2014 Archives

Say ‘no’ to online sexist speech

Today is Safer Internet Day. While the Government is planning new legislation this year to address harassment, it is essential to remember that online harassment often specifically targets women and girls.

Women and girls often receive sexist messages online. These range from threats of rape and violence to clearly unwanted sexual propositions and demeaning remarks based on gender stereotypes. Simple disagreements can lead to graphic death threats.

This abuse intensifies whenever issues relating to gender and sex discrimination are discussed.

In November last year, an Aware supporter was harassed online for days for publicly opposing song lyrics celebrating rape in military marching song Purple Light. The perpetrator attempted to dig up information on her hobbies and personal relationships, as well as drag her employer into the fray. One Facebook user even suggested that Aware staff “deserved to be raped and tortured”.

Online spaces intended for political discussion often feature graphic and demeaning dissections of the body parts and physical appearances of prominent women, and sex acts that commenters imagine performing on them. This harassment can cause severe stress and psychological harm. Even if the thicker-skinned can tough it out, they should not have to.

The sheer volume of such speech creates an environment where all women and girls, even those not directly targeted, can never be sure that their actions and perspectives are assessed and taken seriously on their own merits, without accompanying denigration based on gender.

This has damaging implications for gender equality, as the online world becomes increasingly important both in our personal and professional lives and as a location of influential social and political discussion.

We need a strong community response to truly address this problem. Website, social media and forum moderators must not close their eyes to abuse. Instead, they should vigilantly remove harassing material, as well as warn or even ban users who turn to personal or violent attacks and denigration.

All participants in online discussions should let the perpetrators know that sexist speech will not be tolerated. Only then can women and girls participate in the Internet on an equal footing with men and boys – to the benefit of all.

By Sumedha Jalote, Communications Executive, Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware)

This letter was first published in the Straits Times Forum on 11 February 2014.

Rethinking fundamental approaches to budget making

On 29 January, AWARE submitted its fourth annual set of recommendations for the national budget through the public consultation portal REACH. This year we question some of the fundamental approaches that underlie budget making and call for the budget process to be more transparent and inclusive, so that citizens and civil society organisations can have a greater stake in an inclusive nation. Our recommendations have also been sent to Members and Nominated Members of Parliament.

This year, our nine recommendations cover five key areas:

Fundamental approaches to the Budget
Income inequality and poverty
Caregiving
Healthcare
The Budget Process

Singapore needs to debate our fundamental approaches to budget making

AWARE questions some of the fundamental approaches that underlie current budget making so that the Government, the citizenry and the corporate sector can, in tripartite alliance, arrive at truly inclusive solutions. For example, we ask: Is social spending too low in Singapore? Should children be advantaged or disadvantaged based on their parents’ choices in employment or marriage? Do policies require too much “self-reliance” from individuals in contexts where problems cannot be effectively addressed at the individual level? Should means-testing take the income of all family members into account, rather than the income of the individual concerned? These questions need careful consideration and open discussion.

More needs to be done to tackle income inequality and poverty

Income inequality in Singapore is growing. Even after government transfers and taxes, our Gini coefficient rose from 0.448 in 2011 to 0.452 in 2012. More effective measures must be taken to lower the Gini coefficient below 0.4, which is the international alert line for the inequality threshold.

Social protection spending in Singapore is far below what it should be for a high-income country. According to the Asian Development Bank (2013), Singapore’s Social Protection Index (SPI – a simple indicator assessing social protection programmes) is a mere 0.169, with social protection spending taking up only 3.5% of GDP. For comparison, the Republic of Korea, with per capita GDP less than half that of Singapore, has an SPI of 0.2, with 7.9% of GDP allocated to social protection spending. This places vulnerable groups in Singapore at severe financial risk, especially the elderly, women who drop out of the workforce, and disabled persons .

A yearly, regular and reliable poverty measurement should be produced to enable citizens to track the extent to which poverty is reduced by various “tailored schemes”. There should be transparent evaluation of whether the Multiple Lines of Assistance^{^[1]} in the Ministry of Social and Family Development effectively address the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable.

Caregiving must be valued and caregivers protected

Rapidly changing family forms and social structures require recognition in public policy if they are not to leave caregivers vulnerable. Policies that support children should be delinked from those supporting caregivers. No child should be penalised for parents’ personal choices in employment or marriage.

