Others
Letter to concerned parents – Part 2
There has been so much debate following my letter regarding the Aware controversy, that I just have to respond to it, to provide a kind of summing up and drawing of conclusions.
This will be my last piece on the subject, following the 3 recent pieces—my remarks as reported in the Sunday Times, my first letter posted on this site, and an unpublished letter to the Straits Times Forum. In all, I have said everything I wish to share with fellow Singaporeans on an episode that will surely go down in the history of Singapore’s development as a civic society.
In this final piece, I want to express my deep appreciation to all of you who have written in on the controversial issue of homosexuality. I am really pleased to have provoked such a diversity of views from committed Christians to ardent secularists, from entrenched conservatives to freewheeling liberals, from anxious parents to young, independent-minded persons demanding to be heard and understood. There has also been an amazing diversity of expositional modes, from philosophical argument to scriptural exegesis to the personal anecdote, conveyed in tones that range from calm and measured to animated to pure vitriol.
And in all this clamour of voices, nobody told anybody to shut up!
It is exactly this diversity and expressiveness that marks an active, alert and robust citizenry that Singapore has often been accused of lacking. I expect that never again will Singaporeans be described as apathetic (Dare I hope, as a long-time political commentator, that the same critical voices will also be heard in the other, even more controversial arena of political issues, so that at long last, we will truly have matured as a society?)
So whether you are a fundamentalist Christian, a Buddhist, a Kabbalist, an agnostic, an atheist, a Raelian, a Scientologist, a New Age sun-worshipper, etc., you are absolutely entitled to your views. Any criticism of you can never be of your views as such, but for your imposing them on others.
It is surely one of democracy’s most thrilling paradoxes that while you may passionately disagree with another’s views, you are expected, with the same passion, to defend his right to them.
Which brings me to the special dilemma of you parents whose concerns regarding the homosexuality issue were the focus in my first letter, and will again feature large in this, my second. If you are an abiding Christian with strong beliefs regarding the outright condemnation of homosexuality, do you have the right to impose them on your children? The question is more meaningfully phrased thus: Should you whose role it is to be models, guides, protectors and nurturers, instil your religious beliefs and values in your children, indeed, enforce them, even if this is seen as going against the prevailing trend in society and the world at large?
The answer, in accordance with custom and common sense, is a clear yes, since you act only for their good and would never deprive them of what you yourselves hold dearest—the religious values to which you owe your entire well-being. Should this guidance then include measures such as blocking out harmful moral influences that, for instance, the Aware CSE program is alleged to be? Assuredly so, if you are convinced about the harmfulness (although there must still be some puzzlement as to how this had escaped, for so long, the combined vigilance of teachers, principals and Ministry of Education officials whose judgment parents traditionally trust).
Clearly, stern, even harsh strictures are all in order in the carrying out of your sacred parental responsibility. It is sacred, for upon it rests the very stability of society.
But it remains the special parental quandary, unique to our changing times, that as soon as your child reaches adulthood, society does an about-turn and is on his side as he asserts his independence and individuality. Suddenly you discover, to your dismay, that while you yourselves had meekly submitted to your parents, your own offspring are going in exactly the opposite direction.If the very crucial matter of sexual identity is involved, your sons and daughters are likely to forge out their own path, whether through covert or overt means. Either will result in deep anguish, confusion and heartache all round, as indeed so many personal anecdotes have revealed.
Only understanding, acceptance and love on your part—indeed, to a heroic extent in each case—can prevent such unhappiness, not recourse to holy books or revered tradition. As real life goes, in the event of a clash between human needs and divine ordinance, it is usually the former that wins in the end, for two reasons: firstly, because what is prescribed as moral law by religion is non-negotiable, and secondly, because human needs are underwritten by that strongest of forces, biology itself. If acceptance of a child’s homosexuality is too hard a pill to swallow, estrangement from one’s flesh and blood must be even harder. Many parents have come to realize this truth, and in time have let love transcend all emotions of disappointment, anger and frustration. This transcendence is both peril and privilege, pain and triumph, that only parents can understand, and for which they are to be appreciated and honored.
Being a compulsive story-teller, I can only end this letter to you concerned parents with another story on this engrossing theme. Or rather many stories from my wide circle of relatives, friends and acquaintances: it’s astonishing how virtually every family in its extended form has at least one gay member, and how virtually all of us know at least several gays. And it’s heartening to observe how easily, once the religious hurdle is cleared, for parents and children to pick up once more that natural bond of loving and connecting. My stories all have a happy ending, precisely because in the end, a universal, biologically endowed (and hence God-given?) attribute of parents prevailed—the desire to see their children happy, even if it is not exactly on their terms.
Catherine Lim
May 8th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
hi catherine,
while you tried to be at your level best to be impartial, i think the way you put it makes it very partial.
you are posing your questions to conversatives, religious people and parents on why they are imposing their values on their children. don’t you think Aware, through its CSE curriculum, is imposing their values on the impressionable and defenceless children?
you used the word ‘alleged’ to describe the objectionable parts of the CSE curriculum, giving the impression that they are not bad, only alleged to be bad by the conservatives. i may be quite liberal, but i think some core values are unchanging even with time. homosexuality is never normal. anal sex between guys is not going to be normal.
i have tried to be neutral in this issue. i have nothing against gays and lesbians. but i have to take a stand on the issues of homosexuality being normal. i can accept it when being practised by the homosexuals in their own privacy. but to preach to the young and innocent is unacceptable. it is imposing an abnormal act to the young as something normal. i think the MOE has a lot of explanation to do to the parents of children being taught such a view.
just my view.
May 8th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Dear Redbean,
May I address two points that you made?
Firstly, I feel you have fallen to the popular misconception that to preach tolerance and respect equates to encouraging the adoption of homosexuality. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. Programmes such as the CSE programme seek to neutralize the stigma and societal prejudice associated with homosexuality. This is a good thing. It never sought to glamorize the lifestyle but to instill an attitude of respect and self-awareness. The encouragement of tolerance should not be confused with the encouragement of adoption.
Secondly, you’ve taken a stand against homosexuality being normal. But surely you must recognize that what is “normal” is subjective. It is unfortunate that the word is often defined facilely by what falls outside of the common or normative, which is determined by the customs and practices of the majority. Surely a healthy society is defined by its ability to accommodate and embrace the customs, cultures and lifestyles practiced by its minorities as well. Should inter-racial marriage be deemed abnormal because most couples do not enter into such an arrangement? Should the cultural traditions of Indian and Malay minorities be proscribed because they sometimes inconvenience the Chinese majority? So, when anyone is tempted to say that homosexuality is not “normal”, pause and reflect: what really is normal, except that which defines a person for who he or she is?
May 8th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Dear Dr Lim,
I’m impressed by your evident ability to rise above the fray even while articulating with typical eloquence, your own beliefs. You express hope that the plurality views, even those contrary to yours, are a healthy sign of a maturing society. Thank you for being a model of clear-mindedness in this debate.
May 8th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Dear Redbean,
Of course homosexuals are not normal, just as artistic and musical talents aren’t normal, as well as any other category of people that belongs to the far minority. But in this instance, ‘not normal’ does not mean it is ‘wrong’.
Homosexuals are born that way, and while it is not normal to you or society at large, it is normal to homosexuals. Just as you may never understand what makes musicians tick, or think they’re not normal, musicians think and feel they are perfectly normal.
CSE inculcating a neutral stance and saying homosexuality is normal is intended to be read in THIS context.
May 8th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Joel NC and K,
You’ve put forth some points for thought which principally frames the basis of liberialism – the view that what is ‘normal’ is largely determined by what society decides it to be.
However, applying the ‘normal’ argument to the case of homosexuality comes up against a major obstacle – which is the fact that there are 2 genders within our species necessary for reproduction. Hence assuming the human species are to continue to survive, homosexuality cannot be the result of a natural selection process and in all likelyhood will remain anormal.
You can argue that if by some development it becomes that homosexuals somehow form the larger percentage of the population then the above assumption is wrong and i would conceed that.
But in this case my view of what is ‘normal’ is based not on a possible view for society but on what i logically think nature had intended for us humans.
One can argue, why do we have to accept what nature dishes out? particularly since advances in the scientific realm now make it possible for the continued propogation of our species in the absence of half of our genders.
I would say that from that point onwards, the issues to be debated are beyond the realm of sexuality – it becomes philosophical. Its a question of the human’s species place in our existence where we are above and beyond everything else.
May 8th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Dear Jay,
You commit the fallacy of extrapolating from the existence of gays and their non-productive sexual orientation to the dwindling numbers of mankind.
