Important: We have decided to postpone this workshop to a later date, which will be announced soon. Hope you understand. Thank you for the interest!
“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
How do you talk to your children about sex? It’s a topic that many parents are happy to put off discussing for as long as possible. But what are the consequences of making home an environment where talks about physical intimacy are off-limits?
Birds & Bees is an experiential workshop for parents, run by parents, to help you start and sustain the important conversation about sex – in a non-judgmental way. No matter where you are in your parenting journey, this workshop will allow you to:
Understand the lasting, positive impact of talking to your children about sex and relationships
Introduce crucial information about consent, personal boundaries, and safety to your children
Talk openly about the difference between respectful, healthy relationships, and abusive, unhealthy relationships
Improve your communication with children on difficult or uncomfortable topics
Create a home where your children are not afraid of approaching you if they have questions or are troubled about a relationship or sexual encounter.
Through case studies, role-play and facilitated discussions, the workshop will give you a chance to think more deeply about your values and sexual health knowledge, and improve communication with your children. All parents are welcome, though we’ll deal with issues most relevant to parents of teenage children (12-18 year olds).
Date: 28 March 2020 (Saturday)
Time: 10am – 1pm (3 hours)
Venue: AWARE Centre (5 Dover Crescent #01-22)
Workshop Fee: $15*
*Good news! Due to new funding, we have been able to reduce our workshop entry fee from $25 to $15 in 2020.
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. We will try to group participants with children of similar ages together during the workshop.
Refunds and cancellations: Unfortunately we will not be offering refunds. However, with minimum two days notice, you may switch to a future workshop date. If you need to do so, or if you have any other questions, please email Joo Hymn at publiceducation@aware.org.sg.
Important: We are postponing this workshop until further notice, for the safety of attendees and our senior workshop leaders. Apologies for the inconvenience! We will be in touch with the rescheduled date when possible.
Do you have something to say about the news stories you read in the papers? Are you bothered by issues of injustice or inequality?
Writing letters to the newspapers is one way that engaged members of the public can express their views in Singapore. But persuasive letter-writing is a subtle art. How can your words enter the national discourse effectively – that is, with conviction, responsibility and eloquence?
Join Dana Lam and Margaret Thomas, two long-time writers and women’s rights activists, as they analyse their own epistolary triumphs and share strategies for getting ideas across effectively, succinctly and powerfully. Dana, a former president of AWARE, and Margie, the current president of AWARE, have written prolifically to the press, government agencies and others, raising awareness about issues of gender, inequality, violence and more, and moving the needle towards progress.
This is a rare chance to learn from two leading lights in Singaporean civil society.
Programme Overview:
11:00 – Introduction and presentation – why write letters?
Letter-writing as one component in the activist’s tool bag
The AWARE experience – letters in advocacy, such as the “Stop Violence Against Women” campaign
Structure, tone and word count
11:45 -Responses and break
12:05 – Analysis of sample letters: content, tone, structure, purpose
12:40 – Write now: participants work on letters collaboratively/individually
13:15 – Let’s hear it: presentation and discussion of participants’ letters
Details:
Date: Saturday, 21 March 2020
Time: 11am – 2pm
Venue: AWARE Centre (5 Dover Crescent, #01-22, Singapore 130005)
Workshop fee: $10. Food and materials will be provided. Remaining proceeds will go to AWARE’s programmes and services.
Note: Participants are invited to bring along other letters they have written or that strike them as interesting, for discussion.
This letter was originally published in The Straits Times on 20 February 2020.
A recent survey on ageism at the workplace revealed that age discrimination is a prevalent problem experienced by both younger and older generations in Singapore.
From interviews done by the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) with older female family caregivers, we understand that the concerns and impact of ageism are amplified for caregivers.
The women we interviewed, all aged between 45 and 65 years old, experienced negative changes to their employment status once they became caregivers to their older family members. At the time of the interviews, only five out of 22 were in full-time employment.
Many were worried that their old age would be a disadvantage when they try to re-enter the workforce after their care recipient dies.
Also discouragingly, some had experienced age discrimination, for example, being ignored at job fairs by recruiters or dismissed by interviewers because they were visibly old.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) stated last year that on a national level, those providing caregiving (excluding childcare) to family members or relatives had been out of work for a median time period of nine years. Three-quarters of such caregivers were aged 50 and above. Their ability to re-enter the job market after not being employed for close to a decade is, unsurprisingly, limited, as job conditions would have changed significantly and their skills may have become obsolete.
In Singapore, there is limited protection against age and other forms of discrimination.
For instance, some laws provide protection against dismissal based on age, but do not apply to other areas such as hiring and promotion.
The Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices also recognise age as one of the grounds on which discrimination may occur.
MOM may take administrative action against recalcitrant employers, including curtailing their work pass privileges, but these actions do not provide for a legal right to remedy for workers, for example, reinstatement or compensation.
To protect the rights of all workers, we strongly encourage enacting comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, gender, family responsibilities, disabilities, race, and so on.
Legislation defines a clear, legal responsibility for employers to not discriminate, and provides for legal remedies for discrimination.
This post was originally published as a press release on 19 February 2020.
19 February 2020 – Gender-equality group AWARE applauded the government’s endeavour to present a Budget that balances today’s most urgent needs, resulting from the disruption caused by the COVID-19 outbreak, while dealing with critical long-term issues.
In particular, AWARE was heartened to see the measures in the Budget to provide greater reassurance and support for seniors and low-income households. These are steps in the right direction, which the group hopes will be expanded on when the virus clears. AWARE seeks more clarity on these longer-term schemes to better determine whether they can sufficiently alleviate the future burdens of Singaporeans in need.
The announcement that the organisation most welcomed on Tuesday was the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme from 2021 to 2025. Under this scheme, the government will match CPF Retirement Account top-ups for Singaporeans aged 55-70 who have not met the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS). Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat called this “a way of encouraging and augmenting family support for our seniors with fewer means in retirement”.
Historically, women are more likely to not meet the BRS, due to interconnected factors—such as the gender pay gap and family caregiving responsibilities—that hinder their professional advancement. Matched savings would go some way to level these obstacles on the road to women’s retirement adequacy.
“As women on average live longer than men, initiatives that centre on elderly assistance, like this matched savings scheme, end up benefiting women more than men,” noted Ms Shailey Hingorani, AWARE’s head of Research and Advocacy. “It’s exciting to see new action in this arena.”
On the other hand, more clarity is needed about the efficacy of this measure.
“It would be useful to know how the scheme’s annual cap figure of $600 was calculated,” said Ms Hingorani. “Why not top up eligible individuals’ accounts to meet the BRS? And what happens after the age of 70? As this scheme appears to be a pilot, we would like a better idea of how the government would define its success.”
She pointed out that in the example given during DPM Heng’s speech—of retired 65-year-olds Mr and Mrs Tan, who would together receive around $1,400 monthly, up from $570, with the new schemes—the couple’s payouts would still not come close to the $2,351 that researchers last year calculated as necessary to sustain a basic standard of living.
In speaking of the matched savings scheme, DPM Heng also mentioned that 435,000 people would be eligible for matched savings—a number that seems large relative to Singapore’s population. Ms Hingorani noted that a gender breakdown, as well as a detailed breakdown of active and inactive members, within this figure would be helpful.
“The 435,000 figure is still quite opaque, as we need more data on Singaporeans between 55 and 70,” she added. “Without fuller details about the profile of people without BRS, the announced measures may not be reassuring enough, especially for those elderly without families or whose families cannot afford to support them financially.”
AWARE also commended the permanent enhancements to Silver Support for the retirement incomes of the bottom 20% of Singaporeans 65 and above. With payouts raised from $750 to $900 per quarter, and eligibility criteria broadened, the improvements reflect what AWARE had recommended in its 2017 and 2018 Budget submissions. Another plus: Eligible seniors do not have to proactively apply for Silver Support, which eliminates logistical barriers for recipients.
Other measures that seemed promising included the announced Senior Workers Support Package, a four-pronged strategy to boost senior employment.
Overall, AWARE had hoped that the Budget announcement would give explicit considerations to parts of Singapore’s population that, research increasingly shows, face unique financial challenges: women and family caregivers. This lack was keenly felt in the wake of January’s national report on the gender wage gap, as well as AWARE’s own recent report on eldercare’s negative impact on women’s finances (with respondents losing out on an average of $7,705 in self and employer CPF contributions due to caregiving). Some recommendations put forth by various proponents—such as making CareShield Life gender-neutral—went unaddressed.
“With the disruption of COVID-19, strong assistance from the government is timely and prudent,” said Ms Hingorani. “The sudden crisis shifted many priorities, spurring a number of one-off grants and top-ups. That said, when the virus clears, we would like to see the government make bigger and bolder moves with regards to Singapore’s ageing population, instead of tweaks to our existing, straining, structures. When this upheaval subsides, our gaze should be trained on the future, including the generation making real sacrifices to care for today’s old folks.”
This letter was originally published in The Straits Times on 15 February 2020.
Sexual violence is a complex topic, involving power dynamics that can be hard to parse. As such, the language we use to depict sexual violence needs to be up to the task.
