Author: Media Intern

Goodbye to those days, when women were ‘pieces of meat for men to slice’

This op-ed was originally published in Channel NewsAsia on 11 October 2020.

SINGAPORE: Women in our society are like pieces of meat put on the table for men to slice, declared Chan Choy Siong in a fiery speech in the Legislative Assembly in April 1960.

Choy Siong, the People’s Action Party (PAP) Member for Delta and a passionate champion of women’s rights, was speaking in support of the Women’s Charter Bill.

She said it would bring about “a revolutionary change in society” as men would no longer be able to “take women as pieces of merchandise”.

The bill, which became law in 1961, was indeed remarkably progressive for the times. It gave women and men equal standing in marriage and banned polygamy for non-Muslims.

FIGHTING AGAINST POLYGAMY AND MUCH MORE IN 1950S

This ban on polygamy was what another pioneering feminist, Shirin Fozdar, campaigned for relentlessly during the 1950s.

Shirin, who began making speeches about women’s rights when she was a schoolgirl in India, came to Singapore in 1950 with her husband to spread the Baha’i faith. She soon discovered that many of the men she and her husband met at social events were there not with, as she had presumed, their one and only wife, but with their second, third or fourth wife.

Horrified that polygamy was so rife and that women and children had so little legal protection, Shirin got together some of the leading women in Singapore and formed the Singapore Council of Women (SCW).

Shirin and the SCW wrote letters, gave talks, and met with political and community leaders throughout the 1950s.

Following the 1955 Legislative Assembly general election, which was Singapore’s first political election and which saw David Marshall of the Labour Front becoming the Chief Minister, Shirin wrote an open and angry letter to Mr Marshall.

“Before the elections, the Labour Front and the PAP promised to work for the uplift of the underdog and see that justice and equality prevailed. The women in this country were praying for the election of courageous and just men, who would remove the inequalities between the sexes in this country,” she said.

But “political rivalry and immature statesmanship have plunged this country into turmoil and unrest,” Shirin said.

“How much better it would be if instead of making the Legislative Assembly an arena for politicians to indulge in verbal bouts, the elected representatives would unite together on this one important issue of removing the injustices done to women. This would be repaying to some extent the debt of gratitude that you each owe to your mother, who happened to be a woman.”

The SCW’s open letter had, however, little effect on the politicians. It was only during the campaigning for the 1959 General Election that women’s rights made an appearance, and the issue was only raised by the PAP.

Voting had become compulsory in 1959, and with women forming half of the electorate, the PAP, then an opposition party, went all out to secure the female vote.

Its The Tasks Ahead manifesto spoke of monogamous marriage laws, jobs for women, equal pay for equal work, care of widows and orphans, and of encouraging women to be active in politics.

Chan Choy Siong and others from the PAP’s Women’s League spoke rousingly at PAP rallies about how women needed to be freed from being the playthings of men.

Even Kwa Geok Choo, the wife of PAP leader Lee Kuan Yew, joined the fray.

In her first and only political speech, Mrs Lee argued the case for equal pay for equal work, saying: “Our society is still built on the assumption that women are the social, political and economic inferiors of men. This myth has been made the excuse for the exploitation of female labour.”

Having convincingly won the 1959 election, the PAP government set out to deliver on its promise to the women of Singapore and in 1960 it tabled the Women’s Charter Bill.

At the final reading of the Bill in Parliament in March 1961, Choy Siong declared that the law would “give the women’s movement a very flat and level road on which to travel”.

THEN THE WOMEN’S MOVEMENT DISAPPEARED FOR A LONG TIME

The Women’s Charter indeed was a “landmark legislation”, as Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam noted in his recent speech about women and gender equality – a speech that is itself likely to become another landmark in the women’s movement here.

But the road for women has not been quite as flat and level as Choy Siong anticipated and as the rest of us would have liked.

The lively women’s movement of the 1950s all but disappeared in the 1960s. With the Women’s Charter in place and polygamy banned, the SCW had little else to campaign for.

Shirin moved in 1961 to Thailand to work with destitute women and girls. Without her galvanising presence, SCW’s membership dwindled and it was dissolved in 1971.

