have the larger say). All of us pay taxes to support the state-run education system. All of us, when we grow old, will have to depend on the collective efforts of the next generation, to keep our society going. And how Singapore society will be like 30, 50 years from now, entirely depends on what we teach our children today. All of us, whether parent, potential parent or non-parent, therefore have a stake in the proper education of our future generations. The state-run education system is and should not be controlled solely by the wishes of whoever happen to be parents right now.
A parent’s responsibility is to love and nurture his or her child unconditionally. That responsibility is based on an individualized, emotional parent-child bond. The responsibility of state-run schools is different; they aim to realize every child’s potential to contribute to society in the fullest way possible. A school is thus not just a surrogate parent, devoted to one particular child; its responsibility is to help secure Singapore’s future.
We all have a stake in that future, in ensuring that what we (and the generations before us) have worked so hard for is not undone tomorrow. This applies as much to the CSE programme as to any other aspect of education.
“Finally, the concerned parents are simply saying that CSE should be stating basic information about sex. Anything about homosexuality should be completely silent.”
How is homosexuality not “basic information about sex”? Homosexual people are an undeniable fact of our lives: they are on TV, in the news, on the Internet; some are closeted, some aren’t. Kids are already aware of this. They taunt each other “gay” or “les”, shun their ‘butch’ or ‘effeminate’ peers (which they casually label as queer), talk lewdly in public about anal and oral sex (to the horror of bystanders), vandalize the toilet walls and the backs of bus seats with graphic depictions of the ‘unnatural’ deeds…
I think homosexuality has to be brought up, and not grudgingly like some skeleton out of the closet. If pre-marital sex, underage sex, contraceptives, teen pregnancies, anal and oral sex among heterosexuals, etc. can be brought up openly and dealt with squarely, why not homosexuality? We can tell the kids that homosexuality is morally controversial, and that the topic ultimately depends on one’s personal, family and religious values. At the same time, we can give them factual information about homosexuality. And those facts include: (1) gay sex is criminalized in Singapore; and (2) regardless of whether homosexuality is ‘nature’ or ‘nurture’, no credible scientific study has shown that homosexuality (or heterosexuality) is a matter of the individual’s deliberate choice.
Lastly (and this, IMO, is the most important part), educators can stress that, whether homosexuality is wrong or neutral, it is always wrong to bully or discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation (or what some kids assume is another kid’s sexual orientation). All those needless homophobic insults, which I’ve often seen youths hurl at one another, have got to stop. There’s too much pain and depression, too many suicides, which we can ill-afford to ignore. The CSE programme is one of the best avenues for tackling the problem head-on.
No need to view videotape of AWARE CSE sessions now. According to today;s ST
“The principal – who did not want his name or that of his school to be used – then agreed to engage the group for one session.
After this, however, he decided to stop the sessions as ‘some of the values communicated were different from what the school believes in and the programme was not a good fit’. He did not elaborate. ”
Minister said AWARE CSE exceeded guidelines. Read about it in ST today.
jonathan (#107), i’m sorry but i had to laugh when i read your comment, the concept you’re proposing is just so ridiculous: “people quietly go to school to influence and recruit young innocent children to increase your life style population”
whaaaat, how exactly does one “recruit” and “influence” someone else to be gay?! your sexuality is your own lifestyle choice, i don’t think there’s recruitment offices and training camps like you’re making it out to be. i mean, how the heck are you going to “influence” someone to be gay – make them watch gay porn till they cave?!
totally agree with you, La Nausee, with your views in (110).
understanding and being informed. that should be the way to go.
not fear, doubt and ignorance.
Lee Mun Wai
What abt yr take on the reversal of MoE stand on the CSE.
Not often government back-tracks.
And where (if any) would you have revised piece if the second MoE statement had come out before the above was published. Might not be so optimistic abt change in public view of GLBTs?
Catherine misses the point that there is a difference between
a) kids reading and seeing material on the web pages of the Internet while alone,
b) kids giggling or blushing when they do that with other friends
and
c) an appointed speaker paid for by their school telling them that “homosexuality is neutral”.
it is a BBBBIGGGGG difference!
Can someone confirm that this is true or not?
1. Constitutional amendments at the recent EOGM were made to allow men (associate members of AWARE) to have full voting rights?
