This topic is something that i have been greatly impacted by and been proven true in many aspects of my life.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution, simply put, is the theory that man evolved from a primary species from the same family tree, namely the primates. Being in a constantly advancing world, more and more people looked for scientific reasons for the reasons of our beings, how we came about. People started losing faith of a greater power which created all the worlds but believed that through science they could find answers that would put their hearts at ease. Creationism, on the other hand, is the belief that there is a God living above and that watches over us all the time though his presence cannot be seen, through faith people would belive that he is the almighty one that created all the worlds and all life came through him.
I believe that at the end of the day, no matter how much you argue, creationism would triumph over evoltuion. In this world full of disasters and mishaps, people question the existence of their very being. What is the meaning of life? Why have life when you live in such horrible circumstances? Science will not be able to answer you question. Not now, not 10 years down the road, not ever. People have tried playing god over and over again, tried creating over and over again but no perfect specimen have been created. We have not seen another god through science. Science is NO god.
Let me explain myself. God is the only reason people carry on living in such a world. The hope for salvation in such a cruel world is the only reason why we live on each day despite the trials and tribulations that we face. There is no true reason to our existence. The only reason, God knows himself if he is real. But it is only and perfectly normal that people turn and put their faith in God because he is a higher power that some of us may have experienced through the miracles in our lives, a higher power that we know is stronger and more powerful than we can ever imagine. Let me give you an example. Whenever you face an obstacle in your life, i can firmly and confidently say that everyone, everyone would hope that they would be able to overcome it. They would pray and hope that god will help them. No one would call science their god and says that because i worked very hard, there would be a certain percentage chance that i can pass. Even the world's greatest geniuses would not do that.When you are in a hospital, and your loved one is lying on the surgical table before an operation, you would not stand by and do nothing. You would pray and pray and pray that the operation would be a success. You will not stand in a corner and believe in science that because the surgeons have passed all their medical examinations and all have attained a degree that the operation would be a success.
It is in god that all hopes lies in. Any hope for the future lies in god and not in science. Poeple turn to god in times of need and desperation and do not see god when they do not want to. Evolution is just a more justifiable reason that people want to try to believe in instead of god. Evolution is just a cloak to make things look more presentable. In time of turmoil, all hope and fate lies in the hands of god. No one will question that during the end of the world. But in times like this, people constantly search for answers in areas that seem more logical to search and not in places where the truth may actually lie. Therefore, i believe that creationism over evolution. No question about it.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Social Studies Assignment: Essay
“Democracy creates stability in a society”
Democracy is a political ideology, partially under liberalism, which aim is for people to make decisions for themselves by voting processes or other procedures. The main gist of it is every man for himself to help make decisions in society, be it through a higher level of authority or by themselves. Stability in society can be seen from different angles, such as political stability, economical stability and social stability. The creation of a stable society would mean that the society was not stable before or barely stable in the past. Therefore, I agree to a certain extent that democracy creates stability in a society.
Democracy leads to political stability in a society. Being the elected leaders by the majority, the political leaders would have most of the support if not all from the people. This would mean that the society is politically stable without problems and issues that would aggravate it. A good example would be Singapore, where electoral procedures are taken with utmost seriousness and every man is given equal rights to vote for who they want in the cabinet for that region. Although not having a good mix of opposition party leaders, the presence of these leaders are still there. Another example would be the United States. The election period runs long and hard, needing the contenders to persevere and win the votes of the many citizens in the countless states. However, there are exceptions such as that of Malaysia, when the elections are usually dominated by one main party and other parties are not given a say in it at all. This kind of democracy may not be the initial intention of democracy but still, it does not breed political stability as not just many may be against it but the incapability of those in the political scene. Another one would be Indonesia, where politics is not just black and white but involves money and backhand deals.
Democracy leads to economical and social stability in a society. When a society is politically stable with good leaders that are able to lead them, the country will usually be economically and socially stable too. The leaders would be able to deal with the problems and be able to map out the future of the society well. Similarly, when a country has poor leaders, the country will have many unresolved issues and future uncertain too.
