The Ministry of Education’s Sexuality Education (SEd) programme has drawn flak among some quarters after a picture of a consent form for the programme turned up online.
According to the MOE website, the Ministry’s Sexuality Education Curriculum is a “holistic and secular one that aims to meet students’ developmental needs at the different stages” that is “conducted at the Primary 5 and 6 levels through to the Junior College (JC) / Centralised Institute (CI) level.”
Public backlash against the curriculum ensued when a netizen shared a photo of a letter online. The letter, dated 13 February, is addressed to parents and seeks their consent to enroll their child in the SEd programme.
The portion of the letter that drew criticism is the line, “SEd is premised on the importance of the family as the basic unit of society. This means encouraging healthy, heterosexual marriages and stable nuclear family units with extended family support.”
This statement has drawn flak online for “demonising homosexuals” and creating a stigma about homosexual relationships. Read some of the strongest criticism against the letter describing MOE’s SEd curriculum here:
Arthur Feng: “With that one letter, MOE has just demonised homosexuals as people who are engaging in destructive behaviour, that we are unable to form and develop healthy relationships, and that we are unfilial pieces of sh*t who do not take care of our families and loved ones. How is this acceptable as a ‘holistic’ sexual education programme? If that’s in one letter, I don’t know what’s going to come out of a whole syllabus.”
Chris Ho: “Is this not bigotry and a systemic move to stigmatise and criminalise homosexual behaviour? Hiding behind the so-called ‘will of the masses’ to inculcate intolerance in children? Are homosexuals not human? Do we not deserve at least acknowledgement and respect? You would have expected more partiality from schools. We know how genocides around the world start – when people are taught to degrade, despise and dehumanise their fellow man to the point that they believe the best solution is to dispose of them altogether.”
Jackson Tan: “You know, I’d like to see a gay scholar read those lines again in the closet and not cringe.”
Le Phyrric: “BULLS!@#. That has NOTHING to do with sexual education. Sex ed should encourage safety and being well informed. It should NOT be used to encourage marriage, or to impress upon others an idealised concept of what a family should be. BULL!@#.”