AWARE Media

Dear SAFRA

Dear SAFRA,

Who is your gym for?

You know the ad we mean. There’s been chatter about it on Facebook and The Online Citizen. We’ve read the debate, and since we keep getting asked, here’s our perspective as a gender equality advocacy group.

This poster hasn’t appeared in a vacuum. It’s part of a culture that ubiquitously encourages everyone to see women as existing to be “checked out” (to use your phrase) in every setting, for the pleasure of heterosexual men, regardless of how we feel about it. Sometimes this “checking out” is the precursor to sexual harassment – unwanted advances, which persist even after women make a lack of interest clear, or touching without consent. In some cases it leads to more serious sexual violence.

And yes, it may be true that some women “check out” men too, if “checking out” means a casual momentary look. But persistent unwanted leering, leading to offensive remarks and/or sexual harassment or even assault is something that women are much more likely to experience from men.

Your ad contributes to this culture. By referring to women as “healthy distractions” for men, it tells men that the women using the gym are objects to be stared at, whether or not the women are okay with it. It tells men that it is legitimate for them to engage in behaviour that might make women feel belittled, uncomfortable or threatened, as a common precursor to non-consensual harassment.

The poster also tells women that SAFRA gyms are not safe places for us to exercise. At these gyms, it says, women should expect to be leered at by men, whether we like it or not. If a woman at your gym feels unsafe or uncomfortable because a man is staring at her, after seeing your ad, will she feel that she can tell him off? If she does, will she expect your staff and management to support her?

You’ve suggested the ad is about “bonding moments” among men. But men don’t need to make women feel threatened and uncomfortable to bond – we think better of men than that. And we’re quite sure that men can appreciate the benefits of exercise and enjoy hanging out with their friends even without women dangled before them as sexual prospects.

Women should have the right to enjoy public spaces without expecting or fearing harassment. We should have the right not to be made uncomfortable by unsolicited advances, and we should be supported in our protests if anyone’s sexual conduct towards us makes us uncomfortable.

You tell us SAFRA believes in equality of the sexes; we hope that, in your future marketing campaigns, we see it.

With regards,

AWARE

Welcome recognition of harassment, but employers should be involved

The proposed anti-harassment legislation announced today reflects the government’s increased awareness that sexual harassment and stalking are serious problems. AWARE regularly assists victims who experience severe harm when their lives are disrupted by such conduct. We welcome the decision to strengthen the civil legal remedies available to them, as well as the explicit recognition that stalking and harassment may include online and/or extra-territorial behaviour.

We particularly welcome the availability of protection orders and expedited protection orders granting victims immediate protection against harassment and stalking. We hope that the procedure for obtaining protection orders will be easily accessible, as victims should not have to spend large sums on legal fees or navigate complex and intimidating bureaucracy. The effectiveness of the protection order regime will also depend on the willingness of the police to take action against breaches.

AWARE is also pleased to note the availability of damages for harassment and stalking. We hope that the courts, in interpreting and applying the law, allow claims for damages for emotional injury, as this is a major component of the harm done by stalking and harassment.

However, we are disappointed by the failure to impose any obligation on employers to address workplace sexual harassment. Our 2008 survey found that workplace sexual harassment affected over 50% of respondents. 79% of victims were women, raising questions about gender equality in Singapore workplaces. The most equitable and effective way to handle cases is employer mediation. However, the proposed law places no obligation on employers to take sexual harassment seriously. They remain free to ignore or dismiss complaints, leaving victims with little choice but to leave their jobs or suffer in silence.

We call upon the government to expand the proposed legislation or amend the Employment Act to legally require employers to take measures to address workplace sexual harassment. The Ministry of Manpower should also mandate and enforce a detailed code of conduct specifically setting out best practice for employers on preventing workplace sexual harassment and processing harassment complaints.

Anyone seeking assistance with stalking and sexual harassment can contact our Sexual Assault Befrienders Service (6779 0282, sabs@aware.org.sg).

