MENU

MENU

Donate Now
Login

Year: 2017

home

#MeToo #NowWhat: A dialogue on the reality of sexual violence in Singapore

By Reetaza Chatterjee, AWARE volunteer

On 25 November, in line with the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, more than 70 people attended a roundtable on violence against women in Singapore, and listened to firsthand accounts from three survivors about their personal experiences and recovery from sexual violence.

Anisha Joseph, manager of the Sexual Assault Care Centre (SACC), opened up the session by highlighting the importance of changing the narrative that sexual assault is just sex without consent. “Whether it’s verbal, visual or physical, sexual assault is an act of violence that uses sexualised behaviour to exert power and control,” she explained.

This set the stage for a powerful discussion. A survivor spoke about the social isolation she experienced when she came forward with the story of her assault, receiving comments such as “stop making things up” and “what were you wearing?” from her social circle. Another survivor of child abuse, spoke about how she initially internalised the abuse as “love and affection”, though it quickly turned into feelings of shame and self-blame as she grew older.

Another survivor shared how male colleagues would casually address her using terms such as “sweetie” and “baby” in professional settings, ask her out on dates and subsequently not speak to her for months when she rejected their offers. She was repeatedly told to “get used to” such behaviour because that was the reality for a “pretty young thing” like her. After she went public with her most recent experience of sexual harassment, she was ostracised and shunned by her colleagues who accused her for not being able to take “jokes”. Not only did she have to cope with the trauma of the harassment, she also had to deal with the aftermath of the abuse that she faced from her colleagues and online.

The survivors’ stories illustrated how seemingly harmless everyday language contributes to our understanding of sexual violence. Too often, we are quick to make excuses for the perpetrator – “boys will be boys”, “take it as a compliment” or “maybe she gave him the wrong idea”. Victim-blaming is common, which leads to an important question: we keep asking survivors of sexual violence to speak out  – but are we, as a society, ready to listen?

To quote one speaker, “The more you talk about [sexual violence], the more people will realise that this is a reality.” We have seen how when one survivor speaks up, it makes other survivors feel less alone and also empowers them to add their voices to the conversation. However, there are plenty of survivors out there who do not feel ready to share their lived experience, but that does not mean that their experience of living through sexual violence is not real.

We cannot just rely on survivors alone to keep the conversation going. As allies, the responsibility to speak out against sexual violence and create a community of support for survivors falls on us. We need a cultural shift where we are no longer debating the lived experiences of survivors, but instead educating ourselves of the ways in which we can respond to them in an empathetic manner.

The Let’s Unite! #16DaysSG campaign provides a platform for individuals and organisations to take action to end violence against women – whether it is through simple actions such as applying the Let’s Unite! overlay to your Facebook profile picture or going a step further to collaborate with AWARE to organise a Sexual Assault First Response training session in your workplace or community. Learn more about the campaign at www.tinyurl.com/16DaysSG.

If you or someone you know has experienced any form of sexual assault or harassment, you can reach out to SACC through the helpline (6779 0282) or email sacc@aware.org.sg.

 

*Let’s Unite is inspired by the 16 Days of Activism against gender-based violence, a global campaign that calls on individuals, groups and organisations to stand together by pledging their support and taking action from 25 November, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, to 10 December, Human Rights Day.

Single parents disappointed with inaction, lack of consultation on parliamentary petition

This post was originally published as a press release on 30 November 2017. 

Single parents who signed a parliamentary petition urging reform of public housing policies are disappointed with the lack of action by policy-makers.

On Wednesday evening, the Public Petitions Committee published a report in response to the parliamentary petition presented in September by MP Louis Ng, who had worked on it closely with gender equality group AWARE.

The parliamentary petition had proposed that all parents with any care and control of their children should no longer be subject to HDB’s debarment rule, and those with legal custody of a child are not discriminated against on the ground of their marital status. It also proposed that Parliament form a Select Committee to further deliberate on public housing access for single-parent families, with particular reference to Singapore’s CRC obligations.

Attached to the Committee’s report are a public petition from AWARE, with 8,024 signatures in support of reform, and a report from MND.

Four of the single parents who signed the petition responded to the report.

