A rare instance of a reflective ST?

I can only hope. Is ST questioning its contribution to stupid debate/opinions?

May 10, 2015

Never mind the data, what's the point?
They add nothing to a moral argument; why not ask instead: Why do you feel this way?
By John Lui

Deep inside The Straits Times Forum Page, tucked in with letters scolding bad cyclists, unexplained phone charges and the shutdown of The Real Singapore website, there was one letter last week that squeezed two unbeatable topics - sex and real estate - into one quite wonderful package.

The Yale-NUS College is introducing mixed-sex suites in its student housing, and the writer was having none of it.

At least I think so. The letter was earnest, heartfelt and darn near unintelligible.

Here's the letter:

May 05, 2015 

Co-ed cohabitation endangers chastity
YALE-NUS College recently announced that it will be allowing male and female students to share suites ("Male, female students in Yale-NUS can soon share suites"; April 22).
In the report, a parent, Mrs Grace Yeo, was quoted saying: "These are not teenagers but young adults. I trust my son to make responsible choices."
I wonder if this is representative of Singapore parents today.
Based on the 2004 Global Sex Survey by Durex, the average age that Singaporean youth first have sex is 18.9 years. The survey also found that Singapore youth have an average of 5.8 sexual partners.
The average age that our youth first have sex is dangerously close to the age when students would enter Yale-NUS.
So we have to ask ourselves a fundamental question: Is it an issue to have premarital sex?
Or perhaps we think that even if our children have premarital sex, they can sort it out after marriage.
A recent report ("Recent marriages not standing the test of time"; April 7) showed that recent marriages are failing more often than in the past, and I would say that today's generation lacks faithfulness.
How does abstaining from premarital sex help? Because when your partner can control himself before marriage, he will be able to control himself after marriage.
One may ask: Why keep your virginity when you can have fun? Because sex has the uncanny ability to create a lasting connection with another person, and the voices of your previous sex partners hovering over you when you embark on a serious relationship can be very disconcerting.
Rage and insecurity can hinder the formation of a healthy relationship and it is very lonely to be in such marriages.
Intentionally or unintentionally, Yale-NUS' policy propagates a lifestyle that begets relational loneliness.
Chen Dewei

I tried to follow its reasoning as it writhed this way and that but, like the maths question about Cheryl's birthday, it left many of us feeling exhausted.

But what stood out for me were the tools the writer used to justify his beliefs.

The writer thinks co-ed living brings men and women into close proximity and therefore promotes sex before marriage.

That leads to what he calls "voices of your previous sex partners hovering over you" when you embark on a serious relationship, causing it to suffer.

On that last point, I can agree: No marriage can withstand sexy poltergeists.

But what struck me was, why did this writer take a perfectly valid moral opinion - sex before marriage is bad - then undermine it with confusing and contradictory shards grabbed from population studies and sociology?

Yale-NUS College later explained once more that what it was introducing was mixed-sex suites with separate bedrooms.

This practice might be new on campus, but off-campus, mixed-sex house-sharing has been going on for a very long time, long before the ghosts of past sex partners started floating above our beds.

The writer seems to be using a classic method of persuasion, the appeal to general welfare: This or that issue is bad not because it hurts me (because that would be selfish), but it hurts everyone.

This sort of appeal is very popular in Singapore and, over the years, the method has evolved and been refined.

I remember a time when letter writers made appeals to values like thrift and hard work ("Surely this will destroy our sense of financial prudence.").

A thing was liable to "corrupt the minds of the youth" (usually to do with a youth craze of the time that older people couldn't stand).

If all else fails, whip out the trusty "no right-thinking person would do it" or that the thing in question "flouts common sense".

But those reasons are less seen these days.

Simple moral reasoning - "I believe this because that's what my parents taught", or "This is what my religion says", or "I hate this because it just makes me uncomfortable" - seems to have fallen out of fashion.

People can now whip out supporting facts within a few seconds of pecking around on the Internet.

Others, meanwhile, cook up a word salad made up of phrases like "social cohesion" and "fostering harmony" or bring out that old favourite, "it benefits the economy", as if only lunatics would argue against it.

