As we celebrate the International Day of Families on May 15, it is time to recognise the increasingly important role singles in Singapore play when it comes to caring for a rapidly greying population.

The annual International Day of Families on May 15 was established by the United Nations in 1993 to mark how changing social, economic and demographic processes impact families around the globe.

On this 19th anniversary, it is encouraging to note that recent Budget-related statements by Members of Parliament recognise that better support is needed for different forms of the Singaporean family, which include single parents, divorced parents, foreign spouses of Singapore citizens and fathers who want more care-giving opportunities.

Why do families exist? For care-giving, not just procreation. Indeed, procreation without adequate care-giving leads to many social problems.

Diverse forms of the family provide care. Apart from nuclear families, there are single-person-headed households, patchwork families (resulting from divorce and remarriage) and, increasingly, multi-generational families in which singles (unmarried and childless) look after elderly parents.

Population statistics show a steady rise in the rate of singlehood. In 2000, 33.3% of males and 21.9% of females aged 30-34 years were single. This increased to 43.1% of males and 30.6% for females in 2010. Meanwhile, “the proportion of residents aged 65 and above increased from 7.2% in 2000 to 9.3% in 2011” (Population in Brief 2011: 6).

These statistics are related. Increasingly, the elderly are cared for by unmarried children, mostly daughters. The 1995 National Survey of Senior Citizens in Singapore showed that singles constituted 24% of family care-givers caring for those aged 65 and above. This has increased to 26%, according to a Ministry of Health report (2011). Women constitute 74% of those caring for the elderly, according to an NUS Social Work Report of Singapore Family Caregiving (2006).

Describing single care-givers of the elderly, Dr Kalyani Mehta (Head of Gerontology Programme, UniSIM) said, “many of them are not ‘swinging’ singles but ‘stressed’ singles, who are juggling work and care-giving responsibilities.”

In shaping policies for Singapore’s rapidly greying population, we must ensure that single adults caring for elderly parents do not slip through the cracks. Recent Budget support for single care-givers – including subsidies for home-based care and domestic foreign helpers for elderly parents, and assistance through Medisave top-ups and GST vouchers – are laudable. But are these enough?

The 2006 NUS Report of Singapore Family Caregiving states that 25% of family care-givers express concern about their worsening financial situation. 55% of healthcare expenditure in Singapore is funded out of pocket, compared to only 30% in Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea, according to a 2012 paper on inequality and the new social compact, presented at the Institute of Policy Studies.

Are parents to rely largely on the income of working children for long-term care-giving? More effective approaches could include:

-       Universal Medishield and risk-pooling across all age groups to provide more affordable healthcare coverage for older persons

-       Waiving levies for hiring foreign domestic workers to assist low-income care-givers, especially singles who have to work to support elderly parents

-       Childcare leave becoming “care-giving leave” for all dependents, thereby enabling single care-givers – some without siblings – to care for or bring ill elderly dependents to see doctors.

Further, more retiring Singaporeans – including those who have made tremendous personal sacrifices to care for elderly parents – now live alone: from 6.6% in 2000 to 7.7% in 2005, according to a MCYS Report on the State of the Elderly in Singapore (2009).

Interviewing single women aged 35 and above, AWARE met respondents who experience difficulties in caring for dependent parents without sufficient state support. One respondent plans to migrate to a more “pro-elderly” country after the parents she cares for pass on. In her view, Singapore does not provide adequately for an ageing population and an increasingly single population. Indeed, eldercare facilities here are limited in quantity and quality, and very expensive to boot.

Among the elderly living in HDB estates, those living with friends or relatives (not immediate family) have almost doubled from 3.3% in 1998 to 6.4% in 2008. These, too, are families, bound by ties of care and compassion, rather than obligations of kinship. It is time to recognise that caring for one another is the basis of families. Family policies should not be premised solely on relationships of blood or marriage.

On this International Day of Families, it is worth reflecting on how such policies can better support singles – those who are care-givers, as well as those who receive care – and their families. Only then can we become a truly inclusive and caring society.

This commentary was co-authored by members of AWARE’s Singles In Singapore sub-committee, which comprises leaders Chew I-Jin and Mao Ailin, and members Raudah Abdul Rashid, Carolyn Lim Bee Bee, and Chu Hoi Yee. It was published in Today on May 15, 2012. Read the published version here.

Children and teens have limited capacities for processing challenges to their identities. It is our responsibility to create conditions in which the costs of their choices are not excessively high.

By Dr Teo You Yenn

When my students embark on research projects, they are required to undergo ethics reviews. If their projects involve children or teenagers, they are required to ask for parental permission before interviewing their subjects. This can appear to students as a bureaucratic process; they do not always understand why children are special.

I explain to them that children deserve special treatment because their capacities to process questions and challenges to their identities are not as well developed as older people’s. Moreover, they have fewer resources for dealing with challenges to their sense of selves.

While interviews with adults will generally leave them unmoved in their sense of who they are and what they believe in, when we ask kids about what they think about femininity or masculinity, what social class their families belong to, et cetera, these questions can leave them feeling unsure about where they stand in the world.

Without access to the resources adults tend to have — adult friends who have
experiences to share, knowledge about how to seek counsel — kids can end up feeling isolated and helpless. 18 or 21 are somewhat arbitrary numbers; people obviously develop at different pace, but age limits guarantee kids at least that number of years of special consideration.

If children under 18 need to be protected from sociologists’ questions, they obviously need to be protected from pimps and johns. And indeed, we know that there are global and intensifying problems of sexual exploitation of children. These take the form of sexual grooming on the Internet, trafficking, and child prostitution.

Aside from these more obvious forms of exploitation, girls and young women are
living in environments where the sexuality of girls/women are for display or sale. We see this in multiple realms and forms: in television, films, and the merchandise that accompany them; in pop music and music videos; on billboards and shop windows; sometimes even in toys.

Our popular culture is saturated with images of girls and young women whose worth are narrowly defined through their youthful bodies. Boys and men, too, are living in environments where the objectification and use of certain girls/women for their bodies is seen as perfectly normal. These conditions can and have been negatively exploited.

We should respect young people’s desires to exercise agency; indeed, it is obvious adults do not have monopoly over good decisions. But we have the responsibility to create conditions in which younger members of society can safely make decisions, where they can reverse certain decisions and the costs of their choices aren’t excessively high.

We must not allow people to exploit young people’s limited capacity to protect
themselves and limited resources in finding alternatives. When our young are used as sex objects, we should remember why they need protection in the first place. We should take seriously our collective responsibility to protect them from those who use their vulnerability for profits and pleasures.