Said Jamie*, “I’ve been trying all the channels and have still not experienced the so-called ‘flexibility’ HDB claims to exercise. I am truly disappointed in the way they have handled this. The Committee did not even speak to single parents directly, and only relied on the MND report. The policies punish us in a society with a high cost of living and the authorities are not listening.”

Said Eve, “I am disappointed that this petition is rejected without our real voices being heard. Nobody from Parliament contacted us to hear our perspectives. Many appeals still fail under this case-by-case approach, affecting children’s well-being. I hope the Government will take a more cohesive approach to support single-parent families. Let Singapore be a better place where we are one family, without walls differentiating parents who are all trying to build a home for their children.”

Said Jackie*, “I’m impressed by how single parents have bravely come together to urge for equal treatment. It’s heartening to see overwhelming support from society on this issue, but sadly policy-makers seem out of touch with how ordinary people treat single parents with kindness and respect.”

“A house for many people is a roof over their heads or an investment. But to single parents, it is their safe haven. Only by taking care of their basic needs can single parents work towards a better future for their kids,” said Jane*.

Jolene Tan, Head of Advocacy and Research at AWARE, said, “Single parents have made it clear that, despite MND’s promises, housing policies aren’t meeting their needs. When the petitioners approached Parliament, the Committee had the power to investigate – by holding open hearings and reaching out directly to single parents, their children, academic experts and NGOs, not only MND. The Committee has missed an opportunity to respond to the needs and concerns of Singapore’s vulnerable families.”

“It is also baffling to see the statement that existing mechanisms for review of Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) are sufficient to scrutinise and address this issue. The government has just published its latest CRC report to the United Nations and there is no discussion of the impact on housing policy on the children of single parents. We were not consulted on this subject in the preparation of the report. Nevertheless we hope to continue dialogue with MND to better serve the needs of single parents.”

Recently, AWARE published its observations based on experience with the housing situation of 20 single parents, which shows how even with HDB’s case-by-case approach, needs are going unmet.  

AWARE has been consistently urging for several key changes to HDB’s existing housing policy, including increasing the income cap for public rental housing, waiving the debarment rule for divorced parents with care and control of their children, and allowing unmarried mothers to form a family nucleus with their children.

AWARE’s public petition was built on the findings of their in-depth study (with accompanying Annexes) involving interviews with 55 single mothers, which found that 95% of respondents who sought public housing faced problems like the unrealistic income ceiling, long debarment periods and lack of transparency and clarity in policies.

*Not their real names

AWARE’s statement on charges against civil society activist

Photo: Jason Quah/TODAY

AWARE is concerned to hear that charges have been brought against Jolovan Wham, a social worker and civil society activist with a long track record of good work for marginalised people, especially women migrant domestic workers.

This case raises important questions about whether the laws and regulations on assembly in Singapore are too restrictive. Our own experience of organising events at Hong Lim and elsewhere is that seeking a permit can be cumbersome and uncertain. Sometimes we have not been informed of the outcome of the application until the day just before, which makes publicity and logistics – especially for foreign speakers – difficult.

It is important to make space for diverse voices in our society. When the conditions for speaking up about social and political issues are restrictive and carry potential criminal liability, this can have an intimidating effect on the public and discourage people from expressing their views.

Some regulation of public assembly may be necessary to safeguard the public interest in safety and prevent disruption. Yet it may be timely to reconsider how restrictive these regulations should be. Events that do not threaten the safety and well-being of any person, damage any property or cause disruption to ordinary affairs should not be made difficult to organise, and it is doubtful whether society’s interests are best served by making them liable to criminal prosecution.

Singapore’s laws on assembly and indoor talks, in particular, may criminalise a broad range of harmless activities.

One charge facing Wham concerns a talk where a speaker Skyped in from Hong Kong. As we understand it, according to the law, a talk to “publicise a cause or campaign, or to mark or commemorate any event” does not require a police permit – as long as all speakers and organisers are citizens, and the talk does not relate to religion or cause racial emnity.

But in a country as international as Singapore, how realistic is it to require prior permits for all discussion of social issues, where a foreigner might be somewhat involved?

AWARE did not, for example, obtain a police permit to host a March talk by sexual assault survivor Claire MacFarlane, who was also featured on Singapore radio and in the newspapers. Should such an event really require a police permit? Or is it time for the law to catch up with society – where foreigners are constantly heard, for instance, on the television or as teachers in educational institutions, with no apparent ill effect?