Tossing our elderly into the sea would be great for the economy, but I doubt anyone is going to suggest it.

The more someone writes as if he were penning a corporate mission statement, the shakier he knows his ground to be.

That magisterial tone is an appeal to our respect for authority.

Looking like pragmatic, data-driven beings has made us really bad at conversations about things that have nothing to do with data.

Does Amos Yee, or anyone else who spews rubbish online, deserve punishment and, if so, how much?

Is the Pink Dot event good or bad for society?

What should the sex education curriculum look like?

Are people who dislike the idea of a hospice or a columbarium in their neighbourhood wrong?

In these discussions, the same bits of data will be waved around.

These include the rates of divorce, abortion, fertility and current property values.

Sometimes, a survey on values will be thrown in, whether for sexuality or online codes of behaviour.

There will be assertions about why X must surely be the cause of that particular number's rise or fall.

People who throw down research think they are scoring a slam dunk, as if the other side will cave in immediately, saying, "Oh no, you used statistics! Well, I can't beat that. You won fair and square. Well played, sir!"

I'm still waiting for that to happen.

Bringing data to a moral argument adds nothing because values are rarely logical, fully articulated or fair.

People with progressive ideals - those who are for co-ed dorms and expansive sex education - would help their cause if they knew that they are facing a set of conservative and often irrational beliefs that tie a majority of Singaporeans to their family.

Change would require them to sever ties. Some people can do this, many cannot.

I also wish the question "why do you feel this way?" was used more frequently in values debates, but no one seems interested in how the other side thinks.

It's a useful question and, if asked often enough, gets to how these issues are primarily about feelings, not rationality that can be moved by research, and certainly not about the spirits of ex-girlfriends or boyfriends hovering around the ceiling.

I agree with Mr Lui - people don't know how to argue their moral or value-informed position - we are "really bad at conversations about things that have nothing to do with data." 

But these questions are precisely the ones that evoke visceral responses from readers, which is why ST continues to publish these letters. And when such letters are not forthcoming, ST will ask a stupid survey question that would evoke visceral responses from readers.

So my hope at the start of this? Fat hopes.

Sorry, Fill My Cups event was a play on DJ's moniker

Jan 25, 2010

I REFER to last Thursday's letter, 'Wrong to promote women as sex objects', by the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), on its displeasure over the Fill My Cups promotion held at OverEasy bar on Jan 16.

The party was primarily a guest DJ event that originated as a play on the DJ's name, DCUP. It was never our intention to create an event to, in any way, diminish or denigrate women but a tongue-in-cheek play on the DJ's moniker.

The women who participated came dressed as they pleased, whether clad in a tank top or turtleneck, and were visually assessed by four individuals behind a booth, three of whom were women. None of the women was turned away because she did not meet any set standards and all who participated (regardless of size) received the promised privilege.

Upcoming events intend to reward customers who possess the biggest biceps, the smallest shoe size and the longest hands. As with this promotion, we hope these will not be viewed through a discriminatory lens but rather seen as a celebration of individuality and uniqueness.

In the light of Aware's comments, The Lo & Behold Group sincerely apologises to all who were offended by the event. We fully understand the relevance of Aware's contentions and can see how our intentions could have been easily misconstrued.

Aware suggests that choices should be made based on a particular social context. We feel that such context is an individual preference and that people should not be made to feel guilty for making their own choices.

We hope Aware will extend to us the tolerance to express ourselves in ways different from its own ways, to be able to laugh at ourselves once in a while and not be too quick to shade this event in a discriminatory light.

As an alternative to Aware's view, we believe society has evolved sufficiently to look beyond equating a woman's assets as sex objects. Furthermore, we believe that recognition of one's physical assets does not detract from an individual's ability to gain respect through other attributes.

We respect Aware's opinion, but it is more important not to undermine the patrons who chose to participate in the event. They are modern, confident individuals who know their place in society and that their self-worth is not based solely on their 'assets'. We respect and stand by them.

