MENU

MENU

Donate Now
Login

Year: 2021

home

Reporting workplace sexual harassment: Dealing with retaliation

This op-ed was originally published in The Straits Times on December 24 2021.

For three in 10 victims of workplace sexual harassment who report their experiences, instead of setting them on a path to justice and recourse, it ends up triggering some form of retaliation – from perpetrators, employers and/or peers.

That was a disconcerting new finding from a study, I Quit, by gender advocacy group Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) released earlier this month. I Quit is a qualitative research report on the career and financial impact of workplace sexual harassment on women in Singapore.

Whether done to protect an organisation’s image, send a message that complaints are unwelcome or ensure that employees’ attention remains on their work, retaliation makes an already difficult situation even more deplorable for harassment victims. It compounds the trauma already suffered from the harassment itself and contributes to feelings of isolation, helplessness and distrust.

For this reason, when thinking about how to protect workers in Singapore from workplace sexual harassment, an essential part of the equation involves protection from retaliation. Without that, it’s hard to imagine workplaces being truly safe, transparent and fair in their functioning. So, what more can be done to protect them?

Work-related retaliation

What does retaliation look like? Clear-cut scenarios might involve a survivor being fired for not being “a good fit” two weeks after reporting that her manager sexually harassed her. In reality, however, employers tend to use more subtle tactics to escape detection.

Reena (not her real name), who worked in finance, was verbally harassed by a key stakeholder at her company. On reporting this, her manager started unrealistically shortening her work deadlines. Tasks ordinarily requiring two weeks to complete were expected to be done within three days, and she could not discern any justification for this change.

Other forms of retaliation that women experience include denial of benefits or promotions, unfair performance reviews, dismissal and sudden disciplinary action.

Another I Quit respondent, Mei Ling (not her real name), who worked in a school, experienced verbal sexual harassment by a colleague and filed a report with the help of her supervisor. However, instead of treating the report with seriousness and investigating her complaint, the school principal made allegations that surprised her. “Teachers are ranked and, at that point, I was being ranked unfairly,” she said. “There were accusations made about my professionalism… The principal insisted that I didn’t go into class when I didn’t feel like it, which was not true.”

As one might expect, retaliation in the form of adverse work-related actions is typically perpetrated by those with more power than the victim in the organisational hierarchy. A study which surveyed 1,167 United States federal employees found that employees with lower status within their organisations experienced higher rates of retaliation for reporting harassment.

Social retaliation

In addition to these work-related actions, I Quit found another set of retaliatory behaviours: ostracism, name-calling and blame. These are less tangible than direct work-related actions and typically originate from peers or subordinates.

In some cases, retaliation is experienced in the form of ostracism alone. One respondent, a non-profit employee who was subject to multiple inappropriate sexual comments from colleagues, said that after disclosing her experience, “a lot of the middle management who were on the same level as me didn’t really speak to me as much any more… I wasn’t involved in a lot of important things”.

For others, such as Sada (not her real name), a tech employee who experienced verbal and online sexual harassment, social retaliation took on a combination of ostracism and name-calling: “I could hear people, murmuring and echoing around me, ‘This is a troublemaker’… No one wanted to speak with me any more.” The few co-workers who did speak with her told her that she “shouldn’t have reported the harassment at all”, expressing a commonly held assumption that non-physical sexual harassment isn’t really serious – “(the perpetrator) did not even touch you, so why did you report it?”

Experts suggest that social retaliation may be more pervasive because of its relative social acceptability. After all, there’s nothing overtly threatening about ostracism – it may be dismissed as personal preference (“not everyone in the workplace gets along”) or even unintentional omission (“I forgot to invite them for a work meeting”).

However, such retaliation strikes at the heart of the human need to belong. While work-related actions alter material aspects of a victim’s job, social retaliation alters her interpersonal relations at work, which can affect her productivity, job satisfaction and ultimately her desire to continue in her role.

Effect on sexual harassment reporting

Retaliatory action silences and isolates victims by discouraging them from filing formal reports, confiding in their colleagues and, often, seeking any help at all. In fact, research suggests that employers do not even need to perform retaliation to deter reports – the mere threat of retaliation is enough. I Quit found that the fear of retaliation alone discouraged another two in five harassment victims from making reports.

Although there is not much Singapore-specific data on retaliation, studies in other countries show that these fears are not unfounded. A US-based research study that analysed all sexual harassment complaints filed with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and state Fair Employment Practices Agencies between 2012 and 2016 found that about two-thirds of people who reported workplace sexual harassment to a state or federal agency experienced negative consequences at work.

