Fools and fraudsters: sexuality education in Singapore

It exploded onto the Sunday Times on 29 January 2006. A report by Jeremy Au Yong said a 4-hour talk at Anderson Junior College, a state school, "sparked an uproar after some participants complained about it online and to the school." The participants were 17-year-old students.

One of them, Tay Wei Kiat, wrote in his blog saying, "the talk was filled with so much misinformation that the only effect it achieved was to brainwash everyone with advises [sic] that has no firm scientific backing."

He detailed how the speaker, a certain Mr Thomas, from Prolife, a Catholic group,

• insinuated that pornography led to criminal behaviour;
• slammed condoms as "not safe" by repeating the "85% effective" statement completely out of context;
• put out the falsehood that pore sizes in condoms were larger than the HIV virus;
• even said that masturbation was bad, it "making yourself as an object to obtain pleasure, you are actually abusing yourself, by treating yourself as an object".

The comments Tay received in his blogpage included this one by someone with the nickname of 'breakerslion':

At first, these assholes appear merely insane. After careful study, the diabolical nature of their attack on self-esteem becomes apparent. What they seek are sexually frustrated and ashamed individuals to become drones in their money machine. Sexual repression leads to religious ecstasy, shame leads to money in the collection plate. They are morally bankrupt control freaks.

The online forum that had the most discussion was on www.spug.net. Among the postings in that forum were these:

The way he talked, he sounded like some religious leader. "Deep down in our hearts, we know that...", "We are all humans, we must....", "We must be ProLove, we must condem....".

A workbook was given to use... In the workbook, its more on believes and thinkings than facts. It looks more like a bible or sutra ....In the book it often express thinkings as "we must" or "this is" in an affirmative tone, rather than "it is known to be a fact that" or "we should always".

Some examples:
"In my infancy, I was once naked without shame because of my innocence"

"Any sex outside of marriage demeans the true value of love & sexuality"

BTW, im not saying all the info on the book is wrong or what. Rather its the phrasing that seems to force a believe into u, together with the lecturer's religious like speech, it sounded like im being brain wash!

According to the lecturer, since using contraceptive and homosexual sex are not real sex as there is no fertilisation, its merely a simluation and considered masturabtion. And masturbation is degrading... he told us to write down that cloning and IVF must be condemned

-- Cygig, who also was in the audience
at Anderson Junior College too

Attended the talk in [Anderson Junior College] last week. Really brainwashing. They used all sorts of ways to convince you of their viewpoints. There was one section where they played soft music, and talked to you and ask you to close ur eyes. I think the worst was when they played the abortion video, which was supposed to evoke emotions. Fact is, contary to what they say, they are not presenting a viewpoint for us to examine and decide if we are to accept. They were manipulating us emotionally to not make rational decisions, but to make decisions based on emotions...

Somehow, i felt the whole event had a religious twist to it. Like the pure condemming of IVF and cloning, without any in depth analysis of the reasons for condemnation. Hmms, and thruout the whole event, there was alot of presentations of half truths. Like the link between breast cancer and abortion. It has not been proven scientifically, and there are conflicting viewpoints, but they still choose to present it as true.

-- xolp3000

I went through the same thing in [National Junior College] too. It's only getting more popular 'cos dunno [Ministry of Education] or school admin pushing... The first thoughts I had was related to religion and something along the lines of 'bigot' (or 'bloody extremist'). I regret not standing up there and then and pointing them out.

-- radioactive28

Many of these people hinted much with religious teachings concealed under moral/sex educations and enforcing or trying to brainwash that sex itself is dirty and linked them up to all the irrelevant information.

At the end of the day, either they pushed the listeners away further or confuse them more when all mixed up with religious teachings.

-- tomato75

This is disturbing news indeed... It sounds a bit like that US school wanting to teach "intelligent design" over the theory of evolution, only more subtle.

-- requiemDK

i certainly do not like the fact that such talks are being mixed with religious. ... to me this is utter disrespect to the audience who may not be in the same religion.

sex can be explained by science. what goes on in our body to have such desire etc. these are facts. I think that it would be good for students to understand this so that they can understand themselves better.

