AWARE Media

The Crystal Ball was a shining success!

AWARE’s annual fundraiser, the Crystal Ball, was a record-breaking success this year! We raised more than $250,000, and with donation-matching from the government, the total rises to more than $550,000 to support AWARE’s programmes and services.

Held at the Regent Hotel on 25 August, the Crystal Ball was sponsored by KOP Properties, Bengawan Solo, Performance Motors, Bayview Hotel and TOTE Board, and attended by more than 400 friends and supporters of AWARE.

It was a night of great food and exceptional entertainment – all for a good cause! AWARE was happy to be joined by Singapore’s hottest band, the Sam Willows, as our opening act for the night, kicking the night off to a great start with two hit songs.

Everyone’s favourite act, the Chestnuts returned to the Ball this year, bringing the house down with their hilarious spoofs of this year’s nominees for the Alamak! Award (our annual “tribute” to the most jaw-dropping sexist instance of the year).

Their comical take on our spectacular nominees left everyone in stitches. They saved the best for last – Jonathan Lim of the Chesnuts made a surprise visit as the “winner” of the Alamak! Award, Dr Lim Tit Meng of Science Centre, come to collect his prize.

We also announced the recipients of the AWARE Awards 2014 – Singapore’s only gender equality awards. Extraordinary activists Vanessa Ho and Theo Chen were named Young Activists of the Year, while PAVE won Anti-Violence Champion and WongPartnership was named Corporate of the Year.

More details about the winners is available here.

The Crystal Ball also saw the launch of AWARE’s first crowdfunding campaign. We are trying to raise $30,000 for the Sexual Assault Care Centre by 10 October. All amounts matter, so please donate generously and share this campaign with your friends and family.

These annual fundraisers are a great opportunity for us to reconnect with old supporters and spread our message to new ones. It is only with the contributions of our supporters and sponsors that we are able to carry on our work for gender equality in Singapore, and the turnout at the Crystal Ball was outstanding.

Thank you all, very much, for supporting AWARE. Keep an eye on our Facebook page for photos from the event!

The best and the worst in gender equality

The AWARE awards return!

Established in 2011, the annual AWARE awards – Singapore’s only gender equality awards – celebrate the work of outstanding individuals and organisations that have promoted gender equality in Singapore.

The receipients of the AWARE Awards 2014 – two groups and two individuals – were announced at AWARE’s annual fundraising gala, the Crystal Ball, on 25 August. This year, we celebrated two young activists, an anti- violence organisation and a corporation with an outstanding record in diversity.

Unfortunately, Singapore’s road to gender equality is not entirely smooth. The annual Alamak! Award, given out at the same time as the AWARE award, was born as our tongue-in-cheek tribute to the most jaw-dropping, facepalm-worthy sexist moment of the year.

Let’s meet the winners of the 2014 awards!

Young Activist of the Year – Vanessa Ho

Vanessa is the coordinator of Project X, a social initiative advocating sex workers’ rights in Singapore. At only 26, she develops and runs all the organisation’s activities.

Vanessa also advocates for the rights of transgender women and was instrumental in bringing the international SlutWalk movement to Singapore.

Vanessa is AWARE’s Young Activist of the Year for being a indefatigable advocate on critical issues that often get little attention, and for her amazing passion for equality across the board in Singapore.

Young Activist of the Year – Theodore Chen

At the age of only 12, Theo Chen made waves last year with a strong anti-bullying message that went viral on YouTube, getting more than 200,000 views.

Facing bullying online and at school because viewers of his YouTube channel judged him as gay, Theo recorded a video to everyone to stop judging his sexuality and policing how he should behave as boy.

Theo is a star for speaking up for a cause he believes in at such a young age. We are happy to name him AWARE’s Young Activist of the Year.

Corporate of the Year – WongPartnership

WongPartnership is a strong leader in gender diversity in the legal industry. The firm has an exceptional representation of women in senior management – the ratio of female partners to male is 55:43, and women made up 43% of the Executive Committee. The firm also appointed a female managing partner in 2010, and offers flexi-work options to help staff maintain a healthy work-life balance.

A culture that encourages diversity and supports family, and an exceptionally high representation of women in senior management makes WongPartnership a true leader in workplace diversity.

Anti-Violence Champion of the Year – PAVE

PAVE is a pioneer in dealing with family violence in Singapore, providing services against interpersonal violence including counselling, referrals and research.

PAVE is one of the few organisations in Singapore that specialises in working with male perpetrators of violence, trying to challenge their beliefs and introduce positive alternatives. PAVE is also a leader in training other social workers who deal with victims or perpetrators of family violence.

