Year: 2013

Suicide laws deter treatment, not attempts

By Corinna Lim, Executive Director, AWARE and Porsche Poh, Executive Director, Silver Ribbon Singapore

Why keep Section 309 when it is rarely enforced and only serves to deter those at risk from seeking appropriate help?

suicideMost people, thankfully, do not attempt suicide. All of us are nevertheless responsible for how we, as a society, respond to those who do. Today, on the World Day of Social Justice, we ask: is it helpful – or right – to answer a cry of anguish with the threat of punishment?

 In Singapore, attempting suicide is a crime under Section 309 of the Penal Code. A woman was recently sentenced to jail for repeated suicide attempts. Her case, even if unusual, spurs us to question a law that penalises people facing extreme distress, when they actually need social support.

 Suicide is one of the top ten causes of death in Singapore. In 2011, the Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) handled more than 44,000 hotline calls, indicating the number of people contemplating suicide even if not attempting it. In recent years, suicide has increased among the elderly and the young. In 2011, the elderly made up 23% of all suicides, even though they constitute only 9.3 % of the population. From 2010 to 2011, the suicide mortality rate doubled among those aged 65-74 and those aged 85 and above. From 2008 to 2009, suicide among those aged 10-29 also rose by 70%, increasing from 64 to 91 deaths.

 In 2009, the highest suicide rate – 28.7 per 100,000 – occurred among men aged 65 and above, more than double the national rate of 10.7. Suicide also increased among men aged 20-29, with their suicide rate almost doubling from 10.8 in 2008 to 20.1 in 2009. While suicide mortality rates among women and girls have declined in the last ten years, their highest suicide rate is also among those aged 65 and above, as for men and boys.

 For every death resulting from suicide, there are seven suicide attempts. Arrests for attempted suicide have increased, from 706 in 2007 to 992 in 2011 (almost three a day). Although most arrests do not lead to charges, the process of arrest and investigation is traumatising for the individuals concerned, their family and friends. This may aggravate distress by adding a sense of grievance towards the legal system. The relative infrequency of charges reflects tacit understanding that the criminal law is the wrong tool for this problem. However, the police and magistrates have discretionary power to decide whether to lay charges – a process neither transparent nor assuring to those in distress.

 Is the criminalisation of suicide, as some contend, an effective deterrent? The World Health Organisation (WHO) has said repeatedly that, rather than deterring people from attempting suicide, criminalisation deters them from seeking treatment, increasing the risk of suicide rather than reducing it. Criminalisation focuses on censure and the assignation of fault, rather than helping attempters deal with the causes of distress, such as illness, bereavement or financial difficulties. Criminalisation may even motivate those attempting suicide to ensure that they die, rather than survive and face punishment.

 The police cannot be expected to provide the social support needed. Nor are all officers trained for this. Yet their scarce resources are expended on arresting those who attempt suicide and investigating self-injury which may not have been suicidal in intent.

 Data from countries that have decriminalised suicide, including Canada and New Zealand, show that suicide rates do not increase as a result of decriminalisation. In Hong Kong, where suicide was decriminalised in 1967, effective suicide prevention strategies are implemented by several agencies.

 Those contemplating suicide would benefit from appropriate public health support, such as counselling, rather than from legal threats and punishment. Why keep Section 309 when it is rarely enforced and only serves to deter those at risk from seeking appropriate help?

AWARE and Silver Ribbon (Singapore) call on the State to decriminalise suicide and to develop a comprehensive suicide prevention framework modelled on the WHO’s recommendations. Suicide is a public health issue, where those who are suicidal should receive appropriate care, not penalised as criminals. Even after suicide is decriminalised, Singapore’s Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act would still authorise the police to ensure that those who harm themselves receive medical treatment.

 world day of social justiceLast year, in his message on the World Day of Social Justice, the UN Secretary-General said that social justice is served when we see a “future we want”. When people attempt suicide, very often it is because they do not see any future they want. Penalising people for seeking to end their lives does not create hope for the future.

 A 2012 World Happiness Report from Columbia University reported “high correlations between various low well-being scores and … coronary heart disease, strokes, suicide and length of life”. To reduce suicide attempts, the causes of low well-being need to be addressed. By criminalising suicide, the law says, in effect, that one should just resign oneself to despair. What we need to do is to change the conditions that give rise to despair.