We appreciate the efforts of Singaporean media to cover sexual violence cases diligently and comprehensively. However, we often see news stories with language that upholds – sometimes subtly – inaccurate and irresponsible beliefs about sexual violence.
One such practice: referring to child sexual abuse – “sexual penetration of a minor”, per the Penal Code – simply as “having sex”.
“Having sex” colloquially refers to consensual sexual activity. However, because by law minors cannot ever consent to sex, to say that an adult “had sex” with a minor is misleading.
It would be more accurate to say that these men “sexually assaulted” their victims, and thus convey the violence and violation inherent in their actions.
Some other practices that bear consideration: Including graphic information about an assault.
Even though the identities of the parties cannot be revealed in the press, reading about assault in detail can be traumatic for other sexual violence survivors. A more balanced approach might be to omit some detail for their sake.
Media coverage of sexual assault has an impact on the knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours of the public. So the media has a responsibility – as do we all – to counter sexual assault myths, avoid insinuating consent in cases of child sexual assault, and prevent the retraumatisation of survivors.
News outlets could develop guidelines with suggested terminology, advice on how to sensitively interview sexual violence survivors and other best practices.
This commentary was originally published on Channel News Asia on 4 November 2019.
by Shailey Hingorani, Head of Research and Advocacy
Surrounded by rape myths that undermine the seriousness of sexual assault, some survivors may hesitate to call their experiences sexual assault, discuss it with others, or seek assistance, says AWARE’s Shailey Hingorani.
SINGAPORE: Victim-blaming comments — i.e. comments that put the onus of avoiding sexual assault on the victim — are unfortunately commonplace in our society.
It’s no surprise, therefore, that they’ve reared their ugly head in recent days – when news broke about the rape of 15-year old girl after a game of Truth or Dare, and the 13 Telegram groups circulating explicit images without the knowledge of the people pictured.
Garbed as well-meaning concern and advice, the comments nevertheless perpetuate deeply harmful rape myths.
TOXIC SOCIAL MEDIA CHATTER
Three issues have featured prominently in many of the online comments about the teenage rape case: The girl’s intoxication, her choice of company in a gang of boys, and her lack of parental supervision. They all place at least partial blame of her rape on her, and her parents when they did not impose strict curfews on their daughter’s movements.
Separately, in CNA’s story about the Telegram groups, a victim referred to as Dania is quoted as saying that in her experience, women who have revealing photos taken are shamed as being improper, and responsible for their own predicament when those photos (inevitably, it is assumed) get circulated publicly.
The following statements might be obvious, but are worth repeating:
Drinking alcohol is not equivalent to consenting to sex. Spending time with boys is not equivalent to consenting to sex. Leaving your child unsupervised for a night is not equivalent to consenting to her having sex.
Taking a revealing photo intended for private use is not equivalent to consenting to have it circulated to thousands of strangers.
When the majority of comments on these news stories discuss what the victims did wrong, instead of what the perpetrators did wrong, you might be tempted to dismiss that as idle social media chatter.
But these comments speak to underlying rape myths we continue to hold about sexual violence, alcohol consumption, the company of men and women’s behaviour as a society.
RAPE MYTHS
Rape myths are beliefs about rape that serve to deny, downplay or justify sexual violence.
They help people ignore the complexity of rape in its full context — for example, the understanding that abusive relationships can feature genuine love alongside manipulation and victimisation.
Rape myths determine which incidents of assault are taken seriously and considered more “real” than others.
Rape myths can take one or a combination of four forms. They can blame the victim (e.g. “she should have resisted the attacker more”), cast doubt on allegations (e.g. “she just regrets having sex with him and is now looking for a way to feel better”), excuse the accused’s behaviour (e.g. “he was too drunk to know what he was doing”), or insist that sexual violence only happens to specific types of women (e.g. “slutty girls get raped and good girls don’t”).
For example, we see the first and fourth types in the case of the teenage rape. Online commenters rushed to declare that a girl who is the “type that drinks”, responds to sexual questions from boys when playing Truth or Dare, and stays out at night is practically asking to be raped.
Rape myths enjoy a high level of acceptance in Singapore. About 45 per cent of over 1,000 respondents to an IPSOS survey agreed with this statement: “Women who wear revealing clothes should not complain if men make comments about their appearance.”
Would those respondents also agree that “women who wear revealing clothes should not complain if men take non-consensual upskirt photos of them and share them in Telegram groups”? It doesn’t seem like that much of a stretch. The sheer size of those 13 Telegram groups points to how normalised an opinion that may be.