For its exceptional and long-standing work against violence in Singaporean society and support of victims of abuse, PAVE is AWARE’s first Anti-Violence Champion of the Year.

Alamak! Award

Our stellar nominees this year were Suresh Damodara, insensitive defence lawyer; the infamous Dr Lim Tit Meng, Chief Executive of Science Centre; and Goldheart Jewellery and Scoot Airline with their sexist advertisements.

After several months of online voting, the winner of the Alamak! Award 2014 is Dr Lim Tit Meng. Dr Lim got 60% of the 1087 votes cast.

He was nominated for an email he sent to all his Science Centre colleagues on International Women’s Day, which included the line:

“I have my reasons why not many women can have the stature to hold the highest position. One of them is simply about the complex nature of women which challenges them with communication barriers in even understanding their own gender well, let alone having to compete or co-labour with the men at work.”

FACE Featuring JuJubee from RuPaul’s Drag Race for One Night Only!

Indignation is proud to present a one night only event featuring JuJuBee from RuPaul’s Drag Race! RuPaul’s Drag Race is the first reality television show starring America’s most glamorous and hottest drag queens.

JuJubee will be supported by performances from some of your favourite queens from Singapore – Mona Kee, Noris and Becca D’Bus.

FACE is an event of IndigNation, Singapore’s LGBT Pride Season, now in its tenth year. IndigNation reminds all that the LGBT community is as much a part of Singapore as anyone else. Each event is separately organised by different people, who as a gesture of solidarity, contribute their events to the joint calendar.

This event will raise funds for IndigNation ensuring its continued presence on the Singapore calendar.

Please register here.

Date: 20 August 2014
Time: 8:00pm – 11:00pm
Venue: TAB, 442 Orchard Road, #02-29

Tickets

VIP Tables: $400
General Admission (online sales): $25
General Admission (door): $30

For more information, please click here.

This is an 18+ event.

Abortion should be discussed factually

By Jolene Tan, Programmes and Communications Senior Manager, AWARE

I refer to Ms Angeline Chua’s letter calling for women considering abortion to have more information on the “psychological effects” of the procedure (“Elaborate on psychological impact of abortion”, 10 Aug).

Emotional and psychological reactions to abortions vary. However, according to a 2008 briefing by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the “predominant feeling” following abortion is “relief and diminution of stress”.

RCOG states that “severe negative reaction” is uncommon and tends to be present either when the pregnancy was planned or the abortion takes place late in the pregnancy. These factors are rare in the Singapore context. Termination usually takes place with unwanted pregnancies. After 24 weeks of pregnancy, an abortion is only legal if the mother’s life is at risk.

The American Psychological Association has found that among women with unplanned pregnancies, choosing a single first-trimester abortion carries no greater chance of mental health problems than carrying the pregnancy to term.

Whether to bring a pregnancy to term or obtain an abortion is a highly personal matter. Women deserve full access to accurate facts, presented in a neutral manner, so that they can make informed decisions based on their needs, circumstances, values and aspirations.

It is unduly sensationalist to present patients with only outlying and atypical examples of negative consequences, devoid of context or probability.

Women who have concerns about abortion should have access to support or therapeutic counselling if they require it. However, counselling should not seek to guilt-trip the many women who are largely reconciled with the choice to seek a termination.

Emphasising a default reaction of “guilt, shame and pain” may actually communicate moral disapproval to women who are in fact at peace with their own decision, thereby placing them under unfair social pressure.

This is not the appropriate role of doctors and counsellors, who should prioritise patient welfare in all their activities, in accordance with the Hippocratic Oath which enjoins them first and foremost to “do no harm”.

This letter was first published in the Sunday Times on 17 August 2014.

Build a university culture that respects consent

By Sumedha Jalote, Communications Executive, AWARE

Local university management must take decisive action on reports of inappropriate sexual games at student orientation camps (‘NUSorientation camp criticised over ‘sexual’ games’, 2 August).

Orientation games take place in large groups of young people who do not know one another very well. Many are anxious to establish their place in a new community and to feel included in an unfamiliar environment where they expect to spend the next few years.

Asking them to strip, or lick whipped cream off another student’s body, or do push-ups on top of another student, is grossly inappropriate in such a setting. Many students feel acutely uncomfortable with this level of physical intimacy.

However, the desire to fit in makes it difficult for them to express their objections. In my own freshmen orientation camp at SMU, opting out of such sexual “games” wasn’t easy. No new student wanted to mark themselves as a “spoilsport” or “prude” by not participating, even if the activity made them uncomfortable.

