MENU

MENU

Donate Now
Login

Year: 2012

home

Roundtable Discussion: Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity


Why is there a fuss about sexual orientation? How is it related to gender identity?

Should feminists automatically be LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) supporters?

Starting from the current Roundtable theme of sexual autonomy, let’s explore how sexual orientation and gender identity are connected to personal wellbeing and human rights, making them integral to any individual or organisation’s work to advance human welfare and dignity, against prejudice and injustice.

Join us for a no-holds-barred discussion or simply, an introduction.

About the speakers:
Jean and Kelly are members of Sayoni and People Like Us.

Sayoni is a community that works to empower queer women and People Like Us is the pioneer gay and lesbian advocacy group in Singapore.

Register here

Suggestions on marriage & parenthood trends

The following are excerpts from a submission of policy recommendations made by AWARE to the National Population and Talent Division. Read the full submission here.

In response to the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD)’s invitation for public feedback on improving Singapore’s birth rate, AWARE has submitted our recommendations for population-related policies that pertain to Singapore’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) and measures to encourage parenthood.

TFR and parenthood are issues that are inextricably linked to perceptions about the quality of life in Singapore. If citizens do not have a sense of well-being and security, they will not be inclined to take on additional responsibilities of parenting and caregiving. It is therefore necessary to address all policies that affect our citizens’ quality of life, including those on education, health, housing, employment and retirement.

The following are some of the recommendations that we have submitted to the NPTD:

Approach the TFR issue holistically

If the issue that we are concerned about is that of an ageing population and shrinking workforce, it may not be cost – effective to try to reverse the declining TFR. The TFR has been below replacement since 1975, despite the numerous schemes and incentives offered to individuals. Studies indicate that increasing the TFR from 1.2 to 1.85 (a highly ambitious target) will only ameliorate the situation marginally.

The State should consider alternative solutions that are more cost- effective in ameliorating the issue of an ageing population and shrinking workforce. Utmost priority should be given to maximizing the latent talent we have in Singapore by:

  • Ensuring that children are not prematurely excluded from our talent pool before they receive adequate education
  • Providing more supportive conditions of work and life so that women who leave the workforce to be caregivers are able to return later

Prioritise gender equality

Current state policies, such as the 16-week mandatory paid maternity leave and no mandated paid paternity leave for fathers, place issues of fertility firmly in the realm of women. This model perpetuates a familial form that is premised on the traditional role of men as breadwinners and women as caregivers, and is neither realistic nor fair, given the aspirations and talents of our well-educated women and men.

  • Make gender equality a core value in all policies aimed at supporting families, and dispel gendered stereotypes about parenting roles
  • Legislate at least two weeks of paid paternity leave, with the cost shared between the employer and the State.
  • Convert four weeks of the 16-week maternity leave to parental leave to be taken by either spouse.

Provide more support for all types of families

The State has addressed the issue of care-giving at the level of individual families – for example, offering maternity leave, baby bonuses, tax reliefs and the choice to hire domestic help – rather than at the public level, i.e. providing universally accessible childcare support in various forms to all families. To build a truly inclusive society, policies should not differentiate between citizens along socioeconomic or other lines.

A more inclusive approach should consider:

  • Facilitating flexible working arrangements and support from employers for a healthy work-life balance
  • The expansion and improvement of childcare facilities
  • The provision of more anti-discrimination protection for mothers in the workplace, particularly with regards to the unfair dismissal of pregnant women

Fairer distribution of benefits and support

  • Review the current overarching policy that limits the definition of family to married parents.
  • Widen access to childcare subsidies, motherhood benefits and housing benefits to include all mothers, without discriminating against unwed mothers.
  • Discard the Parents Tax Rebate and Working Mothers Child Relief policies that are biased in favour of working mothers (but not stay-at-home mothers) and higher-paid working women.
  • Grant rights of citizenship to foreign mothers of Singaporean children so that their families are able to remain intact. This is increasingly significant; in 2008, around 30% of all Singaporean children had one non-citizen parent, an increase from about 22% in 1998. Seventy percent of these had non-citizen mothers.

Provide more support for women who want to have their children later

The declining TFR has been attributed to people getting married later. But even if declining TFR is caused by later marriage, 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 this trend.

AWARE urges the State to support and promote the use of technologies that enable older women to have babies. Increase the subsidies for in-vitro fertilization and maintain the same level for subsidy for subsequent treatments. Such support is extremely targeted at women who desire to have kids and who need this financial support as in-vitro treatment is expensive.

Read the full text of our submission here.

Rethinking the Muslim marriage contract

A seminar on ‘Rethinking the Muslim Marriage Contract’ was held on April 14, 2012, at the National University of Singapore (NUS). This event was co-organised by AWARE, Leftwrite Centre LLP, and the National University of Singapore’s Department of Malay Studies and the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (Religion Cluster). The following is a summary of the discussion.

By Nadzirah Samsudin 

This seminar focused on the need to go beyond basic stipulations in the traditional marriage contract so as to better protect the rights of women entering a marriage. The seminar also explored possibilities for a better understanding of the marriage contract as a bilateral agreement between the man and the woman upon entering a marriage. It also highlighted the distinction between jurisprudential formulations (fiqh) – which can be subjected to change and revision – and the demands of justice stipulated as shari’a or God’s law.