Moreover, in a country where 1 in 3 citizen marriages is to a foreigner and 1 in 5 children has a foreign parent, should it be so hard for members of our society to be heard? If foreigners work in sectors that have social implications for Singapore, and are experts in a particular field, is it better to welcome their expertise, or make it harder to hear from them? Foreigners are also often valued volunteers or staff of organisations who wish to contribute positively to the society they live in by helping with events organisation. It is unhelpful and unrealistic to expect all organisers to go through the onerous – and often, unclear – process of permit application for every event, simply because a non-Singaporean is involved. It is time to rethink these rules.

One Is Too Many – Handling Harassment at Work

Harassment at work happens more often than it is addressed. Whether it is sexual or not, it is as real as it is distressing.

#MeToo is a hashtag that went viral on social media in October 2017, as women (and men) all over the world chimed in to share personal stories of sexual violence and harassment, following sexual misconduct allegations against Harvey Weinstein.

In this event, we explore what workplace harassment looks like in Asia, its many facets, and how cultural perspectives of this vastly diverse region might make addressing certain cases difficult. You’ll go away with practical tactics to navigate the situation when one is witnessing or faced with workplace harassment.

Hear from subject experts including human resource professionals and law practitioners from AWARE, Bird & Bird ATMD and Uber. Learn how you can respond to harassment – and reinforce a safe and conducive work environment for all.

Speakers include Executive Director of AWARE, Corinna Lim.

Please note that this discussion is off the record.

REGISTER HERE

Date: 22 January 2018
Time: 6.30pm – 8.30pm
Venue: Barclays Bank PLC,
Singapore Training Room A & B,
Marina Bay Financial Centre Tower 2
10 Marina Boulevard #25-01
Singapore 018983

Women in Leadership Summit Singapore

Pre-conference workshop: 17 January 2018
Conference: 18-19 January 2018
The Women in Leadership Summit Singapore will be a platform to discuss the challenges and opportunities for women in the workplace.
We are faced with instances of choice and indecision every day of our lives. At work, it might be frustration with the status quo, of being constantly passed over for a male colleague; it might be the feeling of fighting a no-win battle.
The identified problems are similar and largely unchanged – gender inequality and imbalance; not being heard; few seats in the board room and so on… but the key as always is in finding the solution that works for you.
Learn from women trailblazers in Asia as they share their experience and ask them how you can do the same. This event gives you the wherewithal to network, speak with and benefit from hundreds of women with stories to tell.
Speakers include AWARE’s Executive Director Corinna Lim, and Catalyse Consulting trainers Elisa Kang and Robin Rheaume
Take the next step in closing the gender leadership gap – attend the Women in Leadership event.

Register here.

Don’t exaggerate risks and psychological impact of abortion

This is a previously unpublished post originally sent in to The Straits Times Forum on 21 November 2017. 

The letter “Post-abortion stress, risks can’t be ignored” (Nov 19, The Straits Times Forum) expresses laudable concern for women who may experience negative emotional or psychological reactions to abortion.

We strongly believe that support should be available for women who experience emotional or psychological difficulty for any reason, including in connection with an abortion or any other medical procedure.

At the same time, general information about abortion should be accurate, unbiased and borne out by credible research evidence so that women can make decisions based on the best available information. In this respect, it is important not to overstate the risks of abortion, especially when medical and scientific experts have a consensus on the general safety of the procedure and its after-effects.

First, scientific evidence does not support the idea of “post-abortion stress syndrome” or a common link between the after-effects of abortion and post-traumatic stress disorder. The American Psychological Association found that among adult women with unplanned pregnancies, choosing a single first-trimester abortion carries no greater chance of mental health problems than delivering the pregnancy.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), who are experts in women’s health, agrees that abortion does not typically pose a risk to mental health, and that “the predominant feeling following abortion is one of relief and diminution of stress”. RCOG also states that “severe negative reaction” is uncommon and tends to be present either when the pregnancy was planned or the abortion takes place late in the pregnancy. These factors are rare in the Singapore context where abortions are heavily restricted after 24 weeks.

Second, the chances of sterility resulting from abortion are extremely low. The United Kingdom’s National Health Service states that “having an abortion will not usually affect your chances of becoming pregnant and having normal pregnancies in future.”

