Year: 2013

We Can! Singapore brings you ‘Just A Bad Day’

shadowThey are everyday people with ordinary lives. You’ve seen them. They’re your neighbours, your colleagues, your mahjong kakis. Their problems are nothing new. But now, they’re asking you to step in.

Three women are faced with different threats – at home, in the office, and at a party. When familiar environments turn hostile and seemingly harmless situations escalate, what choices are they left with?

This forum theatre piece was created by a team of volunteers from all walks of life in Singapore, who came forward to share their stories of violence, oppression and vulnerability.  In a powerful workshop led by theatre practitioner Li Xie, the volunteers molded compelling characters who mirrored their struggles, their society. Your society.

‘Just A Bad Day’ promises to be a stimulating encounter. Through this intimate performance, we hope to provoke thought and discussion on the less tangible forms of violence against women that continue to be a reality in Singapore.

Come and listen to these experiences, share your perspectives and reconsider your assumptions about gender roles, norms and violence against women. And maybe you will discover possibilities – areas you where you can make change in your own life.

shadow 3EVENT DETAILS:

Title: Just A Bad Day

Date: 22nd June

Time: 3pm (matinee) and 8pm (click on the showtimes to purchase your tickets)

Venue: The Substation Theatre, 45 Armenian Street, Singapore 179936

Ticket Price: $5 (all proceeds will go towards the We Can! End All Violence Against Women Campaign)

Presented by We Can! Singapore, produced by Drama Box.

Directed by: Li Xie

Devised by: Rachel Chung, Navin Elankovan, Fairuz Atiqah, Sherlin Giri, Jasmine Hu, Eqtaffaq Hussain, Joanna Lee, Kirubaashini Kanesan, Lim Wei Klinsmann, Wendy Low, Raksha Mahtani, Mark Ng, Yanchun Ong, Elena Siew, Emmanuel Soo, Jillian Tan, Keith Tan, Lupin Tan Yong Kang, Rita Teo, Ting Wei Chang, Erina Wong & Quen Wong.

Supported by: The Substation and the family of Raj Verma.

Click here to purchase tickets for the matinee show.

Click here to purchase tickets for the evening show.

About Forum Theatre

The forum theatre format calls for active participation and problem-solving from the audience. It aims to show people how they can change their world. Beyond voicing their opinions, audience members are invited on stage to participate within the world of the play!

 For more information, write to sahar@aware.org.sg.

Happy mothers are willing mothers!

By James Wong, Shimona Leong, Jolene Tan and Vivienne Wee

No one should be manipulated into becoming a parent through misinformation and fear. On this and every Mother’s Day, let us celebrate women’s right to be mothers by choice.

mother and child 2On Mother’s Day, we celebrate those who have chosen to be mothers and enjoy motherhood. To have or not to have children – that is a right that everyone should have. Exercising this right is particularly important for women as they are the ones who become pregnant and give birth, with consequences for their health and future.

In 1994, Singapore and 178 other governments adopted the Programme of Action that resulted from the International Conference on Population and Development. As stated in that Programme of Action, implicit in the freedom to decide if, when and how often to have children is “the right of men and women to be informed and to have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of family planning of their choice.”

Both the World Health Organisation and the United Nations cite information accessibility as a key component of the right to health. We can make the right decisions for ourselves only if we have accurate information about our bodies and our health. Yet we encounter the dissemination of harmful myths and inaccurate information by some groups that purport to provide support for pregnant women. This results in people making major decisions for their bodies and their lives, based on wrong information.

A Straits Times article (19 March 2013) recently mentioned several services that supposedly assist those facing unwanted pregnancies. It is disconcerting that the website of one of these services claims, without qualifiers, that abortion is not safe and that the use of birth control is like eating junk food.

mother childAWARE’s concern deepened when several callers who sought the advice of this service informed us of the wrongful information they had received when they called this hotline. They were told by the service that abortion is always medically invasive. There was no mention of non-invasive methods, such as oral medication or injections.

Another inaccuracy conveyed to callers was that abortion makes it difficult for women to get pregnant in the future. In fact, based on analysis of 11,814 pregnancies in women with previous abortions, a 2007 study in The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that a medical abortion (i.e. abortion by means of medication) causes no adverse health effects on subsequent pregnancies.