We would also like to see the provision of caregiving services as a public good, with significant investments in childcare and eldercare as publicly funded services.

Universal healthcare must be a priority

For many years, healthcare policy has treated healthcare as a financial issue, with the responsibility to afford healthcare wholly resting on the patients and her/his family. We hope that with the ‘Healthcare 2020 Masterplan’ the limitations of this policy are becoming visible.

Singaporeans currently pay 75% out-of-pocket for healthcare expenditure. This should be lowered significantly to ease the burden on those unable to finance their healthcare. Key questions about the future of the healthcare system must be discussed with stakeholders openly and transparently.

A more transparent Budget process means better feedback from the public

We call strongly for the Budget process to be more transparent and inclusive. Public consultation on the Budget through REACH must be continuous to allow citizens and civil society organisations to contribute effectively at all stages. We ask the Ministry of Finance to publish key budget documents in accordance with international best practice, including a pre-budget statement, detailed breakdown of the budget for the financial year, in-year reports, mid-year review, and an annual report detailing the spending of individual ministries. Data, disaggregated by gender, age, ethnicity and income, should be made available to all citizens.

Read the full text of AWARE’s Budget 2014 Recommendations here. The budget recommendations were also covered in the Business Times and the Online Citizen.

AWARE has made recommendations to Singapore’s National Budgets since 2011, advocating for equitable allocation of resources to meet the needs of vulnerable groups. Our recommendations for Budget 2013 are here.

[1] Multiple lines of assistance, Ministry of Social and Family Development http://app.msf.gov.sg/Portals/0/Chart%20of%20Government%20Schemes.pdf

Inclusive society must promote health of all

By Jolene Tan

The Health Promotion Board (HPB) has a simple mandate: “to build a nation of healthy people”. As a government agency, its responsibility is to promote the physical and mental health of all members of society equally, regardless of sexual orientation.

The publication of factual, non-judgmental information about homosexuality and bisexuality falls squarely within this mission. The World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights identify access to health-related information, including sexual health, as a crucial part of access to health care.

Unless the information available reflects the reality of human diversity, many will be excluded from a better understanding of themselves and those close to them, and consequently from the opportunity to make informed decisions about their own health.

The recent statements on sexuality that have attracted so much attention are unambiguously supported by longstanding medical and scientific consensus. The WHO explicitly names “recognising and respecting sexual diversity” as one of a few “key principles” for policymakers seeking to promote sexual health.

Experts with an evidence-based approach widely agree that homosexuality and bisexuality are not mental illnesses.

Over 20 years ago, the WHO, after reviewing the evidence, removed homosexuality from the International Classification of Diseases. This position is shared by numerous medical and scientific bodies, including the American Psychological Association, Britain’s Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) and the Chinese Psychiatric Association.

The HPB has not only the right, but also the duty to dispel any myths to the contrary. In fact, a commitment to improving public health necessitates battling the stigma surrounding same-sex relations.

A fear of prejudiced health professionals can hold gay, lesbian and bisexual people back from seeking necessary medical help, or discourage them from sharing with their medical advisers potentially relevant information, such as the nature of their sexual activities.

The HPB is also sensible to focus on educating the parents of young gay, lesbian and bisexual people. The RCP notes that societal discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, including rejection from family members, often has a strong negative impact on the mental health of gay, lesbian and bisexual people.

Researchers in San Francisco found a strong association between negative parental reactions to sexual orientation and young people’s experiences of depression, suicide and unprotected sex.

Addressing parental misconceptions about sexuality can prevent needless anguish on the part of children and parents alike, helping to preserve family relationships by improving mutual understanding.

Of course, one set of frequently asked questions cannot single-handedly vanquish all discrimination that lesbian, gay and bisexual people may face.

Referrals to appropriate support services are therefore crucial to assist them and their loved ones in navigating an often hostile or uncomprehending social environment.

Importantly, such services should not treat homosexuality or bisexuality as a wrong to be “cured” – an approach which the WHO has described as “unscientific, potentially harmful” and a contributor to “stigmatisation”.

It was disappointing to see the HPB remove information previously found on the webpage about reliably supportive services offered by Action for Aids, Oogachaga and Safe Singapore.

