I’m supposed to be on holiday now, with my family. But I brought my computer along, and I can’t help checking email and replying, and doing bits of work here and there whenever I have some free time. Oh! What has Aware presidency done to me??!! :p
I wrote the following as a sort of email to friends, but it turned out to be more in the style of a blog, and I thought – what the heck, I HAVE a blog. So here it is, with some (major) edits.
Life in Singapore is cushy. At least for the middle class. Public transport is convenient, taxis are relatively cheap (compared to most anywhere else in the world). And for those who cough up the COE, PARF and whatever else, parking is inexpensive.
Having always been adventurous and gung-ho, my experience the last few days took me by surprise. Being with a young child in the middle of Melbourne city took some getting used to. First of all, Australians walk. A lot. Uphill and down. Trams ply the city, but as far as I could make out, we were the only ones riding it for fewer than 5 stops. Being unfit as I am, it is absolutely no fun walking even one block uphill after an exhausting day, much less with a grouchy toddler in my arms.
Then there’s that persistent uneasy feeling which I never had BC (before child). Singapore must be just about the safest city on the planet (see my earlier blog). Therefore, if you live there long enough, everywhere else in the world feels rather less benign. Especially when you’re with a rambunctious toddler, who seems to be in danger of getting run over by tram or falling down some steep stairs at every turn. Not to mention those seedy characters (whom I’d have probably judged as friendly BC).
These thoughts and feelings caught me by surprise. Have I really become so “soft” in recent years? Has living in the “air-conditioned nation” really made me so paranoid about the rest of the world? Perhaps it’s also because I’m alone with my daughter for the first time in a foreign land, and all the irrational fears of my family have resurfaced to hit me on the nose. There is something quite insidious (emotionally/spiritually) about having a child: all issues you thought you had laid to rest suddenly come back to haunt you when you least expect it.
A double-whammy for sure.
Hence, my addiction to my computer and to emails (and blogs). One ordinary and mundane experience in my world, please!
Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Friday, 8 December 2006
Altruism?
I have been thinking that even as President, I get more than I could possibly give from volunteering at Aware. Sure, the hours are crazier (just check the time I am writing this), the work load far heavier, but the experience, knowledge, street smarts, friendship and satisfaction I get in return far outweigh what I have given. By a long long shot.
It has always been this way, at Raleigh Society too where I went on several expeditions, in Aware as a rookie Exco member and now as President... And I'm not the only one who feels this way. Quite a number of people have said this about their volunteering experience too. Civil society is generally a great place to learn, just about anything. Where else would you be able to organise an event for 200 persons, write a position paper to submit to the government, attend a focus group discussion to state your views, write letters to the press, be interviewed on TV, give three speeches to the public, boogie like a woman possessed with your soul sisters, give out leaflets in the street, write an essay to go into a book, attend a lunch time talk for free at the Four Seasons Hotel (lunch provided), and have warm and meaningful conversations with your "colleagues", all in the space of one month?
So, are we being altruistic? Only in the sense that we gave before we knew we would get so much more in return. Will we ever be able to give more than we receive?
Perhaps if I ever come back to serve another term as President. But I doubt it.
It has always been this way, at Raleigh Society too where I went on several expeditions, in Aware as a rookie Exco member and now as President... And I'm not the only one who feels this way. Quite a number of people have said this about their volunteering experience too. Civil society is generally a great place to learn, just about anything. Where else would you be able to organise an event for 200 persons, write a position paper to submit to the government, attend a focus group discussion to state your views, write letters to the press, be interviewed on TV, give three speeches to the public, boogie like a woman possessed with your soul sisters, give out leaflets in the street, write an essay to go into a book, attend a lunch time talk for free at the Four Seasons Hotel (lunch provided), and have warm and meaningful conversations with your "colleagues", all in the space of one month?
So, are we being altruistic? Only in the sense that we gave before we knew we would get so much more in return. Will we ever be able to give more than we receive?
Perhaps if I ever come back to serve another term as President. But I doubt it.
Real men don't hurt
As I was writing the earlier post, I realised that I should talk about the White Ribbon Campaign that was on 25 November. It is the fourth year it is in Singapore, the third by Aware and the second by Aware's Male Chapter. The theme chosen for this year is Real Men Don't Hurt.
Aware is not out to demonise men. Honest. We are out to break gender stereotypes so that everybody, women and men, can have the space to achieve their highest potential.
With Real Men Don't Hurt, the Male Chapter is standing up and telling their fellow men that they don't have to use violence to be considered real men. Being macho is fine, but using violence is not. The Living in a Box module developed for Secondary Schools goes even further - if you like being macho, that's great, but realise that there are also many other ways you can be, and you will still be a real man.
The event this year was at Orchard Cineleisure, and for me, the most powerful part of the programme was the play by the amateur drama group, the Sisyphian Circle, adapting the poem "I got flowers today" by Paulette Kelly, and the Open Dialogue where five men shared their thoughts on violence. The official account will be on Aware's website soon.
Extract from my speech to open the event (I forgot to mention that 2500 is only the reported cases, estimates say that actual incidence rate is at least twice that number):
Violence is a major issue for society, and has been for some time. When there is a threat of violence, people feel afraid, insecure, jumpy, wondering where the attack will come from. I visited New York many years ago, when the crime rate was still relatively high, and when my friend and I walked through certain parts of town, we didn’t feel safe, and would look all around as we walked, clutching our bags and wondering if we would make it back to our dorm in one piece. Have any of you ever had that experience?
In Singapore, we have safe streets, and visitors often remark about how they feel quite comfortable walking with a three-year-old after dark.
However, the situation in the home can be very different. Every year, around 2500 people apply for a personal protection or domestic exclusion order from the court. Based on research by the Sub-courts, about 80% of these applicants are women. That means that 2000 women a year do not feel safe in their own homes. 2000 women walking on egg shells at home every day, nervous, anxious, wondering when the next attack would come from, looking all around to make sure things will be safe for the next few minutes.
