share this post
by. Vera Handojo
Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE)
AWARE was formed in 1985 as a non-profit, non-governmental women’s organization from the desire of a small group of women to advocate for women’s rights in Singapore. It developed from one founder member of AWARE taking the opportunity to speak her views at a University Convocation in 1983 in response to the population propaganda at the time: single graduate women should be encouraged to marry and have more children. This is what she said (Anuar, 1991):
You – the women graduates of today – are very fortunate to have not only a wide choice of careers but a wide choice of life-styles open to you. With economic independence, you may choose to marry or not to, to have a career, to combine a career with marriage, or to have children or not. It is up to the individual woman to make any of these choices or combination of choices as wisely as possible in the light of her circumstances, abilities, personality, values and preferences. Any of these choices is a valid choice and will contribute equally not only to your own well-being but also to that of Singapore as a whole.
Today, AWARE is known in Singapore for giving a voice for women’s choices and preferences which may not be heard otherwise. AWARE’s primary goal continues to be raising awareness of women’s rights and issues and the empowerment of women in Singapore. Its mission is to achieve total gender equality so that women can develop their individual potential, participate fully in both public and private life and face all challenges with courage and confidence.
AWARE believes that every woman is a person of worth and dignity, deserving of respect. AWARE receives no regular funding from the Government. It remains the only advocate for women’s rights in Singapore. [See Appendix A for more information about AWARE]
Women’s Rights in Reproductive Health
For the purpose of this workshop, the phrase “women’s rights in reproductive health” will be understood by the author of this paper to mean “a woman’s right and responsibility to make decisions for and have control over her own body.”
In the Singapore context and within the experience of AWARE, this paper will mainly discuss AWARE’s major campaign “Violence Against Women” which offers a model for interaction between non-government organizations (NGOs) and government bodies to protect women’s rights in reproductive health. However, Singapore’s population policies will also be mentioned as these illustrate the government’s stake in women’s reproductiveness.
The Singapore Context
1. Population size: 4 million.
2. Island: Situated slightly north of the equator with a land mass of 682.7 sq km.
3. Multi-racial society: Chinese (76.8 %), Malays (13.9 %), Indians (7.9%), Others (1.4 %).
4. Politics and Government: Parliamentary democracy with 3 main arms: The Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.
5. Economic snapshot (2001) :
a. GDP: US$85 billion.
b. GDP per head: US$21,800.
c. Annual Growth: 5%.
d. Inflation: 1.1%
e. Major industries: Shipping, Banking, Tourism, Electronics, Chemicals, Oil refining.
Major industries: Shipping, Banking, Tourism, Electronics, Chemicals, Oil refining.
6. UN Measures and Indices:
a. Human Development Index (HDI): 24.
b. Gender-related Development Index (GDI): 24.
c. Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM): 38.
7. Women and Education [See Appendix B].
8. Women in Employment [See Appendix C].
9. Women in Politics [See Appendix D].
Population Policies
Singapore being a small nation with limited natural resources other than its people, its Government is very much invested in achieving an optimum density and population in Singapore. The government has mobilized much resource to facilitate the increase or decrease of birth rates according to the projected needs of the country, i.e. to generate a sufficient labor force to support Singapore’s economy. Therefore, the population policies are more closely related to economy rather than to women’s reproductive rights. Consequently, the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has been greatly minimized by the government in this area. A woman’s right and responsibility to make decisions for and have control over her own body is not taken away from her per se, but many, if not all, of the government policies are pro-family and preserving the ‘traditional family structure’ of men as head of the household, and support the economy of Singapore. It is illustrated by two of Singapore’s “five shared values” – I. Nation before community and society above self; and II. Family as the basic unit of society. Thus, singles’ and women’s voices are often left out of the decision-making process.
In 1965, the government set up the Family Planning and Population Board (FPPB) and the latter carried out its population control programmes supported by all the resources of the Ministry of Health. In January 1966, the government took responsibility for the delivery of population policy measures: The Voluntary Sterilization Act and the Abortion Act were introduced in 1969, and the latter became the Termination of Pregnancy Act in 1974 (Ng, 2002).
