Tag: sex education

Commentary – Sex Education and Liberalism

The following is first posted on A Wretch Reformed by a brother-in-Christ. It is reproduced here with his permission and without modification.

Much has already been said about the new sex education curriculum that the Ministry of Education of Singapore (MOE) announced in early July. A cursory glance at the commentaries seems to indicate that a majority disagree with the MOE’s approach, taking specific aim at what the curriculum will teach, i.e. “the importance of the heterosexual married family as the basic unit of society”, and that abstinence is “the best option”.

I must say that I am not surprised at the number of liberal responses out there berating and ridiculing the proposed curriculum. After all, we live in a world that is increasingly sexualized, and where the sacred union called marriage and the family unit are attacked daily and re-defined.

So, faced with the choice to either hold my peace and say nothing at all or utilize my blogging privilege to point out the foolishness of the liberal camp, I chose the latter and that’s why you are reading this post.

Let’s start with this “progressive society” that some love to point to. They contend that if the schools were to teach abstinence, it would set our society back to (gasp!) the Stone Age. It seems that a society or culture is only progressive or advanced if we let teenagers or people do as they please when it comes to sex. The teenagers are going to do it anyway, they say, so why not just teach them the proper method of putting on a condom?

First off, how does this tacit encouragement of premarital sex make us a progressive society? Perhaps they count teenage pregnancies, single mothers, and the murder of countless unborn human beings through abortion, progress? Really?

In her commentary Sexuality education in Singapore – Whose values are we teaching?, Kirsten Han of the Asian Correspondent asserts that abstinence would foster a generation of adults who will think sex and sexuality are dangerous and shameful things, and encourage an environment where those who don’t practice premarital sex are morally better than those who do.

Don’t you find it ironic that while Ms Han is questioning why the MOE would want to impose these “mainstream” values on others, she is actually trying to impose her own set of “mainstream” values on others? I would love to see the statistics on the mental state of these adults who were taught abstinence as teenagers with regards to sex. Without those figures, that’s just her assertion.

Is it such a bad thing to label premarital sex as being immoral? Since when have we as a society begun to call evil good and good evil?

I believe that teaching abstinence to teenagers also teaches them responsibility and respect for another. It takes a strong mind and someone with moral backbone to say “no” to premarital sex when all around you, everyone’s doing it and encouraging you to do it. Not teaching abstinence but tacitly encouraging premarital sex is teaching the young to always find the easy way out–it is always easy to just give in to temptation!

In other words, we cannot start off with the supposition that teenagers are ruled by hormones that cannot be curbed, or that they cannot be brought up with a healthy attitude towards sex in such a way that they understand sex to be sacred between a man and a woman in a marital covenant.

This is where parental oversight is necessary and important–with the increasing sexualization of our society, young people are constantly bombarded with images of sex everywhere. Advertisements, movies, and the easy availability of pornography on the Internet are all contributing to a generation treating sex as nothing but a pastime in an age where the gratification of the “me” is infinitely more important than the collective.

Is abstinence easy? No, but that’s no basis for us not to teach abstinence as the best option against engaging in premarital sex. Here’s a question for those who disagree: knowing that children will lie, do you teach your child how to lie without batting an eyelid or do you teach them to not lie at all? If we follow the liberal logic stated above, then parents and teachers should start classes on “effective” lying.

Secondly, following their logic that we should just provide condoms and teach teenagers how to use them since they are going to engage in premarital sex anyway, we should do the same for other forms of sexual vice, don’t we? After all, the other choice word that liberals love to throw at you is “inclusive”. We aren’t really being inclusive if we leave out the pedophiles, those that practice bestiality and necrophilia and so on, are we?

In the same article mentioned above, Ms Han seems to think that 15,000 people who gathered for Pink Dot 2012 at Hong Lim Park on 30 June more accurately define the “mainstream” values of modern Singapore than, say, the majority of the population who didn’t attend the event. The 15,000-strong turnout, she says, can be “seen as a sign of increasing acceptance of LGBT communities”, and goes on to question if the mainstream heterosexual family unit is still to be considered “mainstream” when seen in that context.

Huh? Really?

I seriously doubt that “mainstream”, God-ordained values such as the heterosexual family unit will be thrown out of the window just because 15,000 people went to support “the right of everyone to love and be part of society, regardless of sexual orientation.” at Hong Lim Park. If nothing else, this assumption of hers was just another push for the LGBT agenda. Again, note the irony I pointed out above.

