From 26 February to 6 March 2020, a team of interns from AWARE visited Parliament to follow the 2020 Committee of Supply (CoS) debates.
The CoS debates occur after the National Budget is announced. They comprise an examination into each ministry’s plans, during which individual Members of Parliament (MP) may request to speak on issues relating to each ministry.
Below are a few areas of interest to AWARE’s work.
1. Caregiving for children and the elderly
Several MPs raised concerns about the financial and social challenges faced by caregivers, and what could be done to assist them.
MP Saktiandi Supaat spoke about the financial burden on caregivers of elderly parents due to rising healthcare costs, reminding the government to think about how peace of mind can be ensured among Singaporeans beyond the Care and Support Package. He also raised concerns about caregivers’ employability, pointing out that caregivers are often unable to commit to retraining, and questioned if the government has targeted them in outreach efforts.
Meanwhile, Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Yip Pin Xiu called attention to how women are disproportionately affected by caregiving responsibilities, which hurts their ability to work and accumulate financial resources. She added that more can be done to redistribute caregiving responsibilities and ease the pressure on women, starting by collecting more robust data on caregivers in Singapore.
Similarly, MP Chen Show Mao spoke up on the same issue and proposed for a CPF top-up in addition to cash grants for caregivers to better ensure their retirement adequacy.
The provision of caregiving-related leave was raised. MP Louis Ng called for a specific childcare sick leave on a per-child basis. He also suggested legislating parental care leave. Similarly, NMP Yip suggested that childcare leave be converted to family care leave so it can be used for the care of other family members.
2. Support for all families, including single-parent and transnational families
AWARE welcomed the continued calls for more support to be granted to marginalised families.
MP Ng suggested that existing tax reliefs available to married couples be extended to unwed parents and single fathers, as “all parents regardless of marital status should be respected”, not discriminated against.
NMP Walter Theseira expressed concern for transnational families, which make up a significant proportion of Singapore’s population but are disadvantaged in several public policy areas. Many of them live in uncertainty as their foreign spouse must continuously apply to stay in the country, with no guarantee of success. Transnational couples, especially lower-income ones, have limited housing options. He asked if the Long-Term Visitor Pass Plus (LTVP+) can be granted to all foreign spouses of citizens to provide greater assurance of their right to reside.
Finally, MP Seah Kian Peng strongly urged for our understanding of families to change, as not everyone fits into the mould of a nuclear family unit. This is so that single unmarried parents do not continue to be deprived of housing just because they are not considered an official “family nucleus”.
3. Women and work: harassment and discrimination
NMP Yip spoke about workplace harassment and the gender wage gap. She emphasised the importance of ensuring that employers adopt and adhere to the Tripartite Advisory on Workplace Harassment and hoped that the Government will continue to promote adoption. She expressed concern that the unadjusted gender wage gap remained largely unchanged over the decade, and made suggestions to encourage father’s uptake of caregiving-related leave.
Meanwhile, Non-constituency MP (NCMP) Daniel Goh called for the Government to be more proactive in addressing motherhood bias, which penalises and prevents mothers from re-entering the workforce.
4. The needs of LGBTQ+ persons
AWARE applauded NMP Theseira’s efforts in including the needs of LGBTQ+ persons in policy discussions.
He stressed that national campaigns on combating domestic violence need to explicitly recognise the vulnerabilities of LGBTQ+ persons, such as how their fear of stigmatisation prevents them from seeking help. He called for more in-depth training for social workers and other first responders, as well as specific resources tailored to the needs of LGBTQ+ persons.
He also called for more proactive efforts in facilitating dialogue around LGBTQ+ and other issues that marginalised communities face—similar to how the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles work for conversations on race and religion.
Our “Your Stories” series are submissions shared with us via email or in one-on-one interviews, for the purposes of our research and campaigns. All names have been changed (unless the use of real names was explicitly permitted by the author), and we have sought permission to publish from the authors/interviewees themselves. The opinions expressed in these posts do not represent those of AWARE.
Natalie: I remember the exact date—24 April 2019—when my husband, Florian, and I found out that we were having triplets. We were initially unsure of how we would cope. However, we soon came around and fell in love with each of them. We looked forward to seeing the babies at every scan, seeing how much they’d grown, feeling their kicks in the evening as we played music for them.
