Year: 2015

Training Workshop: How to write letters to the papers

hp letterDo you ever feel bothered by news stories or discussions in the papers? Would you like to see more voices for equality in the mainstream media? Are there laws or policies you hope to see change?

Writing letters to the papers to is one valuable way to share your views and perspectives with readers beyond your social network. And it’s easier than you think! Come to this training session by AWARE’s communications manager, Jolene Tan, who has written and edited dozens of press letters and opinion pieces on a whole range of gender equality issues. She’ll cover:

  • Discussing issues effectively and strategically
  • Structuring a letter well
  • Getting the tone right
  • Standing out so that papers choose your letter
  • The practical bits: word limits, deadlines, etc.

Jolene will also stay in touch with you beyond the training session, to help refine and give feedback on your future letters.

Date: 3 September 2015 (Thursday)
Time: 8pm – 10pm
Venue: AWARE Centre, 5 Dover Crescent #01-22 Singapore 130005

Click here to register.

Register now for this free training, and take a further step to creating social change through the media. Slots are limited!

Let’s not deny the reality of racism

By Zarifah Anuar, Communications Executiveicon44

Racial dynamics in Singapore have seen much discussion recently (“Singaporeans can accept a non-Chinese PM” and “Ensuring minorities will always have stake in S’pore”, 28 Jul).

While Racial Harmony Day festivities are heartening, efforts to promote racial harmony must go beyond celebration and performance alone.

It is certainly reassuring to have research confirm that minorities can access public services and that members of the majority Chinese population may form personal connections with minorities.

But these findings do not mean that Singapore is ‘colour-blind’. Racism and discrimination still persist.

Exclusionary hiring practices are common. Job postings calling for ‘bilingual speakers’ are often used to discriminate against non-Chinese workers, even when Mandarin language skills are not necessary to perform the job, as with the recent notorious incident involving a frozen yoghurt chain.

Tenants seeking rental housing also face discrimination. Many landlords have a policy of summarily rejecting Indian tenants due to their race, often on the basis of insulting stereotypes.

These practices are divisive and harmful, preventing competition for jobs on an equal footing, and making access to housing more expensive for minorities.

The state can do more to address inequalities, such as by enacting anti-discrimination laws.

It can also set the tone by making its own employment practices more inclusive.

At the moment, all occupations in the civil service allow Sikh men to don the turban, but the same courtesy is not extended to Muslim women who wear the hijab.

This is supposedly due to security reasons in the military and police forces, and hygiene concerns in nursing. Yet in functional terms, there is not much difference between a hijab and a turban, so why would one piece of cloth cause these problems, while the other is harmless?

These issues should be addressed through self-critical scrutiny and open discussion. Unless we are honest about the racism that persists in society, we cannot hope to effectively address it.

This letter was written as a reply to these two letters on The Straits Times, but was not published.

Perempuan: Stories of Our Lives

Copy of perempuan #1 (2)Part 3 of the dialogue series Perempuan run by the Gender Equality is our Culture (GEC) programme. This is a session to share about your experiences growing up as Muslim woman in Singapore.

We constantly receive different messages about what it is to be a “good Muslim woman” and the realities of our lives. In this Perempuan session, we will be discussing issues faced by Muslim women such as pressures to be a “good Muslim woman” and challenges within our personal relationships.

Join GEC for their session on Wednesday, 2 Sept, 7.30PM-9.30PM at our newly-renovated AWARE Centre!

This session is open to ladies aged 18-25 years old. Pre-registration is required.Register now!

How parties can earn our vote in the General Election

vote (1)How parties can earn our vote in the General Election

 A small cross is a big deal. The ballot is our chance to decide the nation’s direction. Here are five ways political parties can show their commitment to gender equality and an inclusive society – and thus earn our vote in the election.