No doubt, some in Singapore regard same-sex sexual relations with distaste or disapproval. But the HPB’s primary concern is health; and, in an inclusive society, health is for everyone, not only those judged by the self-styled guardians of sexual normality to be suitably pure.

The state must not deny access to vital information about sexual health out of deference to unevidenced ideological prescriptions.

And, as individuals, we can all come to our own moral judgments – including on those who push for their discriminatory ideals to come before the physical and mental well-being of real people.

myp@sph.com.sg

The writer is the programmes and communications senior manager of Aware, a gender equality advocacy group.

This op-ed was first published in MyPaper on 6 February 2014.

Discontinue the use of polygraph on assault victims

By Sumedha Jalote, Communications Executive, Association of Women for Action and Research

We read with interest of psychologist Professor Aldert Vrij’s visit to Singapore and his statement that law enforcement agencies often rely too much on mechanical methods of lie detection (“Busting the myths of lie detection”, Jan 19).

AWARE’s Sexual Assault Befrienders Service (SABS) has encountered numerous cases where those filing complaints of sexual assault or rape are required to take a polygraph lie detector test while making a police report.

Given international expert consensus on the poor accuracy and reliability of these tests, we question whether this practice should continue.

In 2004, the British Psychological Society found that “[Even] in the most favourable circumstances polygraphic lie detection accuracy is not high”. In 2003, the United States National Research Council (NRC) concluded that the reliability of the polygraph is questionable, and neither technological nor methodological advancement was likely to improve that reliability.

A polygraph does not directly detect deception. Instead, it measures physiological responses such as blood pressure and pulse rate believed to result from psychological states accompanying deception. These responses, however, can be caused by many other factors, such as embarrassment, outrage or distress.

Administering the polygraph to rape and sexual assault complainants inevitably involves questioning them about highly sensitive and potentially distressing matters, which are likely to elicit emotional responses. This raises the possibility that the polygraph results become especially inaccurate in this context.

A substantial number of our SABS clients have indicated that undergoing a polygraph caused them anxiety. This can worsen the traumatic effects of sexual assault.

Due to these concerns, many jurisdictions have discontinued the use of polygraph testing on rape and sexual assault complainants.

Polygraph results are not admissible in court in Singapore, and the process and reasons for administering this test are not generally made clear to the victims. It is unfair that decisions about how to handle a sexual assault complaint should be made on the basis of such an unreliable practice.

Many victims of sexual crimes do not make police reports because they fear being disbelieved. Forcing victims to take a lie detector test reinforces their fear of not being believed, and is of dubious value to the investigation. We recommend that the practice be discontinued.

An edited version of this letter was published in the Straits Times Forum on 26 January.

Budget process needs to be more open and inclusive

By Vivienne Wee And Edwina Shaddick

Singaporeans increasingly want to be heard. An increasingly vocal population is far from antagonistic to good governance. This is especially so if the rising volume of voices is accompanied by an increasing awareness of the issues.

Increased participation, coupled with the Government’s willingness to engage, would enable more Singaporeans to feel that they have a stake in this country. But this can only happen if governmental processes are structured and communicated in a way which helps citizens to give useful feedback.

Consider the Budget. On Feb 21, Minister for Finance Tharman Shanmugaratnam will announce the Government’s proposed Budget for the fiscal year to come. Singaporeans can express their views through online platform Reach until Jan 29.

But are Singaporeans able to offer valuable feedback through this process?

As an advocacy group, the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) has been submitting recommendations for the Budget since 2011, usually through Reach. The period for consultation on the Budget opened on Nov 22 last year and closes on Jan 29.

A Budget cycle described on the Civil Service College website suggests that the Cabinet approves a consolidated Budget in late January. How feasible is it for a Budget approved in late January, and made public on Feb 21, to take into account views from public consultation that ends on Jan 29?

Consultation that takes place earlier and ends later will allow more of the public’s inputs to be meaningfully absorbed into the Budget.

A look at the International Budget Partnership (IBP), an advocacy group partly funded by the Ford Foundation that promotes open budgeting by governments, shows Singapore lags behind global best practices in budget processes.

The IBP’s Open Budget Index tracks 125 countries but not Singapore, for reasons we are unaware of.

