AWARE Singapore

Break the silence of violence

By Carol Candler, Member, AWARE, and Moana Jagasia, Research and Advocacy Coordinator, AWARE

Does one know violence when one sees it? Does one recognise that checking a partner’s email or text messages without permission is abuse? What about casual put-downs of one’s partner as stupid, fat or ugly?

Nov 25 was International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. According to the United Nations, one-third of women worldwide have experienced physical or sexual violence. This is the result of unequal relations between men and women.

Its roots lie in everyday images, attitudes and stereotypes that reinforce the view that women are inferior to men. These norms affect boys and men, who are socialised into the exercise of gender-based violence as a means of proving their masculinity.

Violence is not always black and blue; social and financial control as well as threats and psychological abuse constitute and contribute to violence.

Lewd comments towards women on the street, impossibly perfect images of beauty in the media and the hypercritical policing of women’s clothes and mannerisms reinforce the widespread social norms that make it acceptable to use violence.

Physical abuse is the tip of the iceberg; the deeper context is this overarching system of hierarchy and control.

In 2012-13, the Association of Women for Action and Research and Ngee Ann Polytechnic carried out research that shows some public understanding of the issues surrounding violence against women.

However, 16 per cent of the 1,322 respondents disagreed that slapping, threats of violence and threats to kill are physical violence.

The figures are more discouraging for subtler forms of violence: 24 per cent did not recognise harassment of one’s partner through social media as a form of violence; 27 per cent did not consider restriction of a partner’s access to friends and family as abusive.

A larger percentage, 36 per cent, did not acknowledge that controlling the finances of their wives or girlfriends is abusive. At a recent forum theatre production, our student audience, far from recoiling from a rape scene, cheered on the fictitious rapist.

How do we break this silence of violence? The campaign, We can! End All Violence Against Women, was launched in April, and it involves individuals, communities and organisations working towards changing the attitudes that excuse violence.

Taking an innovative approach to public education, the campaign is organising an arts festival on Dec 8. By bringing together artists, activists and survivors, it seeks to create an alternative space to enable the public to think differently about violence against women.

Ending gender violence is an important endeavour for women and men. It is possible to develop a more equal society, where no one has to live in the shadow of restrictive and dehumanising attitudes based on gender.

By challenging the harmful and debasing behaviours we witness every day — be it in our social circles, in the street or in the media — everybody can play a part in breaking the silence of violence.

Click here to get your ticket for the We Can! Arts Fest on 8 December.

This letter was published in TODAY on 29 November 2013.

What does home mean? Explore Blk 2511

Today, 25 November, is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the start of the international 16 Days of Activism. That’s a real mouthful of a title, and violence sounds like a dramatic matter – but what does it mean for ordinary people like you and me?

Find out by making a trip to Blk 2511, a new Facebook app from We Can! Singapore, the person-to-person campaign to end violence against women.

Go behind the closed doors of this seemingly peaceful HDB block and hear everyday stories of violence that affect women, men and children all around us.

“Isn’t it simply tradition for men to be the head of the household?” “Boys need to toughen up and not cry.” “Women should stay slim.”

As you visit each unit, you can learn more about how attitudes and stereotypes that so many of us take for granted actually add up to encourage and tolerate abuse. And most importantly, you will find out how you to take action to make a change for a violence-free society.

(Our sincere thanks to Xpointo Media for their hard work and generosity in making Blk 2511 possible.)

Roundtable: Attitudes and Risk Behaviors of Women with HIV-Positive Partners

On December 9, AWARE will hold a roundtable to share the findings of our study the attitudes and risk behaviours of women living with HIV-positive husbands or partners in Singapore.

We conducted in-depth one-to-one interviews with 60 women to explore attitudes about HIV/AIDS, safer sexual practices and concerns of these women. They found that many of the married women were monogamous and had acquired the infection from their husbands. A few women (n=8) were aware of their husbands infidelity, yet many accepted their extramarital sexual behaviors either because they were economically dependent on their husbands, they felt that extramarital affairs by men was a societal norm, or they felt powerless to change the situation.