Sex crimes are against people, not ‘purity’

By Jolene Tan for the Straits Times

Until recently, Morocco allowed rapists of minors to escape charges by marrying their victims.

Many of us recoil from such laws, because we recognise rape as a crime against a person, whose bodily autonomy has been attacked. We see instinctively that pushing a minor into an ongoing intimate relationship with their assailant causes trauma rather than recovery.

The Moroccan law, which has fortunately been repealed, was rooted in a different view of rape. For some, rape is a crime against the “purity” of the victim, a kind of sexual virtue.

Since this virtue is tied to reserving sexual relations exclusively to married couples, the wrong in rape may also be seen as potentially repaired by marriage.

The idea of the victim as a person with a right to make choices, particularly when it concerns her own body, features only secondarily in this way of thinking, if at all.

Troublingly, in recent cases involving sex crimes, some against minors, statements by the authorities in Singapore have also demonstrated purity-based attitudes.

For instance, in January this year, a case involving the rape of an eight-year-old saw a prosecutor emphasising the “loss” of the victim’s “chastity”. This points to concern with the prior absence of sexual experience rather than the plain fact of a violent assault.

Likewise, a few weeks ago, in pressing for punishment of a man who non-consensually distributed sex videos of his former girlfriend, another prosecutor placed stock on the idea that, “a woman’s reputation, once tarnished, is gone forever and can never be repaired”.

And only a few days ago, a judge sentencing a teacher who sexually abused her pupil described her as having “defiled and corrupted” the boy.

Such statements suggest – possibly unintentionally – that the main damage inflicted by sex crimes is a sort of stain on the victims’ sexual virtue, rather than the physical and emotional harm done to them and the degrading denial of control over their own bodies.

This attitude places a moral quality allegedly connected to sexual inexperience at the centre of the violation. The uncomfortable implication is that the state and society can or should take sexual assaults seriously only when the victims are deemed “pure enough” by some ill-defined moralistic yardstick.

Indeed, in another criminal case this year, a judge cast aspersions on the minor victim, who had made contact with the perpetrators online, and suggested that the law is only “to protect really innocent minors”.

The dehumanising logic of “purity” also explains apathy towards sexual violence committed against sex workers. Because they consent to paid sex while working, they are believed to no longer possess the “purity” that rape laws are thought to protect – even though their experiences of sexual violence are no less severe or harmful.

In our view, the absolute right to refuse unwanted sexual contact – and, in the case of minors, to be protected from adult exploitation – should apply equally to everyone. The authorities should not be in the business of judging some victims as “good”, thus deserving protection, and others as “bad” – a process that itself can worsen victims’ trauma.

Encouraging a view of victims as irreparably damaged or otherwise diminished by rape, rather than harmed, may also be harmful to their recovery.

Fortunately, as a prosecutor reminded the judge in the case involving online contact, it is “established law” that the sexual experience of the victim is “irrelevant” to sentencing.

The law also took a welcome step forward with the repeal in 2011 of Section 157(d) of the Evidence Act, under which victims of sexual assault could be discredited based on their sexual histories. Removing this provision was in line with a legal ethos that aspires to fully and equally protect all people from violence and violation, without reference to moralistic judgments on their private lives.

We call upon everyone in society, especially those concerned with the making and enforcement of criminal law, to embrace and uphold a more people-centred justice system. We ought to focus on protecting the welfare of human beings rather than theoretical ideas about “purity” and sexual virtue.

The writer is the programmes and communications senior manager of Aware, a gender equality advocacy group.

This opinion piece was published in the Straits Times on 22 February 2014.

Budget: New directions welcome, but questions remain

On 29 January, AWARE submitted its fourth annual set of recommendations for the national budget, emphasising the issues of: 1) poverty and income inequality, 2) support for caregivers, 3) healthcare financing in Singapore, and 4) transparency and inclusiveness in the budget process.

