Leon Ryan is currently a law student in NUS.
Read more from Ryan at his blog Reasonably Foreseable.
Dear Sir,
I am a student who has been following the recent issues involving sexual education in schools, and have read the latest news of a suspension of all third party programs with no small concern. I would like to preface this letter with acknowledge that a temporary suspension at very least to reassess the vetting procedure is necessary, and that I no quarrel with the wisdom of the Ministry in taking that step. I pen this instead, with the future in mind and how the Ministry shall be moving forward.
It would be presumptuous for a mere student to make calls on educational policy, but as the final product of the entire education system, I believe that students too have valuable insights in this matter. Throughout my schooling years, I have been privileged to be taught by excellent teachers to whom I simply cannot thank enough, no matter how many Teacher’s Days may pass. Quite simply, I owe my teachers for having painted colour in my eyes. As many frustrated students can attest, in later parts of one’s education very often a teacher will merely say “there is no right answer” – a notion that is almost anathema to students so used to10 year series and assessment books. Looking back, I realise that rather than simply being difficult, my teachers were are that point making me realise that we do not live in a drab, black and white world of MCQ questions and answers. We live in a world of open ended essay questions, or vibrancy and colour and at times, of murky greyness.
Such colour is really the quintessence of a Liberal education. In these recent times, many people have misappropriated the term “Liberal” as one necessarily being subversive or championing certain views that are incompatible with our Asian values. Surely they have mistaken, for a Liberal education is not premised on rights or wrongs, but rather on an openness of approaches. Just as we cannot say that green is a better colour than red, neither can we say that fiscal economic policies are necessarily better than monetary economic policies. In school, we are taught that each has their short comings and may be appropriate in different areas, but we are never told (short of something being scientifically and factually wrong) that an approach is wrong. Our education system equips students nuanced and adaptable thinking skills, rather than a blunt blanket approach that is ill-equipped for the real world.
Sir, I mentioned above that our educational system has embraced life in all its vibrant colours as well as its greyness. We are now walking in such a area of greyness, where the answer is far from clear, and the pressure to get out of such an unclear position immense. I do not for once envy the Ministry’s position these weeks, in that it must be almost besieged by a flood of letters and complaints by concerned parents. No one can blame the distances a parent would go to for their child, but I write to urge sensibility on the part of the Ministry when considering the future of the sex education program in Singapore. The Ministry cannot bend to an outcry no matter how loud from parents who may, with the best intentions, assuming that they are representing the predominant view of Singaporeans.
More than numbers, the Ministry should not step down from controversial issues simply because of complaint as this sets the unwanted precedent that Ministry policies can be swayed by popular outcry. It may be sexual education today, but one can only speculate where such a trend will take us in the future. Any JC student will relate to GP issues such as abortion, euthanasia, terrorism or evolution. Will such topics also see their removal or censor on future protests from groups emboldened by their “victory” with sexual education? The slippery slopes slides both ways, and surely all the accusations levelled at those with a “gay-agenda” as eventually pushing for gay marriage, can similarly be levelled at religious groups. One need only looks to the American experience to see lobby groups pushing for Creationism, a concept with almost no scientific standing, to be taught in schools.
I thus urge the Ministry to take the case of sexual education on its merits, and not under the pressure of anyone. I have no doubt that the Ministry is already doing so, and write mainly to reinforce that there are people in the public who are concerned as to the future of a Liberal education in Singapore. On the facts of the issue, there are many fallacious claims being made right now, and all of them should be set aside when making educational policy. The idea for example, that a 3 hour course can alter a person’s sexuality is as conceivable as a GP module on terrorism making students into terrorist. Consider further the fact that the main complaint made of this course are 3-4 lines which take up 3-5 minutes out of 3 hours, and one should be cautious in believing them to be true.
Sir, I plea to the Ministry adhere to the same policy of an open and Liberal education as it has had in the past. I do so such that future generations of students can similar see the world in all its colour and diversity. There is no greater crime than to raise a generation who only sees in monochrome.
Yours sincerely,
Leon Ryan
7 May 2009
As a product of the Singaporean education system, I am fully supportive of the MOE’s suspension of the highly irresponsible position taken by AWARE in their stance towards sexual education. Moreover, it is absolutely nauseating that after being chided by the MOE, the response has been one of resistance to change and compromise with the MOE, who represents the interest of the majority of the singaporean students , their parents and families. As for Leon’s open letter, I am afraid to say that the majority of Singaporeans will not be able to grasp let alone understand the point Leon is trying to make.
