29 January 2006
SINGAPORE - A workshop at a Singapore junior college sparked uproar among students for rejecting contraception, abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, The Sunday Times reported.
Anderson Junior College engaged the church-based Family Life Society to hold the four-hour workshop for all second-year students.
Complaints have been posted on Internet diaries, or blogs, and an online forum started by a disgruntled student attracted at least 120 comments. School officials also received negative feedback.
Those conducting the workshop “did not clearly state the source of their opinions and instead attempted to spread their beliefs to everyone attending by asking everyone, regardless of their individual’s beliefs or religion, to write down things like, ’I must condemn masturbation and in-vitro fertilization,’” Tay Wei Kiat said in his posting.
“It seemed like I was being brainwashed,” said another student going by his online moniker Cygig.
The workbook the students were given appeared to promote the organization’s beliefs rather than present fact, he wrote.
Regarding contraception, the programme workshop was cited as saying, “The sterilized sexual act is not much different in its meaning from an act of mutual masturbation whereby the couple seeks to use each other to derive sexual pleasure.”
Under Ministry of Education guidelines, schools are expected to provide eight hours of sexuality education to upper secondary students and four hours to tertiary students. Many schools hire external vendors to conduct the sessions.
Woo Soo Min, vice-principal of Anderson Junior College, told the newspaper that the Family Life Society was chosen because it focused on abstinence and approached the topic “using one’s values and beliefs as the basis,” but conceded that the tone might not have been suitable.
The society defended its programme, maintaining that it never imposed any ideas on the students and kept its content entirely secular.
While some content may have been “moralistic,” the presentation was never “religious,” Andrew Kong, senior executive of the group, was quoted as saying.
The Silliest Article by the Silly Times
ReplyDeleteOpposition for the sake of Opposition? Rather I think she is bought over by the PAP to be a mouthpiece!!!!
Sumiko Tan
I STILL remember the night Low Thia Khiang became the opposition MP of Hougang back in 1991.
Aug 31 was Polling Day, and what a day it had been.
As the votes were counted that night, it soon became clear that the People's Action Party had, in one fell swoop, lost four single wards.
Potong Pasir was retained by Chiam See Tong, Hougang went to Low of the Workers' Party, and Bukit Gombak went to Ling How Doong and Nee Soon Central to Cheo Chai Chen, both of the Singapore Democratic Party, led by Chiam then.
Four seats to the opposition? Unthinkable! Singapore had seen, at most, two opposition members since the PAP came into power in 1959, when Chiam and J.B. Jeyaretnam, then leader of the Workers' Party, won at the 1984 general election. Was the PAP not unassailable after all?
It was crazy back in the newsroom and for reporters on the ground that night. Even as we called back our stories, and even as they were furiously being written up to meet the printing deadline, the enormity of what had happened didn't quite sink in.
But when the paper was finally put to bed in the early hours of Sept 1 and as I headed home, it hit me.
Hougang, the area I've lived in all my life, had 'fallen' to the opposition.
I wasn't part of the actual constituency though. My house is on the edge of the Hougang electoral boundary, and was then in the Serangoon Gardens ward.
But I grew up in the area, and I took Low's victory personally. After all, like most residents there, I'm Teochew, and Low had played the Teochew card during his campaign.
Driving home that early morning, I couldn't help it - I made a detour to Hougang.
It was, perhaps, 4.30am then, that no-man's-land hour just before dawn breaks and the cacophony of a new day begins.
Slowly I drove through the deserted streets and looked up at the darkened blocks of flats.
I marvelled at the residents, now asleep, and wondered what made them forsake the entrenched PAP. Who were these heartlanders who helped put an opposition in Parliament? Why did they vote for Low? How did they 'dare'?
Which PAP policies were they unhappy with? Or did they, like the 20something yuppie I was then, subscribe to the notion of Democracy with a capital D, which meant an opposition at all cost?
The word 'brave' kept flitting through my mind.
I circled the area for five minutes, then drove home to my house in my PAP-controlled ward.
I didn't admit it to myself then, but I shall do so now: Flushed though I was with Low's win, at the back of my mind was this thought - Singapore needed an opposition and I thanked the residents of Hougang for giving the country that. But better the opposition MP be in their ward than in mine.
TALK of an upcoming GE is reaching fever pitch and, like any Singaporean with the faintest interest in politics, I can't wait for it to be called.
Politics is serious business, of course, but in my years of covering four GEs (1988, 1991, 1997 and 2001), and one by-election (1992) as a journalist, it had its entertaining moments.
More often than not, they had been provided by the opposition.
As certain as the sun will rise, each GE would throw up its share of opposition oddballs whose main role, it sometimes seemed, was to make clowns of themselves in the run-up to Polling Day.