In fact, a strong correlation exists between instances of sexual harassment and negative consequences at work: Research has shown that the more frequently mistreatment occurs in a given workplace, the more frequently victims encounter retaliation, both professional and social, for speaking out.

What does this mean for Singapore’s workplaces and workers? Obviously, harassment in the workplace can’t be properly addressed when an abundance of incidents go unreported. Beyond that, though, not reporting one’s harassment is also associated with health-related costs such as increased risk of anxiety, depression and diminished psychological well-being. Under-reporting also prevents employers from taking early action against workplace harassment.

Taking action

The Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment helpfully lays out the principle of non-retaliation in its guiding principles for employers: “The reporting informant must not be victimised by the employer following the making of such a report.”

Employers can certainly build on this principle to draft a robust anti-retaliation policy, but since the number of employers in Singapore who have adopted the Tripartite Advisory is not tracked, it is impossible to estimate how many offer protection from retaliation.

Employers and employees alike need more information on retaliation, particularly the different forms it can take, its consequences and how best to tackle it. For example, the advisory should clarify whether a victim who has already filed a sexual harassment complaint can also file a separate complaint for retaliation. Similarly, what consequences are borne by employers found culpable of retaliating or encouraging retaliation, intentionally or otherwise? This should also be clarified.

The Tripartite Standard on Grievance Handling, which provides guidance on the management of employee dissatisfaction or complaints, including workplace harassment, had been adopted by only 1,200 employers, or 0.4 per cent of all business entities in Singapore, in 2019.

Meanwhile, the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissals protects against retaliation when an employer dismisses an employee to punish the employee for exercising his or her employment right – such as filing a mediation request, or declining a request to work overtime.

However, it doesn’t provide protection from types of retaliation that do not end up in dismissal but are nevertheless professionally, psychologically and physically insidious.

The Government should introduce national legislation that explicitly protects against retaliation, to deal with workplace sexual harassment and mandate that employers implement well-defined sexual harassment policies and gender-sensitive training.

The oft-cited concern that decisive action against harassment or retaliation will lead to heightened litigiousness in the workplace needs to be put aside – it does not justify turning a blind eye to harassment victims’ protracted punishment.

Shailey Hingorani, Head of Research and Advocacy, AWARE

Let’s protect the best interests of divorced transnational couples’ children

The Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) is heartened to see shared care and control being granted in more divorce cases last year (‘More divorced couples share care and control of their kids’). This reflects the courts’ prioritisation of children’s well-being, since both parents are able to make decisions about children’s daily needs while children can live with each parent.

The same principle should be extended to joint custody arrangements — enabling parents to make major decisions for their children in areas like education — especially for transnational couples.

Joint custody is less commonly granted to transnational couples, comprising a Singaporean citizen and non-resident: A local study on divorce cases filed to the Family Justice Courts from 2011 to 2015 found that while 76% of divorced Singaporean couples were awarded joint custody, it dropped to 50% for transnational couples.

The court’s decision to award joint custody in most cases between Singaporeans illustrates its belief that this arrangement is in the children’s best interest. This would also be in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Singapore acceded to.

Why then are children of transnational marriages often denied this option?

Certain immigration policies contribute to this gap. Though the Immigration Checkpoint Authority (ICA) clarified that the Long-Term Visit Passes (LTVP) of divorced migrant spouses will “generally” be renewed if they have custody of Singaporean children, those without custody face greater uncertainty since they require LTVP sponsorship from a citizen or Permanent Resident. Many ex-citizen spouses are unwilling to do so, putting their children at risk of separation from their non-resident parents.

This disparity in custody order outcomes also begs the question: Why do the assessments made about children’s best interest appear to be different when one parent is a non-resident?

Some may argue that citizen parents should be granted sole custody, since raising a child in Singapore is thought to be preferable for them. However, the child should have access to their non-resident parent’s care for their well-being through a joint custody arrangement.

If we truly wish to protect children’s best interests, transnational couples should be given equal treatment in court and granted joint decision-making powers in important aspects of their children’s lives, except in certain scenarios, such as when a parent is abusive.

To enable this, migrant spouses should automatically be granted an LTVP when their citizen child is born, to allow them to maintain a stable role in their children’s upbringing without having to fear separation.

Kimberly Wong
Research Executive, AWARE

What does workplace sexual harassment do to a victim’s career?