No one is asking heterosexuals to turn gay; in any case it’s a ludicrous if impossible call. If Nature made gays, then it appears Nature has it that this variation is kept to a minimum of 5-8% of any given population. Just as, for example, 5-8% of any given population is artistic/musical/pre-disposed to certain traits.
All they are asking for, is to be treated respectfully for who they are, with the kind of dignity you accord to any one else.
Gays are not out to convert, not out to impose, and they merely wish for the same. Unfortunately, society and its laws make it difficult for them.
May 8th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Hi Jay,
Thanks for your response.
You are suggesting that with regard to sexual orientation, there is an absolute natural standard that supersedes the personal inclination of the individual. And that this absolute standard must necessarily be abided by in order to ensure the propagation of the human species. This is not a new argument.
What is also not new, is homosexuality. Homosexuals have existed in every age and time, in every culture and civilization. They have variously been persecuted, embraced and tolerated. But regardless of how they’ve been treated, guess what? – we’re still here, thriving as a species. To suggest that the acceptance of homosexuals as legitimate and equal members of society will endanger the human species is therefore fallacious.
I agree with you though that homosexuality cannot be the result of natural selection. In that sense, and in that sense alone, homosexuality may be considered abnormal. But I put to you that the function of natural selection is concerned primarily with the quantitative propagation of a species. But to argue that because homosexuality is abnormal from an evolutionary point of view, it should also be socially aberrant would be to reduce human sexuality to that of a Mayfly which lives just long enough to find a mate and then dies. Human sexuality serves more than just a reproductive function; it is also about intimacy and love, which are both personal and subjective. Therefore to argue that homosexuality is absolutely abnormal would be to negate the exceptional intellectual and emotional characteristics of humans as a species and equate our existential value to that of brutes.
The fact of the matter is that we shape our nature as much as nature shapes us.
May 8th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Dear Catherine,
The fact that you did not read the AWARE Instructor’s Guide, made you unsuitable to even comment about it in the first place.
Every writer must first ascertain the facts before making conclusion.
Earlier, you concluded without reading the CSE Manual, that it is of good quality. But now that the MOE, having seen the manual, has since retracted their statements & suspended the training.
You should, if you wish to end this thoughts of yours on this AWARE issue, at least read the manual.
Your words & comments carry alot of weight, and as a Person, you command alot of respect.
Please do the necessary.
May 8th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Dear Dr Lim,
Like you, I am impressed with the diversity and expressiveness shown here following the publication of your letter to parents. I think we Singaporeans have lots to say and know how to state what must be articulated, but sometimes (and somehow) we are unable to initiate the expression, and we need someone like you to kick-start the discussion. I regret to say that you have to be the devil’s advocate, and, the devil is sometimes quite compelling!
Your letter has set the tone in which the ensuing discussion should be conducted. Hence, no one was told to shut up. Although I would not say we Singaporeans only want to emulate, but we like to follow good examples and tag on to clear thinking. We like to be seen in good company as well—among level-headed, rational Singaporeans who are able to rise above the fray and stay there!
Although this is a summing-up, I doubt it will close the debate on the issues you have raised. I hope that we will not stop discussing what we—parents, singles, young, old, gay, straight—have been engaging in this past week. It is only through such discourse that we may have the glimmer of hope that someday, some understanding among ourselves will emerge. Complete understanding will then come. I am quite sure of that.
To Redbean
Since you believe that “AWARE… is imposing their valuesâ€, it explains why you suppose children are “defencelessâ€. But why are they defenceless, and against who? The homosexuals? The neutrals? Kids may be vulnerable to traffic accidents on Orchard Road, to abduction, to terrorist attack, to the peddling of narcotics, but what defences must they build against within the parameters of a classroom run by an adult, possibly one like you?
Are we living in such dangerous times that we believe our children are “defencelessâ€, that peril lurks at every corner? It is difficult to fathom that even at school-going age kids must be “defenceless†or are not taught to fend for themselves. If indeed children are constantly facing danger, real or imaginary, should parents not impart some defence skills to them? Better still, impose?
As “homosexuality is never normalâ€, it is, according to you, “an abnormal actâ€. But who, I wonder, is “imposing†this act on children, as you have claimed? Have there been reported cases of physical violation? I have gone through some of the CSE material; I see no imposition of anything upon anyone, not even upon the trainers themselves! Instruction and exercise goals are clearly spelled out: “To explore what’s important to participants in their livesâ€, “To get to know one another better in a friendly and non-threatening mannerâ€, just to highlight a couple. How “imposing†is “non-threateningâ€?
I can understand that your concerns have arisen from fear, but Redbean, fear breeds fear. And history has shown over and over again vividly what fear, particularly irrational fear, can do to a civilisation, even an advanced one. From your reply (and the replies of some of the parents here), I wonder if we, as a society—educated no less, are really morally unwell or have we become so morally fragile that we have allowed our own fears to dictate how we deal with others, our own children especially.
We are afraid of occurrences that quite clearly won’t happen such as a child turning gay [it is believed that only between 1 to 6% of populations can be considered homosexual (the 1984 Kinsey research figure of 10% is deemed by many as inaccurate)] and bravely ignore the things that possibly will such as obesity. Same-sex relationships, regardless of how healthy the individuals are, are morally reprehensible. Overweight children stuffing their faces with burgers and ice cream (leading not much more active lives than watching the television or getting stuck with a PC game) and facing the prospect of an illness-ridden adult life are not a moral dilemma.
With such parental vigilance, no wonder “MOE has a lot of explanation to doâ€!
On a lighter note, I am glad that you have chosen Redbean as your handle rather than a bean of another colour such as black. In Thai slang, a “tua dam” or black bean is a homosexual male!
Sincerely,
XLF
May 9th, 2009 at 12:30 am
Dear Redbean,
The articulate posters above have discussed some of the flaws of your argument, and I will not weary anyone by repeating them.
I wish only to address your claim that it would be wrong to “preach” homosexuality to the “young and innocent”. It is this assertion which frustrates and irritates me. The mind is not a tabula rasa; youth is not innocence. I daresay we know a little more of sex and its social significance than you think.
And homosexuality, or any other minority sexuality, does not have to be preached to us. Already some of us are queer, whether gay or lesbian or bi or asexual (yes, asexuality exists! It is not wilful rejection of a “natural impulse” either; it is a valid orientation). It is both arrogant and paternalistic to assume we know nothing, and to assume the “responsibility” of supposedly educating us; it hurts even more when this “education” involves “correcting” our very identity itself, when this “education” involves calling who we are deviant and telling us we have not the maturity to consider our own identity.
(This applies not merely to queer students but also to heterosexual students who themselves believe in tolerance or social liberalism. Perhaps we are not even capable of considering politics. I stand corrected, then, because in this case your point makes perfect sense: those little children can’t even accept straightness is normal; let’s keep them away from philosophy!)
May 9th, 2009 at 5:48 am
My kids will not turn into adults overnight.
That is why I will try my best to give them a lifetime of love, communication and debate.
If I just talk down and tell them, “shut up and listen because I am your dad and I am never wrong”, obviously one day they will decide they have enough of rubbish from the old man.
May 9th, 2009 at 11:48 am
wow, i have stirred a hornet’s nest.
to noel nc,
you are right to say that homosexuality is normal or abnormal is subjective. need no further explanation. it depends on your orientation and values, to take whatever position you favour. a drug addict will tell you that taking drug is normal. someone who enjoys anal sex will tell you that anal sex is normal. very subjective and personal.
to XLF,
you are too presumptious to claim that i never read the CSE material. you are also too presumptious to take the stand that all children are able to defend themselves when taught such controversial issues like homosexuality and anal sex as normal. mind you we are talking about children who are 12 and in their early teens. i will agree with you that the older teens are in much better position to make more informed judgement on these issues.
in my view, you are entitled to disagree, young teenagers may be smart, knowledgeable and well read. but many are not mature enough nor in a position to assess the merits of matters concerning values and lifestyles. homosexuality is normal is subjective depending on ones values and upbringing. i would not make any assumptions of rights or wrongs here.
and your claim that anal sex is a preferred thing among young ns men. that is your personally experience, associating with people with the same tendency. my experience is different. perhaps you can quote me some statistics to prove your point that it is normal.
my concern is not just fear. children are children or we won’t be calling them children and trying to educate them. telling them facts is one thing. telling them what is normal and not normal is a very subjective thing. if it is normal, it would not be forbidden by law. the MOE has decided that telling them that homosexuals and anal sex are abnormal are not acceptable, and has banned them, is a case for you to take note. it is abnormal. ok, it is normal to you. i won’t dispute your personal preference.
homosexuals are born. yes. not all. there is a whole spectrum of how people become homosexuals. some biological, some pyschological, some social. it is not a black and white explanation. associations and exposure to people with homosexual preferences may or may not lead a person to adopt the same act.
to beka,
you concluded that my statements are flaws because of a few subjective comments by a few individuals. whether they are flaws, as i said above, is subjective, depending on your sexual orientation and values.
you claim that you are very knowledgeable as a youth. may i ask you how old are you? 12,13,14 or 15? even if you are 12 years old and have all the knowledge and experience of anal sex and homosexuality, it is a personal experience and may or may not be a norm. my arrogant and paternalistic assumption here is that many young teens do not have the kind of knowledge that you claimed to have as a youth? how old, youth? and what is your sexual orientation?
we are all talking about values and lifestyles that are subjective and value loaded. your right is not my right and your preference is not my preference. please do not be so arrogant to think that your right is the right and your preference should be the norm and the right for others. at least i have the decency not to impose my values on you, that i am right.
i have reservations about homosexuality and anal sex being taught to young children as normal. you may not. i accept that.