WE HAVE TO CHALLENGE RAPE MYTHS
Rape myths are pernicious for three reasons.
First, they discourage help-seeking behaviour. By undermining women’s experiences — for example, by asking questions that focus on the victim’s behaviour, mannerisms — they create a sense of violation that revictimises survivors.
They can spin survivors into a cycle of self-doubt (“Did my clothing communicate consent to sexual activity? Should I not talk to men in bars?”), which makes them feel too ashamed or too guilty to share their experiences with friends and family.
Even as many survivors try to consciously reject rape myths, they may find it difficult to escape the socially ingrained feeling they should have done something differently or that they are somehow at fault. Many end up isolated and do not get the support they need to help recover from the trauma of the rape.
Second, for the same reasons as above, rape myths discourage reporting. AWARE’s Sexual Assault Care Centre finds that seven out of 10 of its clients do not report their experiences to the police. This means that most perpetrators are never brought to justice, and live out their lives without any consequences for their violent actions.
Third, rape myths are used to create cautionary tales, mostly aimed at women, outlining behaviour that is appropriate. Women are routinely advised to monitor their alcohol intake when they go out, never leave their drinks unattended, or only spend time with men when other women are present.
At an event AWARE hosted on so-called “revenge porn” in 2018, a couple of well-meaning parents suggested the best way for young women to protect themselves from seeing their doctored photos on pornographic websites was to withdraw entirely from social media.
Whether or not these measures strike you as realistic (is it reasonable to expect women to be able to withdraw from online spaces in this day and age?), you may find the act of advising them to be harmless.
But there is harm in prescribing these “safety tips” to women. The harm lies in the implication that if you fail to take any of these steps, you have somehow caused yourself to be assaulted, and should be held responsible for this failure, whereas the full responsibility for assault should lie upon the assaulter’s shoulders.
WHAT WILL HELP
Traditional gender norms — e.g. that men are always the initiators of sex, that women must offer token “resistance” to sex to be considered lady-like, that sex is some kind of conquest and women sexualised objects to conquer — inform rape myths.
Sex education in schools often reinforces these traditional gender norms, and, by focusing on abstinence only, does not adequately prepare students to deal with intimate relationships.
Although gender equality education has long been suggested as a key component to violence prevention strategies, it does not feature prominently in most school curricula.
Irresponsible media also, reinforces these gender norms through the hyper-sexualisation and sexual objectification of women, which leads to greater acceptance of violence against women and victim-blaming.
We need a two-pronged strategy to promote gender equality that will help address violence against women. First, we must introduce comprehensive sex education in schools, and in-person mandatory anti-harassment trainings in colleges. These should cover gender roles and consent, and deconstruct rape myths.
Second, we need media-based interventions. Apart from public awareness campaigns that challenge traditional gender norms, we need new media guidelines that discourage the use of gender stereotypes and hypersexualised female bodies.
We could learn from the Advertising Standards Authority of UK, which banned the depiction of men and women engaged in gender-stereotypical activities earlier this year. News outlets should adopt reporting guidelines on sexual violence to sensitively and ethically communicate sexual violence trauma.
It’s time we addressed these cultural attitudes, and promised survivors that we will indeed aim for zero tolerance of sexual violence.
We are no longer accepting applicants for this role.
Catalyse Consulting is the corporate consulting and training arm of AWARE, Singapore’s leading gender-equality advocacy group.
Our mission is to build an inclusive world that embraces diversity, where everyone can be the best version of themselves. We partner with companies on issues of Workplace Harassment and Bullying, Inclusion & Diversity, Unconscious Bias, Inclusive Leadership and Cross-Cultural Conflict Management.
We are seeking a values-aligned trainer/facilitator with consulting experience to advance our mission of creating inclusive workplaces. Our clients are mostly large multinationals with a strong Asia-Pacific footprint.
Position: Trainer/Facilitator Department: Catalyse Consulting Commitment: Full-Time, Monday to Friday
Responsibilities:
Your responsibilities will mainly be those outlined below. Over the course of your time with Catalyse Consulting, your role may evolve to ensure that your strengths, interests and challenges are appropriately attended to.