The writer is Assistant Professor in Sociology at Nanyang Technological
University and Board member at AWARE. This commentary was published in Today on May 10, 2012. Read the published version here.

The following is an excerpt of the debate on single-parent families, paid paternity leave and the rights of foreign spouses, which took place during the Feb 29 and March 1, 2 and 5 sittings of Parliament.

PAID PATERNITY LEAVE

Seah Kian Peng
Member of Parliament for Marine Parade GRC

Let me declare my interest as a Board Member for the Centre for Fathering, a VWO. Today, I revisit a topic that I have been pushing for a few years – paid paternity leave.

We know the importance of the father’s involvement in a child’s growing up years. Research has shown that children do better mentally, socially, emotionally and academically when their fathers are involved in their lives.

The opposite is true as well – fathers’ absences are linked to higher rates of delinquency and psychological problems in the children. An AWARE-led survey conducted between October 2010 and January 2011 found that 91 per cent of over 1000 respondents wanted to have mandated paternity leave, ranging from at least six days to as many as 14 days. The survey also found that 75 per cent of the fathers would apply for paternity leave to spend time with their children, if there was that option.

Given that there is both reason and demand for paid paternity leave, I hope the Ministry can consider supporting my proposal for legally mandated paternity leave. In addition, the Ministry could grant the flexibility for parents to apportion their paternity and maternity leave according to their needs. In the 2010 COS debate, I had also suggested that the fourth month of maternity leave could be gender neutral that can be taken by either parent. This is something, I hope, the Government can consider; I know not this year but perhaps in future.

Many companies, including the Civil Service, have given fathers day off. We all agree that allowing fathers to spend more time and build stronger bonds with their children is an important step to take in promoting cohesive and harmonious families. So, I urge the Government to consider legislating paternity leave. We start small – two days will do. It is a symbolic but important move.

Gerald Giam
Non-Constituency Member of Parliament

Paternity leave of at least six days per new-born child should be introduced and legislated. Half of this should be funded by the Government and the rest by employers. This will allow families to bond together during the critical period after childbirth, and will also recognise the important role of fathers in sharing the responsibilities of infant care. All this could have a positive effect on birth rates.

Teo Chee Hean
Deputy Prime Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security, Minister for Home Affairs, Member of Parliament for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC

For paternity leave, there are pluses and minuses. We would have to study the impact, and the experience of other countries. The experience of other countries on paternity leave has been mixed. For shared leave, most of the time, it is the mother who has taken the leave rather than the father. There are also implications like cost to businesses. So, we have to study this very carefully. And, if not for this year, maybe for later years.

HOUSING PROBLEMS FOR SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES

Yeo Guat Kwang
Member of Parliament for Ang Mo Kio GRC

I would like to highlight the need to support less traditional families. With divorce rates going up, we are seeing more single-parent families. This is an unfortunate trend that is made all the more challenging due to the difficulties caused by high rents and difficulties applying for a new flat. Single mothers with young children especially are struggling.

Rental rates are going up. A check of the median rental rate shows that the average rate for a 3-room flat in the fourth quarter of 2010 was $1,888, up 33% from the same period in 2009 ($1,419). It is definitely much higher now. This makes renting a flat quite prohibitive but, at the same time, these families find it difficult to apply for a new flat as a second-time applicant.

I think HDB should review its policies concerning single-parent families and consider these mitigating circumstances. Can HDB consider giving them the same priority as the first-timer homeowners or priority above the second-timer homeowners? Their situation is desperate especially when there are children involved.

Lim Biow Chuan
Member of Parliament for Mountbatten SMC

I urge the Government to consider a more flexible policy to allow divorcees and singles to buy or rent flats directly from HDB.

In the case of divorcees, after the divorce, one parent would usually be granted care and control over their children. If the court also orders the matrimonial flat to be sold, this would mean that the parent and his or her child would be without a home unless they can rely on their relatives or friends.

Instead of the standard policy of asking the divorcee to wait the debarment period of 30 months, can HDB allow divorcees with children to rent a flat quickly? Alternatively, can they be allowed to buy a flat directly from HDB?

Based on a single divorced person’s income with children to support, it would be financially difficult for them to buy a resale flat. I think we can do more to help divorced persons adjust to their situation. And I also agree that for HDB to ask applicants to get a letter of no objection from a divorced spouse is not very sensitive. I mean, the acrimony is still there.

Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap
Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC

The number of divorces and annulments has been inching up since 2005. In 2010 alone, there were over 7,000 divorces recorded under the Women’s Charter and AMLA. Most divorces end up with the sale of matrimonial homes. I have come across cases where spouses given custody of children were left staring at the prospect of becoming homeless in the process. While young divorcees may find it a little easier to pick up their lives again, older divorcees, especially those with children, may need some help to do so.

The largest group of divorcees in 2010 was aged 35 to 44 years. Some of these divorcees may have no option but to sell their matrimonial homes. If their homes are bought directly from HDB, they faced a debarment period of 30 months for a rental flat and a 5-year wait period if they want to buy another flat direct from HDB or be listed as an occupier. For older divorcees with custody of children, time is something they do not have on their side.

Take the case of a 35-year-old resident, a divorcee with the custody of three children and no alimony from her ex-husband. She earned less than $900 a month. The sales proceeds from the disposal of matrimonial home, if any, would be gone in 30 months if her family is forced to rent from the open market. And by the time she is eligible to buy another HDB flat, age would have caught up, the loan eligibility would have diminished and job security will be an issue.

My take on inclusive society means everyone will not left alone. That would include singles, divorcees, bankrupts and those who may have been overlooked in our society. I do understand that HDB will review applications for rental or purchase of new flats for divorcees on a case-by-case basis. The Government may want society to take a pro-family stand. There is nothing wrong with that. We are Asians, we are pro-family.

But how we look after the less fortunate, needy and vulnerable section of our society will set us apart from the rest of the pack. I urge the Ministry to look into releasing or to do away with the debarment period for rental flats for divorcees with children as a start in our resolve to build a truly inclusive society.

Khaw Boon Wan
Minister for National Development, Member of Parliament for Sembawang GRC

We are sympathetic to divorcees, especially when they have young children to support, face financial hardship and have no family support. We will always try to help them. As we free up, loosen the balloting for second-timers, many of them should be able to benefit from this initiative. Last year, we allocated 670 public rental flats to divorcees with children. This is more than 20 per cent of the rental flats allocated last year.