May 9th, 2009 at 11:54 am
correction: ‘the MOE has decided that telling them that homosexuals and anal sex are abnormal are not acceptable, and has banned them, is a case for you to take note.’
the above statement should read,
the MOE has decided that telling them that homosexuals and anal sex are NORMAL is not acceptable, and has banned them, is a case for you to take note.
May 9th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
i read with interest both the article and all the comments. i’m in my 30s. even before gay-ness became more accepted in singapore – as it is now – i spent some time in the states both studying and working. this offered me a chance to be with the homosexual community, some of them in environments they feel to be safe, where they feel they can lead their lives as human beings and not worry too much about their sexual identity.
“worry too much” has a qualifier there, because there IS as stigma being gay in a population where gay = minority. gays have to stand for their rights in a society where not doing so will most likely lead to a regression to a previous era. the fact that gays ARE more free to be who they are IN CERTAIN POCKETS OF AMERICA is the result of the fight and struggle of people of a previous era.
i do feel that the comments by some of my gay friends here tend to be defensive – understandably, but perhaps overly so. i understand where it comes from, but also think that mr. redbean did his best as a person from the other side to speak his own views in a neutral manner, not meaning to offend, only to speak his “conservative” mind.
as an observer here, i think this is the time for the gay community to focus on not just being heard, but also listening more, just to understand, even if it’s from a conversative chap with old-fashioned views.
clearly, mr. red bean is not stupid and understands the concept of subjectiveness and the idea that normality depends much on what is defined as the population (statistics here).
he is not a non-rational gay-unfriendly person who yells out dumb obscenities to a gay person in the midst of a group of obviously non-gay people. that kind of person is obnoxious, cowardly and obviously not suited to such discussion that ms. cat lim say our society has matured to embrace.
instead of miffling over worded details like a hardworking lawyer would, i encourage us here to 看得开一点 and just accept a straight man’s point of view without wanting to jump on his throat.
to a better singapore.
May 10th, 2009 at 3:20 am
Dear Redbean,
Thank you for your rejoinder. I am not sure if you have stirred a hornet’s nest, but I am certain I come here without any sting! I read with amusement your charge that I have been presumptuous when, interestingly, in telling me so, you have been precisely what you accused me of. I think it would be good to know how you came so incisively to the conclusion that:
How children are to be educated is a universal concern of parents and non-parents alike. My interest, and possibly mine alone, is to determine and, hopefully understand, why so many parents have become more protective (and defensive), compared to the parents of our time, when it comes to the schooling of their children.
I am quite thrilled that you agree with me “that older teens are in much better position to make more informed judgement on these issues†although I did not state anything about older teens making informed judgement; I only thought it. Thank you for reading my mind.
I claim “that anal sex is a preferred thing among young ns menâ€. If that truly is the case, I fear we may have taken family planning to the extreme and we would be nearer zero population growth than we think! Do accept my heartfelt thanks for not thinking I am “too presumptuous to take the stand that all†young NS men prefer the back door! Perhaps it would be useful for me to reiterate what I did write: that anal sex is normal to many guys, such as NS men, more so than we presume (sorry for appropriating your word!), and not that fellows in No. 3 like one entry point better than another!
I associate “with people with the same tendencyâ€. I wonder what kind of people—of what tendencies—I am associating with by participating in this hitherto eye-opening discussion facilitated by Dr Lim. How, I wonder, have I directed you to the belief that I belong to persons of similar proclivity when what I had shared was purely anecdotal, and if not, would that be a glaring presumption? Prior to this, I had not thought of what kind of association I would end up with by engaging the participants here, but I do now believe that in contributing to this discussion as I have, I am part of what Dr Lim calls “an active, alert and robust citizenryâ€.
Homosexuals and anal sex are normal to me, and, therefore, my personal preference. Redbean, I do admire your dedication to form. If I have led you to know what my personal preferences are—effectively tearing down my mask of anonymity, then, perhaps, I have only myself to blame for not staying on the side of clarity and precision in my missive addressed to you. Because I have not underscored what is normal to me or what isn’t, I have inadvertently encouraged others to presume, by now a terribly hackneyed exploit. (The habit of Twittering has handicapped the ability to elucidate!) If my anecdote has tripped you to snapping point, kindly overlook this lapse in Netiquette.
I am glad you admitted that fear is part of your concerns. As it is often said, we having nothing to fear but fear itself. So would it be immoderate to say that you fear children not being children? When you impart sexual knowledge to them, will you be robbing them of their childhood, hence innocence? When you say “children are childrenâ€, do you use it as a blanket explanation for what they are incapable of doing or understanding? Has “children are children or we would not be calling them children†become a shield with which parents use to dodge reactions to kids’ bad behaviour in public just as it is used as reason to challenge school curriculum deemed detrimental to their moral wellbeing? Does “children are children†mean that they can be free of responsibility or that parents do not need to cover for them?
If there seems to be too many questions than answers, it is because few of us have the latter. For every answer that we receive, a disproportionate number of questions will be generated. By asking more questions, I hope we can continue this dialogue so that some understanding can be reached. Moral balancing, whether for children or for ourselves, is like weighing income and expenditure: we try to come out from each deal with no one in the red.
Sincerely,
XLF
May 10th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I would firstly like to commend XLF for his/her articulateness in defence of their points, and attempt the same.
@redbean: you claim that you are very knowledgeable as a youth. may i ask you how old are you? 12,13,14 or 15? even if you are 12 years old and have all the knowledge and experience of anal sex and homosexuality, it is a personal experience and may or may not be a norm. Did anyone insinuate that queer twelve-year-olds are happily having anal sex? My original point was that queer teenagers exist and are normal, and natural, and not made so. I personally would never condone a twelve-year-old having sex of any sort, for both psychological and physical reasons.
my arrogant and paternalistic assumption here is that many young teens do not have the kind of knowledge that you claimed to have as a youth? how old, youth? and what is your sexual orientation? Firstly, in any school today you will find that the majority of the students have accessed porn, have discussed sex, and are clearly not ignorant of what sex is! How old, youth? From secondary school on, I assure you. Perhaps you’ve never stepped into a classroom and heard the colourful language being flung around; a cocoon, then, between what conservative adults consider the norm, and what we see as the norm. My sexual orientation should have nothing to do with this reality!
we are all talking about values and lifestyles that are subjective and value loaded. your right is not my right and your preference is not my preference. please do not be so arrogant to think that your right is the right and your preference should be the norm and the right for others. at least i have the decency not to impose my values on you, that i am right. Values are affected by preferences? That to me smacks of ad hominem, because of the tendency to put down a debater with “You’re gay, of course you’ll sympathise”, on the same level of “Black people would of course vote for Obama.” An offensive simplification of complex motivations; and a careful elision of the countless straight people (yes, students too – the next generation whom I’ll gladly swear is lost to the conservative agenda) who support equality for sexual minorities.
May 10th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I wonder what MOE will do now that a vacuum exist after all the external agencies are pulled out.
imagine a teacher in a Sec school making the pronouncement that premarital sex is negative – not neutral -
What if a students ask a teacher – did you do it yourself? Why is it wrong?
Even Romeo and Juliet did it and it is sooo Romantic….
Because MOE says so?
It is a sad day because I wonder if our teachers are trained and have the confidence to do this programme.
And how many teachers succeed in passing the important message of ‘responsibility and premarital sex’ to students – now that this issue has blown up.
Anal sex is not right between heterosexuals? What about Oral sex? As Dana Lam says it before – I too hope the MOE does not go back to Victorian ages and students ’shut up and sit down’ instead of stand up and ask during sex education class, because MOE needs to drive some MOE syllabus across. (and I better do it quickly over the next 10 minutes to avoid difficult questions…)
That would be a sad day.