Termination of Pregnancy Act
The Act states that abortion is not an offence under the law when it is carried out by “an authorized medical practitioner acting on the request of a pregnant woman and with her written consent” (Section 3(1)). Conditions and related matters in the Act include:
1. The woman must be a citizen of Singapore, the wife of a citizen of Singapore, the holder or the wife of a holder of an employment pass or a work permit pass issued under the Immigration Act or has been resident in Singapore for a period of at least 4 months immediately preceding the date on which such treatment is to be carried out, unless treatment of termination of pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman (Section 3 (3)).
2. Termination of pregnancy is not to be carried out if the pregnancy is more than a certain duration unless in special circumstances (Section 4(1)).
In direct connection to this workshop, the Act states that it is an offence to coerce, intimidate, compel or induce a pregnant woman against her will to undergo treatment to terminate her pregnancy. The punishment for such an offence is a fine not exceeding $3000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or both.
Past Population Policy Measures
Thirty years ago, the first baby boom cohorts were reaching reproductive age and the government was fearful that the then on-going strategies for development would be defeated by the projected high birth rates of the cohort. In response, the government introduced a variety of anti-natalist measures, termed collectively the “Stop-At-Two” campaign. These measures included (AWARE, 1988):
1. Higher government hospital delivery fees with each additional child;
2. Abolition of paid maternity leave after two children;
3. Lower priority primary school admission for children of fourth and higher birth order;
4. Priority primary school admission to children if one of their parents had been sterilized.
Current Population Policy
The disincentives and incentives for population decrease in the early 1970s appeared to be so successful that Singapore has now a rapidly declining fertility below replacement level. The 2001 Total Fertility Rate is 1.42, compared with 1.96 in 1988, and is below the replacement rate of 2.1. [See Appendix E]
With better education and higher economic and social expectations like those in other developed countries, Singaporeans strive for an enhanced quality of family life. With a smaller number of children, parents can afford a higher education for their children. With Singapore women attaining higher education and increasing their participation in the labor force, they are also marrying later (AWARE, 1988).
Politicians have presented the two related trends of later marriages and fewer children per married woman as rising threats to Singapore’s bright future because of three main reasons: (1) the reduction of an already limited talent pool as people are Singapore’s only resource; (2) the limit of the GDP growth rate with a projected decline in labor force; and (3) the imbalance created by fewer young people to support the old; it is expected that in the year 2030, there will be only two young persons supporting one old person (Quah, 1998).
The government is working hard to reverse the aging population trend. It introduced a set of incentives including the ‘Baby Bonus Scheme’ and the ‘Third Child Paid Maternity Leave Scheme’ in 2000.
Violence Against Women
One area AWARE has had direct and somewhat successful impact on lawmakers and the police is in the area of “Violence Against Women” or alternatively termed “Gender-based Violence.” Table 1 shows the different forms of gender-based violence throughout a woman’s life.
In Singapore, the following types of violence against women occur : emotional, psychological, economic, social, physical and sexual abuse within the family, by intimate partners and in the workplace, rape, incest, partner homicide, elder abuse battering during pregnancy and abuse of foreign domestic maids.
Violence in all forms has been shown to cause extensive direct and indirect damage to the reproductive health and well-being of women and girls. They include:
1. Unwanted pregnancies and restricted access to family planning information and contraceptives.
2. High-risk pregnancies.
3. Sexually transmitted diseases.
4. Psychological problems, including fear of sex and loss of pleasure.
It is thus imperative that any discussion on women’s rights in reproductive health includes measures to end gender-based violence. AWARE has been pro-active in reducing violence against women and improving the treatment of victims in Singapore.
Legislation in Singapore
In Singapore, various forms of violence against women are punishable under the Penal Code, the Women’s Charter, the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act and the Children and Young Persons Act. Penalties for offences against domestic maids are enhanced to one and a half times the amount of punishment for an otherwise similar offence. The legislation covers a broad range of behaviours including rape, molest, forced prostitution, harassment, oral sex, carnal connection (sexual intercourse with a girl below the age of 16) and psychological abuse. The Women’s Charter covers both civil and criminal remedies for offences of family violence.
There are a few gaps and inconsistencies in the legislation. For example:
1. Marital rape is not recognized – “Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under 13 years of age, is not rape” (Penal Code, Section 375).
