MENU

MENU

Donate Now
Login

Year: 2012

home

SlutWalk Singapore: Take two

SlutWalk Singapore drives home the message that victim-blaming and slut-shaming should be eradicated.

It all started with a single sentence – “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order to not be victimized.”

Constable Michael Sanguinetti’s statement at a York University safety forum in 2011 sparked massive public backlash against the idea that a victim should be blamed for rape and sexual assault.

The outrage spread and gained momentum, and what started as a single rally in Toronto quickly became a global movement. SlutWalk groups formed all over the world – from Helsinki to Seoul, Johannesburg to New Delhi.

Following its successful first outing in 2012, SlutWalk Singapore returns this year as part of this global movement. The movement takes a stand against sexual violence and seeks to raise awareness on issues of sexuality, consent and rape culture.

SlutWalk Singapore seeks to educate the public on why sexual violence happens by fighting the many myths and misconceptions on the issue, and provides a platform for victims of sexual assault to seek solace and empowerment. Above all, the movement strives to end not only the acts of sexual violence, but the excuses that allow that violence to continue.

Their message is crystal clear: sexual assault is never justifiable, regardless of age, gender, class, profession, or race.

The events kicked off on 27 October and will continue through to 29 December. The highlight of SlutWalk Singapore is a symbolic gathering at Hong Lim Park on 15 December. The SlutWalk Gathering is an effort to break the silence surrounding sexual assault and to provide survivors with a visible symbol of solidarity.

You can also attend fringe events such as SlutTalk, a series of discussions, workshops and interactive presentations created to inform and engage members of the public in issues central to SlutWalk. Alternatively, sign up for consent workshops, or attend Slutscreen, which features films on rape culture and post-show discussions.

For more information on the SlutWalk movement and how you can get involved, visit their website.

 

Gender equality must take centrestage in shaping population policies

It is not short-term materialism that discourages Singaporeans from having children, but realistic evaluations of how much they need to bear in terms of costs for care for elderly parents, the healthcare needs of their families, and their own retirement needs in an expensive city.

Make gender equality a guiding principle in shaping population policies – This was the key thrust of AWARE’s recommendations to the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD), in response to their efforts to engage the public on Singapore’s population challenges.

In our submission to the NPTD in October, AWARE reaffirmed our stance that gender equality should be the core value in the formation and execution of all population policies.

The perpetuation of obsolete gender norms, which have cast men as breadwinners and women as caregivers, are neither realistic nor fair for women and men living in today’s world. These rigid roles instead deprive couples of the ability to share parental duties effectively, and also neglect the needs of women in the Singaporean workforce.

The ineffectiveness of existing policies to promote marriage and parenthood has made it apparent that more needs to be to combat sinking birthrates and an ageing population in Singapore.

One of the key questions posed by the NPTD acknowleges this issue, asking how Singapore can provide a more supportive environment for marriage and parenthood.

To this end, AWARE recommends that the government provide 2 weeks of paid paternity leave, and convert 4 weeks of the 16-week maternity leave to parental leave, which could be taken by either parent. In addition to these measures, AWARE also advocates for heightened efforts to prevent discrimination against pregnant employees, and those intending to take paternity leave.

Late marriages were also identified as a factor contributing to the declining birth rates, and the NPTD sought suggestions on how to encourage couples to marry and have children at a younger age.

In our submission, AWARE clarified that there is no causal relationship between early marriage and having more children. In any case, given the high cost of living, the emphasis on education and work, and the national ethos to be self-reliant, it may not be possible or cost-effective to try to reverse the trend of later marriage.

Instead, AWARE proposes that the government provide support for alternative modes of parenting, such as adoption, and promote the use of technologies that enable older women to have babies later in life.

Additionally, AWARE would like to underline the need to recognise that Singaporeans are making childbearing decisions in a holistic and responsible manner, taking into account the responsibilities involved in raising a child and the capacities required to build long-term stable homes.

It is not short-term materialism that discourages Singaporeans from having children, but realistic evaluations of how much they need to bear in terms of costs for care for elderly parents, the healthcare needs of their families, and their own retirement needs in an expensive city.

Efforts to ensure that population growth increases cannot therefore focus on ineffective immediate cash payouts and bonuses, and must shift to addressing the wider concerns of couples considering having children.

Policies must take into account these concerns. In particular, steps should be taken to reform the education system to reduce pressure on children, lower the cost of public housing, and expand support for caregivers as well as the disabled and the elderly.