This is not a healthy situation for society, especially one without natural resources and relies on its human resources. Domestic violence has terribly consequences. It destroys the foundation of trust and respect on which families are built, it tears the family apart, and it is NOT just a women’s issue. Research in the US and UK have found that there is also an expensive price tag attached: medical and sometimes even hospitalisation bills, MCs and days off work to hide the signs of abuse from colleagues, lowered productivity at work due to mental turmoil. When you factor in that over 30% of domestic violence involve children, that 750 children a year, and 60% of these children are under 5 years old, that’s 450 children who witness or are involved in domestic violence every year.
No, this is definitely not a purely women’s issue, it affects every member of the family, especially the youngest and most vulnerable, and it has a cost to the economy, a cost which in Singapore has not been calculated.
However, by saying this, I’m not demonizing men because that also means that 2000 men a year are getting angry enough to lash out and hit somebody. 2000 men feeling furious, out of control, remorseful, and then rationalizing the whole episode. 2000 men feeling like that need to prove they are real men. 2000 men needing help as much as the women, even if the help is very different.
It is time to look at family violence face on, and without judging or stigmatizing. It is time we all took responsibility for ending the violence.
Other organisations that deal with family violence:
Centre for Promoting Alternatives to Violence (PAVe)
Unifem Singapore who launched the Help Anna Campaign
Aware is not out to demonise men. Honest. We are out to break gender stereotypes so that everybody, women and men, can have the space to achieve their highest potential.
With Real Men Don't Hurt, the Male Chapter is standing up and telling their fellow men that they don't have to use violence to be considered real men. Being macho is fine, but using violence is not. The Living in a Box module developed for Secondary Schools goes even further - if you like being macho, that's great, but realise that there are also many other ways you can be, and you will still be a real man.
The event this year was at Orchard Cineleisure, and for me, the most powerful part of the programme was the play by the amateur drama group, the Sisyphian Circle, adapting the poem "I got flowers today" by Paulette Kelly, and the Open Dialogue where five men shared their thoughts on violence. The official account will be on Aware's website soon.
Extract from my speech to open the event (I forgot to mention that 2500 is only the reported cases, estimates say that actual incidence rate is at least twice that number):
Violence is a major issue for society, and has been for some time. When there is a threat of violence, people feel afraid, insecure, jumpy, wondering where the attack will come from. I visited New York many years ago, when the crime rate was still relatively high, and when my friend and I walked through certain parts of town, we didn’t feel safe, and would look all around as we walked, clutching our bags and wondering if we would make it back to our dorm in one piece. Have any of you ever had that experience?
In Singapore, we have safe streets, and visitors often remark about how they feel quite comfortable walking with a three-year-old after dark.
However, the situation in the home can be very different. Every year, around 2500 people apply for a personal protection or domestic exclusion order from the court. Based on research by the Sub-courts, about 80% of these applicants are women. That means that 2000 women a year do not feel safe in their own homes. 2000 women walking on egg shells at home every day, nervous, anxious, wondering when the next attack would come from, looking all around to make sure things will be safe for the next few minutes.
This is not a healthy situation for society, especially one without natural resources and relies on its human resources. Domestic violence has terribly consequences. It destroys the foundation of trust and respect on which families are built, it tears the family apart, and it is NOT just a women’s issue. Research in the US and UK have found that there is also an expensive price tag attached: medical and sometimes even hospitalisation bills, MCs and days off work to hide the signs of abuse from colleagues, lowered productivity at work due to mental turmoil. When you factor in that over 30% of domestic violence involve children, that 750 children a year, and 60% of these children are under 5 years old, that’s 450 children who witness or are involved in domestic violence every year.
No, this is definitely not a purely women’s issue, it affects every member of the family, especially the youngest and most vulnerable, and it has a cost to the economy, a cost which in Singapore has not been calculated.
However, by saying this, I’m not demonizing men because that also means that 2000 men a year are getting angry enough to lash out and hit somebody. 2000 men feeling furious, out of control, remorseful, and then rationalizing the whole episode. 2000 men feeling like that need to prove they are real men. 2000 men needing help as much as the women, even if the help is very different.
It is time to look at family violence face on, and without judging or stigmatizing. It is time we all took responsibility for ending the violence.
Other organisations that deal with family violence:
Centre for Promoting Alternatives to Violence (PAVe)
Unifem Singapore who launched the Help Anna Campaign
Rape is rape
Aware's position paper on the proposed penal code amendments will be uploaded to the website by tomorrow. The deadline for feedback is 9am Saturday 9 December, so if you're reading this within the next 36 hours, drop in on http://www.reach.gov.sg/olcp/asp/ocp/ocp01d1.asp?id=3683 to give your feedback. Even if it's after 9 December, it might still be worth emailing/snail-mailing Mr Wong Kan Seng, Minister of Home Affairs to let him know your views.
It's been a rather intense two weeks. We had the White Ribbon Campaign (to eradicate violence against women) and the 21st anniversary bash to organise before we could pay attention to writing a position paper on the penal code amendments. Almost from the word go, when we received the email inviting us to the focus group discussion, I just thought that this whole thing was just so much "wayang" (play-acting) again. I seriously doubt that the government would revise anything in the Penal Code Amendment Bill from the feedback. Firstly, the time given for public consultation and feedback was one month. I don't know how long they do it in other countries, but it definitely felt very short, especially for a NGO. Secondly, how many time have we been through public consultations, only for status quo to be maintained? I just felt extremely frustrated that we would have to wayang along and provide the most well-researched feedback we could in the time given, while knowing at the back of my mind that it was all futile.
Then I found out that a friend had been raped by her husband.
Suddenly, it became personal. I know someone who was raped by her husband. How can the politicians, academics, lawyers etc all say that there is no need to criminalise marital rape? How many more women must be raped before we woke up to our senses?
I came from an all-girls school. The principal continually reminded us to be careful coming to school and going home, warning us to watch out for strange men and dark areas, and putting the fear of the devil into us about the possibility of getting raped. The underlying message was that rape was the ultimate humiliation, the absolute worst form of assault for a girl.