The service also claims, wrongly, that pregnancy is risk-free. This contradicts a 2012 study published in Obstetrics and Gynecology that found that legally induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth, with the risk of death associated with childbirth approximately 14 times higher than than with abortion.

The callers to this hotline were then warned that abortion always leads to depression. This has been disproved by a large-scale 2011 Danish study of 365,550 teenagers and women, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, which shows that having an abortion does not increase the risk of mental health problems.

One caller was told that teenage parents can still achieve their personal goals while raising a child without support from their family and partner. There was no mention of the significant personal sacrifices that teenage parents often make in the form of truncated education, lost career opportunities, pervasive discrimination, social stigma and reduced psychological well-being, especially when they do not have the necessary support and resources for childcare.

Mother and Child II Diana Ong (b.1940 Chinese-American) Computer graphicsIs such misinformation the result of ignorance? Or is it motivated by an agenda that may be neither transparent nor aligned with the values or interests of the women who seek the help of such services? If it is the latter, what would be the intended effect of such misinformation? Is it to scare women into becoming mothers?

Unwanted pregnancies do not just happen to teenagers. They also happen to those who are married, to those who already have children, and to those who are victims of sexual violence. All who find themselves in this position must have access to accurate information about their choices so that they can make the best decision for themselves.

Happy mothers are willing mothers. No one should be manipulated into becoming a parent through misinformation and fear. On this and every Mother’s Day, let us celebrate women’s right to be mothers by choice.

James Wong, Shimona Leong and Jolene Tan are volunteers at AWARE. Vivienne Wee is the Research and Advocacy Director at AWARE.

Mums aren’t super, they’re just ordinary

By Teo You Yenn

The expectations, presumptions, and institutionalised norms for mothers to be special and unique are irrational, unjust and harmful to society.

no-more-supermomMothers are not special.

They do not have superhuman powers to create more hours in a day. They cannot free themselves of societal constraints to act as independent saviours. They do not raise children in social vacuums.

Pop culture and public policies conspire to frame mothers as extraordinary, as people — indeed, women — who possess special qualities such that they can be relied on to do things other people are not expected to.

The focus in public policy, for example, is on mothers as dominant players in children’s lives. There are lengthy maternity leave, versus insignificant paternity leave, and a range of tax reliefs only for working mothers. These compel us to think of and experience the caregiving of children as something that mothers are uniquely positioned to do.

caregiverMen who want to and do play roles as caregivers are unsupported and unrecognised; women as grandmothers, teachers, and paid caregivers are symbolically relegated to being secondary and inferior substitutes.

The expectations, presumptions, and institutionalised norms for mothers to be special and unique are irrational, unjust and harmful to society.

They create undue limitations on women as mothers, while depriving men as fathers both symbolic and material access to be genuine caregivers to children. They send the message to our youth — both young women and men — that the only sort of family life they can expect is one where they have to suppress some aspect of their varied capabilities and aspirations to fit into narrow gendered boxes. They obscure various differences that exist between women as mothers — socioeconomic circumstances and marital status, for example — and therefore their varying advantages and struggles in relation to the ideal of “supermoms”.

Finally, in framing mothers as ideal caregivers, they undercut the important roles played by various non-parent adults — teachers, babysitters, grandparents — in children’s lives.

Focus on kids’ needs, not mums’ roles

caregiver 2It is entirely within the realm of possibility to alter public policy orientations in ways that would disrupt these unhealthy dynamics. The first step is for policy to focus broadly on children’s needs rather than narrowly on mothers’ roles.

The economist Nancy Folbre has argued compellingly for viewing children as public goods. Whether or not we have children and however we feel individually about wanting them, Professor Folbre points out, children grow up to become participating members of society. Their health, knowledge, and civic orientations invariably shape the society we grow old in.

As such, it is our collective interest and shared responsibility to enable children’s care and growth. Mothers should not be the only ones with either the responsibility or privilege to raise children. Instead, a whole range of adults — fathers, teachers, grandparents, babysitters — should be acknowledged and supported as legitimate and important caregivers.

In countries such as Sweden and Norway, the implementation of this child-centred approach has been in the form of publicly-funded leave for parents regardless of gender and marital status. There is also publicly-funded support for a range of institutional and home-based care for children regardless of their parents’ socioeconomic and employment status.

