MENU

MENU

Donate Now
Login

Author: Comms Executive

home

We are hiring! Research Executive

Position: Researcher (Executive/Snr Executive)
Department: Advocacy and Research (AR)
Salary range: SGD$3,500 – 4,000
Term: Full-time
Starting date: 1 August 2025

Are you interested in helping to change the society we live in, to further gender equality in Singapore? Do you enjoy doing research and analysis? Do you want to advocate for change? If so, then we are looking for you!

AWARE wants to hire an organised and efficient individual with good research, analysis and writing skills to join our Advocacy and Research team (AR). The AR department develops and implements AWARE’s strategies for advocacy for legal, policy and social change.

The Researcher will support the operations of the department by carrying out research and policy analysis to support AWARE’s engagement with decision-makers, the public, the media and other stakeholders on legal, policy and social reform. This is an exciting opportunity to be part of the cutting-edge work for equality and human rights which has been AWARE’s mission for nearly 40 years.

Reporting to the Director of AR, the Researcher will:

  • Carry out research, analysis and fact-finding in relation to laws, policies and practices to support AR’s policy advocacy activities, media work and long-term research projects
  • Supporting AWARE’s policy advocacy work through parliamentary monitoring
  • Assist in drafting and editing responses to advocacy documents including responses to government consultations, recommendations and position papers, and communications with policy-makers
  • Support the Communications Manager in implementing AWARE’s advocacy, research and communications plan as part of AWARE’s strategic plan, including press statements, op-eds, and media responses
  • Help build partnerships and alliances with key stakeholders in achieving AWARE’s goal of building a gender-equitable society
  • Participate actively as a member of AWARE’s advocacy team, e.g. through contribution to strategic and operational discussions, representing AWARE at relevant external events and meetings, and organising events related to research and advocacy goals

Preferred Candidate Profile

  • Singapore Citizen/Permanent Resident
  • Minimum of at least 2 years of related experience, ideally in public policy and research, in project coordination, conducting primary and secondary research and analysis
  • Relevant degree, preferably in sociology, economics, history, law, politics, or other public policy-related field
  • Excellent research and analysis skills, and understanding of gender-related policies
  • Excellent verbal and written communication skills in English; good communications skills in Malay, Tamil and/or Mandarin are a plus
  • Strong understanding of general political and policy environment in Singapore
  • Strong interpersonal skills and commitment to being a team player
  • Strong sense of initiative with good judgement to solve problems independently
  • Strong belief in gender equality, human rights and the values of AWARE

You must read and acknowledge our Privacy Statement here.

Click here to submit your application.

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.

Exploring the intersections between gender, ageing and inequality at the Tsao Foundation panel

Sugidha Nithiananthan (second from the right) standing with fellow panelists at the Population Association of Singapore (PAS) 2025 Annual Meeting on 16 May. Photo courtesy of PAS.

This panel recap was written by the Population Association of Singapore, and was originally published on their website.

The Population Association of Singapore (PAS) held its third annual meeting from 15 to 16 May 2025 on the theme ‘Demography and Inequality: Intersecting Paths.’ As part of this conference, the Tsao Foundation, together with its partners from the Singapore Alliance for Women in Ageing (SAWA) hosted a panel on the theme ‘The Intersections between Gender, Ageing and Inequality’ on 16 May 2025.

The panel aimed to draw attention to how the intersection of gender and age throughout the life course results in gendered inequalities faced by women in old age; and the need for policies that recognise and address the intersection of gender, ageing and inequality.

Focusing on the intersection of gender and age at work, Dr Supriti Bezbaruah (on behalf of Ms Susana Harding, Senior Director, International Longevity Centre Singapore, Tsao Foundation) presented on ‘Ageing and Gender Intersectionality Evidence From a Cross-sectional Study of Mature and Older Singaporean Workers.’ Dr Bezbaruah used data from a survey of mature and older workers conducted by the Tsao Foundation in 2023-2024 that showed that female workers are significantly more likely to report age discrimination at work compared to males. Lower-income, older women (above 50 years) in particular, were most vulnerable to discrimination, underlining how intersections of age, gender and income can compound inequalities. However, no significant gender differences were found in selection and hiring practices. Gender was also not a significant factor influencing improvements in employment outcomes after training. Instead, other factors, such as perceptions of employability and informal learning had a greater impact on employment outcomes. The findings point to a two-fold approach to policy interventions. First, it is essential to address gender and age discrimination at work, through a combination of legislation, changes in workplace practices and cultures, and a focus on changing employer mindsets, among others. Second, training programmes must be paired with policies to address workplace discrimination. Furthermore, as training does not in itself guarantee better employment outcomes, there should be greater emphasis on encouraging informal learning and developing programmes that boost perceptions of ageing and employability. Interventions should focus on improving employment outcomes, not just completing training, which may require providing more tailored training programmes that address the specific needs of older women.

This was followed by a presentation by Ms Sugidha Nithiananthan, Director, Advocacy and Research, Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) on ‘The Lived Experience of Ageing Among Women: A Study on the Impact on Career, Financial Health and Mental Well-Being.’ The presentation outlined some of the main areas of concern of older women in Singapore, in response to the White Paper on Singapore Women’s Development. Ms Nithiananthan explained how the White Paper on Singapore Women’s Development, released in 2022 focused on younger women, and did not include targeted policies or initiatives for older women. In response, to understand older women’s concerns, SAWA held a series of focus group discussions with older women focusing on five core themes: workplace, caregiving, retirement adequacy, health and well-being, and community support and outreach. Based on the insights from the focus group discussions, SAWA presented a series of recommendations in each core area as outlined below.