Now as an adult, I am told that it is okay for my husband to rape me? That by being married, I have consented to his demanding sexual relations with me any time he feels like it? Or that by being married, I have made it so hard to prove rape that the authorities would rather pretend it didn't happen? Or that it is so important to maintain the illusion of marriage the authorities would not want to do anything even if my husband raped me?
Let's get this straight - rape is violence, power, not sex. You only rape someone you have power over and want to hurt.
Research from the UK shows that 14% of married women have been raped by their husbands in their lifetime. Using the numbers from the 2000 consensus, that means that 98,000 women have been raped by their husbands in Singapore. Unless we have data to show otherwise, I will assume that 14% is a reliable ball park figure. Given how our politicians seem to feel about married women, I won't be too surprised if the actual number is higher.
It's time to call a spade a spade.
Rape is rape, wherever, whenever it happens, and whoever it is committed by.
It's been a rather intense two weeks. We had the White Ribbon Campaign (to eradicate violence against women) and the 21st anniversary bash to organise before we could pay attention to writing a position paper on the penal code amendments. Almost from the word go, when we received the email inviting us to the focus group discussion, I just thought that this whole thing was just so much "wayang" (play-acting) again. I seriously doubt that the government would revise anything in the Penal Code Amendment Bill from the feedback. Firstly, the time given for public consultation and feedback was one month. I don't know how long they do it in other countries, but it definitely felt very short, especially for a NGO. Secondly, how many time have we been through public consultations, only for status quo to be maintained? I just felt extremely frustrated that we would have to wayang along and provide the most well-researched feedback we could in the time given, while knowing at the back of my mind that it was all futile.
Then I found out that a friend had been raped by her husband.
Suddenly, it became personal. I know someone who was raped by her husband. How can the politicians, academics, lawyers etc all say that there is no need to criminalise marital rape? How many more women must be raped before we woke up to our senses?
I came from an all-girls school. The principal continually reminded us to be careful coming to school and going home, warning us to watch out for strange men and dark areas, and putting the fear of the devil into us about the possibility of getting raped. The underlying message was that rape was the ultimate humiliation, the absolute worst form of assault for a girl.
Now as an adult, I am told that it is okay for my husband to rape me? That by being married, I have consented to his demanding sexual relations with me any time he feels like it? Or that by being married, I have made it so hard to prove rape that the authorities would rather pretend it didn't happen? Or that it is so important to maintain the illusion of marriage the authorities would not want to do anything even if my husband raped me?
Let's get this straight - rape is violence, power, not sex. You only rape someone you have power over and want to hurt.
Research from the UK shows that 14% of married women have been raped by their husbands in their lifetime. Using the numbers from the 2000 consensus, that means that 98,000 women have been raped by their husbands in Singapore. Unless we have data to show otherwise, I will assume that 14% is a reliable ball park figure. Given how our politicians seem to feel about married women, I won't be too surprised if the actual number is higher.
It's time to call a spade a spade.
Rape is rape, wherever, whenever it happens, and whoever it is committed by.
Sunday, 26 November 2006
AWARE is 21!
Tonight was the big bash for AWARE's 21st anniversary. I'm having a "I could have danced all night" moment (if only the music was better!) again (the first was after the sold-out film gala of "Singapore Dreaming" - I'll write more about that later, if I have time to catch up with the last 7 months!).
There is truly so much to celebrate, we only need to remember to look. And looking around the room tonight, I felt so truly blessed and so very grateful for all that I have. Soul sisters working for a common cause, mentors, old friends, new acquaintances, and women who have come to mean so much to me, who I truly care for, and who cares for me. More than anything else, AWARE has always been about the space to be whoever you want to be and the bonds of friendship. I had almost forgotten in the stress of being President, but tonight brought it all back to me.
It was a party to remember.
I like my speech so much, it's pasted below :)
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. The theme for this evening is Aware celebrates! And what a lot we have to celebrate! Turning 21 – a momentous occasion for sure, for anybody, and what more, a dynamic feminist like Aware! Being finally recognized first as a charity then as an Institute of Public Character (IPC) – hey, you get tax exemptions for your donations now – so keep those coming! The recent changes in law. And twenty-one years of action and research, and good solid camaraderie and friendship.
Being in a women’s organization, a feminist organization that advocates for women in a society that is largely still conservative , we see so many gaps in laws and policies, so much of the downside, so many women who have been through so much that it’s easy to overlook the silver linings, to miss the small mercies and down play the victories. Once in a while, I think it is useful and rejuvenating to forget about the long road ahead, and just look back and focus on all the wonderful things that have happened, and truly, wholeheartedly unreservedly celebrate and be grateful.
the early feminists who won for women the right to vote, to education, to a career. The founding members of Aware who had the vision and the courage to start something as outlandish as a feminist organization in Singapore, the stalwarts who won for women the right to protection from domestic violence, the male chapter now carrying the torch for the White Ribbon Campaign which was at Orchard Cineleisure this afternoon (and I see some of you wearing the ribbons now). Wah Kiat will have the pleasure of sharing with you in more detail and of presenting the wonderful TV ad done by a volunteer student from NTU.
I would especially like to thank the sponsors who made this evening possible:
......
Last but not least, our own Aware volunteers, Pei Shan for the design of the eflyer and anniversary magazine, Sabina and Elizabeth for helping organize this entire event, and all our dedicated volunteers too numerous to name, and of course the Aware staff, Harmin, Joy, Soo Leng, Deeksha, May and Lin for all your hard work and commitment throughout the whole year.
Tomorrow, we go back and look at all that still needs to be done, most immediately about the Penal Code amendments and the marital rape exemption. But tonight, tonight, we relax, enjoy our glass of wine, and we celebrate and appreciate ourselves and one another for who we are and as fellow travelers in the journey towards gender equity.
A toast – to a fantastically fun evening, and to women, and of course to Aware!