Meanwhile, the PAP’s interest in getting more women into politics also seemed to dwindle. Most of its women MPs left when the Barisan Socialis faction split from the party, leaving just Choy Siong in Parliament.

When Choy Siong retired from politics in 1970, the House became an all-male affair. It would remain without the benefit of women’s views and voices for 14 years, until the general elections of 1984. The opposition parties did have some women candidates, but none got elected.

When in 1979 the Government announced a quota on the number of women admitted to medical school, there was no woman in Parliament to argue against this blatantly discriminatory move.

There was no woman in the nation’s highest policy-making body to take issue with statements like that of Health Minister Toh Chin Chye who said it was difficult for a woman to be a good doctor because “she had to be a wife and a mother besides performing night duty in government hospitals”.

The quota, which meant women could only make up a third of each intake of medical students, would remain in place until 2003. It was one of several discriminatory laws and policies that AWARE campaigned against for many years, and which were only rectified about 15 years ago.

A “PROPER ROLE”

The problem was that while the Women’s Charter was, at that time, a progressive law in making women and men equals in a marriage, it was not legislation that established gender equality as a fundamental value for Singapore.

Polygamy was banished, but patriarchy persisted.

It was evident in the all-male Parliament we had for 14 years, and in sexist statements such as “girls should be girls” that emerged in the wake of Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s controversial 1983 National Day Rally speech.

The late Mr Lee’s remarks sparked what became known as the Great Marriage Debate that led to a slew of sexist, elitist, and eugenicist comments and schemes designed to get graduate women to marry and have lots of children.

Shortly after this speech, Minister of State for Education Tay Eng Soon called for girls’ schools to cater to “feminine” interests and activities so that the girls would grow up better prepared for their ‘natural and proper role in life’ as wives and mothers.

The following year, it became compulsory for lower secondary girls to do home economics, which meant they would not be able to opt for technical studies.

Educational and other policies have flip-flopped over the years, sometimes seriously affecting the options open to women (and men).

While we have adopted as fundamental values – which are enshrined in our Constitution – non-discrimination on “the grounds of religion, race, descent or place of birth”, we have made no commitment to the principle of gender equality.

GENDER EQUALITY AS A FUNDAMENTAL VALUE

AWARE was set up 35 years ago because of this.

We believe gender equality should be a fundamental value. We consider it vitally important to remove the gender-based barriers that can and do limit the ability of people to explore and develop their full potential.

We have been able to contribute to the removal of some of these barriers, but the goal of a national commitment to the principle of gender equality has proved elusive.

It was thus astonishing to hear, on a Sunday (Sep 20) morning in September, Mr Shanmugam argue a passionate case for precisely this. Astonishing but encouraging and energising.

Sixty years ago, Singapore took a step ahead of many countries, including those much more developed than us, when the Women’s Charter became law. Singapore today is among the most developed countries in the world.

We take pride in appearing at or near the top in all manner of global rankings and indexes. It is time to take pride in being a leader in gender equality.

Margaret Thomas, President, AWARE

 

Video: 4 Myths in 4 Minutes – Domestic Violence

Is domestic violence only physical violence? Are there “typical” perpetrators and victims of violence? If the violence is “that bad”, why don’t victims just leave?

How much do you really know about domestic violence?

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Singapore has seen a worrying spike in domestic violence. Yet many people still have a rudimentary understanding of domestic violence, based on hazy stereotypes about physical violence, drinking problems and anger management issues. Holding onto these myths can prevent people experiencing violence from seeking help; it can also prevent friends and family members from offering the appropriate support in these difficult situations.

In this video, Ashley and Stacy from AWARE’s Women’s Care Centre sit down to bust four myths about domestic violence… in just four minutes.

For more support, call AWARE’s Women’s Helpline at 1800 777 5555 (Mon-Fri, 10am-6pm). If you cannot call, but would like to schedule an online chat with us, you may do so here.

Thank you to Coromandel Productions for producing this video with us.
Funded in part by Temasek Trust‘s oscar@sg fund.

Video Transcript

Ashley: Hi, I’m Ashley.

