AWARE Media

Singapore fares worse in closing gender gap

An edited version of this post was originally published as a letter in The Straits Times Forum on 10 November 2017.

Singapore’s performance in closing its gender gap worsened this year, according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2017. Ranked 65th out of 144 countries, Singapore slipped 10 positions from 2016. The slip was due in part to other countries improving, but also, more significantly, due to a poorer absolute score which may arise from women being increasingly found in lower-paying positions.

The gender parity score is based on performance in closing the gender gap in four areas – economic participation and opportunity; political empowerment; educational attainment; and health and survival. Singapore’s gaps are most prominent in the former two areas.

In economic participation, there was a distinct widening of the gap between women’s and men’s estimated earned income. At the same time, there was no change in Singapore’s gender gaps in labour force participation and wage equality for similar work, as well as the number of professional and technical workers.

Taken together, these numbers may imply that women as a whole earn less than men because they are increasingly in lower-paying positions. For example, the average monthly income of cleaners, labourers and related workers is $1,417 – the lowest compared to other occupations – and women are 59% of such workers. To manage caregiving responsibilities, which remain unequally shared, women also tend to work part-time, earning less as a result.

Further, the findings suggest that barriers remain to women’s career advancement and their opportunities for higher pay. The gender gap in the number of legislators, senior officials and managers is wide. These positions are higher-paying – the average monthly income of managers and administrators was $10,348 – but women only make up 37% of them.

On average, many countries did badly in terms of women’s political empowerment. Singapore ranked 101th in this area. The ascension of Singapore’s first woman President, while symbolically important, may not be a sign of improved broader access to politics for women as a whole. Looking at the presidential eligibility criteria, women remain severely under-represented in Cabinet and the other senior positions from which any future President might be drawn.

There is a clear need to address these gender gaps. Many other developed countries have specific governmental departments dedicated to addressing women’s rights and gender equality, including efforts to redistribute and better support unpaid domestic and care labour. We hope Singapore will take action to restore – and ultimately improve – our ranking.

Film screening of “Desert Flower”: Exploring the topic of female genital mutilation

By Reetaza Chatterjee, GEC Volunteer

On 13 October 2017, I attended an event organised by the Singapore Committee for UN Women in collaboration with Engaging Africa at the National University of Singapore to discuss the topic of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). The event kicked off with a screening of “Desert Flower”, a film based on the international best-selling novel of the same name by Waris Dirie, which tells Dirie’s inspirational story of growing up in a nomadic goat-herding family in Somalia, becoming one of the world’s most sought-after supermodels and subsequently being appointed a United Nations spokesperson for the elimination of FGM.

A lively panel discussion on FGM in the Singapore context followed, led by three speakers: AWARE representative and coordinator for a campaign for Muslim women’s rights, Gender Equality IS Our Culture (GEC), Filzah Sumartono; feminist writer, Sya Taha; and clinical sexologist, Dr Martha Tara Lee. Many in the audience were under the impression that FGM is essentially an “African problem”. It was eye-opening for me to find out that FGM, or sunat perempuan, as it is known locally, is also practiced in the Malay community in Singapore.

Sunat perempuan is usually carried out on girls before the age of two and is classified under the World Health Organization’s (WHO) classification as FGM Type I or FGM Type IV. According to Filzah, there are currently 6 private clinics in Singapore that offer this service for around $20 to $35 – but this is not widely known about outside the Malay community. Currently, there is no law banning the procedure.

Speakers explored how the term Female Genital Mutilation is politically loaded in itself. Merriam-Webster dictionary’s definition of ‘mutilation’ is to damage something severely, especially by violently removing a part. However, some within the Malay community prefer to use terms such as “female circumcision” or “cutting”, which do not come with the connotation of violence. Sya mentioned that from her conversations with young parents about the issue, most mothers and pregnant women either perceive sunat as a positive or do not really question the practice – it is seen as a rite of passage of sorts, something that just “needs to be done”, similar to male circumcision.

Dr Lee shared about how the trauma of male circumcision, especially when carried out on minors at a very young age, affects brain development and may hinder the body’s ability to experience pleasure in the future. While this was known research for male circumcision, she added that she “was sure that this would be similar for FGM”.

In the past, religious scholars and leaders cited sunat perempuan as a way to “ennoble the women” and “ensure that she is not aroused too easily”. This mindset still remains in the present day where the procedure is seen to prevent her from becoming “wild”. Filzah made a pertinent point about sunat perempuan essentially hypersexualising a child – the need to control a girl’s ability to express their sexuality at such a young age shows that she is already being viewed as a sexual being and this is being done at the expense of her rights to health, physical and emotional well-being and bodily autonomy.