Smooth sailing
We had a successful 15th-week scan before we flew off for our belated month-long honeymoon. We went to Zurich and Italy with our gynaecologist’s blessing. Our 20th-week scan, upon our return, showed our gorgeous threesome growing nicely. They were all growing a few days ahead of their gestational age.
Seeing our doctor had us in even better spirits. He told us that they were all doing well and as long as there were no complications, we only had to see him for routine scans.
On Saturday, 10 August, our dearest friends put together a little gender reveal party for us. We FaceTimed with family from abroad so that they could all watch the unveiling live. Baby A was a dear boy, and Babies B and C were our sweet girls. We were over the moon with the outcome, and more eager for the babies’ arrival.
Storm brewing
Two days later, I went into the hospital with some bleeding. The doctors found that I had an infection. I stayed in the hospital for two nights and, after a check on the babies and my cervical length, they sent me home. I left with a bag of antibiotics and an order to keep activity levels to a minimum. The day after my discharge, we were back in the hospital. I’d shared with Flo that I was still bleeding and feeling slightly crampy after he came home from work. He insisted we go in to get checked, even though at 22 weeks and three days, I knew that the babies were not viable.
I feared that the doctors would call for them to be induced. I was not ready for that.
I was attended to quite promptly and checked for contractions. Apparently I was having contractions, even though I couldn’t feel any. The MO checked my cervix and immediately called for me to be admitted. They said I was already dilated by five centimetres. My heart turned cold. I felt so helpless.
For the next three days, I was in constant pain. They felt like contractions, initially 10 minutes apart and gradually increasing to three to five minutes apart, and each lasting about 50 seconds. By Sunday, I’d woken up ready to have our babies out because I could no longer bear with the pain. I was told by the doctors it may be better to let them pass naturally rather than be induced. After all, my cervix was now fully dilated and the membranes were exposed.
I tried. With every “contraction”, I tried to push. There was a two-finger gap between my upper and lower abdomen. I was convinced that our baby boy below was keen to come out. But there was nothing.
Hanging onto hope
That evening, after nurses found out I hadn’t peed the whole day, they inserted a catheter into me, draining away 1.7 litres of urine. That lower abdominal bump disappeared.
Florian’s and my spirits started to pick up. We were into the 23rd week and feeling more hopeful, thinking that the worst was over.
Every day, I prayed that the babies would reach 24 weeks. Yet Flo and I knew that that milestone wasn’t any guarantee for their long-term health. We had already agreed that should the babies come in the 23rd week, we would let them go, simply because survival rates were a mere 20-30% at that point—not to mention the multitude of health complications they might struggle with from being severely underdeveloped. We didn’t want them having to fight for survival in the first few days, weeks, months, years of their lives.
We hit 23 weeks and four days and the tides turned once more. At around 10pm, I kept feeling some kind of fluid flow out from below, but it wasn’t from my water bag. The nurses changed me and found that I had green discharge flowing out with a foul smell. Immediately, the doctor ordered for me to be sent to the delivery suite. I panicked, but Florian kept assuring me that everything would be OK.
Losing pieces of me
In the delivery suite, we were advised to have the babies out lest my own health be put at risk. With the infection already attacking my womb and fever spikes for consecutive days, the doctors said they couldn’t wait.
For an hour, Florian and I debated what to do. I, filled with emotions and maternal instinct, wanted only to keep the babies. I wanted to give them a chance at life, even though days ago I had agreed to let them go. Florian was more rational but I couldn’t accept that decision. We argued. I was insistent.
In the end though, I knew within my heart of hearts that Florian was right.
At 2am on Friday, 23 August 2019—one day before my birthday—the doctor broke Baby A’s water bag. He didn’t take too long to come out. Even though he was still small, it was tiring. I couldn’t feel the contractions and the midwife had to keep going back to the monitor to tell me when to push.
They had me on oxytocin to speed up and increase the contractions for Baby B. Another doctor came in about an hour later to help me break B’s water bag and get her out. During that time, Baby C’s bag broke too. Baby B came out strong-willed and crying. It was heart-wrenching. I had to cover my eyes, begging her not to cry. Finally, just before 6am, Baby C was out to join her big brother and sister.