Stacy: Hi, I’m Stacy.

Ashley: and we work at the women’s care centre at AWARE. Recently we’ve seen a rise in calls to our women’s helplines about domestic violence ever since COVID-19 has started. We are here to debunk four myths about domestic violence for you today.

Stacy: These myths are harmful because they lead to victims staying in dangerous situations for far longer than they should. And they also lead to bystanders being reluctant to intervene, when intervention would actually be helpful.

Myth 1: Domestic violence is only physical violence.

Ashley: So first off, some people think that domestic violence only consists of physical violence. That is actually not true. It consists of many different forms of violence, which makes sense actually, when you think of domestic abuse as a pattern of behaviour used to exert power and control over someone else. So some specific examples of domestic abuse is destruction of one’s property, using the well-being of children to manipulate the victim, restricting the victim’s movements, keeping them from seeing their family and so on.

Myth 2: There are “typical” perpetrators of domestic violence.

Stacy: The second myth surrounding domestic violence is the stereotype that there are typical perpetrators and typical victims of domestic violence. So we do see that there are some patterns of domestic violence, where overwhelmingly perpetrators tend to be men, whereas victims tend to be women. That being said, however, there are many ways in which the stereotypes surrounding domestic violence can be subverted.

Domestic violence can happen within families, between relatives, as well as between intimate partners. So domestic violence is definitely not just something that happens between husband and wife. We observe that domestic violence happens across all socio-economic classes, not just low income families.

Stacy: Many people think that perpetrators of domestic violence are under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or that they have some kind of personality disorder that influences them to act in the way they do. What we do frequently observe is that perpetrators are very much in control of their mental faculties and can choose where, when and how they use violence.

Myth 3: If the violence was that bad, the victim would leave the relationship.

Ashley: So thirdly, some people think that if the domestic violence was that bad then the victim would leave, if the victim doesn’t leave, then surely it must not have been that bad. There are many reasons why a victim might not choose to leave or they can’t leave the relationship the situation right now and whether they leave or not is not an indication of the validity of the experience.

They may not realize that what they are experiencing is abuse because they have normalized the behaviour and they may be feeling or experiencing self-blame. Leaving is actually quite difficult and can sometimes be a dangerous thing to do. There is a chance of escalation from the perpetrator if they find out that someone’s leaving. Other reasons why it might be difficult for someone to leave is a lack of family support, support from friends and a lack of resources that they can use to help them.

What’s important to know is that perpetrators are not always abusive all the time. A relationship can provide real love and support to the victim and the children and the victim may have assessed that it is actually a safer and beneficial thing for them to stay in a relationship at that current point in time.

Myth 4: Domestic violence is a family affair and others shouldn’t intervene.

Stacy: The fourth myth surrounding domestic violence is the stereotype that domestic violence is only a family affair and that outside parties should not intervene. Domestic violence is not just a family affair. However, there are certain limits to intervention. Sometimes intervention can be more risky than helpful. For example, calling the police prematurely to the house where the violence is occurring, for example, can actually make the situation worse. If you do find yourself having to intervene in a domestic violence situation, do as far as possible, try to get the consent of the victim. Try as much as you can to explain to the victim why you are doing what you are doing.

As a single bystander, you cannot do everything and you should not take everything on yourself so do seek the support of professionals wherever you can.

 

AWARE announces five-day AWAREFest in November to celebrate 35th birthday

This post was originally published as a press release on 7 October 2020.

7 October 2020To celebrate the 35th anniversary of its founding in 1985, AWARE will hold a five-day festival called AWAREFest, featuring online panels, workshops and interactive programmes centred on the fight for gender equality in Singapore.

The festival announcement comes in the wake of the government’s plan for a wide-ranging national review of gender equality. 

AWAREFest will kick off on Wednesday, 25 November—International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women—and draw to a close on Sunday, 29 November. Its inaugural theme is “Love + Rage”. 