This op-ed was originally published in the Business Times on December 17 2021.

MELISSA* (name changed to protect her identity) had just started work as a senior manager at a multinational corporation (MNC) when she began to be harassed by the chief executive officer (CEO) of the company. The CEO started texting her on a daily basis, which Melissa found odd, because she did not report to him directly. These texts would sometimes include inappropriate comments about other female staff. She chose to ignore these texts and focus on her work, wanting to make a good impression. Over time, however, the daily texting escalated to physical harassment at her cubicle.

After continuing to decline the CEO’s advances, Melissa was informed that she would be let go. Although she was never clearly provided a work-related reason for her dismissal, she suspects her experience of harassment – something she never asked for, and coped with as best she could – had something to do with it.

Melissa’s experience is similar to that of many women who have experienced work place sexual harassment in the past 5 years. A new qualitative study by the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) – “I Quit”: Career and Financial Effects of Workplace Sexual Harassment on Women in Singapore, based on in-depth interviews with 39 victims of workplace sexual harassment – shines for the first time a spotlight on both the short- and long-term career and financial impacts of such harassment. The respondents were drawn from different industries, worked in MNCs, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and as self-employed workers. They also represented a wide range of work experience, from the extremely accomplished to those who were just starting out in their careers.

Decreases work productivity

Out of 39 respondents to “I Quit”, 34 reported decreased work productivity: After experiencing sexual harassment, they were unable to perform work tasks as efficiently as before. Their ability to perform at work was hampered by various needs: to protect themselves from further harassment, to find support for emotional and psychological trauma, and in some cases, to show up to work despite safety and health concerns because they couldn’t afford not to.

Some survivors of sexual harassment use leave as part of their coping strategies. They may try to protect themselves from further harassment by taking leave and thus avoiding their harassers. They also take leave to cope with the emotional and psychological trauma of sexual harassment, although this can lead to them lagging behind on deadlines, missing import ant meetings, and struggling with the large piles of work that accumulate during their absences.

Other survivors show up to work be cause they cannot afford to take time off. This “presenteeism” – or, the act of coming to work despite illness, injury or anxiety – is particularly pronounced for those in vulnerable financial situations.

Returning to work can put them in close proximity to their harassers, which is unsurprisingly detrimental to their well being. The resultant feelings of stress and anxiety can then implicate their ability to concentrate at work, diminishing their productivity, and consequently their job satisfaction.

Research respondents reported experiencing a few other short-term impacts too: Thirty respondents found that their relationships with colleagues had deteriorated, either because the colleagues did not believe the victims had experienced sexual harassment, or because they closed ranks around the harassers, who may have been more senior or more popular at the office.

Pushes victims out of jobs

When ignored, the short-term effects of workplace sexual harassment can push victims to leave their jobs and/or industries, either through their own volition or be cause they are fired. This is borne out by both the qualitative research in “I Quit”, and also a national survey of 1,000 respondents conducted earlier this year by Aware and market research company Ipsos. Of the survey respondents who did not report their experiences of workplace sexual harassment, 16 per cent of women and 9 per cent of men quit their jobs. Quitting was not a spur-of-the-moment decision for respondents, even when the decision to quit was made fairly soon after experiencing sexual harassment. For some, harassment was the main reason they resigned; for others it was a combination of not only harassment, but also negative reporting experiences and/or sub sequent retaliation that precipitated their decisions to quit. Regardless of the reason, all respondents reported being riddled with stress and trauma while deciding how best to protect themselves from harassment and continuing with their jobs and careers.

We frequently – and erroneously – presume that victims, in removing themselves from the site of harassment, put an end to the harassment and the attendant emotional and psychological trauma. This, we imagine, allows them space to refocus on their jobs and careers. However, the experience of workplace sexual harassment and the manner in which victims are treated in its aftermath actually have knock-on effects on their subsequent career-related decision-making processes.

Forces a change in career paths

In deciding their career trajectories, 1 in 4 of our respondents decided to change industries after workplace sexual harassment. Many of them believed that they were no longer “cut out” for a certain field or type of job, opting instead to take up lower-paying jobs that they believed did not carry the same risk of abuse – for example, female-dominated jobs such as childcare. Others were forced to change industries because they did not want to risk running into their harassers, or because their harassers had retaliated against them by undermining their professional reputation in their sectors, forcing them to look for employment elsewhere.