Cheryl Ho (Miss)
Spokesman for The Lo & Behold Group

[Bravo! This is an example of a great response to a petty knee-jerk complaint. The reply was intelligent, respectful, but also showed self-respect for the programme as well as for the women who participated in their promotion. In acknowledging AWARE's opinion, it did not betray their customers. And finally, Miss Ho (not Ms) signed off as the "Spokesman" not Spokesperson, or Spokeswoman. Bravo!]

'Consent' shouldn't trump what society deems morally bad

Nov 23, 2009

I REFER to Mr Alvin Chen's letter last Monday, 'Give courts more sentencing discretion'. This was in response to Mr Vikram Ranjan Ramasamy's letter, 'Decriminalise consensual underage sex' (Nov 13).

Allowing 'consent' to trump what society perceives as morally bad behaviour is to undermine society's right to enforce its moral determinations. This was an issue that Lord Patrick Devlin addressed his mind to in his essay, The Enforcement Of Morals.

Lord Devlin stated that a shared morality is what keeps a society together. The law is used to prevent the loosening of this moral 'cement'. Thus, as a matter of presumption, the fact that a law exists that criminalises consensual sex between minors indicates that the word is already out on the moral judgment of such behaviour.

Mr Chen's argument that the state should be paternalistic in situations where consent might be given by minors who do not have sufficient maturity is also not without problems. First, using a 'sufficiently mature' consent approach to determine whether certain acts should be legislated is a slippery slope that could see us spiralling towards decriminalising even euthanasia or incest.

Second, Mr Chen's proposal of reform at the level of sentencing, and not at the level of legislation, presupposes that such an action is wrong to begin with. However, if Mr Chen is willing to accept it is not morally wrong for mature minors to engage in consensual sex, why should even punishment be meted out?

Alternatively, if one can show that as a matter of statistical probability, sexual activity at this age results in an aversion to deepening the commitment of a relationship via the institution of marriage, or that it affects an individual's psyche in the perception of the value of commitment, then in so far as the institution of marriage or the value of commitment is regarded as a moral good that society embraces, one could also find oneself somewhat persuaded that the law should remain.

Marcus Foo

[Agree with the gist of the letter. But Marcus makes a wrong assumption: that laws reflect morality. Adultery is morally unacceptable to most. But it is not criminalised. Prostitution is also not acceptable to most. But it is not criminalised. Gambling - to many also not acceptable, legal.

What "consenting" children do sexually is not morally acceptable. The question is whether criminalising these acts is the best solution? Sending them through the courts and giving the courts little discretionary powers to deal with minors - is this the best way to deal with the problem? The answer is not simply decriminalise or criminalise. A first step would be to give the courts more leeway and discretion.]

Few babies? It's the Hotel Mama mindset

[And now we bring you the tale of a sexually frustrated young man in Singapore...]

Sep 9, 2009

IT IS not by chance that Singapore has such a low fertility rate. There are many contributing factors, but an important one is the housing policy and the mindset behind it.

In Europe and the United States, people leave their homes in their early 20s or even earlier. With their salaries, they can afford to rent a place, maybe with a friend or two. Those aged 25 and above, who are still living at home, are considered strange, immature and lacking in independence.

In the West, people in their 20s experiment, enjoy their freedom and have probably more than one relationship before they settle down and start a family.

[And what are their TFR?]

In Singapore, it is a policy that only married couples can have an affordable, subsidised flat. It is way too expensive for someone who has just entered the workforce to rent or buy an apartment on the resale market. So they live with their parents and enjoy Hotel Mama, which is comfortable and saves them some money.

But they have to follow their parents' rules, such as, 'When I wake up, you have to be in your bed, alone'. Bringing a lover home is out of the question. For them, childhood continues until they are well into their 30s.

Is it then really surprising that there are not many babies?

[You really need to learn from our students. They somehow managed it. At home, when their parents are at work. At void decks, stairwells, holiday chalets, parks, etc. And they start as young as 10 now. and they don't need to be Americans or Europeans. :-)]

It is not just a question of having no private space. It is also a question of mentality. In the West, young people learn early to stand on their own feet, to take care of themselves, to live their own lives.