Sya also spoke about the increasing number of young mothers who have done their research on sunat perempuan and do not wish to do it to their daughters. However, there still remains a lot of community pressure from older relatives and religious circles for parents to have their daughter undergo the procedure as a marker of Malay-Muslim identity, despite there being no mention of female circumcision in the Quran. This pressure is usually the greatest during the point of birth of the child and young mothers may either not have the support from their husbands to oppose the practice or may not know anyone who does the same.

It is only through community engagement that greater awareness can be raised on the issue, which will equip young parents with the knowledge to make an informed decision for the well-being of their children.

The clear line between jokes and sexual harassment

An edited version of this article was first published by on Yahoo! Singapore 13 October 2017.

When Channel NewsAsia producer Juwon Park published the sexist and degrading comments made to her by a co-worker, many online commenters responded with demeaning remarks, blaming Park for not “taking a joke”. They made inappropriate comments about her appearance and women’s bodies, and belittled sexist experiences and sexual harassment commonly faced by women in the workplace.

We cannot dismiss these comments as isolated to the internet. The victim-blaming we see online is very much in accord with what sexual harassment survivors commonly face offline. Such judgmental comments are fuelled by a larger society that still takes workplace sexual harassment lightly. By far, employers can play the biggest role, by addressing workplace harassment fairly when it happens, but also – just as importantly – preventatively creating spaces where workers understand the seriousness of such abuse and are well-equipped to support survivors.

In 2016, the largest category (27%) of calls received by the Sexual Assault Care Centre (SACC) – AWARE’s specialist service for those who face sexual assault or harassment – were by clients whose experiences happened in the workplace or were work-related. Survivors often hear discouraging responses when they speak up about these incidents. Co-workers and HR managers tell them to just deal with it and adjust to the “company culture”, family members tell them to stick it out for the sake of their careers, and friends count them lucky because they can imagine “worse” harassment.

The notion that only physical harassment justifies a formal or public complaint harms many. Sexual harassment extends beyond inappropriate touching and overt sexual advances. There can likewise be an exclusionary effect – a strong message that the workplace is not somewhere women should feel welcome – when a colleague shares topless photos with the department “just for laughs”. Or when a boss asks a new staff member about her sexual history to “get to know” her. Or, in Juwon Park’s case, where a colleague makes degrading comments about her body, appearance and abilities, then casually passes it off as a joke.

In all its forms, sexual harassment creates unsafe work environments and puts survivors in vulnerable positions where their mental and physical health, job security and livelihoods are endangered.

Our laws recognise this, too. Since 2014, the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) has prohibited acts related to sexual harassment, such as unlawful stalking and sending lewd messages. In 2015, MOM, SNEF and TAFEP issued the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment, advising employers to develop a harassment prevention policy, provide staff with information and training on workplace harassment, and implement appropriate reporting and response procedures.

Yet the continuing prevalence of workplace harassment – and the numerous negative experiences of SACC clients with employers – suggest that an optional best practice advisory is not enough to tackle the problem. Singapore should go further and, like other business centres such as London and Hong Kong, make it mandatory for employers to have explicit sexual harassment policies, processes and training. Though employers may presently be unfamiliar with such policies and thus reluctant to institute them, tackling harassment decisively will in fact improve staff morale and productivity, and reduce turnover. In the absence of any clear policy reassuring them otherwise, some workers facing harassment have simply silently left their jobs in the belief that their employers will not take their experiences seriously.

Through Catalyse Consulting, AWARE has been running anti-harassment workshops for employers seeking to understand and implement the Advisory’s recommendations effectively. “Disciplinary action” by employers against perpetrators should not be arbitrary or ad hoc, but should be built into a strong company anti-harassment policy that is comprehensive and formalised. At the very least, policies need clear definitions and illustrations of harassing behaviour, a standard and transparent timeline for investigation, procedures for unbiased and sensitive investigations by knowledgeable parties, an avenue for appeals, resources such as professional counselling for the survivor, and corrective actions such as reminding supervisors and staff on their duties regarding workplace harassment, among others.

These best practices could, if universally implemented, greatly improve the landscape of Singapore’s workplaces and prioritise the safety of all workers. Everyone has the right to a safe and respectful workplace. While we cannot remove all misconceptions about sexual harassment overnight, employers can and should be among the first to take the lead.

If you need help, or feel unsure about a sexual encounter, please call Sexual Assault Care Centre at 6779 0282 (Mon-Fri, 10am-midnight). To learn more about Catalyse Consulting’s training on workplace harassment, visit www.catalyse.sg or contact info@catalyse.sg.