There is truly so much to celebrate, we only need to remember to look. And looking around the room tonight, I felt so truly blessed and so very grateful for all that I have. Soul sisters working for a common cause, mentors, old friends, new acquaintances, and women who have come to mean so much to me, who I truly care for, and who cares for me. More than anything else, AWARE has always been about the space to be whoever you want to be and the bonds of friendship. I had almost forgotten in the stress of being President, but tonight brought it all back to me.
It was a party to remember.
I like my speech so much, it's pasted below :)
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. The theme for this evening is Aware celebrates! And what a lot we have to celebrate! Turning 21 – a momentous occasion for sure, for anybody, and what more, a dynamic feminist like Aware! Being finally recognized first as a charity then as an Institute of Public Character (IPC) – hey, you get tax exemptions for your donations now – so keep those coming! The recent changes in law. And twenty-one years of action and research, and good solid camaraderie and friendship.
Being in a women’s organization, a feminist organization that advocates for women in a society that is largely still conservative , we see so many gaps in laws and policies, so much of the downside, so many women who have been through so much that it’s easy to overlook the silver linings, to miss the small mercies and down play the victories. Once in a while, I think it is useful and rejuvenating to forget about the long road ahead, and just look back and focus on all the wonderful things that have happened, and truly, wholeheartedly unreservedly celebrate and be grateful.
the early feminists who won for women the right to vote, to education, to a career. The founding members of Aware who had the vision and the courage to start something as outlandish as a feminist organization in Singapore, the stalwarts who won for women the right to protection from domestic violence, the male chapter now carrying the torch for the White Ribbon Campaign which was at Orchard Cineleisure this afternoon (and I see some of you wearing the ribbons now). Wah Kiat will have the pleasure of sharing with you in more detail and of presenting the wonderful TV ad done by a volunteer student from NTU.
I would especially like to thank the sponsors who made this evening possible:
......
Last but not least, our own Aware volunteers, Pei Shan for the design of the eflyer and anniversary magazine, Sabina and Elizabeth for helping organize this entire event, and all our dedicated volunteers too numerous to name, and of course the Aware staff, Harmin, Joy, Soo Leng, Deeksha, May and Lin for all your hard work and commitment throughout the whole year.
Tomorrow, we go back and look at all that still needs to be done, most immediately about the Penal Code amendments and the marital rape exemption. But tonight, tonight, we relax, enjoy our glass of wine, and we celebrate and appreciate ourselves and one another for who we are and as fellow travelers in the journey towards gender equity.
A toast – to a fantastically fun evening, and to women, and of course to Aware!
Saturday, 18 November 2006
"Local" vs "Singaporean"
Was invited to speak at a forum and dialogue session with Professor Edwin Thumboo on the same panel. Completely overawed at first, but hey, I am President of Aware!
During the dialogue session, someone asked him about local writers, and Prof Thumboo said to use the word Singaporean, and not local. When asked why, he explained that the word "local" tends to have negative connotations.
This is especially apparent if you think of "foreign" as the counterpoint. "This business suit is locally made". "This business suit is imported". Which would you buy? "The course is taught by local teachers". "The course is taught by foreign teachers". Which would you choose?
Prof Thumboo then went on to quote Confucius who said that it is important to name things correctly and truthfully.
Thank you for making this point, Prof. Feminists have always insisted on using gender neutral words - eg. Chairperson or just plain Chair. Call us pedantic, but one automatically assumes a male when seeing the word Chairman. Strictly speaking, only a man can be a Chariman. Think about an actor and an actress. Which one do you think is more capable of playing a very serious role?
After all, we are a Confucian society, and therefore we should take his teachings to heart, no?!
During the dialogue session, someone asked him about local writers, and Prof Thumboo said to use the word Singaporean, and not local. When asked why, he explained that the word "local" tends to have negative connotations.
This is especially apparent if you think of "foreign" as the counterpoint. "This business suit is locally made". "This business suit is imported". Which would you buy? "The course is taught by local teachers". "The course is taught by foreign teachers". Which would you choose?
Prof Thumboo then went on to quote Confucius who said that it is important to name things correctly and truthfully.
Thank you for making this point, Prof. Feminists have always insisted on using gender neutral words - eg. Chairperson or just plain Chair. Call us pedantic, but one automatically assumes a male when seeing the word Chairman. Strictly speaking, only a man can be a Chariman. Think about an actor and an actress. Which one do you think is more capable of playing a very serious role?
After all, we are a Confucian society, and therefore we should take his teachings to heart, no?!
Choose a different weapon
Was talking with N about helping out at an Aware event. At some point in the conversation, she talked about how we were fighting gender inequity using the exact same weapon that is used to perpetuate gender inequity, how smart is that?
It suddenly hit me as she said it - we are using anger and distrust to fight anger and discrimination. It works, but it's like a blunt weapon.
Her words really shook me up. I had been thinking about how Aware can be more effective for some time, and approaching it from the point of view of strategy. Our position papers are very well-researched and well-reasoned, but that doesn't stop the government from shoving them in some dark corner somewhere (kinda like how certain inconvenient X-Files get stored away in a huge warehouse never again to see the light of day). How many people read the forum pages of the newspapers anyway? Are we just preaching to the converted? Or alternatively, wasting our breath with those who will never see our point of view?
I was also conscious that the change has to come from within – we literally have to manifest all the values we espouse. But somehow, I continually get myself angry when I work on issues. The question that always pops up is – why isn’t someone doing something to help that woman? Whether it is the pregnant employee who was fired, or the woman experiencing domestic violence but doesn’t get out of it, or the woman who is over 50 and can’t find a job. So in the end, I am still using anger to solve issues created by anger and distrust.
It’s time for subterfuge!!
Perhaps it is time to reconcile the “new-age” part of me with the feminist?! It’s all about love and acceptance. Of ourselves, of the “victim” and most importantly, of the “perpetrator”.
Perhaps when every civil activist can embody that, we would have truly succeeded in changing society.
Hmmm....??
It suddenly hit me as she said it - we are using anger and distrust to fight anger and discrimination. It works, but it's like a blunt weapon.