In Singapore, the young are conditioned to follow the rules, to live for their schools or jobs, to listen to their parents and to be obedient citizens.

But different qualities are needed for starting a family, such as readiness to take risks, independence and the ability to have fun.

[Ya. Those are the qualities to start a pregnancy. But the qualities to be a good parent should include sense of responsibility, discipline, resourcefulness, and tenacity.]

In Singapore, there is too much emphasis on obedience, too little on independence. That is not good for having babies.

[Wong (below) will say something about this. Much better than I can. You dodo.]

Some might say that Singapore has no choice because it is a small island. But I don't know any other big city which has so much empty land, even at the best locations next to underground train stations.

[There you are! have sex next to the train station!]

It seems to be the policy here to make available only a little land for buildings and to keep property prices sky-high.

[Damn! you found out our national secret. We'll have to stop you from procreating!]

Peter Huber

-------- online comments ---------
[And now, a comment from our resident misogynist & bigot:]

The writer, Peter Huber, is entitled to his theory to explain SG's low birth rate just like any of us. He may have something when he points to the high property prices ( as part of the high costs of living in general). In the main, though, he blames it on us for being docile obedient dodos when compared with the ("superior") risk-taking independent die-die-must-move-out Westerners. 

If he had put more thought into it, he might have noticed: 

1. When SG had a post-war baby boom, the pre-conditions to which he ascribes higher birth rates in the West didn't obtain then, in some ways even less than now. Rent was not cheap relative to income, extended families lived under-one-roof and social norms were far more conservative than now. 

2. In fact, in none of the Asian countries that experienced a baby boom were you likely to have found the pre-conditions to which the writer ascribes Western birth rates. Indeed, relative to these Asian countries during their baby boom years, Western birth rates were LOWER. 

3. He might have noticed that if we were indeed obedient docile dodos, we would NOT HAVE a birth rate problem because we would obey the exhortations of the govt and our own parents to pro-create.

[Bravo! *clap* *clap*. Wong, despite his misogyny, is an intelligent man. But then he goes on...]

But, of course, Mr. Huber was not really interested in a deeper look into his own theory. His letter was about ideology i.e. pushing the stock Western line about "superior" Western freedom versus stifling Asian conformity. Same ole same ole. This kind of superiority complex underpinned the whole era of overt imperialism and the thing to note is how alive and well it is up to now. (So much for the Westernised who claim differently.) 

 [No, no, Mr Wong. You're misinterpreting the sexual frustrations of a young man with no privacy with higher ideals. In doing so, you ridiculously elevate the testosterone ranting of a sex-starved young man to the level of a clash of civilisations. Samuel Huntington, he is not. Mr Wong is born in the wrong era. He would have made a wonderful anti-colonialist.]

Look, if we don't care for generalisations about Asian societies being "morally superior" to Western societies then we must recognise Mr. Huber's letter for what it is - merely a similar generalisation in the opposite direction. Come back when you have a real take on our problems, Mr. Huber, but spare us the cold war era ideological broadcast.

[And Mr Wong should take off his tunnel-vision glasses. :-) ]

Posted by: WongHoongHooi at Wed Sep 09 15:00:42 SGT 2009

...
[And now a word from our resident Anti-PAP...]

WongHoongHooi,
The reason for the stop at two policy was obvious - the govt projected the population based on the birth rates then (1960's) to be untenable for whatever developmental plans it had in mind.
And as they say, things tend to acquire their own momentum once things get rolling. One thing leads to another. Small families and policies designed as disincentive for having large families inevitably led to the 'nuclear' family, more liberal abortion law etc.
The stop at two policy became so ingrained in govt policy consideration order of the day that nobody gave a dot when reproduction rates dived below renewal level. And of course, the making of an aging population obviously crossed nobody's mind. The dominant thought was probably this: the overpopulation issue has been effectively
tackled. And it didn't help when the PM is such a dominant and overpowering figure that no well meaning and career minded senior civil servant dared to point out the looming problem to him in order to live another day1
What did people like Ngiam Tong Tow and the Chief Statistician who probably have the ears of the top do then?
I have a cynical belief that many probable did see the problem looming but were AFRAID to speak for they love their families' and their own future more.
THERE IS NO RUNNING AWAY FROM RESPONSIBILITY BY THE POLITICIANS IN THE MANNER THINGS TURN OUT IN A COUNTRY. THE BUCK STOPS SQUARELY AT THE DOOR STEP OF THE LEADERSHIP. IN THIS CASE WE KNOW WHO.
Posted by: commentator_sc at Wed Sep 09 16:22:24 SGT 2009

...

