MENU

MENU

Donate Now
Login

Year: 2014

home

Adopt Concrete Targets for Board Diversity

By Winifred Loh, President, AWARE

We applaud Minister Grace Fu’s sustained support for board diversity and her call to investors to take the lead in this respect.

img_about_boardIt is disappointing that female representation on the boards of Singapore Exchange-listed companies remains low, at 8.3 per cent. More than half of the boards surveyed have no women. (“Companies with more diverse boards fare better: Study”; Oct 29, online)

Ethnic diversity is also limited, with 85.7 per cent of all directors of the listed companies being Chinese.

BoardAgender’s research suggests that it would be a smart business move to increase female representation, since board diversity is associated with higher performance levels.

But the situation will not change without proactive effort, as figures have only crept up slowly over the years. Female representation in senior management is 23 per cent.

While this is not gender parity, it is more than the female board representation of 8 per cent, and shows there are women who are capable of stepping into top roles in senior management. Companies’ mindsets, though, have not changed.

If our society hopes to reap the economic benefits of diversity, we must take specific, targeted measures, rather than assuming that change will happen organically.

One method that has seen success in other economies is the use of explicit targets to increase the gender and ethnic diversity of those serving on boards.

Though these are voluntary rather than mandatory, they are effective in focusing the attention of corporate decision-makers on the need for concrete change. The examples of the United Kingdom and Australia are particularly inspiring.

In the UK, female representation on boards has increased to 22.8 per cent, from 12.5 per cent three years ago. Hopes are high that the UK will attain its target of 25 per cent next year.

In Australia, women hold 41.7 per cent of government board positions, meaning that the 40 per cent target set by the government has been met a year early.

Companies would be aided in meeting these targets if they develop better search and selection procedures. For instance, they can move towards public disclosure of their board hiring policies, and commit to refreshing their boards more regularly to prevent stagnation.

Lacking such measures, Singapore is close to the bottom in gender diversity rankings. At the pace diversity has been rising, it will take decades before Singapore catches up with other countries, let alone attain gender parity.

This letter was first published in TODAY Voices on 9 November 2014.

Transnational couples need more assurance of stability

By Vivienne Wee (Dr), Research and Advocacy Director, AWARE

We applaud the Government’s intention of promoting greater transparency among transnational couples (“New rules clear air for transnational marriages”; last Saturday).

2205859730_29babd985f_zThese couples can apply for a Letter of Eligibility for a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) before marriage, provided they mutually disclose information about their finances, educational backgrounds, previous marriages and past criminal records. This will enable potential spouses to learn more about each other.

However, this still does not give Singaporeans and their foreign spouses sufficient certainty to pursue stable family lives.

Although the Letter of Eligibility is not mandatory, it seems people who are refused one would find it hard to get the LTVP that enables them to live and work in Singapore.

Moreover, even the Letter of Eligibility is no guarantee of an LTVP – the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority website says it is only indicative, not conclusive. This can be problematic as people may rely on getting the LTVP as a basis for proceeding with marriage.

We welcome the other policy change, which enables LTVP holders to be employed without being counted in the foreign worker quota and without having their employers pay the foreign worker levy for them.

This benefits not only LTVP holders and their families, but also employers, who are able to hire them more easily. This removes a major barrier for foreign spouses participating in the community around them.

The Government has acknowledged the need for families with foreign spouses to be sufficiently stable, so they are better able to contribute to Singapore. However, family stability can be attained only when the foreign spouses can stay here for life.

As mere “long-term visitors” with LTVP or even LTVP-Plus, they are allowed to stay with their families for only a few years each time such a stay is approved.

When marriages between Singaporeans and their foreign spouses have lasted for at least three years, or when they have at least one child, there should be a clear and unambiguous route for the foreign spouse to obtain citizenship or, at least, permanent residency.

No child should be placed at risk of being abandoned by a parent, simply because that parent is denied the right to stay here.

