If it's convenient, it must be right, continued

Akikonomu is "scandalised" by MOE's decision to allow four vendors out of six chosen to provide sexuality education to all schools in Singapore.

As demand and supply for this form of sex education is mostly from this small but vocal minority, I am scandalised that MOE has decided to allow these vendors to offer sex education to ALL schools in Singapore, a free platform to push their narrow philosophies on sexuality, which go further right than most conservatives in Singapore.

These sexuality programmes pander to such a small minority of Singaporeans, I am surprised that MOE is allowing these providers to push their programmes under the protection of the ministry, and even to charge money from it. As even retired Rev Yap Kim Hao has mentioned in the Straits Times forums, these CSE programmes are unlikely to be effective or informative or practical.

Instead of asking vendors for transparency, the Ministry of Education should be asked to be transparent - what groups did it consult to reach its philosophy of sex education? What criteria did it even use to say that these vendors' programmes are credible, truthful, or even "work"? Which other groups had approached the Ministry of Education and were rejected? Can the public examine the curricula and teaching material of these sex education vendors?

These are legitimate concerns; MOE has been less than forthcoming, or even objective, in its assessment of programme offerings by these external vendors. Parents are allowed to opt-out of these programmes, but that is no substitute for actual data; MOE should post the detailed contents of the programmes for the public to judge for themselves if they are adequate or useful for their children.

Without full disclosure of the sexuality education programmes, no one should be placated by mere assurances from a ministry that has consistently flip-flopped between statements. If these are morality-based programmes, the last thing MOE should do is to provide them with credibility they do not deserve, unless educating the children is a secondary priority to perpetuating this simmering culture war.

This was a great chance for the government to state that Singapore is a secular state, and they failed to take advantage of it, instead choosing to keep the convenience of switching sides when the heat is turned up. This looks increasingly like an attempt to placate both liberals and conservatives, and the half-assedness of the attempt leaves a sour taste.

Which leads me to think of MOE as either politically-motivated or utterly incompetent. Or both. None of which is a good sign for any Singaporean.

(h/t: Gwee Li Sui)

Comments

[Sloo]

It's the election year and just likethe numerous raids on red light districts, it's all a symbolic stance for votes. The sad thing is the goby does not realize how much credibility it has lost by these ridiculous policies. And it's efforts have only served to deepen the rift in the ongoing culture wars.