Putting things into context, democracy does leads to stability. But the process that is carried out between the states and countries differ, does unable to do a fair comparison of whether or not it can be considered a success. Democracy does try its best to please the majority and often overlook the minority but this small number cannot be helped. Democracy may not actually be the best political policy, which differs as different people feel differently how each system would work out for them. In conclusion, I agree that dSocial Studies Assignment: Essay
“Democracy creates stability in a society”
Democracy is a political ideology, partially under liberalism, which aim is for people to make decisions for themselves by voting processes or other procedures. The main gist of it is every man for himself to help make decisions in society, be it through a higher level of authority or by themselves. Stability in society can be seen from different angles, such as political stability, economical stability and social stability. The creation of a stable society would mean that the society was not stable before or barely stable in the past. Therefore, I agree to a certain extent that democracy creates stability in a society.
Democracy leads to political stability in a society. Being the elected leaders by the majority, the political leaders would have most of the support if not all from the people. This would mean that the society is politically stable without problems and issues that would aggravate it. A good example would be Singapore, where electoral procedures are taken with utmost seriousness and every man is given equal rights to vote for who they want in the cabinet for that region. Although not having a good mix of opposition party leaders, the presence of these leaders are still there. Another example would be the United States. The election period runs long and hard, needing the contenders to persevere and win the votes of the many citizens in the countless states. However, there are exceptions such as that of Malaysia, when the elections are usually dominated by one main party and other parties are not given a say in it at all. This kind of democracy may not be the initial intention of democracy but still, it does not breed political stability as not just many may be against it but the incapability of those in the political scene. Another one would be Indonesia, where politics is not just black and white but involves money and backhand deals.
Democracy leads to economical and social stability in a society. When a society is politically stable with good leaders that are able to lead them, the country will usually be economically and socially stable too. The leaders would be able to deal with the problems and be able to map out the future of the society well. Similarly, when a country has poor leaders, the country will have many unresolved issues and future uncertain too.
Putting things into context, democracy does leads to stability. But the process that is carried out between the states and countries differ, does unable to do a fair comparison of whether or not it can be considered a success. Democracy does try its best to please the majority and often overlook the minority but this small number cannot be helped. Democracy may not actually be the best political policy, which differs as different people feel differently how each system would work out for them. In conclusion, I agree that democracy creates stability in a society.
Democracy is a political ideology, partially under liberalism, which aim is for people to make decisions for themselves by voting processes or other procedures. The main gist of it is every man for himself to help make decisions in society, be it through a higher level of authority or by themselves. Stability in society can be seen from different angles, such as political stability, economical stability and social stability. The creation of a stable society would mean that the society was not stable before or barely stable in the past. Therefore, I agree to a certain extent that democracy creates stability in a society.
Democracy leads to political stability in a society. Being the elected leaders by the majority, the political leaders would have most of the support if not all from the people. This would mean that the society is politically stable without problems and issues that would aggravate it. A good example would be Singapore, where electoral procedures are taken with utmost seriousness and every man is given equal rights to vote for who they want in the cabinet for that region. Although not having a good mix of opposition party leaders, the presence of these leaders are still there. Another example would be the United States. The election period runs long and hard, needing the contenders to persevere and win the votes of the many citizens in the countless states. However, there are exceptions such as that of Malaysia, when the elections are usually dominated by one main party and other parties are not given a say in it at all. This kind of democracy may not be the initial intention of democracy but still, it does not breed political stability as not just many may be against it but the incapability of those in the political scene. Another one would be Indonesia, where politics is not just black and white but involves money and backhand deals.
Democracy leads to economical and social stability in a society. When a society is politically stable with good leaders that are able to lead them, the country will usually be economically and socially stable too. The leaders would be able to deal with the problems and be able to map out the future of the society well. Similarly, when a country has poor leaders, the country will have many unresolved issues and future uncertain too.
Putting things into context, democracy does leads to stability. But the process that is carried out between the states and countries differ, does unable to do a fair comparison of whether or not it can be considered a success. Democracy does try its best to please the majority and often overlook the minority but this small number cannot be helped. Democracy may not actually be the best political policy, which differs as different people feel differently how each system would work out for them. In conclusion, I agree that dSocial Studies Assignment: Essay
“Democracy creates stability in a society”
Democracy is a political ideology, partially under liberalism, which aim is for people to make decisions for themselves by voting processes or other procedures. The main gist of it is every man for himself to help make decisions in society, be it through a higher level of authority or by themselves. Stability in society can be seen from different angles, such as political stability, economical stability and social stability. The creation of a stable society would mean that the society was not stable before or barely stable in the past. Therefore, I agree to a certain extent that democracy creates stability in a society.