[Commentator was having such a good run, I didn't have the heart to interject. :-)

But this is a case study of hijacked agendas. Huber writes a barely disguised piece on his sexual frustration. which is translated by the anglophobe as an attack on his culture and rises to defend his civilisation while casting Huber in the role of imperialist. Then commentator comes along and says, "it's all LKY's fault!"

And that is a day in the life at the ST forum.

You have to laugh.]

Thio cancels NYU stint

July 27, 2009
Don lost the chance to field her arguments in marketplace of ideas

IN THE wake of Professor Thio Li-ann's decision not to teach at New York University (NYU), much as been made of a lack of tolerance of diverse views in that university. Both Prof Thio and Mr Eugene Tan from Singapore Management University have cited the sequence of events as a display of intolerance.

With respect to both the learned professors, I feel this is a mischaracterisation of what transpired at NYU. A right to express one's views freely comes with the right of others to disagree with those views, and one must take courage to defend what one believes in.

The NYU position throughout this unfortunate sequence of events has been that while the faculty may disagree with Prof Thio's position, it believes that academic freedom should be respected. Even when alumni threatened to boycott future fund-raising events unless Prof Thio was refused access, the university was steadfast in its position that it would not force Prof Thio to withdraw. �

It is disingenuous to paint the disagreement as a suppression of alternative views. Surely one cannot be naive to the fact that the attitude in the United States towards homosexuals is significantly different from that in Singapore. Just as Prof Thio was entitled to her view that homosexual acts should be criminalised, so were the NYU faculty and students entitled to their view that such discrimination is abhorrent.

In many ways, what happened at NYU has been disappointing. By cancelling her courses, Prof Thio has lost the chance to field her arguments in an open marketplace of ideas. The NYU students too have lost the opportunity to be taught by someone who, all views aside, is an extremely intelligent academic with a great presence in the classroom.�

Leon Michael Ryan


-----------------
July 27, 2009
Don's withdrawal from NYU: Don't be too quick to claim victimhood

I REFER to the reports, 'Thio Li-ann cancels teaching stint at NYU' (last Friday) and 'American social activist support Thio Li-ann' (last Saturday), regarding law professor Thio Lin-ann's withdrawal from her teaching stint at New York University (NYU).

The reports imply that Professor Thio felt she had to withdraw from NYU after she was intimidated by the hostile atmosphere there. This should be examined more closely.

At no point did NYU rescind its invitation to Prof Thio. Likewise, the gay university campaign group OUTLaw did not ask for her invitation to be withdrawn. It sent an e-mail message to students stating its position on her homosexual issues, with links to videos of speeches she made in Parliament in 2007. In OUTLaw's own words:

'While respecting Dr Thio's right to her opinion and without questioning her teaching abilities, OUTLaw believes it is important for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) students and allies to be aware of her views in order to make fully informed decisions regarding class registration.'

There was also an online petition that expressed 'deep disappointment' at NYU's decision to appoint her as Global Visiting Professor of Law. The petition, which drew about 880 signatures, did state that the 'decision to appoint Dr Thio was a grave mistake and her designation to teach 'Human Rights in Asia' is inappropriate and offensive'. But there was no explicit call for her invitation to be rescinded.�

Prof�Thio�is quick to claim victimhood. But when�she accepted the invitation, she must have been aware that her views would not be popular at NYU, a famously liberal university. She should have been prepared for NYU undergraduates to express their opposition strongly.

Bert Wee
-----------------

NUANCE, A SO-CALLED MEMO AND THREATS ...
Letter from Professor Thio Li-ann
05:55 AM Jul 27, 2009

I WRITE to clarify a few points in "Former NMP calls off professorship at NYU"(July 24).