In conclusion, I applaud the Ministry of Education for doing the right thing. The teaching of abstinence as the “best option” and the importance of the “heterosexual family unit” are, in my opinion, all the more important in this day and age. In a society where social mores are eroding and in a world where even the sacred institution of marriage and gender identity are being redefined, we need to continuously uphold these pillars of a strong and healthy society. There is no turning back the clock once the pillars crumble, and the consequences of a total breakdown will be dire.

The above post has expressed my views too. To add, can it be denied that abstinence is the most effective in deterring sexually transmitted infections and diseases, and unwanted pregnancies (and the horrific consequence of abortion that often comes with that)? While abstinence is the hardest to achieve, that doesn’t mean we forego it entirely even though I am not against teaching male teenagers how to use a condom. But we shouldn’t go so far as to provide the condoms.

As for Pink Dot, another acquaintance wrote on his blog that he hoped that one day we will all accept the freedom of people to love. That, is a fallacy. There has always been a freedom to love. We are all free to love our friends, our pet and even our gadgets. But there are different levels of love and there are boundaries to them. For e.g. if I have a brother, I will love him as one because we are kin. But I will not consider marrying him. I can love another male as a good friend, a good brother, maybe even a good mentor, but I won’t consider marrying him either. In fact, I won’t considering marrying my pet, or my tablet either even if I loved them as dear as my life. So why are we even talking about accepting the freedom to love when there was never in fact, any objection in the first place?

Since I am now on the matter of Pink Dot, I would also like to address the comment of that same acquaintance who further wrote that he hope to see Section 377A repealed one day. I am curious that the matter of Section 377A always come up when matters of homosexuality are discussed. First of all, Section 377A does not affect lesbians. Though it would also subject homosexual and bisexual males to punishment under the law, the law did not specifically single just them out for punishment when it would also punish any other man who would ‘just stick his penis into someone’s anus’ for sexual pleasure or humiliation, and also those who are offering sexual services to other men with such desires.

Now, if Pink Dot is all about the freedom to love then Section 377A should not even be on its agenda since love and sex are not one and the same even though they are not mutually exclusive. Even if I grant those behind the Pink Dot movement that their main objective is about love, and removing the social stigma and discrimination of homosexual people, the impression they are giving me is that they are also promoting the rights of those whose would love to see Section 377A repealed for some other, more personal agenda (see the screen capture of an SMS received by a friend).

It is these people I object to. Is this what you would call love? I am sure not every homosexual person is like this, but if you don’t consider the proposal in this SMS to be plain wrong, then let us agree to disagree. Call me a homophobic hater for all I cared, but over here in my country, homosexual people have equal rights to health care and jobs opportunities, and also universal suffrage. Those who are clamoring loudly against discrimination here would be a lot less hypocritical if they are fighting for any homosexual person’s right to live in those countries that would execute them.

Current Affairs – Short Takes

2 comments

The Ministry of Education [MOE] has drafted a revised Sexuality Education Programme [SEP] to boost emphasis on abstinence over contraception, reported The New Paper [TNP].

Emphasizing on abstinence is placing too much faith in a person’s self control, and self control is one thing that we humans rarely possess. Human beings in general are irresponsible, as evident by the multitude of legislations in place to ensure compliance and acceptable behavior from most members of society.

Sex education, in the secular point of view, is not so much about morality but more about the biological / physical aspect (which deals with procreation and a physical need), and the health aspect (taking care of one’s health and body). I don’t really give a damn if a guy wants to be a “breeding pig” or if a girl wants to be “every men’s convenient store”. However, I am quite sure it is necessary to let teenagers know that everyone has only one body and the failure to take care of it and ruining one’s own life in the process – such as a body harming abortion, an unwanted pregnancy, or sexually transmitted infections – are consequences that only they alone will bear.

Contraceptives such as condoms is thus a “necessary evil” when the craving of one’s crotch overwrites the brain’s higher functions and throws abstinence to the four winds. They maybe the only thing that prevent to a large extent the nasties that might come with a rash decision even though it is not absolute in its protection.