 AWARE and Silver Ribbon acknowledge the contributions of Jolene Tan, Vivienne Wee, Emily Lim and other members of the Working Group on the Decriminalisation of Suicide in writing this article. A shorter version of this article was first published in TODAY on 20 Feb 2013. Read the published version here.

AWARE calls for an inclusive Budget 2013

This year, AWARE reiterates its recommendations for an inclusive budget that adequately meets the needs of all women in Singapore, regardless of age, marital status and disabilities. The Budget should also be aligned with the State’s obligations under the international treaties that Singapore has ratified:

  • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
  • Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
  • Convention on the Rights for Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

budget cartoonAlthough the State has stepped up efforts to address the needs of an inclusive society, AWARE is still concerned about gaps in five key areas:

  1. Comprehensive healthcare
  2. Meeting the needs of the elderly
  3. Increasing support for persons with disabilities
  4. Adequate support for caregiving
  5. Reducing the Gini coefficient and increasing social mobility

AWARE calls for increased support for the care economy – activities of care that enables our industrial economy to function – including the care of children, the elderly, disabled and even able-bodied workers. Care work is indispensable and should not be rendered invisible or peripheral in discussions of economic matters. Individual women should not be expected to make personal sacrifices to provide the unpaid labour of care. Not only is this socially unjust, it is irrational for a country to address systemic issues of care by relying on individuals to figure out solutions for themselves, case by case, rather than to provide structural support for shared needs.

AWARE’s recommendations were discussed with individual experts and civil society groups, including a pre-Budget Forum at AWARE on 26 January 2013. Our 18 recommendations are:

A.     Comprehensive healthcare

  1. Immediately double current spending on healthcare from 1.6% of GDP to 3.2% and make healthcare affordable for all
  2. Minimise the out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure of individuals, especially those who can least afford it
  3. Prioritise chronic care management, improve chronic care treatment and make it affordable to all
  4. Extend comprehensive health insurance to all without discriminating against those who are unemployed or low-waged

B.     Meeting the needs of the elderly

  1. Ensure that the elderly have sufficient funds for retirement, especially older women who do not have sufficient savings.

C.     Increasing support for persons with disabilities

  1. Increase access of persons with disabilities to all mainstream and Special Education (SPED) schools, and all tertiary educational institutions
  2. Ensure that all SPED schools are affordable to persons with disabilities
  3. Provide support infrastructure for persons with disabilities in tertiary educational institutions, such as sign language interpreters, allied educators and other facilitators
  4. Provide transport allowances to all persons with disabilities so they can travel to schools and workplaces of their choice
  5. Increase the employment of disabled persons by allocating more funds to sheltered workshops and making the Open Door Fund more available to employers.
  6. Extend the enhanced MediShield insurance coverage to babies with congenital and neonatal conditions, and to those who acquire disabilities during the course of their lives.
  7. Provide a tax rebate for employed persons with disabilities to offset the cost of specialised equipment they need for daily living.
  8. Develop a comprehensive, transparent and accessible database about persons with disabilities in Singapore, with gender-disaggregated information.

D.    Adequate support for caregiving

  1. Extend the same amount of childcare subsidies to working mothers and stay-at-home mothers
  2. Eliminate discrimination based on marital status of parents when providing subsidies to newborn citizens
  3. Change the Work-life Works! (WoW!) Fund to a scheme that rewards companies that have introduced effective strategies for work-life balance appropriate to their specific employment context, and encourages them to share these strategies with others

E.     Reducing the Gini coefficient and increasing social mobility

  1. Support low-income groups and enable intergenerational social mobility by increasing social spending in a systematic and effective way.
  2. Eliminate the stringent criteria to be eligible for the Centre-based Financial Assistance Scheme for Childcare (CFAC).

Read the full text of AWARE’s submission here.

White Paper Is About the Economy, Not Babies

By Corinna Lim

For every 1 person that comes into Singapore to replace our shrinking citizenship, 2.5 persons are allowed in as transient workers for pure economic reasons. That is high and this is what the current debate should focus on instead of lumping the economic and demographic issues as one issue.

