The recent EGM however, which was all over the news and was even on Twitter, brought up quite a few points which I felt are good learning points, without bringing in my taboo topic.
- Do not impose your beliefs on others.
If I feel that sleeping at 10pm, and waking up at 6am to study is good for my exam results, then it's my business. I do not impose this belief on someone else who thinks that cramming until 3am and waking up just in time to go for the exam is the magic formula.
Frankly, I see no problems with the sexuality issue in question being categorised as neutral. People have the right to live the way they wish to. That's the basis of equality, which is what AWARE is fighting for.
You may have strong beliefs in certain areas, but there's a lack of basic courtesy and respect for others if you try to enforce your beliefs on others. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
I would also like to bring out sections of the National Pledge as a reminder to all (in bold):We, the citizens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society
based on justice and equality
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and
progress for our nation. - Do not act rashly on things that you've heard. Act only on things that you've experienced.
As revealed by a CSE (Comprehensive Sexuality Education) instructor during the AWARE EGM, the sexuality issue turns out to occupy only 1 and a half minutes out of a 3 hour programme. That doesn't seem to be the picture painted before.
To me, it seems that there was a lack of understanding in the programmes being conducted in AWARE, and several decisions were implemented by the "new" exco based on misconceptions on what's happening.
Do not act on things that you've only heard about. That's one of the basic fundamental rule I've learned since I came out in the working world. - Know what you can do, and cannot do in an organisation.
I was very surprised on the lack of knowledge of the "new" exco on the constitution of AWARE. In any organisation that you work in, or even in any committee that you've joined in school, the first thing that you should do is to familiarise yourself on what you can, and what you cannot do. Being in the position of power does not give you the right to do anything you deem fit. That's called dictatorship, not leadership.
To borrow a line from Spiderman:With power comes great responsibility
Spending $90,000 in a month is mind boggling. Although this was offset by the surge of new memberships, one should take note that the surge of memberships were a result of the pro-activeness of people in Singapore to act on what they believe in. This surge of membership and the spending of $90,000 by the "new" exco, are 2 completely different matters. This should not be a valid reason on why the expenditure limit of $20,000 per month set out in the constitution was disregarded.
What astonished me the most though is that all the recent decisions made by the "new" exco may be done without fully understanding what they can, or cannot do, and what's really happening within the organisation. That's downright dangerous, working on what you perceived to be happening.
Do not work on assumptions without merit. That's another basic fundamental rule I've learned since I came out in the working world.
This incident though does bring out one good aspect. Singaporeans are not afraid to step out and voice out their displeasure on what they deemed as an injustice. We're not people, painted by some media and people, that takes orders and decisions from the top without understanding the implications. To borrow a terminology used often in the army. We're thinking "soldiers".
To end this post, I would like to bring up one point I've read that mentions whether the 3,000 people (Note that there are many more waiting outside who are turned away from the EGM because they were late) in the AWARE EGM held yesterday are representative of the views of women in Singapore. To do this, I would like to ask all to blow off the dust of your Mathematics textbook, and turn to the chapter on probability.
The question:
What is the probability of a 65% majority taken from a random pick of 2,175 people of different ages, and background?
7 comments:
As a woman, I think this whole saga is a waste of time and money... ==
本当の問題の根は何なの？やっぱり人間はまだ”子”だなあ。。がっかりだ。。
I agree the $90K was really lame. Maybe the new exco are used to the "high life" since Josie Lau's from a bank...
Btw, a blogger has more in-depth info on the MOE sex programme:
http://tampinescourt.blogspot.com/2009/04/has-moe-lost-its-mind.html
Of interest is the link to the actual CSE guide book (which isn't shown to parents). I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want my children coming home one day and say, "daddy/mommy, I just had anal sex with my friend!" or "I just tried pre-marital sex with Johnny; maybe I'll try it with Harry tomorrow!"
The new exco was right to question the CSE contents --- what values do we want to impart to our offspring? Maybe it's just bad luck that they're all from church that it seems like a Christianity vs the world fight... If the new exco has buddhists and muslims on board, this voicing out would be viewed in a different (and more powerful) light.
As far as I understand, the only guide that was out is an internal guide book issued to trainers. It's a matter of how they convey that information. It's doesn't represent how the course is conducted.
Furthermore, most of what's stated is not being taught. It's only one of the ways in which you can reply when the question is asked. It's not taught outright.
As much as we want our children not to have pre-maritial sex, the fact is that it's not against the law to do it. So how can you teach that it's bad when actually in the eyes of the law, it's neutral, and it's your choice? Looking at the examples under negative, you can see clearly that most of the examples under negative either break the law, or cause disruption to the lives of the girls.
Anyway, to question the CSE programme, you do not need to do a power grab. One can always ask in a civilised manner why is the programme structured like this. In fact, if you're not comfortable with it, why don't you ask if you can be an observer in one of the classes?
Hearing and reading about things is one thing. Experiencing it is another.
Something just hit me while reading the papers today.
Everyone was raging about what was revealed in the Aware CSE instructor's guide.
However, the instructor's guide was written in what context?
Is it really in the context of encouraging the questionable behaviour? Or is it geared towards acceptance of such individuals, and not to belittle them?
Frankly, I do not think any organisation in Singapore will encourage questionable behaviour, considering we mostly have conservative ideas.
Coincidentally, it seems that the Pope has recently warns against the misuse of religion when he was Jordan.
Some of his quotes:
"Some assert that religion is necessarily a cause of division in our world and so they argue that the lesser attention given to religion in the public sphere the better," he said.
"Certainly, the contradiction of tensions and divisions between the followers of different religious traditions, sadly, cannot be denied."
"However, is it not also the case that often it is the ideological manipulation of religion, sometimes for political ends, that is the real catalyst for tension and division, and at times even violence in society?"
You can read more about it at BBC here.
Judge for yourself what AWARE's CSE Instructor Guide says and does not say.
Critique available at http://www.vtaide.com/blessing/AWARE-cse.htm with verbatim quotes from the Guide.
I still don't understand why some people justify the taking over of AWARE just because of the CSE.
AWARE is NOT just about CSE. There are always other platforms to bring up this matter e.g. Directly bring this up to MOE.
Taking over of AWARE just because of CSE is like making a mountain out of a molehill. Doesn't make sense to me.
Post a Comment