Four out of six sex ed vendors are Christian organisations

 First published on The Online Citizen.

In a Straits Times article today, it was reported that four out of six external sex education vendors approved by the Ministry of Education (MOE) are Christian organisations. The chosen vendors are as follows (lifted from ST):

1) Fei Yue Community Services began as a Family Service Centre founded in 1991 by the Chinese Christian Mission. It has run sexuality education programmes for students for the past eight years.

2) Cornerstone Community Services Centre has taught sexuality education in schools for about six years. It is an affiliate of Cornerstone Community Church, which has made known its objections to homosexuality in the past.

3) Touch Youth is an affiliate of Touch Community Services, set up in 1992 by senior pastor Lawrence Khong of Faith Community Baptist Church.

4) Eka Training Group is a private company that has taught sexuality education to secondary students for about five years.

5) High Achievers Training Consultancy, a private company, has run various programmes for students.

6) Focus on the Family Singapore, a non-profit organisation, runs a programme that encourages young people to abstain from sex until marriage. It also offers marriage and parenting courses.

It was further mentioned in the article that "applicants also had to state their stand and philosophy on five key issues - pre-marital sex, abortion, contraception, masturbation and homosexuality."

The article does not elaborate on what sort of stand and philosophy is approved, but the MOE website gives some clues:

Sexuality Education in school is taught in the context of values which our mainstream society believes in. This means encouraging heterosexual married couples to have healthy relationships and to build stable nuclear and extended family units.

MOE does not condone promiscuity, sexual experimentation by teenagers or promote homosexuality. MOE teaches students what homosexuality is, and that homosexual acts are illegal. MOE teaches the values held by the majority, whether they are religious or not. Both teachers and external speakers should respect that they are in a position of trust with respect to students and ensure that schools are not used as arenas for advocacy on controversial issues.

MOE teaches contraception to protect youth against diseases and unwanted pregnancy, understanding their repercussions and how to prevent them from a health perspective. This is in addition to teaching teenagers how to say no to sex and promoting abstinence as still the best option for teens.

From what we can gather in the above, it appears that contraception is taught, but abstinence is still encouraged as the best choice. But I find the statement that MOE does not condone sexual experimentation or promote homosexuality peculiar.

Does MOE therefore discourage masturbation as well? With regards to homosexuality, it appears that MOE and the approved vendors would not shy from teaching that homosexuality is wrong and abnormal. The justification is that since majority of Singaporeans believe that homosexuality is wrong, it should be taught that way.

Is MOE pandering to the fear of the masses instead of steering itself by secular values that do not disfavour any constituent member of society? According to a recent report on TODAY, “Interaction in society… should be based on secular values and arguments, as it would be difficult for people to accept arguments based on another person’s religious beliefs."

What secular argument then is there to justify the teaching that homosexuality is wrong and deviant? It appears that for many individuals, the source of such beliefs are undeniably religious. Mainstream Christianity condemns homosexuality, and it appears that Muslims condemn it too. But Buddhism it seems, does not approve or condemn it. This raises a question: If Christians and Muslims are in the minority, then what justification is there to say that anti-homosexuality is mainstream (I've discussed this at some length in an old blog entry)?

It would appear then that anti-homosexual beliefs also have a cultural origin. I hesitate to call it 'Asian' or 'Chinese' culture, because anti-homosexuality is relatively universal, at least in modern times. But if the government rules by secular reasoning, then how is an argument from cultural convention secular? Doesn't tradition and secularism contradict each other?

It seems then that the underlying philosophy behind MOE's direction is one of 'harmony'. MOE refuses to bulge on this issue because it is afraid that accepting liberal values when it comes to sexuality will bring about disruption and protest from what it calls mainstream society. But this goes against another assertion that the government likes to make: That they want to do what is right, not what is popular.

Is the Singapore government hypocritical in this regard? If the route to social harmony is through endorsing non-secular beliefs rooted in religious beliefs and tradition, then isn't this an exercise in pandering to the whims of the masses?

Sorry, but I'm not getting the government.

Furthermore, MOE appears to have an underlying belief that their sex education programme will steer students away from homosexuality and towards heterosexuality. But this may be a mistake because homosexual tendencies are certainly not a choice, although an individual can decide whether to exercise his sexual desires.

Could MOE's sexuality progamme and those it endorses contribute to emotional and psychological harm to teenagers with homosexual tendencies because they are taught that their sexual desires are deviant and undesirable? Could this result in self-esteem and confidence issues?

It is perhaps not surprising that four out of six of the external vendors come from Christian organisations. I just find it distressing that Christian values are sneaked into the classroom this way, undermining the whole notion of a secular society.

The only comfort we can take out of this situation is that parents can opt out of the programmes if they want to. But this is hardly an ideal situation.