MENU

MENU

Donate Now
Login

Year: 2010

home

AWARE Roundtable Discussions

Are you concerned about what’s happening around you?

Join us on the 2nd Thursday of every month for discussions at AWARE: Next session is on Thursday 14 October

If you have an interest in social and other issues and would like to have your say about them, come to our monthly AWARE Roundtable meetings.

Discussion and debate have always been an important part of AWARE. In gatherings large and small, formal and informal, we have discussed issues and examined policies.

The discussions sometimes led to submissions to the authorities or to publications; other times they kept AWARE abreast of current affairs, public policies and social trends.

As AWARE turns 25, we want to make this discussion and debate a regular activity with a more formal structure. A key aim is strengthen AWARE’s capacity to identify, understand and respond to a wide range of trends, issues and policies. Therefore, in September, we launched The AWARE Roundtable, a monthly event open to AWARE members and invited guests.

October

The topic for the October Roundtable is The rise of fundamentalism and its impact on women. This will take place at 7pm on October 14th.

Speaker: Daniel PS Goh, Assistant Professor of Sociology, NUS
Chair: Vivienne Wee

Register here for October’s Discussion
A number of members led by former AWARE president Constance Singam have made a commitment to attend the sessions and lead the discussions. We would like invite other members to join this core group so that we have a large enough pool of people to tap.

This discussion will be part of the preparation for a planned conference on the subject in November to mark AWARE’s 25th anniversary.

What’s needed is an interest in issues, a willingness to read and prepare for discussions, and a commitment to attend all, or at least a majority, of the sessions.

If you’d like to join the group please register at the links above.

If you have any queries, please email training@aware.org.sg.

Singapore Gang Rape Case

Do we judge a victim of rape more harshly than the victim of any other crime? A look at reactions to a local gang rape case that suggest we do.

The judge said it was factually rape.

Five young men aged 17-19 versus one young woman aged 17.

… a gang sexual assault of a grave nature which the accused persons had perpetrated without her consent.

Despite this fairly clear-cut assessment, the charges were reduced and the five accused were found guilty of the lesser charge of “aggravated outrage of modesty.”

Why did the public prosecutor* agree to reduced charges? We may never know but the favoured theory of the rumour mill was echoed in recent TNP coverage:

Blame: Exhibit 1

“…she […] was not completely blameless.”
– The New Paper (14 August)

In other words, it was partly her fault.

If this reasoning sounds familiar or even sensible it is because we believe it to be true in almost every case of rape. You don’t even have to know the facts of a case to know this will be suggested.

So what are the facts in this particular case?

According to various news sources the story goes like this (some details omitted for brevity):

WARNING: This account is graphic. Skip to the next section if you are disturbed by stories of violence.

The boys wanted female company. The group leader got the girl’s number from one of the others and called her claiming to be a schoolmate. The victim accepted the invitation for supper and was surprised when she arrived at the apartment to find a group of guys she didn’t know (only one of the five was known to her). After some reluctance, she agreed to enter the flat. There they played drinking games and she consumed more than five shots of vodka. Her head was spinning and her vision impaired. In this state, after some pressure, she became aroused by the boy who kept hitting on her. She agreed to sex with him alone in the bedroom. When the two later emerged, she went to sleep off her stupor on a bench in the common area. While she rested, she was carried back into the bedroom and stripped naked. Someone said “let’s start.” Then, over the course of the next two hours, each took their turn as they held her down. Some penetrated her vaginally, others orally. When they were done, she was left bleeding from vaginal trauma. They helped her wash up then gave her $10 for cab fare home.

So how can she be blamed in such a hideous scenario?

One lawyer explained it as follows:

“It’s like driving while intoxicated. You have to take some responsibility for your actions.“

It seems the victim was guilty of drunk driving a vulva.

Let’s look at a very similar situation.