The Guttmacher Institute, which specialises in reproductive health, has likewise found that abortions in the first trimester “pose virtually no long-term risk” of infertility.

Singapore medical researchers in the journal Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology recommended that “Women should be informed that abortion is a safe procedure, for which major complications and mortality are rare at all gestations.” Having access to credible information about abortion would allow women to make the best choices about their own bodies and reproductive status.

No Girls Allowed: Gender inequality in the workplace

This article was originally written for Her World in November 2017, but was unpublished.

In October, prompted in part by events in Hollywood, thousands of women spoke up about sexual assault and harassment from co-workers, family members, partners, teachers and friends; from years ago, or just yesterday. In Singapore, women courageously insisted on these realities, both in the media industry – with Juwon Park’s brave public testimony – and beyond.

In 2016, our Sexual Assault Care Centre assisted 338 survivors, with the largest category of calls about workplace incidents. Few had confidence in employers to support them – Singapore (unlike, say, Hong Kong or London) doesn’t require employers to have proper procedures. Employers are free to punish staff for speaking up or make them sign non-disclosure agreements. Without any assurances, some women simply quit.

Yet sexual harassment is only one facet of workplace gender inequality. Women face an accumulation of gendered obstacles – “death by a thousand cuts” – that make it doubly hard to achieve success. Yes, even in 2018.

Men in the office, women in the kitchen?

The numbers don’t lie: women form a paltry 8% of Singapore’s board directors, and under a third of corporate senior management. Leadership positions are dominated by men, in both the private and public sectors (yes, even with a woman President).

Many turn to women’s family responsibilities for an explanation. Times may have changed – educating daughters is no longer considered wasteful – but raising children, household chores and caring for elderly relatives are still seen by many as “women’s work”.

Almost 270,000 women are out of paid work because of these tasks – compared to under 10,000 men. And more women go part-time or refuse promotions to ensure time for this. Even the favoured solution of some women – employing domestic workers – treats domestic and care work as “women’s work”.

Despite some dads getting more involved, society still generally expects women’s careers to take a backseat instead of asking men to step up their game at home. Workplace policies reflect this, with paternity leave a mere two weeks. Inflexible work hours are designed around the idea of a male worker whose wife can handle household matters and school holidays. Women with family responsibilities may have a harder time competing.

Some argue this is just how men and women “naturally” are. But is it? Babies are dressed in “Cute like mummy, smart like daddy” onesies before they’re out of nappies. Are toddler boys often given toy kitchens and plastic vacuum cleaners? How many picture books show stay-at-home dads? Come back and talk to me about what’s “natural” when we’ve stopped forcing gender stereotypes on kids who can’t even walk.

Bias is real

Yet “work-life balance” is only part of the picture. We don’t like to admit it, in “meritocratic” Singapore, but bias is real. Conscious or unconscious, bias affects how women are evaluated.

Researchers in Boston found that when men suggested solutions to problems at work, it enhanced the perception of them as leaders – but women who did this did not receive the same benefit. Another researcher created two fictitious resumes, identical except for the names, and sent them to potential employers across the US. “Jennifer” was seen as significantly less competent than “John”. She received fewer offers of employment or mentorship, and a 13% lower salary.

These studies were done in America, but the story is familiar. In Singapore, in one survey, 71% of HR managers in medium-sized firms said “societal perceptions of women” hold women back. Women are interrupted when they speak, and aren’t given due credit for their ideas. Some are given less prestigious assignments, by bosses who assume that women, especially mothers, can’t handle tough jobs.

Women also tiptoe through a complicated minefield of stereotypes. An assertive man may be seen as both competent and likeable, but women are more likely to get dismissed as either “aggressive” or “weak”. Similarly, a man who speaks about his children gets seen as more approachable and human – but a woman risks being sidelined by stereotypes about mothers.

Stereotypes can be especially tricky when expressed as humour. Jokes about “woman bosses” set up a trap: how can an environment support women in leadership if it is a caricature to laugh at? Yet to point this out may be dismissed as uptight. In an unsupportive environment, it’s no wonder that some women end up second guessing ourselves.

In 2014, the CEO of a statutory board sent all his staff an email about how the “complex nature of women” creates “communication barriers” so women cannot “compete or co-labour with the men”. He faced some public embarrassment but no formal consequences. There is a clear gap in our laws and policies, where no employer – or even the government – has to act even the most clearcut cases of gender bias.