While the first two presentations focused on the concerns of current cohorts of older women, Ms Koh Yan Ping, CEO, Singapore Council of Women’s Organisations (SCWO) turned the attention to the future, or ‘Tomorrow’s New Old: Singapore’s Future Cohort of Ageing.’ Ms Koh shared the findings of a study conducted by the SCWO on this group of individuals, in their 50s and turning 60-70 in 2030, who are part of the growing sandwich generation of Singaporeans who are simultaneously caring for parents and children. Considering their differing responsibilities and profiles (for instance, they are better educated than previous cohorts), their concerns and needs for old age are also different. The findings showed that Tomorrow’s New Old (TNOs) wished to retire and live independently but wished for more mental and emotional support in later age. They preferred flexible work arrangements and prioritised retirement preparedness and financial independence. Like the previous cohorts of older persons, they were also concerned about ageism at the workplace and wished to have more support and concerted action taken by employers. In terms of living arrangements and caregiving, the study found that TNOs were more open to community care facilities. Consequently, Ms Koh pointed out that policy interventions for the future cohorts of older persons would need to be different, with a greater emphasis on community support (such as community care facilities), support structures for mental and emotional wellbeing, and evolving workplace policies that offer older employees more flexible work arrangements and support for retirement preparedness.

The final presentation by Ms Sabariah Aris, Assistant Director of the PPIS Research & Engagement Department (RED), introduced another dimension to intersectionality through her session titled “Who Gets Left Behind? Understanding Inequality Through the Lens of Gender, Faith, and Ageing.” Ms Aris underscored the knowledge gap on the aspirations of Singapore Muslim women, which limits the development of targeted support initiatives for this group. Drawing on findings from PPIS’ Aspirations of Singapore Muslim Women Research, her presentation examined how the intersecting structures of gender, faith, and age produce cumulative disadvantage among Muslim women in Singapore. From early gendered expectations and caregiving responsibilities to cultural misrecognition and labour market exclusion, these factors intensify over time—culminating in economic insecurity, social isolation, and marginalisation in later life. The study challenges monolithic portrayals of Muslim women by highlighting their faith-aligned aspirations, professional aspirations, and desire for agency and recognition. The study also called for a life course and intersectional approach to social policy, as well as the need to design inclusive systems that reflect the diverse lived realities of those most at risk of being left behind.

The presentations were followed by a panel discussion and open Q&A. The panellists discussed the challenges faced by the ageing population, especially women, in the workplace, the impact of the Workplace Fairness Act and the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs), and the impact of caregiving responsibilities, particularly for women, on their careers and income and retirement security. The panellists explored the stereotypes and biases that presented challenges for women in the workplace, the need for employers to understand and effectively administer requests for FWAs, the importance of employers embracing and modelling best practices in relation to encouraging both men and women to undertake caregiving responsibilities, including utilising their full paternity leave, what would best motivate employers to take action on ageism and sexism in the workplace, and the role of men in addressing gender inequalities, among other issues. The panel concluded with the observation that these challenges are myriad and complex, and employers need to understand the value brought to their businesses when they address issues of age and sex discrimination in the workplace, and finally, that research and data is needed that verifies this.

Forum: Men’s mental health deserves a seat at the table—including at AWARE

This forum letter was originally published in The Straits Times on 9 June 2025.

Written by Bharathi Manogaran.

Every June, Men’s Mental Health Month comes and goes with too little noise in Singapore. In a society where boys are still told to “man up” and tears are a sign of weakness, the mental health struggles of men remain largely invisible.

To truly achieve a more equitable society, we must be prepared to have difficult, necessary conversations, including those about men’s mental health.

As a social worker who has worked with male perpetrators of interpersonal harm, I have seen how unresolved trauma issues, depression and substance misuse often lie beneath violent behaviour. Global studies suggest that between 25% and 60% of male perpetrators may struggle with mental health disorders. While mental illness is never an excuse for violence, this data underscores the urgent need to integrate mental health support into violence-prevention strategies, especially for boys and men raised to repress emotion and avoid help-seeking.

From 2019 to 2023, the number of suicides among men in Singapore was significantly higher than among women. Boys are less likely to seek help than girls. Mental disorders are now the leading cause of disability and death among children aged 10 to 14, according to a May 2025 study in The Lancet Public Health. And yet, we still struggle to talk openly about men’s emotional well-being.

The Netflix docuseries Adolescence has powerfully reignited this conversation. The show reveals how early boys are taught to suppress emotions, fear vulnerability and measure success through dominance. This isn’t just “boys being boys”—it’s the early formation of a mental health crisis.

At AWARE, we believe that patriarchy hurts everyone, and if we are serious about dismantling it, we must challenge not just the power structures that oppress women, but also the rigid gender expectations that harm men. It is with this hope and knowledge that we have embarked on running workshops focusing on masculinity for young men; understanding that gender justice is not just for women, but for all who are harmed by oppressive gender norms, including men, queer and trans individuals, and marginalised boys.

This is not about shifting resources away from women. It’s about recognising how rigid gender norms affect everyone; and building a society where care, vulnerability and healing are seen not as signs of weakness, but as essential parts of being human.