“AWAREFest is an occasion for us to honour the founding mothers who broke new ground for women over decades, and to embrace the new generation bringing feminism into the future,” said Corinna Lim, AWARE’s Executive Director. “Taken together, the story of AWARE is a uniquely Singaporean story of solidarity and community, indignation and fiery passion. Hence the festival theme, Love + Rage—which channels both the rich history of the local women’s movement, and the singular mood of this present time.”

For opening night, AWAREFest will hold The Great Debate, whereby teams of well-known local thinkers and activists will duke it out over the motion “Is love or rage a better fuel for justice?” Other programme highlights include:

  • Women in Politics: a conversation between four women who ran for office in GE2020
  • #MeToo in Asia: an international panel of activists fighting against sexual violence around the region
  • Intersectionality Quiz Night: a fun, fast-paced trivia challenge covering the intersection of gender and issues such as income inequality, sexual orientation and disability

Saturday, 28 November will also see the AWAREHouse Partya social distancing-appropriate twist on AWARE’s annual charity ball. This year, guests will gather at each other’s houses for intimate hosted parties, united by live-streamed entertainment and a special catered menu. The night’s programming will feature the 2020 AWARE Awards, honouring recent achievements in gender equality; a “Herstory” retrospective of major AWARE milestones; and the return of the beloved Alamak Awards, given to the year’s most cringeworthy sexist moments.

AWAREFest is supported by the U.S. Embassy Singapore. Proceeds from the festival will go towards AWARE’s new NextGen fund, which aims to nurture a new cohort of changemakers in Singapore, and ensure that women and girls continue to receive the assistance and support they need to thrive. The fund will enable the maintenance and expansion of AWARE’s services, and sustain AWARE’s multi-faceted research on such pressing issues as caregiving, workplace harassment and migrant rights.

Said Ms Lim: “NextGen will give us the opportunity to step up our strategic advocacy efforts during this pivotal moment of national interest in gender equality, sparked by the government’s upcoming White Paper. The time for concerted action is now. We’re thankful to all who contribute to and champion this cause, in ways big and small.” 

Full details on the AWAREFest programme will be released on 14 October at aware.org.sg/awarefest. Tickets go on sale to the public on 16 October via Sistic, both for individual events and in the form of a multi-event festival pass.

5, 12, 9 November 2020: Birds & Bees, a workshop for parents about sex education

“This was valuable… it made me reflect on my own values regarding sex and what I may project onto my children.”

“It opens up our inhibitions and gives us real opportunities to put [our thoughts into] words.”

“Often boys are let off the hook, but I think they should be mindful and learn about boundaries, especially in this day and age when lines are blurred and there’s so much to access online.”

“Can they do this in school for our children?”

– Previous Birds & Bees workshop attendees

Most parents believe that it is important to talk to their children about sex, but many are uncertain how to do it. But what happens when you keep putting it off until the children are “older”? Where do your children get answers to questions they can’t ask you? (The internet is one such place, and young people say they are most likely to ask peers and romantic partners.)

Birds & Bees is an experiential workshop for parents, developed by parents, to explore what works for you when talking to your child about romantic relationships and sex. A variety of formats will be used, including opportunities for dialogue, discussion and reflection

Most parents want to be an “ask-able” parent: to be the approachable adult who is open to questions and who their child turns to for answers. Attend this workshop to explore how you can work on developing your own strategies to enhance the trust and bond with your child!

All parents would find the content useful and applicable. For this online workshop, we are giving priority to parents of children aged 10-15 so that the discussions can be more age-targeted.

Places are limited so do sign up quickly!

Date: Thursdays – 5, 12, 19 November (Participants are expected to attend all three sessions)

Time: 8:00 – 9.30pm (1.5 hours)

Workshop Fee: $15 (in total, covering all three sessions)

Survey: After you sign up, you will be asked to complete a short pre-workshop survey about the age(s) and number of your children. This is very important so that parents with children of similar ages can be grouped together to that you will get the most out of the workshop.

Special instructions for online workshop: As small-group discussions are a big part of the workshop, participants are expected to switch on their video as well as audio whenever possible, and to join in the discussions for maximum benefit.

Refunds and cancellations: Unfortunately we will not be offering refunds. In exceptional circumstances, if you are unable to attend the subsequent sessions, you will be able to join the next set of workshops if you write in to publiceducation@aware.org.sg in advance giving your reasons.