If a man were to get completely drunk and wander into a dark ally, is he responsible when he gets beaten up and robbed? We acknowledge that his behaviour was risky and the outcome foreseeable. But would his risky behaviour be grounds for reducing the sentences of the perpetrators? Do we say, “Well yes that was wrong of them but he did tempt them so it’s not totally their fault. He’s partly to blame.”

In this scenario, we do not mistake foolishness with provoking attack. The attacker doesn’t receive leniency just for finding easy prey.

Then why, in the case of rape, does the same failure result in blame?

As a society we generally hold the belief that women must always be on guard to protect their virtue because men cannot always control their natural urges.

To be raped is to fail at this duty of care. It is thus a matter of shame to be a victim. What other crime causes the victim to feel such shame?

And when we blame the victim, the inference is “so it’s not totally his fault.”

A rapist is not a victim of opportunity. His youth or mental capacity may provide reasons for leniency but we should feel no sympathy simply because he found an easy victim who failed to expect violence and failed to exercise caution.

Now before anyone gets bent out of shape because of situations where there may be a genuine misunderstanding about consent, let’s remember where we started this discussion. This is a clear-cut case of gang rape. Any guy finding himself with four friends holding down and penetrating a drunk girl is under no doubt he is engaged in a violent criminal act.

So why, even in this very shocking scenario, do we still ask, “How may she have brought this on to herself?”

It seems we just can’t help ourselves. It’s illogical, indefensible and certainly not just or compassionate. Yet the idea of female culpability is deeply entrenched in our psyche.

Stop blaming the victim.

A woman may expose herself to risk for many reasons: youthful innocence, a trusting nature, a carefree attitude, lack of cynicism and suspicion, thrill seeking behaviour, desire for acceptance, and so on.  Whatever the reason, it is not an invitation to rape.

The failure of a woman to adequately assess the risk of attack does not mean that she caused what happens and should take blame for it.

Yes, we should educate and encourage women to limit their risks, but this should not in any way imply that the victim is responsible for being violated.  We need to stop blaming the victims of rape.
*The public prosecutor acts on behalf of the state, not the victim. The prosecutor is NOT the victim’s lawyer. Rape carries a sentence of up to 20 years in jail. Aggravated outrage of modesty carries a sentence of up to 10 years however the public prosecutor only asked for 3-5 years in this case.

More:

 

Note: AWARE is concerned about this case and has written to the Attorney General’s Chambers to seek clarification as to why such unusual leniency was shown in this serious gang sex assault case.

 

A Secular Society Interrupted

Those who argue that a secular system is lacking in values are being arrogant and patronising, says CONSTANCE SINGAM as she continues her discussion about secularism. They deny the possibility of moral human beings whose actions are governed by their innate sense of goodness.

 

 

Last year the extraordinary development that the media dubbed ‘The AWARE Saga’ forced us, AWARE members, to re-examine our commitment to a secular organization and to affirm our values. We – and many others in Singapore – realised that our secularism needs to be fought for, defended and protected.

History shows us that secularism is not a settled state but one that requires periodic reviews, and safeguards, especially when its concept and practice is threatened. Hindu fundamentalists in India, for instance, continue to challenge the secularism of India. Mahatma Gandhi paid the ultimate price when he was killed by a Hindu fanatic for his defence of pluralism. The main opposition to secularism comes from fundamentalism, and fundamentalism poses the greatest threat to women’s rights.

Singapore was a secular state at independence. With our early cosmopolitan population, we were in fact well on our way to being a secular state long before independence. The first Chinese Temple, the Thian Hock Keng Temple, was built in 1821; the first Hindu temple in 1823, the first mosque in 1824, the first Church in 1835.

Most secular states – UK, USA, and many European countries, for example – evolved their secularism over centuries, sometimes after bloody struggles to wrest power away from the dominant Christian Church. Countries which are well-known as constitutionally secular states include India, France, Turkey and South Korea.

So what is ‘secularism’?

