As a man I should stay out of women’s affairs but as a concerned Singaporean, I cannot help but do my fair share by hailing the victory of Aware’s old guard over the usurpers last weekend at Suntec City.
There is no place for religious fervour in civil society. As Cherian George rightly put it in his article[1] today in The Straits Times, “God’s word cannot be the final word on how collective decisions are made in the public sphere’. One person’s God may not be another’s. Let us not impose on others one’s religious views. Civil groups work on uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values, and not on imposed directives from a group with a religious slant.
As a 50-something Singaporean and one who had been brought up in the shadow of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s administration, I had all along thought that Singaporeans were like me — reticent and unwilling to take up the public cause — preferring instead to let the brave ones lead the charge and risk being rebuked by the establishment in the event they stray past the boundary markers. So, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the younger generation — i.e. those younger than me — have not inherited my generation’s inertia but instead have risen to the occasion to protect their civic space from being overrun by people bent on promoting their voice as the only right voice of women.
Thankfully, the saga did not reach an impasse which would have necessitated the Government’s intervention to preserve the peace though I suspect some behind-the-scenes action might have taken place resulting in the various religious bodies here coming out with messages extolling tolerance and restraint by the different religious groups.
On the subject of sexual education programmes in our schools, I understand the toppled Aware committee’s concerns on the risk of homosexuality being preached to our students as a norm but I would like to point out that today’s students are totally unlike those of their generation. Today’s students have the Internet to turn to to find out all they need about sex. Parents cannot effectively exercise control over their access to such information on the Internet. They can trottle access at home but there are so many places outside the home where their children can access the Internet. What instead is needed is to put safe information on sex and sexuality in the hands of our children and teach them how to protect themselves against unwarranted intrusion into their private spaces thereby keeping them safe from peer influences. What certainly is not needed is simply preaching them that certain sexual practices are wrong because God has said it is wrong, for the young ones are impressionable and unstoppable when they have decided to do things they want to do and no amount of preaching can help. We were young once, remember?
So a comprehensive sexuality education programme that brings sexuality into the open and teaches students sensitive topics such as homosexuality in a neutral way will counter whatever inaccurate information that our youngsters might browse through in their Internet forages for information on sex and sexuality that they seek in their tumultous adolescent years.
[1] The Straits Times Page A21, 5 May 2009 ‘Pertinent lessons from a fisaco’
Recent Comments