(A father with teenage students)
May 11th, 2009 at 3:34 am
I’d like to add in a simple point of view here as I feel it has been overlooked. There is a lot of debate over whether homosexuality is normal or natural or otherwise. And that is what it is – a debate. I’d like to, however, bring up a view of the possible aims of a program such as the CSE.
Homosexuality exists. That cannot be disputed. The cry of citizens/parents/etc. against the words of the CSE, while understandable, are in my view, lacking perspective. My perspective is about discrimination.
Discrimination in all its forms has brought many injustices in human history. People have been perscecuted, reviled, even murdered because they were of a different race, religion, social status and yes, even sexual orientation.
A sex-education program that clearly defines homosexuality as abnormal or an aberration is a program gives that those who learn it the Right and justifiable cause to discriminate against homosexuals.
(Imagine what your child will go through then, if they indeed to turn out to be homosexual.)
Conversely, consider the possible social good of an education that neutralises homosexuality. One that teaches that we do not need to revile them, discriminate against them, or fear them. One where they are not abnormal, abhorrent freaks, but a part of society, just as different races and religions are a part of it.
And should we not work to remove discrimination against any group, be it a race, gender, or even sexual orientaion? Can we truly be a “democratic society, based on justice and equality” if we label some people as “negative” simply because they are gay? Or do we want to create a generation of “gaycists”?
I urge anyone who reads this comment to consider what really the true moral issue behind this is – sexuality or prejudice?
May 11th, 2009 at 3:36 am
Sex education in Singapore is proudly brought to you by the letter H (Hypocrisy), sponsored by MOE & Parents.
Can you tell me how to get, how to get to sexless street?
May 11th, 2009 at 10:36 am
“So whether you are a fundamentalist Christian, a Buddhist, a Kabbalist, an agnostic, an atheist…”
LOL nice “fundamentalist Christian”. So I’m assuming there’s no such thing as moderate Christians right?
Or fundamentalist Buddhists, Kabalists, agnostics…
“Only understanding, acceptance and love on your part—indeed, to a heroic extent in each case—can prevent such unhappiness, not recourse to holy books or revered tradition.”
If you do read our “Holy Book” carefully, you’ll realise that the basis of everything in the Bible IS love and understanding, not following a bunch of silly rules and grand traditions and judging people. That’s called legalism, the kind of picture you’re trying to paint about religion here, which Jesus Himself condemns.
The only thing that doesn’t go is “acceptance”, because our basic belief (haha or our FUNDAMENTAL belief, since you like the word so much) is that GOD defines our moral law, since He created us. Your view is humanist, where the premise is that man defines his own moral law, as each individual sees fit.
But please, please don’t try and preach to us the “transcendence” of love and GOOD moral values above the need for religion, because until now, atheists/agnostics/artists haven’t come up with what love actually is. On a final note, would anybody care to define what this “love” is really about?
May 11th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Just to add this.
Does children these days kn abt sex, homosexual and anal? This is from my 10 yr old son.
Sex – yes. Gay – yes. Anal – No.
As a parent of a 10 yrs old, i blushed and find it difficult, even lost for words when my son start asking me what is gay, why some ppl are gay and start disturbing and calling his classmates gay as a joke. And I asked myself how did he kns all these, from TV shows, internet and classmates.
To me the AWARE CSE program is comprehensive and in tune to the current social development. I hv to face the facts that we are not living in a stone age. I remember the gd old days when I heard the word ’sex’ only in my sec 3 (because of biology class) has come to pass. We are facing a whole new world with the infusion of information to youth. This is not abt morality or religious background. Fact remains that children at very young age (my son kns abt the word gay when he is 9 yrs old) already been exposed to a lot of things I rather not. And I hope that we are back to the gd old days when tv is black and white and actors & actress do not kiss on screen. However, these have come to pass and as the saying goes, if u cannot fight them, u think of sthing to help ur kids understand them.
As hard as it is, I sit down with my kid and explain to him abt sex. My parents taught me nothing. So is my teacher when I was a student. No CSE then. I find myself lost for words most of the time. However, I tried my best to explain to him abt the basic of Sex 101. And that he should not discriminate and laugh or call other gay or faggot for fun. Ultimately, as hard as it is, I have to do it. And if AWARE CSE can touch on topics like this to assist me through, I gladly wld like that very much.
let’s face facts and listen to reason. And not give in to fear and scare tactics. No point trying to stop what we cannot. This is something I learn in a hard way. once i accept them, it is so much easier.
May 11th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
K,
I think you’re off the mark. My prior comments do not seek to paint homosexuality as the cause for any percieved deteriment to society. My point dealt entirely with what i reasoned to be the correct view of homosexuality in conjunction with what we know from a logical natural selection process. To me its a factual and rational assessment. I’m not disputing the existence of homosexuals nor am I making a call on whether homosexuality is right or wrong. If you were to insist that i was pushing a point; then it is that in an education program, the presentation of the occurance of homosexuality should be in the aforementioned context rather than an approach of whitewashed normality.
May 11th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Joel NC,
You are mistaken. I don’t claim there exists an absolute anything. Nor am i making a judgement call on homosexuality. And I am particularly not sounding the imminent doom of the human race – which seems to be the favoured knee-jerk reaction here. Per my comments to K above, my prior thoughts are not against homosexuality but rather they are an assessment, based on the up-til-now continued survival of the human race, of what I think the factual view of the occurance of homosexuality should be. That is until new evidence of how we humans are evolving differently shows us otherwise.
Do take care to read words like ‘Normal’ without the attached emotion. For I mean it matter of factly – as a description of what occurs more often than not and i hold no derision for that which is not normal.
Mine is not an argument is absolutism. Rest assured that I am well aware of the existence of Gay persons and that I believe, as much as you do, that Gay persons have just as much rights to love, relationships and the whole host of rights which we human accord to each other.
As for your point on shaping nature and vice versa, my point to that is exactly what i raised prior, which is that its a far bigger philisophical question than just homosexuality. It’s about how we humans perceive our place to be in our existence and the degree to which we engineer a change. Again, I present this as a factual statement. I do not allude to what’s right or wrong here.
May 11th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
As much as I have objected to the CSE program’s teaching on homosexuality, allow me to articulate more on why I object to the current CSE program.
To me, the CSE program is handicapped if it cannot recognise that the categorising into positive, neutral and negative is in fact a a exercise in value judgment. Many secularists continue to claim that neutral is non-value judgment.
If we cannot see eye to eye on this, or at least honour that one party feels it is a value judgment, then we really cannot continue with the discussion.
I would much prefer to do away with the categorisation. It is simplistic and misleads students who have not the ability to think critically.
For most part of the CSE program, I have no problems with it. But the fallout of the AWARE saga shows that we must expose our students with a much more deeper understanding of the various views on homosexuality.
As a concerned Christian parent, this is my proposal:
Firstly, I would like my children to be taught that scientific evidence is divided on homosexuality. I have no problems if they are shown research that led researchers to believe that there is a gay gene, but I also want students to be shown criticisms of such research and research that shows otherwise. A simple google search of “gay gene†will throw up research papers (secular and faith-based) arguments of both.
If nothing else, it will teach our students that research and scientific evidence deserve more critical appraisals than mere acceptance.
Secondly, I would like students to already be familiar with the concept of worldviews and how hisory and faith interact with society to form the diversity of worldviews we have today. I would like a panel of speakers to be made available for them to ask questions, so that as many views as possible can be made available to them. The choice of speakers may be tricky but the general principle should be that debate is generated in a constructive and condusive manner.
Thirdly, I would like parents to be informed, and have the option of sitting in these sessions. I don’t want parents to be allowed to interject the session, but I do want to be able to debrief my children based on what went on in the discussion. And I do want parents’ feedback to the school to be taken seriously. I think it is reasonable for us to have a say in this, just as it is reasonable for the school / MOE to make the final decision on it.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:29 am
Strange how “anal sex can be healthy if…(etc)” is immediately construed to mean homosexual anal sex…
The Singapore Govt has legalized penetrative anal sex (between woman and man). Factually speaking, an anus is an anus, and a penis is a penis, and anal sex is anal sex.
It is legal**. Personally I do not see how a simple statement on consensual and SAFE anal sex could be ‘immoral’, ‘unnatural’ or even allegedly illegal. There is no statement within the context of the CSE Confidential Instructor’s guide implying that anal sex is being promoted (especially promoted within the guidelines of homosexual anal sex)
May 12th, 2009 at 2:15 am
LH,
You’re really scary. I am glad you’re not my mom.
