Wei Kiat's Blog

According to one of the letter below, Dr Gabriel belongs to the Catholic Medical Guild. If this is indeed true, it would answer questions as to why the letter was written in this manner.

Anyway, not only i was put off by his letter. 3 fellow members of the public responded promptly to ST Forum today to defend my stand. Below are text quoted from Straits Times Interactive.

Feb 9, 2006
SEX EDUCATION
Educators should not favour any religion

I REFER to the letters, 'Sexuality workshop an eye-opener for teens' (ST, Feb 7) from Dr Gabriel Oon Chong Jin and 'Don't resolve social issues dogmatically' (ST, Feb 2) from Mr Harvey Neo Choong Tiong.

Both letters discuss the recently reported sexuality workshop.

As a student who has recently completed junior college and is now studying in university researching on Aids and sex education, I feel that sexuality workshops go against the very principles of education and are very rarely secular.

While these workshops conducted by third-party organisations have some good intentions in spreading values, it must be stressed that in our multi-racial and secular schools, we must not allow a singular religious voice to dictate the sex education syllabus.

Take, for example, the Family Life Society, which is a 'resource body for family life groups in the Archdiocese of Singapore, helping individuals, couples and families to live and love as God intends' (Singapore Catholic Church Directory, 2006).

It is hardly secular to begin with.

To educate against contraception and force students to write down on worksheets that contraception is bad goes against our secular system of using contraception for family planning and using contraception to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

Furthermore, we cannot assume that every student listening to the lecture is of the Christian faith.

In a public secular school, where different students from different backgrounds mix, it is important that the educators do not preach or favour any religion.

While it is easy to claim that the talk given by such third party organisation is secular, at the end of the day these are just claims.

As a practising doctor of the Catholic Medical Guild & the Archdiocese Bioethics Council, Singapore, and Medical & Oncology Clinic, Mount Elizabeth Medical Center, Singapore, Dr Oon certainly has seen many cases of STDs.

It is very distressing to hear of the examples he cited, but it also struck me that if these children have known that contraception is highly effective against the transmission of STDs and Aids, then perhaps they might not have been infected in the first place.

To argue that the condom is not 100 per cent safe and abstinence is the best method is to me a non-statement.

Following similar logic, since seat-belts are not 100 per cent safe in preventing deaths in accidents, one should not drive cars at all.

While the values Family Life Society champions are not inherently wrong, if it steps on the boundary of being overtly religious and dogmatic, then maybe we must re-examine contracting religious groups to give sexuality workshops.

For example, human life is indeed precious (as championed by Family Life Society) and euthanasia, while a very debatable topic, can be seen from one angle as taking a life which is wrong (as championed by Family Life Society).

However, it is important to note that euthanasia refers to the taking of the life of a suffering patient.

I have two siblings. I teach my sister about sex and how she should not be having sex, and that is my personal value. I also teach her how to defend herself against men should they force her.

But at the same time, I teach her how to use a condom.

I teach her what are the dangers involving casual and unprotected sex.

Am I an irresponsible brother?

I do not think so.

In fact, I feel that by equipping her with such knowledge, she would be better able to fend for herself.

Unlike me, who came out of the education system knowing next to nothing about sex, and having to find out all the information that I hold today through research on journals and on the Internet, I think she would know better what to do, should the need ever arise.

Teng Kie Zin

Feb 9, 2006
Scare-mongering is counter-productive

IN HIS letter, 'Sexuality workshop an eye-opener for teens' (ST, Feb 7), Dr Gabriel Oon Chong Jin makes the point that promoting 'traditional values of sexuality' among sexually active youth is beneficial.

Dr Oon's point, that traditional and non-secular values be used as a conduit for sex education and sexual health promotion, is inherently flawed.

The examples he gives, such as those with venereal diseases suffering painfully for their past acts, HIV patients facing ostracism, orphans abandoned by single parents, all illustrate the point that there is a need for more constructive, well-rounded sex education.

As a medical student today, I am taught, as he was, how diseases like syphilis, gonorrhoea and HIV/Aids cause great physical suffering.

However, I have also been shown that countering these problems involves medical ministering as well as a firm grasp of the ethical implications of treating those who might have differing beliefs from myself, and that a sense of reality must underpin all efforts, at all levels.