AWARE believes that adopting a more comprehensive approach is also the solution to raising productivity and improving the participation of our labour force.

In particular, providing support for women is critical to building a sustainable Singaporean core in our workforce. Creating opportunities and offering subsidies for stay-at-home caregivers to upgrade their skills and remain relevant will allow them to ensure employability.

In our submission, AWARE also highlighted the numerous impediments faced by women intending to join the workforce. These include the lack of flexible work, long hours, lack of access to childcare, and discrimination faced by pregnant women.

The government has to address these concerns if it intends to encourage women saddled with the dual burden of providing care for their families and working to remain in or re-enter the workforce.

Read AWARE’s submission in full here.

SchoolAsia: New lesson plans on gender and the media

AWARE has launched its first contribution to the SchoolAsia lesson platform, in collaboration with arts showcase Etiquette.

The course on ‘Gender Representation in the Media’ features both global & Singapore-based case studies for discussion, and is divided into four units: “Miss Representation in the media”, “Representations of gender in advertising”, “Gender representation in TV and film”, and “Beauty and body image”. Each unit of the course exposes students to different types of media and challenges students to examine the how these platforms shape ideas and attitudes toward gender identities.

The lessons are driven by dialogue and debate between students, and feature videos and clips which act as springboards for further discussion on how the media affects societal perceptions and expectations towards gender, and how these in turn shape society. Lessons also include interactive activities, such as quizzes and group discussions, which challenge students to reflect on their own perceptions and biases, and how they have been influenced by the media.

SchoolAsia, a non-profit, community-based effort to support educators in Asia, provides objective and up to date lesson plans and materials for English language, humanities and critical thinking classes at various levels. In addition to its course on gender in the media, it provides courses on a wide array of topics, including business and economics, to law and politics and the environment.

For more information about the course, as well as other courses provided by SchoolAsia, visit their website.

Roundtable Discussion: Marital rape

November 25, the International Day For The Elimination Of Violence Against Women, marks the start of 16 Days Of Activism Against Gender Violence.

This period of activism aims to raise awareness and trigger action on this pervasive human rights violation, significantly ending on Human Rights Day on December 10.

Since 1991, over 4,100 organisations from 172 countries have supported the 16 Days Of Activism. AWARE is one of these organizations. (For more information on what is happening around the world on this period click here.)

Join AWARE’s commemoration of the 16 Days Of Activism at our December Roundtable.

Wong Pei Chi, a key member of the No To Rape Campaign and an AWARE Board Member will speak about the current marital rape immunity law in Singapore and its practical and social implications. How does marital rape immunity affect us as individuals and families as we move toward a more inclusive society?

Event details:

Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012

Time: 7.30pm

Venue: AWARE, Block 5 Dover Crescent #01-22 (130005)

Speaker: Wong Pei Chi

Click here to register.

About the speaker:

Pei Chi has been an AWARE member for three years. She is a key member of the No To Rape campaign, and won the inaugural AWARE Young Wonder award along with fellow team member Jolene Tan in 2011.

As part of the No To Rape campaign, she has communicated with parties who have an interest in marital rape and the related issues, such as Members of Parliament, government officials,
social workers, community leaders, the media, and university groups.

She has also been part of the campaign team’s collective strategy planning, decision-making and research efforts. These include: Explaining the current provisions, why these are inadequate, the consequences for affected people, and questioning embedded narratives on gender roles in marriage and heterosexual relationships which are used to justify the retention of marital rape immunity.

The No To Rape campaign has strengthened her commitment to values of consent, anti-violence and bodily autonomy. As an AWARE Board Member, she hopes to deepen her participation in advocacy for gender equality in Singapore.

Chair: Paroma Ray

Paroma’s work in India involved:
• Monitoring and evaluating the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA). Led a team in field visits to conduct stakeholder interviews, collect data and coordinated with the nodal departments of the government to assess infrastructural issues under the legislation.
• Co-authored Staying Alive: Report on the Monitoring and Evaluation of the Implementation of the PWDVA
• Led advocacy work both at National and State level with Police personnel, members of judiciary, government officers and civil society members

About the No To Rape campaign:

The No To Rape campaign advocates one simple idea: sexual violence by any person, against any person, is criminal violence. Consequently, non-consensual sexual penetration, regardless of whether the victim and perpetrator are married to each other, should be treated as rape.

