MENU

MENU

Donate Now
Login

Author: AWARE Media

home

Violence survivors, industry leaders and MP Louis Ng lend their voices to end violence against women

This post was originally published as a press release on 23 November 2017.

After the online movement #metoo papered social media feeds with women’s experiences of sexual violence, the Let’s Unite campaign, led by gender equality group AWARE, invites the public to start taking collective action to end violence against women.

Organised in view of the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence (25 November to 10 December), Let’s Unite encourages supporters to take pledges for change, whether as individuals, community groups or organisations. The campaign will also showcase local efforts to end violence against women through its online hashtag #16DaysSG.

Kicking off the conversation are three women who will share their experiences of recovery from sexual violence at a dialogue session on Saturday. Bloomberg will also run a talk on employer responsibility on managing workplace harassment in December.

“When survivors of violence courageously open up about their experiences, we have a responsibility to listen and create a community of support for them that is free of mistrust, blame and shame,” said Anisha Joseph who manages AWARE’s Sexual Assault Care Centre (SACC), which recently saw a spike in cases when conversations about sexual violence were rampant (58 cases were logged in October, compared to this year’s monthly average of 37). “We must also do the difficult but important work of transforming our own attitudes to prevent violence against women from happening in the first place.”

She continued, “But we can’t just stop at individual change. Community and religious leaders should actively promote values of anti-violence, while institutions should create workplace and campus cultures that push for gender equality. The government should take action, too, by beefing up existing laws, practices and policies in view of Singapore’s latest CEDAW review, which calls for training of relevant professionals – from judiciary and police to doctors – to better understand gender-based violence.”

CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women) is a United Nations treaty which Singapore has signed. UN experts recently issued recommendations for the Singapore government on correcting gender inequality, including how to protect survivors of violence and prevent gender-based violence.

Let’s Unite kicks off on 25 November, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, with an open dialogue – #metoo, #nowwhat – that delves into the reality of violence against women in Singapore and what individuals can do, and have done, to end it.

Three women will share their own experiences of and recovery from sexual violence. One of them, Devika Satheesh, spoke about her motivation to share her story publicly: “As someone who experienced sexual violence as a child, I grew up feeling confused and believing that I was one of the few who had this unfortunate experience. But the more I opened up to people, the more people opened up to me. Literally every woman I’ve shared my experience with opened up to me about the violence they have experienced as well. I made it my mission to utilise every opportunity possible to raise awareness and lead dialogues about violence against women. It is not a myth, it is more common than many realise, and it is time we do something about it.”

Employers and industry leaders are also stepping up to address harassment in the workplace. On 4 December, Bloomberg, together with TSMP Law Corporation and AWARE’s corporate training arm, Catalyse Consulting, will hold a panel discussion “How will you handle your Harveys?” where experts will share best practices for creating a safe work environment and managing workplace harassment.

Said Hayden Majajas, Bloomberg’s Head of Diversity and Inclusion (APAC), “The issue of workplace harassment has recently received more spotlight, but it’s an ongoing issue that we all need to address urgently. We are pleased to provide the forum for important topics like this and to bring together best practice operators so all employers can ensure our workplaces are safe spaces for everyone, regardless of gender or other differences. This panel session organised with AWARE’s Catalyse Consulting and TSMP Law Corporation is timely and we look forward to helping companies take concrete action to address workplace issues.”

The campaign also calls on state leaders to take a stand. MP Louis Ng, who is no stranger to highlighting issues concerning gender equality and discrimination, also spoke in support of the campaign. He said, “To create a society where women have equal opportunities and respect, there must be zero tolerance for violence against women. We can start by improving how society supports survivors of violence, and understand that all of us – not just women – have a responsibility to promote gender equality.”  

Supportive members of the public can also overlay their social media profile pictures with the Let’s Unite frame and post a message of support with the hashtag #16DaysSG. Other supporters of the campaign include NGOs HOME, Project X and Action for AIDS.