And so we've seen the likes of 'the slipper man', a candidate who appeared in flip-flops on Nomination Day, and folks with nary a battleplan in mind but who contested just for the publicity.
They have done no favours to the opposition cause.
The problem with the opposition in Singapore - those who have got into Parliament and those who aspire to - is that their impact has been, at best, laudable; at worst, laughable.
When you think of opposition representation over the last 20 years, what do you remember?
Chiam and Low have been generally described as credible, even by the PAP. On the national stage, both have asked the occasional probing question, while on the ground, I suppose they must have done a decent job to have won re-elections.
But the others? I can only recall the rudest outburst ever in Parliament (Ling How Doong), a nervous, mumbling figure who hardly spoke (Cheo Chai Chen), and a nude photo-taking controversy (NCMP Steve Chia).
It is estimated that at any one time, about 30 per cent of the population are against the ruling party.
Among them are mainly two groups - those disaffected by the ruling party's policies, and those who believe in opposition for opposition's sake.
Back when I was in my 20s and 30s, I belonged to the second group. I wasn't anti-PAP, not by a long shot, but it just seemed 'right' to have an opposition to act as a check on the Government, no matter how good a government is - or how bad the opposition was.
These days, though, I'm not so sure.
Maybe it's because I'm older, less idealistic, less inclined to rock the boat and because I have more at stake, but I think a parliamentary seat should go to the more deserving person, never mind his party colours.
And by deserving, I mean someone who can serve the ground and be an effective voice - and counter-voice - in Parliament.
Besides, if I'm really honest with myself, each time the PAP had been returned to power in my constituency, I was secretly relieved.
Rightly or wrongly, the perception is that things get done faster if your MP is from the PAP. His voice carries more weight, your ward will get more goodies and the value of your home will rise.
So, yes, theoretically and ideologically I still think it will be ideal to have opposition MPs when GE 2006, or 2007, comes around - but only if it is a decent opposition.
Meanwhile, the waiting game continues.
My house has since been designated part of Aljunied GRC, which is touted by pundits to be a 'hot' ward given its proximity to Hougang. Low's Workers' Party is said to be working the Aljunied ground too.
Much of politics is local, and my neighbourhood has certainly been spruced up in the past few years.
The area around the shopping mall has been upgraded, and the public carpark has had an ERP system installed, no less. Roads have been re-tiled and bus-stop-like shelters for passers-by built (though I've never seen anyone use them).
It will be interesting if the Workers' Party contests Aljunied, and I can't wait.
How will my vote swing? As always, myriad factors will come into play.
But this time around, it won't be, for me at least, a vote hinged on just wanting opposition for opposition's sake.
sumiko@sph.com.sg
on the contrary, i think that this article was quite good and raised some rather interesting and pertinent questions:
ReplyDelete1. what is the point of having an opposition? can they really do a better job than the PAP?
2. why the perception that an MP's words carry more weight? is the perception accurate? if it is, then it runs counter to the Civil Service's motto of "Beyond Fear and Favour". if that is the case, then does that mean that Singapore has gone the way of cronyism and nepotism, that we have thrown our Constitution to the dogs?
3. who watches the watchers? can the opposition really serve as an effective check and balance on the ruling party, ensuring that the ruling party does not get corrupted by power?
1. Have the PAP really done such a good job as it claimed it has? Quite meaningless to talk about 'good' or 'better' when the incumbent continues to perpetuate one-party dictatorial rule.
ReplyDeletePlease, Sumiko Tan asks the silly question , "Why should we vote opposition for the sake of opposition"
ReplyDeleteTHE QUESTION WE SHLD ALL ASK IS
"Why are Singaporeans voting PAP for the sake of PAP?"
The latter is far more irrational than the former. Rench00, do YOU REALLY Think one party state is good? Are you from planet 1984? Are you advocating a big brother! You are so scary! Even the CCP wouldn't agree with you!
sglaksa shld just f*** off to china and become a communist
ReplyDeleteno... i don't think that a one party state is good. nothing that i said implied that i think a one party state is good...
ReplyDeletewhat i am asking is whether we think any of the opposition in existence today can really do what an opposition is supposed to do, i.e. act as an effective check and balance of the ruling party, while coming up with viable alternatives.
and the question is not whether the PAP has done a good job, but whether the opposition could have done any better. again, whether they can offer any viable alternatives.
and if the answer is such that the opposition cannot offer viable alternatives, then perhaps it is simple to see why people vote for the PAP.
let us look at the WP manifesto. are things that are presented in it viable alternatives?
Dear rench00,
ReplyDeleteYou keep claiming that the opposition has done nothing for Singapore. Do you know almost half of the questions ask in Parliament are by opposition MP? If there is no opposition, parliament would probably be an half an hour affair!