The outcome has been more egalitarian divisions of labour within the home; a greater range of life paths and arrangements around work and family; more equality of opportunity among children and less pronounced societal inequality; and greater respect for domestic, care and pedagogical labour. The universality of support also breeds a stronger sense of citizens as having collective responsibilities and obligations in the well-being of their shared future. As it turns out, when support for caregiving extends beyond the narrow lens of mothers as being and doing everything, everyone can lead better lives.

grandparentsIn Singapore, we as a society know that mothers have limited capacities like everyone else in dealing with the various demands and challenges in everyday life. Increasingly, we also appear to know that not all mothers have the same resources and advantages to fulfil children’s needs.

Public policy needs to catch up with these sentiments.

This Mother’s Day, let us celebrate motherhood by recognising the ordinariness of mothers. We can change our social conditions such that mothers do not have to be super in order to be good.

Teo You Yenn is an AWARE Board Member, Assistant Professor of Sociology at the Nanyang Technological University, and author of the book Neoliberal Morality in Singapore: How family policies make state and society. This article was first published in Today on 6 May 2013. Read the published version here.

A safe workplace is free of sexual harassment

By Intan Wirayadi, Corinna Lim and Vivienne Wee 

To eliminate WSH, all stakeholders must be engaged. Companies should adopt zero tolerance to WSH and instate policies, procedures and training for staff to deal with this. AWARE has provided training to 36 companies, at their request, on how to handle such incidents and to promote awareness of WSH to their employees.

workplace safetyThe International Labour Organisation (ILO) has designated 28 April 2013 as World Day for Safety and Health at Work. The ILO has identified workplace sexual harassment (WSH) as a cause for a “hostile working environment in which the conduct creates conditions that are intimidating or humiliating for the victim”, with negative impacts on the economy and society.

In 2008, AWARE conducted a survey to ascertain whether sexual harassment is an issue in Singapore’s workplaces. Five hundred individuals and 92 companies participated in the survey. The results showed that 54.4% of the 500 respondents had experienced some form of workplace sexual harassment; 25% knew of others who had experienced this; 30% of those who had been harassed had been harassed several times; 12% of those who were harassed received threats of termination if they did not yield to the harassers. 79% of victims were female, 21% were male.

It is apparent from these figures that WSH is a problem in Singapore and measures are required to prevent it and protect employees’ well-being.

In November 2012, AWARE released a second WSH Report focusing on the inadequacies of current laws to deal with this problem. For example, criminal proceedings may not be the best course of action as while they might punish the perpetrator, they do not prevent or stop WSH. They also do not provide any compensation to the victims for their mental or physical sufferings. It is therefore important to institute a broad range of civil remedies and sanctions that address workplace sexual harassment.

WSH victims currently have few options for recourse as most companies in Singapore, including government bodies, do not have substantial internal policies dealing with WSH.  Further, there is no law or regulation that requires companies to adopt effective WSH policies. Victims of WSH thus silently suffer the consequences of the crime perpetrated on them with impunity, and perpetrators most often do not suffer any consequences from their wrongful actions.

Sexual-harassmentWSH survivors suffer negative health consequences and financial burdens because of the lack of an adequate legal framework in Singapore to deal with WSH effectively, compounded by social norms that prevent them from seeking justice. Female WSH survivors are often blamed by society for ‘asking for it’, while male WSH survivors may be reluctant to speak out because social conventions reject the idea that men can be victims of sexual harassment.

WSH survivors need sufficient support from their employer and the state. Data from many countries indicate that WSH hurts the economy substantially. For example, a survey of the US Merit Systems Protection Board showed that between 1992 and 1994, it cost the US government approximately USD 327 million to deal with WSH, including costs of sick leave, job turnover, and loss in productivity. A study should be conducted in Singapore to document the direct and indirect costs of WSH on individuals, families, companies and the Singapore economy as a whole.

To eliminate WSH, all stakeholders must be engaged. Companies should adopt zero tolerance to WSH and instate policies, procedures and training for staff to deal with this. AWARE has provided training to 36 companies, at their request, on how to handle such incidents and to promote awareness of WSH to their employees.