Local NGOs come together to submit joint report to the UN about gender inequalities in Singapore

CEDAW, adopted by the United Nations in 1979, defines discrimination against women and sets an agenda for nations to end inequitable laws, policies and practices. Every few years, Singapore reports to the UN on its progress in achieving gender equality, and NGOs are also invited to offer information.

In the 2011 CEDAW review process, some NGOs took part as individual groups; six years later, there is a coalition of 13 Singapore NGOs, including some first-timers – a successful move toward greater solidarity and collaboration.

The coalition submitted its report, titled ‘Many Voices, One Movement’, to the UN CEDAW Committee on 2 October. This Committee, comprising international experts, monitors the progress of signatory countries to the targets of the treaty.

AWARE is delighted to be a member of this coalition and to have contributed to this thorough report.

To read the full report and the accompanying press release, click here.

Read FAQs about the submission of the CEDAW shadow report here.

Read about the reporting process here.

Comic launch: Celebrate Every Body!

Women receive messages on how their bodies should and should not look like throughout their lives. Messages from the media and even our peers and family constantly pressure women to aspire to unrealistic standards of beauty or to “improve” their bodies through practices, like hair removal, wearing makeup and dieting. It is not uncommon to hear people say things like:
“You would look so much better if you lost all that weight!”
“Wah! You still want to eat so much!”
“She shouldn’t be wearing that – she’s too fat.”
“You’re so skinny, you look like a bamboo pole”

While seemingly harmless on the surface and sometimes in the garb of well-meaning statements, messages that women have to “improve” their bodies or meet a certain “ideal” standard can lead to body dissatisfaction and eating disorders in women and girls. It is important that we shift our societal attitudes to be inclusive of the diversity of bodies and reject the culture of body shaming.

As part of this effort, AWARE Youth and Rock The Naked Truth (RTNT) collaborated on a series of body positive comics with the affirmation that no one should ever have to prove that they are healthy enough, pretty enough or muscular enough to deserve respect. These comics acknowledge the painful reality that not all bodies are accepted or viewed equally in society. The comics explore three different aspects of body image issues. One comic discusses the issue of body shaming and how problematic it can be when individuals are judged or made fun of because they don’t meet certain “ideal” standards. Another comic touches on the topic of eating disorders and the importance of seeking help. It also emphasises supporting friends and family members who are going through them. Even though the pressure to fit a certain ideal of beauty impacts girls and women more, one of the comics also depicts the unique experiences of men and boys who are not immune to body image issues.

Limited printed copies of the comic will be distributed at AWARE’s Free Market. After the event, the comics will be accessible online.

Free Market details
Date: Saturday, 28 October 2017
Time: 2-7pm
Venue: AWARE Centre, Blk 5 Dover Crescent #01-22 S130005
**Limited printed copies of the comic will be distributed at the event.

AWARE Youth is a newly formed group comprising of youths who are passionate about gender equality. They aim to provide a space for youths to share their experience and provide a platform for them to bring their ideas to life. Their first chapter focuses on the issue of body image.

RTNT is a body image movement to inspire others to find confidence in their bodies, as well as to encourage them to take care of their body well.

Malay Religious Conservatism: A Talk

The emergence of Malay religious conservatism has profound implications for the lives of Malay-Muslims in the region. Rising conservatism has made its way into many segments of social life, from the policing of women’s dressing in sports to seemingly innocuous dog-petting events. Some observations about this growing trend were made during a recent talk at AWARE by Mohamed Imran, an inter-religious activist and researcher.

The talk held on 16 September 2017 was organized by Gender Equality Is Our Culture (GEC), a project of AWARE. More than 40 people attended the session, which emphasised the importance of understanding modern religious beliefs through long-term historical discourse.

Imran explained that religious conservatism can be defined as “a mode of thinking that manifests itself into social expression, practices, responses and absences”. Religious conservatism also possesses various characteristics, including the preservation of an imagined social order due to the perceived threat to one’s own existence. The language of conservatism is mostly rooted in fear, repression and control.

One distinct characteristic of Malay religious conservatism is its predominantly traditionalist roots. Traditionalism is the uncritical insistence on clinging to past formulations, customs and rituals rooted in the idea of the perfection of the past.

The historical arrival of Islam to this region was facilitated by trade, where traders spread a form of Islam that had already been codified from the Middle East. The intellectual discourse prior and leading to this codification was not reflected in the form of Islam that was brought here.