Presentations were made by:

1. Kyai Haji Hussein Muhammad, founder-director of Fahmina Institute, Indonesia

2. Ziba Mir-Hosseini, Professorial Research Associate, Centre for Middle Eastern and Islamic Law, University of London

3. Halijah Mohamad, practising family lawyer and former Vice-President of AWARE

The seminar ended with a panel that brought together these 3 speakers, as well as Vivienne Wee, (Research and Advocacy Director, AWARE) and Suriani Suratman (Senior Lecturer at the Department of Malay Studies, NUS).

KH Hussein Muhammad spoke first on ‘The Need to Reform Muslim Thought on Gender’. A leading feminist scholar, he advocates for an interpretation of Islam that is shaped by the ‘ideals of universal human rights’, based on Al-Kulliyat al-Khams (the 5 Universal Principles):

1. Hifzh al-Din (Protection of the freedom of beliefs)

2. Hifizh al-Nafs (Protection of life)

3. Hifizh al-‘Aql (Protection of the intellect)

4. Hifzh al-Nasl (Protection of production rights)

5. Hifzh al-Mal (Protection of the property)

In his opinion, an interpretation based on these principles would be compatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

He also raised the distinction between ‘what is fixed’ and ‘what can be changed’ in Islam — namely, the difference between syariah and fiqh.

The former is understood as revelation, and thus unchanging; while the latter is considered ‘the science of Islamic jurisprudence’, which is constantly reinterpreted according to the lived reality.

This distinction was also raised in Ziba Mir-Hosseini’s presentation on ‘Man as Protectors and Providers: The Unmaking of a Legal Fiction’. She stressed the need to make the following distinctions:

• Between Ibadat (ritual/spiritual acts that regulate relations between God and the believer) and mu’amalat  (social/contractual acts that regulate social relations and remain open to rational considerations and social influences)

• Between Islam (as religion) and Islamism (as political ideology).

Knowing such distinctions is crucial for understanding the interactions between theology and politics, providing a basis for discerning those interpretations of Syariah that are politically motivated to serve certain interests, including patriarchal interests.

Ziba Mir-Hosseini also discussed the issue of different interpretations of terms and verses in the Quran and how such interpretations may be motivated by different political and social interests.

One such example is verse 4:34 of Surah  An-Nisa, which begins with this statement: “Men are qawwamun over women.” This is the only place in the Quran where the term qawwamun (protectors/maintainers) is mentioned. Yet this one mention is used as the linchpin of male authority.

Mir-Hosseini pointed out that there are other verses about marriage that use terms such as ma’ruf (good way, decent) and rahmah wa muwadah (compassion and love). But these are ignored. Instead of even-handed attention to all Quranic injunctions on marriage, the one mention of qawwamun in verse 4:34 is disproportionately emphasized as the foundation for the legal construction of marriage.

This has led to the construction of qiwama (protection/maintenance) as a legal fiction in Muslim family laws, although this generic term does not appear in the Quran at all.

Furthermore, this legal fiction is used with reference to marital dispute and how to deal with it. But scant notice is taken of the mention that the Prophet never beat his wives or the subsequent verse 4:35, which urges that representatives from his and her families be brought together for the reconciliation of a married couple in dispute.

Halijah navigated us through Singapore’s legal system for Muslim marriage and divorce, shedding light on the husband’s unilateral right to divorce. She pointed out that the marriage contract actually provides an avenue to redress this unequal marital power. Both husband and wife are allowed to insert taklik (negotiated terms) in the marriage contract to set conditions for divorce.

The panel discussion began with Vivienne Wee’s presentation on ‘Muslim contexts in time and space’, which provided a historical overview of Muslim contexts and the rise of political Islam. Afterwards, the question-and-answer session revolved around issues of polygamy and the balance of power in such marriages; the need for capacity and knowledge building; and the need for more constructive dialogues, especially between the ‘progressives’ and ‘conservatives’.

The seminar was an eye-opener for many participants, providing valuable information for follow-ups, as well as a whole new discourse on gender and Islam. The relationship between feminism and Islam has to be explored further, not only in relation to marriage and family but also on inheritance.

It is important to have safe spaces to discuss such matters. Perhaps a point raised during the discussion may be relevant: To remain silent is to side with oppression; we are in this world because of amanah (free will), which has been entrusted to us as human beings.

The writer is AWARE’s Research & Advocacy Executive.

AWARE’s concerns about the Voluntary Sterilisation Bill

AWARE Comments on the Proposed Changes to the Voluntary Sterilisation Act.

AWARE welcomes the Ministry of Health’s aim to better safeguard the sexual and reproductive autonomy of persons with intellectual or developmental disabilities, with its proposed amendments to the Voluntary Sterilisation Act.

Enacted in 1974, the Voluntary Sterilisation Act (VSA) legalised sexual sterilisation for non-medical reasons in Singapore as part of the nation’s family planning programme. It required consent from the person undergoing sterilisation before such treatment could take place, but allowed the parents or spouse of persons with hereditary illnesses, intellectual or developmental disabilities, or health conditions such as mental illnesses or epilepsy to consent to sterilisation on their behalf.

