AWARE Media

How parties can earn our vote in the General Election

How parties can earn our vote in the General Election

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

Promote women in political leadership. Women deserve more representation than the current 23% of elected MPs and one lone full Cabinet Minister (of 19). Singapore has a treaty obligation to increase the percentage of women MPs. We call on parties to ensure that at least 30% of your candidates are women, and commit to appointing at least 6 women as full Cabinet Ministers in government.

Build a Care Economy. We ask parties to commit to collective responsibility for children, older people and disabled people – ending society’s reliance on unpaid or underpaid care by women. Changing demographics call for state investment in care infrastructure, comprehensive state support for care work, and increased social spending. This will ensure the dignity of older people, maintain labour participation for a vibrant economy, and empower all to combine paid work and family life. Lightening women’s unpaid labour load may even increase fertility.

Support free expression and civil society engagement. Blogs and videos should trigger discussion, not court cases. Films and graphic novels on Singapore’s history should be welcomed, not exiled or denied support. Books and songs on families should be savoured, not pulped or silenced. Groups and publications raising concerns should be engaged, not bogged down by onerous regulation. We urge all parties to commit to supporting the democratic exchange of views.

Stand for inclusion and equality for diverse groups. Parties should make it clear that they support inclusive policies and the rights and welfare of everyone – not just some. End the exclusion of single parents from housing and benefits. Ban racist hiring ads, let uniformed workers wear headscarves if they wish, and outlaw employer discrimination. Repeal 377A and recognise LGBT people as equals. Let all voters know that you work for them, too.

Campaign respectfully, ethically and inclusively. How a party gains power also shows us how the party will use it. It demeans our elections when parties distort the views of opponents, or supporters belittle candidates for their age or gender. Appealing to divisive sentiments – like anti-migrant or anti-gay prejudice – has harmful and lasting consequences. Singapore deserves parties who win voters over with their visions for progress, not with negative campaigning.

Power to end domestic abuse lies with all of us

By Kokila Annamalai, We Can! Campaign Manager, AWARE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AWARE statement on the prosecution of Amos Yee

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

Protection from Harassment Act (POHA)

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

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

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

Broad classes: Yee speaks about “parents” and discusses Christianity. This cannot be said to be harassment of parents or Christians in general as harassment must be directed at identifiable individuals, not broadly defined groups. An abusive statement about “AWARE members” or “AWARE”, for example, cannot reasonably be said to harass any specific AWARE member. A statement about a religion likewise should not be treated as harassment of all its adherents, as it is not possible to identify the individuals harassed.

Politicians: Yee refers to current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Margaret Thatcher, and expresses disagreement with their conduct. In our view, POHA should never be used against individuals discussing the conduct of public officials in positions of power, even if such discussions are heated or strongly-worded.

Deceased people / religious figures: As well as Lee Kuan Yew and Margaret Thatcher, Yee discusses Jesus Christ. Neither deceased individuals nor religious figures can experience harassment.

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

Criticism of religion

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

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

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

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

Hate speech

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

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

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

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

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

Support parents rather than incentivise parenthood

By Goh Li Sian, Research and Advocacy Coordinator, AWARE

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

Whether to have children is an intensely personal decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End censorship before providing ‘resources’

By Jolene Tan, AWARE Programmes and Communications Senior Manager

The recent Commentary piece “Why we need more light, less heat on sexuality issues” (29 Jun) rightly calls for a broader conversation and more information relating to LGBT people.

Ms Nadzirah correctly notes that current public opinion may not be based on the fullest available information. Yet it is peculiar to ask the government to provide more resources, without acknowledging how state restrictions have barred access to existing resources.

Many materials exist that could, as Ms Nadzirah exhorts, push public conversation beyond the framework of “religion versus rights”. However, is this development likely to occur, given the continuing existence of state censorship?

For example, MDA recently banned a music video from singer Jolin Tsai. It depicts the difficulty a woman had in securing emergency surgery for her female long-term partner, because she was not recognised as a family member who could legally consent to the procedure. The video was based on a true story.

More awareness of such real-life experiences would help to flesh out the sociological inquiry of what it means to be “family”. It would also add further ethical and public health dimensions to the discussion on recognition of same-sex relationships.

Likewise, access to information was curtailed, not promoted, when the National Library Board (NLB) removed – and in some cases destroyed – books featuring same-sex relationships.

These books empowered members of the public to educate their children, or even themselves, about LGBT people and their relationships. They would have been especially beneficial to those who could not afford to buy their own books.

There is no shortage of banned material which could provide opportunities for greater understanding and discussion, by representing LGBT people, their experiences and their relationships in the everyday contexts in which they currently exist. Both factual and fictional accounts, where they are informed by actual experiences, are useful for this purpose.

Some examples of banned material of this nature are the song “Rainbow” by Taiwanese singer A-Mei and an Archie comic which depicted a same-sex marriage.

The restrictions on access to diverse information and perspectives go beyond individual cases of censorship of specific materials.

Importantly, LGBT groups such as Sayoni and People Like Us have been unable to register as societies. Consequently, they face additional barriers when engaging in public outreach and education. This muffles important sources of information about what it is actually like to be an LGBT person in Singapore.

There may well be a role for the government in providing resources on LGBT people. The Health Promotion Board’s online FAQs on sexuality are a good example of state information helping to disseminate factual content and dispel myths.