This letter was first published in the Straits Times Forum on 31 October 2014.

Preventing human trafficking in Singapore

Singapore Member of Parliament Christopher De Souza has proposed a Private Member’s Bill to combat human trafficking, to be presented in parliament in November 2014.

trafficking logoIn response, six non-governmental organisations – AWARE, HOME, MARUAH, Project X, the Singapore Committee for UN Women, and TWC2 – have jointly organised the StopTraffickingSG campaign to urge the government to adopt a victim-centred approach in the drafting of the Bill on Prevention of Human Trafficking. The campaign will submit a parliamentary petition for victims’ rights to be protected under this Bill.

The campaign’s recommendations

While the Bill against human trafficking covers many aspects, it is not comprehensive. In particular, the protection and assistance offered to victims by this Bill are not adequate. Several of the organisations in the StopTraffickingSG campaign offer direct services to trafficked persons. We make the following recommendations based on this experience.

For victims:
First, clearer processes are needed to properly identify victims so that non-trafficked migrant workers are not inadvertently caught up in state responses to victims, and that state agents fail to recognise trafficked victims.

Second, the Bill should explicitly prohibit the detention of trafficked victims, as some existing shelters for trafficked victims are known to restrict victims’ freedom of movement.

Third, the Bill should expand general protection granted to trafficked victims and witnesses, in particular strengthening protection for witnesses who may face intimidation and retaliation in Singapore and their home countries, expand court protections beyond those granted to sexually exploited victims, address particular protections that may be required by child victims, and strengthen mechanisms for the provision of information to victims about their cases.

Fourth, victims require assistance as well as protection. Necessary forms of assistance include accommodation, medical care, confidential counselling, work opportunities, information, and translation and interpretation. Such services should be extended to trafficked victims’ dependants where appropriate. StopTraffickingSG would additionally like to query the role of the Director of Social Welfare in providing these services (where provided for in the Bill), given that her legal mandate currently extends only to persons under the age of 16.

Lastly, further clarifications are needed as to victims’ immigration status while their cases are being processed. Currently, trafficking victims are granted a Special Pass. However, there is a lot of discretion and uncertainty as to in which cases such passes are extended. Moreover, there is little provision for victims’ relocation and repatriation. Finally, it is suggested that victims be allowed to experience a period of recovery and reflection before having to decide if they do want to embark on the lengthy and strenuous process of pursuing their case through the criminal justice system.

Policing:
StopTraffickingSG is concerned about the huge extension of discretionary powers to police and non-police enforcement officers. According to this Bill, police and non-police enforcement officers are able to arrest and forcibly gain entry to premises without warrant, and are to be armed with batons and accoutrements “as are necessary”. This may result in the secondary traumatisation of vulnerable victims of trafficking. StopTraffickingSG believes that Part 3 of the proposed Bill should be deleted altogether as the current provisions under the Criminal Procedures Code would suffice.

Definitions:
Several key concepts in this Bill are not defined. For example, there is no definition of forced labour or deception in Part 1 of the Bill, although they are central to a thorough understanding of trafficking in persons.

 

Shorten time bar to divorce

By Jolene Tan, Programmes and Communications Senior Manager, AWARE

Under the current law, divorce is not permitted in the first three years of marriage unless a court finds that there has been “exceptional depravity or hardship”. This is an unnecessarily burdensome requirement.

gavelThe time bar is intended to preserve marriages. However, in practice, many people realise early on that their marital differences cannot be resolved.

Rather than seek reconciliation, those set on divorce simply wait the moratorium out while building separate lives. The time bar delays them from moving on – including from remarrying.

We recommend that the time bar be shortened from three years to one, or at most two.

This will reduce the unnecessary barriers to people seeking to move on to more fulfilling family lives.

It will also reduce acrimony in divorce cases by not forcing one spouse to document accusations to prove “exceptional depravity or hardship” in court.