Nevertheless, we must be mindful that divorcees do not form a homogenous group. In the West, many sympathetic rules designed to help divorcees get abused, with couples claiming such benefits even though their marriages are intact. We have to be discerning when claiming a case to be special. It must really be special. And that is why we have to deal with this on a case-by-case basis. I pay some attention to the comments written by the MPs when they write in. So, I am counting on you to do some due diligence. Do not just take their word for it. We need to do some probing.

FOREIGN SPOUSES

Indranee Rajah
Member of Parliament for Tanjong Pagar GRC

I was heartened by the Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement earlier today about the Long-term Visit Pass Plus scheme, but it is not clear what impact it will have on one particular group which I am concerned about, and that is Singaporeans with past criminal records who have foreign spouses.

I would like to ask the Minister if there is a specific policy that Singaporeans with criminal records would automatically have their applications for long-term visit passes for their spouses rejected. If rejection is not automatic based on past records but subject to ICA’s discretion, then what are the factors that ICA takes into account in exercising that discretion?

I ask because I have noticed, from my MPS cases, that some Singaporeans with past criminal records have had difficulty in getting Long-term Social Visit Passes for their foreign spouses. The applicants tend to be male, in their 30s or 40s. Typically, they do not have high educational levels. This question is actually prompted by three cases for which I have been sending repeated appeals to MHA.

One of them is a Chinese man. At first glance, when you look at him, you will know that he was once a “pai kia”. He is covered from head to toe in colourful tattoos; even his head is tattooed. But his record has been clean for many years. He has turned over a new leaf. He has found a stable job and is trying to make a new life for himself with his wife from China. He has been a applying for a Long-term Social Visit Pass for her but has been consistently rejected.

Another is also a Chinese man. He works for a VWO in the social service sector. He has a very elderly mother whom he looks after. He has a Vietnamese wife, and he, too, has had his applications rejected. The third one is an Indian man. His wife is from India. He works as a cook. He also has had his applications for a Long-term Social Visit Pass rejected.

In all three cases, their records were several years ago and they have kept clean records since. They have all obtained jobs. They may not be very well off, but they appear to be able to support themselves and their wives. Denying them Long-term Social Visit Passes denies them the chance for personal happiness and to start families of their own.

Having to send their wives back to their home countries every few months not only adds to their expenses, but also puts them under stress and anxiety. Rejecting their applications is really contrary to the Yellow Ribbon Movement. Not only that, the thing is that having their spouses here in Singapore actually helps to stabilise them and gives them a new purpose and direction in life.

I appreciate that Long-term Social Visit Passes should not be given indiscriminately and care should be exercised when there is a criminal record. But if they are genuine cases, I ask that they be examined on their merits and also that MHA and ICA will be more flexible in granting Long Term Social Visit Passes to spouses of Singaporeans with past criminal records.

Masagos Zulkifli Bin Masagos Mohamad
Minister of State for Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs, Member of Parliament for Tampines GRC

Regarding whether the Ministry will be more flexible in granting Long Term Visit Passes for foreign spouses of Singaporeans with past criminal records, we are cognisant of the latter’s needs, but we are mindful that should a marriage not work out or the husband reoffends, the spouse who is a foreigner will not have relatives in Singapore to turn to nor jobs to sustain herself or her children as many are generally low skilled.

ICA, therefore, evaluates every application for a Long Term Visit Pass carefully, based on a variety of factors, such as the sponsor’s ability to financially support the family and sustain the marriage, whether there are children from the marriage, and duration of the marriage.

Over the last five years, 11,500 foreign spouses of Singaporeans were granted LTVP annually. This represents a success rate of 85 per cent over the applications received, and includes applications from those who have had criminal records before, but had qualified.

But for ex-offenders who demonstrate a strong commitment to keep a clean record and remain in stable employment, we will review how we can better facilitate such applications and help these families.

Ang Hin Kee
Member of Parliament for Ang Mo Kio GRC

There are increasingly more cases of Singaporeans marrying foreign partners. Many of these couples find themselves faced with an uncertain future and frustration after marriage. Marriage to a Singapore citizen does not automatically qualify a foreigner for long-term stay or permanent residency upon marriage or even after they have children. Each application is evaluated based on its own merits and many of these foreign spouses do not get to enjoy medical benefits, childcare, housing subsidies, etc.

Many couples do come to their MPs and appeal for special waiver from the ICA to speed up applications for long-term stay or PR applications. In the long run, some of these marriages may break down. Does the Government have plans to provide greater support for these foreign spouses, given that there has been an increasing trend of Singaporeans marrying foreigners?

Secondly, I believe we need to tackle the frustration faced by these couples from the onset. Before they marry, it is imperative that they have a better understanding of the family support system, financial management and cultural differences here in Singapore. Let them learn about the various citizenship issues and what to expect for a long-term stay in Singapore.

With effect from September 2011, it is now mandatory for minor couples who wish to marry to attend marriage preparation programmes. The purpose is to help young couples better prepare for marriage. I believe such premarital counselling will be useful for Singaporeans and their foreign spouses. Can the Government consider extending options of premarital counselling services and marriage preparatory courses to them as well?

If need be, can the Government also fund the counselling sessions and courses to encourage couples who wish to make use of the services to do so? In this case, I believe we can better prepare such couples to take note of the potential challenges they may face as a married couple. In this way, we will have better and more stable marriages.

Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap

In a recent reply to a question on whether the Ministry would grant permanent residence more easily to the foreign spouses of Singaporeans, especially those who have children who are Singaporeans, the Prime Minister replied that there is no such automatic policy. The PM also said that the citizens who sponsored their foreign spouses for PR status may need to show that they are able to support them financially.

The length of stay and duration of marriage may be important factors to consider in the grant of PR status to foreign spouses, the condition that the citizen must first prove that they are able to support their partner is a bit unusual. This is because once their spouses become permanent residents, what is there to stop them from seeking employment? Even when these foreign spouses are on long-term visit passes, they are allowed to work, as highlighted by the Prime Minister, in this Chamber.

Perhaps, it is time to review this pre-condition. As long as these citizens are working and contributing to their CPF savings, the chances of their foreign spouses in getting a PR status should be based surely on the family nucleus, length of stay, duration of marriage and whatever undisclosed criteria that ICA may have.

It was reported on CNA that this Government has granted PR status to almost 168,000 foreigners from 2008 to 2010. It is anybody’s guess how many of these PRs will eventually stay on, take up citizenship and have children. But, unlike the many PRs who are here mainly for economic reasons, foreign spouses of Singaporeans have every reason to make this place their permanent home because their partners are already deeply rooted here, to begin with.