New safeguard for minors in VSA

Each sterilization case involving minors now has to be reviewed by a Hospital Ethics Committee. AWARE is very heartened that our lobbying efforts have resulted this measure.

On Oct 16, the Voluntary Sterilization Act (VSA) came into force, incorporating AWARE’s key recommendation that a Court Order be required before the sterilisation of persons who lack mental capacity to decide on such matters can be carried out. Read more about our concerns and recommendations here.

AWARE is also very heartened that our lobbying efforts have resulted in an additional safeguard for minors under the VSA: Each case involving minors now has to be reviewed by a Hospital Ethics Committee.

“To enhance our safeguards further, all cases involving minors who are not mentally incapacitated seeking sterilization will be referred to the hospital ethics committee for review,” Health Minister Gam Kim Yong said in Parliament.

These committees, which comprise healthcare professionals and laypersons, will “independently deliberate on whether the minor should undergo sexual sterilization. It will take into account all clinical, psychologically, social and ethical aspects of the case. Directives will be issued to the licensees of healthcare establishments under the  Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act (PHMC) Act, to all healthcare institutions to mandate this,” he noted.

This new safeguard adds to existing safeguards for minors (currently defined as persons under 21) in the VSA, which includes the following:

– A young person who lacks mental capacity, is given the same protection as that for an adult who lacks mental capacity. A court order is needed before sterilization can be performed.

–  The young person must give his or her own consent.

– His or her parent or a guardian must consent to having the young person undergo such a procedure.

– The amended section 3(3) of the Act requires the doctor to give a full and reasonable explanation as to the meaning and consequences of such a treatment, and obtain certification from such a person that he or she clearly understands the meaning and consequences of the treatment.

In our recommendations to the Ministry of Health, as part of the public consultation exercise for the amended VSA, AWARE urged that a minimum age be set at which minors are deemed capable of giving consent for sexual sterilisation (together with her parent(s)/guardian), and that a Court Order or at least an independent committee decision should be required for minors below this age.

We also sent our recommendations to all Members of Parliamement. On Oct 16, eight MPs spoke about the VSA before the Bill was passed: Lam Min Pin, Syvia Lim, Eugene Tan, Faizah Jamal, Denise Phua, Chia Shi Lu, Mary Liew, and Fatimah Lateef.

Lam Pin Min expressed concern over the extent to which minors, especially those who are much younger, are able to comprehend the concept of sexual sterilization. “Potential controversy may occur in cases where the other parent of the child objects to the procedure, for whatever reasons. A number of countries either have a minimum age where persons are considered capable of consenting to sterilization, or require a court order before a minor can be sterilized. This is not the case in our current or amended Bill.”

Eugene Tan also asked about the lack of a minimum age requirement. “A minor at 20 years of age and a minor at the age of 14 have very different maturity levels. To treat all minors alike would be over-inclusive. Would it not be better, in the interests of the child and of society generally – although I know this is not a consideration of the proposed amendments – to require a Court Order or at least an independent committee decision for minors below a certain age?”

Faizah Jamal spoke about the fact that for unmarried minors, only one parent or guardian needs to give the consent for sterilization. “I find this troubling. It is against the established laws of guardianship where both parents have joint responsibilities,” she said.

“I would like to reference Article 18 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which specifically states that both parents have ‘common responsibilities’ and also that parents be given assistance in carrying these out. Compare this with the provisions in the Women’s Charter Schedule 2 which sets out who is to give consent in a marriage of a minor, where various scenarios of parental situations are listed, for example, where one parent had abdicated his or her responsibility, etc.”

She also referenced precedents from jurisdictions like the UK and Australia. These countries recognise that while parents are in charge, in matters like sterilization which are irreversible, parents must answer to a higher authority, like the courts.

“It takes cognizance of the many instances where parents are in contentious relationships and may themselves be making the decisions based on their own emotions and not in the best interest of the minor,” she said. “I do not see this concern reflected in the Bill.” Besides calling for a minimum age and an independent committee, she also recommended that both parents to be required to give consent and the Bill adopt the approach in Schedule 2 of the Women’s Charter.

Mary Liew raised the point that in the case of minors, it is likely that “the minors’ parents or legal guardians who have tremendous influence on their lives, who would have influenced them to make that decision.” She suggested the need for a court order, or safeguards such as requiring at least two doctors to certify that sterilization would indeed be in the child’s best interests.