2. Some men took the stand declared their homosexual status and announced their support of the Comprehensive
Sex programme to the loud cheer of the old guards.
I did not read this in the Press..so maybe not true???
#112
Spot on. I can’t understand where this paranoia comes from. It’s like they’re scared
that one day they’ll be walking down the street checking out the ladies in a “mainstream, healthy lifestyle” way, but then all of a sudden, KABOOM, damned if those sneaky homos haven’t slipped me one and turned me gay!
Isn’t there a name for this – heterosexual hysteria?
It is not a fact that gays are born that way, but a held belief or a matter of opinion. The elusive Gay Gene has yet to be found.
http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html
Even if, say, some are in fact “born that way”, can it be said that ALL gays are born that way? There are probably a significant proportion who became that way as a result of what happened to them in their lives. And there are also some who practice homosexual acts by choice, and even as a preference.
to james (117) and elise (112)
haha, you guys are hilarious. i’m trying to picture this scenario for real and i’m just laughing out loud now.
kudos to the both of you for pointing out this hilariously nonsensical concept.
Lee Mun Wai
to 110) la nausée
Homosexuality is not the only sex issue in society today.
Child sex, animal sex, incest, pedophiles, etc – where do you draw the line. Should CSE include these to be comprehensive?
A response to la nausée (110)
On who has a right to speak on what is to be taught – That may be your view that you not being a parent or even any gap person out there have a right to say what should be taught.
I am totally against that. You have no right to determine what my child shoud be taught. Only the collective majority of parents opinion should be considered. You want to have a say, be a parent. Its like saying that you want to influence how my child’s upbringing is supposed to be. That’s interference in my family. Even the government agrees that the program needs to be suspended. They have been caught off guard by this underhanded method of sneaky this information. You should first take it up with the authorities and convince them that your view is correct before you bring it up here.
The majority of parents will want to be the ones to impart the values towards Homosexuality. This being the case, it should be silent less the values which is not consistent with what the parents want.
Sure, you have all those messages in songs, movies, TV, papers, magazines, etc. That’s why as a parent, its so tough to have to explain it and set the right values that we want to impart. My child may reject these values when they grow up and become an adult but until then, thats the values I will taught and want to impact. I do not need some one who has no responsibility for my child to come and tell my child what he or she should view about a controversial topic.
Again, CSE is no place to make any statement on Homosexuality. The point here is that the government has set what the guidelines what should be in the CSE and the Aware program has violated it and is rightly suspended. Period. Deal with it.
Check this out: South China Morning Post p.C3 (printed edition)
75pc of public want tougher Web censorship
————————————————————-
A survey on the review of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance shows the general public is more in favour of regulating cyberspace than the internet community.
More than 75 per cent of the 1,531 interviewees aged 15 or above think government regulation of obsence and indecent articles online should be “stricter than it is now”.
http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2c913216495213d5df646910cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=c164f3bbb2021210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=teaser&ss=Hong+Kong&s=idx_News
On the point of whether parents should have exclusive say on the CSE programme and its content, I think John Lui in today’s ST (link) put it better than I could ever have: “Your rights to keep your child ignorant about sex ends where my tax dollars start to fund public medical programmes for STDs, juvenile delinquency schemes and prisons for people screwed up by being born to poor teenage mothers.”
Ok…
Suppose CSE removes the mention of homosexuality and anal sex. What happens if a student asks about homosexuality. What should the instructor say then?
well Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) (124) according to Sick of Hypocrites (108), the instructor should not say anything except: “please ask your parent, not me.”
then Sick of Hypocrites goes on to imply in his/her response (121) that he/she and only he/she should have the right to teach his/her child. a very concerned parent he/she is. and i’m glad for that, let’s hope he/she truly practices what he/she preaches because i sure am not seeing kids these days being very well brought up, me being a teacher and having to face them myself.
I’m sure if all parents were as prudent, loving and nurturing as Sick of Hypocrites then maybe singaporean youth might not be as degenerate and uninformed as they are now.
I sincerely hope you’re as prudent a parent as you make yourself out to be Sick of Hypocrites, cos if you are then i’m very happy that your child’s/children’s moral and character building is/are well taken care of.