**If you would like to join the workshop but cannot make it at this time, please fill in the indication of interest form.

Register here.

Forum: New law needed to tackle discrimination, wrongful dismissal

This letter was originally published on The Straits Times on 29 September 2020.

The letter, “The little guy who failed to find recourse over termination” (Sept 24), highlights the prevalence of age discrimination in the workplace, and the limitations in recourse options available to employees experiencing discrimination and wrongful dismissal.

From September last year till this month, the Association of Women for Action and Research’s Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Advisory (WHDA) received 172 calls, with over a third of them concerning some form of discrimination.

The women WHDA supported lost job opportunities and were denied promotions and reasonable accommodation.

They faced mistrust and suspicion once they got pregnant, became mothers or reached a certain age.

Discouragingly, many had experienced unfair termination, or contemplated resignation as a result of unfavourable work environments.

The Government has taken steps to get employers to act fairly.

Workers may approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (Tafep). A complaint triggers an investigation, during which Tafep speaks to the employer.

Employers found to be in breach of guidelines are given warnings. Their foreign work pass privileges are curtailed.

This, however, does not provide for a legal remedy for workers directly hit by the discrimination.

Many clients of WHDA explicitly declined to approach Tafep for fear of employer retaliation.

For cases that amount to wrongful dismissal, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) was set up to resolve claims through mediation, with compensation or reinstatement being possible outcomes.

However, some WHDA clients have reported that their employers refuse to attend mediation, negotiate or settle despite evidence of discriminatory behaviour.

Neither Tafep nor TADM holds employers legally liable for discriminatory acts, or guarantees legal remedy for workers. The onus falls upon workers to look for a new job after being unfairly dismissed.

We urge the Government to enact a Workplace Equality Act that would provide legal remedies for workers experiencing discrimination.

Mamta Melwani

Senior Executive, Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Advisory

AWARE

Volunteers needed: Help transcribe interviews for AWARE’s research projects

Thank you for your interest! AWARE is no longer looking for volunteers to transcribe interviews.

The Advocacy, Research and Communications department conducts research on gender issues in Singapore, from single parents and low-income mothers to eldercare, migrant spouses and workers and more. As part of our research, we conduct interviews that are audio-recorded.

We require these audio recordings to be transcribed so that the content is accessible and easily searchable, and we can better identify patterns and trends. The findings from these interviews inform our policy recommendations to government agencies and relevant stakeholders.

Transcribers will assist with projects in many different areas. This way, they will have an opportunity to learn about the various programmes that AWARE is involved in.

If you want to put your keen listening and fast-typing skills to use, sign up to be a volunteer transcriber!

Requirements

  • Preferably have prior transcribing experience, although this is not a must
  • Able to communicate fluently in English and preferably one other language (Mandarin, Malay, Tamil)
  • Able to work remotely
  • Should be available for one (online) briefing session

23 October 2020: Workplace Harassment Investigation – Getting It Right [Catalyse]

You’ve just received a workplace harassment complaint. What do you do?

  • Who needs to get involved?
  • What questions to ask during interviews?
  • What are the company’s responsibilities and obligations to the employees?

Investigating workplace harassment complaints can sometimes feel like walking a tightrope over a ravine with no safety net underneath. A poorly handled investigation often makes matters worse, and may result in toxic work environment, reputational damage, trial by public opinion and even legal disputes.

Join Catalyse as it takes you through an investigation journey using case studies led by experienced lawyers and anti-harassment consultants. Practice your skills and learn from your peers through group discussions and role play.

Reduce the anxiety launching an investigation as you learn:

  1. Best practices in conducting an investigation
  2. The most common pitfalls to avoid
  3. Recommended list of interview questions.

