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.]

Comment on the Sex Education in Schools

 Comment by: clearingsmoke
Yesterday, 11:58 PM
8% sexually active, why must teach wholesale to the whole cohort? Those at risk of experimenting can opt in, why expect the majority to opt out?

Even Minister Ng thinks this is still an AWARE and some christians catfight, we are doomed! Can someone please acknowledge the rest of Singapore exists?
-----------
Of course clearingsmoke thinks that the 8% does not include his/her children. So apparently 8% of parents will spontaneously decide that their children are probably the ones at risk and decide to opt for their children to attend sex education.

That is soooo going to happen.

But clearingsmoke is one of those people who will never acknowledge that there is a responsibility and it is not being discharged responsibly.

Sex education is the responsibility of parents. If not them, then who?

If parents properly educate their children on sexuality and sexual mores, they need not worry about what wrong things their children are hearing from other children or even other adults.

But because parents don't schools have stepped in. because the alternative is children teaching children about sex. Or worse, sexual predators teaching your children about sex.

AWARE, The Straits Times exposed!‏

from
http://wayangparty.com/?p=8714

May 1, 2009 by admin
Filed under Daily Musings

By Yeo Toon Joo, Peter, who ceased to be a newspaperman when he found none left


The inordinately extensive and daily coverage of the AWARE leadership tussle exposes and underscores the provincialism of Singapore’s press, the Straits Times in particular.

Any thinking person, with a modicum of appreciation of what constitutes news, must marvel over the MSM’s (mainstream media) ability to ignore the real issues of the day in Singapore while focusing so much of its might on what was primarily a parochial affair.

Instead of enlightening Singaporeans on the pressing issues confronting us – events that beg many questions and offer much scope for enquiry – our national press chooses to rivet readers’ attention through a daily barrage of reporting on the dispute of a marginal organization, till recently, of no more than 100 or 200 feminists.

Has the subservient MSM lost its way, just as AWARE allegedly had lost its own focus and objective?

It is incredible that the full strength of the MSM’s reporting staff had failed so remarkably to ferret out the real issue of the leadership coup – until spoon-fed by the protagonist.

In the not too distant days of yore, one of my rookie reporters would surely have enlightened us, and quite early on, too.

The Straits Times’s willingness to manipulate, or be manipulated (wittingly so) by minority interest groups, is so clear for all to see: any image consultant worth his salt will promptly point out how the ST’s photo/news editor had deliberately selected for publication the most frumpy photos of the new committee while editing so dramatically the most flattering portraits of the old, ousted committee members.

Sure, concern over AWARE’s alleged espousal of the cause of lesbianism and homosexuality was at the crux of the crisis. But this is no longer the hot issue of the day.

Aren’t there other pressing national issues worth examining? Is Singapore so boring that a storm in a teacup should excite the brains of its handpicked leaders? Should the people who wield the mighty pen (in our newspaper offices) engage in such peevishness? And be so actively stoking it up into a national controversy?

If our national press is truly unable to focus on what concern more Singaporeans than what used to engage a handful of AWARE feminists, may I suggest that it thinks about real national issues and cease its tomfoolery. May I offer some news gathering tips to our wayward press:

· Stop conducting yourself like a mosquito press while holding – by default only – the mantle of a national daily

· Be serious and desist from propagating a modern version of yellow culture in your pages or so-called Life-style sections (“Bollywood’s newest hotties”! My foot! Only good upbringing constrain me from a rude retort; MITA whither art thou?)

· Stop flaunting semi-nude bodies in your life-style pages or flashing regularly the bust lines of dumb broads, and exalting the careers of those engaged in promoting the bacchanalian life styles of geeks and Zouks

· Desist from playing up the prating of some misguided, immature, amorous young reporter who boasts about squeezing some exposed part of a film or rock star (such a confession should, in a court of law, rightly result in a charge of criminal molestation)

· Tell us about the vast disparity of incomes in our so-called 1st World economic miracle and how suffering Singaporeans are coping with the recession

· Instead of giving him scant attention, tell us more and truthfully about Kenneth Jeyaretnam, JBJ’s second son and his dream for the Reform Party. What about his brother Philip?

