AWARE’s Letter to the Straits Times Forum Page, published September 13, 2011

The stark choice between motherhood and professional advancement presented in Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s comments to Ms Joan Sim is not new (‘A PhD’s fine, but what about love and babies?’, Straits Times, Sept 6, 2011).

In 1983, he said: ‘We shouldn’t get our women into jobs where they cannot, at the same time, be mothers.’ In 1994, he said that ‘attractive and intelligent young ladies’ should go to finishing colleges so that they will be ‘marvellous helpers of their husband’s career’. And now, Ms Sim has been advised to stop wasting time on her doctorate and find a boyfriend instead.

These views contradict the recent statements by Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports Halimah Yacob to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) that gender equality is central to Singapore’s socio-economic growth and that ‘maximising the full potential of every individual, male or female, is a priority’.

Under CEDAW, the Government is obliged to ‘take appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of the conduct of men and women based on the idea of stereotypical roles of men and women’. However, state policies have not kept pace with social developments and changing gender roles.

Fathers are not entitled to paid paternity leave, reinforcing the social expectation that mothers should bear most of the caregiving responsibilities. Flexible working arrangements attractive to mothers of young children are not widely available. Infant care facilities are inadequate for the country’s needs.

Such policies make raising children a daunting prospect for working women who want to continue their careers after becoming mothers. The State should take the lead in making family a more attractive option for these women, starting with a change of governmental attitude and the policies stated above.

The Scandinavian countries have shown that appropriate state policies that counter social norms can reverse declining fertility rates.

Public statements made by influential figures like Mr Lee are also important to shaping social attitudes.

Remarks that imply that women belong at home and men should be primarily providers undermine the efforts of men and women who struggle every day to meet the demands of family and working life.

Implying that marriage and motherhood are more important than education and work belittles the choices and contributions of women who prefer to be single or childless.

Such comments also perpetuate sexist stereotypes for a younger generation.

Nicole Tan
President, Association Of Women For Action & Research (AWARE)

Read the published letter here.

AWARE’s Letter to the Straits Times Forum Page, published June 14, 2011

We refer to the report “Singapore toughens its stance on human trafficking” ( ST June 11). We are very heartened to learn that the government intends to sign the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons (Palermo Protocol, 2000).

This is welcome news as the world is moving closer to accepting a universal definition on trafficking in persons. Singapore will soon also join hands with many other countries and agencies to combat the problem of global trading in people and to offer assistance to the victims.

Signing the trafficking treaty will align Singapore more closely to the ASEAN Declaration Against Trafficking in Persons Particularly Women and Children that was adopted in 2004. It also means that Singapore will fulfil its obligation under Article 6 of CEDAW ( Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) which it ratified in 1995. We also note with appreciation that an inter-agency task force chaired by MHA and MOM, has already been set up.

As the government prepares the ground processes for ratification of this UN treaty, we ask that two groups of women not be forgotten:

- The foreign lower-skilled women who work under exploitative conditions such as in some karaoke lounges or in some homes as domestic workers.
- Foreign less educated women who are deceived or coerced into marrying Singaporean men, and find themselves being exploited and/or abused.

The government says it will sign the UN trafficking treaty once it has put in place domestic measures to ensure adherence to it. We would like to suggest that these measures do include the following:

- Amend Section X1 of Women’s Charter Articles 141 and 142, 146 to 148 to increase the punishment of traffickers and pimps from the current imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years and a fine not exceeding $10,000.
- Put in place speedier investigation and prosecution processesso that victims do not have to stay in Singapore for too long and can return to families faster.
- Include civil society that work on issues related to women and migrants in the discussions to implement the UN Protocol on Trafficking.
- Introduce, in due course, legislation, in the form of perhaps an Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, to suppress all forms of trafficking in women.

Ms Braema Mathi
Chair, AWARE CEDAW Sub-Committee

For the original article referred to in our letter, click here. To read the published letter, click here.

AWARE’s Letter to the Straits Times Forum Page, published June 8, 2011

We refer to the article “Divorce and the Attractive Woman” (ST, 3 June) and the judgment rendered by the High Court in this case.

The High Court took the view that it was relevant for a judge to take into account the “attractiveness” of a wife in determining her chances of remarriage when exercising its discretion on whether to grant lump sum or monthly maintenance.