Bharathi Manogaran is the Deputy Executive Director at AWARE.

Forum: Furthering cause of gender equality goes beyond statistics

This forum letter was originally published in The Straits Times on 27 May 2025.

Written by Sugidha Nithiananthan.

We congratulate all appointees to the new Cabinet announced by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong on May 21, and all successful candidates in the 2025 General Election.

Out of the 97 elected MPs, 31 are women, which, at 32 per cent, breaks the 30 per cent barrier for the first time. And 25 per cent – 10 out of 40 – of the latest slate of political office-holders are women. This is an increase of one woman from the previous line-up.

Increasing the representation of women in leadership roles is important because the belief is that female leaders will drive progress and reform towards gender equality. Yet, there are instances where women in power have not taken the opportunity to champion equality.

For example, former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher notably lacked female-friendly policies, and had no interest in childcare provision or positive action for women.

It is therefore important that while we strive for equal representation, such leaders should also espouse policies that reflect and promote gender equality.

Equal representation also matters from a legitimacy standpoint – those who govern should reflect the diversity of those they represent.

Furthering the cause of gender equality goes beyond statistics. It is about policies and outcomes. It is crucial for our refreshed set of leaders to deeply understand the root causes of gender inequality, so that they can actively challenge and transform them.

We need leaders, whatever their gender, who possess an understanding of the intersectionality of gender, race, age and class, and apply this lens when they engage with complex social issues such as reproductive rights, childcare policies, discrimination in the workplace and gender-based violence. These remain critical areas, and require continued and focused interventions.

Leadership on this front means partnering civil society to co-create inclusive policies, grounded in lived experiences and supported by gender-disaggregated data. By engaging communities directly and valuing the insights of those most affected – caregivers, survivors of violence and discrimination, low-income workers, and men navigating rigid gender roles – we can design systems that are more just, more inclusive, and more responsive to the needs of all.

We hope to see our new batch of leaders bring such an awareness and approach to their roles in Parliament and government, so that this truly translates to more equal policies for all.

Sugidha Nithiananthan is the Director of Advocacy and Research at AWARE.

Pregnant women in the workplace deserve better

This op-ed was originally published in The Straits Times on 21 May 2025.

By Sugidha Nithiananthan and Adilah Rafey

Jenny (not her real name) was undergoing a probationary period at work when she found out she was pregnant. She did not want to disclose this to her employer, but had no choice when she experienced complications requiring time off.

After she returned to work, her employer fired her a day before her three-month probation was to end. She was not given any reason, and her employer docked her pay for the medical leave she took.

Another worker, Anne (not her real name), applied for a job and was granted an interview. While filling out a form for this, she noticed that a health examination was required. Given that she was pregnant, she could not undergo the required X-ray examination.

Anne e-mailed the company to say she was pregnant and asked for more information about the examination. The company ghosted her.

Jenny and Anne are not isolated cases. They are among hundreds of women who sought help from the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) for discrimination and harassment as a result of pregnancy.

Discrimination against expectant mothers in the workplace is a reality in Singapore and is often treated as part and parcel of the workplace culture.

Apart from the fact that pregnancy discrimination is manifestly unfair, as a nation we are also facing a seriously low total fertility rate.

We should be looking at how we can make bolder systemic changes that support parents in growing their families. This has to start with how pregnant women are treated in the workplace, in the home, and in society at large.

Eradicating discrimination against pregnant women

No woman should have to choose between her job and having children, but this is the reality when discrimination and harassment continue in our workplaces today.

The Workplace Fairness Act (WFA) was passed this year. When it comes into effect in 2026/2027, it will prohibit employment decisions that discriminate against pregnant women. However, the WFA falls short of fully protecting pregnant women.

The WFA applies only to a limited set of employment decisions: hiring, appraising, promoting, reducing employees’ rank or status, training, dismissing, retrenching and terminating the contract of employees.

This excludes a host of employment decisions that regularly affect pregnant employees, such as docking their salaries, giving them lower or higher workloads without their consent, and reducing their bonuses. These are noteworthy concerns.

Indeed, the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) Fair Employment Practices 2023 report confirmed that salary, workload distribution and bonus were listed as the top three most common forms of discrimination, at 43.4 per cent, 33.7 per cent and 26.8 per cent, respectively.

AWARE recommends that a wider range of employment decisions be covered under the WFA, including the ones identified by the MOM.

Since the WFA has not come into effect, women like Jenny and Anne have no other option but to rely on the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP). Complaints of discrimination can be made to the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP). However, the TGFEP is not law, and there is no legal recourse against an employer who refuses to comply.

In addition, to effectively rely on the WFA or the TGFEP, women need to prove that they have been discriminated against based on their pregnancy.

This seems reasonable, on the face of it. However, in practical terms, it is difficult to prove. Many employers refuse to give a reason, or sometimes give reasons that do not seem genuine.

In another case that AWARE saw, Farah (not her real name) was 17 weeks pregnant and had her employment terminated. The reason given was that her position was redundant due to restructuring.

Another fellow pregnant employee similarly had her employment terminated.

In cases like these, it is difficult for employees to prove that their employers discriminated against them on the basis of their pregnancy. AWARE calls for the burden of proof to be reversed in favour of pregnant women.

So if a woman’s employment is terminated while she is pregnant, there is a presumption that it was a discriminatory dismissal—and the burden is on the employer to prove there is a valid reason for the termination.