Her words really shook me up. I had been thinking about how Aware can be more effective for some time, and approaching it from the point of view of strategy. Our position papers are very well-researched and well-reasoned, but that doesn't stop the government from shoving them in some dark corner somewhere (kinda like how certain inconvenient X-Files get stored away in a huge warehouse never again to see the light of day). How many people read the forum pages of the newspapers anyway? Are we just preaching to the converted? Or alternatively, wasting our breath with those who will never see our point of view?
I was also conscious that the change has to come from within – we literally have to manifest all the values we espouse. But somehow, I continually get myself angry when I work on issues. The question that always pops up is – why isn’t someone doing something to help that woman? Whether it is the pregnant employee who was fired, or the woman experiencing domestic violence but doesn’t get out of it, or the woman who is over 50 and can’t find a job. So in the end, I am still using anger to solve issues created by anger and distrust.
It’s time for subterfuge!!
Perhaps it is time to reconcile the “new-age” part of me with the feminist?! It’s all about love and acceptance. Of ourselves, of the “victim” and most importantly, of the “perpetrator”.
Perhaps when every civil activist can embody that, we would have truly succeeded in changing society.
Hmmm....??
Little superhero girl
A friend forwarded me this link, and it was love at first listen. Corrinne May captured my feelings exactly. Love the part when she says "send the bad boys back to school, teach them fighting's just not cool", and "blast glass ceilings with dynamite", hey, feminist issues in a pop song! We've arrived!!! Favouritest part... "save me... from myself".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9d3NDLy46A&mode=related&search=
My full email to the media on the proposed amendment to the Penal Code (marital rape)
We take the view that the time has now arrived when the law should declare a rapist a rapist subject to the criminal law, irrespective of his relationship with his victim.’
The above statement was made in the UK Court of Appeal case in 1991 where the court held that marital rape exception “no longer remotely represents what is the true position of a wife in present-day society”.
As women in modern day in Singapore, we agree wholeheartedly with the above view.
The above Court of Appeal judgment was upheld by the House of Lords and subsequently the European Court of Human Rights, with the result that the marital exemption to rape is commonly regarded to have been abolished in 1994 (the date of the House of Lords judgment).
More than ten years later, the Singapore Parliament is considering a revision to its criminal laws to condone marital rape except in very limited cases where, generally, the wife has already obtained an injunction against her husband to restrain him from abusing her. However, the general thrust of the proposed amendment is clear – that marital rape is, in the main, not a criminal offence.
The idea that men enjoy "conjugal rights" of sexual relations can be traced back to 1736.
‘But the husband cannot be guilty of rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for their matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.’ (Sir Matthew Hale, 1736 History of the Pleas of the Crown)
Is a law from the 18th century England still valid in Singapore today?
Aside from the United Kingdom, many countries in the Asia Pacific region including Australia, Philippines, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Sri Lanka have criminalised marital rape. Even in India, the marital rape exemption was abolished in October this year.
Further, most women and many men in Singapore would not agree that a man has the right to demand sex from his wife at any time. Marriage is based on mutual love, consideration, respect and trust. The belief that a man can enjoy his “conjugal right” of sexual relations whenever he so wishes strips away the foundations of marriage.
The Singapore Parliament is now finally going to consider the criminalization of marital rape. We hope that the new generation of Parliamentarians will seize on this opportunity to rectify this anachronism in our laws so that it is more reflective of the attitudes of the women and men in Singapore.
If Parliament refuses to generally criminalize marital rape, it should, at the very minimum, abolish marital immunity in the following cases, in addition to the current proposed instances:
1. marriages in which divorce/separation proceedings have begun;
2. marriages in which the conditions are such that a court of law would accept that irretrievable breakdown has occurred
3. marriages in which any police report of violence or abuse has been filed by either party;
4. marriages in which an application for maintenance within marriage has been filed at court;
5. marriages in which there is a history of emotional or financial abuse - to which there can be independent witnesses;
6. marriages in which either party has a record of drug use, problem drinking, problem gambling or similar issues.
Our homes are our sanctuaries. We would want our female sisters, daughters, cousins to feel safe in their marriages and in their homes, rather than providing them with less protection against rape once they are married.
Based on the results of the 1998 and 2000 British Crime Survey as reported in the UK Home Office Research Study 237, "current partners" (including boy/girl friends) were responsible for 45% of rapes, and 55% of rapes happened in the victims' own homes.
In the US, since 1993, it is a crime in all 50 states for a man to rape his wife.
In research done in the US, in a survey of 900 randomly selected women, 3% had experienced rape by a stranger 8% had experienced rape by a husband. Taking into account only the married women in the survey, this adds up to 14% or 1 in 7 married women have been raped by their husbands. This figure (between 10 to 20%) is supported by a number of different research done in the US.
The United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (1993) declared marital rape to be a form of violence against women (Art 2(a)) to be eliminated by all states.
Tan Joo Hymn
President
AWARE
8 November 2006
The above statement was made in the UK Court of Appeal case in 1991 where the court held that marital rape exception “no longer remotely represents what is the true position of a wife in present-day society”.
As women in modern day in Singapore, we agree wholeheartedly with the above view.
The above Court of Appeal judgment was upheld by the House of Lords and subsequently the European Court of Human Rights, with the result that the marital exemption to rape is commonly regarded to have been abolished in 1994 (the date of the House of Lords judgment).
More than ten years later, the Singapore Parliament is considering a revision to its criminal laws to condone marital rape except in very limited cases where, generally, the wife has already obtained an injunction against her husband to restrain him from abusing her. However, the general thrust of the proposed amendment is clear – that marital rape is, in the main, not a criminal offence.
The idea that men enjoy "conjugal rights" of sexual relations can be traced back to 1736.
‘But the husband cannot be guilty of rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for their matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.’ (Sir Matthew Hale, 1736 History of the Pleas of the Crown)
Is a law from the 18th century England still valid in Singapore today?
Aside from the United Kingdom, many countries in the Asia Pacific region including Australia, Philippines, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Sri Lanka have criminalised marital rape. Even in India, the marital rape exemption was abolished in October this year.