With the announcement of the Budget today, we welcome the government’s recognition that many in Singapore face severe difficulty making ends meet, especially in relation to healthcare costs. We were heartened to see Minster Shanmugaratnam’s speech foreground income inequality and lack of social mobility, and to emphasise that we must “avoid permanent tiers” in society. The Minister’s remarks about the need to change workplace cultures and social norms to empower employees were also very timely.

At the same time, we continue to have questions and concerns about how these important issues will be addressed. Our comments on the Budget announcement fall under five main headings:

Support for caregivers and caregiving

In our pre-Budget recommendations, AWARE called for caregiving to be recognised as a public good. The provision of financial benefits to caregivers for elderly and disabled dependents appears to be a step in this direction. However, the use of income tax relief to compensate caregivers is regressive, as only those with higher incomes are subject to income tax and therefore in a position to benefit. Many caregivers may not be in formal employment at all, especially stay-at-home mothers, and thus will derive no advantage from this. We call upon the state to reward caregiving through direct contributions, not tax relief, for instance through payments into CPF.

If the government wishes to support shifts in workplace culture to improve productivity, it would do well to prioritise the issue of combining workforce participation with caregiving, which disproportionately disadvantages women in Singapore. The Minister enumerated generous subsidies available to companies looking to upgrade their ICT infrastructure, but mentioned no similar support for encouraging flexible work or otherwise transforming employment to facilitate caregiving. For instance, if SMEs are to be housed together to benefit from sharing facilities, the government could consider funding the inclusion of workplace crèches at these facilities.

Distribution of risk and burden of healthcare financing

AWARE has previously highlighted the particular burden that healthcare costs place upon older women. We are therefore heartened to note that the Pioneer Generation Package will help to alleviate some of the difficulties faced by this demographic. Moreover, we are pleased to learn that Medishield Life will cover pre-existing conditions – a step forward from their previous exclusion. However, because the Pioneer Generation is expressly positioned as a “unique”, one-off measure, it raises concerns about whether there will be sustainable provision for the needs of subsequent generations.

We had hoped to hear more explicit consideration of how the risk and burden of healthcare financing will be shared as between individuals and their families on the one hand, and the state on the other, in relation to the whole population and not only those included within the Pioneer Generation. We welcome the government’s statement that subsidies will be available on premiums in the future and eagerly await further details.

We also note that the Pioneer Generation Package, unlike many other forms of state support, is not means tested by family. We are interested to see if this heralds further departures from the means-testing model used by the Ministry of Health.

The role of employment in social support

The Minister described jobs as the most important safety net and emphasised the “upgrading” of workers, with the generous boost given to the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund. Both job creation and the opportunities for workers to acquire skills are vital.

AWARE recommends that social support be decoupled from employment, employability or skill level, as there may be many members of society who are not in a position to obtain formal or skilled employment, whose basic needs in everyday life must also be met. We also note the Minister’s enthusiasm for various cost-cutting measures by employers which involve lowering labour costs through automation, and have some concern about the resulting impact on the workers who are affected by these measures.

Social mobility and disadvantages experienced by children

We welcome the Minister’s proclamation that children should not inherit disadvantage, and welcome the statement of greater government support for more affordable kindergarten places and the provision of education to a tertiary level. However, as we noted in our pre-Budget recommendations, there are numerous ways in which current policies penalise children based on the employment, family structures or other choices of their parents. For instance, access to public housing, maternity leave entitlements and childcare entitlements are tied to the marital status of parents, with negative consequences for social equality as between children of different parents.

Transparency in the Budget process

In his speech, the Minister discussed many forthcoming initiatives and alluded, with varying levels of detail, to measures from previous years. In keeping with our earlier calls for greater transparency in the Budget process, we urge the government to introduce a system of consistently, publicly and comprehensively reporting on the utilisation and efficacy of the government initiatives discussed in each Budget.

You can read AWARE’s recommendations for the Budget 2014 here.

Say ‘no’ to online sexist speech

Today is Safer Internet Day. While the Government is planning new legislation this year to address harassment, it is essential to remember that online harassment often specifically targets women and girls.