2. Incest committed by a man to a woman found to be under the age of 14 is punishable with imprisonment for a term up to 14 years while punishment for rape is imprisonment up to 20 years, as well as a fine or caning (Penal Code, 376B and 376 respectively).
3. Incidents of violence against Singaporean women while they are temporarily out of Singapore are not under the jurisdiction of the Singapore Police Force.
4. There is no legal concept of sexual harassment; the laws only cover specific offences like molest, rape and insult of modesty.
The larger deficiencies lie in mistaken beliefs, ineffective application of the law and the insensitive response by police and professionals (doctors, nurses, social workers, counselors, lawyers and judges) to victims of violence. In these areas AWARE collaborated with other organizations and worked hard to improve the status quo. AWARE’s activities reached a high in the mid 1990s marked by: (1) the keynote speech by the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to the NGO forum on Family and Violence in 1994 stating that he had collated enough evidence to admit to the seriousness of the problem of violence against women; (2) the Family Violence Bill proposed by Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) and one-time President of AWARE (1991-1993) Dr. Kanwaljit Soin; and 3) the 1996 amendments to the Women’s Charter.
Women’s Charter and Family Violence Bill
The Women’s Charter was passed in 1961, partly the result of vigorous lobbying by a small group of socially-conscious and dedicated women, most of whom were associated with the Singapore Council of Women (SCW). Formed in 1952, “the SCW became the first women’s organization which boldly sought to change existing laws affecting women through legislation”. (Chew, 1999). The organization’s main thrust was to eradicate the practice of polygamy. “Within eight years, in 1961, the Women’s Charter granting most of their demands, became law in Singapore” (Chew, 1999).
Thirty-four years later on 27th September 1995, Nominated Member of Parliament Dr. Kanwaljit Soin, introduced in Parliament the Family Violence Bill. The Bill was proposed as a separate piece of legislation to provide legal protection against family violence.
The reasons for coming out with a separate piece of legislation were (Soin, 1995a) :
1. absence of an all encompassing and holistic legislation that deals specifically and is responsive to the dynamics and intricacies of family violence and thus, addressing it as a key social problem.
2. use of inappropriate legislation, the Penal Code, which “addresses the issue of violence between strangers and is therefore not suited for the complexities of abusive family relationships.”
3. “inadequate protection provided by legislation in the form of the Women’s Charter…Protection Orders form only one aspect of family violence legislation.”
4. “insufficient powers of the police to help victims of family violence” and thus support victims with the necessary action to stop the abuse.
The Family Violence Bill was more comprehensive than the 1961.
Women’s Charter in the following ways:
1. Definitions of family violence was broadened to include forced sexual act or conduct, harassment and wrongful restraint or confinement in addition to physical violence and threat of physical violence.
2. Definitions of family member went beyond spouse and children to include any person the court regards as a family member.
3. The issuance of a Protection Order is made easier based on “a balance of probabilities” rather than “prove beyond reasonable doubt” that the victim has been hurt and will be again.
4. The court has the power to include additional orders to the Protection Order such as ordering the abuser to attend counseling.
5. Penalties of committing an act of family violence or contravening a Protection Order are specified.
6. The police is empowered to investigate all cases of family violence and prosecute the offender given sufficient evidence.
7. The police is also empowered to inform the abuser that he will not be prosecuted if he submits himself to a counseling program. If the abuser agrees to this and there is no further incidence of violence on his
part, then he will not be prosecuted.
8. Administrative procedure and the duties of enforcement officers are stipulated.
Dr. Soin explained to the Parliament why it was necessary to give more powers to the police in family violence cases (Soin, 1995a) :
The Penal Code differentiates between “simple hurt” and “grievous hurt” cases. Grievous hurt includes fractures, dislocations, permanent loss of sight or hearing, etc. If an injury is classified as grievous hurt, then the police have powers to arrest but if the injury is classified as simple hurt and this includes injuries sustained from kicking, punching, choking, pushing and even hitting the head against a wall resulting in bruises, black eyes, contusions, lacerations and hematomas – the police classify this as non-sizeable and are not generally empowered to investigate or arrest and therefore cannot take up the case for victims. This distinction is valid for violence between strangers because the violent episode is a one-off incident, not repeatable and the victim does not live in the same home as the offender. However for family violence this distinction becomes artificial as episodes of simple hurt are repeatable and yet the police are unable to prosecute on behalf of the victim.