While these activities are nominally optional, they are presented as part of a campus-wide exercise in student bonding. This communicates to students, right from the start of their university experience, that pressuring peers into unwanted physical contact and intimacy is a fun part of social interaction.

Senior students and universities that promote this are building a campus culture that celebrates coercive and invasive bullying, and which disregards consent and bodily autonomy.

This has ramifications that go beyond orientation. Too many students experience sexual assault and harassment on their university campus. Many universities in the United States, for example, are facing strong public condemnation for their failure to prevent and address sexual violence on campus.

Universities in Singapore must ensure student safety by building a culture that respects and recognises consent. Instead of allowing inappropriate sexual games at orientation camps, we ask universities to teach students to understand and respect boundaries, communication and consent.

This will show students that their well-being and concerns are valued by everyone around them, and help them feel more comfortable in speaking up to authorities if they subsequently encounter abusive behaviour. Ultimately, this builds a much safer environment for all students – where respectful bonding between peers is more likely to naturally develop.

This letter was first published in the Straits Times Forum on 15 August 2014.

Guest blog: Queer liberation is a feminist issue: A Singapore primer

By Leow Hui Min

In 2009, former law dean Thio Su-Mien proclaimed herself a “feminist mentor” and led a group from the Anglican Church of Our Saviour in taking over AWARE. She did so on the pretext of putting an end to an ominous and subversive “lesbian agenda.” She alleged that there was something suspicious about a feminist organisation that advocated for queer women.

But as Flavia Dzodan has declaimed, “MY FEMINISM WILL BE INTERSECTIONAL OR IT WILL BE BULLSHIT!” ^[1]. What is intersectionality? Basically, it is the recognition that everyone in society holds multiple identities. Some identities are accorded a higher social status (privilege), and some of those identities are accorded a lower social status. For queer women, both queerness and womanhood are sources of marginalisation. An intersectional feminism must come to terms with these multiple axes of analysis.

In Singapore, colonial-era sodomy laws remain on the books, and the Media Development Authority actively censors queer-positive material as contrary to the public good. Its guidelines prohibit media that “glamourises” queer existence, but allows negative stereotypes and anti-queer propaganda to flourish in pulpits and newspapers alike. Marriage laws and immigration policies explicitly do not recognise same-gender civil unions lawfully contracted abroad, denying access to housing and other public services even to the couples with enough class privilege to obtain a partnership that’s legally binding somewhere in the world. To say nothing of the couples in a less privileged position.

Meanwhile, women participate in the labour force at a lower rate than men and for less pay. There remains marital immunity for rape, and the legal definition of rape remains pitifully archaic. MediShield does not cover birth control and the Ministry of Health mandates both unhelpful pre-abortion counselling and a two-day wait period. Sexism extends beyond these regressive policy measures and is cemented in societal attitudes such as casual rape threats in the armed forces.

More than that, though—at its heart, homophobia emerges out of sexism.

While much of Adrienne Rich’s opus “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” is questionable, she very insightfully points out that the “eight characteristics of male power in archaic and contemporary societies” enumerated by anthropologist Kathleen Gough also serve to enforce heterosexuality in women’s lives. “The chastity belt; child marriage; erasure of lesbian existence (except as exotic and perverse) in art, literature, film; idealization of heterosexual romance and marriage,” Rich writes—“these are some fairly obvious forms of compulsion, the first two exemplifying physical force, the second two control of consciousness.”

Singapore has found itself with an organised anti-queer movement straight-up transplanted from Evangelical Christian America. Their preferred euphemism for their bigotry is “pro-family.” In defence of their views on sexual morality, they trot out every naturalistic fallacy in the book. Penises belong in vaginas! Women have uteri, therefore conception is a moral imperative! Every child requires one [1] mother and one [1] father, genetically related, with only infertility justifying adoption (only by heterosexual, married couples)!

It is a worldview without any room for individual choice—a worldview in which “biology,” with all its socially and culturally inscribed meaning, is taken as destiny. And it is a worldview where a conviction in rigid difference between binary sexes leads to the exclusion of queer people. Firstly, sexism; thus, homophobia.

The “pro-family” argument is founded on the idea that men penetrate, women conceive; that men lead, women follow; that men discipline, women nurture. In theological terms, it’s called complementarianism. In secular terms, gender essentialism. Besides a failure to accept the reality of transgender existences and a failure to imagine a world outside the male/female binary, this way of thinking refuses to consider individuals as individuals—people with their own individual personalities, preferences, strengths, and weaknesses, and not some psychological checklist based on the “M” or “F” they were assigned at birth.