The entire time, Flo was with me, holding my hand, giving me sips of water, keeping me going. When the babies were all out, I think I started to go into shock. I was cold and shivering all over, my muscles tensed, my mouth clenched. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t relax. Then, I fell into the deepest sleep, waking up only to feel like I was stuck in a boiler. I was so hot, I thought I’d peed bucket-loads on myself and it’d all seeped into the blankets below, sizzling up as though the table I laid on was a grill on high heat. I had Florian remove the blankets from me, to get me cold water, to cool me down with wet wipes as I floated in and out of consciousness. My temperature had shot up to 39.6 degrees C.
Angels now
At around 10am, the babies were washed and clothed in Angel Gowns (swaddles made from preloved donated wedding gowns), which looked pristine, white and soft. Each had a small knitted beanie over their heads; they were still a little loose. It took some time for them to be brought to us because of all the paperwork that had to be completed.
When our babies were brought in for us to see, they were more beautiful than we could have ever imagined. Seeing our babies there, doll-like and peaceful, made me realise that we had made the right choice. They came to us together, and they left us together. At least they are together in heaven, under God’s watchful eye, waiting for when Flo and I to join them.
We were asked if we wanted to take photos with or of our triplets and whether we wanted to carry them. They were so tiny, so delicate, that we couldn’t bear to hold them. They looked perfect and happy, next to each other. We chose to forgo pictures because we didn’t think it right to take them. Still, I am certain that when we join them in heaven, we won’t need a photograph to recognise them. We’ll just know.
Often, I wonder whether I could have done something more. Maybe I ate something wrong; perhaps I should have insisted on more tests and swabs for infections; maybe I was too active and did not consider just how risky this pregnancy was, especially since everything seemed to be going so smoothly.
Yet I know that it’s all over now. I know that I am not the first, nor will I be the last, woman to miscarry. I also know there are many hopeful mothers who have lost in their first trimester, and some even in their last. No loss is easy. No story is more tragic than another. The pain is something we all need to wade through.
Florian and I take heart in knowing that God has bigger plans, even if we may not understand them just yet. Better things are coming. And while we mourn, our babies are together, in a much happier place, watching over us. We will always be their parents, and they our children. And we will always love them. Every single day.
A month following our loss, I started a website called Seeking The Rainbow. My desire was for this platform to be a place where mothers, and fathers too, can share their stories of pregnancy and/or infant loss. I want parents to draw hope of life after loss; and I want women who have gone through the pain of losing their child to know that they did their best, that they are not alone. We, are never alone.
I seek to shine a light on pregnancy and infancy loss. By raising awareness, I pray that women will not feel ashamed or inadequate because of what has happened. I want them to rise above the grief and find the strength to carry on; for their angel babies, for their children, for their future children and for themselves. I want them to hold on and trust that after the storm, there will always be a rainbow.
If you are experiencing any form of distress and need a listening ear, call AWARE’s Women’s Helpline at 1800 777 5555 (Mon–Fri, 10am–6pm).
Yes, false allegations of violence have a damaging impact on the person wrongfully accused.
However, 2018 data from Parliament shows that only 6 per cent of applications for PPOs were dismissed after a Family Justice Court hearing. The figures have remained nearly constant from 2016 to 2018.
Moreover, false reports are one of many grounds on which an application can be dismissed.
Some other reasons include: a court’s assessment that a PPO is not necessary for the protection of the applicant, or that the force used was in self-defence.
The overwhelming majority of these PPO applications are found to be valid. So Mr Oh’s claim that false reports are increasing is unclear.
There are robust legal protections in place to take care of that.
In recent years, even as the total number of PPO applications has gone down, victims are reporting more acts of violence in their applications.
With an eye to proactively tackling the problem of family violence, the Government has announced many new initiatives, such as an inter-agency task force, which plans to launch a dedicated national hotline for victims of family violence.
Yet more work remains to be done, including improving the level of protection PPOs provide in practice, and the ease with which one is able to apply for them.
The Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) works with single mothers through our Support, Housing and Enablement project. Of these mothers, all those who have experienced spousal violence have chosen not to file for PPOs. This is for two reasons.