Starting in a new industry, though, is not exactly for the faint of heart. For one, respondents found themselves starting at entry-level, and thus lower-paying, positions. And this loss of seniority and standing – and associated pay and promotions – is particularly troublesome for women’s economic prospects, because it may negatively impact their earnings and promotion opportunities later in their careers.

There is also the pesky problem of having to explain short stints and/or long breaks in a resume because of workplace sexual harassment. Some of our respondents were hesitant to disclose previous experiences of sexual harassment to subsequent employers, fearing that they would be blamed for having somehow “invited” the harassment upon themselves, or perceived as overly sensitive – a common refrain of those who prefer to dismiss sexual harassment as “harmless fun”.

Early intervention in the form of work place trainings on sexual harassment, sensitive handling of harassment reports, and protection from retaliation are all steps that can minimise the career and financial impacts of workplace sexual harassment. Unfortunately, many companies continue to labour under the misconception that workplace sexual harassment is merely an interpersonal problem, to be worked out between colleagues.

The government should introduce legislation that clarifies the obligations employers have to provide a safe working environment. No one should have to put up with harassment in order to earn a living.

Shailey Hingorani, Head of Research and Advocacy, AWARE

Broaden family violence definition to explicitly include coercive control

This was originally published to The Straits Times on December 9 2021. 

The Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) agrees with Care Corner Singapore chief service officer Agnes Chia that it is important to recognise coercive control behaviours that are designed to restrict a person’s life, and to belittle her while making her dependent on the abuser (Watch out for coercive control violence too, Dec 2).

Coercive control refers to a pattern of controlling behaviour: threats, humiliation, intimidation and other demands used to establish power over victims.

As mentioned by Ms Chia, current legislation, while broadly covering coercive control, does not fully address situations involving coercive control that appear harmless on the surface.

This kind of behaviour operates in a much subtler manner that goes beyond explicit threats of harm, derogatory comments, shouting and other actions that would prompt neighbours to call the police.

Many callers to Aware’s women’s helpline tell us that while they might not consider physical violence to be the most distressing aspect of their abuse, it is what they raise to the authorities to get the protection they need.

While controlling behaviours and other forms of non-physical abuse are more pervasive, these callers find them harder to prove.

However, there is still a lack of public understanding of coercive control. Catalyse, Aware’s corporate advisory, consulting and training arm, has trained 500 workshop participants this year on how to support victims of domestic violence.

Based on the feedback received, a big revelation for participants is the idea that family violence covers not only physical threats and harm, but also power and control exerted over another person to dominate her.

We are glad that social workers and counsellors are trained to identify signs of abuse, including coercive control, and that the Taskforce on Family Violence plans to educate the police and the public on it.

We urge the Government to go further and consider broadening the definition of family violence to explicitly include coercive control as an additional category of family violence.

Since the task force recognises the importance of identifying coercive control and plans to cover the concept in its training programmes, the law should also be revised to include its definition and to extend legal protection to victims.

We believe that a legislative update, together with educational programmes, will go a long way to help Singapore tackle all forms of family violence, including the subtler form of coercive control.

Lee Yoke Mun, Projects Executive, AWARE

Job loss, low productivity, time out of work and loss of income await women who experience workplace sexual harassment in Singapore: AWARE study

This post was originally published as a press release on 8 December 2021.

8 December 2021 – Many women who experience workplace sexual harassment in Singapore end up quitting their jobs, spending months or years out of work, going through extended periods of low productivity and facing other career disruptions. They also experience dips in incomes due to being unemployed or taking lower-paying jobs after harassment.

Those are some of the findings of a first-of-its-kind study by gender-equality organisation AWARE, titled “‘I Quit’: Career and Financial Effects of Workplace Sexual Harassment on Women in Singapore”. The qualitative report builds upon AWARE’s earlier quantitative research into the issue, including a survey that the organisation co-released with Ipsos in January 2021.

“I Quit” draws its findings from interviews conducted between 2019 and 2020 with 39 working women who experienced harassment across various industries in Singapore in the previous five years. Harassment ranged from verbal (most common) to physical and technology-facilitated, and took place at the office, outside the office (e.g. on business trips or at work drinks) and online. The majority of perpetrators were either respondents’ bosses or senior staff members in their organisations; others were colleagues or peers, clients, subordinates, strangers or students. Seven in ten respondents had been employed for less than one year at their companies when the harassment took place.