Women and girls often receive sexist messages online. These range from threats of rape and violence to clearly unwanted sexual propositions and demeaning remarks based on gender stereotypes. Simple disagreements can lead to graphic death threats.

This abuse intensifies whenever issues relating to gender and sex discrimination are discussed.

In November last year, an Aware supporter was harassed online for days for publicly opposing song lyrics celebrating rape in military marching song Purple Light. The perpetrator attempted to dig up information on her hobbies and personal relationships, as well as drag her employer into the fray. One Facebook user even suggested that Aware staff “deserved to be raped and tortured”.

Online spaces intended for political discussion often feature graphic and demeaning dissections of the body parts and physical appearances of prominent women, and sex acts that commenters imagine performing on them. This harassment can cause severe stress and psychological harm. Even if the thicker-skinned can tough it out, they should not have to.

The sheer volume of such speech creates an environment where all women and girls, even those not directly targeted, can never be sure that their actions and perspectives are assessed and taken seriously on their own merits, without accompanying denigration based on gender.

This has damaging implications for gender equality, as the online world becomes increasingly important both in our personal and professional lives and as a location of influential social and political discussion.

We need a strong community response to truly address this problem. Website, social media and forum moderators must not close their eyes to abuse. Instead, they should vigilantly remove harassing material, as well as warn or even ban users who turn to personal or violent attacks and denigration.

All participants in online discussions should let the perpetrators know that sexist speech will not be tolerated. Only then can women and girls participate in the Internet on an equal footing with men and boys – to the benefit of all.

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

This letter was first published in the Straits Times Forum on 11 February 2014.

Rethinking fundamental approaches to budget making

On 29 January, AWARE submitted its fourth annual set of recommendations for the national budget through the public consultation portal REACH. This year we question some of the fundamental approaches that underlie budget making and call for the budget process to be more transparent and inclusive, so that citizens and civil society organisations can have a greater stake in an inclusive nation. Our recommendations have also been sent to Members and Nominated Members of Parliament.

This year, our nine recommendations cover five key areas:

Fundamental approaches to the Budget
Income inequality and poverty
Caregiving
Healthcare
The Budget Process

Singapore needs to debate our fundamental approaches to budget making

AWARE questions some of the fundamental approaches that underlie current budget making so that the Government, the citizenry and the corporate sector can, in tripartite alliance, arrive at truly inclusive solutions. For example, we ask: Is social spending too low in Singapore? Should children be advantaged or disadvantaged based on their parents’ choices in employment or marriage? Do policies require too much “self-reliance” from individuals in contexts where problems cannot be effectively addressed at the individual level? Should means-testing take the income of all family members into account, rather than the income of the individual concerned? These questions need careful consideration and open discussion.

More needs to be done to tackle income inequality and poverty

Income inequality in Singapore is growing. Even after government transfers and taxes, our Gini coefficient rose from 0.448 in 2011 to 0.452 in 2012. More effective measures must be taken to lower the Gini coefficient below 0.4, which is the international alert line for the inequality threshold.

Social protection spending in Singapore is far below what it should be for a high-income country. According to the Asian Development Bank (2013), Singapore’s Social Protection Index (SPI – a simple indicator assessing social protection programmes) is a mere 0.169, with social protection spending taking up only 3.5% of GDP. For comparison, the Republic of Korea, with per capita GDP less than half that of Singapore, has an SPI of 0.2, with 7.9% of GDP allocated to social protection spending. This places vulnerable groups in Singapore at severe financial risk, especially the elderly, women who drop out of the workforce, and disabled persons .

A yearly, regular and reliable poverty measurement should be produced to enable citizens to track the extent to which poverty is reduced by various “tailored schemes”. There should be transparent evaluation of whether the Multiple Lines of Assistance^{^[1]} in the Ministry of Social and Family Development effectively address the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable.