First: They believe a PPO would be ineffective.
In our experience, women do not file for PPOs lightly. Often violence occurs multiple times before an application is filed.
Second: The application process is traumatic. It is often painful and difficult when the complainants have to come face to face with their abusers.
Let’s concentrate on addressing violence against women, and trust the criminal justice system to deal with false reporting.
Elizabeth Quek
Programme Manager, Support, Housing and Enablement (S.H.E.) Project
This post was originally published as a press release on 10 March 2020.
10 March 2020 – Gender-equality organisation AWARE today announced two winners for its contest Taking Ctrl, Finding Alt, which aimed to crowdsource and develop solutions to technology-facilitated sexual violence (TFSV).
Taking Ctrl, Finding Alt was launched on 25 November 2019, accompanied by the release of new statistics on the TFSV cases seen by AWARE’s Sexual Assault Care Centre (SACC) between 2016 and 2018. Such cases, which include cyberharassment, digital voyeurism and non-consensual sharing of images, increased at SACC from 46 in 2016 to 124 in 2018.
The contest was designed in recognition of the fact that while professional organisations can help fight sexual violence, para-professionals and community-based organisations have a role to play too in educating members, offering support and reinforcing anti-sexual violence messages. With 23 entries in total, contest applications closed in January, and assessment of the entries was carried out through February.
Both winners will tackle image-based sexual abuse (IBSA)—a subset of TFSV that refers to the non-consensual creation, obtainment and/or distribution of private sexual images, as well as threats to do the above. The winners receive a funding package from AWARE, in addition to development support and specialised mentorship for a pilot phase over six months in 2020. Both projects will be evaluated for their impact by 25 November 2020.
“With cases of image-based sexual abuse mounting at SACC in recent years, we know that this particular type of sexual violence needs urgent attention and action,” said AWARE Executive Director Corinna Lim. “The platforms on which TFSV occurs often determine how it is addressed, but we need holistic, community-based solutions instead. It’s fantastic to see energetic young problem-solvers identifying these survivor-centric gaps in the landscape.”
Winning Project: Providing Avenues to Take Action
The burden of responding to IBSA is often borne solely by the affected individual, especially if they do not feel comfortable reaching out for support. However, there is a noticeable lack of clear, actionable and Singapore-specific information on IBSA available online. This project aims to create a centralised website that those affected by IBSA in Singapore can turn to for clear, practical and up-to-date guidelines on taking action or finding support. The project will receive funding of $3,840.
This project is a collaboration between two researchers at the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities (a research organisation based at the Singapore University of Technology and Design) and Students for a Safer NUS (a group made up of NUS students that seeks to build community support for survivors of on-campus sexual violence).
“We noticed that Singapore, unlike Australia and some other countries, lacks a centralised website that people facing TFSV can use to decide what actions to take,” said project leads Catherine Chang and Holly Lynn Apsley. “Since the Internet is the first place many of us go when we need help, we felt that there was an urgent need for such a place online. As researchers, we felt compelled to turn the latest research and best practices into a usable public resource. Alongside specific guides to different sites and platforms, we will also offer explanations of Singapore law, police procedures and pathways to access support.”
Winning Project:Image-Based Sexual Abuse Research
This research project explores the recourse available to survivors of IBSA in Singapore, whether they have applied for civil remedies or relied upon online platforms’ community guidelines and moderation standards. The project will undertake a series of structured interviews to examine survivors’ experiences, focusing on the effectiveness of available measures, their impact on survivors, and an evaluation of the limitations or potential failures of these systems. Through this, the project also aims to make recommendations for practices to better serve survivors of IBSA. This project will receive funding of $4,800.
Project lead Lee Yi Ting is a freelancer carrying out research, writing and security training. She is passionate about gender justice and sexual rights, and spends her time working with organisations in Singapore that are focused on the same.
“Gender-based violence in any form is unacceptable,” said Lee. “If we are invested in gender equality, we need to recognise TFSV and IBSA for what they are: criminal acts, deeply rooted in misogyny and power inequality, that cause profound damage and distress.”
This letter was originally published inTODAY on 8 March 2020.