“While the psychological and emotional impacts of workplace sexual harassment are fairly well-known, its career and financial impacts have not previously been illuminated in Singapore,” said Ms Shailey Hingorani, head of AWARE’s Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Advisory. “This research adds dimension to the troubling picture of workplace harassment, so we can better understand the full extent of its damage—what it really does to a person’s life.”

Beyond the long-term impacts mentioned above, the study found that the short-term career-related impacts of workplace sexual harassment were decreased work productivity (for 2.8 months on average), lower job satisfaction, negatively impacted collegial relationships, hostile work environments and reputational damage. Short-term financial impacts came in the form of increased expenditure (e.g. on healthcare or self-care) and lower income.

In accordance with previous data about under-reporting, more than half (22) of respondents did not file official reports about their harassment. Of the 17 respondents who did file official complaints, five experienced retaliation from their organisations and/or perpetrators, in the form of negative performance reviews, denial of bonuses and even termination of employment.

“Survivors of workplace sexual harassment leave their jobs to put a stop to the harassment itself, or because of subsequent mental health impacts, negative reporting experiences or retaliatory behaviours,” explained Ms Hingorani. “On the other hand, if they receive supportive first responses from colleagues, assistance from HR trained in sensitive grievance handling, and protective measures against retaliation, they may not need to resort to such a drastic step.”

Researchers identified organisational characteristics that facilitate repeated incidents of workplace sexual harassment, such as: male-dominated management and/or organisations; poor organisational climate; the absence of an HR department or policies targeted at harassment, and dependency on sexualised customer interactions. They also noted that the compounded effects of workplace sexual harassment include occupational segregation: As women leave behind hostile, harassment-heavy industries, those industries become increasingly male-dominated, fuelling a vicious cycle where harassment continues to flourish unchecked. Such segregation is known to worsen the gender pay gap.

To better combat workplace sexual harassment in Singapore, AWARE recommends that the government develop a national legislation to deal with workplace sexual harassment, and mandate that employers both create well-defined sexual harassment policies and implement gender-sensitive training in the workplace. The report also suggests measures to increase the procedural satisfaction of victim-survivors, and provide protection to both survivors and witnesses to reduce the possibility of retaliation.

“Our findings tell a startling and aggravating story of injustice,” said Ms Hingorani. “Victim-survivors of workplace sexual harassment are simply looking to earn a living and pursue their professional goals. Instead, through no fault of their own, and on top of emotional trauma, they are beset with a wide range of harms—some of which have repercussions for the rest of their lives. If that unfairness is not compelling enough, we hope that the economic costs associated with workplace harassment, such as turnover and reduced productivity, can encourage Singapore’s businesses and government to take greater action.”

Read the full “I Quit” report here.

ANNEX: Select respondent profiles

Melissa* was a new senior manager at an MNC when she was harassed by the CEO of the company. At the start, the perpetrator texted her on a daily basis, although she did not report directly to him, and made inappropriate comments to her about other female staff. Over time, this escalated to him physically harassing her at her work cubicle. Shortly after declining his advances again, Melissa was informed that she would be let go, although the reason for this was not made clear to her. While job-seeking, she found it difficult to explain her short stint at that organisation to potential employers.

Rita* worked for a few months as a part-time waitress at a restaurant where chefs made inappropriate comments about her. She did not report the incidents to anybody as the perpetrators were well-liked at the workplace and she did not think she would be believed. The harassment made her self-conscious, which caused her to be distracted and less personable both with colleagues and customers. Rita also took on fewer shifts to minimise interactions with the perpetrators. To end the harassment, she eventually left the job for a different part-time role.

Carrie* was an executive at an SME. Her boss would send her overly personal text messages and touch her inappropriately at work. After she rejected his advances, he retaliated against Carrie by unfairly criticising her work. The harassment persisted for nine months before she left her job and changed industries completely, despite wishing to remain in that job and industry.

*Name changed to protect their identities

Anti-discrimination legislation should be comprehensive

This letter was originally published in The Straits Times on November 19 2021. 

Since the announcement in August that anti-discrimination legislation will be enacted, both the public and parliamentarians have raised relevant questions about what the legislation entails and its implications (What’s needed in new laws to ensure fair play at the workplace?, Nov 13).

However, there are some concerns regarding the new laws that suggest an incomplete understanding of the reality of workplace discrimination.

To ensure that the anti-discrimination legislation is comprehensive, all vulnerable groups must be protected.

Currently, the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices that will be enshrined into law protect employees from discrimination on the basis of age, race, gender, religion, marital status and family responsibilities, and disability.