Denise Phua urged that the VSA be aligned with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which defines a child as “a human being below the age of 18 years old”, and reiterated the need for an independent committee “comprising at least (1) an independent medical practitioner with relevant knowledge; (2) a non-medical professional such as a Family Service Centre Counsellor or a Senior Medical Social Worker; and (3) an officer from a relevant Government agency such as the MCYS.”

Such a committee, she said, should be given the authority to approve or disapprove the application for sexual sterilization of the minor. “The Committee shall consider the reasons for which the application is made; convince themselves that there are no other less restrictive and less permanent options; and that the final decision to sterilize is indeed in the best interest of the minor affected.”

Ms Phua also touched on the period of public consultation for the VSA, which took pplace from June 4 to July 2. “Not only was the duration itself short, but it was also during the school holidays when many professionals and parents supervising special needs persons were not available. This limited the extent to which more inputs could have been gathered on a subject matter that is as invasive and permanent as sexual sterilization.”

She suggested that public consultation periods for future legislations that involve such irreversible and ethical dimensions should be extended, “to allow for more proactive and deeper consultation of stakeholder groups such as families, advocacy groups, medical professionals and, in this case, even persons directly affected. Nonetheless, I am very pleased that the Ministry has seriously taken the inputs of advocates such as AWARE and others and made a significant improvement for persons lacking in mental capacity.”

Read the full transcript of the Parliament debate on the VSA here.

Let’s stop conflating wealth with worth

The Amy Cheong episode presents Singaporeans with an opportunity to openly debate the ethics of living in a generally affluent society that has widening inequality. How do we make sure citizens’ rights to fulfilling and meaningful lives are not heavily dependent on their abilities to generate wealth? What are the social responsibilities of the haves towards the have-nots?

by Teo You Yenn and Kamaludeen Mohamad Nasir
We can tell a lot about what people regard as right or wrong by their responses to transgressions. In the case of the Amy Cheong incident, it is interesting to note that the primary focus has been on her racial prejudices – while almost nothing has been said about her presumptions about class.

Her presumption that one’s right to marry depends on the amount of money one has is as troubling – if not more so – than her narrow presumptions and negative feelings toward Malays. The relative silence about the relationship she draws between money and marriage reveals our deeper common sense: One where wealth, worth and deservedness are tightly tethered.

In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber argues that people born into modern capitalism are trapped in an “iron cage” – unable to decide their paths, and compelled to work hard, be frugal and accumulate wealth for its own sake rather than as a means to larger goals.

He perhaps underestimated the degree to which the pursuit and accumulation of wealth can take on tremendous meaning and normative value, with disturbing consequences for human beings’ sense of themselves and their regard for each other.

In Singapore, the recent debates over social spending, education and meritocracy, and population and immigration have brought to the fore the need to narrow the gaps between the rich and the poor and to ensure social mobility. This seems to be the consensus, even if there is disagreement as to how these goals are to be achieved.

What is less explicit, and where there might be lower degrees of consensus, pertains to how the state and society perceive the value of being wealthy. That discussion has not found a big place at the table of national conversations.

We seem to have accepted too easily that what people can and cannot do in life – including when they can marry or how many children they can have – depends on whether they can afford it.

It is apt for society to place this worldview under scrutiny. Two recent pieces of news add to the urgency of this.

First, in the Wealth Report 2012, Singapore sits prettily at the top with the highest gross domestic product per capita – a situation that is expected to remain until 2050.

Second, the Prime Minister revealed in his National Day Rally Speech that, by 2020, 40 per cent of every Singaporean cohort will comprise of graduates, a significant increase from the 27 per cent today.

These achievements and targets come at a time when the Singapore Government acknowledges that we are experiencing a widening income gap. This intensifies the unequal starting point among the haves and the have-nots, harming the meritocratic ideals of our system.

With increasing affluence and educational attainment among a significant proportion of society, what is traditionally considered status goods, such as the often talked about 5Cs in Singapore, is constantly being redefined.

The bar for “success” is increasingly high and, yet, also dangerously narrow. We seem to have a situation where certain sections of society feel a sense of entitlement to various status goods.

Significantly, their practices and values shape social norms that presume certain acts – whether spending on weddings or luxury goods – mark people as superior and of higher (human) worth (it is telling and problematic that rich people are now referred to as “high net worth individuals”).

Ms Amy Cheong’s remarks should be read as being as much class snobbery as racial prejudice. Class snobbery concerns are not unique to Singapore: England’s Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg recently warned that “class snobbery is holding Britain back by creating a society divided between those born with a sense of entitlement to succeed and others who are ‘permanently excluded’.”