In my opinion, sex education should emphasise on the health aspect – i.e. all of us cannot just discard our body and move on to another when it fails. Knowing all the avenues to prevent harm to our health in a moment of passion is of utmost importance, even if that offends certain fundamentalists who believes that too much emphasis is placed on contraceptives.

– * –

Temasek Junior College student Kwek Jian Qiang is in the spotlight for making a controversial comment on the disparity in expenditure of campus facilities between Junior Colleges [JC] and the Institute of Technical Education [ITE]. In a letter to TODAY he wrote that “there are significant disparities in the quality of learning environments”, and that “our brightest students should get the best facilities in order to excel and grow”.

Singapore’s emphasis in this so-called “meritocracy” has clearly breed nothing more than self important elitists. Should we really blame Kwek Jian Qiang for being an elitist little prick when the system promotes such snobbishness?

From what he has written, I must say Kwek clearly didn’t look too bright and if he thinks the facilities in his JC was bad, he certainly got what he deserved (according to his own measure). If he was any brighter he would have realised that the examples he gave were actually self defeating. He might have a point if the facilities at Anderson or Victoria JC were the result of deteriorating academic capabilities of the students there. Unfortunately, nothing of that sort ever happened and it may even be true that many of students in those JCs actually rank higher than Kwek himself. Regardless of what Kwek thinks, it is the duty of the nation to provide the necessary facilities it can afford to all students regardless of their academic performance, and not only to the best or bourgeois bloatpigs like Kwek. That said, it doesn’t mean that everyone will get equal use of those facilities since they will be limited. Not to mention there will always be disparity in the quality of learning environment depending on the age of the facilities, unless someone could advise MOE on how to keep all education facilities in Singapore up to date at the same time.

Either way, just because a person is damned good and scoring in tests and examinations does not mean he is very bright. Even less so when he thinks lesser of someone simply because that person isn’t in JC!

– * –

While the total recorded rainfall at Orchard Road was 152.8mm, the Public Utilities Board [PUB] said “there was no flooding at Orchard Road”. “However, water ponded at the open area of Liat Towers, the underpass between Lucky Plaza and Ngee Ann City, and the basement of Lucky Plaza due to the sustained heavy downpour,” it added.

Euphemism is not going to change the facts, PUB. Whether a person has died or passed away doesn’t make a damned difference to the fact. Similarly, whether it was flooding or ponding does not change the fact that the water should not even have been there in the first place. At least for many years this didn’t happen so why did the water now not drain away effectively? How bad is 152.8mm compared to the other two times which has also resulted in flooding? Has Orchard Road not experienced similar rainfall previously? And if it has, why didn’t the rainfall back then cause similar flooding? Keeping the public in the dark about these facts merely gives me the impression that this is deliberately not revealed to us to hide failure or incompetence. Using euphemism makes that even worse. This might be the way to work back in ancient China where officials are the Emperor’s representative to rule the people but there hasn’t been an Emperor over all of China for 100 years. Frankly, not even a person in China would take such shit lying down these days when I look at some of the news coming out of some parts of the Guangdong province recently. That’s not forgetting that this is Singapore and not the People’s Republic of China.

– * –

It took SMRT three train breakdowns and four days to create a social media account on Twitter.

I hope there is no PR company or self-claimed “social media guru” advising SMRT on this. That is because the way SMRT is using Twitter is an utter total fail(ure). SMRT might as well not have done this in the first place as it is no better than having an announcement page on its official website. If SMRT really intend to keep up with the times and wants its Twitter account to succeed, it needs to do better in providing prompt information and in interacting with those it hopes to reach. Otherwise it should just consider this a failed experiment and delete its Twitter account immediately.

Prompt information would mean that the information coming from SMRT’s twitter account would be almost as prompt as those from other Twitter users. While I do not expect SMRT to beat my friends in updating everyone about a breakdown, posting about a breakdown which happened around 6:50pm at 8:10pm is ridiculous. How much time does SMRT need to confirm that a train has stalled long enough to warrant an announcement to the public? The details on why it has broken down can come later but informing the commuters within 10 minutes of the incident would have made known to them that the next few trains will be more crowded than usual once service resumes. They can also make a decision using that information, and even re-tweet it so other commuters who do not follow SMRT’s Twitter account can benefit. It is the quick propagation of information on social media platforms such as Twitter that makes it an effective tool of communication.