Although they wanted to protect themselves from HIV infection, they were not able to persuade their husbands to use condoms. After being diagnosed with HIV, almost all stayed married and a smaller number (n=22) continued to engage in sexual intercourse with their husbands. At least fourteen women saw a marked decrease in sexual intimacy after their diagnosis or the diagnosis of their husbands. While some of the women were keen to use condoms after diagnosis, a significant proportion could not persuade their husbands to use condoms consistently.

The main concerns reported by the women were the high cost of medications, stigma from family members, friends and employers, and the desire to have children. Women living with HIV clearly need holistic care to help them cope with the negative impact of the illness on their physical, mental, social and sexual well being.

Speaker’s Bio:

Mee-Lian is Associate Professor of Public Health at the NUS Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, Singapore (NUS) and Director of the National Preventive Medicine Residency Program, Singapore. She teaches health promotion and behavioral change in the MBBS and MPH programs. She received her MBBS and MPH from the University of Malaya and her Doctor of Medicine from the National University of Singapore. She is a Fellow of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore and a Fellow by distinction of the Faculty of Public Health, United Kingdom.

Roundtable: Women with HIV-Positive Partners

AWAREs next roundtable will be held on 9 December, featuring speaker Mee-Lian as she shares the results of our study on the attitudes, sexual practices and concerns of women with HIV or living with HIV-positive husbands or partners in Singapore.

In-depth interviews were conducted with 60 women between 2007 and 2012. The study found that many married women were monogamous and had acquired HIV from their husbands. While some of the women were keen to use condoms after diagnosis, a significant proportion could not persuade their husbands to use condoms consistently. After being diagnosed with HIV, almost all stayed married and a smaller number continued to engage in sexual intercourse with their husbands.

The women surveyed expressed concerns about the high cost of medications, social stigma and the desire to have children. They clearly require holistic care to help them cope with the negative impact of the illness on their well being.

Event Details
Date: 9 December 2013 (Monday)
Time: 7.30pm
Location: AWARE Centre
Click here to register!

About the Speaker

Mee-Lian is Associate Professor of Public Health at the NUS Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, Singapore (NUS) and Director of the National Preventive Medicine Residency Program, Singapore. She teaches health promotion and behavioral change in the MBBS and MPH programs and has done specific research on the control of sexually transmitted infections such as HIV/AIDS. She received her MBBS and MPH from the University of Malaya and her Doctor of Medicine from the National University of Singapore. She is a Fellow of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore and a Fellow by distinction of the Faculty of Public Health, United Kingdom.

The perplexing case of Purple Light

(Thanks to all who have come out in support of the move against the problematic Purple Light lyrics. Please take the time to read Fikri’s post and Nicholas Liu’s letter on this subject.)

Note: the post below contains examples of abusive language.

“Booking out, see my girlfriend
Saw her with another man
Kill the man, rape my girlfriend
With my rifle and my buddy and me.”

It started simply. Several men at a workshop on violence against women told us of these lyrics in an NS marching song. They were disturbed by the attitude expressed toward sexual violence. In their view, such lyrics should not be part of the National Service experience.

We agreed and raised the matter in a letter to MINDEF and SAF.

MINDEF and SAF agreed and said that they would take steps to “immediately halt” the singing of these lyrics.

So far, so agreed. Yet our brief Facebook update on this generated an explosive reaction and spawned a thread of more than 700 comments. Criticism of us quickly spiralled into extremely abusive language. We (and others who welcome MINDEF’s move) are, among other things, “sensitive little bitches” and a “useless bunch of morons” who run a “feminazi group” which is “pushing for female supremacy” through “nitpicking”. We should “get fucked”.

All because we think Singapore is better off without soldiers singing about their buddies and rifles standing by as they rape women, and we said so publicly.

We have also seen many positive and supportive messages from people of all genders, including men who were uncomfortable with singing the lyrics in NS. But the strength of the negative response is noteworthy. Why does this bother some people (mostly men) so much? This important question goes to the heart of why the lyrics are so problematic to begin with.

To explore this, we’re going to respond to the main criticisms we’ve heard.