Democracy leads to political stability in a society. Being the elected leaders by the majority, the political leaders would have most of the support if not all from the people. This would mean that the society is politically stable without problems and issues that would aggravate it. A good example would be Singapore, where electoral procedures are taken with utmost seriousness and every man is given equal rights to vote for who they want in the cabinet for that region. Although not having a good mix of opposition party leaders, the presence of these leaders are still there. Another example would be the United States. The election period runs long and hard, needing the contenders to persevere and win the votes of the many citizens in the countless states. However, there are exceptions such as that of Malaysia, when the elections are usually dominated by one main party and other parties are not given a say in it at all. This kind of democracy may not be the initial intention of democracy but still, it does not breed political stability as not just many may be against it but the incapability of those in the political scene. Another one would be Indonesia, where politics is not just black and white but involves money and backhand deals.
Democracy leads to economical and social stability in a society. When a society is politically stable with good leaders that are able to lead them, the country will usually be economically and socially stable too. The leaders would be able to deal with the problems and be able to map out the future of the society well. Similarly, when a country has poor leaders, the country will have many unresolved issues and future uncertain too.
Putting things into context, democracy does leads to stability. But the process that is carried out between the states and countries differ, does unable to do a fair comparison of whether or not it can be considered a success. Democracy does try its best to please the majority and often overlook the minority but this small number cannot be helped. Democracy may not actually be the best political policy, which differs as different people feel differently how each system would work out for them. In conclusion, I agree that democracy creates stability in a society.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Personal Comments
After coming across these few articles from the strait times online, i cannot but help question the problem of teenage sex in Singapore. Is sex really such a need at such a tender age? From the articles, many have quote statistics from surveys done over the years and it has shown that many have started having sex since they were 15, which is the same age as me. This leads me on to wonder why do they start having sex so early? Shouldn't it be something that is supposed to be kept and only to be given after marriage? I personally know a few friends who had had sex before. The only reason they could give me was that they wanted to experiment with it. They said that they just wanted to have fun and maybe that really is the reason why many teenagers do it.
But that is only a reason for something else. I personally think that msot teenagers these days have sex is the same as the reason why they get girlfriends and boyfriends. In such a IT-savvy world, the media is everywhere and whatever the media shows becomes real life. The media always show love and sex and most shows revolve around it and that it why teenagers are affected by it. In shows where they show love scenes over and over again will only lead teenagers to wondering more and more about it. Teenagers being young and adventurous would find themself a partner at such a young age. Then with media, peers would naturally tease about this and that and talk about love with their boyfriends or girlfriends. This gives the teens pressure to find a partner too. But when a daring pair tries something different and others gets wind of it, they want to try it too. Trying it for the sake of trying it is not what they should be doing but the more they are exposed to it, the more they want to try it.
With so much peer pressure and media around, parents and teachers are not doing the least to help. Modern day parents seldom talk to their children about this kind of things which apparently seem taboo to them. They would always think that it would become something that would get to them naturally. But what they think always never happens. Children start to become overly curious about such a unknown topic that they try to find out more on their own. They start searching about it on the web and thats where they fall into the web of internet pornography. The schools also think that by giving lessons once in a while about such topics would help increase awareness about the problem and give the teenagers an idea about what's going on. But what the teachers are actually doing are telling the students the hard facts and not connecting to them about what its really like. This just gives rise to more and more problems.
I think that parents should be more open to their children about such topics. It is because the lack of knowledge on this topics that cause their children to go venture on their own into it. Having known friends who have tried it for themselves, many of them seem to be neutral about it. They seem to feel that its a normal procedure and that they just experienced a part of life earlier. Few or none of them i know have been emotionally scarred by it.
But that is only a reason for something else. I personally think that msot teenagers these days have sex is the same as the reason why they get girlfriends and boyfriends. In such a IT-savvy world, the media is everywhere and whatever the media shows becomes real life. The media always show love and sex and most shows revolve around it and that it why teenagers are affected by it. In shows where they show love scenes over and over again will only lead teenagers to wondering more and more about it. Teenagers being young and adventurous would find themself a partner at such a young age. Then with media, peers would naturally tease about this and that and talk about love with their boyfriends or girlfriends. This gives the teens pressure to find a partner too. But when a daring pair tries something different and others gets wind of it, they want to try it too. Trying it for the sake of trying it is not what they should be doing but the more they are exposed to it, the more they want to try it.