At the end of this workshop, you will gain confidence in handling workplace harassment investigations by:

  1. Understanding the essential steps for an investigation
  2. Identifying the informal and formal options for resolving a harassment complaint
  3. Knowing how to conduct interviews
  4. Exploring the disciplinary and appeal process
  5. Learning best practices for an investigation that build trust within the organisation

Content breakdown

  1. Legal considerations to avoid common pitfalls. Insights on having clearly defined policies and procedures, small business recommendations, data protection; non-privileged and privileged information, recommended terminology (e.g. reporter versus complainant); and confidentiality.
  2. Receiving complaints. Understand the options to resolve complaints—ranging from misconduct that the reporter may want to resolve informally to a prompt and neutral investigation.
  3. Step 1: Responding to an official complaint. Key stakeholder mapping and exploring the elements of a good first response.
  4. Step 2: Fact-finding. Preparing to fact-find and the factors to consider (venue, order of interviews, selecting interviewers).
  5. Step 3: Conducting interviews. Step-by-step process to gather information to substantiate the allegations.
  6. Step 4: Writing the report. What to include/exclude and the differences between substantiated and unsubstantiated claims.
  7. Step 5: Sharing the report findings with key stakeholders. Considering written and verbal options.
  8. Disciplinary hearing and appeal. Understand the role and function of the disciplinary hearing and appeals processes.
  9. Communicating the outcome. Clarifying the outcome to the appropriate stakeholders and understanding the importance of confidentiality.
  10. Life after. Ensuring learning and corrective actions are taken.
  11. Complying with the law. Reporting requirements and seeking legal counsel.
  12. Q&A

“This has been an insightful and interactive session. Great to hear solid advice from the experts as well as good experience sharing from fellow practitioners. Highly recommended!”

– Lim Siew Fern, Head of HR, ENGIE Services Singapore

Who should attend?

HR professionals, in-house counsel, senior managers, employers (including SMEs), disciplinary committees and anyone who may be involved in workplace harassment investigations.

Date: Friday, 23 October 2020

Time: 10a.m. – 4p.m. (with lunch in between)

Venue: Online (via Zoom)

Fee: $567.21

Register here!


Facilitators

Caroline Callow
Senior OD Facilitator and Content Lead, Catalyse

Corinna Lim
Executive Director, AWARE; former Partner at Allen & Gledhill and KhattarWong

Sabina Sudan
Lawyer (India/ New York/ Arizona); Consultant; Adj. Prof, former Ethics and Compliance professional (GSK/Abbott)

High time S’pore’s justice system recognised ‘freezing’ as a response to trauma

This commentary was originally published in TODAY on 22 September 2020.

Research has shown that freezing is one of an array of reactions that may occur during a traumatic event. It is an instinctive, involuntary response programmed into our bodies to help us survive threats to our safety.

Various forms of temporary paralysis, including a reflexive reaction known as “tonic immobility”, are common in animals. They may go numb, limp or become unable to make a sound when faced with danger. They have also been observed in soldiers during battle.

Yet when sexual violence survivors say that they froze during their assaults, their accounts are routinely rejected.

In a recent case, a man was acquitted of molesting another passenger on a flight, in part because the judge found it “entirely unbelievable” that the woman had not drawn attention to the incident while it happened.

She reported that she “froze”.

The judge said: “She could offer no credible answer to why she had not alerted a crew member, or simply got out of her seat and freed herself of the torment.”

While we are not questioning the outcome of the case, we are compelled to point out the fallacy in this argument that it was unlikely for the woman to not have reacted more conspicuously.

Freezing kicks in when it becomes apparent that a victim can neither defeat (“fight”) nor escape (“flight”) the source of danger. While fight and flight have the benefit of being visible, a person freezing may appear to not do anything.

This may be why some find freezing so difficult to parse as a reaction to violence.

Yet freezing has its bodily logic: Going physically, emotionally and mentally numb is our attempt to protect ourselves from feeling the full extent of the trauma.

Ultimately, what is important to remember is that freezing is not a conscious choice. It is impossible to predict whether it will kick in, no matter how “prepared” we think we are.

When the erroneous belief that freezing is implausible becomes a factor in a sexual assault case, it invariably undermines the plaintiff’s credibility — a true disservice and a deterrent to survivors who are unsure whether to come forward themselves.

