As published:

I READ with great concern the Ministry of Education’s statement regarding the suspension of Aware’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme.

The programme was based on material put together by leading international academics, health workers and medical experts working with the International Women’s Health Coalition. As such, it is a document reflecting some of the most recent research on women’s health, reproductive and gender issues worldwide. Singaporean counsellors, social workers, law enforcement officers, parents and teachers have attested to the value and importance of Aware’s programme for our youth today.

The suspension of the programme is a step in the wrong direction and sends a message that as a society, we are not prepared to stand up for the facts as established by authoritative medical and social work groups when social pressure is strong. Surely, this is not the signal we want to send, both to groups in Singapore and also to the international community to which Singapore belongs.

Alexandra Serrenti (Ms)

Original (reproduced with permission):

Is the Ministry of Education now defending prejudice over informed medical opinion?

I read with great concern the press release by the Ministry of Education over the suspension of AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme.

AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme was based upon material put together by leading international academics, health workers and medical experts working with the International Women’s Health Coalition. As such, it is a document reflecting some of the most recent research on women’s health, reproductive and gender issues worldwide. As those individuals who attended Saturday’s EGM will know, Singaporean counsellors, social workers, law enforcement officers, parents and teachers have attested to the value and importance of AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme for our youth today.

The Government of Singapore and the Ministry of Education have garnered much credibility internationally because of their respect for expert testimony on medical, health and pedagogic issues. We are internationally respected because of our fearless determination to build an education system that is based on and supported by good research and by informed expert opinion.

In this respect, I am deeply disappointed to hear of the Ministry’s decision to suspend support for AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education programme on account of the protests of persons who have NOT attended any of AWARE’s CSE programme sessions. Public sentiment has been whipped up by a group of women (Dr Thio Siew Mien and the deposed Exco of AWARE) who have been shown to have no medical or social work expertise — and precious little impartiality when it comes matters of sexuality and sexuality education.

That the Ministry of Education should have suspended AWARE’s well-respected programme on these grounds is a step in the wrong direction and sends a message that as a society, we are not prepared to stand up for the facts as established by authoritative medical and social work groups if social pressure is strong enough. Surely, this is not the signal we want to send, both to groups within Singapore, and also to the international community to which Singapore belongs.

Alexandra Serrenti

More: Robust Rebuttal From Conservative Singgies

Related:

• April 24, 2009 -- ST Forum: Will programmes continue to be neutral?
• April 29, 2009 -- ST Forum: No complaints from parents, Dr Thio – MOE
• April 28, 2009 -- ST Forum: Restore reason, civility to debate – Constance Singam
• April 25, 2009 -- ST Forum: Leaders’ acts reveal exclusionary stance
• April 25, 2009 -- ST Forum: Silver lining in Saga – Tania Chew

I was therefore deeply disturbed to learn of the events at AWARE’s AGM in which there appeared to have been a concerted attempt at hijacking an organisation that has worked consistently and quietly in Singapore to protect and promote the interests of women. What is particularly objectionable is the lack of transparency of the new office bearers concerning their alternative vision for Singapore’s oldest women’s group. What is it about their new vision which is so threatening that they feel they are unable to communicate it publicly? If, on the other hand, as they say, they are not communicating their position because they are new office bearers and have not as yet gained an understanding of the organisation, then questions need to be raised concerning their suitability for office as it suggests that they are ill-prepared and ill- qualified to lead this organisation. This is especially true when you consider the wealth of experience and talent already existing in AWARE, from whom office-bearers could be drawn. The secrecy which has shrouded the new executive committee and also the manner in which the new leadership has come to power has left significant doubt in the minds of concerned observers as to their integrity, honour and good intentions.

The press has pointed to the religious affiliations of many members of the new Executive Committee of AWARE. I respect the rights of all persons to commit themselves to lives of conscience. However, the appropriate exercise of a life of conscience in civic society is to form one’s own religiously- based advocacy group and to be clear about the fact that those religious values are the values that animate its services. It is neither necessary nor appropriate for such a group to engineer a take-over of an organisation with a clearly secular pedigree and in the process, disenfranchise and marginalise a group of women who have worked tremendously hard to be heard and taken seriously. The composition of the new executive committee is hardly representative of Singapore’s multi-religious, multi-racial heritage.

I wish to place on record, as a professional ethicist and philosopher, my deep reservations concerning the future impartiality and professionalism of AWARE’s counselling and social education programmes in light of the religious affiliations of most of the members of the new Executive Committee. This is a point of particular concern given the fact that AWARE’s counselling services are often the last resort for many women at risk who deserve our special protection and care. In particular, the religious affiliations of the executive committee appear to be such that they are unlikely to endorse the following:

a) that victims of familial abuse be given advice and support to leave their families and spouses where necessary if it is determined that they are at risk, given the “pro-family” stance of the executive committee.

b) that rape victims be given access and support to all options during their counselling sessions, including advice on abortion, given the “anti-abortion” stance of the religious organisations many of these women belong to.

c) that sexual education programmes will include information about the use of contraceptives in the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, given the “pro-abstinence” positions of the religious organisations many of these women belong to.

d) that homosexual women seeking advice and help be supported in their struggles to come to terms with their identities in a supportive environment since it is clearly documented in previous letters to the press that members of the executive committee believe homosexuals are psychologically disturbed — a position that is clearly and unequivocally at odds to the official positions of numerous professional bodies of psychiatrists and psychologists, including the American Psychiatric Association (APA),
American Psychological Association, The Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK, The World Heath Organisation, the Chinese Psychiatric Association amongst others.

I would be significantly reassured by the executive committee if they were to state unequivocally for the public record:

a) their exact positions on the points raised above pertaining to the social service programmes of AWARE so that clients may be better informed of the ethos and principles which govern the counselling they will be provided and may choose to go elsewhere if they do not agree that vision.

b) offer an assurance of non-interference in the professionalism, independence and impartiality of their counsellors to provide advice with courage and concern only for the welfare of the clients who seek them out.

This is not an issue of religious versus secular life, or of endorsement or condemnation of homosexuality, or of being anti or pro-abortion. It is an issue about transparency and honesty in the provision of social services and leadership so that women can make informed choices about the sorts of organisations they want to support and to have support them. Transparency and honesty, however, have been sadly lacking in the new executive committee of AWARE.

I commend The Straits Times for highlighting the recent developments in Aware. In the light of the religious affiliations of most members of the new executive committee (exco), I seek answers on the future impartiality and professionalism of Aware’s programmes.

Aware’s counselling services are often the last resort for many women at risk who need special protection and care.

Some of my concerns are these:

• Will victims of family abuse be given advice and support to leave their families and spouses if it is determined that they are at risk, given the ‘pro-family’ stance of the new exco?
• Will rape victims be given access to all options during counselling sessions, including advice on abortion, given the ‘anti-abortion’ stance of the religious organisations to which many of the new exco members belong?
• Will sex education programmes include information about the use of contraceptives in the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, given the ‘pro-abstinence’ positions of most members of the new exco?
• Will homosexual women seeking advice and help be supported in their struggle to come to terms with their identity in a supportive environment?

I shall be much reassured if the new exco members:

• State publicly their exact positions on these points pertaining to Aware’s social service programmes; and
• Give an assurance of non-interference in the professionalism and impartiality of Aware’s counsellors to provide advice that focuses exclusively on the welfare of clients who seek them out.

I seek such answers because the tussle is not an issue of religious versus secular life, or of endorsement or condemnation of homosexuality, or of being anti- or pro-abortion.

It is about transparency and honesty in providing social services and leadership so women can make informed choices about the type of organisation they wish to support and have support them.

The link is here.