Secularism, in its most extreme form, means completely denying any public voice to religious communities. In this view, religion remains in the private domain.

In political terms, secularism can refer to reducing ties between a government and religion and replacing laws and policies based on scripture (such as the Ten Commandments and Syariah law) with civil laws, and eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion. No one set of values has precedence over other value systems.

The more benign definition of secularism allows for public expression of religious views. In other words, religious groups have as much right as non-religious groups to promote and advocate their positions and their values. They are thus participants in the political process of the country. Last year’s takeover of AWARE by a group of fundamentalist Christian women was a highly political process as was the struggle by the secularist members to win it back.

Singapore’s secularism is a benign one given the existence of institutions, such as hospitals and schools, run by religious organisations which receive state aid but whose existence is contingent upon state approval and public policies. Their active participation in the state is a historical recognition of their contribution to society as serving the public good.

A more important condition of secularism is that public policies be based on facts and not on the basis of religious or cultural proscriptions. An obvious example of this is the attitude towards the use of condoms.

The fact is that the use of condoms prevents unwanted pregnancies and STI (sexually transmitted infections). That the use of condoms is wrong or immoral is a religious view not based on fact. Another example is the status of women. The claim that women should be subservient to men is a religious and/or cultural attitude and not one based on fact.

In this sense, secularism requires politicians to make decisions based on secular reasons rather than on religious ones. It follows then that decisions about many contemporary issues, such as stem cell research and sex education, should not be based on religious beliefs.

The opponents to secularism would argue that a secular system is lacking in values and is morally unacceptable. This argument, besides being arrogant and patronizing, also denies the possibility of moral human beings whose actions are governed by their innate sense of goodness.

George Jacob Holyoake, who coined the terms ‘secularism’ in 1851and ‘jingoism’ in 1878, defines secularism as ‘a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means (2) That science is the available providence of man (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good here in this world.’

Feminists Are Tarzans

by Pamela Ng

In university, I belonged to a student group that hoped to raise awareness about women’s rights. We wrote poetry, published monthly articles and books compiling creative writing, shared research and media articles on women and gender issues, had peaceful walks in Melbourne’s city streets every 8th of March, International Women’s Day.

Overall, we were a happy community of women who cared about women. At least, that is how we saw ourselves.

Fellow university mates who found out I was in the group expressed disbelief:

“But you are not lesbian!” “You are pretty, wear dresses and have long hair, hardly a man-bashing sort.” “Why would someone like you join a club like that? You seem like a happy sort.” “You shave, don’t you?”

Like a criminal profiler, society has shaped a feminist as a: gay, angry, unattractive, male-hating, chest-beating female specimen who has enough underarm hair to braid and form bridges over gender issues.

Just to put it out there: A feminist can be a male or female. Point number one.

What binds them together is not the superficiality of their appearance but rather their deep-seated concern for women’s rights in the world. This can entail better legal protection for women, workplace rights, protection and shelter of abused women, micro-financing impoverished communities through the empowerment of the local women.

I could go on. There are so many ways women have been subjected to gender-biased, unjust practices or inhumane acts because they are female. It is a basic consideration and care for another human being.

It’s a shame that people cannot view the world holistically and see the need to narrow the disparity. I guess some people are still swinging from the trees.

My Short Skirt Invites You to Violate Me

When PAMELA NG asked her friends whether a woman’s dressing invited sexual violence from men, she was surprised – and disturbed – to find some of the women saying ‘Men cannot help it, it’s in their nature.‘


It was a languid train ride from Melbourne to Sydney. The deep-blue Australian sky promised a beautiful summer holiday. My friend Sarah and I had just made friends with a trio of Australian men and we were all engaged in a jolly conversation.

Then, all three of them had a sharp inhalation of breath. Sarah and I looked towards the source. A girl was walking past in the aisle. Hip-hugging mini-skirt perched atop bronzed legs that went on forever, a sporty tank top and a fresh face that stopped traffic. Looking down at us for two seconds, she breezed away with the nonchalance of someone accustomed to their beauty.