This anomaly has been addressed in the Children and Young Persons Act where injuries and cruelty to children and young persons are considered as offences irrespective of whether it is a simple hurt or grievous hurt. Child abuse is a specific crime punishable by specified penalties. Other victims of family violence regardless of age should get the same consideration from the justice system because they are also vulnerable members of society who equally need to be protected.
She said, “95% of family violence cases fall into the category of simple hurt” (Soin, 1995a). She believed that “this approach takes into account the wishes of the victims and the need to keep the family intact but ensures that the offender takes responsibility for his actions and is willing to go for counseling so that there is a possibility of violence ending in the family” (Soin, 1995b). The Bill addressed the problem of victims not wanting the abusers to be jailed but want the law to intervene in such a way that the beatings stop without the abusers going to jail; issues of dependency, fear, general helplessness and responsibility for the children prevent victims from wanting the abusers to go to jail. Thus, the piece of legislation proposed was innovative – it was simultaneously family sensitive and effective in curbing family violence. Mindful of the weakness of any legislation that limits itself to Protection Orders as the only recourse for victims, the authors of the Family Violence Bill went beyond Protection Orders and proposed more active intervention by the police.
The Bill was rejected for the following reasons:
1. “Proposed amendments to the Women’s Charter would be sufficient to tackle the problem [of family violence].” (“Debate,” 1995)
2. There is not enough of a balance between protecting victims and making family violence “the biggest problem that Singapore families face today” and keeping families intact. (“Debate,” 1995).
3. The Bill involved too much intervention by a third party into family matters. “People will be much less inclined to solve family problems through reconciliation or take moral responsibility for their own behavior. In the long run, we may all be losers.” (“Bill,” 1995)
4. Possible abuse by the police when given power of arrest without needing a warrant. (“Debate,” 1995)
5. A shortage of police officers to handle all cases of family violence. (Soin, 1995b)
6. Possible abuse by unreasonable women; the Bill including forcing the victim to engage in sexual acts as abuse “may lead to some women harassing their husbands by claiming that they were forced to have sex”. (“Violence,” 1995)
Although the Family Violence Bill was rejected, several members of parliament suggested that the Bill’s positive features be incorporated instead into the Women’s Charter. Many agreed for a “holistic approach to the problem, which include training for the people who have to deal with it and better coordination between the various agencies involved such as the police and voluntary welfare organizations” (“Bill,” 1995).
Currently, the1996 Amended Women’s Charter which came into effect 1rst May 1997 includes:
1. Protection for anyone the court regards as family member.
2. Family Violence defined as physical violence, threat of physical violence, confinement of victim against his or her will and continual harassment.
3. “A balance of probabilities” that family violence has been committed or is likely to be committed makes it easier for the victim to obtain a Protection Order.
4. The court having the power to include additional orders to the Protection Order such as ordering the abuser to attend counseling. Failure to comply with an Order for counseling shall be punishable as a contempt of court.
5. Penalties of committing an act of family violence or contravening a Protection Order are specified clearly. Punishment upon conviction of a first offence of contravention of a Protection Order is a fine not exceeding S$2000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both. For a second or subsequent conviction, the penalty is a fine not exceeding S$5000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both.
6. The application of Protection Orders can be made on behalf of children and incapacitated adults.
7. Breach of a Protection Order is a sizeable offence.
As a result of the raised awareness of the problem of family violence and the amendments to the Women’s Charter, more people are coming forward to apply for Protection Orders and the majority (77% in 1997) were issued within 1 day to 2 weeks from the date of application.
As a result of the raised awareness of the problem of family violence and the amendments to the Women’s Charter, more people are coming forward to apply for Protection Orders and the majority (77% in 1997) were issued within 1 day to 2 weeks from the date of application.
Significant Events in AWARE’s Struggle Against Violence, 1986-1996
The following events were documented by Ms. Constance Singam, past President of AWARE and Singapore Council of Women’s Organisations (SCWO) (Singam, 2002):
1986
Task Force for the Prevention of Violence Against Women is set up, chaired by SCWO and AWARE.
