5/11/2009

What are MOE's and Aware's positions?

The MOE had investigated and had banned the Aware CSE programme for the time being and is reviewing the contents from all the service providers of these programmes. MOE has also made its stand clear, that it follows the govt's policies of promoting healthy lifestyle with the family as the basic building block of our society. What the MOE needs to do is to clarify how the CSE programme was given the go ahead to be taught to school children. Was it an oversight or was it approved initially as acceptable until parents complained? As an oversight, it can be corrected by doing more due diligence. What is worrisome is that MOE could actually support such contents. Parents need an assurance that it is not. And MOE owes the parents who don't approved of the undesirable contents an explanation on how it came about. What is the true position of MOE on this? Similarly, Aware needs to publicise its position on the teaching of such material to school children. The Aware's content promotes homosexuality, anal sex and pre marital sex as normal. Is sodomy normal? Would Aware clarify where it stands on these issues? Is it for, against or neutral?

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Redbean:

You deserve my respect for your stand on the CSE. And You have rightly ask for MOE and AWARE to clarify on the Matter.

May i say here that if MOE and AWARE are concern and involved in teaching/guiding our students/people on sexuality matters, they have to and must connect sexual unions with the sanctity of marriage.

Historically, traditionally and EMPIRICALLY, marriages(union of the sexes) are sanctified, solemn and ceremonious affairs, in every culture everywhere in the World.
There WERE no civilization that sanctions and condones same gender marriage.

Virginity, which was and is still very much valued, has been one very important even vital requirement by many cultures in marriages. Now, this has becomes debatable as sexual activities are no more as rigidly control as in the past by family, society and government.

Union of the Sexes are consequential to the wholesomeness of any society, so much so that all marriages have some forms of rituals and records to register them, mostly at state level and in tribal communities. The families and tribes of both the couple are also likely to have agreements of sort.

The socio implications of marriages and sexual activities in relation to the society is inextricable and complex. The individual culture exacts very stringent conditions on marriages too, such is the seriousness of the human sexual exploits.

Like Redbean, i too would like to call upon the Authority and AWARE to sincerely look into the Comprehensive Sex Education in Singapore.

patriot

Matilah_Singapura said...

Therein lies another fault in the politicised education system. The govt gets to pursue its social engineering, and so it gets the approval of the non-thinking faith-based 'conservative' majority, who expect the public schools to perform the duty of de facto 'amahs' to look after their children. This being necessary so that the selfish parents can go and pursue their empty career goals and continue to play the 'keepin up with the Joneses' game.

What patriot needs to realise:

> There WERE no civilization that sanctions and condones same gender marriage. < There used to be a time when marriage itself was not under the purview of the govt, but left alone to communal institutions.

> May i say here that if MOE and AWARE are concern and involved in teaching/guiding our students/people on sexuality matters, they have to and must connect sexual unions with the sanctity of marriage. < The concept of sex conducted in the sanctity of marriage is a faulty assertion based on religious dogma.

Level-headed individuals with few hangups — sexual or otherwise — already know FOR CERTAIN that FUCKING for sheer fun and personal pleasure is not 'wrong' or 'evil'. In fact, it is not only natural but healthy.The government's stance on homosexuality in particular and human sexuality in general is patently biased and bigoted. This mode of thinking has no place in a modern society supposedly based on rational thought (as opposed to faith) — although the reality is unfortunate that it does.

Jaunty Jabber said...

Hi Matilah,

What is your take of extra-marital sexual relationship? How about a 3rd party intruding into someone's relationship with sexual offers? To me, it is pleasure seeking for the doer of the above, but there are ill effects and damages to the relationship and the suffering party.

Jaunty Jabber said...

Since AWARE sounds like an expert in sexual issues, that it has digress to extensive coverage on sexual issue, it has exceeded to be just advocating for women's rights and well-being, they are becoming like a sex specialist who are familiar and well-versed with heterosexual and homosexual. In this case, should it change to a more appropriate name?

As a straight adult, I wish to know if a bi-sexual person is considered to be having extra-ordinary appetite/greed for sex since they are interested and have desires for both sexes?

Anonymous said...

Recalled seeing in news that MP Iswaran was quoted then as saying that programmes were in line with guidelines and no parents had complained. Days later, and news had it that programmes are now suspended. Perhaps, more parents had complained?

Jaunty Jabber said...

Why must AWARE that is supposed to help woman become so specialized and focus on sexual issues? Why Sex?

Anonymous said...

Dear Jaunty:

i must say that AWARE is entitle to involve itself with sexual matters as much as anyone else.

Though it plays just a complementary role in our society, our ladyfolks are more prone to sex exploitations and more importantly they are impacted more. They carry babies in their wombs and most if not all care for the youngs they give birth to.

They certainly are entitled and deserve to be heard on all matters related to their wellbeings.

patriot

Matilah_Singapura said...

Jaunty:

> What is your take of extra-marital sexual relationship? As long as it is voluntary, consensual adult behaviour, no problem.

A marriage is many things, but essentially it is founded on contract — i.e. voluntary agreement on relational and inter-personal issues — money, sickness, family sexual relationships — i.e. whether or not the marriage is 'open' or otherwise, the nature of trust and respect is in the relationship and so on. It is up to the two individuals who voluntarily engage in the contract of marriage to work out.