Caregiving must be valued and caregivers protected

Rapidly changing family forms and social structures require recognition in public policy if they are not to leave caregivers vulnerable. Policies that support children should be delinked from those supporting caregivers. No child should be penalised for parents’ personal choices in employment or marriage.

We would also like to see the provision of caregiving services as a public good, with significant investments in childcare and eldercare as publicly funded services.

Universal healthcare must be a priority

For many years, healthcare policy has treated healthcare as a financial issue, with the responsibility to afford healthcare wholly resting on the patients and her/his family. We hope that with the ‘Healthcare 2020 Masterplan’ the limitations of this policy are becoming visible.

Singaporeans currently pay 75% out-of-pocket for healthcare expenditure. This should be lowered significantly to ease the burden on those unable to finance their healthcare. Key questions about the future of the healthcare system must be discussed with stakeholders openly and transparently.

A more transparent Budget process means better feedback from the public

We call strongly for the Budget process to be more transparent and inclusive. Public consultation on the Budget through REACH must be continuous to allow citizens and civil society organisations to contribute effectively at all stages. We ask the Ministry of Finance to publish key budget documents in accordance with international best practice, including a pre-budget statement, detailed breakdown of the budget for the financial year, in-year reports, mid-year review, and an annual report detailing the spending of individual ministries. Data, disaggregated by gender, age, ethnicity and income, should be made available to all citizens.

Read the full text of AWARE’s Budget 2014 Recommendations here. The budget recommendations were also covered in the Business Times and the Online Citizen.

AWARE has made recommendations to Singapore’s National Budgets since 2011, advocating for equitable allocation of resources to meet the needs of vulnerable groups. Our recommendations for Budget 2013 are here.

[1] Multiple lines of assistance, Ministry of Social and Family Development http://app.msf.gov.sg/Portals/0/Chart%20of%20Government%20Schemes.pdf

Inclusive society must promote health of all

By Jolene Tan

The Health Promotion Board (HPB) has a simple mandate: “to build a nation of healthy people”. As a government agency, its responsibility is to promote the physical and mental health of all members of society equally, regardless of sexual orientation.

The publication of factual, non-judgmental information about homosexuality and bisexuality falls squarely within this mission. The World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights identify access to health-related information, including sexual health, as a crucial part of access to health care.

Unless the information available reflects the reality of human diversity, many will be excluded from a better understanding of themselves and those close to them, and consequently from the opportunity to make informed decisions about their own health.

The recent statements on sexuality that have attracted so much attention are unambiguously supported by longstanding medical and scientific consensus. The WHO explicitly names “recognising and respecting sexual diversity” as one of a few “key principles” for policymakers seeking to promote sexual health.

Experts with an evidence-based approach widely agree that homosexuality and bisexuality are not mental illnesses.

Over 20 years ago, the WHO, after reviewing the evidence, removed homosexuality from the International Classification of Diseases. This position is shared by numerous medical and scientific bodies, including the American Psychological Association, Britain’s Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) and the Chinese Psychiatric Association.

The HPB has not only the right, but also the duty to dispel any myths to the contrary. In fact, a commitment to improving public health necessitates battling the stigma surrounding same-sex relations.

A fear of prejudiced health professionals can hold gay, lesbian and bisexual people back from seeking necessary medical help, or discourage them from sharing with their medical advisers potentially relevant information, such as the nature of their sexual activities.

The HPB is also sensible to focus on educating the parents of young gay, lesbian and bisexual people. The RCP notes that societal discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, including rejection from family members, often has a strong negative impact on the mental health of gay, lesbian and bisexual people.

Researchers in San Francisco found a strong association between negative parental reactions to sexual orientation and young people’s experiences of depression, suicide and unprotected sex.

Addressing parental misconceptions about sexuality can prevent needless anguish on the part of children and parents alike, helping to preserve family relationships by improving mutual understanding.

Of course, one set of frequently asked questions cannot single-handedly vanquish all discrimination that lesbian, gay and bisexual people may face.