Last month, the Ministry of Health released its Draft Voluntary Sterilisation (Amendment) Bill, which aims to align the VSA with the Mental Capacity Act (2008) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Singapore will be signing later this year. AWARE submitted its feedback on these proposed changes to MOH as part of the public consultation that ended on Monday.

According to the Mental Capacity Act, a person with a disability or heath condition should not be assumed to lack mental capacity, which is the ability to make a specific decision at a particular time. Rather, people are assumed to possess mental capacity until it has been established otherwise. In order to align the VSA to the Mental Capacity Act, the Ministry wants to change the law to say that all those who possess mental capacity need to personally consent to sterilisation before the procedure can be carried out on them. This is a step in the right direction, as it means that someone with a hereditary illness, for instance, will be able to make her own decision on undergoing sexual sterilisation. 

However, AWARE is concerned that the proposed amendments do not adequately protect people – especially women and girls – who lack mental capacity and are therefore considered unable to consent to sterilisation. For these members of society, the Amendment Bill does not offer adequate protection against treatment for sterilisation that may not truly benefit them. Besides requiring approval from a medical practitioner, decisions to sterilise these women and girls only require the consent of one parent. Where the woman or girl does not have any parents, it is the guardian who consents; where the woman is married, only the consent of the spouse need be obtained.

Sterilisation is a highly intrusive procedure that results in the irreversible termination of a person’s reproductive function. It often has profound physical and psychological effects on a person. Intellectually disabled women and girls face greater discrimination and violence than other women, and the United Nations has noted that non-consensual sterilisation is one of the ways in which the bodies of women and girls with intellectual disabilities are violated.

Sterilisation is usually rationalised to be in the “best interests” of women or girls with intellectual disabilities. However, the reasons given often simply have to do with “social convenience” such as menstrual management, hygiene or to prevent pregnancies. Historically, many women and girls with disabilities have also sterilised in the name of eugenics.

Given the seriousness of sexual sterilisation, AWARE is deeply disturbed to find that the Amendment Bill offers intellectually disabled people lower standards of protection when it comes to sterilisation than the Mental Capacity Act does for less weighty decisions, such as managing their finances. AWARE queries why the extensive safeguards provided under the Mental Capacity Act for persons who lack capacity were not fully adopted in the Amendment Bill, since the stated intent of the amendments is to align the VSA with the Mental Capacity Act.

AWARE is also concerned that the Amendment Bill provides insufficient protection to minors. The existing law, as well as the Amendment Bill, allow persons under 21 to consent to sterilisation for non-medical reasons, provided a parent, guardian or spouse also consents. However, it is doubtful to what extent minors, especially those who are younger, are able to understand the concept of sexual sterilisation. As it stands, a number of countries either have a minimum age where persons are considered capable of consenting to sterilisation, or require a court order before a minor can be sterilised.

In its submission, AWARE made a few key recommendations:

  • Voluntary sterilisation decisions should be brought under the Mental Capacity Act.
  • In relation to the sterilisation of minors, there should be a minimum age at which minors are deemed capable of giving consent for sexual sterilisation (together with her parents/guardian). A court order or independent committee decision should be required for minors below this age.
  • We believe that the decision to sterilise a person who lacks capacity (because of age or mental condition), except in emergency situations where the life or health of the person is threatened, should be made by a court of law or an independent committee.
  • Sterilisation should only be considered when less restrictive options are not available or have been exhausted. It should not be carried out for non-therapeutic reasons such as contraception.
  • More social support, respite care and training should be provided to the caregivers of persons with intellectual disabilities, including the management of their sexual and reproductive functions (such as menstruation), so that sterilisation is not seen as a method of care management.

AWARE has requested a meeting with the Ministry of Health to discuss these issues.

To download AWARE’s submission on the Draft Voluntary Sterilisation (Amendment) Bill, please click here.

 

The protection of identities in the criminal process

Transparency in court cases is conducive to accountability. However, the provisions for discretionary and compulsory anonymity can sometimes serve a greater interest.

By Michael Hor

The recent media excitement over several criminal prosecutions involving a sexual element has created some discomfort in some quarters over how such cases should be handled in terms of protecting the identities of the people involved.

While it will be improper to talk about particular proceedings which have not yet been resolved with finality, it might be opportune to reflect on the broader tension at the heart of calls to expand the law and practice of identity protection.

First, a brief description of the law. There are general provisions vesting wide discretion in the trial court to enforce anonymity if there is “sufficient reason” to do so – section 7 of the Subordinate Courts Act is an example.

Specific to sexual offences, section 153 of the Women’s Charter prescribes compulsory anonymity where a female victim of a sexual offence is below 16 years of age. Where she is between 16 and 18, the court has discretion whether or not to conduct the trial in camera – where observers and journalists are excluded.

But in all proceedings concerning a sexual offence, and whatever the age of the complainant, and whether or not the trial is conducted in camera, there is a compulsory “gag” on the publication of material which might lead to the identification of the complainant. Section 153 of the Women’s Charter, it ought to be noted, applies only to specified sexual offences – essentially serious offences like rape, outrage of modesty and the like.