SHOUT logoAlthough sexual harassment is under-reported worldwide, the situation is worse in Singapore, due to the lack of adequate legislation or corporate policies against it. S.H.OUT (Sexual Harassment Out) is AWARE’s campaign to make workplace sexual harassment more visible, with the long-term aim of getting rid of it altogether.

As a result of this campaign, to date, nine companies have declared zero tolerance of WSH, and 1383 people have signed AWARE’s petition calling on the Singapore Government to put in place effective anti-sexual harassment legislation and procedures to stop WSH, in line with our international obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The Inter-Ministry Committee on CEDAW, the Office for Women’s Development and the Ministry of Manpower have said that they will look into possibilities for progress in this and other areas.

Workplace sexual harassment is a problem not just for unfortunate victims but for all Singaporeans. A safe workplace is indispensable to employees’ well-being, enabling them to contribute to a viable and sustainable Singapore economy. The promotion of safety and health at work must include comprehensive measures to prevent sexual harassment, including the establishment of an administrative body with resources and competence to handle complaints and to promote application of the law against sexual harassment.

This World Day for Safety and Health at Work, we call upon Singapore state and society to take WSH seriously so that we can build inclusive workplaces for all.

Intan Wirayadi is a member of AWARE’s Workplace Sexual Harassment Sub Committee. Corinna Lim is the Executive Director of AWARE and Vivienne Wee is the Research & Advocacy Director at AWARE. This article was first published in Today on 29 April 2013. Read the published version here.

Annual General Meeting on 1st June

agmThe AWARE Annual General Meeting (AGM) this year will be held on June 1, Saturday, at 2pm at the AWARE Centre.

Mark the date now in your calendar and keep the afternoon free. Besides finding out more about AWARE’s activities in 2012, this will also be a great chance to  catch up with old friends and make new ones.

A formal Notice about the AGM will be issues to members at least three weeks before the AGM. If you have not renewed your membership yet, please renew your membership now by logging in using the sidebar on the right.

No new membership applications will be accepted from May 11 to June 1. We will resume accepting applications on June 2, after the AGM. Please note that this does not apply to membership renewals. Renewals will still be accepted in this period.

For full details, please check the Notice that you will receive by email or post.

To confirm your attendance at the AGM, please RSVP here.

If you have any questions about the AGM, please write to aware@aware.org.sg.

We look forward to seeing you at the AGM.

EVENT DETAILS

Date: June 1, 2013

Time: 2pm

Place: AWARE Centre

THIS EVENT IS OPEN TO MEMBERS ONLY.

Roundtable: Singaporean Views on Elective Egg Freezing

cryopreservationFreezing oocytes, or cyropreservation, is a process which has been used in various parts of the world to preserve a woman’s fertility. The process involves In-Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) and the cooling of eggs to sub-zero temperatures (vitrification). In Singapore, only married women under the age of 45 can undergo IVF treatment. Single women in Singapore are not allowed to undergo IVF treatment unless medically necessitated in order to preserve fertility (e.g. in cases of cancer).

At this roundtable, Bioethics Legal Group for Reproductive Issues in Singapore (BELRIS) will discuss its findings from two surveys conducted from 2012 to 2013. The findings were published in the ‘Report – Survey Conducted to Evaluate the Position on Elective Oocyte Freezing in Singapore’. It will reveal the positions of Singaporeans, and particularly, Singaporean women’s views on elective oocyte freezing in Singapore. The Report is suggestive of a positive attitude towards elective egg freezing and provides a snapshot of current Singaporean attitudes in the context of recent media coverage on the issue of reproduction in Singapore.

EVENT DETAILS

Date: Thursday, 16th May 2013

Time: 7.30pm

Venue: AWARE Centre, Block 5 Dover Crescent #01-22 S’pore (130005)

About the speaker:

Hapreet K. Bedi, is Executive Director of BELRIS, an independent, non-profit organization that aims to provide measured, well-balanced research, dialogue and opinion on various reproductive technologies and treatments in Singapore. She is a Singaporean with a Masters in Medical Law (with Merit) from the University of Glasgow, Scotland, U.K., and a Juris Doctorate from Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, U.S.A. She also has achieved her Bachelor of Arts, with Majors in Economics and International Relations, graduating Magna Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Sweet Briar College, Virginia, U.S.A.