 

The limits of “case-by-case”: single parents and housing

For some time, AWARE has sought changes to HDB rules to improve housing access for single-parent families. MND has often responded that HDB exercises “flexibility” in favour of such families on a “case-by-case” basis. It suggests that even if rules appear exclusionary, these families’ needs can be met through a discretionary approach.

However, our experience suggests that even with a case-by-case approach, needs are going unmet. Moreover, while discretion may be used to improve outcomes, it involves uncertainty which imposes costs on applicants. Thus, where possible, rules should be designed to reduce the number who must rely on case-by-case evaluation.

Below we discuss our obervations based on experience with the housing situation of 20 single parents, whose cases we have followed after the publication of our research report (with accompanying Annexes) on single parents’ access to public housing in February 2017. Of these 20 parents, 13 had previously been interviewed for our research report. Our observations have three major themes:

  • The costs and uncertainty of case-by-case appeals
  • The outcomes of case-by-case appeals: needs remain unmet
  • The role of public rental housing in meeting long-term needs

The costs and uncertainty of case-by-case appeals

Many single parents go through multiple channels to seek discretionary assistance – MPs, social workers, NGOs including AWARE, and HDB itself. All the 20 cases we followed have gone through at least one of these channels; some have pursued more than one.

  • Appeals impose stress and cost, disadvantaging those with fewer means. Single parents describe the process as frustrating, often involving repeated appeals and great uncertainty. Some expressed that their issues were only resolved because they went out of their way to fight – by going to HDB several times, and trying different channels. Outcomes may thus be decided not by need, but by whether a single parent has time and energy (affected by factors like health) and confidence in the face of bureaucracy.
  • Confusion about channels. As it is unclear whether the different appeals channels produce the same results, there is confusion on the ground about how to proceed. Some believed certain MPs would be more effective than others, and some thought a social worker was most effective.

This uncertainty was shared by social workers, who had different levels of access to HDB. Some used the same general channel as single parents: emailing HDB and waiting for a caseworker to be assigned. The caseworker could be unresponsive or reject appeals without offering alternatives. This public uncertainty about channels, including whether FSCs make a difference, undermines the rationality of the case-by-case system.

  • Miscommunication and misinformation. Some single parents only found out certain information after making an appeal – information which should have been proactively offered in the first place. One was told by HDB, at the time of renewing her public rental housing lease, that she could not make further renewals in the future, causing her great worry. However, after appealing she found out that she could continue staying. The miscommunication had caused unnecessary panic. Another found out that she already qualified to be exempted from debarment only after appealing. Other individuals, with less confidence in approaching bureaucracy, might not have found out such information and might have pre-emptively made other – potentially less suitable and more costly – housing arrangements.

The outcomes of case-by-case appeals: needs remain unmet

While the exact criteria for the exercise of discretion are unclear, the case-by-case appeals seem to generally exclude those believed to be able to live with other family members, or to afford other housing options. For example, out of about 400 single unwed parents under the age of 35 who appealed to either buy or rent a flat from HDB with their children, only one-fifth of the cases were approved, while the rest were determined by HDB to have other housing options.

Our observations suggest that the criteria are too restrictive and continue to leave the needs of families unmet.

  • Lack of transparency in what qualifies as ‘over-crowding’. HDB’s assessments of over-crowding are not transparent, resulting in conflicting perspectives between single parents and HDB. By contrast, in Canada and the EU, published Minimum Space Standards are used to determine over-crowding. These take into account occupants’ relationships, gender and age. In Scotland, the standards state that single parents and children should each have their own room, but here, single parents sharing a room with their children in someone else’s home does not appear to be considered over-crowding. Criteria should be published to improve transparency and public understanding.
  • Over-reliance on assumptions of family support. Beyond the question of physical space, many single parents express discomfort with living with other family members, due to the lack of personal space, privacy, tension or bad relationship, etc. The feeling that they are intruding into someone else’s home and lives is also common. When single parents have to share a room with their children, this can be inconvenient or even simply inappropriate depending on their age and gender.