I find it hard to believe Leon is a law undergraduate, and if he continues writing like that, I am afraid he may never graduate.
Callan Tham Reply:
May 16th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Mr Ang, have you actually gone through the CSE yourself? Do you know that all sexuality education programs by all external vendors have been suspended, and not only AWARE’s? And what “irresponsible position” has AWARE taken?
The only irresponsible position that is taken is the one by MOE. The suspension of sexuality education programs again mean that the students, who are the ones who benefit from the knowledge gleaned, have nowhere to turn to but the internet. While the information they can find are not easily verifiable, nor do they have the advantage of experienced trainers who will guide them in this potential minefield of confusion.
I do not believe MOE represent the interest of the majority of the Singaporean students, because if they do, then the suspension of the programs, which up until the suspension, have not received negative feedback from participants or their parents, is an action that goes against the practices of the scientific method, which is a cornerstone of a modern education and critical thinking.
An approach that advocates burying your head in the sand regarding any subject is detrimental to the development of our future minds and leaders. And this is where MOE, and where criticism aimed at the CSEs, especially from non-participants, have failed.
I also find your statement about the “majority of Singaporeans will not be able to grasp let alone understand the point” very interesting. Most Singaporeans are, as you said, a “product of the Singaporean education system”. Even myself. But if this majority is assumed to not understand Leon’s letter, then MOE has already failed generations of Singaporeans. That is a bigger issue than the CSEs, do you not think so?
As for your fear that “he may never graduate”, I think we can all rest assured that if Leon can write such a letter, he is more than adequately equipped to do well in his field of study. More interestingly, your comment seemed to indicate a deference to authority without questioning, almost like the MOE is dogma. I believe that to be yet another failure of the MOE and our society in failing to produce students who can critically and objectively assess different issues and scenarios, taking into account the context.
I will not assume that your mindset is what I can expect from the majority of Singaporeans. But if it is, then the education system has failed in its most fundamental requirements. This country deserves, and needs, better than that.
Leon, you are right in that what is actually taught by instructors is key. But short of a video or tape recording, we would not know what was the actual message imparted during these workshops … which might have been more than or less than what is in the Instructor Guide.
The only objective basis for evaluating AWARE’s CSE is their Instructor Guide. Take a look at it. Like MOE said, some suggested responses in the guide “convey messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex”.
You can read my critique of the CSE Instructor Guide at http://www.vtaide.com/blessing/AWARE-cse.htm
Callan Tham Reply:
May 17th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Alan, I’m of the view that the only useful assessment should come from those who have participated in the CSE. For the rest of us on the sidelines, though the IG has been leaked, the contents are subject to individual interpretation and more often than not suffer from bias.
For example, you ask in your article why anal sex is categorised as “neutral”, when in your opinion it should not be neutral. I read it as “non-judgmental towards anal sex”. You also mentioned teenagers “tend to try novel experiences without considering the consequences of their actions”; however this remains true with or without the CSE.
Those are just two items I have issues with in the article. I applaud your efforts at assessing the CSE IG objectively, but there are indications that a bias is already in play. I also did not notice any mention of the positive portions of the CSE, such as the role-playing exercise teaching the students to say no to sex.
Unless you are asserting that the CSE is designed wrongly from the ground up, and is completely wrong, not assessing the positive is not an objective assessment.
Embarrassingly I only found out where this was published when a friend linked it to me.
To Mr Ang:
If indeed the majority of Singaporeans are wholly unable to understand that my letter is one which addresses the importance of a liberal education, then I think we as a nation face a lot more problems than a CSE that is making some parents worried. We are all products of the same educational system, and that we can have such divergent views in itself speaks of how successful our education system is in the promotion of academic freedom. This is what needs to be preserved and not sacrificed on the altar of a “silent majority” who may indeed by more riled up by recent events than actually having serious issue with what is being taught in the CSE.