First, the online petition asserting I was an "opponent of human rights" over-simplistically assumes "gay rights are human rights".

Certain countries legally recognise the controversial idea of "gay rights", but this is not a universally accepted human right. Further, the idea of "gay rights" may cover anything from prohibiting workplace discrimination (which I support) to same-sex marriage (which I oppose).

Nuance is needed; simplification is sensationalistic.

Can a capitalist teach Marxism? Could someone who supports the death penalty (which many at New York University disagree with) teach human rights?

There is no settled theory of the source of human rights; many competing interpretations exist. There are core (prohibiting torture) and contested (same-sex marriage, euthanasia) rights.

Second, no 18-page rebuttal was sent to the NYU law faculty. I do not know who posted the so-called "18-point memo" circulating online. This was an internal email I wrote in response to a non-law NYU staffer's email copied to the Dean (who made no response) and others, strongly criticising my appointment.

This was just one of the hostile, often vulgar messages I received, some insulting my intellect, gender, ethnicity and country.

I sought to clarify misrepresentations and rebut potentially defamatory allegations made to personnel involved in the Global Faculty programme which invited my visit.

It is disappointing the NYU law dean would label my response "offensive" and "hurtful", while ignoring the offensive, hurtful and even threatening messages directed against me.

To say I was "disappointed by the hostility" minimises the virulence of the attacks I received. A cursory glance at the invective online explains why many friends worried for my safety.

An American NYU alumnus wrote to the NYU law dean (copied to me), saying he had the impression the dean was "not troubled by the kind of atmosphere" that I was "expected to endure" had I decided to teach at NYU.

Some NYU faculty, staff and students also sent supportive emails; a gay New Yorker apologised for the bullying tactics of certain activists who did not represent him.

Academic freedom dissipates in a hostile environment - by this I do not mean mere viewpoint disputation. Why prejudicially assume I would create "an unwelcoming atmosphere" in class, as opposed to politicking students or frosty faculty members?

Why assume I would not permit free discussion when it is "political correctness" which chills free debate? An email from a Harvard law graduate noted of this affair: "Things just got a little bit darker down at NYU.

-----------
Prof Thio,

"Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic." Very well said. You are a very capable, eloquent academic. Too bad I disagree with you about homosexuality.

The next time anyone says that homosexuality is "anti-family", please help us all tell them many gays can and do love their families a lot. Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic.

The next time anyone says gays are responsible for AIDS/HIV, please remind them the virus spreads because of promiscuity and unsafe sex, not because of a person's sexuality. Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic.

The next time someone equates supporting homosexuals as supporting incest, rape, infidelity, murder, animal sex, please help us all tell them those are wrongful, vulgar accusations. Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic.
Posted by: wugui1977 at Mon Jul 27 10:33:45 SGT 2009

Teach sex education in context of meaningful relationships

May 23, 2009

I READ with interest the reports on how sex education is needed to counter worrying trends and the approaches to be taken.

There is one important factor missing in all the discussions and that is the context in which sex happens - in a relationship.

Sex education is not just about teaching how sex takes place or when sexuality is aroused. Nor is it about accepting the barrage of emotions involved in exploring alternative lifestyles. These make up only one component of sex education.

The reason there's such a mess is because the programme should be entitled "Relationships", with sex, sexuality and so on as sub-topics. If sex education is taught in isolation, our children will never see the importance of abstinence or why precautions are to be taken when engaging in sex.

Relationships should be the anchor to sex and sex education should be taught in the context of a relationship and all its intricacies, such as self-esteem, values and beliefs.

First, a complete and wholesome view of what a balanced relationship should be must be shared so that children from various backgrounds understand the goal and aim of having a relationship. The choices of abstinence and the consequences of indulging in premarital sex should be shared and revealed.

Share what happens when abstinence is not practised and when relationships are not honoured. Provide our children with a reference point for a good and wise choice.

Whatever the choice is, it is ultimately their choice and they should enter these scenarios with their eyes wide open.