Furthermore, there is an inherent uncertainty and dependency involved in staying with family members. Circumstances change. One single mother was deemed not to require assistance because she was staying in her sister’s flat; yet a mere month later, we found she had to move out of the flat with her child as her sister was planing to start a family. HDB’s one-off determination took no account of this possibility.

  • Financial difficulties. The determination that a given single parent can afford non-subsidised housing may not take into account competing financial needs and priorities, such as expenses for their children or parents.

Rules determining eligibility based on marital status may require single parents to deplete their savings in a way that is not required from double-income households. For example, a married person can access a BTO without any assessment of their ability to afford alternatives (beyond the income cap), but an unmarried parent seeking discretionary assistance may be denied help if they are deemed to be able to afford an alternative – essentially, requiring them to dig deeper into their financial resources. Likewise, if a divorced parent has shared care and control, they may be able to buy a new flat as a second-timer straightforwardly if they remarry, but they are unable to do so without their ex-spouse’s consent if they remain single. Thus, different demands may be made on the financial situation of the family depending on marital status.

The role of public rental housing in meeting long-term needs

It has often been suggested by the Government that rental housing is an interim rather than longer-term housing solution, and only meant for the “truly needy”.  The eligibility criteria and design of public rental housing are therefore guided by the principles that such housing is not a permanent solution for its tenants and should not encourage entrenchment. This may explain why only 1-room and 2-room flats are offered and not bigger flats, since they are not meant for permanent residence. However, this also forces bigger families to live in a crowded situation.

Despite this intent, the outcomes of the case-by-case appeals system do in fact result in families renting for extended periods, and in units not designed for long-term residence. For example, a family of five were living together in a two-room rental flat, which quite clearly to us, qualifies as a situation of overcrowding. The single parent expressed a desire for home ownership, but was deemed to be financially unready. What then happens to such families? What are their options? Another family has been renting for ten years. Some live there for all or almost all of the duration of their children’s time in primary school or in adolescence.

This points toward a need to rethink the purpose of public rental housing and consequently the principles underlying the rules governing it. If these families are believed unready for home ownership, beyond social assistance to meet daily needs, how are they being assisted to become ready? It seems that for many, transition to home ownership cannot realistically be expected during their children’s formative years. Is it time to pragmatically acknowledge that public rental housing is already – in practice – a long-term option for a number of families? If so, our policies should work to making it fit for that purpose, by improving the conditions, supply and accessibility of such housing, instead of holding on to the home ownership paradigm at all costs.

This may involve revamping the current Public Rental Scheme or even adding a new model of rental housing, which specifically provides for longer-term residents, perhaps with gradated rent levels over a wider range of incomes. One key policy that would have to change is the current requirement for flat-sharing, which creates difficulties for many tenants. In fact, a recent street survey on homeless persons in Singapore revealed that it has led to people moving out and sleeping in the streets as they cannot get along with their co-tenants. Single parents who had to share units also raised concerns about their children’s safety, lack of space and privacy.

Conclusion

The experiences of single parents with the case-by-case approach show that it can be inefficient and inadequate in meeting their needs. Behind every successful appeal is precious time and energy spent going to HDB or queuing to see an MP, and officers having to review, assess and do more paperwork. For every successful appeal, there are more appeals that have failed or a single parent who may have given up altogether, accepting circumstances that penalise them and their children over many years, with serious implications for equality of opportunity and social mobility. The right to housing is universal, and the housing system, its rules and its processes should only facilitate and not hinder access. Housing is a limited resource, but in Singapore, there is enough for us to ensure decent, stable housing for everyone. We can do better to ensure that everyone has adequate shelter which will enable them to lead healthy lives.   

Actively implement policies to tackle workplace harassment

This letter was originally published in TODAY Voices on 19 November 2017. 

Recently, women have been sharing on social media their experiences with sexual harassment and violence in response to the hastag campaign #metoo, and high-profile cases in Hollywood have been in the news, revealing that such harassment is common, especially in workplaces.