By Margaret Thomas, President, Association of Women for Action and Research
Every International Women’s Day we try to find something that we can celebrate. But the reality of our progress on gender equality disappoints year after year.
A recently released United Nations study looked at gender inequality and attitudes towards women. It found that nearly 90 per cent of all people are biased against women. Singapore’s figure, at 92 per cent, is higher than the global average.
Ninety per cent of women in Singapore, and 94 per cent of men, held these biases — indicating that biases against women are not in fact the exclusive domain of men.
The study, which measures how social beliefs obstruct gender equality in politics, work, physical integrity and education, contains data from 75 countries, covering over 80 per cent of the world’s population.
Singapore performed worse than the global average in beliefs relating to politics and education. Whereas half of the world believed that men make better political leaders, in Singapore, 76 per cent held that view. On education, 26 per cent of people in Singapore believed that going to university is more important for men than women — slightly higher than the global average of 25 per cent.
On economic-based dimensions, which measured the number of people who believe that “men should have more right to a job than women” and “men make better business executives than women do”, Singapore did better, at 52 per cent compared to the overall average of 56 per cent.
Of course, “better” is relative — the sad fact is, more than half of men and women in Singapore believe that men’s right to a job trumps that of women.
As if all this was not sobering enough, a greater punch to the gut is that overall biases against gender equality have become worse over time. Further, between 2004-2009 and 2010-2014, the proportion of women who held some bias against women saw a greater increase (from 83.4 to 84.6 per cent) than the proportion of men who held some bias against women (from 89.4 to 89.9 per cent).
It’s tempting to dismiss biases as just theoretical beliefs that don’t have the capacity to do harm. However, these biases manifest in real-world disadvantages to women. The study found that where biases against women were stronger, inequality between genders tended to be higher.
We have to pay attention to biases. Families and schools set gender norms from a young age. They have the capacity to determine men and women’s educational and occupational choices, whether women believe themselves worthy of being in politics, and whether women accept physical violence from their partners as normal and reasonable.
We should introduce comprehensive education on equal gender roles in schools, and convince parents to practise these norms at home. These might be good first steps in our long road to gender equality.
This commentary was originally published in Channel NewsAsia on 8 March 2020.
by Shailey Hingorani, Head of Research and Advocacy
SINGAPORE: International Women’s Day offers an opportunity to evaluate the extent to which socio-economic and other gaps between men and women have narrowed.
But any true vision of gender equality must also consider differences between women – including the difference between married and unmarried mothers.
Unwed mothers face a double disadvantage: They single-handedly bear not only the typical burden of motherhood, but also the stigma and tribulations of being unmarried in a society that encourages a mainstream definition of parenthood (i.e. within marriage).
Single parenthood also sees one person take on an incredibly heavy responsibility meant for two.
Some changes are afoot. The Ministry of National Development has announced on Wednesday (Mar 4) that single, unwed parents over the age of 21 can now also buy a 3-room flat in a non-mature estate from HDB, compared to a 2-room flat previously.
These moves are encouraging. Yet more can and should be done to improve housing access, arguably the most fundamental practical issue that unwed mothers and their children face.
As the Government has expressed, it’s a national imperative to give every child a headstart in life, whether with affordable quality childcare, education or otherwise. Stable housing should surely be part of that social compact.
THERE HAS BEEN PROGRESS
MPs, activists, social workers and single parents themselves have been instrumental in moving Singapore toward greater compassion for unwed mothers.
Whereas in the early 1990s, the Government argued that a conservative society like Singapore did not “accept” unwed motherhood, in 2019, the Ministry of National Development indicated that all mothers are equal, and that all unwed mothers, regardless of age, were welcome to apply for HDB housing.
“Single unwed parents and their children are our valued citizens. We are committed to do better,” Senior Parliament Secretary for National Development Sun Xueling said in September 2019, in response to MP Louis Ng’s adjournment motion, in which he called for more to be done for single unwed parents.
“I want single unwed parents to know that we share their desire to ensure the well-being of their child, and we will try our best to support them.”
Several other notable policy changes have resulted in unwed mothers being treated on par with their married counterparts. For example, in 2013, paid childcare leave was extended to unwed mothers. In 2016, Child Development Accounts – special savings accounts for education and medical expenses – were made accessible to children born out of wedlock.