· Tell us also about the millions being frittered away everyday to finance the myriad failed bio-tech start-ups, and round it up with a balance sheet of Singapore’s successes-failures in this field – and what prospect the future holds

· Tell us something about how our Ah Bengs and Ah Lians are coping in this new world order and with unemployment, or do they not exist?

· Explain how that Singapore family could lose its 5-room HDB flat, and fall through the cracks of MCDYS’s social benefits safety net to spend the past year cadging for food and sleeping on park benches

· If the Straits Times press could devote a full page to profiling China’s five rising stars, why do our leaders in Temasek remain anonymous? Can’t get an interview with them? Surely!

· How will Singapore hope to recover some of its lost national wealth in the world’s economic downturn?

· If even a Warren Buffett could be caught out by the economic downturn and make some massive investment mistakes why is blogosphere so unkind to and unreasonable with Ho Ching?

· If Singapore could throw up a Ho Ching, a truly remarkable woman, why are so few women in parliament and just one has become a full fledge cabinet minister? (This is one issue the old AWARE could have shown some gumption in pursuing)

· Tell us how are our million guest workers, especially the lower-skilled ones, coping with Singapore’s recession and what is their likely fate; this study could also include the sub-standard living conditions of these people, the prostitute camps that used to spring up overnight around their dormitories, and their exploitation by hard-pressed and ruthless employers

· We read that, together with the 1.8k workers whose contracts were terminated prematurely, total redundancy in Singapore increased to a record 12.6k in 1Q09. Obviously, poor people do not exist in the MSM’s world; everyone seems to be happily employed only in media and marketing, if not in the press

· Tells us also what it means to our society to have a trade volume that is three times our GDP; does this not affect our values?

· Throw the spotlight on our local banks, e.g. how did the still independent OCBC and UOB manage to escape being caught more deeply in CDOs and toxic assets of other banks?

· How is Wee Cho Yaw planning his leadership renewal and how he built up his father’s little bank into the behemoth it is today without a foreigner at the helm, while OCBC still struggles to raise its profile, and why DBS with all its patronage is not faring so well

· Stop publishing all the incredible ‘feel good’ stories that we read daily, e.g. how our displaced unemployed workers are merrily engaging in community work, how Mr Mohd Zainuddin is happily adapting to a lowly paid job (1/3 what he used to earn) and is so optimistically looking forward to promotion in his new found position, and signing for self-improvement marketing courses in his late middle-age

· And, if you are truly interested in why and how people become homosexual, conduct a real examination of this subject. Give us, in a non-partisan and objective manner, an intelligent digest of the question. So many people, including even senior cabinet ministers, still labour under much misunderstanding of this subject. Apparently, too, even our Minister Iswaran (Education) and the Ministry’s director of education programmes have not read the old AWARE’s manual on sex education before issuing a defence on the issue a few days ago.

The ideas thrown up above are quick from-the-hip suggestions that any news editor worth three-quarters his salt would suggest on a daily basis, even hourly if need be. That’s because, unlike now, the journalists of old used to be trained, sensitive, experienced and fiercely jealous of their independence. We were not automatons who had to wait for cues from news editors who reside outside the newsroom.

I know Saturday’s EGM at AWARE will throw up more morsels for the MSM to continue its feeding frenzy. If it is true that the newspapers of a country reflect the caliber and depth of a society’s intellect, then the MSM does Singaporeans much injustice.

[There are two charges Yeo makes against The Straits Times.

1) The Straits Times (and other mainstream media in Singapore) is a parochial newspaper (in the case of other MSM, news agencies) that writes up insignificant fluff and passes it off as news; and 

2) The AWARE situation is largely the domestic affairs of a marginal organisation with little impact or relevance beyond the gay issue and sex education.

Taking the first point, Yeo charges that the Straits Times shouldn't be presenting fluff like "Bollywood Hotties" and "semi-nude bodies in [the] life-style pages" (Perhaps Yeo thinks these should be on Page 3 as is traditional?)

His remedy is that MSM should focus on real news with real issues of the day affecting Singapore and Singaporeans. In other words, this AWARE business is just "petty politics". (Now, who else characterised this sad affair as "petty politics"? I guess Yeo concurs with him.)