Studies show workplace harassment is associated with job dissatisfaction and disengagement, and result in higher turnover rates and absenteeism.  Poor handling of workplace harassment – for instance, where women have their complaints dismissed without proper investigation, or are threatened for raising complaints – only reflects badly on an employer.

Some victims of harassment, with no assurance that they will be taken seriously, simply silently leave their positions, contributing to staff turnover. Organisations lose valuable human resources as a result.

A safe and healthy workplace environment can only benefit all. Support for those who are harassed or bullied builds trust in the organisation. Establishing clear rules, policies and protocols allows employers to pre-empt issues and be in a better position to deal with them when they arise.

The first step employers can take is to implement recommendations from the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment on how employers and employees can prevent and respond to workplace harassment. This document stresses the “importance of proactive management” and preventative training.

Yet in our experience, the take-up of this is low. Earlier this month, Minister for Manpower Lim Swee Say said that the Advisory is “not prescriptive” and the Ministry “does not track” the take-up rate. Out of the 800 complaints the Tripartite received in the last three years, “fewer than 5… involved allegations of sexual harassment”.

By contrast, the Sexual Assault Care Centre has received 158 complaints on workplace sexual violence in the last two years. Many of these clients have raised no formal complaint with their employers or any other authorities. Some victims will only have the confidence to come forward in response to a proactive assurance that they will be taken seriously. Such assurance is lacking at the moment.  

Moreover, some employers pressure their employees to sign non-disclosure agreements, which restrain them from speaking up about the problem after their departure.

Catalyse Consulting, our corporate training arm, has trained hundreds of employers and employees on what constitutes workplace harassment, and on best practices to equip them with the tools they need to address harassment, and thus create safer and more productive workplaces. We urge all employers to implement a comprehensive anti-harassment policy, to send a strong message to employees that they are well-equipped to support employees. The Government can also do more to promote awareness of its advisory on the subject.

—

Register for “How Will You Handle Your Harveys?”, our upcoming panel by experts on workplace sexual harassment and employer responsibility here! 

Learn more about how you can take action against gender-based violence by taking part in Let’s Unite, our 16 Days of Activism campaign kicking off 25 November and attending #metoo, #nowwhat, a dialogue on violence against women in Singapore. 

How will you handle your Harveys?: Managing workplace harassment

There is a new climate. Employees are speaking up and tolerance for harassment is down. In the face of changing attitudes, companies cannot afford to wait until there is a crisis to put the right policies and practices into place.

Learn from experts on the best practices for creating a safe work environment and managing workplace harassment.

This event will be hosted by Bloomberg, in partnership with AWARE’s corporate training arm, Catalyse Consulting, and TSMP Law Corporation. Refreshments will be offered from 6pm.

Note: This session is ‘off-the-record’

RSVP here to ensure your spot!

Date: Monday, 4 Dec 2017
Time: 6pm to 8.30pm
Venue: 23 Church Street, 12/F Capital Square Auditorium, Singapore 049481.

SPEAKER PROFILES

Meena Anand is an experienced global HR professional with strong expertise in Organizational Development, Employee Relations and M&A. Currently she leads the Employee Relations and Conduct functions globally at Standard Chartered. In the past Meena has successfully held both senior generalist and specialist HR roles at Standard Chartered, Barclays and UBS.

Corinna Lim is Catalyse Consulting’s Director and AWARE’s Executive Director. Corinna has extensive experience advising and training on workplace harassment. She was involved in research on workplace harassment and advocating for legal protection against workplace harassment. In 2014, she worked with the Ministry of Law on the Protection of Harassment Act. Corinna has provided consultancy to organisations on managing workplace harassment, and has also advised workplace harassment victims on their legal rights. She also founded and ran a successful technology start up, Bizibody Technology, and practised law in Allen & Gledhill, Khattar Wong and Koh Ong & Partners.