To exploit this advantage of social media, whoever manning that account must interact with other users on Twitter. While it is almost certain that SMRT will be getting loads of crap from cursing and swearing commuters, that does not mean avoid interaction completely because of these “trolls”. Helping those who are genuinely seeking more information or clarifying their queries will only help to move information along. Not doing so simply allow speculation to fester and even allow false information which is detrimental to SMRT to propagate.

For e.g. a friend posted a photo on her Facebook profile two days ago. Not long after, I directed a query to SMRT on Twitter to find out whether this has anything to do with opening of the remaining 3 Circle Line (CCL) stations. I received no response at all. While few noticed this, the photo could have been passed on in Twitter with negative information which may not be true. Someone may post the same photo with a comment that “CCL is having a problem again” and under the current circumstances, other users might actually believed it and pick that up. All of a suddenly, people will be talking about a problem which does not exists. Those who are not sure might even avoid using the MRT and it won’t to too far fetched to imagine that there will be income loss for SMRT.

Had SMRT replied, at least some of us would be able to help counter any false information or speculation when we see them. Without anything to back us up, we will simply not comment on the other Tweets since everyone is entitled to their own opinion. SMRT obviously didn’t understand enough of this new media platform to make full use of the account it has created.

– * –

The Online Citizen [TOC] started a shit storm with an article titled “MP Seng Han Thong: SMRT’s unpreparedness also due to Malay and Indian staffs English language inefficiency”.

I am not sure if TOC is aware that the title itself is misleading. It gives us the impression that Seng Han Thong made that comment, which isn’t the case when we view the video. For failing to admit that the title is misleading even when it might not be its intention, TOC has shown itself to be no better than the main stream media [MSM] which is often accused to be biased. In fact, the way it reacts to criticism showed that it was hardly any better.

Let me explain. It is hard to assess whether Singapore is matured enough to tackle the issues of racial harmony, but the impression that an MP is “racist” would have been quite a blow to our already fragile racial harmony. The headline made it a matter of racial harmony which should be handled with care. With that title in mind, I was appalled with what was said on my first view of the video, Being biased against the PAP, my initial reaction was: “What a dumb ass PAP man who say things without going through his brains.”

Indeed, I wasn’t even surprised when Halimah Yacob said Seng’s remark was ‘inappropriate and unfair’. I would be surprised if the rest of the non-Chinese PAP MPs remained silent. Seng simply should not have mentioned any race in specific at all. Subsequently, I viewed the same video again several days later when the MSM went full force to present a picture that was some what different from what I understood. I then realized that I had actually ignored what Seng said at the end of those comments: “but I think we accept broken English”. As a result, I have to grudgingly admit Seng was simply pointing out that in that kind of situation (i.e. the MRT breakdown about 2 weeks ago), what really mattered was to communicate information to commuters even if that person does not speak English well. However, I had to disagree that Seng was showing that he strongly disagreed with that comment. To present it that way (as Shammugam did) would be laying it a little thick. It is also meaningless to say that Seng (or the PAP) was trying to deflect the blame to the staff for SMRT’s utterly dismal handling during the breakdown. There is a line to be drawn between speculation or leading the public away from that which has truly transpired.

Anyway, someone must have heard it over the radio when an officer from SMRT said something over the radio which suggested that poor language skills of its drivers were part of the problem in the inadequacy of SMRT’s response. Both the MSM and TOC has not reproduced this in its context for the benefit of the public. Without this piece of evidence it is actually difficult to put this matter to rest. To me, TOC response to Cherian George’s criticism is reminiscent of the petty and childish online squabbles between Xiaxue and Dawn Yang or Steven Lim. Then again, to some celebrity blogger ‘flame wars’ may actually be more entertaining! The saga even reminded me of the fuss made over a packet of food for the YOG volunteers. One photo was all it need to condemn the authorities. No one bothered to check whether all the volunteers were getting equally bad food.

That was exactly the same effect of TOC’s title on Seng. In my opinion, everyone thought Seng is another Choo Wee Khiang, who made a lousy “joke” about Little India in Parliament. Many would have gotten the impression that Seng is a racist while few would have reviewed the video. Thus, Cherian George was right in his criticisms of TOC. If online media such as the TOC wants to be an alternative source of news for the people, its response to Cherian George shows it has a long way to go. While it maybe true all those who oppose the PAP are already biased, failing to even attempt to act objective will only further alienate those with a moderate view. In my view, the TOC page on Facebook (if not the TOC site itself) is going the way of STOMP or that of Temasek Review. It is a noticeable downward slide ever since the Prime Ministers Office [PMO] gazetted TOC as a political organisation.