Absent is any mention of discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

Workplace harassment should also be categorised as a form of discrimination under the new law.

Discrimination can be expressed through harassment, such as in instances where employers or co-workers create a hostile, intimidating or threatening work environment through words or actions.

Marginalised groups, including LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer) people, are more vulnerable to harassment due to deep-seated discriminatory stereotypes.

The upcoming legislation should also be accompanied by relevant examples to provide clarity on different forms of discrimination. Indirect forms of discrimination tend to escape attention. Indirect discrimination results from policies that apply to everybody at the workplace, but disproportionately affect a marginalised group.

Another obstacle that should be addressed is that of under-reporting. A national survey by market researcher Ipsos and the Association of Women for Action and Research this year showed that only three in 10 victims of workplace sexual harassment filed official reports. As Straits Times senior political correspondent Tham Yuen-C points out, there is a fear of retaliation or damage to one’s reputation that can hold victims back from reporting.

To reduce the barriers faced during the reporting process, the new legislation should offer victims and witnesses better protection from retaliatory action by perpetrators and employers.

Legislation alone cannot eradicate discrimination. However, at the minimum, it will set out clear standards for businesses, and offer employees far-reaching legal protection and recourse. Other policies, including mandatory anti-discrimination training, have to be developed in tandem to bolster workers’ safety, well-being and productivity.

Apoorva Shukla,
Executive, Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Advisory 

A Recap: Fair Enough? Towards an anti-discrimination law for Singapore (online panel)

Written by Erynn Lau, Junior Executive, Catalyse

On the last Thursday of October, 150 listeners came together over Zoom for the virtual panel Fair Enough? Towards an anti-discrimination law for Singapore.

Our speakers that afternoon hailed from across Singapore’s civil society: AWARE Executive Director Corinna Lim; Cassandra Chiu from Disabled People’s Association (DPA), and Deryne Sim of Pink Dot. Also present were David Black, founder and CEO of Blackbox Research, and Adelene Ong, Blackbox’s Public Policy Research Director, who presented findings from a new Blackbox survey on workplace discrimination in Singapore.

Tying everything together as the moderator was Professor Tommy Koh, Ambassador-at-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Rector of the Tembusu College at NUS and Special Adviser to the Institute of Policy Studies.

The event was catalysed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s announcement, during this year’s National Day Rally, of new legislation to target workplace discrimination, which would enshrine into law existing guidelines from Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP). Taking this—in the words of Professor Koh—”historic opportunity to help our government formulate new anti-discrimination legislation”, the panellists set out their shared commitment to combat workplace discrimination of all forms.

From data-driven insights to our speakers’ emotive personal accounts, here are our key takeaways from the event:

1) The reality: What does discrimination look like?

According to Blackbox’s survey of 1,000 people aged 15 and above in Singapore, 19% and 15% of the respondents said that they have personally experienced sexism and sexual harassment in the workplace respectively. Additionally, 8% reported that they faced homophobia and 7% felt that they were subjected to transphobia, while 6% said that they were discriminated against on the basis of their disabilities.

Following these statistics, the panellists talked about their own lived experiences with workplace discrimination, as well as how discrimination affects the communities they serve, in these four areas: hiring, retention, career growth and mediation.

Within hiring, Cassandra described the inner battle faced by applicants with disabilities in deciding whether to disclose their disabilities to interviewers, and risk not receiving a call back.

As for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and other sexual and gender minority (LGBTQ+) applicants, Deryne shared data from a 2018 Asia Pacific Transgender Network report that found that cisgender applicants received 81.5% more positive responses for job applications than transgender applicants, even though they have similar qualifications and experience.

All panellists agreed that fair employment practices should be extended to this stage of employment, such that hiring practices centre solely on the skills pertinent to the job. If that was the case, Cassandra said, Singapore would be able to raise the employment rate of persons with disabilities, which currently stands at a disappointingly low figure of 28%.

Corinna brought up maternity discrimination as one of the more common forms of gender-based discrimination seen in Singapore. Out of the 67 discrimination cases seen by AWARE’s Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Advisory (WHDA) in 2020, a full 48 pertained to maternity discrimination. Corinna described the different ways that maternity discrimination manifests: from being told not to get pregnant “early in the job”, to receiving poor performance reviews after pregnancy despite having a good track record prior.

2) Community-based support: What protects complainants from retaliation?

As the discussion progressed, panellists gave an overview of options for discrimination victims.