Offer better support for parents

Mothers whose children are Singapore citizens are entitled to 16 weeks of maternity leave.

For the first two children, the Government pays 50 per cent of their pay and the employer bears the rest. However, for the third and subsequent children, the Government bears the full wages for the 16 weeks of maternity leave.

This cost to the employer for the first two children is often glossed over. Such a cost could easily deter employers and be the source of discrimination.

Since it is in the country’s interest that people have children, full government-paid maternity leave should be extended to the first and second children as well. 

This means employers not being burdened by the cost of having more children in Singapore.

In addition, it will also encourage more employers to hire temporary covers for employees on maternity leave, if there is no additional cost to the employer in doing so. Such a practice is fairer to existing employees too, rather than asking them to take on the work of the employee on maternity leave and breeding resentment among them—a further source of discrimination.

Policies in countries touted as having the “best practices” for childcare leave by the United Nations Population Fund are instructive to look at. 

In Sweden, there is generous parental leave of 240 days per child per parent (and 480 days for single parents). Parental insurance—funded by employers and the self-employed—broadly covers 80% of income for 195 days (or 390 days for single parents) and covers the remaining 45 days (or 90 days for single parents) at a minimum rate.

The leave can be used any time from 60 days before delivery (by the mother only for the pre-delivery period) until the child is 12; but after the age of four, parents have only 96 days per child. This is an excellent gender-equal policy and one that gives equal recognition to single parents, too. We echo our previous calls to equalise maternity and paternity leave—parenting is the equal responsibility of both parents.

The parental policies in Estonia and Slovenia also resonate. They provide unemployed parents with some basic income as parental benefits towards caregiving of their children, especially in infancy.

Time for reasonable accommodations

Reasonable accommodations are often discussed in the context of disability, but they apply to a variety of situations, including pregnancy and caregiving.

For example, pregnant women who are expected to perform certain physical tasks at the workplace should reasonably be given tasks commensurate with their ability during pregnancy.

Accommodations that pregnant employees need for the health and safety of their own bodies, and to some extent that of their unborn child, are reasonable asks. It is important to remember the focus is on what is reasonable in the circumstances, for both employers and employees.

In most developed social democracies, the obligation on employers to provide reasonable accommodations is included within employment Acts or alongside anti-discrimination policies.

The principle behind this is that most anti-discrimination policies—which prohibit employers from choosing not to hire employees with protected characteristics—need to also require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for their employees when they are hired.

In Singapore, the Government has chosen to pass the WFA without a mandatory obligation to provide reasonable accommodations. Instead, the aim is for TAFEP to issue guidelines on reasonable accommodations with the hope that all employers will adopt these guidelines. This means that employers are not legally compelled to provide reasonable accommodations.

We hope that TAFEP and MOM will track the adoption of the guidelines by employers and will also track how well employers are responding to employees’ needs and providing reasonable accommodations. This will enable the Government to assess earlier rather than later if legislation is required to make it obligatory for employers to provide accommodations that are reasonable.

The Government can also help employers to adopt these guidelines by providing them with grants to put in place the various reasonable accommodations—for example, lactation rooms and refrigerators to store breast milk—and other incentives to encourage adoption of the guidelines, such as tax incentives.

We call for more substantive measures to support mothers in the workplace, at home and in society. This month of May, when we celebrate mothers, it is time we set our sights on good policy that values how precious motherhood is.

Sugidha Nithiananthan is Director of Advocacy and Research at AWARE. Adilah Rafey is a Research Executive at AWARE.

AWARE deep dives with CNA into why victim-blaming is so dangerous

Sugidha Nithiananthan, the Director of Research and Advocacy at AWARE, talking about the misconceptions perpetuated by victim-blaming on the CNA Deep Dive podcast. Screenshot taken from Channel News Asia’s Instagram.

Article written by Athiyah Azeem.

A lot of people say that if you enter a dangerous situation, it contributes to the offence, said Steven Chia, host of CNA’s Deep Dive podcast.

“If your house was burgled and you left the door open, in court you can argue that, well, you left the door open.” Steven said on the podcast.

“Actually, you can’t,” said Sugidha Nithiananthan, the Director of Research and Advocacy at AWARE. “And that’s the whole point.”

Even if a door was left wide open, when a burglar walks in and steals the victim’s belongings, the burglar is still guilty of theft. Similarly, as long as a woman has not consented to sex, they are not to blame for being raped.

Sugidha used this analogy to explore the dangers and misconceptions that victim-blaming perpetuates with hosts Steven and Otelli Edwards on CNA’s Deep Dive podcast in April. She was joined by Mark Yeo, director of Fortress Law Corporation, who provided insight into how courts approach cases of sexual assault.

Sugidha spoke about this in the wake of former Vice President of the Law Society Chia Boon Teck’s infamous LinkedIn post. In his 10-point post, Chia used the fact that the survivor met the rapist through a dating app and sat in his bedroom to suggest that she consented to being raped.

“The fact that she decided to meet him through Tinder, or because she decided to get drunk at the bar, or because she followed him back to his room, none of this leads to consent,” Sugidha said. “It essentially always boils down to: Was there consent when it happened?”

Listen to this podcast episode to hear Sugidha dispel rape myths, and explain what consent is and why it’s so dangerous to blame survivors of sexual assault.