Some women are nurturing. Some men are nurturing. It’s always good to have a mix of personalities in any team effort (like child-rearing), but personality traits are not gender-specific, and parenting is not about mixing one part stern voice to one part sayang-sayang, adding water, and then expecting a happy family and healthy offspring.

Sexism gives rise to prescriptive ideas about women’s “essential nature.” The sexist conceptualisation of womanhood chronically demands heterosexuality and denies transgender identities. Because feminism is opposed to sexism in all its incarnations, straight feminists must address homophobia alongside queer women, and cis feminists must address transphobia alongside trans women.

When critics ask why AWARE supports the advancement of queer and trans rights, then, it is a failure of the imagination to appreciate the connections between different forms of marginalisation in society. That support emerges from the recognition that it is not only cisgender and heterosexual women affected by anti-woman sexism, from the understanding that many oppressions overlap, and from the principle of solidarity that should be at work in all progressive movements.

Leow Hui Min studies race and gender in media, and is a professional pen-wielder. It’s fun.

[1] Intersectionality, as articulated by Kimberlé Crenshaw in her 1988 paper “Mapping the Margins,” is a rejection of the call (in the U.S. American context) for Black women to put aside their racial identities in order to get a seat at the feminist table. That rejection is rooted in the fact that Black women cannot separate the racism they experience from their gendered existences, nor the sexism they face from their racialised lives. Moya Bailey coined the term misogynoir to describe that double-whammy.

Blog: On my unrequited love for India

By Kokila Annamalai, We Can! Campaign Coordinator. This blog post is written in her personal capacity.

I just finished the book ‘Shame’, which is about forced marriage, honour killings and domestic violence in the South Asian diaspora of Britain. The author is a Sikh woman from Derby who survived very brutal oppression and violence by her family and community, and has spent her life supporting and advocating for other South Asian women and girls in Britain, mostly of Pakistani origin, who’re affected by the same conditions she was in.

What struck me about the book, apart from the horrifying experiences of some women, is the author’s evident pride in her South Asian identity, though she consistently refers to the South Asian community – its culture, norms, traditions and practices – as a site of inequality, discrimination and very violent crimes against women.

Like the author, I too identify deeply with South Asia and South Asian culture, especially India. Though I was born in Singapore and have spent most of my life here, my family is from India and has always taught me that India is home. Since I can remember, we went back to India every year for annual holidays. I’ve spent three of my adult years in Tamil Nadu and had quite a few other stints in different parts of India.

I have always loved India dearly, but because of my own experiences and the overpowering narratives of violence and oppression that is the reality of many South Asian women, it is a very difficult relationship – full of contradictions, shame, confusion and even guilt. But the feeling that has been strongest since reading ‘Shame’ is a very personal kind of pain and anger. It’s the same kind of pain and anger I feel every time I read or hear someone say that India is one of the worst countries in the world for women to live, and say it as though it is the most important thing about Indian society, notwithstanding everything else that is beautiful or remarkable about the place or the people.

I get angry not because they’re wrong, overgeneralising or reductionist in their accusations, but because they’re right. I recently came across an organisation called No Country For Women, which fights against gender-based violence in India, and I was taken aback by the truth in that name. It forced me to confront the fact that the love I have for India, at least for now, is unrequited.

Because the place I love is also a place in which I feel very unsafe; because many of the films in my language are deeply misogynistic and promote rape; because when I was sixteen, I was sent away to India where my relatives pretty much kept me under house arrest for six months because I was suspected to be dating a boy in Singapore; because many of the people I worked with in rural India and adore only respect me because I cover up around them and don’t share many parts of who I am or what I believe in with them.

My own community, both here and in India, accepts dowry, tolerates domestic abuse, forces women into marriage, and some people in my family still rebuke women who dare to call their husbands by their name.

Some of the oppressive practices in South Asia have a stronger hold on diasporic communities like mine, which cling on to them as a source of comfort, security and identity in foreign lands; but for me, growing up with other influences, opportunities and identities in Singapore has allowed me to reject those practices and those who impose them on me.

A part of me has always wanted to live in India and contribute to the feminist movement there. And having met my partner there, I’ve had to consider more seriously the possibility of moving there in the next few years to live with him, but I’m finding that it’s such a difficult decision to make. Because of our families (which are conservative), communities (which are punitive), socioeconomic status (not being able to afford the luxuries of private transport makes things even more restrictive and unsafe for women), jobs and other factors, I’m fearful that we cannot live the lives we choose, and that I will be forced to give up some of the things I believe in.