In my MPS, I have met a number of residents who are disappointed with the many rejection letters they received from ICA. Some citizens with foreign spouses and Singapore children have become disillusioned with the immigration policy. I can understand their frustration. On one hand, we want more babies and foreigners to grow our population; on the other hand, it is so hard for these Singaporeans to secure the PR status for their spouses even when they have children who are born Singaporeans.

It is hard for Singaporeans with foreign spouses to live with the separation anxiety all the time. I urge this Government to review the immigration policy on foreign spouses with a compassionate and forward looking yardstick.

Intan Azura Mokhtar
Member of Parliament for Ang Mo Kio GRC

Just based on the past nine months interacting with residents and helping them file appeals, I have seen consistent requests by Singaporeans to appeal for either permanent residence or long-term visit passes for their foreign spouses. For some of these applicants, they have made repeated applications and appeals over several years but to no avail.

What is of concern is that a substantial proportion of these couples have children who are Singaporeans. But because of the inability of the foreign spouses to get either a PR or long-term visit pass and hence the inability to stay in Singapore for longer durations, the family is spread apart, with the child or children usually living with their mothers who are more often than not foreign spouses.

It pains me to see such young children growing up in a family that is not intact because of a policy that we have instituted. We ought to look beyond the Singaporean applicant’s immediate financial contribution ability, and let us instead look at how his contribution can be realised through his Singaporean children who may not even have the opportunity to contribute to Singapore if we continue this policy the way we have.

I hope that the Prime Minister’s Office can review this policy and consider relaxing the criteria for applications of PRs on long-term visit passes for foreign spouses so that we can allow more of such families to stay as an intact family unit.

Hri Kumar Nair
Member of Parliament for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC

In 2010, there were a total of 24,363 marriages. Of these, 6,176 were between a citizen and a non-resident. This represents over a quarter of all marriages in Singapore. In most cases, the couple would naturally expect that the foreign spouse would be allowed to live in Singapore and later start a family here. But it does not always work out that way.

What happens in most cases is that the foreign spouse would be issued a social visit pass which can range from 30 days to a year. Some are even required to leave Singapore before their passes are renewed, or without assurance that it will be. Their applications for permanent residence will take a few years to be approved, if at all.

It is not a satisfactory situation. The problems are compounded because many of these marriages involve Singaporean men and women with low incomes. The new couples are uncertain about their future. Because ICA does not reveal the criteria for granting a visit pass or PR, the couple is never certain when it will be granted or at all. While foreign spouses can work on a long-term visit pass, they find it difficult to be employed because of their uncertain status. When the spouse is asked to leave Singapore and return to renew their passes, it adds to the family’s expenses.

The couple cannot buy a new flat from HDB because at least two people in the family nucleus must be citizens or permanent residents to qualify. As it will now take the foreign spouse longer to obtain PR, the situation will remain difficult for some time. If the foreign spouse is a lady, she will not enjoy subsidised medical care, and so it will be more expensive to plan and start a family.

Taken collectively, these factors create an imposing obstacle against such couples marrying, settling down and starting a family in Singapore. If we are encouraging Singaporeans to get married and have children, why make it difficult for them simply because they choose to marry a non-Singaporean?

Foreign spouses belong to a very different category from the foreign workers the Government is trying to reduce our dependence on. In fact, they are quite the opposite because they are here not for commercial reasons but for the long term. They are also part of a national agenda we want to advance. We want more Singaporeans to marry and have children and deepen their roots in Singapore.

Singaporeans who marry foreigners have the same hopes and dreams as other Singaporeans. The Government should help them make this dream come true, particularly those with low incomes and who likely have more limited options. It is in keeping with the “inclusive” theme of the Budget.

What are the reasons for our caution? Is it the fear of marriages of convenience? If so, this must be the minority of marriages, and surely this can be addressed differently. Our approach appears to be to flush out marriages of convenience by making it as inconvenient as possible for Singaporeans with foreign spouses. I hope the Government will do something to help.

I suggest that instead of issuing social visit passes, we institute a more permanent pass for foreign spouses. For convenience, I shall call this the “marriage pass”, not a pass of marriage. Under a marriage pass, the foreign spouse should be allowed to live and work in Singapore as long as the couple remains married. The marriage pass should allow the couple to purchase a new HDB flat, and entitle the spouse to subsidised medical care.

There are a number of advantages. It gives certainty to the couple. It makes it easier for them to own a home and start a family. And if administered properly, it will also enable the Government to grant fewer PR or citizenship and only to very deserving cases as the marriage pass is a viable alternative to foreign spouses in a genuine marriage.

The concerns about sham marriages will in fact be reduced as the spouse’s right to remain in Singapore will depend on the continuity of the marriage, and getting a PR is less assured. As a check against abuse, there could be various conditions placed on the marriage pass. For example, it could be mandatory that children born under the marriage would have to apply to become Singapore citizens.

Also, where the couple have purchased an HDB flat, they could be made to disgorge the profits from the sale should the marriage pass be terminated, and the flat sold within a certain period. I hope the Government will consider the suggestion to make it easier for Singaporeans to marry foreigners.

Teo Chee Hean

Several Members have asked if our immigration policy can be more accommodating towards foreigners who have lived in Singapore for many years. Our objective is to take in immigrants who can contribute and integrate well into our society. Applications for PR and citizenship are carefully evaluated on a set of comprehensive criteria which include the individual’s economic contributions, qualifications, age, and family ties.

For those who are married to Singaporeans, we consider the length of their marriage, whether they have Singaporean children, and whether their sponsor is able to support the family financially.

As we have tightened our immigration framework, it has become more difficult to qualify for PR or citizenship. There is however, still the option of applying for other immigration facilities such as work passes, social visit passes, dependant’s passes or long term visit passes.

Mr Ang is quite correct to say that more Singaporeans are marrying non-citizens. In 2010, 30 per cent of marriages involving citizens were between a citizen and a foreigner. This is up from 23 per cent in the year 2000.

We do not fully understand the sociology and stresses within these marriages but we will study them. We will also study suggestions of marriage counselling, but a number of these marriages are forged overseas, before we have any opportunity to step in to do counselling or give any form of advice.

While foreign spouses do not automatically qualify for citizenship or PR, most of those who do not, will qualify for a Long Term Visit Pass, or LTVP. Many of those on LTVP do eventually become PRs or naturalise as citizens after they have been married for some time, and their marriages are stable.