Here are some key takeaways:

  • Victim-blaming is casting full or partial blame on victim-survivors for being raped.
  • Victim-blaming incorrectly focusses on what the victim-survivor “did” to supposedly contribute to causing the rape, instead of focussing on the perpetrator who is solely responsible for causing rape.
  • There is no one way to be a victim-survivor. Sometimes, survivors freeze and are not able to say “no.” Sometimes, survivors fawn and keep in contact with the rapist after being raped. Rape is not about what the survivor did, but whether they consented to sex.
  • Rape myths are untrue beliefs people hold about why a victim-survivor was raped (e.g. “she was asking for it.”)
  • People still believe in rape myths, which present in myriad ways:
    • Comments perpetuating rape myths that go unchallenged in casual conversations.
    • Myths are used to excuse perpetrators in court.
    • Men believing a woman they are meeting is consenting to sex because they’re wearing something revealing.
    • Survivors not wanting to report being raped because of the fear of being disbelieved.
  • Rape myths obfuscate the truth: That you cannot assume, manipulate, or coerce consent.
  • Consent education goes a long way in helping people understand consent, navigate sexual situations, and communicate what they want from a sexual partner.
  • It’s important to teach consent to people when they are young, so they are well-informed when they’re older, when they are navigating sexual situations.

Athiyah Azeem is the Communications Executive at AWARE.

Recap of AWARE’s 40th Annual General Meeting 2025

Seventy AWARE members, which includes 46 in-person and 24 online members, attended the 40th Annual General Meeting at AWARE. Photograph by Athiyah Azeem. 

Written by Lynn Li.

On 26 April 2025, AWARE held its 40th Annual General Meeting—its first hybrid AGM—chaired by President Aarathi Arumugam. Seventy members joined in person and online.

Ms. Arumugam noted 2025 as a milestone year, with Singapore turning 60 and AWARE turning 40, and introduced AWARE’s refined North Star: to be an expert, challenger, and force to empower change.

The afternoon also saw department representatives sharing updates from the past year. More details can be found in the Annual Report 2024.

The Advocacy and Research Department, represented by Sugidha Nithiananthan and Ruby Thiagarajan, continues to tackle structural gender inequality through research and collaboration. In 2024, they studied transnational families in collaboration with South Central Community Family Service Centre, partnered with Wild Rice on their play on coercive control, Dive, and reviewed technology-facilitated sexual violence (TFSV) cases seen by the Sexual Assault Care Centre. Their work contributed to significant wins, including stronger protections for platform workers, new Flexible Work Arrangement (FWA) guidelines, expanded paternity leave, and the creation of an Online Safety Commission to tackle online harms. The team will continue pushing for FWA legislation and gig worker protections in 2025.

The newly standalone Communications Department, represented by Athiyah Azeem, saw strong engagement on social media, with two posts reaching over 100,000 views. Their focus on validating survivors’ experiences, giving language to gender injustice, and galvanising younger audiences drove impact. In 2024, the team published multiple op-eds and forum letters, with one sparking a response from the Ministry of Manpower.

The CARE Department, comprising the Women’s Care Centre (WCC) and Sexual Assault Care Centre (SACC) was represented by Lydia Ariani and Caris Lim. They served 2,865 clients and responded to 4,926 contacts in 2024. Despite senior staff turnover, the team onboarded five new hires, and improved internal workflows. CARE maintained strong community ties through Community of Practice sessions and offering of case consultations to social service agencies working with survivors of sexual violence. The team also invested in supervision and team wellbeing to support resilience and cohesion during the transition.

The Operations Team, led by Yasmine Tan, enhanced internal systems while safeguarding staff wellbeing. Key achievements included launching a new staff reimbursement system, improving digital safety, increasing team capacity with outsourcing and developing three-year strategic roadmaps for people and technology. These efforts helped AWARE maintain its IPC status, meet most Tripartite Standards, and score 95% on the Charity Code of Governance. The department also initiated a cross-departmental working group to address workplace stress and burnout.

The Support, Partner and Act through Community Engagement (S.P.A.C.E) Department, represented by Shamima Rafi and Izzaty Ishak, focused on building community capacity to prevent gender-based violence through engagement, education, and empowerment. They engaged 96 participants from 17 organisations for their International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (IDEVAW) event and ran workshops and events with students, journalists, and community partners throughout the year. S.P.A.C.E also ran bystander and consent workshops, and extended outreach to marginalised youth in residential homes. In 2025, they’ll launch nightlife safety workshops, host a IDEVAW conference and launch new workshops for boys in residential homes.

The Fundraising Team, represented by Isabella Tan and Bharathi Manogaran, achieved their $2.9 million target in 2024—including a record $1.1 million from the annual Ball and $260,000 through the “From Crisis to Change” campaign. Live auction proceeds went directly to support consent education and research on masculinity. The team is prioritising funding diversification, and plans for the 2025 Ball, The Mother of All Balls, are already underway.

Ms. Arumugam closed the meeting by thanking members for their ongoing support as AWARE prepares for its next chapter.

Lynn Li is the Fundraising Intern at AWARE.

Budget 2025: Provides safety nets, but we’re voting for trampolines

By Sugidha Nithiananthan and Adilah Rafey

Disclaimer: AWARE is a non-partisan civil society organisation. We do not endorse or support any political party or candidate. This analysis of Budget 2025 is part of our ongoing research and advocacy to promote gender equality and social inclusion in Singapore’s laws, policies, and institutions.