While these provisions do not technically bind the police from disclosing information before the trial, it stands to reason that in a situation where anonymity is compulsory, the police are under an obligation not to reveal information which might contradict the anonymity which would be enforced should the matter come to trial.

The difficulty here is with respect to discretionary anonymity – for the police might not be able to predict with certainty how a court would subsequently regard the matter. The fact remains that there are no clear rules which govern police disclosure or non-disclosure before a trial. Our law does not seem to contain a constitutional right to privacy which one might hold up against perceived wrongful or inappropriate disclosures by the police.

Questions have been raised about what is to happen to women who might be at least partial ‘victims’ of sexual aggression which does not fall within one of the offences listed in section 153 of the Women’s Charter. One can think of a situation where a female subordinate is blackmailed into ‘consensually’ having sex with her employer.

The offence of extortion (which now includes blackmail) is not listed in the Women’s Charter, and in such a case, the woman would not enjoy compulsory anonymity. It is possible to persuade a court to exercise its general discretion to confer anonymity, but there is no guarantee that a court will do so. One might then ask why section 153 should not be expanded to include situations like these.

Whether it is an issue of amending the statute to broaden its reach or a matter of discretion for the trial court to order anonymity, there is a fundamental clash of public interests which cannot be easily resolved.

From the viewpoint of preserving the integrity of the criminal process, there can be no doubt that the public interest is in upholding the principle of an open trial. Transparency and publicity is believed to be conducive to accountability, and serves the valuable function of allowing justice to be seen to be done. The point can be obliquely but effectively illustrated by the massive misgivings accompanied by use of the Internal Security Act.

Nonetheless, the provisions for discretionary and compulsory anonymity represent a governmental determination that in some situations we have to bear with the necessary evil of a closed trial in order to pursue a greater interest.

In the context of sexual offences specified in section 153 of the Women’s Charter, the overriding interest is in preserving the anonymity of the complainant. If her complaint is vindicated at trial, then anonymity would spare her the additional trauma of the whole world knowing that she has been a victim of a sexual offence. Even if it is not, there are still interests to be protected – her allegations may still be factually true, but the inherent uncertainties of a criminal trial meant that there was an acquittal.

More importantly, future genuine complainants may well be deterred from ever revealing the violence done to them if they have to contemplate the possibility that the prosecution might, for some reason, fail. This also explains why anonymity is preserved even if the accused is acquitted. The case for anonymity is only stronger in the case of younger complainants below the age of 16 – the requirement for them is not just a gag on publicity, but of trials in camera as well.

Returning to the issue of extending anonymity to our blackmailed ‘victim’, there is no clear-cut answer. There are trade-offs either way. One might reasonably feel that the case for anonymity for such a person, though weaker, perhaps because there is an element of consent, is nonetheless sufficiently strong to deserve protection.

Yet it must not be forgotten that every extension of anonymity made is at the same time an erosion of the principle of a public, and hence fair, trial. It is incumbent on all parties concerned to be cognizant of the costs involved in the ranking of the advantages of anonymity over those of publicity, and vice versa.

Some are also uneasy with the ‘one-sidedness’ of the anonymity provisions. Why, it is sometimes asked, is the same exception of anonymity not accorded to the accused person? One could imagine a system where the identity of those accused of a sexual offence is kept secret pending the outcome of the trial – if he is found guilty, then his name can be revealed; if not, it is to remain secret.

There is much to be said for this strategy of contingent anonymity. It is common experience that even those who are acquitted of a sexual offence might not be able to shake off the suspicion that they were in fact guilty but got off fortuitously. Such an exception to the principle of an open and public trial comes with a cost – not so much from the point of view of the accused, but from the perspective of public interest in an open criminal process.

There is also the problem of where to draw the line. Should the policy of contingent anonymity be only for sexual offences or for all other offences as well? Suspicions of guilt can linger even after an acquittal for corruption and charges of dishonesty, as for sexual allegations.

There are no easy answers. Any solution involves trading off one set of interests for another. That does not mean we should be stung into inaction, but into a careful appraisal of the profit and loss account, as it were, of each alternative strategy.

In my view, the long-term answer lies not in rules regarding anonymity but in public education. There is prejudice which irrationally surrounds victims of sexual offences. Victims are loath to have others know. The “logic” seems to be that there is some sort of shame associated with being the victim of a sexual offence. That of course is nonsense and those who continue to hold such a view ought to be educated otherwise.

The second is the seeming ambiguity that surrounds an acquittal. Not too long ago, some of the highest legal officials of the land seemed to have locked horns over its meaning. One view is that an acquittal does not mean that the accused person is necessarily innocent factually – for example, he or she might still be in fact guilty, but the prosecution was unable to amass proof beyond reasonable doubt. The other is that an acquittal means innocence in the eyes of the law, and nothing else.

There is an element of truth in both views. While an acquitted person may still be factually guilty of committing an offence, that fact cannot be used against him – and so we are to treat the acquitted person as we would one who was never charged. We sometimes cannot prevent feeling what we feel, but we can all chose to act in a principled manner, even when we don’t feel like it.