With so much peer pressure and media around, parents and teachers are not doing the least to help. Modern day parents seldom talk to their children about this kind of things which apparently seem taboo to them. They would always think that it would become something that would get to them naturally. But what they think always never happens. Children start to become overly curious about such a unknown topic that they try to find out more on their own. They start searching about it on the web and thats where they fall into the web of internet pornography. The schools also think that by giving lessons once in a while about such topics would help increase awareness about the problem and give the teenagers an idea about what's going on. But what the teachers are actually doing are telling the students the hard facts and not connecting to them about what its really like. This just gives rise to more and more problems.
I think that parents should be more open to their children about such topics. It is because the lack of knowledge on this topics that cause their children to go venture on their own into it. Having known friends who have tried it for themselves, many of them seem to be neutral about it. They seem to feel that its a normal procedure and that they just experienced a part of life earlier. Few or none of them i know have been emotionally scarred by it.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
The Straits Times News Article
Secret lives of S'pore teens
Section:News
By:JEREMY AU YONG & MELISSA SIM
Publication:The Straits Times 26/03/2006
Having sex is no big deal, 20 teens tell Sunday Times. Half do it before 16, most don't use protection - and none has told parents about it CLAIRE is an outstanding academic performer, who went to a top secondary school and junior college and just scored five distinctions in her A-level exams.But the 18-year-old is also hiding an intimate secret.Since she was 15, Claire has been sexually active. Every weekend, she heads to her boyfriend's house, where they have sex in his bedroom. She has had two different partners and admits that there have been times when she did not practise safe sex.Her story is indicative of a hidden but apparently widespread culture among Singapore teens, one recently put into the spotlight by the case of 'Tammy', the 17-year-old Nanyang Polytechnic student whose explicit cellphone sex video found its way onto the Internet. The clues had been there for some time, in the form of explicit blogs or Internet journals and rising numbers of teens with sexually transmitted diseases. But the Tammy saga finally blew the lid off the myth that local youth are repressed, prudish bookworms. As other copycat X-rated clips made their way - intentionally this time - onto the Net, parents and schools were suddenly forced to sit up and notice a phenomenon many have long tried to ignore: their otherwise normal teenage children are having sex. After interviewing 20 sexually active teens - 10 boys and 10 girls - The Sunday Times made some surprising discoveries. Firstly, if the small survey is anything to go by, today's teens are completely nonchalant about sex. Half of those polled had sex before they turned 16, the legal age for sex. Of the 20 teens, 13 said they did not need to be in a relationship in order to sleep with someone and, most alarmingly, only four always insisted on using protection. Not surprisingly, none of them has ever told his parents about his activities. Granted, these liberal youths are still in the minority. Last November, an informal survey by The Straits Times of 60 teens and a 2003 Nanyang Technological University study of 350 students found that one in five had had sex. A survey by Aids awareness group Action For Aids of 500 teens around the same time reported that one in four had sex.But youth counsellors fear the ratio is only going to go up.'Saving themselves for marriage just doesn't seem to matter anymore,' said Mr Jerry Ong of Focus On The Family, a pro-abstinence group which has conducted sexuality workshops for some 17,000 students to date.Indeed, of those who have gone through its workshops this year, only 40 per cent said they felt the right time for sex was after marriage. An October 2002 study of 2,659 teens by welfare organisation Fei Yue Community Services revealed the same proportion.The numbers add up to a picture of a young population for whom pre-marital sex is perfectly acceptable. While the average marrying age in Singapore is 30 for men and 27 for women, the latest Durex global sex survey indicated that Singaporeans have sex for the first time on average at age 18.4, among the youngest in the region. By and large, most teens do not appear to take sex too seriously, even though some say they are pressured into it, either by their sexual partners or by the desire to fit in with their peers. More than half of the 20 teens in The Sunday Times survey said they would sleep with someone they were not attached to and eight teens confessed to 'experimenting' with things like threesomes, fetishes and taking pictures or videos of themselves. Only five, all of them girls, thought oral sex could be defined as 'having sex'. 