Several Members asked if the Government could do more to help foreign spouses of Singaporeans, especially those with Singaporean children. I do agree that we can do more to help such families build more stable and stronger foundations. We sympathise with these families.

But we have also seen the other side of the problem, where the foreign spouse who has received PR suddenly divorces and leaves the Singaporean citizen spouse. We have also seen Singapore citizens who have asked the immigration department to get the ex-foreign spouse to leave Singapore. We have seen instances of these, and so we would like to see that the marriages are stable and have been in existence for a substantial period of time before we give longer term immigration facilities, which place an obligation on Singapore and Singaporeans to support this person for the long term. But I do agree that we can do more.

To provide more support to the family of a Singaporean with a foreign spouse who has not yet been given PR or citizenship, we will introduce a new scheme, known as the Long Term Visit Pass Plus or LTVP+ from 1 April 2012.

First, the scheme provides foreign spouses of citizens with greater certainty of stay. The LTVP+ will be for a duration of three years in the first instance and up to five years for each subsequent renewal, instead of the current shorter periods of typically one year.

Second, LTVP+ holders will receive healthcare subsidies for inpatient treatment at restructured hospitals, pegged at a level close to that for PRs, that is, about the same rates as PRs even though they have not yet been given PR.

Third, it will be easier for LTVP+ holders to work to supplement the family income. They will only require a Letter of Consent from MOM to work, which can be easily obtained through online application. To qualify for LTVP+, factors such as the length of marriage and whether there are citizen children in the family will be considered. More details will be announced by ICA later today.

Desmond Lee
Member of Parliament for Jurong GRC

HDB’s priority is to provide homes for Singapore families. Lower-income Singaporeans with foreign spouses who are not PRs cannot purchase BTO or balance flats from HDB. As a result, some of them face serious housing problems.

Currently, their options to buy a resale flat on the Non-citizen Spouse Scheme with CPF housing grant for singles; (b) rent a room or a flat from the private rental market; or (c) put up with friends or relatives. In many of these cases, these options are either unaffordable and out of reach, or sub-optimal.

I would like to ask if the Minister will at some stage consider allowing Singaporeans with non-PR foreign spouses to buy BTO or balance flats. As a safeguard, do not allow their spouses to be joint owners or have succession rights to these flats unless they attain more permanent residency status. This might even be an extension of the Long-term Visit Pass Plus scheme that was announced yesterday.

Yeo Guat Kwang

The foreign spouses of Singaporeans who are now on Long Term Visit Pass-Plus do not need to obtain a work permit if they want to work. Now, they only need a letter of consent from MOM that potential employers can obtain online. They are also not subject to levy and company’s dependency quota. I hope we can help them more by facilitating employers to employ them instead of foreign workers from abroad.

It would be an added benefit if we can support these Singaporean spouses, who have Singaporean children to support, with employability training and skill upgrading. For example, can we extend e2i employment assistance and WDA training support to them at the same level as other Singaporeans?

Tan Chuan-Jin
Minister of State for the Ministry of National Development and the Ministry of Manpower; Member of Parliament for Marine Parade GRC

Mr Yeo asked if we can help foreign spouses of Singaporeans on Long Term Social Visit Pass (LTVP) with training and job facilitation. In line with the Government’s intention to extend more assistance to families of Singapore citizens with foreign spouses, WDA will provide such services at its career centres to the new LTVP Plus (LTVP+) holders. They will be eligible for needs-based course subsidies, following an assessment at the career centre.

Read the full transcripts here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

The following is an excerpt of the debate on how to better support the needs of elderly women and healthcare concerns for Singaporean women, which took place during the Feb 28 and March 5-7 sittings of Parliament.

ELDERCARE

Grace Fu
Senior Minister of State for the Ministry of Information Communications and the Arts, and the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources; Member of Parliament for Yuhua; Chairman of the PAP Women’s Wing executive committee

For women who are caring for the elderly, the Budget to enhance the healthcare sector and additional subsidy for the healthcare of the elderly is welcomed by many. The significant increase in subsidy for nursing homecare, home-based care and monthly grant for foreign domestic helper provide assurance and relief to many Singaporeans who have elderly parents. It provides much emotional and physical support to the caregivers, many of whom are women.

For the older women, financial security is their biggest concern. The issue is that women tend to live longer, but have less savings for their retirement.

In general, Singapore women have a longer life expectancy than men. At age of 65 years, the retirement age, women can expect to live another 22 years (to 87 years old), four more years longer than men. In Singapore today, among the more elderly aged 85 years above, 7 out of 10 are women.

More elderly women live alone, as more remained unmarried, divorced or out-lived their spouses. The number of widows in Singapore is more than five times of widowers. Without the support of their spouses, the elderly women have to cope with their physical and financial needs on their own, especially those who do not have children to depend on.

Women have much lower average CPF balance. This is not surprising as women in the past tend to take up lower-paid jobs, had to leave for work to raise their families or may be full-time homemakers since their marriage.

I laud the budget for setting out a comprehensive package to support the elderly. It will benefit especially elderly women who do not have a safety net to fall back on. The increased healthcare subsidies and top-up to their Medisave accounts may not completely remove their financial burden. But with the enhancement in our social policies, such as a top-up to Medifund, it provides them with some assurance that they will not be left in a lurch when illness strikes.

The GST Voucher comprising cash, Medisave and U-save will give the older Singaporeans a peace of mind, knowing that the help will be permanently there and they can be assured that the Government and the society will give them the necessary assistance.

Lina Chiam
Singapore People’s Party’s Non-Constituency Member of Parliament

Older women in Singapore are a vulnerable group that needs more of our attention. Income security is a key concern for them. The economic development of Singapore was achieved in an incredibly short time – it means that older women today are less likely than their counterparts in the developed world to have gone to university. This has implications for their late-life employment.

Women are often the caregivers, not just of infants, but also of the elderly and the sick. Sometimes they are forced by circumstances to stop work in formal employment to devote themselves entirely to care-giving. Our retirement policies for this group of women seem to imply they are to depend on their husbands and children to support them in old age. But if they are unmarried, widowed, or have no children, there will be no one to care for them. Furthermore, women have longer life expectancies than men.

That is why I proposed the idea of pension credits in Singapore as an example of an instrument that may be more effective in protecting older women financially compared to labour market policies.

In countries like Sweden and Germany, pension credits or care-giver credits may be earned during time taken off from work for maternity leave or for the care of the elderly and the sick. These would be used to help women qualify for full pension and retirement benefits. There are various formulae to work out the exact benefits, but they usually take the woman’s last drawn salary and compute a supplement based on it for their pension accounts.