But here is the reality check – these compromises and restrictions are meagre compared to the situation of many women who can’t choose to stay away, who don’t have allies, who can’t support themselves financially, whose rapes and murders don’t make it to the news – hell, they don’t even make it out of their homes – who don’t have the power to reject the oppressive conditions they are in or be heard.

This is the reality check that makes me want to go and not want to go, at the same time.

Family justice must put welfare and fairness first

By Jolene Tan, Programmes and Communications Senior Manager, Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware)

We support the recommendation by the Committee for Family Justice for specialist agencies to be set up to offer information, advice, counselling and support to those undergoing divorce (“Less painful divorces under new system”; July 5).

Our experience assisting women indicates that the legal processes are often stressful and confusing to the layperson.

These agencies must be sensitive to marital abuse and intimidation, including physical, psychological, social and financial abuse.

In such cases, we disagree with the committee that couples should undergo pre-filing consultation or mediation. Requiring joint attendance jeopardises the victims’ well-being.

The committee’s desire to “focus the parties on the children’s interest” can be fulfilled without forcing victims to enter unsafe spaces – for instance, through separate consultation sessions.

Overall, agencies should take a secular approach, committed first and foremost to the welfare of clients. Victims of domestic violence are often reluctant to leave an abusive relationship because of the widespread judgment that divorce is a personal failure or a moral ill. The agencies should support clients in prioritising their safety and avoid adding to societal pressures.

We also agree that litigants in the Syariah Court should have access to services provided under the State Court system, such as child welfare services and support for those facing violence. It is important to ensure that resources are available to the Syariah Court to prevent a two-tier system.

Lastly, it is unfair to limit maintenance claims by men to situations of incapacity. Existing criteria – including income, earning capacity, contributions to the household and financial need – can apply equally to claims by men. However, in practice, awards to women should be more common as a larger proportion of women (43 per cent) than men (1.8 per cent) who are economically inactive are in this position due to domestic responsibilities.

Moreover, judges must be alert to the potential effect of societal attitudes on their assessments. There is a danger that women’s domestic labour is given less credit because it is seen as “natural”, while similar efforts by men are unfairly perceived as a more significant sacrifice.

Maintenance assessments should also consider that women are more likely to be pressured by spouses and families to leave the formal workforce. However, these are not reasons to deny relief to men in deserving cases.

This letter was first published in the Straits Times Forum on 2 August 2014.

Housing policy must reflect commitment to equality

By Sumedha Jalote, Communications Executive, Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE)

Recently, a letter sent by the Housing Development Board (HDB) to a single mother appealing to buy a flat has struck a chord with many on social media, having been shared by over 1,600 people.

In a terse two paragraphs, the HDB letter rejected the application, stating, “An unmarried parent is treated no different from a single person. Hence, you and your daughter do not constitute an eligible family nucleus to apply for a flat from the HDB.”

The mother who received this letter and many who have seen this letter are justifiably angry. This discriminatory policy denies citizens – both unmarried parents and their children – access to public housing, which is a basic human right. It also sits uneasily with Singapore’s international obligations to protect children under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

The UNCRC is a comprehensive charter on the rights of children, setting minimum standards that governments should meet. Singapore acceded to the UNCRC in 1995.

Under the UNCRC, the state must “recognise the right of every child to a standard of living adequate” for the child’s development (Article 27). The UNCRC states that the state must take “appropriate measures to assist parents” in implementing this right.

Instead of assisting parents, the policies of the HDB make it much harder for them to provide for their children. The alternatives HDB suggested – renting a room or staying with friends – are often ultimately more costly, even though the need for affordable housing may be more urgent with only one parental income rather than two. The social pressures and uncertainty of home-sharing may also create a less favourable family environment for some children.

The UNCRC also requires the state to “take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination” based on the status, activities or beliefs of the child’s parents (Article 2).

By denying public housing to unmarried parents, HDB not only fails to protect children from discrimination, but itself actively discriminates against them, based on their parents’ circumstances or choices.

The recent furore over the National Library Board shows that many Singaporeans care immensely about creating a society that includes and supports diverse families. Moreover, the government is equally accountable to everyone regardless of their family structure. Policies must stop punishing children for the circumstances or choices of their parents. We recommend that public housing be made equally available to all citizens at the age of 21, regardless of their marital status.

An edited version of this letter was published in TODAY on 1 August 2014.

WOMEN'S HELPLINE

1800 777 5555

SEXUAL ASSAULT CARE CENTRE

6779 0282

General enquiries

6779 7137

MENU

Author: AWARE Media