The transmission of Islamic ideas also operated within the framework of traditionalism. In such a framework, knowledge is derived from “dogmatic assertion”, where pre-existing beliefs are justified through tradition. In this manner, ideologies put forth by conservatism rely on the past to develop legitimacy in the present.

Therefore, concepts like gender equality are difficult for religious conservatives to grapple with because in-depth discussions on it are not particularly prominent in historical texts and interpretations. This is perhaps why gender equality is perceived as incompatible with “traditional” religious principles.

However, many classical and contemporary Islamic scholars have argued that spaces for gender justice and equality can, indeed, be created within an Islamic framework. Therefore, in accounting for why gender equality is not perceived to be a legitimate pursuit, one has to include the possibility that religious conservatives may also be rather selective of historical evidence.

More importantly, Imran stressed the importance of situating certain ideologies in the modern postcolonial context. Colonialism caused a dent in the Muslim psyche that continues to retreat into defensive postures against change seemingly imposed from the outside. For example, gender equality is seen as “Western” and therefore to be rejected, because Islam has its own exceptional position. At the same time, it is also the colonial legacy – the rise of religious bureaucracies with coercive powers over religious life – at the root of today’s contestation.

In the case of Malay religious conservatism, culture is another factor that needs to be considered. While culture is not monolithic and it is constantly evolving, a fossilised view of culture predominates, due to identity politics.

Answering a question from a participant about whether one’s Malay culture and identity can be detached from the Islamic faith, Imran answered,

“No religion can exist devoid of any culture. In fact, if you were to strictly demarcate that, you will find extremism on ready grounds. Because the person who has been totally decontextualised and has no notion of his cultural heritage… and has no understanding of his position in the whole political trajectory, he or she will be more open to be radicalised.”

Indeed, culture and history play important roles in shaping Malay identity. Imran brought up Malay-Muslims’ lack of affinity with the Srivijaya and Majapahit empires, two grand but somewhat forgotten Malay civilisations, noting how the Malay identity is disproportionately tied to Islam. Though these empires were not spheres of Islamic influence (they were, in fact, predominantly Buddhist and Hindu empires), they are a significant part of the Malay civilisation.

Therefore, understanding multiple layers of Malay historical identity is key to uncovering what is useful from tradition and how it has and can evolve in the changing context of today’s reality and experiences, including in matters of gender relations. If we understand the historical process, we will not think that things are determined by fate: they are the products of dominant ideas, types of elites and institutions, and power relations in society. In short, a new mode of understanding and practice can emerge if we take hold of the process of change in the present. More importantly, we need not fear change in itself and conservatism need not be the default position.

Imran then ended the talk with a rather apt quote by Islamic scholar Fazlur Rahman, who said, “It is of the greatest importance to determine exactly where society is at present before deciding where it can go. To talk about reforming society without scientifically determining where the society is, is certainly like a doctor treating a patient without taking his case history or examining him.”

AWARE’s Free Market: Give or Take Anything You Want!

Have heaps of pre-loved items that take way too long to sell on Carousell? Running out of places to go thrift shopping? Or simply looking to share your skills with other people?

If you find yourself nodding to any of the questions above, then come join us at our free market!

Our free market is also a call for our community to stand together to end poverty in Singapore – in line with the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty.

Ways you can participate:

Bring your family and friends down and get to know your neighbours!
Bring any items in good and clean condition – books, clothes, toys, electronics, etc.
Offer any skills or services such as henna painting, sewing, watercolour painting, etc. If you require a booth, please register with us at tinyurl.com/awarefreemkt or call us at 6779 7137.
Volunteer with us to help make the event a spectacular success!
If you can’t make it for the event, there’s still the Kopi Session held at 4PM so we can get to know you better!

If you have any questions, please contact Xiu Xuan at wecan@aware.org.sg.

We look forward to seeing you there!

Be child-centric all the way, including in housing

An edited version of this piece was originally published as an op-ed in The Straits Times’ Opinion section on 23 September 2017. The print version as well as the initial online version contained a number of edits introduced by the newspaper without our consent. The Straits Times subsequently apologised and amended the online version; however, there remains one insertion by the newspaper which we did not agree with. The version on this page is the text that we submitted.

Children are a priority in Singapore. That was clear from the National Day Rally speech last month, which opened with a slew of pre-school education initiatives. Hearteningly, the Prime Minister referred repeatedly to social mobility, equal opportunities and a level playing field for all children – key drivers behind measures like KidStart.

But this child-centric ethos falters when it comes to housing for unmarried and divorced parents. Around 1,000 children are born to unmarried mothers yearly. From 2005 to 2014, more than 50,600 children saw their parents file for divorce.