Time to fix this

The good news is, we can fix this. Catalyse Consulting, AWARE’s corporate training arm, has helped clients to educate their teams about unconscious bias, diversity and inclusion and addressing workplace harassment. Thoughtful changes to training, recruitment and evaluation practices can go a long way to countering the effects of bias, including unconscious bias. This allows employers to reap the benefits of supporting all talent.

Our society needs to set standards for all workers to be treated fairly. Singapore has in fact promised – by joining the global treaty, CEDAW – to eliminate all discrimination against women. So why does no law require employers to treat their staff equally? Women shouldn’t have to swallow insults to self-esteem in order to make a living or rise in their professions.

Creating a fairer society is a job for all of us. What are our own prejudices? How can we encourage future generations to truly support equality? We need to open this conversation and face the issue of bias squarely, instead of pretending it isn’t real.

You want to see things change for the better? Me too.

Write to info@catalyse.sg to bring a Catalyse Consulting workshop to your workplace.

If you need a listening ear, call the Women’s Helpline at 1800 777 5555 (Mon-Fri, 3pm-9.30pm).

If you have experienced sexual violence, call the Sexual Assault Care Centre at 6779 0282 (Mon-Fri, 10am-midnight).  

Violence survivors, industry leaders and MP Louis Ng lend their voices to end violence against women

This post was originally published as a press release on 23 November 2017.

After the online movement #metoo papered social media feeds with women’s experiences of sexual violence, the Let’s Unite campaign, led by gender equality group AWARE, invites the public to start taking collective action to end violence against women.

Organised in view of the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence (25 November to 10 December), Let’s Unite encourages supporters to take pledges for change, whether as individuals, community groups or organisations. The campaign will also showcase local efforts to end violence against women through its online hashtag #16DaysSG.

Kicking off the conversation are three women who will share their experiences of recovery from sexual violence at a dialogue session on Saturday. Bloomberg will also run a talk on employer responsibility on managing workplace harassment in December.

“When survivors of violence courageously open up about their experiences, we have a responsibility to listen and create a community of support for them that is free of mistrust, blame and shame,” said Anisha Joseph who manages AWARE’s Sexual Assault Care Centre (SACC), which recently saw a spike in cases when conversations about sexual violence were rampant (58 cases were logged in October, compared to this year’s monthly average of 37). “We must also do the difficult but important work of transforming our own attitudes to prevent violence against women from happening in the first place.”

She continued, “But we can’t just stop at individual change. Community and religious leaders should actively promote values of anti-violence, while institutions should create workplace and campus cultures that push for gender equality. The government should take action, too, by beefing up existing laws, practices and policies in view of Singapore’s latest CEDAW review, which calls for training of relevant professionals – from judiciary and police to doctors – to better understand gender-based violence.”

CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women) is a United Nations treaty which Singapore has signed. UN experts recently issued recommendations for the Singapore government on correcting gender inequality, including how to protect survivors of violence and prevent gender-based violence.

Let’s Unite kicks off on 25 November, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, with an open dialogue – #metoo, #nowwhat – that delves into the reality of violence against women in Singapore and what individuals can do, and have done, to end it.

Three women will share their own experiences of and recovery from sexual violence. One of them, Devika Satheesh, spoke about her motivation to share her story publicly: “As someone who experienced sexual violence as a child, I grew up feeling confused and believing that I was one of the few who had this unfortunate experience. But the more I opened up to people, the more people opened up to me. Literally every woman I’ve shared my experience with opened up to me about the violence they have experienced as well. I made it my mission to utilise every opportunity possible to raise awareness and lead dialogues about violence against women. It is not a myth, it is more common than many realise, and it is time we do something about it.”

Employers and industry leaders are also stepping up to address harassment in the workplace. On 4 December, Bloomberg, together with TSMP Law Corporation and AWARE’s corporate training arm, Catalyse Consulting, will hold a panel discussion “How will you handle your Harveys?” where experts will share best practices for creating a safe work environment and managing workplace harassment.