Proponents and critics of the White Paper have at least got one thing in common[1] – the misconception that focusing on improving the Total Fertility Rate will:

  • reduce the need for migrants
  • enable Singapore to maintain a ‘strong Singaporean core’.

It is important to disabuse this notion once and for all because it leads our Parliamentarians and policy makers down the wrong track.

Also, Singaporeans should not be made to feel that they should accept high levels of migration because it is their fault that they have chosen not to have more babies and are responsible for the shrinking and ageing population.

Demographic vs Economic Imperatives workforce no

First, we should be clear about the two main justifications for migration:

a)      long term demographic challenges – insufficient babies and ageing population

b)      short term economic growth – to address labour shortage issues

TFR is all about long term demographic challenges and we should not conflate this with short term economic growth.

The reason why we let in so many people on our island in the last 10 years is not because Singaporeans were not having babies but to address labour shortage to achieve our economic goals.

 

It’s Too Late – Increasing TFR Now Is Futile

The 2011 IPS Paper on the Scenarios of Future Population Growth and Change in Singapore, IPS 2011 showed that increasing TFR, even from 1.2 to 1.85 (which is highly unrealistic at this point), is not going to make much difference to the Singapore Resident Population.

The graph below, derived from the IPS paper, shows:

Scenario 1: TFR Constant at 1.24, no net migration

Scenario 2: TFR rising from 1.24 to 1.85 in 2025 and remaining constant thereafter, no net migration

 

Singapore Resident Population (Million)
pop graph

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Scenario 1

3.55

3.62

3.66

3.68

3.66

3.62

3.52

3.37

3.21

3.03

Scenario 2

3.55

3.62

3.67

3.7

3.72

3.73

3.69

3.60

3.49

3.37

In 2030, the difference in the Singapore citizen population between a scenario where TFR is 1.24 and 1.85 is 110,000 persons or 3%.

So, improving the Total Fertility Rate is not going to stop our Singapore core from shrinking or ageing. Having said that, this does not mean that the State should not do its best to ensure that all families get as much support as they can to ensure a high quality of life.

The Issue – How Many Migrants Should we take in for Economic Reasons?

The Population White Paper states clearly that to maintain the Singapore population as though we had a 2.1 total fertility rate, all we need is a maximum of 25,000 new citizens per year. The White Paper envisages that the PR population will remain constant at 30,000. And so, a growth of 25,000 citizens per year will translate to a total population of 5.75 million in 2030. Few people will have an issue with this.

However, what the White Paper projects is an increase of 88,000 migrants a year. This means that the remaining 63,000 migrants are allowed in purely for economic reasons.

In other words, for every 1 person that comes into Singapore to replace our shrinking citizenship, 2.5 persons are allowed in as transient workers for pure economic reasons. That is high and this is what the current debate should focus on instead of lumping the economic and demographic issues as one issue.

The question should be: should we increase the population by a further 63,000 transient workers every year? What are the alternatives to this? For example:

a)      What can be done to get more people in Singapore into the workforce? After all, there is at any one time, more than 30% of women who are not doing paid work and many people above 65 who would like to continue to do paid work. Singapore students, too, can be encouraged to participate more actively in part-time work by opening the economy up to them further.

b)      How can we increase productivity of the workforce? Letting in more transient workers is counter-productive to increasing productivity as cheap labour lessens the incentive for businesses to improve productivity.

These are not easy questions to answer. So, for starters, let’s stop confusing labour force issues with babies. This will lead to a much clearer debate on what strategies we should employ to address short term labour force issues and long term demographic issues.


[1] Grace Fu, Sylvia Lim, Seah Kian Peng, Foo Mee Har, in Parliament on 4 and 5 February.

Corinna Lim is the Executive Director at AWARE. This piece was first published in Today on 08 Feb 2013. Read the published version here.

Roundtable Discussion: Gender in Indian Scripture

prema jayakumar

Feminine Protests in the Ramayana and Mahabharata

Ahalya draupadi sita tara mandodari tatha
Panchakanya smarennityam mahapatakanasanam

To this day, Indian children may hear their grandmothers recite this stanza devoutly every morning. The stanza utters the names of five prominent female characters in Indian tradition. These are the women of the puranas, or ancient Indian literature. Yet none of them fit the archetype of the submissive wife who walks in her husband’s footsteps, head lowered and eyes to the ground. Each of them, perhaps with the exception of the demon, or rakshasa queen Mandodari, has either transgressed or been accused of transgressing the conventional ideas of pativratya (chastity).