We are also very disturbed by statements in a recent case indicating that even “extreme cases of abuse” do not meet the threshold for the time bar to be lifted, so that victims of domestic violence must remain married to their abusers (“Court denies woman permission to divorce”; Oct 8).

There should be no time bar to divorce in cases of domestic violence. Victims should be allowed to seek a divorce instead of being kept vulnerable to further physical and psychological suffering.

Freedom from violence is a fundamental right. Everyone is entitled to make personal safety their first priority.

Treating a court-imposed “hope of reconciliation” as more important than safety places an ideological view of marriage above the welfare of real people.

This sends the message that the legal system – and therefore society at large – does not take domestic violence seriously, and tells abusers that their actions are an acceptable part of a marriage.

Under the Women’s Charter, spouses have a mutual duty to “safeguard the interests of the union”.

By committing violence, an abuser destroys the mutual care and respect that should be at the heart of a marital relationship.

The law should not require victims to maintain formal ties or the appearance of togetherness with their abusers.

This reform will help Singapore to better meet its international obligations to protect women from family violence under the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

This letter was first published in the Straits Times Forum on 27 October 2014.

Roundtable: Not Everyone has ‘Helpers’

Join us at AWARE on 20 November 2014 to discuss how “work-life balance” as a problem is handled across class lines.

“Work-life balance” as a public problem has come to the fore in Singapore as in other developed countries. Women’s capacities to balance wage-earning and caregiving  has received a great deal of attention.

In Singapore, research has focused on the norms among middle-to-high income families that heavily involve foreign domestic workers and grandmothers. Less attention has been paid to the families and women for whom these are not viable options, and for whom “work-life balance” is a problem they lack privilege to discuss.

Event Details:

Date: Thursday, 20 November, 2014
Time: 7:30pm
Location: AWARE Centre

Click here to register!

Speaker: Teo You Yenn, associate professor in the Division of Sociology at the Nanyang Technological University. Her book, Neoliberal Morality in Singapore: How family policies make state and society, was published by Routledge in 2011. Apart from her academic work, she volunteers at AWARE and is currently serving her third term as a Board Member.

Gender Justice in Islam: A Public Discussion

FamilyJoin GEC (Gender Equality is our Culture) in collaboration with WALI (Women and Law in Islam) for a public discussion on Monday, 10th November at SCWO.

We will be exploring how and if gender justice exists within the Muslim context. Please register using the link below to join the conversation!

 

Event Details:

Date: Monday, 10 November, 2014

Time: 7:30pm – 9:30pm

Location: SCWO, 96 Waterloo Street Singapore 187967

Click here to register!

Members’ Forum on the Death Penalty

Becoming AWAREOn 6 November, AWARE will hold the inaugural session of ‘Becoming AWARE’: A members’ forum.

The “Becoming AWARE” series seeks to engage and inform AWARE members on topical and critical issues that are relevant to AWARE, as well as to gather members’ views and feedback to help AWARE shape its advocacy positions.  The forum will also be an informal platform for members to get to know one another, and to meet the staff and board of AWARE.

In this first session, we will examine the issue: The death penalty: should it go?

Guest speakers Associate Professor Chan Wing Cheong (NUS Law Faculty), Priscilla Chia (We Believe in 2nd Chances) and Jolene Tan (AWARE) will discuss:

  • the Singapore experience of the death penalty
  • arguments for and against the death penalty
  • why feminists should care about this.

Join us to find out more!

This is a members only event. If you’re not a member of AWARE, you can sign up or renew your membership here or at the door.

Date: 6 November, Thursday
Time: 7.30pm – 9.30pm. We will serve dinner  at 7pm.
Venue: AWARE Centre, 5 Dover Crescent, #01-22, Singapore 130005

To register, please click here.

For more information, please contact Frederique at volunteering@aware.org.sg

We Can! Roundtable: Hinduism and Gender

we can logoJoin We Can! at AWARE for an exploration of the complex role that gender plays in the Hindu religion, particularly the two major epics: the Ramayana and the Mahabharata.