The Open Budget Index, conducted once every two years, ranks countries on budget transparency, based on “whether the government provides the public with timely access to comprehensive information contained in eight key documents”. Singapore does not comply with some of these practices.

For example,the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recommends that governments release a pre-budget statement at least a month before the budget is introduced to the legislature for debate, including projections of revenue, expenditure and policy goals, to give time for informed analysis and critique.

New Zealand meets this standard, as does South Africa, which releases this data four months before its budget. However, no such publication is expected in Singapore at any time before public consultation ends on Jan 29.

Furthermore, the Government can afford to provide more information about its expenditure.

In March 2010, opposition MP Low Thia Khiang said in Parliament that he used to be able to view specific details of how ministries spent their money in the Budget Book. But this was no longer the case as the figures had been consolidated. Mr Low argued that the consolidated figures were not helpful aids to understand a ministry’s programmes, nor the changes in its expenditure. Then Second Minister for Finance Lim Hwee Hua stated that specific expenditure breakdowns can be found in the Expenditure Control Document available in the Parliament Library.

That may be so, but as this library can only be accessed by legislators and their assistants. What about citizens and civil society organisations interested in taking a more active part in the Budget process?

To be sure, some information may be deemed too sensitive for the public on security grounds, but more detailed discussion is needed to determine what falls within that category.

The Budget and its formulation process can be powerful tools of engagement for the public. The Budget governs how much citizens pay for the upkeep of government, and how much they receive in return.

Dr Noeleen Heyzer, a Singaporean who is undersecretary-general at the United Nations, describes budgeting as “no longer… an exclusive exercise” reserved only for ministries of finance, but rather “a process that entails aligning national development plans and goals and human rights commitments with budget policies in a transparent and coherent manner”.

Budget formulation, Dr Heyzer argues, determines “people’s access to services and resources” and so “discrimination can either be reinforced or eliminated by budget policies”.

To be fair to the Ministry of Finance, it does consult the public pre-Budget, judging from its website and the Reach portal inviting views. But Singapore can move beyond a “wish list” style of consultation, in which the public states vague aspirations and the Ministry of Finance responds by enumerating policies already in place or new ones in the pipeline that meet those aspirations.

A more sophisticated engagement requires public access to information on the past performance of individual policies and programmes.

IBP best practices for example recommend year-end and in-year reviews of spending on programmes.

Also recommended is a “Citizen’s Budget” – the Budget statement presented in an easy-to-understand manner for the public with a breakdown of allocations to achieve specific outputs and outcomes.

These are all ideas Singapore can look into.

Earlier and better-quality information on the Budget process can give citizens a greater stake in the nation and increase their sense of ownership and participation.

As stated by the Auditor-General’s Office in its 2011 publication Public Accountability, “The citizens of Singapore are the ultimate owners of our nation’s financial resources. It is important that they understand and support the processes and systems that ensure public accountability.”

Dr Vivienne Wee, a sociology lecturer, is research and advocacy director at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware). Edwina Shaddick, a teacher in a private school, is a member of its Budget sub-committee.

This article was published in the Straits Times on 24 January 2014.

A teen’s-eye view of cyber-bullying

By Ian Mak Wei, 19, AWARE intern

Singapore is topping the charts again – in cyber bullying. A whopping 58%* of youths have been bullied online, the second highest in the world behind China. As a teenager myself, this statistic does not surprise me.

The Internet is probably the best invention of the 20^th century, but it is also a place where the most nasty and vicious bullying takes place. Bullying that leaves permanent records – whether electronic or psychological.

Much of this takes place on social media platforms. Ask.fm, for example, allows users to ask one another questions, including anonymously. It seems to enable sharing, banter and casual enjoyment, but it has been hijacked by trolls armed with demeaning comments. ‘You’re fat’ and ‘No one likes you’ are often their weapons to break others down.

The Internet can bring out the worst in us, especially teenagers with pent up angst. The cloak of anonymity and easy platform to ‘flame’ remove accountability, sometimes changing the mildest of people into terrible, insulting bullies.

There is a strong gendered dimension to cyber bullying. Teenage girls are subject to especial amounts of ‘fat-shaming’ and ‘looks-shaming’ from peers, making them uncomfortable about their appearance. Girls are bombarded with messages about the importance of having an hourglass figure or small waistline, and bullies on the internet have an easy avenue to exploit the resulting insecurities.