1. Why did they ban the whole song? It’s not even the original version.
MINDEF told us it would halt the singing of the specific lyrics that we quoted. We repeated this on Facebook and to journalists. The idea that the ban applies to anything else originated somewhere else. Moreover, we criticised lyrics that have been sung by many and that are defended by many. That criticism doesn’t rest on it being the original version of the song.

2. AWARE doesn’t care about men.

Why do you pick on “rape my girlfriend” and not “kill the man”? Our particular expertise is violence against women and girls, and how sexual violence is trivialised, normalised and excused. Naturally we focused our remarks on the matter closest to this experience.
What about other verses involving sexual assault against men? Sexual violence is deplorable, regardless of the gender(s) of the victim or perpetrator. Initially, we had only been informed of the lyrics quoted above. Others have since told us about other marching song lyrics that take a cavalier attitude towards sexual violence. We will investigate these too.

3. There’s nothing wrong with these lyrics.

They keep morale up in NS when men are going through difficult times. Do men need to sing about raping women for this purpose? We have a higher opinion of them than that. Moreover, MINDEF and SAF do not appear to believe rape songs are necessary to military operations. In view of the use of rape as a tool of war, such as in the Congo and Bosnia, we suggest it is right to be cautious about tolerating these lyrics becoming a part of military culture.
It’s only words. So why are people so upset they might not be sung? Words are powerful. They shape social norms and our collective sense of what is acceptable. Our contention has never been that singing “rape my girlfriend” will by itself cause anyone to commit the deed. Rather, a society which treats mocking references to rape as entertainment then encourages rapists to view their acts as acceptable and causes rape victims to feel unsupported.Globally and in Singapore, rape is under-reported precisely because rape victims feel they will not be taken seriously. This is especially true of rapes by intimate partners. Contrary to stereotype, these are more common than stranger rapes involving men jumping out in a dark alley. Almost all rapes in Singapore involve a victim and a perpetrator previously known to each other, and marriage continues to be a defence to charges of rape. The scenario in the lyrics – rape by an angry partner – is not an outlandish joke. For many rape victims, it is a hellish reality.

4. AWARE has no right to make this criticism.

Because AWARE staff didn’t do NS. Men who have done NS first raised this issue with us. Moreover, in the recent Our Singapore Conversation exercise, many said NS experiences had an important influence on their values. All of society should be concerned with an institution so central to nation-building and which has a substantial impact on a large proportion of the population.
Because AWARE doesn’t support NS for women. We’ve actually spoken about our proposed reforms for NS many times, including several times in the last month.
Because AWARE doesn’t stop women from breaking up with their boyfriends who are doing NS. It’s true, we don’t.

5. AWARE shouldn’t have posted about this after doing it.
Why not? Too often social and political comment focuses on what’s gone wrong, without recognition of what’s been done right. Not only is this unfair to public bodies and figures when they make progress, it encourages a politics of despair, and a perception that all social and political conversation is empty grousing, done in vain. But we believe in the possibility of change and we seek to share this belief with others. We’re told this makes us “arrogant”; we prefer “hopeful”.

6. Other things are more important.
This has come up time and again: we were “making a mountain out of a molehill”. By writing a single polite letter to MINDEF and posting one Facebook update? Perhaps these critics believe the only appropriate amount of effort to spend on combatting the trivialisation of rape is none. Some offered a laundry list of alternative issues and campaigns for us, invariably without having found out anything else about our existing work first.

But this brings us back to the start. Why did so many people spend so much time writing over 700 comments on our Facebook page, and more elsewhere?

This episode has revealed how urgent the underlying issues are. Why are so many men so deeply attached to the idea that National Service should involve singing about raping women? Why do they find it so threatening that women have raised an objection to this, and that a public authority has taken that seriously? What other common practices and assumptions contribute to a hostile and degrading environment for women, in the military and elsewhere? And most importantly, what else can you and I do about it?

Don’t judge women’s worth on physical beauty

By Sumedha Jalote, Communications Executive, AWARE

The recent charges against two doctors involved in the death of a liposuction patient highlight the health risks of aesthetic surgery (“First liposuction death: Docs and clinic charged”; last Thursday).