In Singapore, we may not want to adopt the idea of pension credits for women care-givers on a full scale. But currently no semblance of such scheme exists at all, and this is not sustainable. Otherwise, it is a contradiction that the Government encourages women to have more babies, but also expect them to remain in the workforce.

Other issues affecting older women also affect retirees in general, including men. Again, when compared to our counterparts in the developed world, the raising of our official retirement age has taken place at a faster pace.

The CPF should offer a higher contribution rates and interest rates at an earlier age, so that the effect of interest rates compounding will have a much larger impact on the individual retirement fund. If the concern is to better prepare Singaporeans for retirement, increasing CPF contribution when one reaches 50 may be too late.

If the aim is to increase contribution at all, the earlier the better. Increasing CPF contribution only at the age of 50 makes little policy or financial sense, especially at a time of their life when their salaries may actually start to dip. This leaves the older worker with less disposable income, at a vulnerable point of their lives in terms of health and for other potential costs.

Tharman Shanmugaratnam
Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Finance and Manpower, and Member of Parliament for Jurong GRC

The Silver Housing Bonus, in fact, will help older women significantly. For retiree couples where the husband had worked and the wife was either a homemaker or worked for short periods, moving from a 3- or 4-room flat to a studio apartment will provide a significant boost to their CPF LIFE payouts.

If the husband was a median income earner, let us say, which if you look at the wage profile of median income earners in the past, it was not very high. If the husband is a median income earner, his RA balances would typically have been slightly above half of the Minimum Sum. Therefore, when they take advantage of the Silver Housing Bonus Scheme, because his RA balances already above half of the Minimum Sum, he would be able to take substantial cash proceeds out, besides getting higher CPF LIFE payouts.

So they move to a smaller flat, put some money into the CPF to reach the Minimum Sum, but still a substantial amount of cash comes out, and they get significantly higher CPF LIFE payouts for the rest of their lives. So the husband and wife benefit.

The CPF also encourages – this is an important point – family support, particularly within the immediate family. For instance, the Minimum Sum Topping-Up scheme provides tax incentives for members who top up the CPF of their wives and mothers. The number of top-ups today is not large, but we are thinking of ways to improve and simplify the current schemes to encourage more top-ups.

However, this does not solve the problem for widowed homemakers with little savings, or poor elderly couples who do not own a home. For these groups, we must help them in other ways. Through ComCare, which we have expanded by providing rental flats, which MND is building more of; and by partnership with the community, which we are also doing more of and also finding more ways of supporting the community as it gets involved.

So that is a very important area of work for those whom the CPF scheme cannot serve their needs – widowed homemakers or those who are very poor and cannot afford a home, not a large group, but an important group – we have to find other ways to help them, and we will.

HEALTHCARE FOR WOMEN

David Ong
Member of Parliament for Jurong GRC

I would like to ask the MOH to help promote and encourage MediShield coverage for women aged 65 and above.

The number of working women in Singapore lags behind many countries. We have about 65 per cent women working here versus about 80 per cent in Norway. Hence, the number of women having little or no CPF is estimated to be easily about 30 per cent. Correspondingly, a majority of the 170,000 women aged 65 and above will have no MediShield coverage.

Sir, I would like to ask MOH if our current MediShield coverage is adequate, given the rise in medical and healthcare costs. Can the Ministry do more with its MediShield coverage for our Elite Seniors and senior women?

Gan Thiam Poh
Member of Parliament for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC

I would like to request that the Ministry considers providing free MediShield coverage to the lowest 20th percentile of Singapore citizens whose per capita income is about $750 and below, and to all homemakers looking after children up to the age of 17.

A serious illness can wipe out one’s Medisave and cash savings. Yet many poor families do not have any catastrophic medical insurance as they are struggling to meet more urgent daily expenses. Homemakers, children and the elderly are particularly vulnerable as they do not have incomes. Housewives sacrifice their earning opportunities to care for their children and the elderly at home. Yet, day in day out, they are doing work which, if monetised, is worth thousands of dollars a year.

In many single-income families, housewives tend to scrimp and save and overlook their own medical insurance. Senior citizens in the lowest income groups have to face many issues. If they are working, their pay may have already been cut as their job responsibilities are reduced. If they are already retired, they worry about making their savings stretch. Either way, insurance premiums would be higher and less affordable to them. Currently, the annual premiums for MediShield start from $33. I hope the Ministry would consider assisting them by helping to pay for their coverage.

I would like to seek a clarification pertaining to my suggestion on free MediShield coverage for the low-income group and homemakers. 92 per cent of Singaporeans are covered under MediShield. May I ask the Minister, what about the remaining 8 per cent? I suppose out of this 8 per cent, there will be those that come from the low-income group and this also includes the homemakers from this group. How will the Ministry ensure that it reaches out to these Singaporeans so as to encourage them to get insured, though there is a Medisave top-up?

Gan Kim Yong
Minister for Health, Government Whip, and Member of Parliament for Chua Chu Kang GRC

I am not sure free MediShield coverage is the best approach. Low-wage workers who qualify for the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme (WIS), can get an average of $1,000 in payouts, which is paid partly in cash and partly into their CPF accounts, including Medisave.

The total of the WIS payout into Medisave and the worker’s own Medisave contribution from his salary, is more than sufficient to pay for the MediShield premiums for himself, his non-working spouse and two children. For a 51-year old earning $1,500 per month, he would have a total Medisave contribution of $1,700 per year, compared to the total premiums of $516 for his whole family. This approach encourages self-sufficiency while supporting their basic healthcare needs, including premium payments for MediShield.

Out of the 8 per cent (ie, Singaporeans not covered under MediShield), a significant number of them may have good reasons why they opted out. We do not know the exact numbers because they do not tell us the reasons for opting out. Some of them would already have insurance coverage by their employers; some would have bought their own health insurance, so they do not see the need to continue with the MediShield. Not all the 8 per cent are from the low-income group.

But for the really low income and those with no income at all, rather than giving them free MediShield insurance, we have many other ways to help them. One way is through our Medifund, through subsidies directly from our health institutions, which can support them. Because for this low-income group, or if the whole family has no income or on public assistance, joining an insurance scheme may not be the most sensible thing for them. So it is better for us to provide direct intervention and subsidise them, and support them when they really need healthcare services.