MP Louis Ng recently presented a petition by seven such parents in Parliament, echoing a public petition organised by the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) with 8,000 signatures, overwhelmingly from Singapore citizens and permanent residents – including 2,200 members of single-parent families.

The petitioners in Parliament seek two key changes.

One is to allow unmarried parents equal access to Housing Board flats as married couples, instead of making them wait till they are aged 35 and limiting their options for subsidised flats to smaller, two-room units in non-mature estates.

Another is to allow divorced parents to access subsidised flats immediately, without any consent needed from their former spouse, even if care and control of the children is split (that is, each parent takes one or more children) or shared (that is, one or more children spend different parts of the week with each parent).

Currently, these rules present serious barriers to single parents accessing affordable housing on a timely basis.

The Government has argued that all benefits relating directly to children and their care are provided regardless of parents’ marital status. It draws a distinction between, on the one hand, support said to be more for parents, such as housing and child-dependent tax reliefs, and, on the other hand, child-specific measures such as maternity leave and Child Development Accounts.

Yet, reality is not so tidy.

For example, can housing benefits really be said to be “for parents” more than for their children? The material conditions of children’s lives are inextricably bound up with the positions of their parents or caregivers. Children of divorced or unmarried parents end up having to move often if their parents’ living arrangements are insecure. They may cram in with relatives who, even if welcoming at first, can come to feel the strain from overcrowding themselves.

These vulnerable children’s family environments are marked by financial and emotional stress from their insecure housing. If their parents of limited incomes rent on the expensive open market, they may suffer from their parents’ depleting resources that could have been invested in their education.

Single parents pressing for change are driven not by individual monetary gain but by concern for their children.

Children have only one shot at growing up; no one wants them to spend precious formative years jammed three or four or more to a bed, uprooting every few years or months.

This intimate connection between parents’ circumstances and children’s welfare is embedded in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The CRC is one of only three global human-rights treaties that Singapore has ratified, and it is invoked in the text of the parliamentary petition. The treaty, in discussing children’s rights to an adequate standard of living, including housing, phrases the state’s obligations in terms of measures to “assist parents to implement” this right.

The HDB’s debarment rules are one clear example where outcomes seem at odds with the emphasis on supporting children.

Presently, a divorced parent with children cannot get a subsidised flat within three years of divorce, unless she has care and control of all the children from her marriage; or can secure agreement from her former spouse to waive all rights to a subsidy of his own – no small sacrifice to ask for in the aftermath of a potentially acrimonious split.

If she has shared care and control (where the children move between parents during the week), she cannot get subsidised housing without consent from her former spouse even after three years.

The housing fate of divorced parents and their child can thus turn significantly on whether that child has siblings. A parent of only one child, with sole care and control of that child, has sole care and control of all children by definition and is exempt from the three-year waiting period to get subsidised housing.

But bigger families such as a divorcee with more children may find it harder to get subsidised housing because care and control may be shared or split.

This is an arbitrary, even perverse, outcome from the point of view of human need – a divorced parent with two or more children will need more space and more help – and especially given the Government’s exhortations to have more babies.

The Government may make the point that it needs to make sure public monies are sparingly spent – to prevent a divorce from increasing the number of households receiving subsidies from one to two.

But when care and control is split or shared, it is because a family court has determined that this is in the best interests of the children. It is a simple reality then that two households with children exist.

If we keep the needs of children at the centre of our thinking, we should provide the necessary support to help all of them get secure, affordable housing.

As split and shared care and control are comparatively rare, with judges generally keeping siblings together, the additional expenditure to support such households should be limited.

In any case, fears about the possible costs of child-centred thinking may be unfounded. Japan has found that reducing legal discrimination against unmarried mothers did not increase their numbers.

But we need look no further than our own past to see another precedent: unmarried mothers could access subsidised HDB flats until the mid-1990s. In 1994, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong announced an intention to revoke this access in order to signal moral disapproval. Yet in the same speech he also acknowledged that “few children [were] born out of wedlock” under the status quo then prevailing.

It is ironic that so much is being done to boost pre-school education today to level the playing field for children from all backgrounds, when official policies tilt the playing field against a subset of children by making it difficult for their parents to get secure, affordable housing.

Children do not live only in the schoolroom. Our commitment to them must extend to all the spheres of their lives, including the homes which form the foundation of their family lives.

WOMEN'S HELPLINE

1800 777 5555

SEXUAL ASSAULT CARE CENTRE

6779 0282

General enquiries

6779 7137

MENU

Author: AWARE Media