MOE’s abstinence message sparks debate

Should Singapore’s single “sexuality education” teachers abstain from having sex?

That teachers should is what some bloggers concluded the Ministry of Education has been saying in the details of its revised sexuality education programme bared late last month.

A couple of points, in particular, have caught the public’s eye. One is that sexuality education aims to help students “practise abstinence before marriage, as it is the best protection against sexually-transmitted infections (STIs)… and unwanted pregnancies” as casual sex “can harm and hurt them (students) and their loved ones”.

Two is that, as a guiding principle, “specially-selected” teachers are trained to teach sexuality education, and these teachers are chosen because they “possess values that are aligned with MOE values in sexuality education”.

The bristle arose from a report by The New Paper that drew a link between the ministry’s key messages and its principles for teachers. It implied that teachers of the ministry’s updated sexuality education programme would not only need to be comfortable with teaching the subject and build rapport with their students, but also would need to practice abstinence from premarital sex, as prescribed in the ministry’s key messages.

At least one blogger took issue with the idea that abstinence from premarital sex is a “positive mainstream value”, while others such as mrbrown also questioned the ministry’s apparent requirement of its teachers in sexuality education to practice abstinence.

The ministry responded on Wednesday evening in a Facebook post that it will “not be prying into teachers’ personal lives (phew!)”, saying that its teachers need to understand its values on sexuality.

“When we said the teachers must have ‘mainstream values’, they must know what these values are, and have the life experience, maturity and wholesome values to impart these values and provide sound advice to their students,” the statement said.

Checks by Yahoo! Singapore with the MOE revealed that the “values” with respect to sexuality education that it was referring to are what it describes as its philosophy of sexuality education — as encapsulated in its “Goals”, “Key Messages” and “Guiding Principles” sections on its website.

While this indicates that the ministry’s team of sexuality teachers would need to subscribe to the importance of abstinence, it remains unclear whether or not they are required to “practice what they preach”.

Despite repeated attempts to clarify this, the ministry would not confirm whether its statement meant that its teachers would need to practice abstinence or not.

Disagreement on abstinence focus

When contacted by Yahoo! Singapore for comment, social interest and human rights groups in Singapore said they disagreed with the ministry’s move to focus on abstinence as the most effective protection against STIs.

Braema Mathi, president of human rights organisation MARUAH, said she was troubled by the direct correlation the MOE has made between abstinence from premarital sex and one’s vulnerability to STIs.

“The message is not that abstinence means being free from STIs — it’s about having a healthy attitude to safe sex practices, that’s what I think is more important,” she told Yahoo! Singapore.

“To equate abstinence to being disease-free raises a lot of questions, that after marriage it’s a free-for-all, which it isn’t,” she said. “It’s still about a healthy, loving relationship with your partner but you also need to be aware that there are still casual sex practices around… your partner may come from a different background, and protection until trust is built up is important.”

She emphasised that, ultimately, educators need to give access to information and discuss various tracks, “so the young see that the world is not so simple and the only thing they can hang on to is their own value systems to navigate it”.

Eileena Lee, co-founder of social interest group Pelangi Pride Centre, also noted that the openness of communication with strangers via the internet increases the vulnerability of young people to being “preyed upon by adults”.

“Youths are no longer just having sex within their own age groups,” she said. “By imposing on them abstinence, and not teaching them safe sex, we are exposing them to a lot of nasty possibilities (and) denies youths of a chance to be equipped with the skills to protect themselves.”

Lee questioned the MOE’s use of the phrase “positive mainstream values and attitudes” in its approach to teaching sexuality, pointing out that the heterosexual nature of the programme could deny youths who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual access to proper information, hence exposing them to “a lot of harm”.

“By teaching comprehensive sex education in school, we also create a culture whereby we are able to talk about sex without shame… (taking) away the hurdle for people to access proper healthcare, should they ever need to seek help for STIs,” she said.

Executive director of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) Corinna Lim also weighed in on the issue, saying that the stress in sexuality education needs to be on the provision of accurate information and inculcating responsibility in the young with regard to sexual behaviour.

“It’s not about scaring people… (the programme) shouldn’t just focus on diseases,” she said.

She agreed with the ministry’s approach to ensure that such programmes are age-appropriate at each stage, since it will be starting even earlier than before, at Primary 5.

Echoing the views of Braema and Lee, however, Lim said also that methods of contraception would need to be taught, not simply the approach of abstinence, in a manner similar to the way AWARE, a former provider of sex education in several schools here, ran their programme.

"Students have to be responsible, whatever they do. If educators want to deal with the problem of STIs they have no choice but to teach this (about contraceptives), because if kids don’t know how to use them, that’s where worse things could happen,” she said.