To register for this event, please click here.

Don’t force parenthood by denying abortion

by Ranjana Raghunathan, Jolene Tan and Vivienne Wee

The impact of pregnancy and childbirth is immense – everyone has the right to decide on such matters for oneself. The denial of abortion and post-abortion services is tantamount to an act of violence, and has been criticised by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, among others.

We are disturbed that the recent debate on abortion access implies that people may be forced to become parents against their will. In a recent commentary (Today 2 April 2013), Tan Seow Hon moralises that with less abortion access “some may have to learn the hard way but it is probable that many would organise their sexual relationships differently”. This suggests, without evidence, that many who seek abortions have deliberately chosen not to use contraception. This is deeply implausible. Abortion is more invasive and risky than preventative contraception – why would someone with adequate information choose it over condoms, a pill or an IUD?

birth-control-pillsIn reality, the failure lies in Singapore’s sex education. A judgmental and biased focus on abstinence hurts people’s ability to make informed choices about contraception and reproductive health. When Ms Tan says people have to “learn the hard way”, is she implying that being forced into parenthood is a “lesson”?  The heavy consequences faced by unwanted children and unwilling parents cannot be overlooked in a bid to chastise people’s sexual and reproductive decisions. We should be talking about increasing awareness and access to contraception, not using restricted abortion access as a scare tactic.

Ms Tan ignores the possibility of pregnancies resulting from rape, failed contraception or women’s lack of power to demand contraception during sex. She also dismisses the danger of backstreet abortions. A 2007 global study of abortion by the World Health Organisation (WHO) shows that regardless of whether the law is restrictive or liberal, most women decide to terminate an unplanned pregnancy, but where it is illegal, it is likely to be performed by poorly trained providers under unsafe conditions, and can be fatal for the woman. The WHO found that the best way to reduce abortion rates was not to make abortion illegal but to make contraception more accessible.

Ms Tan also dismisses the danger of backstreet abortions. A 2007 global study of abortion by the World Health Organisation (WHO) shows that regardless of whether the law is restrictive or liberal, most women decide to terminate an unplanned pregnancy. However, the legal status of abortion greatly affects the dangers involved: where abortion is legal, it will be provided in a safe manner; where it is illegal, it is likely to be performed by poorly trained providers under unsafe conditions, and can be fatal for the woman. The WHO found that the best way to reduce abortion rates was not to make abortion illegal but to make contraception more accessible.

abortion rightsMs Tan suggests that because abortion access was expanded decades ago to curb population explosion, it is no longer justified today. This implies that the state rightfully has control of our reproductive systems for demographic goals, such as population control or ‘nation-building’. This denies our autonomy over our own bodies. The impact of pregnancy and childbirth is immense – everyone has the right to decide on such matters for oneself. The denial of abortion and post-abortion services is tantamount to an act of violence, and has been criticised by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, among others.

Ms Tan blames women for seeking abortions. Her ill-informed condemnation ignores the medical fact that there is extremely low foetal viability in the early stages of pregnancy, falsely projecting human identity on a blastocyst, embryo or foetus. This controlling rhetoric presents women with only two choices – to be coerced into motherhood against their wish or to accept the stigma of supposed ‘murder’.

medical confidentialityA similarly blinkered view is taken by Focus on the Family in its recent suggestion that parental consent should be required for those under 21 seeking abortions (Today 16 April 2013). This ignores the likelihood that girls under 21 may be at increased risk of family violence if their unwanted pregnancies were disclosed to their parents without their consent. Nor does it consider that some minors may be pregnant as a result of sexual abuse by a family member. Everyone is entitled to medical privacy and can choose to whom they wish to make disclosures.

While there is an important need to teach contraception, support single mothers and liberalise adoption, these are not alternatives to abortion access.

Decisions to abort pregnancies are not made lightly. Individuals consider relevant factors such as physical and mental health, childcare responsibility, its disproportionate burden on women, the stresses and stigma of single parenthood, economic difficulties, and life stage choices. Despite recent improvements, child rearing is still largely women’s responsibility. Reproductive autonomy is particularly important for women, as childbirth has long-term consequences for them.