May 12th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Pupil,
Ouch But I take your point. Had my 7 year old in mind, forgot it’s for teeangers. Sorry.
So if parents don’t sit in, are you ok with everything else?
May 12th, 2009 at 11:45 am
LH,
For crying out loud, it’s only CSE, not GCE, why do we have to go through what you’ve proposed. Do you not think we have enough to study in school? With all this talk about having to keep the secular and the religious apart, why must we “be familiar with the concept of worldviews and how hisory and faith interact with society to from the diversity of worldviews we have today”? Does that not also mean more study? Why do I have to go through all this because of a mere mention of anal sex? I don’t even think about it or care about it! And I am not going to run out and offer my anus to anyone! Not even to God!
I just want to concentrate on my studies. To do well in all the subjects so that my parents would be proud of what I have done and achieved, not so that they can worry about what I am not going to do!
You are the kind of parent that many of my peers fear (and, indeed, some of them have parents like you). You want in on everything we do. It’s not enough you want to control our life, you want to come into our school, the only place where we can be ourselves without you constantly looking over our shoulders.
You are the kind of parent who still believe the Internet is bad for us, and that the only way we can go on-line is when you sit with us in front of the computer.
You are the kind of parent who thinks because we are young, we can only be up to no good, and the friends we keep, young as they are, are also no good.
You are the kind of parent that sends shivers down my spine.
We may not know everything that you know, but we know enough to get by in our daily lives. And what we do not yet know, we hope to learn them by ourselves in our journey out of adolescence, a journey no doubt fraught with trials and tribulations. Our only wish is that these trials and tribulations are not contributed by you.
Although you call yourself a Christian parent, I am sorry to say, you sound like you’re from hell.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
@Pupil:
One of your concerns that I hear, if I get what you are saying, is that you wish to concentrate on your studies and score well in all the subjects you have to do well in. I have to say that this is no easy task, and I admire your determination and focus to make your parents proud of you in that way.
I am not sure that LH has actually proposed that CSE become an examinable subject, yet another test that a busy student like yourself has to prepare for and do well in so as to make a more secure and brighter future. She simply suggests that parents of young persons like you attend the sex education sessions that you would have in school, so that they at least keep in touch with what is happening. I am guessing that this is because these parents care that their children be healthy and happy and respect their own bodies. There can be other less intrusive ways for parents to keep in touch with what their children learn during sex ed classes, I agree. What are some of those ways, you would suggest?
You also seem to have the concern (if I have heard you as you intended) that if parents are allowed to attend the sex education sessions that you attend in school, they are therefore out to control you, perhaps because they might want to further discuss at home the things you have learnt at the sessions.
Discussing is not controlling, and I hope your parents and you would believe so too. When your friends discuss things with you at recess, the things they have seen and heard in school, are they out to control you as well? Could it be the way you and your parents discuss, perhaps, instead of the things you are actually discussing? Are there other ways in which other parents discuss important things with their children?
I have seen good discussions over the three blog posts that Ms Catherine Lim has written on these matters. There has been much listening and thoughtful replying from all persons with different viewpoints. I did not get the impression that anybody was out to control anybody of any age.
Lastly, you are welcome to disagree with how LH chooses to raise her children. But criticizing her feelings towards her religion by saying that she sounds like she “is from hell”, when you know that she is Christian and hell is a very severe eternal punishment in the Christian religion, is an inappropriate ending comment.
I write these things for you to consider.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Dear Pupil,
I think you may have totally misunderstood LH’s intention in the letter. She is just voicing her opnion as a caring and concerned parent, qualities that sadly many busy parents nowadys are lacking.
We do not go through school just to ace examination subjects. I am sure most parents will very much prefer their children to grow up well balanced, loving, considerate, healthy, someone who is loyal to friends and family, than simply scoring straight As in the GCE or any other exams.
That is why beside IQ, EQ is equally if not more important. That is why the concept of worldview and history are important in the overall development of an individual. Then again no one is advocating that students should be tested on the subject.
We all go through life with trials and tribulations, that is what makes life experiences rich. But wouldn’t it be less daunting if you had a concerned parent who is willing to walk part of the early days with you, to take off some of the knocks and help you up when you fall? They are by no means trying to control you.
In any case, if you had any issues, unhappiness or misunderstanding, be it with your parents, teachers or friends, the best way is through open dialogue and frank discussions. If you truly feel that they are intruding into you privacy or their actions is causing you much anguish, you could gently voice it with them.
Last but not least, I agree with SM that telling LH she is from hell is indeed a very harsh and hurtful remark. You at least owe her an apology. But again that is only my personal opinion.
May 13th, 2009 at 4:54 am
Dear Choong and SM,
“You sound like you are from hell” is a figure of speech, likely meaning LH sounds difficult, given the context in which Pupil made the remark.
In my understanding, Pupil did a contrast of qualities, by using the words “Christian” and “Hell” in the same sentence (desirable vs undesirable qualities), but not in a vengeful manner (e.g. You are a Christian, I wish you go to hell).
Take some more examples:
“Boss from hell”, “There’s going to be hell”, One hell of a night”.
Does any of the sentence’s “hell” refers to the biblical hell?
As mentioned many times by you guys & gals, people should respect your right to speak your mind and respect your right to do as you like.
Should we also extend it to Pupil, who had spoken his/her mind?
It is also beneficial to try and understand what’s one intention behind a comment and not take it literally and out of context.
May 13th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
SM and Choong,
If you think I have offended anyone, kindly dismiss it as teenage angst. But I can’t change the way I feel about LH because reading what she wrote really made me quiver. I am not kidding. I have met parents like her. They are really quite terrifying.
Why do I feel this way? LH said that her moral beliefs are absolute to herself, but she wants to impose her moral beliefs on her children (something Catherine Lim is urging parents not to do), as well as have some influence on how other kids, not related to her by blood, are taught. She wants her feedback to the school to be taken seriously, and this sounds to me that if she does not like what she sees, hears, and reads, she wants things changed. If the change she demands is granted, does that not affect the kids not her own who may not share what she feels? It’s a disturbing thought, no?
(If our educational institutions are such immoral traps for the easily-influenced and those “who have not the ability to think critically”, I wonder why not more parents are home-schooling their kids. Or sending them to be taught in a convent or monastery!)
I think my problem, for a lack of a better word, but more for the satisfaction of some parents, is that we teens have been told by way too many adults we don’t care (teachers are also guilty) that we cannot process supposedly complex issues such as homosexuality. You know what? We may not be exposed to the many views on some issues, but that does not mean we have no view. The problem is, our view is always seen as immature, baseless, and peer-generated. So, few adults want to hear any of it or accept that it may be logical and of the present time.
Among my friends and I, we may not discuss homosexuality with the kind of zeal palpable here, but we do talk about it. Mostly who may be and who may not be. And we don’t make it a problem to either us or to others. To us, homosexuals are people who are attracted to the same sex. That’s it. Seriously, I’ve never thought that homosexuals can harm me or change my world view. I am not threatened by them. I don’t desire to be like them as much as they don’t want to be like me! Maybe I am naive, but I truly feel people can like what they like. I don’t have to like what they like, but that does not mean they cannot like what they like. Does that make sense or is that, as LH said, simplistic?
What’s also interesting is that both of you, SM and Choong, suggested that, in responding to LH the way I had, I have revealed myself to be incapable of communicating with my parents, vice versa. I am very tickled by this. As I do not feel this discussion is about me and my family, I shall not talk about them. But, I would like to say to Choong, I do have concerned parents who not only walk with me, but also run, skip and hop with me, and should I fall, they know I am able to pick myself up and carry on with the journey. This is as much a reflection of how they have brought me up as it is about my ability to take care of myself.
To SM, discussions, as we have been taught in school, are, broadly speaking, sessions when two or more people are engaged in an earnest conversation that may be argumentative. In the course of an argument or, to be more polite, a debate, there could rise the individual or group who desires to dominate the other. In such a scenario, an attempt to control may arise. So discussing could be controlling. When my friends and I discuss things that we have seen and heard in school, we are mostly gossiping, so no one’s trying to control anyone. Moreover, we are, more or less, of the same age, so no one tries to be smarter, more experienced or morally superior, and therefore, no controlling. However, when parents make their kids see things only their way without first understanding the basis of the children’s thinking, that to a teenager eager to establish his or her individuality and independence, is controlling. The way my parents and I discuss and what we discuss do not pose a problem for me or for them, as far as I can see. Oh, one more thing, SM, no doubt there are much discussions here, but “much… thoughtful replying”? I think that’s over-stating it! But then I am only a kid!