Why does AWARE talk about politics? 

As Singapore heads to the polls, it is more important than ever to examine how public policies shape the lives of different communities. At AWARE, we evaluate policies through a feminist lens. That means asking how they impact women, caregivers, low-income families, and marginalised groups.

In the words of the rich tradition of feminists who came before us, “the personal is political”. What this means is that politics has tangible effects on the lived realities of various communities, and the fight for gender equality must engage in the political arena. This engagement through the years has resulted in so many of our proposals becoming policy, and many more gaining traction in parliament and appearing in the manifestos of various parties across the political spectrum.

Our role is not to take sides, but to push for bold, evidence-based change. This Budget analysis is part of our role in raising awareness during this election season. We hope to be your reliable source of non-partisan feminist analysis of Singapore’s current policies as they exist, our recommendations, and our evaluation of the alternative proposals in the space. Keep an eye out for our social media posts on parties’ manifestos and positions through a feminist lens!

Last year, AWARE critiqued the package of one-off cash vouchers announced in Budget 2024, stating that they were “merely a bandaid and not a sustainable solution” to the cost of living crisis. Was 2025’s Budget more of the same? Did it outperform public pessimism on account of being an “Election Budget”?

BRIEF OBSERVATIONS

  • Just an election budget? More benefits for the middle class, with a lower emphasis on spending for low-income families compared to Budget 2024
  • Labour policies focused on incentivising employers’ compliance to the Progressive Wage Model, and increasing access to skills training for higher productivity
  • Testing the waters on some well-evidenced policies which have been previously dismissed, such as retrenchment benefits (Jobseeker Support Scheme), support towards home ownership for low-income families (ComLink+; Fresh Start Housing scheme), and higher cash transfers in the form of enhancements to COMCARE
  • Improvements to support for our ageing population, with increased access to support schemes for the middle class, increased financial support for long-term care; as well as policies benefiting older women who were homemakers / caregivers.

More for the middle 

Many have commented that this is an “Election Budget” and we certainly see why. A recent survey by Milieu Insight showed that Budget 2025 received more positive sentiments than its 2024 predecessors, while negative sentiments dropped slightly. This isn’t surprising – a large number of the benefits in this Budget are targeted at expanding access to existing policies for the large middle class. This applies across the board – such as an expansion of access to U-Save and Climate Vouchers, the expansion of the EASE programme to private dwellings, a reduction in property tax rates, and increased eligibility for long-term and home caregiving subsidies, amongst others. While the Budget has certainly been effective in achieving more positive reactions, more for the middle does not also mean more for the more disadvantaged.

Measures for low-income families

MSF has announced that it will increase ComCare payouts – the example given is an increase of $120 for a one-person household receiving Long-Term Assistance. This example is estimated to be a 20% higher disbursement. There’s little else that is provided about how much more spending will be allocated towards ComCare, most likely due to the case-by-case basis upon which ComCare is disbursed to families.

Additionally, the ComLink+ housing benefit allowing eligible families to buy new flats with shorter leases, which was previously only eligible to second-timers, is now expanded to first-time families as well. This mechanism, alongside the increased Fresh Start Housing Grant increase for second timers from $50k to $75k will definitely make owning one’s own house more accessible to many lower-income families.

However, given rising cost pressures, the peak of the GST increase, as well as worrying trends in wage security for the lowest earners, we are disappointed that the more inclusive approach in the 2024 Budget towards the bottom 20% of Singaporeans was not continued in this Budget. More can certainly be done, given that this demographic is most vulnerable to our cost-of-living crisis.

ComCare remains an opaque and stringent means-tested scheme which puts families under high amounts of scrutiny with no publicly available eligibility criteria – making the process highly dependent on officers in Social Service Offices, where it is disbursed. The enhanced amount of roughly $720 per month for a one-person household (the example provided by MSF in its Budget factsheet) is not even half of the living wage amount set by the Minimum Income Standards of $1,492 per month for a single elderly person – a common single-household demographic which ComCare hopes to serve.

It is critical to provide support that actually enables families to achieve positive outcomes and escape poverty. We recommend that disbursement amounts should be derived at by reference to evidence-based benchmarks and should be provided for a length of time that is sufficient to achieve these outcomes. Good benchmarks to follow would include Minimum Income Standards and the amounts provided by AWWA in its recent randomised UCT trials as part of the Family Empowerment Programme.

Opacity of ComCare’s eligibility criteria continues to be a barrier to access for many families. Public disclosure of its criteria, such as income thresholds, housing status and other socio-economic indicators, can further empower families to self-assess their eligibility and better prepare their applications for ComCare. This will also enable other stakeholders to assess the efficacy of these criteria on the ground.

While enhancements to ComLink+ and the increased provision of the Fresh Start Housing Grant are certainly a step in the right direction, vulnerable families taking realistic steps toward home ownership require much more support – even if the immediate benefits of higher financial aid are not apparent. The positive effects of supporting families working towards their housing aspirations are far-reaching and go beyond individual families, “spilling into” the rest of society. This is apparent from AWARE’s report “Why Stable Housing Matters”. It shows that sustained and sufficient financial support, and even the free provision of housing to particularly vulnerable groups such as single parent families, unwed mothers and victim-survivors of family violence, produces outcomes that far exceed the expenditure of such programmes.