If not, we are always her to extend a helping hand to you. Maybe if you get to know us a little better, you’ll realise we aren’t that bad. haha. Seriously, stop freaking out…i’m sure your children are amazingly smart. you might have total and absolute responsibilty and ownership over your child/children but they are humans also, not your handbags and shoes. So stop making them sound like inanimate property. they need their own voice too. expose them to more and stop freaking out. teach them to understand, empathise and decipher, not fear and shun.
One day, they’ll be on their own anyway, you do realise that don’t you.
Lee Mun Wai
To la nausée, Zefly, Lee Mun Wai,
I have never discriminated against gays. I teach my children to love the person – does not manner what he has done but not the act. Btw that christian faith view.
I do not claim to be the perfect parent but I try really hard.
I pay taxes too – an alot of it. I am not trying to say I make alot but in a similar manner, my money goes to national development. I do not go around and say that your rights are to be removed if the gay community is in need of funding?
I have always maintain your right to your choices as adults. Do not try to impose your views and values on my children.
Whether other parents are as responsible as me is not my concern but the collective majority of what the children should be taught on homosexuality should be decided only be the parents not non-parents. The fact is that you do not have the responsibilities for the children’s future is enough of a reason. Its at least 21 years of full responsibilities for each child and guess what, it never ends after they turn adult.
I am totally aware and expect that my children will grow up as adults and make choices. I teach them that and make it known that some of those choices may not be what I approve but that’s theirs to make. I will always be there to advise even if they do not like what I have to say.
I have maintained that I do not comment or tried to influence on the gay community based on my values. I will fight every step of the way if any one from the gay community try to influence how my family values are taught based on theirs.
Last thought for you. Consider why the government refuses to lower the voting age? Will they allow voting at 12? or 15? or even 18? Its because of the fear of immaturity and being able to make the proper decision. (note proper will mean different things to different people but when you are an adult, you can take responsibility for that decision),
On question about homosexuality, I believe the trainer should make it clear that there are different values. State clearly that
1. It is not situable as a stable family structure. (also government’s position)
2. there are different viewpoints
3. trainer is not to offer his/her opinion (official or personal) as it is out of the scope of the program.
4. it depends on your own faith and family values.
Is this anti-gay? Of course not. It just respects the parent’s right.
#128, thanks for your response to my question. I believe most of it is reasonable enough. However, I would also suggest that even though the trainer has to remain neutral, it is only responsible to say that everything that has been taught in the CSE about safe sex extends to those who believe they have different gender preference.
Reading the CSE trainer’s manual and hearing what the Old Guard had to say, I believe that this is their stance as well. It’s not so-much promoting acceptance of gays, but if safe sex has to be promoted, gays and lesbians cannot be made to feel the topic is only relevant to straight people. That is why I feel that the CSE cannot state that homosexuality is morally wrong (it has to be left to the parents)- because, let’s face it, there will be people among the audience who may not be straight, and the last thing we want them to do is to ‘switch off’.
Like it or not, society as a whole, and not just the GLBT community alone, bears the burden of consequences of unsafe sexual practices among the GLBTs.
This isn’t about a clash of values, but making sure everyone wins at the end of the day.
To #118) Are ALL Gays Born That Way?
I understand even amongst the medical profession, there’s great debate on this subject. So the debate goes on: biological or psychological or how much of a blend between the both. Even all neurologists acknowledge the complexity of the brain is so immense they have yet to grasp its complexity.
Some the commentators seem to reject/object propositions that therapy have helped those with sexuality identity issues ie especially those cases who have decided to be ex-gays. Here, I’m not suggesting the endorsement of NARTH therapy programs. I am referring to therapy in general which brought closure for the individual concerned.
As a result of such successes, there will always be great debate. It would have been so so much simpler if science has discovered an equation/gene to substantiate which ever the proposition.
The great homosexual debate did not start during this century. The debate has already played out in early human history – Greek / Roman /Mesopotamian / Chinese / Indus civilisations. As a species, homo sapiens have survived these thousands of years due to its societies’ heterosexual relationships being the norm. Perhaps because of this, “mainstream conservatism” seems to guard its stand that heterosexual relationships is a fundamental to its societies’ survival.
The comments on this thread too is starting to attract nothing but personal attacks and derogatory remarks.
This thread is now closed for any further comments.