Just as I am planning to clarify my use of “sound like you’re from hell”, SG has offered an explanation that’s similar to what I have in mind, and, to you, SG, thank you. But I would still like to expand on it. The closing sentence was also composed for effect, and I believe I have achieved some success. Please do not think I have not considered what I wrote. Inappropriate as some of you may think, I was not criticizing LH’s feeling toward her religion, as SM has charged. If you wish to be biblical about it, hell is a final destination, specifically a place in the afterlife, and since LH is clearly no where near there (actually, only God would know), I cannot possibly mean it literally. In case you’re not convinced, I should say then I do not wish her permanent damnation. What I was expressing was revulsion.
This is, of course, a very personal thing. I have a distaste for controlling parents just as I have an aversion to rodents. In saying so, I hope you don’t think there’s an attempt at contempt. I may have been reactive in my reply to LH, but I was certainly not aggressive. It is beneficial, as SG pointed out, that we do not take this out of context
Talking about taking things out of context, I have this experience to share. I know this is getting long, but please bear with me. A while ago, I sat next to an elderly man in an MRT train. Beside him was a boy of about seven, who could not sit still. He was jumping up and down, and rocking about so violently that at one point, he was going to fall off his seat. The elderly man, afraid that the child may hurt himself, called out: “Hey, be careful!”
That gentle warning was immediately met with the full wrath of the boy’s mother. Standing in front of the man, she loudly demanded: “Who do you think you are to talk to my son like that?” The man was quite shocked by her reaction (so was I!). He said to her, “I am just telling him to be careful.” “No,” she barked, “you were very rude to call him ‘hey’. You have no right to call my son that.” “But I don’t know his name,” the man ventured further. “That does not mean you can be rude! Hey! Mind your own business,” she snapped back. Before the man could reply, the woman’s husband stepped forward: “You want to fight? Okay, let’s go out now to fight!” Clearly unable to win, the man alighted at the next station, looking, to me, shame-faced.
With so many American TV series shown on television, it is quite a revelation to me there are those who do not know that “hey” is both an interjection used to call attention and a greeting that can take the place of hello. In school, we do say hey to one another when we meet. I could not, therefore, understand why the woman was so angry. Has she taken things out of context? Of course, “hey” does not evoke fire as “hell” does, but, is there any reason to see what was basically a civic behaviour as something insolent, something fanned by flames of disrepect? And when one takes things out of context, what is the likely outcome?
What the parents of the boy had done was, sure, to protect their kid, but against what, and in doing so, had they not tried to control someone? The funny (and sad) thing is, was the elderly man not trying to protect the boy too?
Cheers!
May 13th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Dear SM, Choong, thank you.
Dear Pupil, I am glad you took the pain to expand further on why you said what you said. I too am appalled by what you witnessed on the MRT. The old man had good intentions and should not have been yelled at the the mother.
I am glad you and your friends talk about homosexuality and you have formed an opinion. I am also glad that you have parents who obviously have earned your love and respect, and you are evidently a motivated student.
What I think is the problem here is that you jump to conclusions too readily based on a few sentences, a few examples you’ve witnessed, and some misconceptions about how Christian parents teach their children.
My eldest is not yet a teenager, but may I share with you what we did yesterday.
Because I have a very demanding 3 yr old and a young baby, I often think it necessary to carve out individual time to bond with my 7 yr old. I brought my daughter out to watch Ramen Girl, a PG show but I deemed it to be interesting enough for a 7 year old. For most part, the show was excellent! Funny, interesting display of clash of cultures, a girl who had some setbacks and set her mind to achieve something against odds, etc.
I thought I would have to cover her eyes if there were adult intimate scenes (yes I am protective that way) and there were indeed a couple of short kissing scenes. What surprised me was that my daughter voluntarily covered her eyes and at the end of the show, expressed disgust over the kissing scenes.
Now, we are an affectionate family and kiss our kids alot though we do not kiss on the lips in front of them. But I was surprised by her revulsion and took pains to ask her why.
She said that oh, kissing was disgusting, and could not explain her revulsion. After some back and forth in which she felt it hard to express her revulsion, I had to break it down for her. I explained to her that kissing on the lips was a very natural expression of love between 2 people. In some cultures, people except it as part of everyday life. In Asian culture, we don’t see it so often.
We went on to talk about why the girl kissed 2 different men in the show. So I told her that yes, there are many people in Western societies and even Singapore, who think that kissing is ok if they love the person. I told her however, that Daddy and Mummy would prefer her to keep her kisses for someone really special, for the man she would marry (I didn’t say before or after since she didn’t ask). I told her that we believe that marriage is very special and God made our bodies special for our furture husband / wife. I asked her how she would feel if her future husband had kissed other girls before, and she said she wouldn’t like it. So I requested her to save her kisses for the special man in her life.
And as usual after every such conversations, I told her that many people do not think that way. And one day, many friends will also not think that way. But this is what we think and when she grows up, she will have to make her own choice. I emphasised at the end that I hope that whenever she feels like she doesn’t know what to do, we hope that she will always come and ask Mummy and Daddy because we love her and we will always tell her the truth.
It was an interesting 3 hours because she subsequently found an extra sanitary napkin and quizzed me about it, leading to talks about puberty, how it differs between boys and girls and so on. I didn’t expect her to ask so many questions, but she did and we went on to define what hormones are, what it makes you feel, and I told her that it would be a tough time in her life. She asked me if this was what her Daddy and I went through, and I said yes (though some stuff said were really quite embarassing). I ended up telling her that regardless of how one would feel during puberty because of hormones, they will always have a choice on what to do with these feelings. And again, I requested that she would come to us if she ever felt confused or upset.
I asked her why she asked me so many questions, and she happily exclaims that she likes to know about things.
I don’t know what your friends’ parents are like, and I don’t know if I will be a good parent when my kids become teenagers.
My husband and I firmly believe that our kids need to develop their own thoughts, but they must also know where we stand on important issues. Because of that, we sacrifice alot to spend time with them, to listen to them, to communicate with them. We take the pains to be the first to introduce them to the computer, internet games, movies, music, while taking pains to still draw boundaries governing the use of such technology and entertainment.
We bear in mind their age and assess their maturity through such interactions, and we tell our 7 year old that as she makes better decisions, we will afford her more freedom. We hope that our conversations become more sophiscated as they grow older, so they can critically assess their own faith and own it. At the moment, we just revel in her questions, though we sometimes find it hard to answer it at a level of language and maturity that she would understand.
As it is with the issue of homosexuality, we will take the pains to help her explore her opinions about it but we will not apologise for sharing with her what we believe in and most importantly, WHY. We can only hope that her opinions will be a balanced one, loving God, and loving the people around her.
For your consideration, LH
PS: About CSE, I would much prefer to do away with it, I do feel uncomfortable about discussing such issues with students from such diverse backgrounds. My proposal was in the context of if MOE / schools insist on going on with the program.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:12 am
One more thing, Pupil.
I hope what I shared above shows a little of the dynamics between parent and child, and one style of parenting for one unique child.
The above has to be put in the context of me and my husband being relatively well-educated, well-read and well brought up individuals. I also have the blessing of being able to choose to stay home with my children.
There are many parents whose strengths are not intellectual, nor verbal nor well-educated, well-read or have had good influences and parenting models in their lives. This does not mean they love their children any less nor try their hardest while trying to make a living and put food on the table.
As much as I am appalled by the mother who yelled, would it make a difference to you if hypothetically speaking, she was a victim of verbal / physical abuse from her in-laws who consistently berate her in front of her children?
As you react to different parenting styles, by all means process and rememeber them for your future reference. But be thankful you’ve had wonderful parents and don’t be too quick to judge others.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Dear Pupil,
As a parent, you gave me confident in believing that teenagers are able to analyze and articulate their thoughts when given the opportunity. I’ll certainly be proud of you if you’re my child.
You have certainly brought out a very important point that I hope all parents will pay attention to… that is to listen to what the children (or teenagers) has to say.
All the best to you
May 14th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Perhaps I can bring the discussion back and ask if there seemed to be so many people out there who think that CSE is ok, why is it that the government suspended it only just?
Is it
The government is weak and giving in to the minority fundamentalist group?
The government is weak and giving in to the majority view?
The government is doing it because they think its the right thing to do but was caught unaware of the content before?
The government is anti-gay or anti Aware?
It can’t be (4) as they would have blocked the CSE from the start. Which is it?
Who should the government make the policy based on? Should it be
If its everyone (or more specifically non-parents), how to address the concern for the responsibility that the parents have to carry for values taught which is not aligned with their family values?
May 14th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Dear LH,
Thank you for reading my reply to SM and Choong.