Somehow feeling snubbed, the three men suddenly released a riot of comments. “Who does she think she is, dressed like that?” And so on.

Then this gem from a seemingly-decent man called James: “Just wait, a girl like that will get what she deserves.” I asked what he meant. “I mean, dressed like that, she is just asking to get raped!” The other two men nodded in agreement, lips pursed in knowing.

Sarah and I looked at each other with shock. Through our conversation, we knew that this was a group of university graduates, who were well-traveled and held professional executive to managerial roles. How then, could they utter such obscenely ignorant comments?

A heated argument ensued and, needless to say, we did not keep in touch.

But it made me wonder – “Does a woman’s dressing invite sexual violence from men?”

I put this question to an assortment of male and female friends from Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Australia, United Kingdom, United States, Norway, and Germany. I got surprisingly mixed responses.

Men in general held the view that women who dressed provocatively, showed a hint of cleavage, or drank too much, or went out late at night were inviting trouble.

Women had a mixed reaction, with Asian women mostly supporting a patriarchal view point that the woman should assume a certain degree, if not all, of the responsibility. A few of them said, “Men cannot help it, it’s in their nature. Women must dress or behave appropriately.”

What a disturbing revelation.

Dear reader, what is your view?

My view is encapsulated in the link below.

I love this ad. I think something like this should be screened on televisions world-wide. Until people get it.

Women do not ask to get raped. Ever.

A Crime Against Faith

Recent announcements by the Catholic Church have provoked outrage from many critics. Has the Holy See opened the doors for a frank discussion about the church’s treatment of women? We look at the Vatican’s reaction to the proposed ordination of women priests.

The Crime

On July 15th, the Vatican declared “attempted ordination” of women to be a “crime against the faith” – one of the Catholic Church’s gravest crimes. Per new disciplinary rules,  attempted ordination of women is placed on par with pedophilia and sexual abuse of children by priests.

Under the released document, those who attempt to ordain women and women who seek ordination will automatically be excommunicated. The development comes shortly after the Church of England moved towards the ordination of female bishops. It also follows much public conjecture that the Church’s pedophile scandal could have been lessened or avoided with increased female participation in the clergy.

There is certainly a crime against faith being perpetrated here.

To suggest that a woman who wants to devote her life to the service of God as clergy is somehow as abominable as the sexual abuse of a child by a priest is abhorrent.

Equal but Different

The statements caused immediate uproar and the church was once again facing a PR disaster. A few days after the original pronouncement, a press conference was held at the Vatican to clarify the church’s position and to address the media frenzy they had kicked off.

Church representatives explained that although ordaining women is as “grave” as sex abuse, it was not equating the two. “This should not be interpreted as considering all these crimes to be equal,” said Monsignor Charles Scicluna of the Vatican’s doctrinal department. “They are crimes of a different nature“. – Reuters

The clarification did little to stem criticism of the Church’s treatment of women and their general approach to sexuality. Debate continues in the press and on the internet with groups such as The Women’s Ordination Conference seeing increased interest in their work.

A gathering of bishops

In Context

Though huge strides have been made over the past 100 years to improve the status of women, the fact is that many religions have virtually stood still on this count. Yet few people are willing to stand up and point out the misogyny perpetrated in the name of faith.

The criticism of all things religious is usually considered a transgression of cultural respect and is taboo. But at some point one has to ask if religious leaders are really acting in line with the beliefs and best interests of their followers and their community or if their actions serve only to benefit a powerful few.

Those who profess superior knowledge and insight into the will of God tend to get a lot of leeway in our society. But the Catholic hierarchy is finding it hard to hold the high moral ground these days. Increasingly, people are questioning the religious basis for continued exclusion of women from full participation in the Church.