We assume that the modern day woman is much more assertive and challenges the norm much more readily than her ancestors. All the talk of women being the keepers of social morality and traditional values, and suffering every oppression in silence so that the family remains intact, has blinded us to what the women in the epics actually said and did. We have been brainwashed by the depictions of puranic women in television soap operas which portray them as submissive, long-suffering icons. But a close reading of the classic texts will tell us that they are very self-assured and aware of their rights, and vocal about it too. Be it Sita and Mandodari in the Ramayana or Kunti and Draupadi of Mahabharata, they dare to question and protest injustice against women. They are not just women from the epics, they are epic women. Let us examine their lives and their transgressions.

EVENT DETAILS

Date: 19 February 2013, Tue
Time: 7.30pm-9.30pm
Venue: AWARE Centre Block 5 Dover Crescent #01-22 S’pore (130005)

Chair: Ms. Sunita Venkataraman

About the speaker:
Leading translator and acclaimed Sanskrit scholar Prema Jayakumar was born and raised in Kerala. She went to school in Kochi and Bangalore, graduating with an M. A. in English. After 20 years of working for the State Bank of India as a probationary officer, she quit and followed her dream of telling stories. Some of her more notable published works include Wind from the Hills, which was shortlisted for the Crossword award 2008 and featured on the long-list for the Golden Quill Award; Yakshi,  picked by BBC for their Off the Bookshelf programme; and Pandavapuram, which inspired a Bengali movie. Also a literary columnist for the Mathrubhumi Weekly and literary reviewer for Indiavision and the New Indian Express, she does translations of short stories, poems, articles and reviews from Malayalam to English. She has written 5 books on mythology for children, and a key area of expertise includes looking at Indian Mythology from a gendered perspective.

Please register for the event here or send email to Pam at publiceducation@aware.org.sg.

Daughters of Tomorrow Charity Screening: Miss Representation

Miss Representation 3_0As part of our International Women’s Day celebration, AWARE and Daughters of Tomorrow (DOT) are holding a screening of Miss Representation. 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 also part of an on-going educational outreach/social movement in the US spearheaded by the non-profit organization Missrepresentation.org based in San Francisco. The movement has spread to various cities in the US including New York and other countries including Ireland, the Netherlands and Canada.

The film exposes how mainstream media contributes to the under-representation of women in positions of leadership and influence in America. The influence of American culture in Singapore is undeniable – the issues analyzed in the documentary are relevant to Singapore’s media as well as its corporate and political scene.

The film takes a critical look at the media and features many American women leaders such as Condoleezza Rice, Nancy Pelosi, Gloria Steinem and Katie Couric. Please find below details of the documentary and its international movement.


Event Details

Date: 8 March 2013
Venue: NACLI – National Community Leadership Institute (70 South Buona Vista Road Singapore)
Time: 7.30pm

Admission (note the film is rated NC-16):
$10 per ticket
$9 for bulk booking of 75 pax and above

10% of proceeds go to AWARE, with remainder going to DOT’s Livelihood Training Fund for 3rd World Women.

Please email Empower@DaughtersOfTomorrow.com to book tickets. Payment details will be advised upon confirmation.

About DOT:
Daughters Of Tomorrow is a social dot-logoenterprise retailing products with positive social impact. They channel profits to enable livelihood training for disadvantaged women in the 3rd world.

AWARE Responds To The Population Paper

2 February 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

“Population Paper – Why No Public Consultation and Considerations of Social Justice?”population

It is commendable that the Government has released a Population Paper setting out its proposed population strategy from now till 2030. This forward planning and transparency is most welcome.

However, AWARE is concerned that the Government has once again focused on economic growth, rather than the well being of its people, as the main determinant of Singapore’s population size and rate of growth.

AWARE is also disappointed that there is no provision for thorough public consultation on the proposed population strategy. Why is the Government targeting for the Paper to be endorsed by Parliament within just a week of its release? This is unduly hasty given the major implications of the proposed strategy. Singaporeans have in the last few days shown their anxiety and unhappiness about these implications. More time must be given for people to ask questions and express their concerns.