No one should attempt to get married unless issues are discussed. Unfortunately too many people do. Knowing that you can form your own opinions and act accordingly.

>How about a 3rd party intruding into someone's relationship with sexual offers? You can always politely decline an offer. Thus the word "intrusion" might not be applicable. You have the freedom to cease being polite at anytime, and assert yourself aggressively should the other party get pushy or unreasonable.

Another way is to directly tell your partner that someone has made inappropriate advances toward you, and deal with the issue together.

> I wish to know if a bi-sexual person is considered to be having extra-ordinary appetite/greed for sex since they are interested and have desires for both sexes? I would say any judgment from the observing 3rd party would purely be arbitrary, subjective and possibly relative — i.e. there is no absolute answer.

No one IMO can define what an "ordinary appetite" for sex might be.

Matilah_Singapura said...

> Why Sex? < Because sex is the human race's biggest hangup. We can thank religion for that.

Also look how sex and love is portrayed in films, TV and books. Completely UN-realistic. The net is full of porn — mostly unrealistic portrayal of sex. But at least the porn-mongers are more honest than religion or the government: the porn-sellers admit clearly that what they're selling is FANTASY.

The government and the religious bodies on the other hand claim that they are telling you the truth, and you ought to OBEY without question.

Jaunty Jabber said...

Thank you Folks, for all of your sharing. I find many of your opinion enlightening, please continue to share your knowledge and analysis with me, with all the readers who are fortunate enough to discover this blog.

Let me digest all that you have discussed here, I may come back with many more questions :p

Jaunty Jabber said...

Oops I forgot to clarify earlier on, let me do it now.....

In case Matilah has mistaken that my question on 3rd party as a intruder to a relationship is because Jaunty is one foot in someone else' relationship -> No No & nah nah, Ha, I am not in any case a 3rd party. I am just seeking opinion from the guys on your idea of a woman if she deliberately made a choice to become a 3rd party. You can say you have no comment, accepted.

Jaunty Jabber said...

AWARE is set up with woman's welfare & well-being in mind, in , recent years it is overly active in sexual issues and the other more complicated sexuality issues - Why the divergent of focus?

Sex & sexuality topics are more emphasized on and has wider spread in view of its delivery to various schools, if AWARE teach sex to >500 students per school every year, it would interpret to a very extensively reach. In such a way, sex topics have overtaken all other woman’s issues in AWARE.

Maybe the media played it up by zooming in & out too much and uses SEX & AWARE side by side as headlines lately. But we too are interested to know if AWARE has side tracked too much onto sex topics and had a reduced focus on main issues relating solely to woman.

Would like to question How much time & effort has AWARE spent so far to research on sex issues and to construct the sexual curriculum.

Would be good to know how much is spent on sex related study in compared to what was spent to work on woman’s issues. The $ number should be able to paint some picture to see if the diversion is way too much.

Alan S.L. Wong said...

This is my position on AWARE's CSE - http://www.vtaide.com/blessing/AWARE-cse.htm

redbean said...

thanks Alan, for the comprehensive write ups. i find your comments very fair and well reasoned.

Jaunty Jabber said...

Hi Alan,

I agree with Redbean that your write-ups about CSE is a very good analysis and enlightening.

On the net, many supporters of the AWARE Constance's exco team are screaming in defence by extracting and interpreting the CSE content and Instructor's Guide in some skewed ways.

If Alan has no objection, I would like to push the link: "http://www.vtaide.com/blessing/AWARE-cse.htm" to some of the online panels which I reckoned that it should be beneficial if receive the good sense from Alan's analysis on CSE.

Matilah_Singapura said...

> In case Matilah has mistaken [...] < I never made that assumption. I simply chose to use the "you"pronoun because it's easier to write, less awkward and more conversational than the clumsy impersonal word: "one"

Alan S.L. Wong said...

Jaunty Jabber, go ahead and post the link: "http://www.vtaide.com/blessing/AWARE-cse.htm" to some of the online panels.

Jaunty Jabber said...

Hi Alan

Thanks, your write up is useful to enlighten some people who have yet "see through" the CSE content & IG of AWARE.

I see that you have posted the link of your write up to The Singapore Enquirer site, good move. Your write up is deserving of wider spread and I am going to do just that.

Jaunty Jabber said...

Hi Matilah.

Good good, your "you" is not referring to me. Ha, agree that using you is easier to write and read, just that when it is a reply specifically answering to another party, the "you" sounds really "very you" (me). LOL

Matilah_Singapura said...

Ref: http://www.vtaide.com/blessing/AWARE-cse.htm

I would not like my child learning about sexuality through AWARE's CSE system.

This a nightmare waiting to happen. Parents: you people had better wake the fuck up, and take charge of your families. Teach your children about life and how to live and love well. If you leave it to the govt or to some western-liberal moral-relativist gang like AWARE, you are not being good parents.

redbean said...

wow matilah is finally taking a moral stand on the upbringing of children.

the parents are all sleeping to let Aware decide what is best to tell their children. they only have themselves to blame and their children a price to pay.

Matilah_Singapura said...

No, not a moral stand.I'm simply taking a RATIONAL stand.

Like it or not, the parents/guardians ARE the primary 'authority' in a kids life.

Parents — with all the failings and imperfections of a human — are the only ones with the SOLE RIGHT to determine how and what their children are taught (as long as they do not physically or emotionally abuse the kid)