Asked about the efficacy of community-based support services and processes for those seeking recourse, Corinna observed that the experience of AWARE’s WHDA has brought to light the limitations of existing channels for recourse.

Blackbox’s survey found as well that awareness surrounding available community-based support services is lagging: Respondents seemed largely unfamiliar with a wide range of services that could assist them with workplace discrimination. For example, 54% of respondents indicated that they were unfamiliar with the types of support offered by TAFEP for workplace discrimination cases.

As such, those desperate for justice may turn to social media, a high-risk move that may easily backfire on them. 

To make the recourse process safe for all parties, panellists agreed, all official channels for reporting discrimination should be trauma-informed, as well as LGBTQ+- and gender-informed.

3) Wishlists: Ensuring better protections by law

Speakers reflected that while some cases of workplace discrimination blow up in the news, many more cases of discrimination go unreported, especially without adequate reporting or processing mechanisms. Higher proportions of discrimination are also observed in minority communities. For instance, the Blackbox survey findings show that ethnic Indians (54%) and Malays (50%) were twice as likely as Chinese (21%) to report having personally experienced race-based discrimination in the workplace.

Corinna explained why harassment should be covered in law as a form of discrimination. This translates to companies being held accountable when a report of workplace misconduct has been made. As a baseline, firms should be held liable if no reasonable steps were taken to process a report of workplace wrongdoing.

On top of this, panellists were in agreement over the inclusion of specific diversity categories. Firstly, disability and mental health must be protected, noted Cassandra. Declarations of mental health status in the hiring process should be removed, unless directly relevant to the position advertised. 

Secondly, as both Deryne and Corinna pointed out, legislation should include mention of gender identity and sexual orientation in order to protect sexual and gender minorities. While the Prime Minister did mention gender as a protected category in his NDR speech, no mentions of gender identity or sexual orientation were made, a fact that concerned our panellists.

4) Calls to action

This new legislation is only the start. Firms and institutions play their own role in providing inclusivity training for employees on managing unconscious bias. As Corinna said, the work of AWARE’s corporate advisory arm, Catalyse, shows that this scales up education dramatically and has a great positive impact.

Pamela Chng, the founder of Bettr Barista, a home-grown specialty coffee company with inclusive employment practices, was invited to speak for a few minutes about her experience as an employer seeking to stamp out discrimination. Firms and institutions, said Pamela, should focus on implementing structural changes to shape the organisational perspective. For example, businesses can include anti-discrimination policies in their Employee Handbook and during the on-boarding of all staff, and detail in their handbook how policies also apply to recruitment. Medical benefits should aim to include mental health and counselling. 

At the individual level, we can also play a part in combatting discrimination. Some recommendations from Cassandra included educating yourself to be a better ally who can call out discrimination when it occurs.

In their concluding remarks, panellists urged the government to consider the specific needs of marginalised Singaporeans at this crucial and opportune moment.

“Discrimination is about all of us, so we all hold responsibility,” said Corinna. It will take the combined effort of each member of society to eradicate it.

Deryne reminded participants of the importance of LGBTQ+ inclusion in legislation, to counter the discrimination which stems from the continued retention ofSection 377A. 

Meanwhile, Cassandra encouraged everyone to “be kinder, stand in other people’s shoes, and have empathy, [so] Singapore can be a more inclusive place”.

“The law is not enough,” Professor Koh reiterated to end off. “Beyond this, we must work to change culture and mindset. In these two respects, there is a lot of work for us to do!”

Limited service for AWARE’s CARE and WHDA services: Dec 2021-Jan 2022

Our Women’s Care Centre, Sexual Assault Care Centre and Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Advisory will provide limited service over December 2021 and January 2022, to allow us to make some operational changes that will strengthen our capabilities into the new year. All our operations will fully resume from 10 January 2022 onwards.

We seek your kind understanding and patience during this period.

For emergencies, please call 999 for the police. You can also call 1800 221 4444 for the Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) if you have thoughts of hurting yourself, including thoughts of suicide.

 
Sexual Assault Care Centre (SACC)
Limited service period 13th December 2021 – 7th January 2022
What is open?

SACC Helpline (6779 0282) will operate between 10am and 3pm from Mondays to Fridays. If you are unable to reach us, please leave a voicemail.

If your sexual assault occurred within the last 72 hours, we will endeavour to provide appointments through the SACC helpline for case management, befriending, legal consultation and counselling service. (You may also refer to this page for suggested actions.)