  1. Promote women in political leadership. Women deserve more representation than the current 23% of elected MPs and one lone full Cabinet Minister (of 19). Singapore has a treaty obligation to increase the percentage of women MPs. We call on parties to ensure that at least 30% of your candidates are women, and commit to appointing at least 6 women as full Cabinet Ministers in government.
  1. Build a Care Economy. We ask parties to commit to collective responsibility for children, older people and disabled people – ending society’s reliance on unpaid or underpaid care by women. Changing demographics call for state investment in care infrastructure, comprehensive state support for care work, and increased social spending. This will ensure the dignity of older people, maintain labour participation for a vibrant economy, and empower all to combine paid work and family life. Lightening women’s unpaid labour load may even increase fertility.
  1. Support free expression and civil society engagement. Blogs and videos should trigger discussion, not court cases. Films and graphic novels on Singapore’s history should be welcomed, not exiled or denied support. Books and songs on families should be savoured, not pulped or silenced. Groups and publications raising concerns should be engaged, not bogged down by onerous regulation. We urge all parties to commit to supporting the democratic exchange of views.
  1. Stand for inclusion and equality for diverse groups. Parties should make it clear that they support inclusive policies and the rights and welfare of everyone – not just some. End the exclusion of single parents from housing and benefits. Ban racist hiring ads, let uniformed workers wear headscarves if they wish, and outlaw employer discrimination. Repeal 377A and recognise LGBT people as equals. Let all voters know that you work for them, too.
  1. Campaign respectfully, ethically and inclusively. How a party gains power also shows us how the party will use it. It demeans our elections when parties distort the views of opponents, or supporters belittle candidates for their age or gender. Appealing to divisive sentiments – like anti-migrant or anti-gay prejudice – has harmful and lasting consequences. Singapore deserves parties who win voters over with their visions for progress, not with negative campaigning.

Interviewees needed for single parents project

tampines HDB

Are you a child of a single parent?

AWARE is currently conducting a research project on single parents’ access to public housing and its impact on children. We will use the findings for advocacy to improve current housing policies. If you meet the criteria listed below and wish to participate, please contact us via email or phone. Looking forward to hearing your stories!

You are eligible to participate in the study if you are:

  • A child of a divorced parent
  • Singaporean or PR
  • Parent is eligible for public housing according to income criteria
  • 12 years old and older (no maximum age limit)

If you are interested in participating in this project, please emailassociate@aware.org.sg for more details.

Power to end domestic abuse lies with all of us

helping_handBy Kokila Annamalai, We Can! Campaign Manager, AWARE

Responsibility for family violence lies with abusers, but the power to end abuse lies with all of us. When we suspect abuse, but tolerate it as “none of our business”, our silence – as neighbours, friends or relatives – disempowers victims.

If someone has unexplained injuries, appears withdrawn, anxious, upset or angry, or avoids friends and family and becomes difficult to contact, it is reasonable to ask if these are symptoms of physical or emotional abuse.

Victims themselves may not seek help due to fear, helplessness and fatalism, or a lack of access to information or opportunity, especially if they are controlled by the perpetrator. We can help provide the support they need to protect themselves. Knowing that someone cares enough to ask about abuse can make victims feel less isolated. If you think someone is being abused, talk to them in private, but don’t push them if they are unwilling to share.

Listen to victims without judgment. Assure them that you believe them and remind them that abuse is never their fault. Discuss available options, including counselling, hotline numbers, protection specialist centres, family service centres (FSCs), nearby hospitals and police posts, and personal protection orders (PPOs). You can accompany them as they access services.

If they are reluctant to act, accept that decision while remaining available to them. Encourage them to collect evidence in case they change their mind. Photographs of bruises, hospital records and text messages can help build a case.

If you feel the victim is in danger, voice your concern and suggest that they develop a safety plan. Help them pack an emergency bag to keep at your place, list phone numbers they can call, think of safe places they can go to and advise them to keep some money on hand at all times.

It is not advisable to intervene personally with the perpetrator unless it is safe for you and the victim, and the victim wants you to do so. Don’t suggest quick solutions without thinking through potential retaliation. It is also dangerous to suggest that a victim should work harder on their relationship with the abuser, or to assume things will get better. Abuse rarely stops without intervention, and might escalate. Couple-counselling in abuse situations can be dangerous. Instead, encourage each party to try separate counselling.

If you suspect domestic violence in the homes of your neighbours, relatives or friends, you can also call the police. Police will investigate bystander reports. Your eyewitness statement can count as evidence.

The police may recommend that the victim apply for a PPO or link them to an FSC. In some cases, they can arrest the perpetrator.

In deciding whether to engage the police, we should put aside our sense that domestic violence is a “private affair”, as no one should be left in danger without assistance.

When threats are immediate, the police are the main agency which can respond rapidly and authoritatively to de-escalate the situation and ensure safety.