Ian Lim heads the Employment & Labour team at TSMP. His practice covers advisory, transactional and contentious employment work, with a focus on non-competition, dismissal, data privacy, harassment, M&A employee transfers and industrial relations issues. Ian is the lead author for the Singapore chapters of “The Employment Law Review” and “Getting the Deal Through – Labour & Employment”, as well as the Employment chapter of “Law Relating to Specific Contracts in Singapore”. Ian serves as Chairman of the Law Society Civil Practice Committee, and is a Referee of the State Courts Small Claims Tribunals and a Fellow of the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators.

CEDAW General Recommendation 35: New international standards for countries tackling violence against women

On 14 November 2017, the United Nations CEDAW Committee – which monitors compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women – launched new international standards for countries tackling violence against women, in the form of CEDAW General Recommendation 35 (GR 35).

As a party to CEDAW, Singapore is obliged under international law to end discrimination against women. GRs offer guidance on how CEDAW applies. The latest document updates the previous GR 19 on gender-based violence, setting out clear directions on how state parties, including Singapore, can fulfil its treaty obligations.

Gender-based violence is a form of discrimination against women. It is “violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately”. CEDAW requires Singapore to take all necessary measures to end such violence.

GR 35 emphasises that gender-based violence is a social – not individual – problem. To eliminate it, it is critical to change social norms and stereotypes that support and perpetuate such violence. The document identifies, for example, the ideology of men’s entitlement over women, norms regarding masculinity, the need to enforce gender roles or punish “unacceptable” female behaviour. Below are some key recommendations and our analysis of how they may apply in Singapore:

1. Ensure that all forms of gender-based violence against women in all spheres, which amount to a violation of their physical, sexual, or psychological integrity, are criminalised. [Paragraph 39]

Situation in Singapore: This would mean, for instance, that Singapore must repeal marital immunity for rape.

2. Adopt and implement effective legislative and other appropriate preventive measures to address the underlying causes of gender-based violence against women, including patriarchal attitudes and stereotypes, inequality in the family… as well as to promote women’s empowerment, agency and voice. [Paragraph 34]

3. The integration of gender equality content into curricula at all levels of education both public and private from the early childhood on and in education programmes with a human rights approach; it should target stereotyped gender roles and promote values of gender equality and non-discrimination, including non-violent masculinities, as well as ensure age-appropriate, evidence-based and scientifically accurate comprehensive sexuality education for girls and boys. [Paragraph 35a]

Situation in Singapore: When asked by the CEDAW Committee about how Singapore teaches gender equality in schools, the Singapore delegation said that textbooks show women and men having access to a range of resources. However, this is distinct from specifically promoting gender equality as a core value. Moreover, the abstinence-based sex education adopted by public schools do not explicitly focus on gender equality, consent, sexual violence, negotiation around family planning or LGBT inclusion.

4. Awareness-raising programmes that… (3) dismantle the commonly held victim-blaming beliefs that make women responsible for their own safety and for the violence they suffer. [Paragraph 35b]

Situation in Singapore: A 2013 survey found that 1 in 10 respondents think women who are raped are often “asking for it”. 40% of respondents aged 18-39 and over half of respondents aged 40 and above agree that women who wear provocative clothing are “asking for it” and should bear responsibility for harassment. Public messages and crime prevention posters by the police focus on restricting women’s movement and advising them not be alone in public to avoid sexual violence, putting the responsibility on victims and not the perpetrators. The disproportionate focus on sexual harassment by strangers on public transport further adds to the sense of confusion, fear and guilt women feel when they are assaulted by someone they know (close to 90% of Sexual Assault Care Centre’s clients were assaulted by someone they knew). Public education that accurately reflects the reality of sexual violence, which the police also plays a critical role in, is necessary to address such victim-blaming attitudes.