AWARE is surprised and disturbed by this judgment. While it may be valid to take into account a person’s imminent prospects for marriage, e.g. where there is evidence that a party intends to marry another party, it surely is not right for a court to go down a speculative line of reasoning as to whether a person, based on her looks, personality, ethnicity, nationality or relationship history is likely to be remarried.

It is moreover problematic to assume that an “attractive” woman is more likely to be married. What are the criteria for deciding who is “attractive?” Whose criteria are applied? And on what basis are we to establish a connection between this alleged “attractiveness” and remarriage?

We hope that this judgment, which dealt with the issue of the bias of the judge in deciding the issue of maintenance, will not be used as a precedent to support such a line of inquiry in future cases relating to maintenance. This would result in women being penalised and discriminated against if they do not fit normative – and indeed judges’ subjective – notions of beauty.

Yours faithfully,
Teo You Yenn
Board Member
Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE)

For the original article referred to in our letter, click here. To read the published letter, click here.

The company’s policy, which requires pregnant female flight attendants to resign, has been criticised for being discriminatory and unfair.

Crew who are expecting a child receive no maternity benefits, however they can later re-apply to work for the airline as ground staff.

An October 14th Straits Times article entitled Payout for Pregnant SIA Crew reads:

“The Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), which had earlier described the airline’s approach as ‘unfair’, softened its stance yesterday, saying it was ‘definitely a step in the right direction’. Still, it called for the airline to eventually remove its requirement for pregnant crew to quit flying.”

This is AWARE’s official statement on the latest development, as sent to ST journalist, Sandra Leong.

–

We are glad to hear of Singapore Airline’s decision to award two months salary to flight attendants who become pregnant. This is definitely a step in the right direction by SIA.

We hope that SIA will eventually remove the requirement for female attendants to quit flying when they are pregnant. Other airlines, such as British Airways, Cathay Pacific and Lufthansa have found it feasible to offer their female attendants alternative employment during pregnancy and SIA as a world class airline should not treat its employees any less favourably in this aspect.

We also hope that MCYS will treat the appeals by SIA female attendants for a further 2 months payment favourably. Ordinary Singaporean women who work in other fields do not lose their jobs when they become pregnant, and receive full maternity benefits. As it is, these female attendants are at a disadvantage compared to them. At the very least, they should receive the full 4 months payment that other Singaporean female employees would have received under more standard employment contracts as required by Singapore law.

We further hope that MCYS will discourage or expressly prohibit the use of clauses which require employees to resign when they are pregnant in order to remain in line with national policy and treat female members of staff fairly and supportively.

Reactions to the gimmick were mixed, with some defending it as a bit of fun and others decrying it as demeaning women.

 
AWARE has sent this letter to the Straits Times Forum:

“We refer to the “Fills My Cups” event organized by Overeasy at One Fullerton (ST, 18/01/2010). Overeasy is run by Lo & Behold which also runs “Loof” and the “White Rabbit”.
 
The bar invited women to enjoy free alcohol based on the size of their breasts. The event was reportedly well-attended and women who had bigger breasts received more “free” drinks.
 
There is nothing free about letting a room of people gawk at your breasts. Even if a woman is willing to pay the personal price of loss of dignity, there is still a cost suffered by other women. The women who participated in the event have contributed to the objectification of women, to reducing a woman’s value to her breast size and have helped reinforce the belief amongst men that this is not only acceptable but welcome.
 
Staging this event in itself is extremely distasteful. Just because sexism is profitable does not make it right. For the organisers to say that this is just “good fun and not sexist or sleazy” (New Paper, 17/01/2010) is insincere. The indignity is suffered only by one gender.
 
It is unfortunate there are women willing to make this choice so lightheartedly. The individual woman may view her participation as an act of empowerment. Perhaps she feels she should use whatever assets she has to secure favours for herself. In our sex and youth obsessed culture it is not surprising some women would grow to be so cynical.
 
Yes, women have the right to choose, but individual choices are made in a social context. And in our current social context, women have a much harder time being esteemed as individuals above and beyond their value as sex objects.
 
This event perpetuates the notion of women as sex objects and makes it that much more difficult for each woman who wants to be valued for her character and contribution rather than how she stacks up to a distorted image of the ideal body.
 
The personal choice (for the participants) and the private choice (for the corporation) has had a detrimental social impact.
 
Choice works both ways. The organisers may have successfully packed their venue on the evening, but they may well have lost future business at Overeasy and their sister establishments.”

What do you think about the Fill My Cups marketing gimmick, and the stand taken by AWARE?

Share your thoughts.