Said Hayden Majajas, Bloomberg’s Head of Diversity and Inclusion (APAC), “The issue of workplace harassment has recently received more spotlight, but it’s an ongoing issue that we all need to address urgently. We are pleased to provide the forum for important topics like this and to bring together best practice operators so all employers can ensure our workplaces are safe spaces for everyone, regardless of gender or other differences. This panel session organised with AWARE’s Catalyse Consulting and TSMP Law Corporation is timely and we look forward to helping companies take concrete action to address workplace issues.”

The campaign also calls on state leaders to take a stand. MP Louis Ng, who is no stranger to highlighting issues concerning gender equality and discrimination, also spoke in support of the campaign. He said, “To create a society where women have equal opportunities and respect, there must be zero tolerance for violence against women. We can start by improving how society supports survivors of violence, and understand that all of us – not just women – have a responsibility to promote gender equality.”  

Supportive members of the public can also overlay their social media profile pictures with the Let’s Unite frame and post a message of support with the hashtag #16DaysSG. Other supporters of the campaign include NGOs HOME, Project X and Action for AIDS.

 

The limits of “case-by-case”: single parents and housing

For some time, AWARE has sought changes to HDB rules to improve housing access for single-parent families. MND has often responded that HDB exercises “flexibility” in favour of such families on a “case-by-case” basis. It suggests that even if rules appear exclusionary, these families’ needs can be met through a discretionary approach.

However, our experience suggests that even with a case-by-case approach, needs are going unmet. Moreover, while discretion may be used to improve outcomes, it involves uncertainty which imposes costs on applicants. Thus, where possible, rules should be designed to reduce the number who must rely on case-by-case evaluation.

Below we discuss our obervations based on experience with the housing situation of 20 single parents, whose cases we have followed after the publication of our research report (with accompanying Annexes) on single parents’ access to public housing in February 2017. Of these 20 parents, 13 had previously been interviewed for our research report. Our observations have three major themes:

  • The costs and uncertainty of case-by-case appeals
  • The outcomes of case-by-case appeals: needs remain unmet
  • The role of public rental housing in meeting long-term needs

The costs and uncertainty of case-by-case appeals

Many single parents go through multiple channels to seek discretionary assistance – MPs, social workers, NGOs including AWARE, and HDB itself. All the 20 cases we followed have gone through at least one of these channels; some have pursued more than one.

  • Appeals impose stress and cost, disadvantaging those with fewer means. Single parents describe the process as frustrating, often involving repeated appeals and great uncertainty. Some expressed that their issues were only resolved because they went out of their way to fight – by going to HDB several times, and trying different channels. Outcomes may thus be decided not by need, but by whether a single parent has time and energy (affected by factors like health) and confidence in the face of bureaucracy.
  • Confusion about channels. As it is unclear whether the different appeals channels produce the same results, there is confusion on the ground about how to proceed. Some believed certain MPs would be more effective than others, and some thought a social worker was most effective.

This uncertainty was shared by social workers, who had different levels of access to HDB. Some used the same general channel as single parents: emailing HDB and waiting for a caseworker to be assigned. The caseworker could be unresponsive or reject appeals without offering alternatives. This public uncertainty about channels, including whether FSCs make a difference, undermines the rationality of the case-by-case system.

  • Miscommunication and misinformation. Some single parents only found out certain information after making an appeal – information which should have been proactively offered in the first place. One was told by HDB, at the time of renewing her public rental housing lease, that she could not make further renewals in the future, causing her great worry. However, after appealing she found out that she could continue staying. The miscommunication had caused unnecessary panic. Another found out that she already qualified to be exempted from debarment only after appealing. Other individuals, with less confidence in approaching bureaucracy, might not have found out such information and might have pre-emptively made other – potentially less suitable and more costly – housing arrangements.

The outcomes of case-by-case appeals: needs remain unmet

While the exact criteria for the exercise of discretion are unclear, the case-by-case appeals seem to generally exclude those believed to be able to live with other family members, or to afford other housing options. For example, out of about 400 single unwed parents under the age of 35 who appealed to either buy or rent a flat from HDB with their children, only one-fifth of the cases were approved, while the rest were determined by HDB to have other housing options.

Our observations suggest that the criteria are too restrictive and continue to leave the needs of families unmet.