Religious epics and mythology have an influence on historical and contemporary understandings of gender. Examining the subtle or obvious messages related to gender becomes an integral part of combatting gender stereotypes prevalent within society.

This examination serves as an opportunity both to challenge potentially sexist stereotypes and celebrate gender friendly aspects within religion and mythology.

Date: 16 October, Thursday
Time: 7.30pm
Venue: AWARE Centre

Speakers:

Shibani Pandya is a part of the Public Awareness and Youth Initiatives department at the Singapore Committee for UN Women. She is also a student in the MA Programme in Peace, Development, Security and International Conflict Transformation at the University of Innsbruck, working on a thesis titled “De-mythifying Rape: An Analysis of Gender-based Sexual Violence in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata”. Driving this is her passion for gender equality, ending violence and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Mrinalini Venkatachalam, Programme Manager, Public Awareness and Youth Initiatives, coordinates and executes all Public Awareness and Youth Initiatives for Singapore Committee for UN Women. Her experience of over 9 years in the non profit world has ranged from working in mental health, to advocating accessibility and equal rights for people with disabilities, to generating awareness on Solid Waste Management in local schools and slums in India. In her current capacity at Singapore Committee for UN Women, Mrinalini promotes the general mission on UN Women throughout the region by raising awareness for Ending Violence Against Women, Economic Empowerment Programs, and Governance and Leadership Programs amongst youth and the public in Singapore. Mrinalini also works closely with businesses and corporates in their efforts to create positive social impact in Singapore and in the region.

Support for homemakers must go beyond verbal tributes

By Jolene Tan, Programmes and Communications Senior Manager, AWARE

This letter was written for the Straits Times Forum, responding to this letter, but was not published as some points were seen as irrelevant to the career woman vs. stay-at-home-mom debate. We are publishing the letter here to discuss how society can provide more support for caregivers – women or men.

We agree with Mr Sebastian Liew that society needs to better recognise the value of domestic labour, childcare and other caregiving (“What’s wrong with being a housewife?”, 24 Sep).

A true recognition of homemakers and their contributions must go beyond verbal tributes.  We should ask whether Singapore’s social and economic structures sufficiently reward and protect those who perform domestic labour and caregiving.

This can be improved in several respects.

First, provision for retirement is linked to CPF savings, which is only available to those in the formal workforce.  Because many women are homemakers, women of retirement age generally enjoy less financial security than men.

This impacts their access to healthcare.  Among elderly patients, far more women (64 per cent) than men (38 per cent) need to tap into family members’ Medisave to pay their hospital bills.

A society that values homemakers needs to decouple financial security for the elderly from CPF adequacy based on formal employment.  A social pension could meet this need.

Second, we can give more security to the non-national spouses of Singapore citizens.

Currently, these spouses – who are often parents of Singaporean children – are routinely denied permanent residence and citizenship.  This happens particularly when the Singaporean’s spouse income and education are deemed insufficient.

The Long-Term Visit Pass-Plus given to some spouses is not adequate as they are still susceptible to deportation – and separation from their children – if pass renewals are not approved.

This cannot persist if our nation wishes to show genuine commitment to valuing homemakers.

Third, a society that values domestic labour and caregiving would not assume this work is only for women, and would provide support to everyone who performs it.

businessThis includes those who need or wish to reconcile domestic responsibilities with employment outside the home.

We could legislate more generous care leave entitlements, which families could share between themselves to suit their needs, regardless of gender.

In a culture that takes domestic responsibilities seriously, it would also be the norm rather than an exception for employees to have working arrangements that accommodate their caregiving roles.

Finally, to accord due status to domestic and care labour, we might question the discriminatory exclusion of foreign domestic workers from the Employment Act and its protections.

Ultimately, rhetorical celebrations of homemakers must not obscure the need for practical support and recognition for the labour they perform.