In recent years, the most noteworthy commentator on religious misogyny has been former US President Jimmy Carter. In 2009, Carter wrote a moving piece where he explained that due to their continued oppression of women, he had decided to sever ties with the Southern Baptist Convention (though he continues to serve as a deacon and Sunday school teacher at his local church):

The truth is that male religious leaders have had – and still have – an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions – all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.

– Jimmy Carter, Losing My Religion

The Holy See hasn’t exactly shown a lot of PR acumen in recent years. Their repeated failures to do what the public considers “the right thing” in the face of the pedophilia cover up scandal now makes criticism of church practices fair game.

If this means that it has accelerated our ability to have an honest discussion about the role of women in the church, then at least one good thing has come out of this horrific debacle.

Want to take action?!
Sign the petition denouncing the oppression of women and the inadequate response to child sex crimes.
SIGN HERE

Have you said NO to censorship?

 

The local arts community has renewed its call for regulation rather than censorship. It has published a position paper pointing out the problems of censorship and the benefits of regulation. It has also started an online campaign to garner support for its stand.

Arts Engage, a network of local arts practitioners, has on behalf of the local arts community published a position paper renewing the call for the government to regulate rather than censor the arts in Singapore.

The position taken is that “censorship isn’t working: regulate instead.” Arts Engage is seeking support for this stand and started an online drive to get people to add their signatures to the paper.

The position paper will be submitted to the Prime Minister’s Office, the Censorship Review Committee 2009/10, and the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts.

Regulation, the group points out, classifies work into categories (for example, age-appropriate categories) following a set of published guidelines. As a process, it engages and empowers all stakeholders in comparison with censorship, which has a top-down approach.

Guidelines provided in several legal statutes are vague, leading to a constant testing of the “out-of-bounds” markers. ArtsEngage provides a list of works which had been censored and the arbitrary and opaque nature of the censorship process becomes evident.

The trickle-down effects of censorship can be detrimental; all too often, censorship results in disillusionment and self-censorship on the part of creators, and disengagement and passivity on the part of the public.

As consumers, regulation would give us a greater variety of content and the freedom of choice to view whatever we deem as appropriate for ourselves or our children, Arts Engage says.

The end of the censorship regime would also ease the years of friction and tension between the arts community and the authorities. Coupled with greater artistic freedom, it would ultimately aid in the blossoming of our local arts scene.

You can read the arguments or download the position paper here.
Note: the petition is now closed.

 

The Power of Breasts

 

Is it right or wrong for women to use their sexuality or feminine qualities to get what they want? Do breasts empower or hinder women? Are they a feminist power or a feminist killer? NHU PHAM describes her journey from trying to hide her femininity to being proud of it.

Puberty started off with me being embarrassed of my ever-growing chest developments and a case of very bad acne. Bad posture, baggy clothes and a lot of makeup did little to masquerade and hide what was inevitable. I was becoming a woman, at least physically.

It was not until years later that I discovered the true power of breasts. I could garner attention and get things I wanted by the simple fact that I had them. At the same time, I could garner unwanted attention and find myself in a pickle of a situation.

Knowing that I had this power did little for me as I never wanted to be labeled as one of those girls who used their sexuality to get what they wanted. I wanted to be known for my intellect, humour, wit and other ‘inner’ qualities.

From centuries of old, women have been using their sexuality to get what they want. It could be as simple as avoiding a speeding ticket, getting free drinks at a bar, an extension on a work deadline or a promotion. Many of these women would claim they are empowered through harnessing their sexuality and feminine wiles.

But is it right, moral, justifiable? Is it a feminist power or a feminist killer?

In my 20s, I was very conscious of my body and would wear only slacks and button up shirts to work. I was shy to use anything remotely sexual to get what I wanted in life. I was tough on outside to hide any insecurities that I had on the inside. I wanted to be taken seriously, and looking back, I was. Anything a man could do, I could do and I was out to prove it.