It is heartening to witness Singaporeans being comfortable enough to air difficult issues on race, but it would be unfortunate if important observations on social class divisions take a backseat.

The Amy Cheong episode presents Singaporeans with an opportunity to openly debate the ethics of living in a generally affluent society that has widening inequality.

How should we value wealth? How do we make sure citizens’ rights to fulfilling and meaningful lives are not heavily dependent on their abilities to generate wealth? Given that no individual can become rich independent of what society provides, what are the social responsibilities of the haves towards the have-nots?

In a quote attributed to Karl Marx, he mentioned that in examining social inequality, “the least advantaged are the eyes that matter when it comes to looking at justice”. A truly national conversation will have to examine the category of “least advantaged” through multifarious lenses – whether race, age, gender or social class.

It is time to talk about whether the positions and worldviews of the privileged should be a standard for the rest.

The writers are both assistant professors in the Division of Sociology at the Nanyang Technological University. This piece was first published in Today and is re-posted here with the authors’ kind permission.

AWARE supports men’s rights as fathers

This letter was written in response to the news that the National Trades Union Congress is calling for fathers to get two weeks’ paid paternity leave.

AWARE agrees with the National Trades Union Congress’ (NTUC) call for fathers to get two weeks’ paid paternity leave.

In AWARE’s 2011 survey of 1001 parents, 91 per cent of the respondents agreed that paid paternity leave should be mandated, with 80 per cent saying that paternity leave should be more than 6 days and 44% opting for paternity leave of more than 11 days.

In the survey, the majority of respondents agreed that four weeks of the 16-week maternity leave should be converted to parental leave to be taken by either spouse.

As with maternity leave, the State and employers should share equally the cost of paternity leave. In addition, the State should grant incentives for fathers to take up the parental leave. In the Scandinavian countries, fathers only started to consume their parental leave when the policies were revised to provide these incentives.

The current state policies only ‘recommends’ three days of paternity leave. This is insufficient, and fathers are not even guaranteed this.

The lack of paternity leave places issues of fertility firmly in the realm of women’s domain. It also leads to the misconception that parenting is synonymous with mothering. Instead, family management and parenting should be seen as a collective responsibility.

Legislating paternity leave expands men’s opportunities to be involved in the most valuable aspects of parenting and respects men’s right to family life beyond just being breadwinners. Active parenting by men should be promoted and misinformed stereotypes
of fatherhood and manhood should be dispelled.

AWARE also supports NTUC’s call for flexi-work arrangements to become ‘a right’ to all working parents, with priority for those with special needs or very young children.

Singapore currently has the longest work hours in the world and employers are still reluctant to introduce measures at the workplace to help employees achieve a balance between work and family life. In 2010, only 35 percent of private-sector employees were offered at least one form of flexible work schedule.

Employers must be incentivised to adopt flexible working arrangement, reduce working hours in their organization and provide childcare facilities at the workplace.

We hope that that State will implement more policies that support the parenting responsibilities of both men and women.

Corinna Lim, Executive Director, AWARE
Nadzirah Samsudin, Research and Advocacy Executive, AWARE

Screening & Discussion: Miss Representation

There will be a free screening of Miss Representation at Singapore Management University on November 6, followed by a post-show discussion the representation of women in the media.

Miss Representation is a highly acclaimed US documentary that premiered at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival and was the winner of the Audience award at the 2011 Sonoma film festival.

It is part of an on-going educational outreach/social movement in the US spearheaded by the non-profit organization Missrepresentation.org based in San Francisco, which aims to empower women and girls to challenge limiting labels in order to realize their potential. The movement has spread to various cities in the US including New York and other countries including Ireland, the Netherlands and Canada.
The film presents how the gender norms perpetuated by media are negatively affecting how young women grow up – encouraging them to value themselves primarily for their appearances, objectify themselves and develop low self-esteem and eating disorders. Miss Representation also exposes how perspectives perpetrated by the media contribute to the under-representation of women in positions of leadership and influence. The film provides a excellent starting point for discussion about the need for enhanced media literacy in our culture.

EVENT DETAILS
Date: Tuesday, 6 November 2012

Venue: Singapore Management University, Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Seminar Room 1.2, Level 1

Time: 7:00pm to 10:00pm

Programme:
7:00pm – Registration 
7:30pm – Film screening starts
9:00pm – Discussion by Prof Kirpal Singh, AWARE representative Nina Carlina, and Chief Catalyst of Pink Pencil Amy Tan. 
9:30pm – Refreshments

Please register for the event here.