Don't advocate options like wearing a condom as a choice for premarital sex. Instead, educate them on what is premarital sex in the context of a relationship so that our children know why it is not encouraged.

If they do eventually engage in it, it is their personal choice but one where they are made fully aware of the consequences. They need to be ready to deal with the situation after that.

So, it's really not sex education that needs to be taught. It's the importance of being in a responsible adult relationship that needs to be shared.

We, as a society, need to be brave to stand up for what's right, to communicate clearly what's right and allow our children to make the choices themselves and subsequently handle the various consequences of their choices.

Karen Chew (Mrs)

[The problem with this letter and letter writer is the simple naivete and conservative "stick our head in the sand" approach. There are some assumptions that needs to be addressed.

Consider the alleged youngest father in UK, the 13 yr-old boy with the 15 yr old "girlfriend" who claimed that the boy was the father of her child. The boy seems to think that he is in a relationship.

The point is that up to the age of 19 and sometimes beyond, people often think they are in a relationship and often believe that the relationship they are in is the best and the most sincere.  And sex is often a consideration in the relationship, and so telling them that sex MUST happen in the context of a relationship merely transfers some weight to the relationship. Most teens engaging in sex believe that they are in a relationship. Some of course realise later or even understand beforehand that sex and relationship are not inseparable.

And herein lies the problem. If you tell kids what they know is not true, you lose credibility and then even when what you tell them is true, they won't believe you.

The "Sex must happen in a relationship" position is a value-laden statement that is not factually true. It is a teaching of values, yes, our conservative and prescribed value that we hope all our children will follow. But the reality is that not all of them will. Lots of people have sex outside of marriage and even outside of relationships and they give testimony that it is not only fine, it was great!

And here we go trying to hold the conservative line and it is not going to work. The kids will know you are feeding them a line.

They are curious and their hormonal changes drive them to immature and irresponsible acts. Telling them to be responsible and act matured is like trying to command the waves to stop crashing on the beach.

This is reverting to the old syllabus. It didn't work then. Why would it work now? And the vulnerable/stupid kids will continue to do stupid things advised by their stupid friends who tell them the wrong things that will get them into trouble.

Wouldn't it be better to give them the facts, tell them to talk to their parents, tell them what is fact and what is value, and tell them to respond to the situation in the most responsible way.

Or do conservatives believe that STD is God's punishment for premarital sex and condom use is thwarting God's natural punishment mechanism? Maybe we should teach that.]

On Sexual Orientation

An online comment from ST Forum.

Dear MOE,

The AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education (Trainer’s guide 2007) had been circulating in the internet, and based on its content, it does suggest a Pro Gay agenda which I will elaborate in detail in my following passage.

I do recall the main reason why the Penal Code Section 377A was not repeal based on the reasons I quote from MHA Official statement.
“Singaporeans are still a largely conservative society. The majority find homosexual behaviour offensive and unacceptable. Neither side is going to persuade or convince the other of their position. We should live and let live, and let the situation evolve, in tandem with the values of our society. This approach is a pragmatic one that maintains Singapore’s social cohesion…”

Therefore I find the Aware’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education “Pro Gay” approach in contrary with the Penal Code Section 377A as well as our largely conservative Singapore Society.

Why I view the Comprehensive Sexuality Education Pro Gay?
In page 14, item 2, the Guide states that our law does not recognize homosexuality and deems homosexual sexual activities as unnatural, however, it state quite clearly that homosexuality is perfectly normal. It did not mention like in the case of rape, statutory rape and carnal connection that homosexual acts could still be charge under S377A.

MHA official stand: “Police has not been pro-actively enforcing the provision and will continue to take this stance. But this does not mean that the section is purely symbolic and thus redundant. There have been convictions over the years involving cases where minors were exploited and abused or where male adults committed the offence in a public place such as a public toilet or back-lane.

Whilst homosexuals have a place in society and, in recent years, more social space, repealing section 377A will be very contentious and may send a wrong signal that Government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life.”

The Guide had also not shown why the homosexual lifestyle should not be encourage and endorse as part of our mainstream way of life or why the Government had made such a stand?