Further, most women and many men in Singapore would not agree that a man has the right to demand sex from his wife at any time. Marriage is based on mutual love, consideration, respect and trust. The belief that a man can enjoy his “conjugal right” of sexual relations whenever he so wishes strips away the foundations of marriage.
The Singapore Parliament is now finally going to consider the criminalization of marital rape. We hope that the new generation of Parliamentarians will seize on this opportunity to rectify this anachronism in our laws so that it is more reflective of the attitudes of the women and men in Singapore.
If Parliament refuses to generally criminalize marital rape, it should, at the very minimum, abolish marital immunity in the following cases, in addition to the current proposed instances:
1. marriages in which divorce/separation proceedings have begun;
2. marriages in which the conditions are such that a court of law would accept that irretrievable breakdown has occurred
3. marriages in which any police report of violence or abuse has been filed by either party;
4. marriages in which an application for maintenance within marriage has been filed at court;
5. marriages in which there is a history of emotional or financial abuse - to which there can be independent witnesses;
6. marriages in which either party has a record of drug use, problem drinking, problem gambling or similar issues.
Our homes are our sanctuaries. We would want our female sisters, daughters, cousins to feel safe in their marriages and in their homes, rather than providing them with less protection against rape once they are married.
Based on the results of the 1998 and 2000 British Crime Survey as reported in the UK Home Office Research Study 237, "current partners" (including boy/girl friends) were responsible for 45% of rapes, and 55% of rapes happened in the victims' own homes.
In the US, since 1993, it is a crime in all 50 states for a man to rape his wife.
In research done in the US, in a survey of 900 randomly selected women, 3% had experienced rape by a stranger 8% had experienced rape by a husband. Taking into account only the married women in the survey, this adds up to 14% or 1 in 7 married women have been raped by their husbands. This figure (between 10 to 20%) is supported by a number of different research done in the US.
The United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (1993) declared marital rape to be a form of violence against women (Art 2(a)) to be eliminated by all states.
Tan Joo Hymn
President
AWARE
8 November 2006
Whose responsibility?
I was talking to a group of people - tertiary educated, professional people earning a good income and enjoying a good life here. The topics were common - eg. the pressurising school system, children who run amok in public places, people who are struggling on a low income etc.
Unlike many similar conversations I have had, these people thought that the responsibility lay on the shoulders of the individuals and families. Parents should put less stress on their children, and teach them more moral values and lead by example. People should be less choosy about their jobs, if they are out of work, they should take any work which enables them to earn an honest living.
Most of the other conversations I have had (with people from not too dissimilar a background), the emphasis tended to be on what the government could do. MOE should revise their syllabus so that kids have more free time, the government should provide skill training and assistance to those who have been retrenched.
I was quiet during most of the recent conversation, wondering which view was more "correct". The recent WSM and DW blogs highlighted the difference between these two views. It would be a truism to say that everybody bears some responsibility. Just that most people forget this when stating and defending their own views. The question is where to draw the line.
Over the last few years, I have realised that there is no clear-cut easy solution to most issues. All there are are shades of grey. The problem is that most of us seem to want black and white, and are bent on defending our own turf. Again, it is another truism, often forgotten, that when we are too busy defending, we often fail to recognise solutions that present themselves, which look different from our "ideal" solution.
Whose responsibility?! Arguable. But if we want to be part of the solution, the most important thing to ask ourselves is, What can I do tomorrow to solve the problem, and then go ahead and do it. If it sounds like a lot of work, the next question is, do I control my destiny, or do I abdicate from my power and responsibility and blame someone else for doing a bad job?!
PS. A side-thought would be whether the more well-resourced and well-educated members of society have a moral duty - as a fellow human being - to help the less fortunate? Is it a natural human trait to want to help another, unless some intellectual reasoning short-circuits this process?
Unlike many similar conversations I have had, these people thought that the responsibility lay on the shoulders of the individuals and families. Parents should put less stress on their children, and teach them more moral values and lead by example. People should be less choosy about their jobs, if they are out of work, they should take any work which enables them to earn an honest living.
Most of the other conversations I have had (with people from not too dissimilar a background), the emphasis tended to be on what the government could do. MOE should revise their syllabus so that kids have more free time, the government should provide skill training and assistance to those who have been retrenched.
I was quiet during most of the recent conversation, wondering which view was more "correct". The recent WSM and DW blogs highlighted the difference between these two views. It would be a truism to say that everybody bears some responsibility. Just that most people forget this when stating and defending their own views. The question is where to draw the line.
Over the last few years, I have realised that there is no clear-cut easy solution to most issues. All there are are shades of grey. The problem is that most of us seem to want black and white, and are bent on defending our own turf. Again, it is another truism, often forgotten, that when we are too busy defending, we often fail to recognise solutions that present themselves, which look different from our "ideal" solution.
Whose responsibility?! Arguable. But if we want to be part of the solution, the most important thing to ask ourselves is, What can I do tomorrow to solve the problem, and then go ahead and do it. If it sounds like a lot of work, the next question is, do I control my destiny, or do I abdicate from my power and responsibility and blame someone else for doing a bad job?!
PS. A side-thought would be whether the more well-resourced and well-educated members of society have a moral duty - as a fellow human being - to help the less fortunate? Is it a natural human trait to want to help another, unless some intellectual reasoning short-circuits this process?
Email exchange with the National Council on Problem Gambling
The National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) invited AWARE to its consultation sessions with stakeholders on exclusion measures for problem gamblers when the IRs open their doors. The email exchange below is self-explanatory as to what we thought of their consultation sessions. The first email is AWARE's response to their request for final submissions.
19 October 2006 7:43pm
To Whom it May Concern
RE: NCPG Stakeholder Consultation on Casino Exclusion Measures
Please find below views and comments from AWARE with regards to the above issue.
The Council seems to be utilising legal measures alone to control and prevent damage that gambling addicts bring to themselves and their families.
