if you don’t know why get paid so much for?

bloody excuses all the time!

why do the heads of the ministry behave as such? Case in point: WKS, #1 Siam King.

The problem here is AWARE and the Religious Right have different opinion of what neutral means. The Secular Camp sees neutral in the sense homosexuality and homosexual behaviour should be seen in the same light as heterosexuality and heterosexual behaviour.

The Religious Right claims that while they view the homosexuality orientation as neutral, they still call homosexual behaviour a sin. This is what they mean by “love the sinner, hate the sin”. By indicating heterosexual behaviour in positive light, it has the effect of putting down homosexual behaviour.

Singapore is a plural society and nobody is stopping the Church to organise their own Sex-Ed program during Sunday School. As long the Religious Right does not wage its “spiritual” war in MOE territory, there is no reason for Secular Camp to confront them. The onus has and always been on the Religious Right.

However, one should take not that there is nothing wrong to inform students that Section 377A criminalises homosexual behaviour because this is factual. But refraining to inform students the Government ‘s intention to not prosecute homosexual behaviour is an act of propagating a category of lies call half-truths. Question is which law takes precedence – the Law of God or the Law of the State?

how safe are impressionable kids from the internet, movies with liberal themes, peers all over the world (some living liberal lifestyles) from online social networking sites, even free-to-air programs are becoming more liberal each passing year?

oh, what about kids with up-to-date mobile phones that enable pics & videos to be shared? ooh, you got the pic of the up-&-coming hunk or chick (something liddat)?

if some think the “war” is won, think again. that is only a skirmish. the horrible liberal “horde” is out there.

little wonder why ugly S’poreans tar everyone with a bad name. some parents just do not understand their children, communication fail, they are not able see the world through their child’ eye. with little rapport how are those parents going to be able to “education” their child/ren about emotionly charged topics?

Another statement:
‘We do not condone promiscuity, sexual experimentation or promote homosexuality. MOE teaches the values which are held by the majority, whether they are religious or not.’

Good sexual values and ethics, as pointed out, have nothing to do with an exclusive religion.

i think you both misunderstood the finer points each is pointing out. both of you are ion the same side of the coin, but focusing the issue from different points.

Daniel Lim’s poits:
1) not knowing all the facts, hance not able to conclude what is wrong. kudos for not jumping to conclusions.
2) about students paying the “price”. yes, i agree many generations of students were “lab rats” when a new concept, carriculum, so on is rolled out in the initial phase. there is no apologies for failed “experiments” & of cos money back guarantee…

LadyMadonna’s points in reply to Daniel’s:
1) “lesson fees” in the form of being “lab rats”? unlikely parents of affected students will get an apology for any slip-ups, Ministor Ng’s official statement is plainly spelt out, the “not my fault” attitude.
2) about speaking on behalf of other parents. only in post #30, not having all the facts about Aware’s CSE program, not speaking on other parents behalf on what is best for (other parent/s’) children. there was no attempt on his part to play the role of a “father hen”. its true parents do not know the full contents of CSE, but again. if parents were not a weak link in their child/rens’ upbringing, it won’t be such an issue.
3) about complaining about the programs, based on the timing of the petition, i can only guess parents are not really that concerned. besides, as you have rightly pointed out. who is to know if all who sign the petition are parents of kids who have sat through Aware’s CSE program. a large number could be clones, drones & “concered” parents who responded with little tought process- kneejerk reaction.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

MOE gave in to a small, but very vocal pressure group. a hint of how far standards have dropped, not being on top of situations. the “fire” has spread too far too long & too widely, MOE’s reponse may be all but too late to appease either camps.

/////MOE said it will not be able to use AWARE to run sexuality education programme in schools until it’s gained the public’s trust for its sexuality programmes./////

a lame attempt to divert attention to its own failings, how about public’s trust in MOE?

Why attribute it to divine intervention? If God had been on the side of FM & Gang, he would have given them Aware at the EGM, then they could have promoted their own CSE – abstinence, which would have seen the number of teen pregnancies and STDs continue rising. Besides, TSM’s FOTF was also suspended along with the Aware CSE, wasn’t it? Haha.

Shouldn’t the focus be on the ACTUAL PRESENTATION?

After all, thats what the students are exposed to.

Absolutely no problems with you expressing your views. Just don’t presume to express them on behalf of the ‘general public’, of which I am also one.

As to whether the students were taught ‘inappropriately’, that is a matter of opinion. If you have children who underwent the Aware CSE programme, and you don’t think it’s ‘appropriate’ for them, you are entitled to do so – you have the right to decide for your children if they are minors.

However, please don’t presume to speak for other parents, especially those whose children actually went throught the programme. If they don’t complain, why should you? And if you are going to point to the 7000+ ‘concerned parents’ who signed the online petition against the Aware CSE, the jury is out as to how many really are parents, and how many of them have children who underwent/or might have undergone the Aware programme, but for this ruckus.

No ill intention on my part either, just pointing out that your right to express your views does not include claiming to express them on behalf of the ‘general public’ or the parents whose children have undergone the Aware CSE (unless they have authorised you to speak on their behalf). As they are the most directly affected, let them speak for themselves – or tot he MOE, if they so wish.

competition is good, long live S’pore Inc.

- bargain hen

I hope this will help you in understanding my points.
“Real problems” – Part of the AWARE CSE contents is not appropriate, or plainly quoting MOE “not within their guidelines”.

“Lesson fees” – not the real dollars and cents. I am referring to intangile fees paid by those students been taught inappropriately. So, I hope that the MOE officials must learn from their mistakes, and learn them well.

If you are still confuse or disagree with my views, it is ok. I am just expressing mine. No ill intention meant.

“I also strongly suggest that for those who think that homosexuality is an absolutely important tolerance to teach their children, please rally the Aware to provide an black belt intensive homosexual is ok training program (HOK) for their children.”

Great idea. Let the parents decide if they want this. Free to choose.

AWARE & GLBT run this course. Or you scared no-one will sign up? Be like Josie & Co — balls of brass.

#36

“openly effiminate teachers” etc

Hey not all gays are effiminate. And who defines, “effiminate”?