If your sexual assault did not occur within the last 72 hours, you can call our SACC helpline for interim support and referrals to other organisations. However, appointments for SACC case management, befriending, legal consultation and counselling will only be available in January 2022. Please reach out to us again to book an appointment from 4 January 2022.

For existing clients, please reach out to your case coordinator/case manager for further information about availability of appointments.

 
What is closed? WhatsApp, email and walk-in services will not be operational during this period.

SACC case management, befriending, legal consultation and counselling are not available for cases where the assault occurred more than 72 hours prior.
Full closure for holidays AWARE is closed from 24 December 2021 to 2 January 2022.
When will all services resume? Our operations will fully resume 10 January 2022 onwards.

 

 
Women’s Care Centre (WCC)
Limited service period 13th December 2021 – 7th January 2022
What is open? The Women’s Helpline (1800 777 5555) will operate 10am-3pm, Mondays to Fridays from December 13 to December 23. If you are unable to reach us, please leave a voicemail.
What is closed? The online chat, call-back service, counselling and legal clinic services will not be operational during the limited service period. The Women’s Helpline will be closed from 24 December 2021 to 2 January 2022.
Full closure for holidays AWARE is closed from 24 December 2021 to 2 January 2022.
When will all services resume? The Women’s Helpline will resume operations on 3 January 2022. The remaining services will fully resume from 10 January 2022 onwards.

 

 
Workplace Harassment and Advisory (WHDA)
Limited service period 15th December 2021 – 2nd January 2022
What is open? WHDA Helpline (6777 0318) will operate 10am-3pm on 15 December 2021. If you are unable to reach us, please email whda@aware.org.sg and we will get back to you from the week starting 3 January 2022.
What is closed? WHDA Helpline and befriending services will not be available from 16 December 2021 to 2 January 2022.
Full closure for holidays AWARE is closed from 24 December 2021 to 2 January 2022.
When will all services resume? Our operations will fully resume 3 January 2022 onwards.

Position Filled: Case Manager, Sexual Assault Care Centre

We are no longer accepting applicants for this role.

AWARE’s Sexual Assault Care Centre (SACC) is looking for a Case Manager to support survivors of sexual assault along their journeys of recovery and help SACC in its day-to-day operations as well as programme development. The role also requires supporting the SACC team in advocacy and project-based work.

If you are passionate about helping survivors reclaim control of their lives after experiencing trauma, join AWARE in its fight against sexual violence. You’ll play an essential, hands-on role at SACC—the only centre of its kind in Singapore. Read more about it here.

Position: Case Manager
Department: CARE – SACC
Commitment: Full-time, Monday-Friday, 40 hours a week (Permanent position)
Salary range: $3400 – $3600
Starting date: Immediate

Job Description:

  • Ensuring high quality and timely response to individuals seeking support from SACC through calls, WhatsApp, emails, walk-ins, referrals and other platforms
  • Conducting intake interviews, client support and management of SACC cases (case work), including providing and arranging for SACC services, as well as timely casework documentation
  • Liaising with authorities, including the police, hospitals and lawyers, to facilitate the above
  • Supporting and/or providing cover for other case managers during assigned legal clinic hours as needed
  • Maintaining up-to-date data management and filing for reporting and analysis, including creating and improving standard operating procedures for SACC
  • Supporting the development of SACC’s case management service through coordination of processes and ensuring knowledge consistency
  • Committing to supervision, case sharing and any training related to improvement in quality of service

Preferred Candidate Profile:

  • Singapore Citizen/Permanent Resident with minimum two (2) years of related experience working in support of individuals needing help (e.g. community work, social work, helpline staffing, counselling, befriending), preferably in the Singapore context
  • Educational qualifications in social work, counselling, psychology or related fields preferred, with trauma management credentials a bonus (training will be provided as needed)
  • Excellent interpersonal, empathy and communication skills in English (verbal and written)
  • Good analytical skills and commitment to confidentiality
  • Superb time-management skills and ability to meet deadlines
  • Strong project planning: highly creative, adaptable and a self-starter
  • Ability to work independently to manage projects
  • Ability to use initiative and judgment to solve problems independently
  • Experience or interest in supporting or empowering individuals
  • Strong belief in gender equality and the values of AWARE
  • Proficient with computers, Google Drive apps and MS Office, especially Excel and Word

You must read and acknowledge our Privacy Statement here.

Please note that due to the large number of applications, only shortlisted applicants will be contacted for an interview. If you have any questions about this position, please email careers@aware.org.sg.