Singapore's Ministry of Education has always been a target of my anger, simply because of the important role they play in moulding the future leaders, and hence the future, of this country. A formal education may not be totally necessary, nor is it always relevant, to the individual receiving it; but education is so much more than exams and the paper chase. The emphasis on the quality of grades over the quality of education itself has always riled me because our youth deserve better. While we can propose solutions to improve the education system (and I have a few, which will be touched on in a future post), there are some fundamental weaknesses that MOE needs to address before changes can truly benefit the country.

And one of those weaknesses is the lack of moral fibre. A lack of spinal fortitude as it were. I say this because of their "it's ok, oops, now it's not" stand on AWARE's, and all other external vendors', sexuality education programs, as well as their caving in to an anonymous letter and forcing one of their GP teachers to remove a well articulated note on Facebook. There is no point in trying to educate the youth when they can clearly see the paucity of courage coming from the "educators".

The flip-flop on the CSEs have now become a running joke and a source of indignation. It is clear that the MOE has chosen to sway with the winds, not unlike a coconut tree, instead of sticking to its initial statement that the CSEs conform to their guidelines. It is telling that while participants did not raise complaints to the MOE, non-participating parents did, ironically under a banner of "concerned parents". One has to wonder where that concern was before this ruckus was raised. But I digress.

This episode is particularly insulting to the students of today, because it implies that parents do not trust their children to think clearly and intelligently or to be responsible for their actions, nor should they be equipped with the skills to objectively analyse issues or to be responsible for their own conduct. This is a very weak position to lobby for a suspension of the CSEs, and yet MOE has done just that, which is a further indictment to their poor judgment and dearth of moral fibre.

Which brings me to the issue of Ms Lisa Li and her now famous Facebook note. It has been taken down, but I will reproduce it here for everyone's benefit.

11 May 2009
I TEACH GENERAL PAPER, NOT HOMOSEXUALITY
Lisa Li

With all due respect to the well-meaning "concerned parents" out there, this is starting to sound like a dodgy GP essay to me.

Apparently, because my students and I "discuss topics such as the legalisation of gay marriage and parents of the same sex forming families through adoption" in class, I am guilty of promoting homosexuality.*

Right.

But never mind. MOE has already come to the rescue with their statement that "GP lessons are meant to promote critical thinking" and GP teachers "should also adhere to social norms and values of our mainstream society".*

Oh yes, apparently one can facilitate critical thinking, that is, the reasoned questioning of assumptions, norms and values AND fully reinforce and adhere to social norms at the same time.

And wait, I see this again, in the debate on sexuality education and just what should be said about homosexuality:

1. Homosexuality is against the social norms and values of mainstream society.
2. Homosexuality is illegal and considered unnatural under Singapore law.

The first thing any student of GP (or indeed, any human being who knows anything about world history) will realise, is that social norms change.

Secondly, if you insist on going by "mainstream" values and beliefs, you may like to follow 43% of Singaporeans and look to Buddhism, which views homosexuality on neutral grounds, as opposed to Christianity (15%) and Islam (15%).

In any case, the legal argument will only hold as long as homosexual acts are considered illegal in Singapore.... and judging from the force of change in the world, frankly my dear, you can't hold the dam for much longer.

Singapore's law criminalising homosexual acts is based on British law - which decriminalised this in 1967.

Other countries which have decriminalised homosexuality include France (1791), The Netherlands (1811), Brazil (1830), Ottoman Empire (1858), Germany (1871), Japan (1880), Italy (1889), USSR (1922), Denmark (1930), Iceland (1940), Switzerland (1942), Sweden (1944), Greece (1951), Thailand (1956), Israel (1963), Chad (1967), Canada (1969), Kosovo (1970), Australia (1981), South Africa (1994), China (1997) etc.

This shows an increasing acceptance that personal preferences that do not harm anyone else should not be governed (in this case, criminalised) by the state. As with the wearing away of all other forms of inequality, I believe this discrimination of homosexuals cannot last.

So what are we left with?

Are we justifying a brand of education with reasons that won't hold weight for much longer?

You may argue that making something legal doesn't make it right, and you have a point.

But then that would depend on what you consider "right", which really is a moral issue and one that concerns personal belief.

So I have two points for you:

1. Personal beliefs - religious or otherwise - should not influence the laws of a secular society. The onus is on parents and preachers to educate their children in these beliefs. Say what you want at the pulpit, not in Parliament, and certainly, do not foist this responsibility onto your child's teachers in secular schools.

2. It is unfair, impractical and dangerous to insist that youths be given only the old rules when they live in a completely different world. Parents, if you insist on a black-and-white moral education for your children, you only drive them into secrecy when they need you most. If teachers cannot teach openly and factually, rest assured that the internet will.

As an educator and maybe future parent, I admit I am less concerned about whether my children are homosexual/transsexual/(fill in the blank) or not, and more concerned that they should always respect others and themselves, never discriminate, always critically examine issues, always feel free to share their thoughts with me without fear of condemnation, always love and always be loved no matter what.

This is my hope.

PS. If you think your children will rush to become homosexual/transsexual/(fill in the blank) because of my words, I THANK YOU for crediting me with such influence! By the way, your children are smarter than you think....

* Quoted from "AWARE sex guide suspended" (ST, 7 May 2009)
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_373422.html

I have to thank Lisa for writing this note. This is written from the perspective of a teacher, with first-hand knowledge, in touch with her students. This is a valuable contribution from a person who is on the ground, doing the work that others have the luxury to criticise but not the gumption to perform. And yet, MOE forced her to remove that post after they received a complaint letter from an anonymous source.

Our government have constantly stressed that we should not hide behind the veil of anonymity as it is an act of cowardice. If we are to apply that logic, then this letter is nothing more than that: an act of cowardice enacted from behind the comfort and safety of anonymity. But MOE still bowed to the might of cowardice, forcing Lisa to take down her post, as if that letter was no different from an imperial decree and defiance will result in the massacre of entire family lines. It betrays the trust that teachers have with MOE, and, much like the flip-flop on the CSEs, betrays how MOE truly thinks about their teachers.

This loss of moral courage from the MOE is dismaying, and conveys the wrong message to students, teachers and parents. And the biggest losers in the debacle are the students, which is the real problem. We may be so strong in math education that the US wants to learn from us, but they won't be queuing up to listen to how MOE handles sexuality education. The Obama administration has moved to remove the budget funding abstinence-only sex ed programs, because it has proven to be ineffective. It's high time we got on with the program and let the CSEs be continued in schools, where the only people who matter can benefit: the students.