With the growing popularity of cosmetic and weight loss treatments, we question the social attitudes that fuel the demand for such procedures despite their inherent risks.

Beauty is a booming industry, worth an estimated $200 million in 2008. It is boosted by a media culture that gives women (and men) no respite from burdensome expectations of beauty.

From advertisements in print and public spaces to the constant dissection of the appearances of public figures, women are continually told to prioritise looking “attractive” – a standard often defined by impossible criteria.

A woman’s worth is frequently judged based on physical appearance, overshadowing her work or personality.

Photoshopped images, movies and television shape the standards set for all women, but seldom depict an average woman accurately. This has strong repercussions for women’s health.

Around the world, a large number of women and girls are unhappy with their bodies, which they compare with airbrushed images.

Many experience eating disorders and psychological difficulties. Last year, the number of anorexia cases received by Singapore General Hospital crossed 120, compared with 34 in 2003.

People turn to weight loss pills, slimming treatments and aesthetic surgery to achieve the “ideal look”. The number of teenagers going for plastic surgery in Singapore has increased by 30 per cent over five years since 2006.

Such treatments are of dubious effectiveness and are sometimes performed in unsafe conditions. Few cases result in as dramatic a consequence as death, but there is a significant toll on women and girls in terms of time, money and emotional energy.

For the physical and mental well-being of all, society must stop insisting that women’s worth is based on matching these arbitrary and extreme standards.

We can start early. The Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) offers body image and media literacy training, teaching students to critically analyse the images that are sold to them.

Parents and schools can look out for and address eating disorders and bullying.

And all of us must show more kindness – to recognise all women as full, complex human beings who look fine just as they are, and have so much more than beauty to offer.

This letter was first published in the Straits Times Forum on 18 November 2013.

The right of every woman to choose what to wear

By Sahar Pirzada, Training Institute Executive, and Jolene Tan, Programmes and Communications Senior Manager, AWARE

Recent discussions about whether Muslim women should be allowed to wear headscarves at work have focused on the voices of political and community leaders, as well as the needs of “communities” and the importance of “social harmony”. Perhaps it is time to shift our attention. The most crucial person to listen to on the question of whether a Muslim woman should wear a headscarf is the woman herself.

Singapore is a multi-cultural society which values freedom of religious worship. Whether and how to worship – and how to express that worship – is not for the state to decide, or for any non-state group to press onto their neighbours. Rather, it is to be privately determined by every individual’s conscience.

Globally, there is a troubling history of state coercion in connection with the headscarf, for instance with Iran mandating it for all women and France banning it in some contexts. Non-state groups have also interfered with women’s religious freedom and rights over their own bodies. This can take seemingly opposing forms: the racists in Europe physically assaulting hijabis in public, and abusive families intimidating unwilling daughters into donning the scarf, are two sides of the same coin.

AWARE supports the right of every woman to choose what she wears. Women must enjoy equal access to work regardless of their sartorial choices. It is important that women do not face discrimination when their dress indicates their belonging to a particular religion or is associated with a particular ethnic group, especially when that ethnic group is a minority that feels marginalised. They should not have to hide their beliefs or group membership to participate in public life.

At the same time, the meaning and importance of the headscarf or any symbol of faith must be decided by every woman for herself, as a matter of individual religious conviction. A Muslim woman who does not wear a headscarf should not be attacked as less of a true member of her faith or community than one who does. Only with pluralism can religious freedom be equally enjoyed by all.

AWARE’s staff, members and volunteers include many Muslim women (including a writer of this letter). Some wear headscarves, some do not, and some have changed their minds on the issue more than once. We celebrate their right to change their minds. Whatever their decisions about their bodies and dress, they deserve respect and inclusion from all.

An edited version of this letter was published here in TODAY on 12 November 2013.

Please also read this letter published in TODAY on this issue.

Roundtable: Sex Trafficking in Singapore

On 15 November, this month’s roundtable brings to you a screening of the documentary, ‘Forest Brothel’, followed by a discussion on sex trafficking and sex work in Singapore with the film maker, Hani Mohamed, and Project X Programme Coordinator, Vanessa Ho.