Referrals to appropriate support services are therefore crucial to assist them and their loved ones in navigating an often hostile or uncomprehending social environment.

Importantly, such services should not treat homosexuality or bisexuality as a wrong to be “cured” – an approach which the WHO has described as “unscientific, potentially harmful” and a contributor to “stigmatisation”.

It was disappointing to see the HPB remove information previously found on the webpage about reliably supportive services offered by Action for Aids, Oogachaga and Safe Singapore.

No doubt, some in Singapore regard same-sex sexual relations with distaste or disapproval. But the HPB’s primary concern is health; and, in an inclusive society, health is for everyone, not only those judged by the self-styled guardians of sexual normality to be suitably pure.

The state must not deny access to vital information about sexual health out of deference to unevidenced ideological prescriptions.

And, as individuals, we can all come to our own moral judgments – including on those who push for their discriminatory ideals to come before the physical and mental well-being of real people.

myp@sph.com.sg

The writer is the programmes and communications senior manager of Aware, a gender equality advocacy group.

This op-ed was first published in MyPaper on 6 February 2014.

Discontinue the use of polygraph on assault victims

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

We read with interest of psychologist Professor Aldert Vrij’s visit to Singapore and his statement that law enforcement agencies often rely too much on mechanical methods of lie detection (“Busting the myths of lie detection”, Jan 19).

AWARE’s Sexual Assault Befrienders Service (SABS) has encountered numerous cases where those filing complaints of sexual assault or rape are required to take a polygraph lie detector test while making a police report.

Given international expert consensus on the poor accuracy and reliability of these tests, we question whether this practice should continue.

In 2004, the British Psychological Society found that “[Even] in the most favourable circumstances polygraphic lie detection accuracy is not high”. In 2003, the United States National Research Council (NRC) concluded that the reliability of the polygraph is questionable, and neither technological nor methodological advancement was likely to improve that reliability.

A polygraph does not directly detect deception. Instead, it measures physiological responses such as blood pressure and pulse rate believed to result from psychological states accompanying deception. These responses, however, can be caused by many other factors, such as embarrassment, outrage or distress.

Administering the polygraph to rape and sexual assault complainants inevitably involves questioning them about highly sensitive and potentially distressing matters, which are likely to elicit emotional responses. This raises the possibility that the polygraph results become especially inaccurate in this context.

A substantial number of our SABS clients have indicated that undergoing a polygraph caused them anxiety. This can worsen the traumatic effects of sexual assault.

Due to these concerns, many jurisdictions have discontinued the use of polygraph testing on rape and sexual assault complainants.

Polygraph results are not admissible in court in Singapore, and the process and reasons for administering this test are not generally made clear to the victims. It is unfair that decisions about how to handle a sexual assault complaint should be made on the basis of such an unreliable practice.

Many victims of sexual crimes do not make police reports because they fear being disbelieved. Forcing victims to take a lie detector test reinforces their fear of not being believed, and is of dubious value to the investigation. We recommend that the practice be discontinued.

An edited version of this letter was published in the Straits Times Forum on 26 January.

Budget process needs to be more open and inclusive

By Vivienne Wee And Edwina Shaddick

Singaporeans increasingly want to be heard. An increasingly vocal population is far from antagonistic to good governance. This is especially so if the rising volume of voices is accompanied by an increasing awareness of the issues.

Increased participation, coupled with the Government’s willingness to engage, would enable more Singaporeans to feel that they have a stake in this country. But this can only happen if governmental processes are structured and communicated in a way which helps citizens to give useful feedback.

Consider the Budget. On Feb 21, Minister for Finance Tharman Shanmugaratnam will announce the Government’s proposed Budget for the fiscal year to come. Singaporeans can express their views through online platform Reach until Jan 29.

But are Singaporeans able to offer valuable feedback through this process?

As an advocacy group, the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) has been submitting recommendations for the Budget since 2011, usually through Reach. The period for consultation on the Budget opened on Nov 22 last year and closes on Jan 29.

