Pub Date: 27/06/2007 Pub: ST Page: 1,2Day: WednesdayEdition: FIRSTHeadline: Schools see a difference with full-time counsellorsBy: HO AI LIPage Heading: PRIMEPicture Caption:BACK ON THE RIGHT PATH: (From left) Tanglin Secondary 3 student and formerhabitual truant Tan Wei Liang with his counsellor Michelle Lee and TanglinSecondary teachers Solastri Suyot, Sharon Gan, Lau Yong Zhi and Tan Puay Eng.Subject: POLITICAL/GENERAL NEWS^EDUCATION^SCHOOLSource: SPH
This article discusses the impacts of having a full-time counselor in a school. It is part of MOE’s program to install a counselor in every school in hopes of providing the proper moral and emotional support that was previously lacking in schools.
When I was in primary school, my school did not have any counselors. Instead our form teachers acted as counselors, often addressing our problems the best way they can. However they seem to forget that the role of a counselor is vastly different from that of a teacher, and hence they usually end up telling us what to do. How typically teacher-like. When I moved to secondary school, I was pleasantly surprised to discover the existence of a counselor, although admittedly I have yet to go visit him. However, being a teenager myself, I can identify the need for someone who can guide us along in life, especially since we are in a very unstable stage of our life.
The typical societal stereotype of counselors is that they are people who deal with the deviants of society. They are called in to redress the wrongs in their client’s life. Their job is to make bad people turn good. This is how society typically views counselors, and it was a view I shared for quite a long time. Their real job, however, is to counsel, hence the name counselor. To counsel means to give advice, to help someone sort out his or her feelings. Therefore a counselor’s real job is simply to guide people, to listen to them and give them advice. As more and more students become aware of the existence of counselors in their school, I feel that it is imperative that we as students understand that counselors were put for us, and that it is perfectly fine to visit the counselor once in a while, since I believe the majority hold the same societal stereotype. I therefore applaud the MOE’s efforts to place a counselor in every school to reach out to the school populace.
Given the reasons and benefits of having a counselor in one’s school, the article highlights a couple of problems that the execution of the program might hold. One is that there is a lack of properly trained counselors. As noted by Mr Teo of Hwa Chong Institution, a freshly qualified counselor is required to log 600 supervised counseling hours in order to become a member of the Singapore Association for Counseling. Also since most counselors come out from the line of teaching, it is imperative that they learn to talk less and listen more, and less of telling them what to do, something very typical of teachers. Another obstacle is that the schools themselves may not be supportive of the counselors, since when the effectiveness of counselors is compared to the effectiveness of teachers, the counselors inevitably lose out. Everyone has a different personality and thus requires different amounts of time to resolve their problems. It is impossible to demand of a counselor to resolve a case in a certain number of sessions, because it does not work that way.
Having said the above, I feel that for this counseling program to progress further, it requires more understanding and support on the school’s part. Also since the counselors here are facing students, the training they undergo should cater to understanding the adolescent more, something that the Singapore Association for Counseling should look at. All in all, I laud the MOE’s efforts to cater to the needs of the students, no longer just academically, but developmentally.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Blog entry 5
Pub Date: 18/09/2007 Pub: ST Page: H11Day: TuesdayEdition: FIRSTHeadline: Male homosexual sex to remain a crimeBy: RADHA BASUPage Heading: HOMESubject: POLITICAL/GENERAL NEWS^CRIME/NATIONAL SECURITY^CRIME/COURTS^SEX OFFENCES POLITICAL/GENERAL NEWS^GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS^PARLIAMENTSource: SPH
This article talks about the most hotly debated topic in Singapore, homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality. It discusses the recent review of the Penal Code, which drew certain responses from the minority few.
In a recent NTU survey conducted, 70% of the populace was still against the notion of homosexuality, which serves as an indication of the conservativeness of our society. It was, however, a decrease in as compared to an 80-something% of the population who said no a few years back when they conducted the same survey. This shows that indeed Singapore is started to shake off its shackles which bonded her to old values and traditions. We must admit that in this modern day and age, homosexuality is becoming a more widely accepted way of life. Which is why in Singapore, more and more people are being more open to homosexuality, some even becoming one.
With regards to the Penal Code retaining Section 377a, many people responded to it very strongly, blasting the government as being conservative, unreceptive and discriminative. They argue that homosexuality should not be made a crime, because science says that homosexuality is inborn, so the person really has no say in his sexual orientation. However, we must look from the government’s point of view. As said in the article, Section 377a of the Penal Code was retained due to strong majority support. It acted in the best interests of the community as a whole, so since most people do not accept homosexual sex as yet, the government had to criminalize it. It also said that although male homosexual sex was to remain a crime, it would not actively pursue and charge anyone who engages in it, so long as they do not get found out. It shows that the government did take into considering the viewpoints of gays, and does not hope to totally eradicate homosexuality.
Personally, I being a Christian and having grown up in the values of Christianity, am strongly against homosexuality. However, it does not mean that I despise the homosexual. Like the proverb says “love the sinner, hate the sin”. I believe that all homosexuals are good people, apart from the fact that they are homosexual. However if I were to look at the issue from a viewpoint of a normal person, I would support the governments decision to criminalize gay sex, but at the same time I would not condemn homosexuals to eternal damnation. I don’t think I could ever feel what the homosexuals are feeling with regards to the outlawing of their favorite activity, but I certainly hope that they understand why the government did what they did, and to take it in their stride. Perhaps, one day they might actually get what they wish for, but for now the best that could happen would be for both sides to understand each other, and not force their own way.
This article talks about the most hotly debated topic in Singapore, homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality. It discusses the recent review of the Penal Code, which drew certain responses from the minority few.
In a recent NTU survey conducted, 70% of the populace was still against the notion of homosexuality, which serves as an indication of the conservativeness of our society. It was, however, a decrease in as compared to an 80-something% of the population who said no a few years back when they conducted the same survey. This shows that indeed Singapore is started to shake off its shackles which bonded her to old values and traditions. We must admit that in this modern day and age, homosexuality is becoming a more widely accepted way of life. Which is why in Singapore, more and more people are being more open to homosexuality, some even becoming one.
With regards to the Penal Code retaining Section 377a, many people responded to it very strongly, blasting the government as being conservative, unreceptive and discriminative. They argue that homosexuality should not be made a crime, because science says that homosexuality is inborn, so the person really has no say in his sexual orientation. However, we must look from the government’s point of view. As said in the article, Section 377a of the Penal Code was retained due to strong majority support. It acted in the best interests of the community as a whole, so since most people do not accept homosexual sex as yet, the government had to criminalize it. It also said that although male homosexual sex was to remain a crime, it would not actively pursue and charge anyone who engages in it, so long as they do not get found out. It shows that the government did take into considering the viewpoints of gays, and does not hope to totally eradicate homosexuality.
Personally, I being a Christian and having grown up in the values of Christianity, am strongly against homosexuality. However, it does not mean that I despise the homosexual. Like the proverb says “love the sinner, hate the sin”. I believe that all homosexuals are good people, apart from the fact that they are homosexual. However if I were to look at the issue from a viewpoint of a normal person, I would support the governments decision to criminalize gay sex, but at the same time I would not condemn homosexuals to eternal damnation. I don’t think I could ever feel what the homosexuals are feeling with regards to the outlawing of their favorite activity, but I certainly hope that they understand why the government did what they did, and to take it in their stride. Perhaps, one day they might actually get what they wish for, but for now the best that could happen would be for both sides to understand each other, and not force their own way.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)