'It's a sexual act, but oral sex is really quite the norm. I think you'd still be virgin after oral sex,' said Andy, an 18-year-old JC student, who said he has had seven sexual partners since he was 14. Teens seem to be equally indiscriminate when it comes to venues. Some have sex at home, even while their parents are around, others booked into short-time or transit hotels like Hotel 81, while two confessed to having sex in a public toilet for the handicapped. But most worrying of all was the cavalier attitude towards protection. Only four insisted on condoms every time. Others offered excuses like 'my boyfriend is shy to buy' or 'it is really inconvenient'.Claire recalls being mortified when a condom tore during sex. Joan remembers breaking down when her period came late.'I nearly killed myself. I really did not know what I would do if I got pregnant,' said the 17-year-old, who admits that she has hardly ever had protected sex. Their complacency is worrying in light of mounting statistics on teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.Even as the Health Ministry reports around 1,500 teen pregnancies a year, figures at the DSC Clinic in Kelantan Lane show the number of patients aged 10 to 19 has more than doubled from 238 in 2002 to 565 between January and November last year. Youth counsellors blame the apparent moral decline on a host of factors, from media exposure to an absence of parenting.The director of the youth development centre at the Singapore Children's Society, Ms Carol Balhetchet, said: 'You have the media and movies showing sexual content. 'You have fashion that is very revealing. You have celebrities who are glorifying sexy dressing. Sex has become cool, abstinence is not. And when you see parents now working longer hours, it all adds up.' Mr Ong of Focus On The Family agreed. 'We seem to have let our values slip away, but I'm not giving up. I sense that many people still believe in abstinence. All is not lost.'
http://newslink.asiaone.com/user/OrderArticleRequest.action?order=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fuser%2Fsearch_type_result.jsp&month=03&year=2006&date=26&docLanguage=en&documentId=nica_ST_2006_3780070
Section:News
By:JEREMY AU YONG & MELISSA SIM
Publication:The Straits Times 26/03/2006
Having sex is no big deal, 20 teens tell Sunday Times. Half do it before 16, most don't use protection - and none has told parents about it CLAIRE is an outstanding academic performer, who went to a top secondary school and junior college and just scored five distinctions in her A-level exams.But the 18-year-old is also hiding an intimate secret.Since she was 15, Claire has been sexually active. Every weekend, she heads to her boyfriend's house, where they have sex in his bedroom. She has had two different partners and admits that there have been times when she did not practise safe sex.Her story is indicative of a hidden but apparently widespread culture among Singapore teens, one recently put into the spotlight by the case of 'Tammy', the 17-year-old Nanyang Polytechnic student whose explicit cellphone sex video found its way onto the Internet. The clues had been there for some time, in the form of explicit blogs or Internet journals and rising numbers of teens with sexually transmitted diseases. But the Tammy saga finally blew the lid off the myth that local youth are repressed, prudish bookworms. As other copycat X-rated clips made their way - intentionally this time - onto the Net, parents and schools were suddenly forced to sit up and notice a phenomenon many have long tried to ignore: their otherwise normal teenage children are having sex. After interviewing 20 sexually active teens - 10 boys and 10 girls - The Sunday Times made some surprising discoveries. Firstly, if the small survey is anything to go by, today's teens are completely nonchalant about sex. Half of those polled had sex before they turned 16, the legal age for sex. Of the 20 teens, 13 said they did not need to be in a relationship in order to sleep with someone and, most alarmingly, only four always insisted on using protection. Not surprisingly, none of them has ever told his parents about his activities. Granted, these liberal youths are still in the minority. Last November, an informal survey by The Straits Times of 60 teens and a 2003 Nanyang Technological University study of 350 students found that one in five had had sex. A survey by Aids awareness group Action For Aids of 500 teens around the same time reported that one in four had sex.But youth counsellors fear the ratio is only going to go up.'Saving themselves for marriage just doesn't seem to matter anymore,' said Mr Jerry Ong of Focus On The Family, a pro-abstinence group which has conducted sexuality workshops for some 17,000 students to date.Indeed, of those who have gone through its workshops this year, only 40 per cent said they felt the right time for sex was after marriage. An October 2002 study of 2,659 teens by welfare organisation Fei Yue Community Services revealed the same proportion.The numbers add up to a picture of a young population for whom pre-marital sex is perfectly acceptable. While the average marrying age in Singapore is 30 for men and 27 for women, the latest Durex global sex survey indicated that Singaporeans have sex for the first time on average at age 18.4, among the youngest in the region. By and large, most teens do not appear to take sex too seriously, even though some say they are pressured into it, either by their sexual partners or by the desire to fit in with their peers. More than half of the 20 teens in The Sunday Times survey said they would sleep with someone they were not attached to and eight teens confessed to 'experimenting' with things like threesomes, fetishes and taking pictures or videos of themselves. Only five, all of them girls, thought oral sex could be defined as 'having sex'. 