A Budget cycle described on the Civil Service College website suggests that the Cabinet approves a consolidated Budget in late January. How feasible is it for a Budget approved in late January, and made public on Feb 21, to take into account views from public consultation that ends on Jan 29?

Consultation that takes place earlier and ends later will allow more of the public’s inputs to be meaningfully absorbed into the Budget.

A look at the International Budget Partnership (IBP), an advocacy group partly funded by the Ford Foundation that promotes open budgeting by governments, shows Singapore lags behind global best practices in budget processes.

The IBP’s Open Budget Index tracks 125 countries but not Singapore, for reasons we are unaware of.

The Open Budget Index, conducted once every two years, ranks countries on budget transparency, based on “whether the government provides the public with timely access to comprehensive information contained in eight key documents”. Singapore does not comply with some of these practices.

For example,the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recommends that governments release a pre-budget statement at least a month before the budget is introduced to the legislature for debate, including projections of revenue, expenditure and policy goals, to give time for informed analysis and critique.

New Zealand meets this standard, as does South Africa, which releases this data four months before its budget. However, no such publication is expected in Singapore at any time before public consultation ends on Jan 29.

Furthermore, the Government can afford to provide more information about its expenditure.

In March 2010, opposition MP Low Thia Khiang said in Parliament that he used to be able to view specific details of how ministries spent their money in the Budget Book. But this was no longer the case as the figures had been consolidated. Mr Low argued that the consolidated figures were not helpful aids to understand a ministry’s programmes, nor the changes in its expenditure. Then Second Minister for Finance Lim Hwee Hua stated that specific expenditure breakdowns can be found in the Expenditure Control Document available in the Parliament Library.

That may be so, but as this library can only be accessed by legislators and their assistants. What about citizens and civil society organisations interested in taking a more active part in the Budget process?

To be sure, some information may be deemed too sensitive for the public on security grounds, but more detailed discussion is needed to determine what falls within that category.

The Budget and its formulation process can be powerful tools of engagement for the public. The Budget governs how much citizens pay for the upkeep of government, and how much they receive in return.

Dr Noeleen Heyzer, a Singaporean who is undersecretary-general at the United Nations, describes budgeting as “no longer… an exclusive exercise” reserved only for ministries of finance, but rather “a process that entails aligning national development plans and goals and human rights commitments with budget policies in a transparent and coherent manner”.

Budget formulation, Dr Heyzer argues, determines “people’s access to services and resources” and so “discrimination can either be reinforced or eliminated by budget policies”.

To be fair to the Ministry of Finance, it does consult the public pre-Budget, judging from its website and the Reach portal inviting views. But Singapore can move beyond a “wish list” style of consultation, in which the public states vague aspirations and the Ministry of Finance responds by enumerating policies already in place or new ones in the pipeline that meet those aspirations.

A more sophisticated engagement requires public access to information on the past performance of individual policies and programmes.

IBP best practices for example recommend year-end and in-year reviews of spending on programmes.

Also recommended is a “Citizen’s Budget” – the Budget statement presented in an easy-to-understand manner for the public with a breakdown of allocations to achieve specific outputs and outcomes.

These are all ideas Singapore can look into.

Earlier and better-quality information on the Budget process can give citizens a greater stake in the nation and increase their sense of ownership and participation.

As stated by the Auditor-General’s Office in its 2011 publication Public Accountability, “The citizens of Singapore are the ultimate owners of our nation’s financial resources. It is important that they understand and support the processes and systems that ensure public accountability.”

Dr Vivienne Wee, a sociology lecturer, is research and advocacy director at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware). Edwina Shaddick, a teacher in a private school, is a member of its Budget sub-committee.

This article was published in the Straits Times on 24 January 2014.

WOMEN'S HELPLINE

1800 777 5555

SEXUAL ASSAULT CARE CENTRE

6779 0282

General enquiries

6779 7137

MENU

Author: AWARE Media