In my 30s, I slowly discovered what I like to call my feminine charm and subsequently softened my apparel. Unlike using one’s sexuality, one’s feminine charm encompassed intellect, humour, wit and many of my inner qualities. It’s a way for me to show the softer side of myself without having to compromise.

Not too long ago, I was in a lunch queue with a co-worker and I had forgotten to put some mustard on my plate. I asked him for some mustard and held out my plate thinking that he would pick up the spoon and drop some mustard on my plate. Instead he grabbed the very large bowl with one hand and offered it my way.

I had a look of amazement on my face as I exclaimed, “Rene, you are so strong. You picked up that big bowl with one hand.” As soon as I said this, he blushed slightly, his shoulders squared and he grew taller. We both started laughing.

I had no ulterior motive when I gave him this compliment but I know it flattered him even it was slightly humorous. People who are flattered often are more willing to give in and I could save my points to be redeemed later.

I use my feminine charm on both men and women of all ages and feel at ease that I am not discriminating. Age and experience have softened my exterior as there is less insecurity to disguise. I do dress more feminine now and am much more comfortable in my own skin.

I am sure that my breasts are being noticed, however they serve more as a backdrop. As for using my sexuality, I retain the use of that for nothing other than getting sex.

So what is feminism about, really?

How do you feel about your breasts? Do they empower you or limit you? Is it okay for women to use their sexuality or femininity in certain situations and not in others? Come to our Gender Matters workshops and learn how fairy tales may have contributed to your sense of self.

The Princess Ideology:
Deconstructing the Fairy Tales
By Professor Sankaran Chitra from NUS5 August (Thurs), 7pm – 9pm
AWARE Centre
Member: $9 a person, $15 for a pair
Non-member: $15 a person, $25 for a pairClick here for more details.

AWARE calls for tweaks to proposed law

 

Singapore intends to ratify the Hague Convention, which guides the resolution of cross-border child abductions. To support this, the government has drafted the International Child Abduction bill and invited public comment. AWARE has submitted its views.

AWARE has welcomed Singapore’s decision to accede to an international convention on child abductions and to draw up local laws to implement this convention.

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction came into force in 1983, and since then 82 countries, but not Singapore, have become signatories to it.

The Ministry for Community Development, Youth and Sports recently announced that Singapore intended to sign the convention by the end of 2010, and invited interested parties to comment on its proposed International Child Abduction (ICA) bill.

The two main aims of the convention are to:

  1. secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any signatory state.
  2. ensure that the rights of custody and of access under the laws of one state are effectively respected in other signatory states.

In its submission, AWARE noted that Singapore’s accession was somewhat overdue. Cross-border relationships and marriages are on the rise. When such relationships and marriages sour, there can be the problem of parents disagreeing as to who should have custody and where the child or children should reside.

This has led to a growing number of child abductions – where one parent unilaterally decides to take the child or children away from the country where the other parent lives. The Hague Convention provides a framework for the resolution of such cases.

While Singapore’s move to ratify the convention is laudable, AWARE feels that the ICA should include Articles 2 and 11 from the Convention. These two articles require signatory states to act speedily in cases of child abduction. The aim is for children to be returned to their usual place of residence as quickly as possible so that the courts there can decide what would be in their best interests.

These two articles are at the heart of the Hague Convention and it is glaring, AWARE said, that the ICA does not include them. The success of the convention depends on the signatory states having laws that support it.

AWARE also feels that the ICA should have an additional section giving Singapore courts the authority to impose a fine or a custodial sentence, or both, on those found guilty of child abduction.

The final point of AWARE’s submission notes that Section 13 of the ICA allows for the court to receive advice from any person, such as welfare officers, but it is not clear if the party applying for the return of a child is entitled to hear or read this advice.

Since such information provided to the court could ultimately determine the fate of the child, the parents should be entitled to the advice and also the right to cross-examine the welfare officer or others providing it.

Click here to download AWARE’s comments on the draft International Child Abduction Bill.