Therefore, we reiterate our call to implement housing programmes to provide unwed mothers and family violence survivors who have no place to go with free stable housing or interim housing for at least 2 years, alongside support services. We also reiterate our recommendations that the income cap for rental housing should be increased and set on a per-capita basis, and eligibility should be expanded to cover non-nuclear family structures. Everyone should have a right to safe and affordable housing even when they do not fall within nuclear family structures, and should not suffer from the “benefit cliff” of being unable to afford to buy their own flat and yet being over the cut-off point to qualify for rental housing.

Labour and Workers

This year’s budget disbursements in the area of labour are overwhelmingly aimed at incentivising employers to comply with previously established policies, as well as a large effort at making skills training more accessible and widely adopted.

The Progressive Wage Credits Scheme provides financial support to firms for wage increases as a result of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) through a co-funding scheme. While this certainly will increase compliance with the PWM, it is not an additional form of income support  for workers themselves. With the ever-rising cost of living, the time has come for Singapore, as an advanced economy, to adopt a living wage standard which allows workers to live with dignity. Singapore has sufficient resources to meet minimum wage standards, as opposed to relying fully on PWM, which does not address the continued existence of a reliable pool of low-salary foreign workers that companies continue to have access to without very few market controls.

AWARE does commend the additional training allowance of up to $3,000 per worker for selected full-time courses under the SkillsFuture Level-Up Scheme as well as the enhanced tier of support under the Workfare Skills Support. All workers, regardless of their income level or career should be supported to access training and upskilling.

We are also highly encouraged by the newly announced Jobseeker Support Scheme (JSS), which will provide newly-retrenched workers with financial support of up to $6,000 over 6 months while undergoing training or searching for jobs. This is a step in the right direction – it is similar in design and principle to retrenchment insurance, which most workers in advanced social democracies around the world have a right to. While the amount of financial support, the proposed structure of payouts and the length of assistance would certainly be more helpful if they were more generous, we believe that this scheme has the potential to provide much needed support for many vulnerable workers and their families when they face unavoidable retrenchment. Evidence from other countries has shown that retrenchment and unemployment benefits can provide a social safety net that ensures vulnerable communities are able to have the option to look for better work. We await reviews of and enhancements to the JSS, which could potentially expand beyond retrenchment and into the field of general unemployment.

Support for Seniors

This year’s budget pushes strongly towards enhanced financial support for seniors and their caregivers. This includes the expansion of EASE to seniors in private properties, the 5-year Matched Medisave Scheme, increases in long-term care subsidies in both residential homes and community care, and enhancements to the Home Caregiving Grant. These numerous schemes and improvements efficiently tackle the challenges of ageing for all groups in our society, regardless of income.

We commend these efforts, which aim to provide much needed support especially to caregivers, who do much of the highly gendered and unpaid work of caring for the elderly. We need to reiterate however the need for caregivers to be paid a living wage as they perform these highly critical services for society. This can be based, for example, on the Minimum Income Standard. Alternatively, we have long-proposed a Caregiver Support Grant that has both a cash and a CPF component (without the need for self-contribution), with the amount linked to the salaries of those providing the kind of care work involved. Payment levels can also be linked to the number of Activities of Daily Living (ADL) which each caregiver assists with, to recognise that caregivers need to invest greater resources into caring for care recipients who need help with more ADLs.

We particularly commend the Matched Medisave Scheme, which compliments the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS). PM Wong rightfully stated that these schemes will be especially beneficial for “lower-income seniors, especially our grandmothers, mothers and aunts who were homemakers and caregivers”. This goes some way to address our 2024 recommendation to make the MRSS accessible to “caregivers who have had to take a step back from their careers before 55 years of age to fulfil caregiving duties”. However, we continue to echo our calls for more support for this group of people, who will still have much lower savings in their Medisave, Ordinary and Retirement Savings Accounts. Thus we recommend that this demographic should receive government top-ups as grants, rather than as matched top-ups.

Our Budget 2025 Wrap-up – Let’s build trampolines, not safety nets

Singapore’s Budget 2025 demonstrates a clear shift toward more structured, evidence-based welfare policies, moving beyond one-off cash handouts to sustained support for seniors, caregivers, those who were retrenched, and low-income families. While these measures are welcome, more targeted interventions that directly address cost-of-living pressures and broader structures  — backed by disaggregated data — are needed to ensure equitable outcomes. It’s time for us to invest in building “trampolines” rather than safety nets, so that more people can bounce back from crises.

Broader gaps remain, particularly in gender-responsive budgeting and the lack of disaggregated data to provide better evidence for policy proposals. As Singapore progresses, embedding these principles into our governance and policies will be crucial to foster a more inclusive and resilient society for all.

OUR WISHLIST FOR NEXT YEAR

  • More ambitious structural policy interventions to address and reverse the effects of the cost-of-living crisis – such as improvements to wages and more maternity benefits for pregnant women.
  • More support for childcare – such as increased support for access to infant care, parental care, and further experiments into models which provide a living wage for non-working caregivers of children.
  • Disaggregated data about our population should be collected and made more accessible to evaluate the effects of Budget on communities
  • Gender-responsive budgeting should be implemented, especially given the increasing need to focus on care
  • Social support that acts as more of a trampoline than a social safety net – going above and beyond the bare minimum and working towards support that allows people to make dignified and autonomous decisions.

Sugidha Nithiananthan is the Director of Advocacy and Research at AWARE. Adilah Rafey is a Research Executive at AWARE.