Unfortunately, both prejudices are deep and unlikely to be eradicated in the near future. This means that the reasons for protecting the identities of those involved in exceptional circumstances are likely to remain, and with it the need to continue to think about exactly what these circumstances should be.

The author is a Professor at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, where he has taught and researched criminal law and processes for more than 20 years.

Parliament Primer: The futility of boosting fertility?

The following are excerpts of debates on Singapore’s fertility rate, childcare facilities, adoption leave, maintenance payment, and foreign domestic workers, which took place during the April 9 and May 14 sittings of Parliament.

FERTILITY

Denise Phua asked about (a) the impact of the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) on the future of Singapore if it continues to remain low; (b) the level of awareness among Singaporeans of the impact of low TFR and how this level of awareness may be raised; (c) the measures is the Government adopting to mitigate the negative effects and challenges of the low TFR; and (d) the Government’s efforts to engage Singaporeans on this significant issue.

Teo Chee Hean: Singapore’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) in 2011 was 1.2, and our TFR has been below the replacement level of 2.1 since 1976. This means that as a society, we are having fewer children than needed to replace ourselves. At current birth rates and without immigration, our citizen population is projected to start shrinking by around 2025.

With fewer Singaporeans being born, our citizen population will also age rapidly. The median age of our citizen population today is 39 and it will rise steadily to 47 years in 2030. By 2030, the number of elderly citizens, that is, those aged 65 and above, will triple to about 900,000, but they will be supported by a smaller base of working-age citizens aged between 20-64 years old.

By 2030, there will only be 2.1 working-age citizens to each elderly citizen, as compared to 6.3 today; so one-third. This will place greater pressure on the citizen population in the working ages, not just in the household, but in society as well as economically.

These challenges, while serious, are not insurmountable. The Government has also invested heavily in education, healthcare and housing to ensure that Singapore remains a good place to get married and raise children. We have been making significant investments in supporting marriage and parenthood; in monetary terms, from $500 million per year in 2001 to $1.6 billion a year since 2008.

The Marriage and Parenthood package comprises a broad range of measures, such as the Baby Bonus, maternity and childcare leave, infant care and child care subsidies as well as tax benefits for parents. And we will continue to fine-tune our policies and measures to support and encourage Singaporeans in this regard. Apart from policy incentives, we will also need to foster a social climate that supports family life.

Beyond supporting marriage and parenthood, the Government has stepped up efforts to raise productivity and encourage more Singaporeans to enter the workforce, to expand the potential of our small local workforce. We are also putting in place measures that ensure that older Singaporeans can look forward to an active, fulfilling and secure future.

This year, the National Population and Talent Division in the Prime Minister’s Office has commenced engaging Singaporeans on population issues, including our low birth rates, and how we can overcome these demographic challenges together.

We will share relevant information about our population challenges, like the Occasional Paper on Citizen Population Scenarios released by NPTD last month, to facilitate discussions, such as those which took place at the Institute of Policy Studies seminar just a couple of weeks ago.

We will take into account the concerns and aspirations of Singaporeans in the White Paper on Population to be released by the end of the year. Through this process, we hope to engage Singaporeans and develop a shared understanding of our strategies to build a sustainable population that secures Singapore’s future.

Denise Phua: Since financial incentives do not seem to work that well and our TFR had remained fairly low, I would like to find out a little more about promoting this social climate that Deputy Prime Minister is talking about. Sharing with the population the merits of having children and the joy of family and children: is that part of the strategy that can go beyond just the current package of incentives? What currently are your thoughts on this?

Teo Chee Hean: Well, certainly encouraging people to appreciate family, marriage, having children, having a good family life and the joys of family life: I think those are the things which you can see the Government has been trying to do. You will see from time to time advertisements, nice advertisements and so forth. You will see in the community all kinds of family life activities to encourage family bonding, to enjoy family life.

But, this is not one of those things which the Government is necessarily the best at doing. So we would hope that many more members in the community, NGOs and community groups, will also step up and encourage the joys of family-hood and parenthood.

Lee Bee Wah: I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he would consider giving more help to those families with, perhaps, three children or more. Some of my residents propose giving more help in childcare for those with three children or more, or during Primary 1 registration.

Teo Chee Hean: Many of our schemes for encouraging parenthood are tied to individual children. So if you do have more children, you will have more Baby Bonus, you will have more Child Development Grants and so forth. So they are tied in that way already.

Eugene Tan: I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this: you spoke of a social climate that is conducive for marriage and parenthood. What about a social climate that will enable Singaporeans to take a balanced view towards immigration?

Teo Chee Hean : Yes, I think that too. My own sense is that Singaporeans do understand that a certain amount of immigration is good for us, and that refers to people who become citizens and permanent residents. I believe that Singaporeans also do understand that we do need a foreign workforce in Singapore of some numbers who are not here permanently but are transient because that helps to increase our workforce and contribute to improving our workforce dependency ratios.

The advantage of such a transient workforce, of course, is that they are here when they are economically active and contributing, but they do not place additional burden on the society and social needs either when they are very young – say in school – or when they have reached retirement age.

So, a population which is complemented by a certain amount of immigration and also complemented by a foreign workforce of some numbers, I think most Singaporeans would probably accept that. The issue then is to discuss what those numbers are and what those mean for us in terms of growth, in terms of immigration, in terms of infrastructure.