I appreciate that you have put in considerable effort, not to mention valuable time away from your three kids, to touch upon what you consider my “misconception about how Christian parents teach their children”. This is fascinating as well as intriguing because I don’t quite know what you mean since I haven’t made any comment on Christian parents’ mode of parenting. When I referred to parents, I referred to parents in general. I deliberately avoided pointing to those of any religious persuasion. Indeed, I made no mention of parents of your faith. So please do not take this personally.
The truth is, LH, I know it is not wise to bring up the subject of religion for doing so would be like stepping out onto a field of land mines: you don’t know where the dangers lay. I don’t mind taking the risk if the jeopardy means certain death. The frightening thing about traversing places riddled with explosives is that, instead of fatality, you may end up without a body part. While some may thank God they’re alive, many would agree that that is worse than death! So, LH, you can be assured that I do not wish to comment on your Christian faith and the things you say from a Christian standpoint (the latter may be difficult since it is your faith that defines you, but I shall try). I do not want to suffer the psychological equivalent of losing a limp. That would be tragic. And I do want to be able to go back to school intact.
Also, how you bring up your kids is no concern nor interest of mine. I think you can understand that, for most teens, the way the married set rear their kids is not especially amusing to us, nor compelling. We’d rather listen to the theory of relativity!
Still, your afternoon at the movie with your daughter and what followed were sweet—the kind of account that deserves to be published in women’s magazines teens do not read. I am sure other mothers will relate—with nodding heads—to what transpired between you and your daughter, and, in your subsequent admission, the extent of your sacrifice for your children. This is where I’m unable to grasp. You said you “sacrificed a lot to spend time with them…” Not yet a parent, I’m walking on thin ice here. Why is any time spend with your children a sacrifice? Do your children not deserve your time—any time? What did you have to give up? Because you have surrendered something to have time for your kids, does that make you a better mother? Does it make your effort more commendable? Can a mother be a mother without making sacrifices? I hear some women screaming: giving birth is a sacrifice!
I ask these questions not to provoke or to doubt your maternal talents. I am not calling to question your sincerity either. It would be easy and convenient to think that this is just a teen winding people up, but what I am trying to do here is really to think critically. I believe you can agree then that there can be no harm if we analyze some of the things you have written in my pursuit of critical thinking!
Although I have stated that I would not talk about my parents, I want to say that, while I can see that my parents have made sacrifices for me, they have never put what they gave up as sacrifices. To them, they are being parents, and whatever they have done that can be described as sacrifice, they’re actualised as instinctive response to my needs. These are things they have to do because no one else is going to do them. I know my parents trust me and are happy with me not because of what they have achieved, but because of what I have accomplished and will accomplish.
Allow me to refer to one of your earlier responses and repeat it here for the benefit of those who may have missed it: “I’ve just nursed my 3 children through a week of stomach flu. I wake up at 4.30 to rock the crying baby, at 5.30 to bring the toddler to the toilet for diarrhoea, at 6.30 to bring the eldest to school. And the day has only just begun.” While I admire the narrative as touching, worthy of a TV script, I am also intrigued by your need to draw attention to the sacrifices you have made. Assuming sacrifices are a vital part of the parental makeup, why are yours so unique that they deserve special mention in such chronological detail? The reiterations later, therefore, seem to me you’re trying to elicit not just understanding that parenting is hard, but also sympathy. “Sacrifice” becomes the password into the world of parents giving up sleep, time, et al for their children. Mothers of the world unite!
But are parents the only ones in a family making sacrifices? What about the child? When the offspring accepts the parent’s influence on him or her, does the kid not become vulnerable to the parents’ interest or objective? The way I see it, subjecting oneself to the interest of another is a sacrifice—you sacrifice control over your body and your mind. In some cases, the child may be exploited by the parents. The sacrifices become the trump card in the parent’s control: kids are expected to make up for the sacrifices. Coming up short, the young ones become quilt-ridden. When they are unable to live up to the parents’ expectations, they feel they have failed.
I know this first hand because I have friends who are convinced that, no matter how hard they try at school, they’ll never be able to compensate for the sacrifices their parents have made for them. The guilt they feel is almost too much to bear, and they attempt desperately to do well in school, not for themselves, but for their parents. In the end, they fare no better in class, and no better at home.
Many teens are conditioned, from a very early age, to gain parental approval and consent in nearly all aspects of their life, from the way they dress to who they befriend to the subjects that must take. I think this is not a very good educational practice. As graduates of such behavioral training, they emerge oftentimes quite unable to think for themselves or have an opinion. There are respondents here who call them “impressionable”. Is it a wonder, then, that many students are so unable to speak up in class? I remember what my favourite literature teacher once said to us, “It does not matter what I think; what you’re thinking is more important.” I’m quite sure you can appreciate how that made us feel.
LH, you were also quick to say that I have jumped “to conclusions too readily on a few sentences, a few examples…” May I be so bold as to venture that you too have very rapidly summed me up based on what I offered as anecdotes. Given the constraints of space, and web visitors’ general lack of patience with lengthy texts, I have been unable to cite more examples. Still, I appreciate your maternal tone of voice that spoke without whispers of condescension. And your willingness to engage a teen unschooled in the ways and thoughts of adults should be studied by more parents.
Yet, it would be of great value to me (not to mention my world view) if you could explain how I have jumped into conclusions. I admit I enjoy executing a flashy swan dive into many things (participating in this blog is one!), but I don’t believe I’ve made anything conclusive here without first weighing the different sides. In fact, I do not think any conclusion is drawn since this is an open debate.
In your afterthought (a recurrent practice, I notice), you wrote that you were “appalled by the mother who yelled” and, at the same time, under the guise of hypothesis, suggested that she may be “a victim of verbal / physical abuse from her in-laws who consistently berate her in front of her children”. Now, why didn’t I think of that?! From your highly imaginative supposition, I see a mother sympathising with another! Mothers of the world unite! Frankly, I am quite surprised that you are unable to see what I have described for what it really was: a very rude woman with an alarmist disposition chastising someone for something he clearly did not do. You were “appalled”, yes, but you did not disapprove of such behaviour, and, instead, furnished us with a possible reason for the shocking public display of ill-placed anger.
So, when a woman screams at a well-intentioned person, she is seen as one with a history related to family abuse. In other words, she is, first, a victim. That holds as much water as saying that a homosexual man ‘becomes’ attracted to his own sex because he has a dominating mother and an absent father or that he had been the target of unwarranted sexual attention when he was young! Straight-up simplism, no?
I would also like to state that it is offensive for you to say that “I must be thankful I’ve had wonderful parents”. Firstly let me clarify this: my parents are very much alive. And they are as wonderful yesterday as they are today, and I am certain they will still be just as wonderful tomorrow. Secondly, I am not only thankful, I am proud, relieved, and happy that I have parents such as my mom and dad.
For your consideration too.
Cheers!
May 14th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
According to humanistic arguments, homosexuality requires our understanding.
The main and only premise here is that they have no control over their sexuality, so this is a condition everyone should show some understanding for. They love each other no different from how we love each other. They engage in love-making in the same emotional and romantic breath as us.
That’s all fine, but we must also remember that sex serves not just love and procreation only. It is also a pursuit of sensual desires, irrationally charged by hormones. There’re all sorts of senseless, fruitless and loveless activities driven by this hedonistic instinct.
So, we must be careful here. We can acknowledge homosexuality’s a condition that needs our understanding. But we must also point out that it’s an abnormal condition, a disorder of sexuality. We mustn’t allow it to be sanitised to the extent it appears to be just another way of life for some minority.
Granted, people without the condition may not end up choosing that way finally, but once the stigma is removed, there may be an increase in homosexual acts due to fanciful experimentation.
So.. it’s fine that we show some understanding towards homosexuality. But we must be careful to always regard it as a disorder, an abnormality. We need to remind ourselves – sexuality involves not just romantic love only, but basic carnal desires too.
Of course, all this is provided someone can verify the controversial part – the main and only premise, as mentioned above..
And of course, some lobbyists may go further to say promiscuity or casual sex is just natural expression of sexual needs, common to any.. And humanistic concerns are above all else.
Where will this end? Middle ground, or no-man’s land? Probably it’ll be an ageless issue.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:37 am
First let me declare that I am a christian. I support Homosexuals right to their choices in their lifestyle but does not support their arguments on CSE.
In the news today, I would like to highlight 3 sections of what Mr Wong Kan Seng said.
“PM Lee said that Singapore is basically a conservative society and the conventional family, a heterosexual stable family, is the norm and the building block of our society. However, we recognise that homosexuals are part of our society. “
Essentially, saying that homosexuals are acknowledged but also how that acknowledgement is done is with a conservative society filter.