The same year also saw paid maternity leave for unwed mothers increase from eight to 16 weeks, which is now equal to the entitlement provided to married mothers.
We should celebrate these changes, which provide very real material benefits to mothers in caring for their children.
That said, some public policies still show bias towards parenthood outside of marriage – such as tax rebates for childbirth, Working Mother’s Child Relief and the enhanced Baby Bonus cash gift.
ACCESS TO GRANTS STILL IMPEDED
Housing is not just about a roof over your head. Unreliable housing seriously undermines a mother’s ability to stay employed, to protect her children from abuse, and to have the time and space to plan for her family’s future.
Wednesday’s announcement – that HDB would accept applications from all unwed parents for up to a 3-room flat, in addition to resale flats – will certainly ameliorate the situation for those who can afford such flats.
However, Parliament had previously revealed, in response to a question from Mr Ng, that the median monthly employment income for unwed mothers below the age of 35 is S$600. Most, therefore, are likely to need subsidies, so their choice of housing will still be limited despite this change.
HDB policy also does not allow unwed, single parents and their children to count as a “family nucleus”, which would make them eligible for flats and housing grants under the Families Grant scheme.
ACCESS TO HOUSING REMAINS UNCERTAIN
More broadly, although the changes now provide more options and have lowered the age of eligibility, single mothers will still need to make these requests through HDB where their needs will be assessed, or through their MPs, rather than through the usual sales channels.
Requests for rental housing also remains on a case-by-case basis. Mr Ng’s appeal for MND to define objective criteria on how housing applications get evaluated was also rejected on grounds that each case is unique, and that the Government needs to exercise maximum flexibility.
Our experience tells us that such an approach has historically failed to meet the housing needs of unwed mothers.
National-level data shared in Parliament reveals that when it comes to rental housing applications from single unwed parents, rejections outnumber approvals. From 2014 to May 2019, MND has only approved 380 rental applications out of the 1,014 requests received.
Similarly, from 2014 to 2016, only about 20 per cent of the 100 single, unwed mothers under 35 who appealed to buy a flat had their applications approved.
SUPPORT, HOUSING AND ENABLEMENT
Since 2018, AWARE has run the Support, Housing and Enablement (S.H.E.) Project, which currently provides free housing for two years to single-mother families. Of these mothers, one-third are unmarried mothers under the age of 35.
They all come from unstable housing backgrounds, either living in transitional shelters or moving house to house because no family member was willing to provide shelter for long enough. They have little or no family support, and often put up with familial abuse in order to continue living with family.
One of the mothers, Nurul*, told us that her prior living arrangement with her brother was untenable because he was easily angered and frequently resorted to physical abuse. Once, he hit her daughter while she was sleeping and caused her nose to bleed. Another time, he threatened to beat her for staring at him.
Staying at S.H.E. has allowed Nurul to concentrate on finding full-time employment. Her relationship with her family has improved because they are not crowded into the same small space anymore. Her child is growing up in an emotionally stable environment, free from abuse.
After MND openly invited unwed parents to apply for housing last year, one of the S.H.E. mothers managed to secure rental housing; she now plans to move out of S.H.E. The others are still struggling because of their unmarried status.
WHY NOT EQUALISE BENEFITS?
A roadmap towards housing equality for all mothers could look like this: An unwed mother and her children would count as a family nucleus, enabling them to apply for public housing under the Families Scheme.
And overall, unwed parents, whether the children end up with the father or mother, would have access to housing as a matter of policy and not on a case-by-case basis. There would be a separate scheme for those under the age of 35 to apply for 2- or 3-room flats (similar to the existing Orphans or Joint Singles Scheme).
The struggle for a life free from discrimination and social stigma is far from over for these mothers. As a caring and inclusive society, this International Women’s Day, let us pledge to extend the same benefits to all mothers regardless of their marital status.
Shailey Hingorani is Head of Research and Advocacy at AWARE.
This letter was originally published in The Straits Times on 5 March 2020.
Employment agencies of foreign domestic workers (FDWs) should provide more clarity and transparency on the services they provide, accompanied by a fee breakdown.