The Paper indicates that to achieve certain GDP targets, Singapore’s population in 2020 must be 6.5 million and reach 6.9 million by 2030.

quality-of-lifeAWARE believes that the primary objective of Singapore’s population policy should not be economic growth per se, but the well being of people in Singapore. GDP growth can be one factor, but not the ultimate factor in population considerations. The critical question that the Paper should have addressed is “What is the optimum population to achieve maximum well-being for all members of Singapore society?”

Well-being goes beyond GDP growth. It encompasses a broader range of considerations including fulfilling jobs and rising incomes across-the-board, economic security, equitable distribution of wealth, universal access to affordable healthcare and education.

By focusing solely on GDP growth, The Paper fails to mention, let alone address, issues of inequality and lack of social mobility. This omission is worrying considering that the last ten years of liberal immigration policy has resulted in wage erosion at the lower end and given rise to a widening Gini Coefficient and wealth disparities.

Of greater concern is what the omission reflects about the Government’s general approach to managing Singapore. The many appeals for a fairer, more equitable and less materialistic society made by Singaporeans in the National Conversation and the public consultation on population issues, including AWARE’s submissions, seem to have fallen on deaf ears.

Despite receiving clear signals that public sentiment on this issue is strong, the Government is fixated on GDP growth through population expansion. The cost to society can already be seen in the claustrophobia and diminished quality of life that many Singaporeans complain about.

The proposed population strategy raises many issues which require consideration and debate (see Annex A for some issues that AWARE is concerned about). The research that must have gone into this is not reflected in this Paper. Many different scenarios must have been studied. The Government should make all the research and arguments available to enable a thorough and rigorous discussion of this issue.

We urge the Government to conduct a proper public consultation on this Paper and to share the research and data behind the Paper, before seeking endorsement of the proposed policy in Parliament. Members of Parliament should be given the time to get the views of their constituents before they debate and vote on the Paper.

What is needed is rigorous debate and shared ownership of the decisions made about Singapore’s future.
————————-

AWARE had made two submissions to the National Population and Talent Division on Population, Marriage and Parenthood issues. For the full text of our submissions, please refer to:

https://aware.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/AWAREs-population-recommendations-to-NPTD_31Oct12.pdf

https://aware.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/Suggestions-to-NPTD_update_24-July.pdf

Annex A

Social Justice

What will the impact of a 2% growth in the foreign labour force have on wages at the lower end? How will the Government ensure that the Gini Coefficient and wealth disparities will not continue to widen?

While the majority of Singaporeans may be in PMET jobs, what about those that aren’t? What support will there be for those that find themselves in the lower end jobs?

Will the government consider providing the following social supports to mitigate the effects of a more crowded and competitive place?

a)    Unemployment insurance

b)    Universal healthcare through insurance with government subsidizing the premiums of those who cannot afford this

c)    Universal childcare benefits that do not favour the rich e.g. tax reliefs  / exemptions

Impact of Higher Population Density on Families

High density living gives rise to feelings of insecurity and increased pressure and competition. This will in turn have an impact on individuals’ fertility decisions. Has the Government factored in what impact higher population density will have on the Total Fertility Rate? What measures will be taken to ensure that the goal of Building a Strong Singaporean Core is not adversely affected by high population density. What assumptions about Total Fertility Rate is the government making when doing its projections?

Getting More Residents in the Workforce

At any one time, more than 30% of females   are out of the workforce. A lot more can be done to get them into the workforce, which will reduce the need for importing foreign labour.

The Paper mentions that the Government will try to get more residents into the workforce but does not set any targets for this.

What assumptions have been made about this factor?

Ageing Population

The paper refers to ‘Declining Old Age Support Ratio’ as the number of citizens between 20-64 that supports a citizen above 65

Why should only citizens provide support for older people? Is this an accurate way of looking at it? Should we not take into account the total workforce (including foreigners) rather than just citizens? If the foreign workforce is included, the support base would be much stronger.

Stabilityforeign workers singapore

If 36% of our workforce is foreign will we be overly reliant on foreign workers? Would this dependence be healthy and sustainable? We have a responsibility to protect and uphold the dignity of the foreign workers who come here to seek a living, and contribute much to our economy and society. How do we ensure that we provide decent conditions of work so that we become a country of choice for foreign workers?