Including the poor in an inclusive society

A more comprehensive approach is needed to improve social mobility across generations and to de-feminise poverty.

By Vivienne Wee &Nadzirah Samsudin

The International day for the Eradication of Poverty is observed every year on October 17. It serves as reminder of the need to eradicate poverty in all countries. This year, the theme is “working together out of poverty”, representing a call for a global anti-poverty alliance.

In Singapore, beggars are kept off the streets, yet poverty still exists, though not always in public view. At least 20 per cent of households, earning less than the median income of $3,070, struggle to make ends meet.

Since 2001, the bottom 10 per cent of the population have experienced only a 9 per cent increase in their income. In the same period, the top 10 per cent of the population have enjoyed an increase of 32 per cent in income.

During an interview at the 2012 World Economic Forum, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that although it is “no fun” being poor in Singapore, people are still “less badly off” than the poor in other countries, as the government ensures that “everybody starts with some chips”, not at zero, through education, health care and public housing.

But are these ‘chips’ enough? The Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) reports an increase in public assistance cases from 2,929 in 2010 to 3,034 in 2011. The number of female-headed households on this scheme has also increased from 895 in 2004 to 1,002 in 2009. This is likely to increase further with the growing number of single women.

The Gini coefficient in Singapore has risen to 0.452 in 2010 (1 indicates maximum inequality between rich and poor). Singapore’s Many Helping Hands approach identifies the family as the most important welfare provider, with government support coming in only to fill discernible cracks.

This means that poorer families, including those with members employed in low-wage work, are likely to be trapped in a vicious cycle. When low-wage workers have to support retired family members without adequate savings, they are unable to accumulate savings for themselves or to invest in their children’s futures.

Poverty in Singapore thus tends to be transferred across generations, with younger family members unable to escape the poverty endured by parents and grandparents. A Straits Times article (‘A fair starting line’, July 16, 2011) cites research that shows that 58 per cent of the economic advantage gained by higher-income families are inherited by the children.

This gives Singapore an intergenerational income elasticity of 0.58, indicating less social mobility than Hong Kong with an index of 0.4 and the Scandinavian countries with indices lower than 0.3.

A key factor is inadequate social spending. This has not kept pace with widening income inequality. Social spending has even decreased from 25 per cent of GDP in the 1980s to about 16 per cent in 2011. Compared to Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan,  Singapore spends the smallest amount on social programmes, with uneven consequences for rich and poor.

Medical bills are a growing problem for the poor. In 2000, the World Health Organisation ranked Singapore a dismal 101st – 102nd for fairness of healthcare financing. The Government-mandated healthcare financing system (Medisave, MediShield and Medifund) is not a major source of payment for healthcare. Patients in Singapore pay about 55 per cent out of pocket, compared to 30 per cent in other advanced Asian economies.

Even though women have a higher life expectancy, high medical costs may prevent poorer elderly women from receiving needed medical attention. The feminization of poverty – a situation where most of the poor are women – is an increasing phenomenon. MCYS data from 2005 show that for women aged 55 and above, less than half had their own income, as compared to three-quarters of men in the same age group.

Prevailing gender norms relegate care-giving as the responsibility of women. This pressures women to make the rational choice of leaving the workforce to care for dependents. They thus have lower incomes, less CPF and less Medisave, as well as reduced access to employment health benefits or private insurance, compared to what men have.

Feminised poverty is transferred across generations. Girls in poor families tend to be more disadvantaged than boys are. They too grow up to become the main care-givers of the generation above and the generation below. As they themselves grow older, they also tend to have lower incomes, hence also more dependent on their adult children.

Although various government schemes has been made more accessible by the revamped ComCare portal and better information dissemination, a more comprehensive approach is needed to address the two key issues: Increasing social mobility across generations and de-feminising poverty.

These patterns of poverty are systematically reproduced by structures that favour the haves against the have-nots, as well as foist the burden of social reproduction on women. These biased structures need to be changed if the poor are to be included in a truly inclusive society.

Dr Vivienne Wee is AWARE’s Research & Advocacy Director. Nadzirah Samsudin is AWARE’s Research and Advocacy Executive. This piece was first published on The Online Citizen on Oct 17, 2012. Read the published version here.