However, to leap straight to the state as a major information provider, without first eliminating censorship of LGBT people’s voices and experiences, puts the cart before the horse. Many resources already exist – but we need to stop blocking people from accessing these.

This letter was written as a reply to this commentary on TODAY.

State support for the elderly crucial

By Goh Li Sian, Research and Advocacy Coordinator, AWARE

Recently, attention has been given to the fall in the number of nuclear families and its implications for social support.

We wish to caution against assuming that extended family support can or should be the main source of social support (“Extending the support of families”; last Saturday).

This is a simple matter of arithmetic. There are currently 4.8 working adult citizens for each elderly citizen, a fall from 8.4 in 2000. This ratio is set to decrease to 2.1 by 2030.

Yet, Singapore’s population is growing, mostly due to immigration. It does not make sense to limit the support for older people to the resources of their immediate or extended families. Rather, the taxes paid by all people working in Singapore should contribute.

Working adults are now less able to support aged parents financially, let alone extended family members. Doing so risks compromising their own financial security in old age, creating a greater burden on their own children.

Insisting on “intergenerational responsibility within families” over socialising costs will reinforce inequality between households over several generations.

High-income earners may well be able to provide for their elderly parents and other relatives, as well as plan for the future. However, low to middle-income earners will be impoverished, and their chances of social mobility negatively affected.

Recently, the Association of Women for Action and Research conducted in-depth interviews of 20 elderly, low-income women to understand their priorities and needs in old age.

Nearly three-quarters of these women reported that their children did not provide them with financial assistance, that money was a source of tension in their relationships with their children, or that their children may have been willing to support them financially but were torn between supporting their elderly parents and their own children.

Moreover, if older people are dependent on their family members for financial support, they will also be more vulnerable to elder abuse.

There is no proof that older people would rather rely on kin than receive support from the state. There is nothing shameful about social support – it is simply an expression of our collective responsibility and commitment to all members of our society, as acknowledged by the Silver Support Scheme, introduced earlier this year.

And who has a better claim to society’s support than the elderly who have spent their entire lives contributing to it?

This letter was first published in The Straits Times Forum on 26 June 2015.

Who should win the AWARE Awards 2015?

AWARE is celebrating a landmark of 30 years of history this year and we’d like to commemorate those who have helped play a part in paving the way to gender equality in Singapore through our two annual awards – the AWARE Award honouring those who contribute to gender equality, and the ALAMAK Award, given to those who do the opposite. And we want your nominations!

AWARE Award

Do you know anyone who has contributed significantly to gender equality in Singapore? Nominate them for the AWARE Award 2015!

Since 2011, AWARE has been celebrating those who further gender equality with the AWARE Awards. The winners this year will be announced at our fundraising gala, the Big Birthday Ball, on 7 November. Click here to see the winners of 2014.

Fill this short form to nominate people or organisations who you think deserve the AWARE Award 2014! You can read FAQs and eligibility criteria here. Nominations will close at the end of August.

ALAMAK! Award

Although we are well into the 21st century, there are still remarks, commercials and policies that perpetuate gender stereotypes and sexist attitudes. So we created the Alamak! Award, an annual search for the most annoying, you-have-got-to-be-kidding-me instances of sexism in Singapore. Did you witness a jaw-dropping instance of sexism over the last year? Nominate it for this year’s ALAMAK Award.

Click here to send us your nomination.

Join us as we strive towards gender equality

Time to stop upholding singular standard of beauty

By Zarifah Anuar, Communications Executive, AWARE

We refer to the report “HSA raises alert over high mercury levels found in 2 cosmetic products” (June 9).

Even where skin whitening products are not dangerous to one’s health, their popularity and marketing reveal disturbing attitudes toward beauty ideals and skin colour. The idea that “fairer is better” has very exclusionary implications in a multiracial society with women of all shapes, sizes and skin tones.

For instance, recently, a column published in Cosmopolitan Singapore by their senior beauty writer Elizabeth Lee described the “perfect Singapore girl” as one that is “slim and petite with shapely legs”, has a “fair, porcelain complexion”, “big eyes and a small face with a defined jawline with feminine long hair”. This not only excludes many Chinese women, it also completely excludes Malay and Indian women.

When the beauty industry pushes skin whitening products, it implies that one’s natural skin colour is a problem that needs fixing. Disturbingly, the global market for skin-whitening products has been projected to grow to US$19.8 billion (S$26.6 billion) by 2018.

Personally, I love my brown skin and I am sure many other women do, too. However, for many of us it is a common experience, even from childhood, to be told to stay out of the sun so we would not become dark, and to put on a whole variety of clothing and creams in order to protect our skin from becoming too brown. What are the implications of this message for diversity and inclusion in our society?

It is time for us to stop upholding this singular standard of beauty, especially one that is unrealistic in Singapore. We need to include and represent all skin tones in our media. Magazines and other mass media can start by having more diversity by employing more models of non-Chinese and non-Caucasian descent to grace their covers and their pages.

Such moves could even increase readership, since the publications would be appealing to a larger audience.

This letter was first published in TODAY Voices on 16 June 2015.

WOMEN'S HELPLINE

1800 777 5555

SEXUAL ASSAULT CARE CENTRE

6779 0282

General enquiries

6779 7137

MENU

Author: AWARE Media