-- Gizmore

Its actually pretty brazen of these groups to be pushing their fundamentalist agenda in schools. Whatever happened to a multi racial and religious country? Stuff like this doesn't belong in the county, let alone in schools.

Stuff like this has been going on in the US for quite some time, and now it looks like its boiling over into the rest of the world. If you've been reading up, then you know about the evolution/ID/creationism decable going on there. And if the groups are taking root here, expect it to begin here too.

-- Lucien

I think the issue we have here is misinformation (and I might even go as far as to entertain the idea to 'intentionally mislead for a greater good'). Now, that has to stop. Because the issue is far, far bigger than mere differences in opinion or differences in religious belief. It's a life and death issue, especially when we're talking about HIV and other diseases.

-- jeffyen

* * * * *

My guess is that there is a link between the rise in sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) and pregnancy among teenagers, and the greater urgency of sexuality education. See the articles Why is safe sex for adults only? and Let's (not) talk about condoms.

It's not hard to imagine someone among the authorities saying: We must stop these kids from having sex!

Member of Parliament Halimah Yacob said in October 2005, "We need to strengthen the value system of our young, so that they understand the virtues of keeping chaste and shun pre-marital sex and promiscuity."

In this kneejerk fashion, abstinence is immediately grasped as the response to the social problems highlighted. I don't think anyone stopped to ask what other responses might be possible.

The entire education system is now on the hunt for speakers who can give abstinence talks. And who would be more ready than the Christian fundamentalists, who have long been obsessed with sex?

I bet nobody stopped to ask, even if promoting abstinence is the way to go, is theirs the right way of going about it?

You see, there is the abstinence message and there is the abstinence message. I don't have a big quarrel with the objective of trying to reduce the incidence of sex among teenagers, but there is a huge gulf between the reasons these church-linked groups give to the teenagers and the reasons I would give.

The fundie groups all start with the premise, inherent in their religious view, that all sex is bad, except for procreation, and even then only within opposite-sex marriages. With this framework, the message they go out to sell cannot but be based on two essential ideas: (a) that sex is wrong and you must feel guilty about it, and (b) that sex  is harmful and you'll die (or at least get sick). Guilt and fear.

That they can't separate their religious agenda from what they teach can be seen from the various reports:

• contraceptive and homosexual sex are not real sex -- Cygig
• condoms are not safe -- Tay Wei Kiat in his blog
• masturbation is degrading -- Cygig
• masturbation is bad -- Tay Wei Kiat in his blog
• the link between breast cancer and abortion -- xolp3000
• cloning and IVF must be condemned --Cygig

If the aim is to reduce teenage pregnancy and STDs, then every one of the above items is contrary to the purpose. The speaker should not take a position against contraception, nor against masturbation (since it provides sexual release).

And if a teenager, by some mistake still gets pregnant, she should always have the option of an abortion open to her. It makes things worse to have a baby when she's not ready to have one, and at a time that totally upends the girl's education. Sticking guilt into her about "murder", and fear about breast cancer (no good medical evidence, by the way) hardly keeps this option open!

Most egregious of all, what has the bit about cloning and in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) to do with sexuality education? Here we are trying to make Singapore a centre of bio-science, including stem-cell research, and these fundies are going around telling our kids it must be condemned!

All the above doctrinal positions are motivated by fundamentalist Christianity, not shaped by the needs of education.

As I said, I don't have a big quarrel with trying to lower the incidence of sex among teenagers. At the same time, no matter what we do, we should recognise that it will never be eliminated.

Clearly what is needed is not a proscriptive approach, but a harm-reduction strategy. We should never say all sex is bad, not when there is so much of it in the world we see, and when, by no objective measure is it bad. The position to take is that it's morally neutral, but like all actions that humans take, there are consequences. We drink too much alcohol, and there'll be consequences. We eat rich food, and there'll be consequences. We're rude and inconsiderate to our friends, and there'll be consequences.

With sex, the consequences can be very serious and lifelong, so all the more we need to be well-informed, and all the more we need self-awareness and self-control. That should be the starting point.

At the same time, what we say must dovetail with the overall aim of education, which is to get our kids to be informed and able to think for themselves. This means, don't do the thinking for them.