Based on the Government statistic on HIV new cases, the homosexual lifestyle is the highest risks lifestyle, see the facts for yourself:
In 2006, HOMOSEXUAL population size of LESS THAN 3% OF OUR TOTAL POPULATION HAD CONTRIBUTED TO 26.3% of the new HIV cases of our national figure! (Homosexual is 19 times most likely to cause new HIV case than general male who is not homosexual in 2006)

In 2007, HOMOSEXUAL population size of LESS THAN 3% OF OUR TOTAL POPULATION HAD CONTRIBUTED TO 30.8% of the new HIV cases of our national figure! (Homosexual is 22 times most likely to cause new HIV case than general male who is not homosexual in 2007.)

In the first six month of 2008, HOMOSEXUAL population size of LESS THAN 3% OF OUR TOTAL POPULATION HAD CONTRIBUTED TO 32% of the new HIV cases of our national figure!
Therefore Homosexual lifestyle is a high risk lifestyle and should not be encourage and endorse as part of our mainstream way of life!

In page 17, item 2 of the guide state that, “We do not know the causes of homosexuality or heterosexuality for that matter...” and further to emphasis that “Some scientific studies show people are born like this” period, without stating that there are also a number of scientific studies that show homosexual are not “inborn” as they claim to be and also some scientific studies had cast serious doubt on the earlier studies on homosexual been inborn!

One widely known study is the claim of ‘Gay gene” widely claimed by the gays based on Simons LeVay’s paper.

Extract on LeVay comment: He later added, "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. ... Since I look at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth or if they appeared later”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation

The Guide in Page 17, item 2 also state that “Since lesbian, gay and bisexual people are not ill or abnormal, they don’t need to “cured”?
May I ask Aware, based on what scientific concurrence among all the world’s scientific bodies do you arrive at this conclusion?
I do have scientific studies that prove that there are treatments that may be very sussessful and permanent if one’s is willing to take up, I have personnal witness two close homosexual friends change to lead a perfectly normal happy straight life with childrens of their own and having a wife.

For scientific studies on therapy, see below link;
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/Ch12.pdf

Extract:
Dr Robert Spitzer, a prime mover in the 1973 decision to remove Same-Sex-Attraction (SSA) from the Diagnostic Manuals as a mental illness which are often quote by gays that they are not abnormal or ill, had in fact change his mind after 30 years
After nearly 30 years later he interviewed 200 people who claimed they had change, and he concluded that real and extensive change had occurred in many cases. His studies publish in 2003.
A contrary study done by Karten in his doctoral project to show harm to some people particularly showing up in poorer self-image and suicidal thoughts, but including accounts of people who claimed they had been helped and had changed. His results were very similar to Spitzer’s studies in 2003.

Reference material/sites:
Aware’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education Trainer’s Guide (There are many other sites): http://inspirationfortoday.files.wor...ware-20073.pdf and
http://voicethread.com/#q.b468061.i0.k0
http://www.aware.org.sg/?p=1319&cat=

MHA Official statement regarding rejection to repeal S377A:
http://www.spf.gov.sg/faqs/police_pph.htm

Posted by: cutthecrap at Thu Apr 30 13:37:56 SGT 2009

[To quote Shakespeare: methinks he doth protest too much.

Three European Knights during the crusades were gathered around a campfire and talking about their motivation. The British Knight proclaimed, "We British Knights fight for Duty and Honour!" The French Knight scoffed, and said, "We French, we fight for Love."

Then the two of them looked to the third, the Swiss Knight, and asked, "I hear the Swiss fight for money.

The Swiss Knight said, "Perhaps we each fight for that we most lack."

I cannot understand why a heterosexual would spend so much time and effort compiling information to explain why homosexuality is wrong and heterosexuality is right.

We fight our personal demons. We fight for what we feel we lack most. If we are secure about our identity, we do not need to demarcate it so obviously. It is when we are not secure that we feel the need to fight harder to protect what we are losing.

I know that for me, I like women. If there are men out there who like other men, that means less competition for me. Perfectly fine for me.]