Well, Yeo (and the powers that be) are free to characterised this issue as "petty politics" or fluff, or not "real issues of the day". The fact is that there is a variety of issues that interests and affect people. There are days when the front page news do not grab my attention. There are sections of the papers that I never bother to read (soccer news for example). Certainly, sports news, horse racing information, and lottery results are not issues of the day. But they are in the papers, and people do want to read them.

So is the Straits Times supposed to be some elite newspaper intended for the well-read, well-informed, serious policy maker and policy commentator? Or is it intended to be a mainstream broadsheet with something for the whole family? Then it has to cater to all these interests, and that means bread and butter issues, jobs, employment, the economy and economic outlook and government policies - all the important issues of the day, as well as sports news, entertainment news, lifestyle, food, fads, health and so on. And yes, Bollywood Hotties too.

The ST has done rather well in continuing to be profitable, maintaining and even increasing it's readership in a era of falling readership worldwide for print media. That means that it has managed to stay relevant and hold the interests of its readers. And if Yeo thinks that the ST is parochial, he should check out newspapers in countries such as Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia and many other countries. Even some of the "international" papers in the US, is more US-centric, than truly international. Because of Singapore's position in global trade, I would argue that the ST is in fact one of the more "globalised" in perspective.

Which brings us to the second charge: that the whole AWARE issue was fluff. There is nothing wrong with fluff, but does it deserve pages and pages of newsprint? Yeo is of course entitled to his opinion as to the relevance and importance of the AWARE issue. He can remain convinced that it is nothing more than a storm in a teacup over some gay issues and the syllabus of some sex education programme.

But based on the interest and arguments raised on the internet, I put it that his opinion is not shared by many others. The discussion, arguments, criticisms, and posts on the matter extends beyond the explicit bone of contention (sex/gay education) to what netizens identified as the expansion of the religious realm and an encroachment into the secular common space. It has become an public discourse (a rowdy and passionate discourse!) on the role of religion and what is secular common space, and the expression of religious values in secular terms.

In other words, netizens and the ST recognised that the crux of the matter was not simply a debate about sex education and family values, but about how religious values relates to civil society organisations. Concerned parties recognised that the strategy of the insurgents was tantamount to an attack with no interest in discussion or debate.

The ST may have been tipped off to this story by their contacts in AWARE, but the other factor that weighed in as newsworthy was the amount of cyber-chatter on the issue. If the ST had ignored the new media, then wouldn't they be guilty of selective blindness or traditional media snobbery?

So, no. The ST is probably one of the least parochial papers in the region. And no, the AWARE story was not just a petty politics story about a marginal feminist organisation.]

Consider reducing entry and exit points to check swine flu

May 1, 2009

I REFER to yesterday's report, 'Singapore geared up to fight swine flu'.

The Health Ministry's first press conference on Wednesday was indeed an eye opener for many of us in understanding how insidious this disease can be.

I applaud the Government for its proactive preparedness.

As the World Health Organisation has raised this flu alert to phase five out of six, which means a pandemic is imminent, I strongly suggest that all vessels coming from Mexico to our ports be quarantined and crew and passengers be allowed onshore only after the quarantine period.

In addition, the authorities should consider measures such as reducing the number of human exit and entry points, and introducing thermal scans at strategic land checkpoints.

This flu outbreak will be a long drawn-out affair. Therefore, the authorities should get the cooperation of the shipping community and its agents to fight and contain this highly contagious disease.

Raymond Lo

[Why only ports and land checkpoints? What about airports? With an incubation period of a few days to over a week, any crewman on a ship would have symptoms by the time the ship from Mexico docks in Singapore. The sea journey would already be the quarantine period. What have you got against the shipping industry?

And why reduce entry points at land checkpoints? That would just concentrate all the entries to a few points.  How would that help? If in fact one of the traveller were infected, concentrating all the other travellers with that one infected person would increase the potential infection.

A quarantine would only be necessary for air travellers who have visited countries with flu cases. The same applies to land checkpoints but assuming M'sia also has a quarantine for the same, a second quarantine would only be necessary if M'sia has confirmed flu cases as well.

All in thank you for panicking and your stupid suggestions. ]