Random Discourse – A Case of Idiocy

Leave a comment

A case for repealing 377A

I refer to last Tuesday’s article (‘Study looks at sexual behaviour of gay men’).

The effort to glean information for the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections is admirable. But I am not surprised that the study has fallen far short of its target of 1,000 participants and has managed only a meagre 40.

With Section 377A of the Penal Code still in place, sex between men remains illegal in Singapore.

No matter how much confidentiality is promised, there will be understandable reluctance from potential participants. For, in effect, the study asks that gay men make the admission of having committed a criminal act.

Section 377A not only hinders important studies from being conducted, but also ties the hands of educators who should be teaching young ones the proper way to regard safe sex, irrespective of one’s sexual orientation.

In short, 377A is detrimental to the fields of medical research and education.

It should be repealed (just as Section 377 of the Penal Code outlawing oral and anal sex between men and women has been repealed), so that studies such as the above can be conducted without impediment.

Pamela Oei (Ms)

This was an forum letter published only on the online version of the Straits Times forum. The research in question was to determine the prevalence of syphilis and HIV infection among homosexuals. Tan Tock Seng Hospital consultant Mark Chen, explained that this was done because it has not been proven conclusive here even though overseas data has shown that homosexual men are more at risk of syphilis and HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

To justify something in the name of research reminds me of Japan, which says it is killing whales for ‘scientific research’. While I do not always agree with environmentalists or animal- rights activists, I would like Japan to actually explain what research are they doing by killing those animals, and why do they have to kill so many every year to do such research. Would they not be able to do the same without killing those magnificent creatures? In fact, I had often considered Japan to be shameless to use research to justify the killing. Thus, I can’t help but also consider it shameless when after failing to repeal Section 377A by arguing that it discriminates against a specific group of people, the argument now is that it is detrimental to the field of medical research and sex education.

To refresh everyone, Section 377A states that: “Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.“

I take that to mean that any form of sexual intercourse between two male persons is a criminal act. Pamela Oei’s premise is that anyone who submit to this study would be admitting to having committed a criminal act and she believe that is the sole reason why there is a low number of participants. Have she considered that one of the reasons could be a lack of interest in such studies? Anyone who argues that homosexuality is related to a higher risk to STDs / VDs is often called a ‘homophobe’. So why would homosexual men participate in a study to determine something which they have always believed to be false? Sadly, Pamela Oei could only think of Section 377A as the only reason why there are few takers to this study.

Next, Pamela Oei’s argued Section 377A ‘ties the hands of educators who should be teaching young ones the proper way to regard safe sex. I would like to ask her, how would that be true? My limited knowledge on safe sex revolves around two very basic principles, they are: (in the words of the Sammyboy forummers) ‘raw is war’ – meaning you should never have unprotected sex; and it is best to be loyal / have only one sex partner. I believe these simple principles would apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. The other important knowledge about safe sex would include rudimentary knowledge about the kind of nasties that can be transmitted either orally or via the genitals, how fatal they are and the damage they do to one’s life. In summary, safe sex would be about the risk of unprotected sex, the seriousness and consequences of catching any of these diseases and the prevention. How would Section 377A be an obstacle for educators to impart such knowledge?

Pamela Oei should really understand how utterly lame and ludicrous she is. At times I wondered why some of the people who aren’t homosexual themselves seems more interested in homosexual activism than the homosexuals themselves. Perhaps they simply have nothing better to do and participation in such activities makes them look hip, cool or inclusive and even make them appear enlightened.

Addendum:
I believe some people will want to ask does that mean only a slave can speak up against slavery and I suggest you save the effort.

Two reasons. First, slavery is often forced upon another person and the same cannot be said about homosexuality – where the homosexual lobby often claims that it either a choice or a matter of genes. Second, I will not fall into the trap and elevate something which I consider as wrong to the same level as freedom.

I’ll tolerate any person who decides to be a homosexual, but just don’t expect me to celebrate or endorse that decision. Nor expect me to roll over and shut up in the face of any attempt to celebrate or endorse it.