There are many things we can still tell our kids. To start with, they need hard facts. How does pregnancy occur? What are the various kinds of STDs and how is each transmitted? Thus, what preventive measures work?

What's going on in their own bodies? How does teenage hormonal surges affect thoughts and behaviour? They need a perspective on themselves and their own feelings and actions. Why do teenagers get infatuated so easily, for example? Why are the feelings so intense and impulsiveness so great?

This factual basis will help them make better decisions. If they can see themselves from outside their latest love interest or urges, they are better able to say to themselves, "Maybe I should wait and see how I really feel."

Equally important, a lot more must be done about self-esteem, for girls and boys, straight, gay and transsexual. Self-esteem gives them a buffer against impulsive decisions, especially ones made in the face of peer pressure or boyfriend/girlfriend manipulation. They should also be equipped with negotiation skills to help them extricate themselves from situations they aren't too sure about.

Thirdly, they need greater awareness of interpersonal and ethical issues. What is one's responsibility to the girl or boy you're going out with? There'll be more stability in their lives if they can place more importance on honesty, respecting the other's decision as to how far to take that relationship, and not putting the other person at risk of disease or pregnancy.

Fourthly, what to do when things go wrong -- whom to talk to, where to get help.

But something tells me none of my ideas are anywhere near the sexuality curriculum. They leave too much trust in the hands of the teenagers. There's hardly a word about right and wrong. That's not how our overly conservative, overly Christian civil service likes it.

* * * * *

I wrote to the Ministry of Education, saying they should get a grip on the abuse of the scheme by religious groups.

I got two replies. One, from the Guidance Branch of the Educational Programs Division, simply reiterated something that we are expected to take on faith: "Our schools are secular and Principals are discerning when engaging external agencies to conduct activities for their pupils."

Yes, our schools are supposed to be secular, but when my complaint is about religious infiltration, telling me that they "are secular" doesn't exactly raise my confidence level.

Likewise, telling me that "Principals are discerning" when my complaint is that they have not been so, hardly qualifies as a meaningful or convincing response.

"Nevertheless," the official added, "MOE will alert schools to be wary of any agency that does not uphold our secular approach to sexuality education or other enrichment areas." Is alerting good enough? I'll come back to this later.

The other reply I got was from the Quality Services Manager -- I think she's the traffic policeman directing complaints around -- who said, "Your comments have already forwarded to our Schools Division for response."

As at the time of writing, I haven't yet got a response from the Schools Division, perhaps because of the intervening holidays. In any case, I'm not expecting a meaningful reply either.

There are three Divisions in the Ministry of Education with respect to schools and schoolchildren.

The Curriculum Division develops the content to be taught. The Education Programs Division looks after the "social emotional growth and character of students" (source: MOE website). The Schools Division has oversight of the administration of schools.

I have a funny feeling -- actually I have an inside source, but not one I can reveal -- that these sexuality programs fall through the cracks. The Curriculum Division would rather say it's not their problem because it's not something taught by school teachers. The Educational Programs Division or its Guidance Branch may say, it has nothing to do with pastoral care. Finally, the Schools Division may say they're only responsible for administrative matters, not content issues.

So the buck may well be passed to school principals. But why does anybody think that school principals and teachers are equipped to judge the quality of outsourced talks? Especially when it's a topic that they in the first place think they're not informed enough to give the talk on themselves? Surely, that's why they seek outside help, isn't it?

So what's the use of the MOE alerting the schools to be "wary"?

The problem is not that these are Christian-based groups. The problem is that the content they bring in is religious in nature.

The discussion on the spug.net forum indicated that the speakers at Anderson Junior College never indicated that they were from a Christian group. One participant speculated that they were not allowed to introduce themselves as Christian by the school administration. 

This is quite possible, for it may be the way the school principal thinks she should discharge her responsibility to ensure that no proselytisation takes place. But that actually makes things worse, for it allows the fundies to give the impression that their talk's content is secular in nature when it is not.

So in a nutshell, my guess is that no one in the Ministry of Education thinks he is responsible for this issue, leaving it to the schools, but no one in the schools is capable of fact-checking or making any assessment of content or religious sublimation.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None