“Our society will not reach consensus on this issue for a very long time to come. The way for homosexuals to have space in our society is to accept the informal limits which reflect the point of balance that our society can accept, and not to assert themselves stridently as gay groups do in the West. “
Homosexuals (and people support them) should accept that while they are entitled to their lifestyle choice, they need to keep it within the informal limits. When they try to push it even in a subtle underhanded way it is unacceptable. The fact that the government failed to detect this with the CSE and only recently suspended it shows the level of stealth that even the hugely organized MOE was not aware.
“Mica had analysed the volume, tone and objectivity of the coverage of the Aware episode, and found it wanting in some respects. Some of the coverage was excessive and not sufficiently balanced. “
It is reassuring that the government noticed this too about the unbalance views that was reported in the newspapers.
I think I am not alone when I say that those advocating that CSE is correct, etc, should take issue with the government first. Obviously there is a difference in opinion here and no amount of words will change it because homosexuals will want their lifestyles to be seen in teh same light as basic family structures which the majority of conservative parents will vehemently object. But as we can all see the homosexual supporters fervent belief more than makes up for the lack of numbers compared to the conservative parents. Well, that is life isn’t it.
So, my message to conservative parents like myself, chill even if they can scream themselves silly, there’s no need to get upset. State your piece and walk away. However, we will need to be more careful. I know that my circle of parent friends will not trust AWARE again without putting everything under a thorough check. They have basically lost our trust.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Dear Pupil,
I’m glad to hear from you, and if I’ve gone overboard in sharing stories, my apologies.
Why I like hearing from you is because you’re honest about your feelings, no matter how strongly worded they come. And it is indeed a wake up call for me not to assume too much when my kids are your age.
All the best to you, and may I appeal that you will use your voice as a peacemaker amongst your friends and their parents.
LH
May 15th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
@Pupil:
Thank you for the clarifications and additional information you have written after I first replied to you. They have been much more illuminating and nuanced than your first comment, the one I replied to. Work has been keeping me busy this week so this is the first chance I have had to return to this thread. It is true that I was concerned that the emotional rhetorical tone of your initial comment (the one that I replied to) might have been due to projecting your own parental issues onto LH, and I am glad to know that you have no such parental issues that had affected the discussion thread. Thus my concern is allayed. Also it was, as you subsequently say, unwise to bring in ad hominem criticisms of religion even if it was for dramatic effect, and I thought to remind you of that. Otherwise I am not in any way restricting your freedom to speak, unlike what SG had suggested. There are no other matters I am (was) concerned about to follow up on, given my time constraints. My contact details are available on my blog, should you be so inclined. I wish you and all others here well.
May 17th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Dear Catherine,
I would like to respond to the questions you raised regarding “the special dilemma of parents” concering the issue of homosexuality issue” from a fundamentalist Christian’s point of view. By the way, according to my Longman dictionary, a fundamentalist (Christian) is simply “a person who believes that everything in the Bible is completely true”.
The simple answer is: There is no dilemma at all. Our children are a gift from God. Ultimately, they do not belong to us. Parents are simply the custodians. Our duty as Christians parents are clearly spelled out in the Bible. We are to teach them what the Bible teaches; including of course the subject of homosexuality. We are not to add or subtract from it. I guess that anwers your other question about imposing our views on our children. Our views are not important. Only what God’s Word says matters.
What happens if they decide to reject the Bible’s teachings and ‘go the way of the world’ when they grow up? I will be sad of course. But if I have consciously done my part, I should not despair. And needless to say I will still love them and pray for them and leave the rest to the God I worship.
Your other question concerns whether or not I should “block out harmful moral influences that, for instance, the Aware CSE program is alleged to be”. In the first place, even if I wanted to, I cannot. The influence is all around. and sooner or later they will be exposed to it. Still, I have a responsibility to try my best to minimize that exposure, especially when they are still young.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Dear Catherine,
Please allow me to respond to the questions you raised regarding “the special dilemma of parents†concerning the homosexuality issue†from a fundamentalist’s point of view.
By the way, according to my Shortgod Dictionary, a fundamentalist is simply “a god who believes that everything in the Book is completely trueâ€.
The simple answer is: There is no dilemma at all. Our children are a gift from Man. Ultimately, they belong to Man. Gods are simply their custodians. Our duty as parents are clearly spelt out in the Book. We are to teach them what the Book teaches; including the subject of homosexuality. We are not to add or subtract from it. I guess that also answers your other question about imposing our views on our children. Our views are not important. Only Man’s Words matter.
What happens if they decide to reject the Book’s teachings and ‘go the way of the world’ when they grow up? I will be sad of course. But if I have consciously done my part, I should not despair. And needless to say I will still love them and leave the rest to the Man whom I have created.
Your other question concerns whether or not I should “block out harmful moral influences. In the first place, even if I wanted to, I cannot. The influence is all around. and sooner or later they will be exposed to it. Still, I have a responsibility to try my best to minimize that exposure, especially when they are still young. My duty as God is to give Man, which includes their children, the Free Will to Choose.
Even I, as the Only Omnipotent and Almighty God, cannot impose my will upon each and everyone of them!
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:18 am
phew…finally reached da end…
anw @pupil,i jus think ur comments like immature tho ur ang moh very good.
@LH,ur quite a modern open parent but ya can definatly do better…maybe being less authority sounding?my 2cents…
@the rest of peeps who spoke up for the aware thing tt kena banned…thks,but i think this kind of thing at this point of time is still expected de lor…maybe a step at a time bah?
peace out! ^^
May 29th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Dear Catherine,
You mentioned the following: “… Any criticism of you can never be of your views as such, but for your imposing them on others.”
Just wanted to let you know that I agree very strongly with that statement.
I simply cannot accept some religious groups trying to impose their views on impressionable and vulnerable kids outside their schools.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:02 pm
This is very sad. Everyone writing about homosexuals here. No one cares about the true meaning of it. Attracted to the same sex. All the talk about “lifestyle”, “acts”, “behaviour” had deviated a sexual orientation from its true meaning. Certain Christian sections even revisioned its meaning. Authoritative medical sciences and decades of research of the world is ignored for the sake of confirmation bias from snake oil salesmen like NARTH.
Many gays and lesbians, even transgenders have their lives, even their suicidal deaths or violent ends, invalidated for the sake of prejudice. And yet, all of them are branded psychos who cannot live and think for themselves, and as if they need “change” perpetuated by people who are taking advantage of the monetary, acceptance and status of being “ex-gays”.
In the end, no one will ever know what a person born comfortable with their sexual orientation will feel if they are born homosexual or bisexual. No one would even question why no one bothers about why there are no heterosexual or asexual gene. Everyone loves to hear about the fear, the hate, the disgust parroted by certain circles. But as sure as we are all flesh and blood, we are all in the end human beings conditioned to be different, and separate ourselves and the people around us because of it. And we all are still human beings capable of love. And it would be great if we can affirm everyone’s love for everyone instead of demonizing anyone.
September 14th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
One other controversy related to this thread is the Thio Li-Ann case in which she withdrew from her NYU teaching appointment due to student protests against her slant against same-sex marriages and homosexuality.
Ms Lim, what thoughts do you have about her impassioned speech (about the repealing of Section 377A) in Parliament, and the responses by NYU and herself?
January 9th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
I just happen to come across this feature and even though this is a late late late posting, i just very much like to thank Dr. Lim for her very tolerant and fair piece. I hope no one else has missed the point in her writing that LOVE and UNDERSTANDING is all that matters when dealing with people of different beliefs and persuasions. More love, less hate, more empathy less venom and definitely more tolerance, would make for a far far batter world. Just look at wat’s happening in malaysia and the states! All this interference in other people’s private lives and being judgemental.
I only like to say I am a happy gay person surrounded by very suportive friends and loved ones. And I can only hope that every gay person will have a chance to achieve a goog and happy in their lives – its a basic human right everyone is entitled to.
January 15th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
I just want to add that I am a very happy lesbian woman in a happy relationship with another woman, and with supportive friends, and a loving family who know I am lesbian. Yes, the – we gay people actually can find some of the same sex sizzling hot and seductive! Their personality and background matter, of course, just like with straight people.
How did I know I was gay? Some would have you believe you have to subscribe to some national organisation, or be “seduced” to become gay. I always knew I was attracted to women since I was 12 – you can’t fake, hide, or pretend not to be who you biologically want to spend your romantic time with.
It’s very sad to see how the institutional discrimination we face in Singapore, has transformed into a “legitimate” soapbox for those with ignorant viewpoints to disseminate their ignorance.
I don’t believe those who hate gays are stupid or hateful per se – but in the immortal words of George Lucas – ignorance breeds fear, and fear leads to hate.
January 15th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
my real blogging website