Denise Phua: I wish to ask if Government can consider adopting a more effective matrix or toolkit of communications because I am not sure that most Singaporeans are actually aware or much less alarmed about these, to me, very concerning trends of very low TFR, very rapidly ageing population, and also the attitudes towards the foreigners we have to bring in to help supplement the shortage.

I do not think there is currently a very effective way of communicating. Much of our communications are very cerebral, full of data, numbers and graphs. And I believe there is a better and more effective way to do this.

Teo Chee Hean: I certainly would agree with Ms Denise Phua that we will try and communicate better and we hope, again, that we will have people like Ms Phua and others to help us do the communication. I think it is better to think in terms of if we are going to have 900,000 people over the age of 65 compared to the 340,000 that we have today, a three-fold increase, then we really need to ask ourselves who is going to help, say, in the home.

Some will want to have domestic help. Who are going to staff up all the healthcare and hospital facilities that we would need? Who are going to staff up, say, the nursing homes and community step-down facilities that we would need? We may not have enough Singaporeans to do that. Therefore, even just in these sectors alone, we are going to need many more people in order to make sure that our older population will be properly looked after.

So just in these areas alone, I think there will be considerable needs for foreign manpower. So I think when we put the question across in this way and say, “All right, who is going to look after you?” I think that is a question which people will then begin to think, well, okay, maybe we do need some foreign nurses, foreign healthcare assistants, and so forth. Or who is going to build the homes that you want? Or who is going to build the MRT system that we all want? Is it going to be done all by Singaporeans? I think the answer is “no”. And so then we will need some of these foreign manpower.

So I think we need to try and communicate a little better. I agree with you.

CHILDCARE

Gan Thiam Poh asked if the Ministry for Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) would consider providing and running childcare centres at affordable cost to Singaporeans with heavy subsidy from the Government so as to standardise service levels and ensure affordability to encourage procreation.

Chan Chun Sing: Today, childcare services are provided by more than 900 centres, operated by private operators and Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs). This variety allows centres to offer a range of programmes to cater to the diverse needs of families.

All childcare centres have to meet MCYS’ licensing standards in order to operate. Teachers’ academic qualifications and professional training standards are also regulated. To raise the quality of programmes, MOE has introduced the Singapore Pre-school Accreditation Framework (SPARK) for kindergarten level programmes and MCYS launched the Early Years Development Framework last year to guide programmes for younger children age 0-3.

To ensure that quality childcare services remain affordable, we support parents through the universal childcare subsidy and the Baby Bonus scheme. A total of $209 million was disbursed in universal childcare subsidies in FY 2011. Lower-income families can receive additional help through the ComCare child care and kindergarten assistance schemes.

Yee Jenn Jong asked (a) how many void deck childcare centres are currently leased to not-for-profit organisations; (b) what is the average rent per square foot and child care fees for these centres; (c) how many new void deck childcare facilities are expected to be made available for lease in the next two years; and (d) what percentage of these will be for not-for-profit organisations.

Chan Chun Sing : There are currently 317 child care centres operated by non-profit organisations, of which 290 are sited in HDB void deck premises.

The Government recognizes the important role that non-profit organisations play in providing affordable and accessible child care services, particularly for children from lower income or disadvantaged backgrounds. We support these operators in different ways, including making available HDB void deck space, and providing grants for the set-up, furnishing and cyclical maintenance of centres in HDB void decks. The Government also charges a lower rental rate, or about $2 to $4 per square metre, on HDB void deck space for non-profit child care centres.

The current median fee for full-day child care provided by a non-profit operator is $615, compared to the commercial operators’ median fee of $885. To help parents with affordability, the Government also provides various forms of financial support, including a universal subsidy of up to $300 per month for all Singapore citizen children and funds under the Baby Bonus scheme which can be used to offset child care fees. Lower income families can obtain additional financial assistance under ComCare.

We will do more to encourage the development of child care centres by making available more information to operators – both non-profit as well as commercial providers. We are in the midst of compiling a list of upcoming HDB void deck sites earmarked for the set-up of child centres. We will make this list available to providers when it is ready, and also periodically update the list as more sites become available.

ADOPTION LEAVE

Fatimah Lateef asked if MCYS would consider increasing the Government-Paid Adoption Leave from four weeks to 16 weeks for mothers who adopt babies below 12 months of age, as like maternity leave given to mothers who have their own babies.

Chan Chun Sing : Adoption leave was introduced in 2004 to provide time for parents to bond with their adopted child. It is not a mandatory provision. Employers who voluntarily grant adoption leave to their employees can claim reimbursement of four weeks’ salary from the Government. Employers are not precluded from granting a longer period of adoption leave, as long as there is mutual agreement between both parties.

The maternity leave prescribed under the Child Development and Co-savings Act, on the other hand, is part of overall efforts to incentivise more births. It provides for 16 weeks of maternity leave for citizen births to married couples. The 16-week maternity leave allows a mother to bond with the child, as well as physically recuperate from childbirth before returning to work. The Government reimburses the employer for 8 to 16 weeks of the leave, depending on the birth order of the child.