The reality is that sex education has been inconsistently and inadequately propagated in schools.

With the accessibility and attractiveness of the lifestyles depicted and promoted in the mass media and the rising levels of education in Singapore today, it is to be expected that a changing perspective on morality, marriage and sexuality has also evolved.

No longer will the average youth be happy with force-fed messages - that students find themselves irked by the Family Life Society's faith-centred workshop is evidence of this.

What is needed is a message of sexual health that is all-encompassing in its reach, grounded in scientific and medical fact, systematically and consistently taught, and which seeks to embrace the reality that sex is a part of life.

Any programme which purports to do so while ignoring, or worse, condemning, what the civilised world has already accepted - condom usage, HIV and Aids sufferers, homosexuality and responsible stem-cell research, among others - cannot expect to succeed.

Youth-centred programmes in European countries, and even in South-east Asian states like Thailand, focus on responsibility and the ability of the individual to make rational decisions.

Anything less will only alienate those whom the authorities should seek to reach out to the most.

To want to give school- goers the choice of determining their own sexual health, and yet to support scaremongering and non-secular moralising in the context of a multiracial and multi-cultural education system and society, are contradictory and counter-productive.

Wong Chen Seong

Feb 9, 2006
Sex education should be objective and balanced

I WRITE in response to the letter, 'Sexuality workshop an eye-opener for teens' (ST, Feb 7) by Dr Gabriel Onn Chong Jin. He is grateful Family Life Society is bringing traditional values to the sexually active young.

Some values championed that were mentioned in his letter included responsible parenthood, the sanctity of marriage, the sexual act within marriage and the precious value of all human life and objection of euthanasia in all forms, such as abortion, contraception and embryonic stem cell research.

He went on to cite very relevant and compelling personal experiences about people with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and orphans to substantiate the importance of these values.

I am a pro-life proponent myself and I have completely no objections to the above values being propounded at a sexuality workshop in school.

But the issue is not, as perceived by Dr Onn, a tussle between traditional and non-traditional values. Many liberals too treasure life and respect marriage and family. The fundamental question to ask is whether the workshop has equipped our youth with enough knowledge on the various kinds of values and perception pertaining to sexuality in order to make informed choices on their own.

I am inclined to think this is not so.

Mr Andrew Kong, senior executive of Family Life Society, reported that they had given a disclaimer before the start of the workshop that students are free to agree or disagree with ideas at the workshop.

Is such a disclaimer enough, without exposing the students to ideas and arguments from proponents of abortion, contraception and condom use in the prevention of STDs?

Other earlier newspaper reports also showed false information was also given to students, for example, that condoms are not effective in preventing the spread of STDs, contrary to advice from World Health Organisation and UNAids.

The workshop also asked students, regardless of their personal conviction, to write down statements like 'I must condemn masturbation and in-vitro fertilisation'.

What this clearly shows is a lack of balance in exposing our youth a variety of viewpoints regarding the issue of sexuality.

We need to ensure that content of such sexuality workshops is objective and balanced, so that our youth can exercise informed, responsible choices.
Felix Ser Cherk Yen

Good luck to you Doctor. Btw, i must once against stress that this matter is not about condemning people of other religion. Rather, this is about making sure that people do not abuse the power of the microphone by spreading misinformation and non-secular views to deceive innocent audiences. If raising such a matter is considered as disrespect for the catholic religion, then their conducting such kind of workshop in the first place already shows complete disregard and disrespect for the religion of all those individuals who were present this workshop.

Finally, imagine them conducting such workshops in primary or secondary schools, where students like me who knows better do not exist. Those innocent and naive souls will take in such unsecular and misinformations naively as the truth and remember and obey it for the rest of their life. Because this is the first sexuality lesson they receive in their life, they do not know that what they are listening are actually catholic viewpoints and actually abide by it throughout their life.

We may have many many individuals from different religion carring mindset from family life society towards sexuality running around Singapore now. Wow! What a thought.

Its like if anyone wants to conduct a sexuality workshop, the content of the workshop should not be about or from any particular religion. It should be secular and acceptable to anyone from any religion.