  • Lack of transparency in what qualifies as ‘over-crowding’. HDB’s assessments of over-crowding are not transparent, resulting in conflicting perspectives between single parents and HDB. By contrast, in Canada and the EU, published Minimum Space Standards are used to determine over-crowding. These take into account occupants’ relationships, gender and age. In Scotland, the standards state that single parents and children should each have their own room, but here, single parents sharing a room with their children in someone else’s home does not appear to be considered over-crowding. Criteria should be published to improve transparency and public understanding.
  • Over-reliance on assumptions of family support. Beyond the question of physical space, many single parents express discomfort with living with other family members, due to the lack of personal space, privacy, tension or bad relationship, etc. The feeling that they are intruding into someone else’s home and lives is also common. When single parents have to share a room with their children, this can be inconvenient or even simply inappropriate depending on their age and gender.

Furthermore, there is an inherent uncertainty and dependency involved in staying with family members. Circumstances change. One single mother was deemed not to require assistance because she was staying in her sister’s flat; yet a mere month later, we found she had to move out of the flat with her child as her sister was planing to start a family. HDB’s one-off determination took no account of this possibility.

  • Financial difficulties. The determination that a given single parent can afford non-subsidised housing may not take into account competing financial needs and priorities, such as expenses for their children or parents.

Rules determining eligibility based on marital status may require single parents to deplete their savings in a way that is not required from double-income households. For example, a married person can access a BTO without any assessment of their ability to afford alternatives (beyond the income cap), but an unmarried parent seeking discretionary assistance may be denied help if they are deemed to be able to afford an alternative – essentially, requiring them to dig deeper into their financial resources. Likewise, if a divorced parent has shared care and control, they may be able to buy a new flat as a second-timer straightforwardly if they remarry, but they are unable to do so without their ex-spouse’s consent if they remain single. Thus, different demands may be made on the financial situation of the family depending on marital status.

The role of public rental housing in meeting long-term needs

It has often been suggested by the Government that rental housing is an interim rather than longer-term housing solution, and only meant for the “truly needy”.  The eligibility criteria and design of public rental housing are therefore guided by the principles that such housing is not a permanent solution for its tenants and should not encourage entrenchment. This may explain why only 1-room and 2-room flats are offered and not bigger flats, since they are not meant for permanent residence. However, this also forces bigger families to live in a crowded situation.

Despite this intent, the outcomes of the case-by-case appeals system do in fact result in families renting for extended periods, and in units not designed for long-term residence. For example, a family of five were living together in a two-room rental flat, which quite clearly to us, qualifies as a situation of overcrowding. The single parent expressed a desire for home ownership, but was deemed to be financially unready. What then happens to such families? What are their options? Another family has been renting for ten years. Some live there for all or almost all of the duration of their children’s time in primary school or in adolescence.

This points toward a need to rethink the purpose of public rental housing and consequently the principles underlying the rules governing it. If these families are believed unready for home ownership, beyond social assistance to meet daily needs, how are they being assisted to become ready? It seems that for many, transition to home ownership cannot realistically be expected during their children’s formative years. Is it time to pragmatically acknowledge that public rental housing is already – in practice – a long-term option for a number of families? If so, our policies should work to making it fit for that purpose, by improving the conditions, supply and accessibility of such housing, instead of holding on to the home ownership paradigm at all costs.

This may involve revamping the current Public Rental Scheme or even adding a new model of rental housing, which specifically provides for longer-term residents, perhaps with gradated rent levels over a wider range of incomes. One key policy that would have to change is the current requirement for flat-sharing, which creates difficulties for many tenants. In fact, a recent street survey on homeless persons in Singapore revealed that it has led to people moving out and sleeping in the streets as they cannot get along with their co-tenants. Single parents who had to share units also raised concerns about their children’s safety, lack of space and privacy.

Conclusion

The experiences of single parents with the case-by-case approach show that it can be inefficient and inadequate in meeting their needs. Behind every successful appeal is precious time and energy spent going to HDB or queuing to see an MP, and officers having to review, assess and do more paperwork. For every successful appeal, there are more appeals that have failed or a single parent who may have given up altogether, accepting circumstances that penalise them and their children over many years, with serious implications for equality of opportunity and social mobility. The right to housing is universal, and the housing system, its rules and its processes should only facilitate and not hinder access. Housing is a limited resource, but in Singapore, there is enough for us to ensure decent, stable housing for everyone. We can do better to ensure that everyone has adequate shelter which will enable them to lead healthy lives.