While legal means will work to some extend, the long term rehabilitation of gambling addicts require long-term and a multi-prong social work intervention.
The Council should work with MCYS, NCSS and relevant professional organisations such as the counsellors, and social workers to establish an infrastructure to look into resources, services and intervention management. Issues and suggestions in these areas that were repeated brought up by those who participated in the feedback sessions were not picked up by the Council.
At the very least, a task force comprising social workers, counselors and other relevant professionals must be set up to look into the above matter.
While the Council had specifically stated that it was only looking into exclusion measures for this particular consultation, exclusion measures alone without support from the greater social network of counsellors and social workers and other stakeholders, will not achieve the optimum results. Therefore, consulting on this narrow issue alone is, at best, of limited efficacy, and at worst, smacks of tokenism and for-show-ism. The attitude of the Council members during the consultation sessions merely reinforces this last perception, as they did not even take into consideration the comments from social workers that such measures will not be effective in practice. Their dismissiveness suggest that there will not be further consultations into the overall rehabilitation of problem gamblers or other measures to ensure that the social fabric of Singapore society is irreversibly damaged.
While Aware participated in the consultation sessions, we would like to put on record that we are very disappointed by the proceedings, and are of the opinion that further and more extensive consultations are required where the council members actually listened to the feedback provided by attendees, if the consultation sessions are meant to be more than just window dressing.
Ms Tan Joo Hymn
President
AWARE
25 Sep 2006 2:08pm
Dear Ms Tan,
The Council would like to thank AWARE for participating in the sessions and for taking the effort to express your views frankly and in detail. We appreciate your honesty. As you have raised multiple issues which may not be adequately addressed via email, we would like to ask if you would be available to meet for a discussion. We would be happy to meet at a venue that is most convenient for you.
Would you be available anytime between 9-11 October?
Yours sincerely
Secretariat
NCPG Subcommittee on Public Consultation
29 Sep 2006 4:40pm
Dear ,
Thank you for your kind offer to meet with us. Before we do so, I would like to find out the agenda of the meeting. We are, of course, hoping that you will have good news for us in that you will be able to implement at least one of our suggestions. However, if the agenda is to further explain the details of your position, or to obtain more feedback from us, then I regret to say that we would not be attending the meeting. I hope you understand that we are all volunteers and wearing multiple hats, and we have given you all our feedback via our initial letter, attendance at the two consultation sessions and in our email below.
This email is also copied to Lena Lim, the first President of Aware and author of the initial opinion letter, and Yap Ching Wi, Executive Committee member and who attended the wrap-up session in my stead.
Sincerely,
Joo Hymn
4 Oct 2006 9:42am
Dear Joo Hymn,
Thanks for your reply. Your comments and questions are fair ones and we would definitely not want to impose on AWARE unnecessarily, given the generous participation you have already extended.
Actually, we are suggesting for a short meeting because we think the consultation sessions had not portrayed the full scope of NCPG's work, which includes setting in place a social service network to address gambling addiction. 2 counselling centres dedicated to provide specialized help to those affected by problem gambling have recently been set up by Thye Hua Kwan Moral Society and Care Corner Counselling Centre and the Council has worked with other agencies including the Institute of
Mental Health, National Council of Social Service (NCSS) and community
groups to train staff at the 2 centres, as well as to develop a referral
protocol to ensure that no one drops out of the social service network.
In addition the NCPG has also embarked on a public education campaign, both through the media, and at the community level to raise awareness of problem gambling.
For a fuller description of the council's work over the past year, I would invite you to view NCPG's annual report at: http://www.ncpg.org.sg/annualReport/home.html
The exclusion process will most certainly not start and end with exclusion - the Council will use it as a starting point to engage individuals and families in need of help to address the addiction and attendant social problems.
We thought it would be good to meet and speak in person so we can take you through the Council's whole strategy to address problem gambling so that if you have any clarifications, we could further discuss. You are also most welcome to give feedback on the other aspects of the NCPG's work (in terms of development of community services for those affected by problem gambling, public and community education), in addition to the exclusion process.
If you would be open to meet, we'd be glad to meet you at a time and place suitable for you. We look forward to hearing from you.
warm regards,
Secretariat
NCPG Subcommittee of on Public Consultation
10 Oct 2006 2:20pm
Dear Joo Hymn,
Hi, just in case you have missed my earlier email (below).
and I would like to meet you if it'd be too difficult to coordinate a meeting with your other members too. We would be glad to cater to your schedule, as well as your preferred venue.
Have a good week ahead.
Regards,
Secretariat
NCPG Subcommittee of on Public Consultation
26 Oct 2006 12:07am
Dear ,
Thank you for your emails and apologies for my late reply.
Thank you again for your clarifications, none of which was apparent to people who attended the consultation sessions. It was not made clear at the consultation sessions either that the government was even looking into the other areas besides exclusion measures. A more fruitful discussion would have been enabled had the consultation session facilitators been more forthcoming with information, and/or more willing to accept feedback from more learned and experienced social workers. As it is, I do not think that an isolated effort to engage with one civil society organisation on an one-to-one dialogue, after the multiple consultation sessions had been concluded, would achieve very much for either party.
Regards,
Joo Hymn
26 October 2006 8:31am
Dear Joo Hymn,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to our emails.
We appreciate your feedback and agree that on hindsight, we could have circulated information on the other initiatives that Council had undertaken to address problem gambling, so that participants would have had more holistic information. In terms of facilitation and engagement, we will seek to improve and hope to be given room to do so, this being a maiden attempt at consultation by the Council.
Thanks for the honest feedback which will help in that direction.
warm regards,
Secretariat
NCPG Subcommittee on Public Consultation
19 October 2006 7:43pm
To Whom it May Concern
RE: NCPG Stakeholder Consultation on Casino Exclusion Measures
Please find below views and comments from AWARE with regards to the above issue.
The Council seems to be utilising legal measures alone to control and prevent damage that gambling addicts bring to themselves and their families.
While legal means will work to some extend, the long term rehabilitation of gambling addicts require long-term and a multi-prong social work intervention.