Alternative Scenarios

The Paper gives one option – that of 3-5% growth between now and 2020, and thereafter 2 – 3% growth between 2020 and 2030. Why has the Government chosen this particular model?  What about other scenarios?

Missing Pieces In The Parenthood Scheme

By Kokila Annamalai

Giving certain families access to piecemeal benefits will not solve the care-giving problem. We need to think about how we can build a more family-friendly society.

nuclearfamily2Every Singaporean’s right to family and a good life – that’s the message we were hoping the new parenthood schemes would send out. But it is sorely disappointing to see that the latest policies still send a strong signal that the right to support for children is a privilege of the “ideal family” that meets the marital, employment and citizenship status prescribed by the state.

This is counter-productive to fostering a sense of equality, community and belonging – sentiments which are fundamental to people’s decisions to start a family. Families come in all shapes and sizes, and policies must be mindful and supportive of the increasingly diverse choices Singaporeans make.

An incomplete picture

Baby bonuses and tax rebates haven’t worked over the last 20 years, and they won’t work now. Children are a life-changing, lifelong commitment – not something we can give people a “kickstart” on by offering them a lump sum of money. Like Einstein quite rightly said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Rather than pumping more money into these short-sighted measures, we need to reflect deeply on what it is that people really care about.

A public survey conducted by AWARE in 2004 concluded that the quality of life is the single most important reason why Singaporeans are not having more children. People will only have children when they can imagine a good life for those children, and when the larger society reassures them that they will receive the support they need to care for themselves and their loved ones. This support must be in the form of universal benefits that all citizens have equal access to.

Greater social security, affordable public housing and pre-school education, as well as a flexible, stress-free work culture and an impartial education system that gives children of all backgrounds the same opportunities are important to give Singaporeans the peace of mind and confidence to consider starting a family.

Giving certain families access to piecemeal benefits will not solve the care-giving problem. We need to think about how we can build a more family-friendly society. When support is offered at the public level, rather than at the individual level, it will take the stress of comparing and competing with their fellow citizens off Singaporeans, and give them the autonomy to determine their own lives, and start families at their own pace.

parenthood scheme jigsaw

Falling into place

The new M&P Package definitely shows encouraging signs of moving towards a more gender-equal and inclusive approach to care-giving, but bolder moves are necessary to change social mindsets about parenting.

The introduction of paternity leave is a positive step, but one week is not enough for dads to play a significant role in parenting. To lighten the load of working mothers and allow fathers to participate actively in childcare, paternity leave must evolve into a more substantial provision. A gender-equal approach includes helping moms return to work after childbirth, by providing job security and protecting them against discriminatory hiring practices.

And while the latest measures have expanded to include alternative modes of parenting such as adoption, we must broaden the definition of family beyond married parents, and the definition of care-giving beyond childcare, so that single, divorced, widowed or unwed parents and care-givers of elderly, sick or disabled family members all receive the support they truly need.

The move to heavily subsidise child and infant care services for middle and low income families gives us much hope that going forward, the State will adopt principles of equality and universality in place of individualised solutions and differentiated benefits.

As we cast a wider net to support parenthood, we must make sure that no family falls through the gaps.

The insights and recommendations in this article are heavily drawn from AWARE’s 2012 paper on Marriage and Parenthood Trends, submitted to the National Population and Talent Division. Read the full paper here.

Let’s call a rape a rape

By Wong Pei Chi and Jolene Tan

Media coverage and popular discussion of rape give disproportionate weight to concerns over false reports – to the point where the default response for many is to assume that a woman is lying if she discloses that she was a victim of rape or sexual assault. It is exactly this social norm that allows rapists to continue raping, because they know their victims will not be believed.

We refer to the recent letters expressing concern over false allegations of rape (“Fabricated rape claims exact heavy toll on men” by Mr Yang Jiwei; Jan 15) and marital rape (“Address issue of marital rape” by Ms Junie Loh, Jan 15; “Marital rape: Existing law is adequate” by Mr Amos Wu Pom Hin, Forum Online, last Friday; and “Marital rape: Existing law not ideal” by Mr Benjamin Joshua Ong, Forum Online, Tuesday).Stop-Rape

We agree that false allegations of any criminal offence – whether rape or otherwise – should be taken seriously.