Premiered at the ‘Women in the Community: Participative Leadership’ conference in 2012 at Singapore Management University, ‘Forest Brothel: Human Trafficking in a Borderless World’ captures the tragedy of sex slavery and human trafficking.

Project X is an advocacy group for sex workers’ rights in Singapore. The organisation believes that sex work is work, and sex workers’ rights are human rights. Project X provides social and legal support to sex workers, and seeks to end all verbal, physical, emotional, and financial violence against sex workers in Singapore.

Event details:
Date: 15 November
Time: 7:00pm (don’t be late, we will start on the dot!)
Location: AWARE Centre, 5 Dover Crescent, #01-22

Click here to register.

Speakers’ bios:

Hani Mohamed was elected President of ONE (SINGAPORE) in March 2013. She has produced two films: ‘Innocence’, a short film about child trafficking and prostitution in Southeast Asia and ‘Forest Brothel’. She is an Adjunct Lecturer in Media and Mass Communications, and has taught at the Marketing Institute of Singapore, Monash University, and Murdoch University.

Vanessa Ho has been the full-time programme coordinator of Project X since 2011. She believes that if people can speak about sex, gender and sexuality in open and non-judgemental ways, society will become a safe place for everyone. In other words, Vanessa believes that Sex is the Revolution. She is also part of the organising team of SlutWalk Singapore, a movement against victim blaming and slut-shaming.

PLEASE NOTE: This is a closed-door event. Participants must register with their contact details before the event. Registration at the gate will not be accepted.

More than bookkeeping – Budget advocacy for CSOs

On 20-24 October 2013, AWARE’s Research and Advocacy (R&A) Coordinator, along with two volunteers from AWARE’s committee on formulating recommendations for Budget 2014, attended a Budget Analysis and Monitoring workshop for South East Asian Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in Jakarta.

The five-day workshop was organised by a Jakarta-based budget advocacy non-profit, SeknasFitra, in collaboration with the International Budget Partnership (IBP) and sponsored by The Ford Foundation. CSOs from Singapore were represented by the AWARE team and the Director for the Centre for Research on Islamic and Malay Affairs (RIMA). We were joined by colleagues from Myanmar, Vietnam and Cambodia.

As one of the most important economic policy tools, the nation’s budget allocations determine how policies meet society’s varied needs, from healthcare and education access to reducing income inequality. The budget thus has a significant impact on vulnerable groups such as older people, children, poor people and disabled people. As a key link between communities and policymakers, CSOs play a critical role by monitoring and engaging in the national budget process. By foregrounding the needs and concerns of the communities they work with, CSOs help members of these communities gain representation in the budget process.

The workshop provided a detailed overview of the general Budget Cycle, including the key stages of the budget process, the relevant stakeholders involved at every stage, and the key budget documents that are produced. Participants were shown a ‘Best Practices’ model for the Budget Cycle and given the opportunity to draw comparisons to their own country’s national budget, as well as to identify the key processes and timeline for the implementation of budget programmes.

The workshop also outlined various ways that CSOs can get involved in the budget process. There are several budget analysis tools CSOs can use, such as conducting a socioeconomic analysis of the budget to understand the impact of new programmes and policies, organising discussions with community representatives, and conducting surveys with community members.

Participants examined case studies from Tanzania, India, Mexico, and Argentina. In each of these countries, CSOs have attempted to resolve misallocation of public funds through budget advocacy, using tools to track and monitor public expenditure and engaging key stakeholders such as local government leaders, the media, and grassroots organisations.

At AWARE, we will strongly consider using some of these methods to offer recommendations for forthcoming Budgets. We hope to engage more with community stakeholders through focus group discussions and to partner with other CSOs in Singapore to better understand how current policies and programmes have been meeting needs, while identifying areas which require more attention. This type of outreach and research will enable us to better formulate a set of budget recommendations that allows for a more inclusive and equal society.

Please click here to see AWARE’s recommendations for the Singapore Budget 2013.

WOMEN'S HELPLINE

1800 777 5555

SEXUAL ASSAULT CARE CENTRE

6779 0282

General enquiries

6779 7137

MENU

Year: 2013