As the objectives of adoption and maternity leave are different, it is not necessary to extend adoption leave to 16 weeks. Nevertheless, the Government will continue to encourage employers to support adoption leave applications by their employees, as part of family friendly practices.

Adoptive parents can also tap on the six days of statutory paid childcare leave (for parents with a Singaporean child below seven years), as well as six days of statutory unpaid infant care leave (for parents with a Singaporean child under the age of two).

MAINTENANCE PAYMENT

Fatimah Lateef asked about the effectiveness of enhanced enforcement measures against defaulters of maintenance payments since the Women’s Charter (Amendment) Act 2011.

Chan Chun Sing: With the Women’s Charter amendments in 2011, additional sanctions and penalties can be taken against maintenance defaulters in addition to the existing penalties of a fine, a garnishee order and imprisonment. The new provisions include making orders for defaulters to set up banker’s guarantee against future defaults, attend financial counselling and/or perform community service.

The Courts can also direct the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board to disclose the employment information of defaulters to facilitate the Attachment of Earnings Orders. Maintenance recipients can report maintenance debts to a designated credit bureau and divorcees who remarry are required to declare their maintenance obligations.

Since the implementation of the measures last year, the Courts have made 9 orders to defaulters to furnish a banker’s guarantee, 10 orders for financial counselling and 2 orders for community service. The number of Attachment of Earnings Orders has increased by about 12% over a year, possibly facilitated by the disclosure of employment details from the CPF Board.

More than 40% of the 130 maintenance debts reported to the designated Credit Bureau have been paid up. As for the requirement for divorcees to declare maintenance debts at remarriage, 412 have declared that they have maintenance orders, and 44 declared they have maintenance debts upon filing for marriage.

Overall, the number of applications for maintenance enforcement made to the Subordinate Courts has declined from 3,279 in 2010 to 2,979 in 2011. However, as the new measures were introduced recently, it is too early to determine their full impact. We will continue to monitor the progress.

FOREIGN DOMESTIC WORKERS

Chia Shi-Lu asked about the 6-Monthly Medical Examination (6ME) to screen for infectious diseases and pregnancies in foreign domestic workers (FDWs). In each of the last 2 years, (a) what is the percentage of FDWs who have been found to have a notifiable infectious disease or critical health issues; and (b) what is the percentage who have been found to be pregnant?

Tharman Shanmugaratnam: A medical examination framework for Foreign Domestic Workers (FDWs) is in place to safeguard the public interest, and the health of the FDWs themselves. FDWs first have to undergo and pass a medical examination within fourteen days after arriving in Singapore, before they are issued with their work permits. After they begin working in Singapore, they are also required to go for 6-Monthly Medical Examinations (6MEs).

This framework helps to ensure that FDWs are free from infectious diseases that pose a risk to public health in Singapore. Such diseases might harm the FDWs or the people they come into contact with. This is especially important as FDWs live and work in close proximity to employers and their family members, including children and the elderly.

A pregnancy test is also required to curtail problems which may arise if female foreign workers become pregnant and give birth in Singapore. Given that the period of gestation is 9 months, requiring a test only annually risks the possibility of some pregnancies being carried to full term without being detected.

The proportion of FDWs who have been found with such diseases or pregnant through the 6ME has not been high, averaging about 0.28% of the FDW population each year, over the last 2 years. The 6ME remains relevant nonetheless as the repercussions to affected households can be significant. The government will continue to monitor these figures to safeguard the health and well-being of FDWs, the members of the households they work in, and the public.

Read the full transcripts here and here.

May all fathers enjoy the right to a family life

This op-ed was published in Today on June 17. Read the published version here.

By Dr Teo You Yenn & Dr Vivienne Wee 

In a recent interview, a Singaporean housewife spoke poignantly of her loneliness, despite having a husband and two children. Her voice broke when she talked about her children being abnormally overjoyed to see their father on the occasional Sundays when he did not have to work.

Many have noted how important it is for fathers to care for their children, not just bring home the bacon. Professor Tommy Koh, in a recent Straits Times op-ed, suggested that male chauvinism may account for Singapore’s low fertility rate: where men are chauvinistic and refuse to participate in childrearing, women refuse to have children.

But the deeper problem may not be chauvinistic men as individuals but a gendered policy structure that deprives men of their caregiving roles as fathers.

World-wide, men do less caregiving than women. But studies in various countries show that where they do do more, it is because they are provided more care-giving opportunities, not because they are “culturally” less chauvinistic. “Culture” is malleable. Policies, such as paternity leave, can quickly change how people think and act.

To understand why men don’t participate more in the everyday care of their children, we need to look at how work and family life are organised in Singapore.

We have high costs of living, expensive childcare, disproportionate out-of-pocket costs for health care, a punitive educational system that requires intensive tutoring and coaching at home, a lopsided leave structure that recognises only women as parents, plus inequalities in waged work with men paid more than women, even when they have similar educational qualifications.

What do these add up to? First, with 16 guaranteed weeks of maternity leave and three “recommended” days of paternity leave, women have more time than men to learn how to care for babies. The relative competence of mothers, once established, solidifies their dominance over fathers as co-parents.