However, as with any crime, rape investigations should proceed without suspicions regarding the victim’s credibility.

There is no evidence that false allegations of rape make up a significant percentage of the cases that are reported to the police.

Yet, media coverage and popular discussion of rape give disproportionate weight to concerns over false reports – to the point where the default response for many is to assume that a woman is lying if she discloses that she was a victim of rape or sexual assault.

It is exactly this social norm that allows rapists to continue raping, because they know their victims will not be believed.

It discourages victims from reporting to anyone, increases their difficulties and impedes justice.

The argument in support of Section 375(4) of the Penal Code, which treats marital rape as an exception to rape save in certain circumstances, is that “sexual relations are to be expected in a marriage”.

We agree, but consent should still be a pre-condition.

Where an individual regularly refuses to have sex with her spouse, some remedies the spouse or couple can seek include medical treatment, professional counselling or divorce, rather than to force the unwilling spouse to have sex.

Law enforcers and lawyers regularly examine evidence of rape in other contexts.

If marital rape immunity were entirely repealed, these agencies would just have to apply the same considerations to marital rape cases, which are currently automatically excluded regardless of the strength of evidence.

One example is the landmark case of PP v N, where the evidence led the court to conclude that the defendant had tied his wife up and forced himself onto her.

But despite incontrovertible evidence, the court could not convict the defendant of rape.

We agree with Mr Ong that it is crucial to call a spade a spade, or in this case, a rape a rape, whether it occurs within marriage or outside of it.

Wong Pei Chi is an AWARE Board Member and Jolene Tan is the Co-Founder of the No To Rape campaign. An initial version was first published in The Straits Times on 24 Jan 2013. Read the published version here.

Painting Experience Workshop

manjeet artThe Painting Experience Workshop focuses on teaching participants to see a painting through the eyes of the artist using light and shade to put across an idea or message, to evoke a feeling or mood. In essence, it is about how to look at paintings. Participants will also be shown and discuss various works by master and contemporary artists.

Another important dimension has been the therapeutic advantage of the workshop. Many participants joined as a form of relaxation, to relieve stress from their everyday jobs. They have found that turning their attention to art has helped relieve their stress levels considerably.

Participants in previous workshops have consisted of a wide age range, and from all kinds of backgrounds. Some have had previous art training, many not. The majority attend because they say they want an insight into art enabling them to enjoy galleries and museums more fully, while others regard the workshop as a preliminary introduction before going on to take a more intensive drawing and painting course.


Workshop Outline:

Composition
This constitutes the most important layer of a painting, for it is in composition that the visual story is created.

Drawing – 60 minutes
Drawing is essentially about working with lines. Using a pencil and eraser, and other simple artist’s equipment such as oil pastels, the participant will begin drawing in order to learn how to place lines on a page, as well as how to handle the drawing media.

Colour
This part of the workshop focuses on the use of colour in a painting. Participants will learn to dissect colour scientifically, and understand what elements different colours are made from.

Painting – 60 minutes
Apply knowledge and produce a still life

Discussion
Participants will discuss the idea of originality in a painting by using examples of their favourite artists, and then begin to discover their own originality.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

About the artist
A graduate of St. Patrick’s Art Centre (now LasalleE-SIA College of the Arts), the Singaporean artist Manjeet Shergill began exhibiting her work in 1982, both in Singapore and abroad, where she has been well received. She established the independent Shergill Studio from which she paints, and from where her works have been consigned to galleries in Berlin, Bangkok and London. Manjeet Shirgill is a celebrated artist who contributes greatly to the advancement of the arts in Singapore through her paintings and through the success of her popular Creative Art Workshops.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Event details
Date: 16 February 2013
Time: 10am – 2pm
Venue: AWARE Centre (location)
Fee: S$450.00 (includes all materials)

Simple lunch will be provided.

Feel free to bring along artworks that you’ve done to share to the class.

So what are you waiting for? Sign-up now and discover the hidden artist in you!

To register for the workshop, please click here or send email to Pam at publiceducation@aware.org.sg.