Yet many rightly sense that police reports may not resolve the longer-term problem. The police do not always take follow-up action. The victim may not wish to see their family member in trouble with the law, especially if they are materially dependent on the abuser. And the perpetrator may well escalate the abuse in the future. For this reason, it is helpful to check in on the victim and offer direct assistance even after making a report as police investigation alone may not resolve the situation.

The state can also help improve the effectiveness of police response by taking a more consistently supportive approach. Negative experiences with police insensitivity can discourage victims and bystanders from reporting.

I once reported a case involving a death threat and evidence that the perpetrator had caused the victim to bleed. In the investigation, both parties denied the abuse. The police officer later told me off for “interfering in their business”.

This may reflect the officer’s misunderstanding of domestic violence situations and why victims might resist intervention. Regular, victim-oriented specialist training for all responding officers can help police respond in a more constructive way.

Victims might also feel more comfortable if social workers were present during police interviews.

More broadly speaking, questions of social support for older people and children, and material support for victims of spousal violence, need to be resolved on a societal level, so that victims are in a position to make the right choices for themselves.

We have worked with victims who endured abusive relationships for years primarily because they had no alternative housing, means of livelihood or support systems from their community.

Domestic or elder abuse is for all of us to solve. No one should have to sacrifice their well-being to maintain “family privacy”.

This letter was first published under The Straits Times Opinion editorial on 25 July 2015.

Living the Singapore Story: Celebrating our 50 years 1965 – 2015

WebLiving The Singapore Story is about Singapore, all 50 years of it as an independent nation. It is not a history book, or about its politics or its national leaders. It is about the people of Singapore and the stories they have to tell, in their own words. They come from all walks of life – policeman, soldier, doctor, nurse, car salesman, bus driver, teacher, businessman, architect and more – reflecting the diversity that is Singapore. Some are well-known personalities you may recognise but many are ordinary folks.

There are personal stories, of the lives they led, the jobs they did, the challenges they faced, the things they enjoyed doing. Collectively, they tell the story of a people overcoming the odds to build a nation, and celebrates five decades of nation building through 58 compelling and heart-warming accounts of Singaporeans.

The stories of AWARE’s founding members Zaibun Siraj and Kanwaljit Soin have also been shared in this book. Do order the book here or visit any library or major bookstore to read about them and the early days of AWARE!

This book was commissioned by the National Library Board and produced by Straits Times Press.

AWARE statement on the prosecution of Amos Yee

gavelAWARE has grave concerns about the negative implications of the recent prosecution of Amos Yee. This statement focuses on harassment and hate speech as these areas are closest to our work, although we also share concerns that others have raised about the importance of upholding freedom of expression, children’s rights, and the integrity of people with autism and mental health issues.

  1. Protection from Harassment Act (POHA)

It is well-known that we support POHA. Harassment can make victims’ ordinary activities and daily lives – at school, at work, around home, online and in other social spaces – a source of torment. POHA is aimed at addressing this harm.

As such, we were troubled by the initial move to charge Yee under POHA. While we are relieved that the charge did not proceed, we are concerned that its invocation has sent the wrong message regarding the intent of POHA, as well as the very real threats of harassment that many individuals – and women in particular – face.

It is critical to this concept of harassment that it is directed at specific victims who could suffer the harm described above. However, an examination of Yee’s posts does not disclose any possible victims of harassment.

  • Broad classes: Yee speaks about “parents” and discusses Christianity. This cannot be said to be harassment of parents or Christians in general as harassment must be directed at identifiable individuals, not broadly defined groups. An abusive statement about “AWARE members” or “AWARE”, for example, cannot reasonably be said to harass any specific AWARE member. A statement about a religion likewise should not be treated as harassment of all its adherents, as it is not possible to identify the individuals harassed.
  • Politicians: Yee refers to current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Margaret Thatcher, and expresses disagreement with their conduct. In our view, POHA should never be used against individuals discussing the conduct of public officials in positions of power, even if such discussions are heated or strongly-worded.
  • Deceased people / religious figures: As well as Lee Kuan Yew and Margaret Thatcher, Yee discusses Jesus Christ. Neither deceased individuals nor religious figures can experience harassment.

There were no other people referred to by Yee who might be said to be victims of harassment. We urge the Attorney-General’s Chambers to ensure that POHA is not extended beyond its intended remit – the protection of individuals who would otherwise be vulnerable to harm.