Please go to www.parliament.gov.sg and see the vast contributions by opposition MP. Doesn't mean the media dun report on opposition means they are doing nothing!
i do not claim that they have done nothing. i only asked whether they have. that is different from claiming that they have not done anything. i know that they have. similarly, the PAP has done some good things for the country too (else we wouldn't even be here now would we?). the next question (again, only a question, not reflective of my personal opinions) is whether the opposition can do a better job than the PAP such that we should vote the opposition in.
ReplyDeleteand why are you anonymous? why don't you leave a name, a blog address, some way for people to reach you?
rech is probably thinking that anonymous posters are infantile. But then, anonymous can always sign up for a blogger account, but keep no blog nor allow anyone to look at their blogger profile - like what some commentors tend to do.
ReplyDeletethe next question (again, only a question, not reflective of my personal opinions) is whether the opposition can do a better job than the PAP such that we should vote the opposition in.
But strangely, we never ask "can the new politicians that crop up under PAP's banners every election do a better job, such that we should vote those newly elevated people in?"
Dear Rench,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your posting. Anyway, opposition plays a very important role in Singapore. I would argue that an opposition MP does ten times more work than an average PAP MP.
1) They run town councils on their own, New PAP MPs can draw upon experiences of
"Ministers" and have access to more govt funding for their events. Opposition MPs have to worry about funding constantly while PAP MPs have less worries. Imagine you were elected and wanted to host events for your consituencies. First, you can't speak at your own CC or events. Second, you have to hire policeman at high cost. Third, you have not as much money to draw upon as compared to PAP. Fourth, you can't really overting all the time raise money for money. I think the biggest heartache is while THEY ARE DOING SO MUCH, SINGAPOREANS just criticise them nonstop. Who will join the opposition then?
2) Since both opposition MPs are full time MPs, it makes sense they have more time to spend in their consituencies and help out! If I was a PAP MP, i have to work and maybe spend
at the very most 10 hours a week on my consituencies. And If I as a PAP MP go for holiday in Europe, I know my other 4 MPs can cover me. As an opposition MP, is hard to take leave and holiday.
3) Opposition MP ask so many good questions in parliament that it astounds me. Without research assistants, big business, lawyers like that of the PAP, the opposition has tried their best within their means to question the govt and raise alternative ideas.
4) I know personally some PAP MPs who do see the merit of more democracy in Singapore. OF course, that is not a prority to them because after all they have to listen to the PAP that brought them in.
One Question: If Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Magraet Thatcher, Lee Kuan Yew was to run as an opposition candidate today, will they win under singapore system? This is the question we shld all ask ourselves.
ha... no... i don't think anyone infantile. i am just wondering why people leave anonymous remarks rather than take ownership of what they say. and it's hard to address to particular comments when there are so many anonymous people (who might actually be the same person!) around.
ReplyDeleteand yes. i do wonder whether some of those PAP candidates brought in on the GRC ticket, riding on some big shot, can actually do a better job than their predecessors and/or the opposition.
to their credit, yes. CST and LTK are good opposition members, who have fought hard for their respective constituency as well as asked good, tough questions in parliament. and so they rightly deserve their seats in parliament.
and yes. the electoral system seems to favour the ruling party. and there's also the question that Sumiko Tan raised: that it seems that a PAP MP's words carried more weight and thus could get things done easier.
that point, above all else, is what i am most concerned with. the civil service is supposed to be beyond fear and favour, considering only the merit of the case, not who it is who petitions. but the PAP has such a stranglehold over power that one really has much bases to question whether that is the case.
Why should the civil service "supposed to be beyond fear and favour"? Is it ever? Note I'm asking this from a Pol Sci angle
ReplyDeletewell... i'm not sure whether it ever is... but to avoid (excessive) cronyism and nepotism... it should be.
ReplyDeleteWhat has been the allegiance of the civil service in one-party states, historically?
ReplyDeleteIs anybody in this world, incl PAP really that indispensable?
ReplyDeleteIf they were to lose the battle, will sg collapse as a result because all their supporters will migrate elsewhere and all govt depts will come to a standstill?
Well, I don't think so. Lives will still carry on and strike a balance no matter what comes.
It is one thing that most people have is that "FEAR OF CHANGE!" Once we adapt to the environment, we learn to accept the new environment. This is facts of live!
HOWEVER, their success does not give PAP the right to enforce a quasi-tyrannical state in the name of stability. The people should be given a legitimate choice - what the PAP is now doing is not fair, and it is against the values of democracy.
ReplyDeleteIf the other parties are inept, then at least give them a chance to mess up, and to allow the people to choose the best.
i don't think we should give any one the chance to mess up. what we should do though is to give people the chance to choose an alternative that is better than what is already available.
ReplyDeletei do agree that what the PAP has done has given them an unfair advantage so much so that even if there is indeed a better alternative out there, it is unlikely that this better alternative will be voted into power.