5. Adopt and implement effective measures to encourage all media… to eliminate discrimination against women in their activity, including harmful and stereotyped portrayal of women or specific groups of women. [Paragraph 37]

Situation in Singapore: Gender stereotypes are rife in the media, including children’s media. In addition, positive depictions of LBTQ women are barred in local broadcast media, instead only allowing for damaging portrayals of these women to be depicted. This contributes to the normalising of discrimination and violence against LBTQ women. Media reports perpetuate prejudice about sex workers, leading to calls for crackdown on areas frequented by them, with attendant violence.

6. Provide mandatory, recurrent and effective capacity-building, education and training for the judiciary, lawyers and law enforcement officers… to equip them to adequately prevent and address gender-based violence against women. This education and training should include: … (b) the understanding of trauma and its effects… [and] include the intersectional discrimination affecting specific groups of women. [Paragraph 38b] 

Situation in Singapore: While efforts towards sensitivity training for the police – being the first point of contact – are a step in the right direction, gender-sensitisation and trauma training are needed for all actors in in all levels of the criminal justice system,For example, recently, in acquitting a man accused of sexually assaulting a 15 year old girl, the court found that the victim was not “prompt in her complaints” and that “there were no reasons for her not to confide in members of her family or her boyfriend..” This was despite the victim’s young age and the fact that the accused was the live-in boyfriend of her mother, and reveals a lack of understanding of how trauma can affect survivors’ decisions on reporting.

7. Establish and implement appropriate multi-sectoral referral mechanisms to ensure effective access of women survivors to comprehensive services, ensuring full participation of and cooperation non-governmental women’s organisations. [Paragraph 40e]

Situation in Singapore: The introduction of a one-stop centre allowing complainants to undergo forensic and medical examinations in a police station is a step in the right direction though its reach and hours are limited. More generally, healthcare services and the legal systems are not seamlessly integrated to serve survivors’ needs. For example, one can get a rape kit examination only if they have filed a police report. To create a victim-centric support system, there needs to be a wider multi-sectoral approach.

Our government has a responsibility to end gender-based violence on a systemic and institutional level – but we need individual and community action to make change, too! Learn more about how YOU can take action through our campaign, Let’s Unite: 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence!

Let’s Unite: 2) Take Action

Do what you’ve pledged.

Take action – by talking, learning or spreading the word about violence against women – and inspire others to do so as well. Start the ripple effect of change!

Depending on how you’ve pledged (as an individual or organisation), we’ve prepared a kit for you to make things easy – the copy and materials are yours for the taking!

I took the pledge as…

 

 

 

Let’s Unite: 1) Take the pledge

 “I’ve always wanted to do something.”
Well, here is one thing you can do right NOW.

Fill up the pledge form below – as an individual or an organisation – to do something during the 16 Days campaign. Get creative with it! If you’re enthusiastic to support, but have no idea where to start, we have ideas for you in the pledge form.

After you’ve pledged, we’ll send you an email by 25 November to remind you of your commitment!

Create your own user feedback survey

If the pledge form is not loading on this page, you can access it here.

Taken your pledge? Find out how exactly you can carry it out!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let’s Talk: #MeToo, #NowWhat

You might wonder after #MeToo, #NowWhat?

Through the recent online movement, #MeToo, thousands of women around the world – and in Singapore – came forward to have open and honest conversations about their experiences of surviving sexual violence. #MeToo has not only foregrounded the prevalence of sexual violence in Singapore, but also the silence surrounding the issue. At the end of the day, a hashtag can only go so far: the onus lies on us to take action every day.

 

Date: 25 November 2017, Saturday
Time: 4pm
Venue: Peranakan Museum, 39 Armenian St, S179941
Light refreshments will be provided.

Register here!

Please note that representatives of the media will be required to identify themselves prior to the event, and no photos/videos are allowed without explicit consent. We welcome reporting on the points and issues raised, but no names and identities should be included.

*16 Days of Activism against gender-based violence is a global campaign that calls on individuals, groups and organisations to stand together against violence against women by pledging their support and taking action from 25 November, the International Day of Elimination of Violence against Women, to 10 December, Human Rights Day.