Second, expensive childcare, housing, enrichment classes, etc. – seemingly gender-neutral – actually have gender-differentiated effects. Combined with gendered inequalities in wages and moral expectations of women as caregivers, the seemingly “sensible choice” for many families is for men to work as hard as possible and for women to leave the workforce to care for the children.

For those with middle to high income, “work-life balance” is now the desideratum. But while maternity leave has steadily increased over several years, nothing has happened to allow men more work-life balance. Three days of paternity leave are patently insufficient; yet fathers are not even guaranteed this.

For low-income families, work-life balance is non-existent. Here, we see that any attempt to increase the total fertility rate must grapple with gender imbalance, income inequalities and welfare. Without adequate support for childcare, education, healthcare, unemployment, and retirement, people who are just getting by live precariously. Active fatherhood is a luxury many cannot afford. Under such conditions, working as many hours as possible in paid employment is responsible fatherhood.

This Father’s Day, we should think about the many fathers who do not have the privilege of spending time with their children and building lasting bonds of trust and understanding and about the mothers with absent co-parents, who are thus compelled to live as de facto single parents. Can we, as a society, claim that the family comes first when real people do not enjoy real family lives?

 

Dr Teo You Yenn is an assistant professor in Sociology at the Nanyang Technological University and board member at the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE). Dr Vivienne Wee is an anthropologist and Research & Advocacy Director at AWARE. 

Stop workplace sexual harassment for workplace safety

This letter from AWARE was published in the Straits Times Forum on June 15, 2012. Read the published version here.

We applaud Singapore’s ratification of the ILO Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention (“S’pore adopts ILO labour standards”, Straits Times, June 6, 2012), thereby signaling our commitment to policies that ensure workplace safety and health.

In its implementation of this framework, AWARE urges the Government to address an important aspect of employee health – workplace sexual harassment.

Workplace sexual harassment is prevalent in Singapore. In AWARE’s 2008 survey, 54 per cent of 500 respondents – men and women – were victims of workplace sexual harassment. The survey list comprised 19 instances of verbal, visual and physical forms of sexual harassment, like being subjected to sexually suggestive sounds, being forcibly kissed or hugged, and having their body parts stared at in a discomfiting way.

Current workplace legislation, including the Workplace Safety and Health Act and the Employment Act, are silent on this issue. This glaring oversight harms both the health of individual workers and overall business productivity.

The ILO emphasizes the promotion of mental health and well-being as integral to workplace health and safety. AWARE thus urges the Government to follow through on its commitment by providing explicit legal protection against sexual harassment.

The current law, which deals with this issue primarily through criminal law, is inadequate:

• Criminal remedies are often inappropriate as they aim to punish the offender, rather than to compensate the victim and to provide him/her with a safe and health workplace, which is usually what the victim seeks.

• Victims of workplace sexual harassment have very few options for seeking assistance and intervention. Most companies are not equipped to deal with workplace sexual harassment. MOM and TAFEP lack the authority to do so.

We need laws that:

(1) Provide explicit legal protection against workplace sexual harassment

(2) Impose affirmative duties for employers to take steps to prevent sexual harassment

(3) Establish/empower an administrative body to handle complaints and promote
application of the law

(4) Provide a wide range of civil remedies and sanctions to victims of sexual harassment.

The negative impact of workplace sexual harassment on Singaporean society cannot be under-estimated. AWARE’s receives several calls each month from victims of workplace sexual harassment. Psychosocial hazards are as damaging to health as physical hazards.

Our workplace statutes must protect against workplace sexual harassment if we are to comply with the ILO Framework that we have just signed.

Corinna Lim
Executive Director
AWARE

Planning the road ahead for gender equality

Dear AWARE members and supporters,

It has been a few weeks since the new Board was elected, and we have all been very busy planning the road ahead for AWARE.

For those of you who could not make it to the AGM, I look forward to meeting you soon at one of the many exciting events we have coming up, like our fundraising dinner, the Supersonic Big Ball, on Sept 10.

In the meantime, let me introduce myself.

I have always believed that we can each help to shape a world that is fully grounded in gender equality. This belief first brought me to AWARE 11 years ago, and inspired me to serve on the Executive Committee between 2004 and 2007.

Work commitments took me away for a while, but when I set up my own HR consulting practice this year, I decided to return to AWARE to serve as President.

What I have missed the most – and this is why I am so excited about coming back – is the richness of the discourse here, and the shared commitment to making a difference.

I step in the shoes of many AWARE Presidents before me, who worked tirelessly to ensure that women’s voices were heard clearly, by the people who matter.

During my term, I want to build on this legacy by addressing the following challenges:

  • Eliminating Gender Discrimination
  • Building An Inclusive Economy & Caring Society
  • Nurturing Women Leaders Of Tomorrow

We accomplished a lot in 2011, as you can see from our Annual Report. None of these achievements would have been possible without the hard work, dedication and expertise of our members, volunteers, and supporters. Your passion has always been the secret to AWARE’s success.

Thank you for all your contributions, and I very much hope that AWARE can count on your continued support as we take on more exciting new challenges.

 

Sincerely,
Winifred Loh

President
AWARE 

Find out more about Winifred here.