Similarly, teenage boys who do not live up to rigid societal expectations of masculinity are labeled ‘pussies’ and subject to verbal abuse, such as in the case of Theo Chen, a 12-year-old student subjected to gay bashing from classmates.

We often forget the effect of our actions on others. In a fit of rage, we say mean things – and since we’re not speaking face to face, we stick the knife in deeper.

A single comment can snowball into an entire group piling on to ostracise a person. Especially in the fragile and turbulent teenage years, this often hurts self esteem and even leads to self-harm including suicide.

Let’s make a commitment to not become the bully. Let’s refuse to spread hateful, baseless rumors. More than that, let us have the courage to intervene to halt cyber bullying as it happens to others. Only then can the Internet become a safe place where people are free to explore and express themselves, without fear of derision and harassment.

*Microsoft’s Trustworthy Computing unit study in 2013

An edited version of this letter was published in the Straits Times’ Youth Forum on 22 Jan 2014.

Women in Science

On 9 January 2014, AWARE was kindly invited to deliver a lunchtime talk to about twenty people at the newly formed Mechanobiology Institute-Women in Science (MBI-WIS) at the National University of Singapore. Titled “Gender equality in Singapore: an introduction”, and touching on both state policy and societal practice, our presentation gave an overview of some of the gendered barriers in Singapore to the equal social, economic and political participation of all.

In their own words, MBI-WIS is

composed of graduate students, staff, post-doctoral fellows and faculty in the sciences in Singapore. We are dedicated to achieving equity and full participation of women in all areas of science. Our goal is to advance women in science and to discuss and make the research community aware of past, present and future challenges. We seek to increase the participation of women in science at all levels, and to enable the advancement and success of women scientists.

This is an exciting new group and we hope to hear much more from them.

AWARE has performed a few back-of-the-envelope calculations, based on the publicly available profiles of staff in the various university STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) departments in Singapore. Our investigations suggest that despite gender parity in terms of overall undergraduate enrolment numbers (see for instance figures at the Nanyang Technological University), women remain severely underrepresented at the level of STEM faculty.

This is part of a wider global trend, reflecting a simple statement made by Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals: “Science remains institutionally sexist.” Fortunately, research shows that straightforward efforts to be more inclusive in terms of organisational decision-making can have a tremendous positive impact on the scientific careers of women. As Singapore moves toward seeking equality in the corporate boardroom, we hope that our centres of learning will follow suit.

Roundtable: Healthcare Reform in Singapore

Healthcare in Singapore has been much discussed this past year. Join us on 8 February to discuss what the future might hold for healthcare reform in Singapore, with the annual Singapore Budget coming up soon.

The discussion will highlight trends in Singapore’s healthcare reforms, and explore potential future directions. We will discuss explanations for why Singaporeans do not feel comforted by government reassurances of healthcare affordability, and what the government’s likely plan will be in Budget 2014. We will also talk about the role of civil society in contributing to the dialogues and debates on health reforms.

Event details:
Date: 8 February, Saturday
Time: 2:00pm
Location: AWARE Centre
Click here to register!

This event is part one of the AWARE-WINGS Seminar Series. Part two of this seminar series will be held at WINGS in mid-April.

AWARE-WINGS Seminar on Healthcare Part 2
Topic: Will the Healthcare Needs of an Aging Population be Met?
Date: April 12, 2014
Time: 2pm
Location: WINGS, 9 Bishan Place, Junction 8 Office Tower #05-01.

Speaker’s Bio:

Dr. Jeremy Lim is the author of ‘Myth or Magic: The Singapore Healthcare System’. A medical doctor by training, he is a partner with a global consulting firm and has previously held senior level appointments in the public and private sectors in Singapore. He is a regular commentator on health policy whose writings feature regularly in the Straits Times and TODAY.

An inclusive approach to family

By Teo You Yenn

2014 is the International Year of the Family. In the first days of the new year, there have been news stories about young couples welcoming newborns into the world and older ones renewing marital vows.

This year we will no doubt bear witness to photogenic nuclear families cycling through East Coast Park and three-generational families sharing meals in rooms with beautiful lighting. At the same time, we will be constantly reminded of the importance of family, of families that are “pillars” we return to, our “shelter”, “what really counts” and that to which we return “at the end of the day”.