Preliminary findings from a study by the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) show that FDWs pay an average of three months’ salary in agency fees, although there seems to be no industry standard for what services agencies provide.
In fact, agencies vary wildly in the amount of matching they carry out (between FDWs’ caregiving abilities and prospective care recipients’ needs), in the kind of eldercare-specific training they provide FDWs and in the kind of post-placement support they offer.
The services rendered to both employers and FDWs are even more opaque when it comes to transfer FDWs.
It can take an FDW between a day and a week to move from her former place of work into her new employer’s home, according to our findings.
Yet it is unclear what services agencies are providing to FDWs during this short period in terms of training or accommodation. If there are administrative costs associated with facilitating the transfer, surely this could be standardised, perhaps by the number of days the FDW is with the agency.
Some employment agencies do not charge transfer FDWs any fees at all, raising questions about the necessity of such fees.
Employment agencies play a crucial role in meeting local caregiving needs, and ensuring that the women who come here to provide such care are adequately supported.
To secure the best care outcomes for our elderly and peace of mind for FDW employers, and minimise FDWs’ debts in agency fees, more transparency is needed on the services provided by employment agencies.
We are interested in interviewing members of transnational families to learn about your experiences living and working in Singapore, and how citizenship status affects your family life.
To qualify, you must be one of the following:
1. A foreign spouse
Married/divorced/widowed/separated
Your spouse or ex-spouse must be Singaporean citizen, not PR
You must be on a Social Visit Pass or Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP/+). If you are a Permanent Resident (PR), you need to have been on LTVP/+ before.
2. A Singaporean citizen spouse
Currently married to a foreign spouse
Your spouse must be on a Social Visit Pass or Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP/+). If they are a Permanent Resident (PR), they need to have been on LTVP/+ before.
3. The child of a transnational couple
At least 18 years old
You must have one Singaporean citizen parent and one non-resident parent. Your non-resident parent must be on a Social Visit Pass or Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP/+). If they are a Permanent Resident (PR), they need to have been on LTVP/+ before.
Your parents can be married or divorced.
The interviews will be one hour long and conducted at a time and place of your convenience. They will be conducted between April and June 2020. Respondents will receive $30 as a token of appreciation.
If you are interested, or have any questions, please fill out this form with your contact details, or email Ning Qian at advocacy@aware.org.sg. Do feel free to ask for more clarifications about whether you fit the profile.
This letter was originally published in The Straits Times on 28 February 2020.
I welcome the latest efforts in addressing family violence and urge for particular attention to be paid to the vulnerabilities of foreign spouses.
Out of the 2,811 personal protection order applications received by the Family Justice Courts in 2016, 203 applications, or 7 per cent, were filed by foreign wives against their husbands. Half of these orders were issued.
There is no comprehensive public data on the rate of spousal violence experienced by women, so comparison across citizenship status is not possible.
Still, we can reasonably expect foreign spouses to be in a particularly vulnerable situation. Many experience violence at the hands of the very people they depend on for the right to stay in the country.
The Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) regularly receives calls from foreign wives through the Women’s Helpline.
About a quarter of these callers said they had experienced some form of family violence, including having their spouses threaten to cancel their visas to prevent them from seeking help or reporting them to the police.
Fear of losing their right to remain in Singapore, among other factors, forces these women to stay in abusive marriages.
Foreign spouses whose Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP) get cancelled or not renewed by their citizen spouse cannot be sponsored by any other party as long as they remain married.
As a result, they may be forced to make a decision between staying in Singapore or escaping an abusive relationship.
In situations where their passes expire or get cancelled, the non-resident spouse will usually be put on a Social Visit Pass (SVP), which has to be renewed every month at the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA).
However, renewal is completely at the ICA’s discretion. This can be stressful for the foreign spouse as there is no guarantee of her right to remain.
The stress is compounded if she has Singaporean children, as there is a risk of separation. At any rate, the SVP does not accord a right to work or entitlement to any public benefits.
The Government should consider making special accommodation for abused foreign spouses to renew their LTVP independently of the abusive citizen spouse.
This protects their access to work and benefits, and provides them with more resources to leave an abusive relationship.