'It's a sexual act, but oral sex is really quite the norm. I think you'd still be virgin after oral sex,' said Andy, an 18-year-old JC student, who said he has had seven sexual partners since he was 14. Teens seem to be equally indiscriminate when it comes to venues. Some have sex at home, even while their parents are around, others booked into short-time or transit hotels like Hotel 81, while two confessed to having sex in a public toilet for the handicapped. But most worrying of all was the cavalier attitude towards protection. Only four insisted on condoms every time. Others offered excuses like 'my boyfriend is shy to buy' or 'it is really inconvenient'.Claire recalls being mortified when a condom tore during sex. Joan remembers breaking down when her period came late.'I nearly killed myself. I really did not know what I would do if I got pregnant,' said the 17-year-old, who admits that she has hardly ever had protected sex. Their complacency is worrying in light of mounting statistics on teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.Even as the Health Ministry reports around 1,500 teen pregnancies a year, figures at the DSC Clinic in Kelantan Lane show the number of patients aged 10 to 19 has more than doubled from 238 in 2002 to 565 between January and November last year. Youth counsellors blame the apparent moral decline on a host of factors, from media exposure to an absence of parenting.The director of the youth development centre at the Singapore Children's Society, Ms Carol Balhetchet, said: 'You have the media and movies showing sexual content. 'You have fashion that is very revealing. You have celebrities who are glorifying sexy dressing. Sex has become cool, abstinence is not. And when you see parents now working longer hours, it all adds up.' Mr Ong of Focus On The Family agreed. 'We seem to have let our values slip away, but I'm not giving up. I sense that many people still believe in abstinence. All is not lost.'
http://newslink.asiaone.com/user/OrderArticleRequest.action?order=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fuser%2Fsearch_type_result.jsp&month=03&year=2006&date=26&docLanguage=en&documentId=nica_ST_2006_3780070
The Strait Times News Article
TEEN HEALTH REPORT CARD / They know of friends who have had sex
Section:Home
By:PAMELA CHOW, POON YEE SUAN
Publication:The Straits Times 24/11/2007
How health-conscious are teens? The Health Promotion Board polled 3,844 to find out their practices and attitudes towards smoking, sex, diet and fitness. Four student reporters with The Straits Times' publication for secondary schools, IN, talk to their friends to find out what they make of the results YES, we know of friends who have had sex, said half of the 10 teenage boys and girls polled by The Straits Times.All 16 years old, they had been told by those friends themselves, or heard about it through the grapevine, they said. All five felt that these teens were rushing things. No one was surprised by the Student Health Survey's report that 4per cent of 15- and 16-year-olds in Singapore have had sex. In fact, two of the 10 interviewed believed the actual number was probably higher.They also agreed with the survey's finding that 62 per cent had done it on impulse. This was clearly the case for one secondary schoolgirl, who declined to be named.She had gone clubbing with a group of friends, and ended up having one drink too many.Under the influence, she wound up having sex with a previously platonic friend. "It just happened," she told a friend.The teenagers polled offered a few reasons for such impulsive behaviour. "Girls tend to be blinded by love, and under pressure, the consequences of sex are discarded," said Cheryl Tan, 16, a Secondary 4 student from Ang Mo Kio Secondary School.Meanwhile, boys have raging hormones.All agreed that sex education in most schools lacks information on how to tackle real-life situations, like how to say no. Also, sex education should not be confined to upper-secondary levels, suggested Delfilia Surya, 17, a Sec3 student at Cedar Girls' Secondary School. "Schools should teach sex education at a younger age," she said. "It starts too late."Others had more hard-sell tactics. "Organisations that help Aids patients should give talks to scare teenagers," said Tan Xin Lin, 15, also from Cedar Girls' Secondary.Others urged parents to talk about the birds and the bees, and improve parent-child relationships.But, they all agreed, in the end it was up to the individual to make the right decisions at the crucial moments in their lives.
http://newslink.asiaone.com/user/OrderArticleRequest.action?order=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fuser%2Fsearch_type_result.jsp&month=11&year=2007&date=24&docLanguage=en&documentId=nica_ST_2007_7544340
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)