To Mr Wong:
The concerns of parents are natural, given that they are worried for their children. However, we cannot make this parent child relationship as an excuse for unsubstantiated accusations to be made. There has been alot of noise in the past month of this CSE promoting lesbianism, encouraging homosexuality and undermining the (assumed) conservative nature of our society (an assumption that I personally find increasinly difficult to accept given how we have sex shops along Orchard road in plain view, but this would be another issue). Objectively reading the CSE, none of that can be proven. A position of neutrality is not one of endorsement. Sticking to the CSE and instructor will at most spend 30 minutes on the parts people find offensive, before moving on. So if any allegations of homosexual “indoctrination” are being made, a lot more evidence is going to be needed. Even with parents being worried for their children, there is no excuse to assume guilt on part of the AWARE CSE.
More in relation to my letter, you’re clearly a christian, and should be aware of various christian groups such as Family First also having their own sexuality programs within national schools. No one takes offense to that. Why then does AWARE’s CSE receive different treatment? Surely a liberal education (and by education, we are not limited to merely books here) should encompass both views. Why would it be so difficult to have 2 different sexuality workshop programs?
Nowhere in my critique did I say that AWARE has an agenda of homosexual indoctrination though I did say that anal sex as the first on the list of terms to be explained in their Instructor Guide does not help in the speculation. Yes, I agreed with you that a lot more evidence (beyond the Instructor Guide) is going to be needed to prove the allegation.
But the issue with AWARE’s CSE goes beyond their stand on homosexuality to premarital sex. Like MOE said, some suggested responses in the guide “convey messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex”.
You said, “Sticking to the CSE and instructor will at most spend 30 minutes on the parts people find offensive, before moving on.” But that is where problems can arise because insufficient time is devoted to them. When statements are made but not carefully explained, elaborated and cautioned to different groups in the target audience then these statements may become dangerous “explosives” in the minds of teenagers.
You said, “Even with parents being worried for their children, there is no excuse to assume guilt on part of the AWARE CSE.” I do not assign guilt to AWARE CSE but I must ask, “Have the content developers (and auditors) of the Instructor Guide considered the likely impact of their statements on different groups of teens – those who had sex, those having sex and those who have not had sex?”
SEXUALITY EDUCATION is not on my plate anyway. However, I am still interested in it. But I believe by now after AWARE SAGA we all are awakened & begin to mindful/aware of the importance of this sensitive issue in our today Singapore society afterall we are still attached with Asian Culturally Value. I do not know how wide or far can we open up in our education system. But one thing I am sure about it is we must be open sincere & effective with transparency for an appropriate approach or attitude rather a once for all solution. And we have to send the right signal to the mass population at large! I am sure with the proper study/investgation by MOE, things will clear up soon. AWARE involved in it as an association is only minor activity of all WOMEN in Singapore. I am not sure but I am just wondering whether any of our volunteer/charity bodies (by now I know only AWARE is one of it) in Singapore either private, government or semi-government had actually sat back & engaged quietly & thoroughly with those sexual “minorities” concerns to study/research/work out medically or scientifically something because I feel they are the roots/causes/pains/victims of the whole issues & it is only logical to find the cure through them themselves by counselling programmes etc. My opinion, if it is only the words or sentences in the texts or practical instruction is NOT appropriately enough being used then by all means just ‘refine’ or ‘adjust’ them!
To David Leong …
You said, “My opinion, if it is only the words or sentences in the texts or practical instruction is NOT appropriately enough being used then by all means just ‘refine’ or ‘adjust’ them!”
I say, “The ball is in AWARE’s court plus the issue of trust from schools and parents.”
DavidLeong Reply:
May 20th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Hahaha, Mr Alan S.L. Wong, I thiink the ball is yet to be played so far as I know! The play-ball had been suspended by MOE lately perhaps due to poor weather or something else! It is only my guess & more so I am not clear about the full picture what had been teaching in the school about sexuality education programmes? Isn’t it still under MOE investgation because of recent public or parents complaints? Let us wait & see what’s the outcome! You may be partially right as far as the trust from school & parents. Thank you for ur kind response!
Now the ball is in AWARE’s court …
Read Dr Ng Eng Hen’s Speech at http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2009/05/21/remarks-by-dr-ng-eng-hen-on-se.php
Is that so, Mr Wong? Well, I don’t think it had been any ball-game at all due to bad weather. All Singaporeans need improvement in overall SEX education inclusive myself as grandpa now. It is clearly that even the Master of Education need revision to adapt the circumstance & situation at large. Dana Lam has in fact wisely responsed to MOE right on the spot. Let us ALL move on in life.