  1. Criticism of religion

The state is right to promote respect for diverse religious beliefs. However, in a multi-faith society, all of us encounter views on religion that conflict with our own. We should not be quick to apply the criminal law in response to our own discomfort. A plural society must allow conflicting views to co-exist. Only dialogue can create deeper mutual understanding and genuine harmony.

Amos Yee’s case sets a very low threshold for involving the criminal justice process and could open the floodgates to charges criminalising numerous harmless casual or everyday discussions of religion. As has been often noted, many Christians had spoken up publicly against the charges, demonstrating how people of faith do not necessarily perceive conflicting views and attitudes as threats requiring suppression by the law. On whose behalf, then, did the state bring the charges regarding religious feeling?

Moreover, Yee was formerly in the Catholic Church. Our relationships to our own faith traditions can be complex. Many people need space to grapple – even in strong terms – with their own religious feelings. This is a key part of religious freedom and should not be mistaken for fomenting hatred between groups.

We urge the Attorney-General’s Chambers to prosecute only in extreme cases, such as those involving clear threat of violence or harm to personal safety.

  1. Hate speech

Singapore’s High Commissioner to the UK defended the state’s actions against Yee by saying that “Protection from hate speech is also a basic human right.”

Protection from hate speech is indeed important. However, hate speech cannot be detached from specific contexts of power and inequality. As sexual violence disproportionately affects women and girls, rape threats create a gendered hostile environment. Homophobic slurs gain force from the threats to safety and well-being that queer people often face. Other marginalised groups such as racial minorities and disabled people may also be excluded from social participation by hate speech.

A society that aspires toward inclusiveness must act against hate speech, as hate speech exacerbates existing forms of exclusion and inequality. But there is no evidence that Yee’s speech was indeed hate speech of this kind.

Even in cases of obvious hate speech, prosecution is an extreme measure. It may be satisfyingly punitive, but it does not promote a better understanding of the relevant issues. Much can be done without using the criminal law, such as applying more conscious editorial standards on public platforms, or public officials speaking out against inequality and discrimination in explicit terms.

The clearest hate speech in the case was against young people, a disempowered group given little autonomy or respect. Many people called for violence against Yee, and one man made his way to the courts to oblige them. Far from stamping out hate speech, the prosecution seems to have stirred a public frenzy, including the use of violence, against an outspoken young person. We urge the state to be mindful of the stigmatising effect of such prosecutions in the future.

Support parents rather than incentivise parenthood

asian parentBy Goh Li Sian, Research and Advocacy Coordinator, AWARE

We were not surprised to learn that measures such as the Baby Bonus have been found to be ineffective “incentives” for childbirth and parenthood (“Fewer sold on incentives to start a family: Survey”; last Tuesday).

Whether to have children is an intensely personal decision.

Not everyone wants – or is able – to have children, and direct incentives cannot affect people’s deeply held attitudes about children. A one-off cash injection also does little to address the anxieties that many have about combining caregiving with continued employment.

For this reason, direct incentives have been shown to be ineffective elsewhere. In 2011, an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development study showed that publicly funded childcare raised fertility rates more than money given away to families as subsidies.

The policies with the greatest effect on birth rates aimed to help women combine career and family, rather than try to directly boost the birth rate.

For instance, quality early childhood care and education enable women to re-enter the workforce. The knowledge that they would not have to give up life outside the home may make parenthood a less daunting prospect for many women.

Another important measure is paternity leave, which supports childcare as a shared responsibility between parents.

The current allowance of one week is too short, and does not do enough to encourage substantial involvement in caregiving.

Maternity leave in Singapore, at 16 weeks for married women, is relatively brief. Notably, it is shorter than six months, which the World Health Organisation recommends as the period for babies to be exclusively breastfed.

By contrast, Britain offers up to 52 weeks of shared parental leave, which can be allocated flexibly between parents.

Moreover, employers may discriminate with impunity against women who have children.

A woman who returns from maternity leave to find a termination notice on her desk has no legal recourse.

For us to develop a parent-friendly society, a change in work culture is necessary. Singaporeans have one of the longest work weeks in the world.

While shorter working hours may impose short-term costs on employers, companies will benefit from the higher morale and productivity of more fulfilled workers with happier family lives.

This letter was first published in the Straits Times Forum on 14 July 2015.