Lily Neo
Member of Parliament for Tanjong Pagar GRC

I have always been an advocate of preventive healthcare, and I hope that we can do more on this area. For example, the chronic diseases which can prevent renal failures and stroke and early detection of breast cancer or pre-cancerous stage of the cervix that can prevent eventual death. Breast cancer is the commonest cancer for women and, in view of rising expectancy of age, could MOH step up the promotion in getting better participation of women in cancer screening in order to save lives?

Ellen Lee
Member of Parliament for Sembawang GRC

In the case of mammogram screening, there are conflicting views whether it does help to detect breast cancer. The current state of mammography is just too painful for women to bear, even for those who have the highest threshold of pain.

I believe that the Ministry is already having an uphill task persuading women to go for screening for all types of cancer. I ran a heavily subsidised mammogram screening project with eight other organisations for the past two years. The efforts we have put in have also not yielded the desired outcome. Fewer than 20,000 women in the age group of 50 to 69 who had not done screening before or were not screened for three years responded to our roadshows and mailers. Of these, a few were tested positive and sought treatment.

The Ministry launched the Integrated Screening Programme in 2008 to encourage and support screening for early detection and management of disease. How many women have responded positively to this programme? What were the rates of detection? Was there funding or subsidy for women who took part in this Programme? Is the programme ongoing and how could one enrol for it? If persuasion does not work, can the Ministry consider working out a scheme whereby women who reached 55 and have gone for certain screening would be allowed to buy medical insurance at half the premium payable?

Amy Khor
Minister of State for Health; Mayor of South West District; Deputy Government Whip; Member of Parliament for Hong Kah North SMC

I have asked HPB to convene a Women’s Health Advisory Committee, which I will chair, to improve screening and follow-up rates amongst women.

This Committee will help HPB plan and implement a holistic Women’s Health Programme, which will adopt a life-stage approach and seek to equip women of all ages with the necessary knowledge and skills to improve their health. In addition, we will build up a pool of women Health Ambassadors who focus on women’s health issues. We plan to launch this on Mother’s Day this year, and we target to reach out to one million women in Singapore, over three years.

Read the full transcripts here, here, here, and here.

It shouldn’t matter that there is no consensus on how a person should behave or the causes she should support as a feminist. The question that guides a feminist should be: Am I hurting or helping other women?

By Zheng Huifen

On March 4, 2012, hundreds of women (and a few men) packed the theatre of the Sydney Opera House to hear Naomi Wolf and Germaine Greer present on feminism. I was in the audience, having flown 8 hours from Singapore for this event in honour of International Women’s Day.

The day’s topic was The F-word: A Day Of Global Feminist Debate. Notwithstanding the promise of a ‘global’ view in the title, the speakers largely touched on “Western feminism”, i.e., the women’s liberation movement from an Anglo-American perspective, beginning from the 18th century.

American author and prominent feminist Naomi Wolf started the afternoon by wondering why many young women no longer felt comfortable identifying themselves with feminism. She also noted that many Anglo-American women expressed dissatisfaction with their lives, wondering “is this all there is?”, even as women around the world continue to break away from traditional gender roles while assuming positions of influence in society and the workplace.

Wolf then attempted to trace the so-called main sources of Anglo-American feminism: The 19th-century concept of women as the “angel in the house”; the existentialism of the mid-20th century; and the frantic consumerism of the late 20th century.

Wolf believed that this intellectual heritage has led to the adoption of a ‘victim’ posture in modern feminist writing, with debates focused on superficial lifestyle choices like working mothers vs stay-at-home mothers, or going barefaced vs using cosmetics.

There is also an underlying assumption that before a woman can be stand up to be an advocate, she must be first be seen as socially acceptable and able to represent the higher moral ground. This is a legacy, says Wolf, of the Victorian suffragettes, who placed women on a pedestal as the fairer, purer sex deserving of protection from ‘male viciousness’. Thus idealised, women were seen as the moral bulwark of society, the nurturer of children, and the the linchpin of their families.

Wolf ended her talk with the suggestion that the feminist movement reclaimed Mary Wollenstoncraft’s 1792 piece Vindication of the Rights of Women as the feminist manifesto, as Wollenstoncraft espoused Enlightenment principles of universal equality and rights.

The second speaker, Germaine Greer, is an Australian writer and academic known for her sharp wit and take-no-prisoners attitude. Greer’s talk certainly lived up to her reputation. She declared that gender equality is not worth pursuing, because women should not desire to ape men. Women should instead pursue solidarity with each other. She gave the example of labour unions, uniting to demand better treatment for workers.

The afternoon’s events closed with a panel discussion between Wolf, Greer, war correspondent Eliza Griswold and Clem Bastow, a freelance journalist and the organiser of Slutwalk Melbourne.

Griswold shared her experience as a war correspondent in Arab countries. She clearly disagreed with Wolf’s proposal for a ‘declaration of universal rights’ as the basis for feminism. Griswold stated that in Arab countries, people used the language of justice to counter perceive inequalities. The language of rights was viewed as an American imposition on local Arab culture.

Bastow offered half-hearted solidarity with Wolf, while Greer and the audience were unresponsive.

At the end of the programme, Greer suggested that anyone who was interested in advocating for women’s causes should “just do it”, instead of worrying about how feminism and feminists are perceived. Indeed, a woman in the audience stood up and offered to start a new activism group. Her suggestion elicited the most enthusiastic response of the day.

So what was this writer’s takeaway from the afternoon?

Truth be told, I came to Sydney feeling somewhat jaded about the feminist movement, and was hoping to find answers at the F-Word debate. While I actively volunteer with AWARE and proudly and publicly identify as a feminist, I have found little personal satisfaction in the philosophy. In my mind was the very question raised by Wolf: “Is this all there is?”

I had a vision of the ‘Ideal Feminist Woman’ as a high-powered superwoman juggling career, family, friends, love, and good works, while maintaining perfect composure and a happy disdain for and independence from gender norms. At the same time, I wondered why few female peers identified with the movement.

It appears that I was also guilty of the “holier than thou” attitude identified by Wolf. And that may explain why many women shy away from identifying with the movement.

On the other hand, this may also explain why some readily use the feminist movement to boost their own legitimacy – to tap into the higher moral ground which they believe to be part of the feminist legacy. For instance, Sarah Palin, the right-wing American politician, has described herself as a ‘conservative feminist’.

The conclusion to draw from these episodes is that a woman does not advance the feminist cause simply by being in a position of some authority, or because she has certain accomplishments, or by trying to be ‘perfect’.