To improve the trauma literacy of the justice system, the Association of Women for Action and Research has recommended that a specialist court be set up for cases of sexual violence and that basic trauma training be mandatory for all personnel involved in such cases.

If we can prevent this ignorant argument from being trotted out once more in court, we are hopeful that we can send a clear message to survivors who are too often plagued with confusion and guilt over freezing and who think that their bodies have failed them.

That message is: Do not blame yourself for however you reacted during your assault.

Your body did not betray you; it was designed to ensure your survival by whatever means possible. The fact that you are still standing means your body did exactly the right thing to keep you alive.


Kelly Leow, Communications Manager, AWARE

Here’s what women really want regarding gender equality

This commentary was originally published on Channel NewsAsia on 23 September 2020.

SINGAPORE: Women’s rights advocates woke up to a pleasant surprise on Sunday (Sep 20) morning when the Government announced Singapore’s first-ever review of women’s issues, with a view to identifying and tackling gender inequality.

Besides the announcement itself, the way the review was framed is extraordinary. Instead of focusing on short-term concerns, the review will look at “underlying, structural issues”, to ensure that gender equality becomes a fundamental value.

For a society where that principle is, unfortunately, not enshrined in its Constitution, this shift is all the more laudable.

For far too long, we have foregrounded individual examples of the discrimination, exploitation, harassment and objectification that women confront in numerous arenas. We focus on each week’s carousel of stories on over 400 illicit videos taken by an undergraduate, sexual harassment in a Grab ride or alleged mile-high molest – and then move on.

We’re not seeing the bigger picture.

Gender inequality forms the bedrock of women’s experiences of life. It starts from the personal, from the time a person is born. It is reinforced by culture, policies, laws and institutions as she moves through the world.

We cannot achieve any societal objectives relating to the challenges facing women – whether in suffering violence, managing reproduction, working or supporting families – without this systemic understanding, this feminist lens.

At AWARE, where we have been advocating for women’s rights for 35 years, we are optimistic this review will be a turning point in our country’s journey to equality.

We would suggest a sharper focus be placed on three key areas: The uneven share of care responsibilities, gender-based discrimination and harassment at work, and the sexual objectification of women.


THE UNEVEN SHARE OF CARE WORK

Caregiving and housework are everyday tasks that maintain life, both daily and generationally.

These include caring directly for oneself and others, including children and the elderly. It also includes maintaining physical spaces and organising resources as part of the indirect process of care – for example, the tasks of cleaning, cooking and shopping.

All this is mostly unpaid, underappreciated work women have traditionally performed for their families and communities. This traditional expectation is rooted in an antiquated idea that certain traits, such as being nurturing and caring, are somehow innate to women – a persistent myth despite plenty of research overturning its biological basis.

The International Labour Organisation estimates that in Asia Pacific, women spend 4.1 times more time on unpaid caregiving and housework than men.

While no similar time-related data is available for Singapore, other indicators help paint a picture of the nature and effects of caregiving and housework on women.

According to Singapore’s Labour Force Survey 2019, of women outside the labour force, 43 per cent are not working because of caregiving and housework responsibilities.

By contrast, only 0.04 per cent of men are outside the labour force because of caregiving and housework. We also know that women spend a median of nine years outside the labour force providing eldercare.

Caregiving isn’t just exhausting, time-consuming work. It also robs women of their professional incomes without compensating them for their labour.

In order to mitigate the heavy burden of caregiving and housework, many households hire migrant domestic workers. Yet these workers (almost all women) also face their own set of challenges, such as long hours and poor compensation.

The review should take concrete steps to recommend what a gender-equal Singapore would look like for them, as well.

GENDER-BASED DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT AT WORK

Between September 2019 and September 2020, AWARE’s Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Advisory received 172 calls, with over 30 per cent concerning some form of discrimination.

Of these, about 80 per cent concerned discrimination against women with maternity and caregiving responsibilities. These women lost job opportunities, were denied promotions and reasonable accommodations, and faced mistrust and suspicion because of their caregiving duties.

The same traditional ideas that push women to take on the lion’s share of caregiving at home seem to also make them less “reliable” to employers.