The Council should work with MCYS, NCSS and relevant professional organisations such as the counsellors, and social workers to establish an infrastructure to look into resources, services and intervention management. Issues and suggestions in these areas that were repeated brought up by those who participated in the feedback sessions were not picked up by the Council.
At the very least, a task force comprising social workers, counselors and other relevant professionals must be set up to look into the above matter.
While the Council had specifically stated that it was only looking into exclusion measures for this particular consultation, exclusion measures alone without support from the greater social network of counsellors and social workers and other stakeholders, will not achieve the optimum results. Therefore, consulting on this narrow issue alone is, at best, of limited efficacy, and at worst, smacks of tokenism and for-show-ism. The attitude of the Council members during the consultation sessions merely reinforces this last perception, as they did not even take into consideration the comments from social workers that such measures will not be effective in practice. Their dismissiveness suggest that there will not be further consultations into the overall rehabilitation of problem gamblers or other measures to ensure that the social fabric of Singapore society is irreversibly damaged.
While Aware participated in the consultation sessions, we would like to put on record that we are very disappointed by the proceedings, and are of the opinion that further and more extensive consultations are required where the council members actually listened to the feedback provided by attendees, if the consultation sessions are meant to be more than just window dressing.
Ms Tan Joo Hymn
President
AWARE
25 Sep 2006 2:08pm
Dear Ms Tan,
The Council would like to thank AWARE for participating in the sessions and for taking the effort to express your views frankly and in detail. We appreciate your honesty. As you have raised multiple issues which may not be adequately addressed via email, we would like to ask if you would be available to meet for a discussion. We would be happy to meet at a venue that is most convenient for you.
Would you be available anytime between 9-11 October?
Yours sincerely
Secretariat
NCPG Subcommittee on Public Consultation
29 Sep 2006 4:40pm
Dear ,
Thank you for your kind offer to meet with us. Before we do so, I would like to find out the agenda of the meeting. We are, of course, hoping that you will have good news for us in that you will be able to implement at least one of our suggestions. However, if the agenda is to further explain the details of your position, or to obtain more feedback from us, then I regret to say that we would not be attending the meeting. I hope you understand that we are all volunteers and wearing multiple hats, and we have given you all our feedback via our initial letter, attendance at the two consultation sessions and in our email below.
This email is also copied to Lena Lim, the first President of Aware and author of the initial opinion letter, and Yap Ching Wi, Executive Committee member and who attended the wrap-up session in my stead.
Sincerely,
Joo Hymn
4 Oct 2006 9:42am
Dear Joo Hymn,
Thanks for your reply. Your comments and questions are fair ones and we would definitely not want to impose on AWARE unnecessarily, given the generous participation you have already extended.
Actually, we are suggesting for a short meeting because we think the consultation sessions had not portrayed the full scope of NCPG's work, which includes setting in place a social service network to address gambling addiction. 2 counselling centres dedicated to provide specialized help to those affected by problem gambling have recently been set up by Thye Hua Kwan Moral Society and Care Corner Counselling Centre and the Council has worked with other agencies including the Institute of
Mental Health, National Council of Social Service (NCSS) and community
groups to train staff at the 2 centres, as well as to develop a referral
protocol to ensure that no one drops out of the social service network.
In addition the NCPG has also embarked on a public education campaign, both through the media, and at the community level to raise awareness of problem gambling.
For a fuller description of the council's work over the past year, I would invite you to view NCPG's annual report at: http://www.ncpg.org.sg/annualReport/home.html
The exclusion process will most certainly not start and end with exclusion - the Council will use it as a starting point to engage individuals and families in need of help to address the addiction and attendant social problems.
We thought it would be good to meet and speak in person so we can take you through the Council's whole strategy to address problem gambling so that if you have any clarifications, we could further discuss. You are also most welcome to give feedback on the other aspects of the NCPG's work (in terms of development of community services for those affected by problem gambling, public and community education), in addition to the exclusion process.
If you would be open to meet, we'd be glad to meet you at a time and place suitable for you. We look forward to hearing from you.
warm regards,
Secretariat
NCPG Subcommittee of on Public Consultation
10 Oct 2006 2:20pm
Dear Joo Hymn,
Hi, just in case you have missed my earlier email (below).
and I would like to meet you if it'd be too difficult to coordinate a meeting with your other members too. We would be glad to cater to your schedule, as well as your preferred venue.
Have a good week ahead.
Regards,
Secretariat
NCPG Subcommittee of on Public Consultation
26 Oct 2006 12:07am
Dear ,
Thank you for your emails and apologies for my late reply.
Thank you again for your clarifications, none of which was apparent to people who attended the consultation sessions. It was not made clear at the consultation sessions either that the government was even looking into the other areas besides exclusion measures. A more fruitful discussion would have been enabled had the consultation session facilitators been more forthcoming with information, and/or more willing to accept feedback from more learned and experienced social workers. As it is, I do not think that an isolated effort to engage with one civil society organisation on an one-to-one dialogue, after the multiple consultation sessions had been concluded, would achieve very much for either party.
Regards,
Joo Hymn
26 October 2006 8:31am
Dear Joo Hymn,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to our emails.
We appreciate your feedback and agree that on hindsight, we could have circulated information on the other initiatives that Council had undertaken to address problem gambling, so that participants would have had more holistic information. In terms of facilitation and engagement, we will seek to improve and hope to be given room to do so, this being a maiden attempt at consultation by the Council.
Thanks for the honest feedback which will help in that direction.
warm regards,
Secretariat
NCPG Subcommittee on Public Consultation
My first blog
After six months, it is hard to decide what to write as the first entry. It tends to be viewed as the most important occurrence of the last six months, which is probably not true! I have decided to blog about one of the most recent events, and will proceed to write about things that have stuck with me, in no particular chronological order... A year in the life of an Aware woman - the Aware President for the time being.
(written on 31 October, migrated from awarewoman.multiply.com)
(written on 31 October, migrated from awarewoman.multiply.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)