The fundamental principle of the feminist movement is to advance gender equality and support full autonomy for girls and women. Agreeing on the underpinning philosophy is important, and good to know, but not crucial.

During the F-Word session, there was no warm embrace by any speaker of the other speaker’s ideas. Wolf complained of being isolated by the ‘sisterhood’ due to ideological differences; Greer spiritedly defended the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) on the grounds of cultural and moral relativity.

It shouldn’t matter that there is not (and probably never was) a consensus on how a person should behave or the causes she should support as part of the Church of Feminism. The question that guides a feminist (aspiring, conflicted, or otherwise) should be: Am I hurting or helping other women?

I didn’t get the intellectual epiphany I was hoping to find in Sydney. But I did resolve to worry less about the academics of feminism and focus on practical application – supporting autonomy for girls and women, and empowering them achieve their full potential, whatever they choose to be.

The lived experience of men versus that of women will always be different, because of entrenched societal and gender norms and (yes, I’ll say it) biological differences. Even women in a modern society like Singapore continue to have unique issues that require advocacy and special representation before our lawmakers. Otherwise there would not be such great and continued demand for AWARE’s support services and advocacy efforts.

You do not have to be a ‘perfect angel’ of the ‘feminist church’ to help advance the cause. As Germaine Greer suggested: Just do it.

The writer is a lawyer and an AWARE volunteer since 2009.

BEFRIENDERS FOR SABS

AWARE recently launched the Sexual Assault Befrienders Service (SABS) programme to provide specialised services to women survivors of sexual assault.

A crucial aspect of this programme is the Befrienders’ service. SABS Befrienders will accompany sexual assault survivors to the police, the hospital or to court, providing information and emotional support to guide and help the women through the various legal and medical processes.

AWARE is planning to develop a trained team of volunteer Befrienders equipped to provide such support.

A SABS Befriender should have the following strengths:

• Understanding of gender issues
• Ability to respond promptly in cases of emergencies
• Past experience of helping survivors of sexual assault (either as part of work or supporting friends or acquaintances) – preferable
• Sensitivity and communication skills to befriend someone who may be in a state of trauma
• Time to be on standby for about four half days in a month – essential

If you think you have some of these strengths and you are interested to become a SABS Befriender, write to us at operations@aware.org.sg.

BEFRIENDERS FOR VICTIMS OF FAMILY VIOLENCE

Our Befrienders also offer support to distressed women caught in family violence situations, by accompanying these women to family court, police stations, hospitals and other authorities to provide emotional support.

All interested volunteers must undergo training at AWARE to start volunteering as befrienders.

The training will take place over 3 weekly sessions of 2 hours each in the evening. There will also be an additional site visit to the family court itself.

Befrienders should have a somewhat flexible day-time schedule as the family court visit usually takes place during working hours.

Essential Requirements

If you think you are interested to become an AWARE Befriender, please click here to download the application form.

Once the form is completed, please email the form back to supportservices@aware.org.sg.

If you want to find out more about being a Befriender, you can also email your enquiries to the email address above.

EVENT DETAILS

Organisers: AWARE and NUS – Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS)

Date:  May 12, 2012 , Saturday

Time: 2pm to 5pm

Venue:  National University of Singapore (Kent Ridge Campus), NUS FASS Faculty Lounge – Level 2 of The Deck (canteen) in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, around the corner from the Burger King on Level 2.

Moderator:       Dr. Vernie Oliveiro

Speakers:      Assoc. Prof. Eric C. Thompson, Assoc. Prof.  Michelle Lazar, Dr. Teo You Yenn

About the speaker
Michelle M. Lazar, Associate Professor in the Department of English Language and Literature at the National University of Singapore. She is the Academic Convenor for the Gender Studies Minor Programme as well as Assistant Dean for Research and the Chair of the Singapore Research Nexus in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. She is also concurrently on the Executive and Advisory Councils of the International Gender and Language Association. A critical discourse analyst by training, her research focuses on the analysis of power, ideology and identity in discourses about feminism, femininities, and masculinities in the Singapore media. She is a life member of AWARE.

About the moderator

Vernie Oliveiro is a member of AWARE and a Researcher at the Centre for Governance and Leadership at the Civil Service College. She was previously a  lecturer in the History Department at Harvard University, from which she received her Ph.D. in International History in 2010. Her current work focuses on governance, globalization and society in Singapore.

AWARE is looking for a person to develop its Parents Sex Ed Training programme targeted at parents of children between 9 to 21. The objectives of the training programme are as follows:

• To increase parent’s awareness about key issues of sexuality that affect children today and to provide factual information about these issues.

• To increase parent’s comfort in discussing sexuality with their children by giving them the tools to speak to their children effectively.

• To help remove stereotypes surrounding sexuality that could entrench gender inequality.

The developer will be expected to carry out the following:

a)     Needs analysis

b)    Curriculum development

c)     Conduct pilot class

d)    Refinement of curriculum

e)     Train the Trainer

f)     Assist to formulate marketing plan to market programme

The project should be completed by the end of 2012.

Requirements for Developer

-       Expertise in Human Sexuality Education

-       Experience and Expertise in Curriculum Development

This is a freelance position with modest remuneration.

Please send your letter of interest and CV to pam@aware.org.sg  no later than May 17, 2012, if you are interested in this position.

A guide to understanding feminism and concepts of gender in ourselves and our society

The word “feminism” can elicit extreme reactions. Some completely identify with it, while many say: “I believe in gender equality but I am not a feminist.”

What exactly is feminism? The definition can vary from feminist to feminist, and many misconceptions prevail.

To help women and men understand feminism better, AWARE has put together a 3-part workshop series that explores the history of the feminist movement, how gender roles are shaped over time, the gender messages that are embedded in popular culture, and what feminism means today.

Men, particularly fathers, are strongly encouraged to participate.

Workshop 1 – History of feminism
7 June 2012 (Thu),7pm-9pm
By: Ms Braema Mathi

Workshop 2 – Reclaiming the F-word. What does feminism mean to me?
22 May 2012 (Tue), 7pm- 9pm
By: Corinna Lim

Workshop 3–The Princess Ideology Debunking the Myths
December 2012, 7pm-9pm
By: Dr. Chitra Sankaran

Venue: AWARE Centre

Workshops can be booked individually.

Fees

Non-members
$10/person
$15 for two persons

Members
$5/person
$8  for two persons

**To enjoy their discount, members need to log in with their username and password on the AWARE website to sign up for the workshop. Click Forgot Password to have your username and password emailed to you.

For more information, email publiceducation@aware.org.sg or call 6779-7137.