Ultimately, women themselves must be the ones to decide whether to abort a pregnancy or to bring it to term, based on full access to neutrally presented factual information. Access to legal abortion allows every woman the safe option of choosing what is best for her – parenthood, abortion or adoption.

Ranjana Raghunathan and Jolene Tan are volunteers at AWARE, Vivienne Wee is the Research and Advocacy Director at AWARE and Kokila Annamalai is the Communications Executive at AWARE. A shorter version of this article was first published in Today Online on 20 April 2013. Read the published version here.

Abortion counselling: Criteria might change

AWARE is encouraged by the recent announcement that Parliament is reviewing the existing criteria for pre-abortion counselling, which denies some categories of women access to proper medical advice and is starkly discriminatory.

Counselling and SupportThe recent debate on ‘Abortion vs Adoption’ was first triggered by an article in The Straits Times, ‘From Abortion to Adoption’ (19 March 2013), which brought to light various aspects of abortion policy that concerned citizens and civil society groups. Namely, the exclusion of certain categories of women from pre-abortion counselling, troubled AWARE and Human Rights group MARUAH, who wrote letters to the Straits Times Forum questioning the motivations behind this discrimination and decrying the institutionalisation of unequal access to healthcare. The Straits Times article stated:

“There is mandatory pre-abortion counselling if the women are Singapore citizens or permanent residents; have passed the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE); have at least some secondary education, and have fewer than three children.

There is no counselling for foreigners, rape victims or Singaporeans with three or more children, and those who have not passed the PSLE. If they seek an abortion, they get it right away.”

The issue has been getting a lot of attention, and spurred online journalists and members of the public to respond with their views. One letter, by Dr. John Hui Keem Peng (20 March 2013), called out the Home Ownership Plus Education Scheme (HOPE), which requires low-income families to stop at two children to qualify for financial assistance. A well-articulated piece by Kirsten Han (30 March 2013) compared the HOPE scheme to the exclusionary criteria for pre-abortion counselling, claiming that:

“Such policies reek of eugenicist logic, indicating that while Singapore’s government exhorts its citizens to get hitched and have babies, they are really only interested in babies from specific demographics.”

On 8 April 2013, Workers’ Party MP Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked Minister of Health Mr Gan Kim Yong to explain the criteria for pre-abortion counselling, and the Minister responded that the criteria is outdated and should be reviewed. He furthered added that Ministry had commenced a review of this in early March this year and will consult the public in due course.

AWARE hopes that the review of abortion policy will also ensure that pre-abortion counselling is standardised and regulated by the state to be patient-centred and neutral, whether in public or private practice. We call for healthcare decisions to be made by patients (in consultation with medical advisers) on the basis of their individual needs and aspirations, not judgments about their social status. All people should have equal access to patient-centred healthcare, including abortion services.

The Parliamentary question raised by MP Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, as found on the Ministry of Health website, is below:

8 April 2013

Question No. 476

Name of Person: Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song

Question

To ask the Minister for Health why women who have not passed the PSLE, have no secondary education, have three or more children, or are foreigners, are not required to undergo pre-abortion counselling by a trained abortion counsellor before undergoing an abortion.

Answer

Mandatory pre-abortion and post-abortion counselling was introduced in 1987 to provide information and support to women intending to undergo abortion.  The criteria reflected the main concern then.

Some of the criteria are no longer relevant and should be reviewed.  The Ministry had commenced a review of this in early March this year, and will consult the public in due course.

Roundtable Discussion: Violence Against Women

violence against womenLast year, AWARE commissioned a group of final year Ngee Ann Polytechnic students to conduct a survey on public attitudes towards violence against women.

This roundtable discussion will highlight the survey findings and recommendations on the issue.

Some of the issues that will be raised in the course of the discussion are:

  1. Does violence extend beyond the physical?
  2. Why does society tolerate violence?
  3. How do we support the victim?

The survey was conducted as part of the We Can! Singapore Campaign. This campaign aims to change public perceptions and attitudes that enable violence against women. We Can! aims to generate a mass social movement through empowering individuals to inspire person-to-person change as well as building community alliances to reduce public acceptance of violence against women.

EVENT DETAILS

Date: Wednesday, 24th April 2013

Time: 7.30pm

Venue: AWARE Centre, Block 5 Dover Crescent #01-22 S’pore (130005)

To register, please click here.