This year, too, lively public discussions around poverty and increasing income inequality will continue – and perhaps even intensify.

As a society, we in Singapore need to bring these two seemingly separate stories into the same frame.

In my ongoing research on low-income families in Singapore, one key issue sticks out: Family life is a privilege. Those who have the privilege take it for granted. Regular incomes support our families’ lifestyles of three meals a day every day. They ensure homes that are adequate for all members of our families at the same time, and provide savings that prevent us from falling into debt and despair when a family member falls ill. Regular work and decent income provide the bare-bones infrastructure underpinning stable familial lives.

Beyond this, there is the privilege of leisure. The privileged take weekly days off for granted, the same way many of us take for granted that we will have money for lunch tomorrow. Some of us spend it recklessly watching too much television or surfing the web. Others grudgingly and dutifully spend it bringing children to enrichment classes. Some of us take secret pleasure in stealing hours away from our offspring and loved ones, absence rendering the heart fonder et cetera.

For persons who have limited income, managing or trying to avoid crisis is an everyday activity. They must spend their time and energy figuring out whom among their extended families have floor space they can sleep on when Housing Board rules kick in after divorce and the matrimonial flat is sold. They need to strategise to figure out how to work enough to provide for the children while still being around to make sure they have meals to eat. They may have to walk an hour each way to and from the hospital to visit a sick child when there is no money left in their EZ Link cards. These efforts leave little space and capacity for much else.

Among persons with low income, I have witnessed tremendous efforts to keep families together and a great deal of familial love, kindness and generosity. This is not just between husbands, wives and children, but includes grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins and siblings.

Their material conditions may be bare but their needs, capacities and aspirations for familial love are as rich as those of people with more wealth. Yet their families and familial struggles are neither properly recognised and respected nor adequately supported. Their divorces and reconstituted families are characterised as dysfunctional; their interdependence beyond the nuclear heterosexual couple sometimes viewed with suspicion.

On the other hand, the persistent rhetoric on the importance of family does not address their limited access to the conditions of material security and leisure that are taken for granted by better-off members of our society.

Promoting and lauding family life is not in itself problematic. It is problematic, however, to portray a limited vision of family life as universal, as the standard. It is moreover unjust to hold this ideal up, without addressing the uneven access members of our society have to the preconditions of stable familial lives, no matter the definition of family.

In Singapore, the narrow ideal of family is buttressed by public policies that affect Singaporeans’ access to public housing and support for children. While heterosexual, married, educated, professional women like myself easily access the full benefits of generous maternity leave, childcare centre subsidies, baby bonuses, and maid levy reliefs, my counterpart with less education and limited options for stable employment has to struggle to cobble together enough income from two part-time shift jobs, while worrying about whether the school will allow her older child, barely out of preschool himself, to pick up the youngest from childcare while she’s gone.

Childcare subsidies may be available, but working in low-wage jobs in order to qualify for them leaves gaps in her children’s care needs that higher-income families can resolve with other paid caregivers. With less cash to spare, she also gets less in the co-savings component of the Baby Bonus. Any blip to her tenuous arrangements–a sick child, an unanticipated loss in hours she is given work–can become a crisis that throws her off-course.

Differentiating policies create an environment where families that do not fit are seen as and see themselves as failing. They perpetuate a vicious cycle of inequalities: failure to live up to ideals mean more difficulty accessing public resources, less access to public resources result in greater struggles to establish stable familial lives.

As we laud “the family,” we must bring into view less photogenic but crucial elements of this issue: the celebration of one type of family should not undermine the many families who do not fit these narrow ideals. Importantly, if familial life is a good thing for our society, we must work to ensure that everyone has access to the basic conditions that enable it.

Teo You Yenn is a board member at the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), Assistant Professor in Sociology at the Nanyang Technological University, and author of the book Neoliberal Morality in Singapore: How family policies make state and society (Routledge, 2011). This op-ed was first published in the Straits Times on 11 January 2014.

WOMEN'S HELPLINE

1800 777 5555

SEXUAL ASSAULT CARE CENTRE

6779 0282

General enquiries

6779 7137

MENU

Year: 2014