Pre-training
Work closely with subject matter experts on content and instructional design (both in-person and digital)
As needed, develop or oversee the production of instructional materials, aids and manuals
Where requested, ensure clients’ requests and feedback are incorporated as per internal documentation and/or in-person meeting with client
During training
Model safe and respectful behaviour
Facilitate learning through a variety of delivery methods
Ensure feedback forms are completed and collected
Post-training
De-brief with sales and/or client-management team
Track and record training outcomes
Ensure key learnings are shared with colleagues during weekly team meeting
General
Periodically evaluate programs to ensure that they reflect relevant changes on content and delivery methodology
Stay abreast of the latest developments in Asia on topics that Catalyse trains on
Keep current on training design and methodology
What we’re looking for:
Professional Experience
Demonstrable corporate training/facilitator experience, preferably at a regional/international level
Proven functional experience in consulting and/or business development and/or marketing
Experience in creating corporate training content
Understand management and leadership climate and nuances in Asia
Comfortable working in a multi-cultural and diverse team
Skills
Excellent English, verbal and written, and communication skills
Strong presentation and facilitation skills
High level of client and stakeholder management skills
Adept at respectfully communicating professional boundaries
Professional fluency in one other Asiatic language (desirable)
Attitude
Dependable and accountable team player
Ability to thrive in fast-moving environment
Regards challenges as opportunities to explore alternatives
Interacts with the world with a deeply human, analytical and affective curiosity
Demonstrable ability to reconcile client expectations with Catalyse Consulting’s fundamental values of inclusion
Proven track record of effectively navigating conflict
As you will be joining a small knit team of high-performers, with freedom to work from any physical location, it is critical that extra effort is made to:
Work closely with colleagues from functions such as sales and client management in order to stay on top of what is happening at all times
Be consistently disciplined in the usage of shared online organisational and communication tools
Attend, and come prepared, for the weekly update meeting
Please note that due to the large number of applications, only shortlisted applicants will be contacted for an interview. If you have any questions about this position, please email careers@aware.org.sg.
We are no longer accepting applicants for this role.
Are you excited by the idea of being part of the team that is pioneering Asian-centric diverse and inclusive workplaces? Are you passionate about Learning & Development (L&D) and how it transforms life? Are you excited to join a fast-growing boutique training and consultancy firm that is rapidly expanding in SEA? Do you want to be a part of a fun, caring, professional team that is committed to bringing out the best in you? If this sounds like the perfect place for you, Catalyse Consulting wants to hear from you! Position: Business Operations Administrator Commitment: Full time, Monday to Friday Starting date: Immediate
What you’ll do:
Keep all administrative matters in meticulous order
Support functional teams on daily operational tasks, including:
Sales (inbound enquiries, sharing about workshops and programmes)
Marketing (event support)
Training (work closely with trainers; acquire data; coordinate with clients and trainers for logistics and preparation of workshops; compile feedback summaries for clients)
Finance (invoicing of clients, ensuring timely payment)
Ensure CRM is always updated
Interact effectively with clients on administrative matters
Data management and analytics
Who you are:
A degree-holder
3 years of related experience (Candidates with less experience and/or fresh graduates will still be considered)
Please note that due to the large number of applications, only shortlisted applicants will be contacted for an interview. If you have any questions about this position, please email careers@aware.org.sg.
This letter was originally published on TODAY on 10 October 2019.
by A. Preethi Devi, Project Executive
The Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) welcomes the announcement of the S$200 Home Caregiving Grant (HCG) taking effect this month, which will provide some relief to qualifying households battling long-term care costs. (“Applications for new home caregiving grant to open from Oct 1”; Sept 25)
The HCG replaces the previous Foreign Domestic Worker Grant, with an S$80 increase in payout amount. It’s a positive sign that the Government recognises the rising cost of long-term care.
Having spoken to many caregivers and eldercare organisations, we have two suggestions on how to better support family caregivers financially.
The first is to increase the payout amount for the HCG, to better reflect average out-of-pocket long-term care costs.
Out of 22 family caregivers who participated in Aware’s recent research, those looking after older persons who needed help with at least three activities of daily living reported spending an average of S$1,917 per month, after subsidies, which amounts to 64 per cent of their average monthly household income.
National studies should be conducted to determine the average amount that households with an older person spend on long-term care costs. HCG payout could then be modified accordingly to enhance its effectiveness.
The second is to introduce a caregiver support grant, with cash and Central Provident Fund components, specifically for the primary family caregiver — possibly a family member who is co-residing with and providing primary care to the care recipient.
The HCG is currently awarded to the care recipient, who can choose to give the cash payout to a family caregiver, or spend it himself.
However, there is no guarantee that the HCG will go to family caregivers, whom our research shows are already facing heavy income losses due to caregiving. On average, those who experienced a change in their working status due to caregiving had faced a 63 per cent loss in income.
As family caregivers may simultaneously spend a substantial amount of their household income on care-related expenses and face a drop in their income, we recommend more direct financial support for them.
Both a caregiver support grant and the HCG could help achieve the aim of more substantially defraying a household’s long-term care costs, while providing support to the family caregiver.