This discrimination has serious consequences. Women in Singapore are on average paid 6 per cent less than men for performing the same kind of work. They are also concentrated in low-paying jobs, if they do work instead of providing caregiving fulltime.

Their need to take breaks from the workforce renders them unable to progress as far and as quickly in their careers as men.

Finally, they put less aside for retirement – women on average have 11 per cent less than men in their CPF accounts.

Although the Government has taken steps in the past few years to educate and incentivise employers to act fairly, such as through the promotion of flexible work arrangements, in the absence of legislation that clearly lays out employer duties and responsibilities, many get away with little more than superficial commitments to minimise work-life conflict.

Women are also harassed at work – which the US federal court has interpreted as a form of gender-based discrimination. The last workplace sexual harassment survey in Singapore of 500 respondents conducted by AWARE in 2008 found that over 50 per cent had experienced some form of sexual harassment at work.

More recent surveys, like YouGov’s omnibus research in 2019, suggest that figure remains high, with at least a quarter of women here reporting experiencing some form of sexual harassment.

While the law on sexual assault is clear, the Government has adopted a light touch on workplace harassment, choosing to issue a Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment, rather than specific legislation on workplace harassment.

It is possible for victims of workplace harassment to seek remedies against the harassers under the Prevention from Harassment Act (POHA). However, POHA neither informs the employer of protective and preventative measures it must comply with, nor informs workers of remedies available to them against the employer.

Similarly, the Advisory encourages employers to have workplace harassment and grievance handling policies in place, but it doesn’t hold them legally liable for harassment acts of employees carried out in the course of their employment or for negligence in dealing with complaints of harassment.

Countries such as Australia have introduced the Fair Work Act, which enshrines the principle of workplace equality and sanctions employers for discriminatory practices in law.

Our Government should consider turning Singapore’s Fair Consideration Framework into a Workplace Equality Act, to send a strong signal to employers by laying out their legal liabilities. The Framework currently does not have the weight of law enforcement behind it.

This Act could include reasonable accommodations that employers should be obligated to make for caregivers – including providing them with the right to request flexible work arrangements to balance work and caregiving responsibilities.

Surely Singapore is now on stronger footing to take this bolder step, after more companies have seen firsthand how remote working does not compromise productivity since offices migrated into homes this coronavirus pandemic.

Finally, the Act could also include sections on workplace harassment, to ensure that employers have in place pertinent policies, training and grievance and disciplinary mechanisms.

SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION OF WOMEN

Problematic attitudes that reduce women to objects – tools for the sexual pleasure of others – within Singapore society can be found across all demographics and age groups.

The devaluation of women based on appearance can be damaging. Sexualised portrayals in the media affect girls and women in tangible ways: Many develop eating disorders, self-esteem issues, depression, deep anxiety about their appearances, and feelings of shame.

Of course, sexual objectification is harmful to boys and men, too. It ties their success and attractiveness to dominance, power and aggression, and erodes their own humanity and empathy.

Underreporting of sexual violence is a huge problem, with over seven in 10 clients of AWARE’s Sexual Assault Care Centre (SACC) not making formal reports. If we are conditioned to see women as sexual tools, no wonder women are reluctant to come forward and seek help after sexual assault.

These survivors assume their complaints will be dismissed or excused by bystanders and authorities alike. They have shared with SACC how their own families and friends reacted to their experiences with disbelief, judgment or victim-blaming comments, finding fault in the survivor’s actions as opposed to focusing on the perpetrator’s.

Comprehensive sexuality education that focuses heavily on consent will be essential in fighting sexual objectification and sexual violence in future generations of Singaporeans.

Programmes should be introduced in an age-appropriate manner in schools, and reinforced in colleges and workplaces. Parents should be equipped and encouraged to talk to their children about gender roles, healthy relationships and sexual consent.

Beyond these priorities, we also urge the Government to review past and present policies from an intersectional lens, to analyse their differential impact on not just men and women, but women with disabilities, ethnic minority women, migrant women and more.

Cementing gender equality as a fundamental value has been a long time coming. Let’s not squander the opportunity.

Shailey Hingorani, Head of Research and Advocacy, AWARE