What the Chia controversy reveals about us all

This op-ed was originally published in Jom Media on 2 April 2025.

Over the past week, a LinkedIn post by lawyer Chia Boon Teck—commenting on a sexual assault case—has become a flashpoint for public reaction. In his post, Chia highlighted the complainant’s use of a dating app, her job and her choices on the night of the incident. The fact that someone who had risen to a leadership position in his profession felt it acceptable to post such views so publicly was extraordinary. So was the overwhelming response it provoked.

This has become an unprecedented case study in public attitudes towards sexual violence. Some readers agreed with his framing, interpreting the survivor’s choices—her profession, her use of a dating app, and her decision to enter a man’s bedroom to continue their work—as evidence of consent. This, despite the fact that she had said, “No” to him, and spent 13 days giving testimony under cross-examination in Court, which was found by the court to be “unusually convincing.”

Others responded with indignation and strong disapproval, recognising the ways these narratives mirror long-standing rape myths.

For many survivors, the Chia post may have been re-traumatising, triggering the fears they often grapple with when deciding whether to report: that the process will prolong their pain, delay closure, and that even if the courts find them credible, they may still face judgment in the court of public opinion.

Reporting sexual assault takes immense courage. It is often driven by a desire for justice—and the hope that speaking up might protect someone else. Survivors deserve support, not scrutiny.

This polarisation of values has been building for some time—an early milestone was #MeToo, which empowered more survivors to speak up, knowing that there were other survivors who were willing to speak up. The internet has made it possible for survivors to more easily find solidarity, and has empowered them with the appropriate language to call out injustice.

But it has also given rise to spaces where misogyny thrives, sometimes repackaged as pragmatism or masculine wisdom, and even legal insight. Rape myths, victim blaming, and doubt toward women’s credibility are now dressed in new language, but the core ideas remain chillingly familiar.

Chia’s post captured this perfectly. It expressed deep scepticism—grounded not in the relevant facts of the case, but in the complainant’s dating choices and her job. These were not legal arguments. They were cultural ones. And by framing them as legal insight, the Chia post reinforced a dangerous message: that women who do not conform to traditional ideals of femininity are less believable. That if you go to a man’s house, you are responsible for what happens next. These ideas aren’t just wrong—they are harmful.

What followed matters. This is how norms shift, not always through policies or penalties, but through collective discomfort. The strong public response—lawyer Stefanie Thio’s critique, AWARE’s statement, and countless comments online—was a moment of collective reflection. It showed that we are capable of recognising when something is wrong and responding—publicly, constructively, and with clarity. The result: Chia took the post down and resigned from his position as vice president of the Law Society.

Importantly, many men, including K Shanmugam, the minister for law and home affairs, spoke out against the post. Their intervention showed that rejecting misogyny isn’t a “women’s issue”—it’s a professional, ethical, and human one.

And yet, the work ahead is uphill. This is not an isolated incident. It is part of a broader global pattern, in which misogynistic worldviews are being mainstreamed through digital spaces. The rise of influencers like Andrew Tate, the growing reach of the manosphere, and the increasing pushback against women’s progress all point to a cultural shift that we can no longer ignore.

Many men today are grappling with rapid economic change, job insecurity, and a sense of lost identity in a world that no longer guarantees them the same pathways to status or stability. In that vacuum, some turn to influencers who offer a clear—if distorted—narrative: that feminism and women are to blame, and that reclaiming power means rejecting equality.

But this changing world doesn’t strip men of responsibility. Understanding the challenges men are facing now does not mean excusing the harm. Each man still makes a choice: to lean into empathy, or to retreat into resentment. Misogyny is not inevitable. It is a choice.

The Netflix series “Adolescence”, which explores the toxic impact of social media and misogynistic influencers on teenage boys, was recently referenced by Keir Starmer, British prime minister, in Parliament as part of a broader call to address online misogyny.

In Australia, education authorities are developing training to support teachers, especially female teachers, dealing with harassment from students repeating “manosphere” rhetoric. In Singapore, AWARE has received anecdotal accounts of young boys being influenced by Tate and engaging in collective bullying of young female teachers.

We hope that this important cultural moment carries the following messages to different readers.

To survivors: we know this moment was painful. To see your credibility questioned publicly again—based not on evidence, but on assumptions about behaviour—can reopen wounds. But the fact that so many pushed back, and so vocally, is a reminder that you are not alone.

To bystanders: your role matters. About 20 percent of calls to AWARE’s Sexual Assault Care Centre come from friends or people supporting survivors. This moment showed that speaking up makes a difference—not just for the individual case, but for broader norms.

To men: if you’ve felt uneasy reading comments like Chia’s, or seen them echoed in your circles, that discomfort is telling. If you recognise the harm, do something. You don’t always need to speak up loudly. Even small actions—refusing to laugh, not nodding along, walking away—send a signal.

To parents, not just of boys, but of all children: this is the time to pay attention. Ask what your kids are watching, who they follow online, what messages they’re absorbing about gender, power, and respect. These aren’t small questions. They shape worldviews.

If there’s anything to take away from this moment, it’s that we are not where we were 10 years ago. The old rules didn’t hold. People responded—and that matters. Misogyny thrives in silence. So let’s keep speaking.

Corinna Lim is the Executive Director of AWARE.

Photograph by Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona on Unsplash.