1987
SCWO Task Force and National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) public forum followed by a year-long public education programme.
1988
Singapore Association of Women Lawyers (SAWL) and AWARE publish the handbook Men, Women and Violence: A Handbook for Survival. The book was the first book of its kind published in Singapore and provided victims with information about legal matters and services available to victims.
1990
(1) Rape Awareness Week launched, sponsored by AWARE, SAWL, SCWO and The New Paper.
(2) Task Force organizes a series of workshops for the professional caregivers.
(3) Seminar on Domestic Violence, organized by Task Force, National University of Singapore Department of Social Work and Psychology, and Singapore Council of Social Services (SCSS).
(4) Dr. Colleen Ward’s book Victims of Sexual Violence: A Handbook for Helpers is published under the auspices of the Singapore Association of Social Workers. Both an academic and practical text, it was the culmination of research on the realities of sexual offences in Singapore, initiated shortly after Dr. Ward’s appointment at the National University of Singapore in 1982, and training programmes for professionals who work with victims of rape and other forms of sexual abuse. Other than discussing the nature and characteristics of sexual offences in Singapore – its misconceptions – and the victims’ psychological reactions to these phenomena, it also offers strategies for assisting victims and relevant institutional procedures in police stations, hospitals and courts as well as rape prevention measures on both the micro and macro levels. It was a timely book with AWARE’s efforts to increase public awareness of the issues related to sexual violence.
1991
(1) AWARE holds public forum on Violence.
(2) Society Against Family Violence (SAFV) registered. The Society took on the task of educating and sensitizing social workers and other caregivers and later police officers.
(3) SAFV/SCWO/AWARE Seminar “Networking for Families in Crisis: The Management of Rape and Domestic Violence.”
1992
(1) SCWO Rape Study Group (group made up of AWARE, SAWL, SAFV and SOS) is formed to look into how the current system works and how the current procedure has been understood and implemented by the various agencies (hospitals, social/medical workers and police). The group’s main task is to suggest ways of simplifying and standardising rape procedure and ironing out the inconsistencies found in the way rape victims are treated; a proposal “Standardising and Enhancing Police Procedures in Rape Management’ was submitted to the police.
(2) AWARE/SCWO public forum “Sexual Harassment: The Legal and Political Implications.”
(3) AWARE marks International Day to End Violence Against Women with a five-day exhibition and play Victims No More at National Library and Geylang East Library.
1992-93
AWARE conducts a survey on Sexual Harassment.
1993
(1) Study Group begins dialogue with the police
• Periodic meetings with the Director and the Deputy Director of CID and the Heads of Investigation of the 7 police divisions were held to ensure the proper and effective implementation of the procedures and as requested by the police, an opportunity to provide them with feedback from rape victims. Specific cases which indicated gaps in the system or police insensitivity were discussed the Heads of Investigation were accountable for these complaints. Results of studies and statistics were shared in the meetings. The police procedure of rape investigations was amended accordingly.
• The recommendation to increase the participation of counsellors and para-counsellors in the rape management system was met with great resistance; the police decided to train women police officers to play that role. However, the police readily accepted input into their training and programmes to help officers deal with sexual assault victims (Singam, 1993).
(2) AWARE programme on International Day to End Violence Against Women.
1994
(1) Forum on Family and Violence organized by the Singapore NGO Committee for the Beijing Conference.
(2) Rape Study Group expanded to cover other forms of violence and renamed Women and Family Violence Study Group.
(3) AWARE marks International Day To End Violence Against Women with public forum “She Asked For This?! – Violence Against Women.”
1995
(1) AWARE hosts a drama presentation and dialogue on theme of violence at Queenstown Branch library.
(2) AWARE/The Body Shop launch campaign against Family Violence and conduct a public survey to monitor the attitudes towards domestic violence to support the Family Violence Bill.
(3) AWARE/Bahai Office for the Advancement of Women jointly mark International Day To End Violence Against Women.
(4) NMP Kanwaljit Soin moves a private member’s Bill on Family Violence; Bill rejected.
1996
Government reviews Women’s Charter and includes some of the provisions of the Family Violence Bill with regard to more protection for victims of domestic violence.
Overall, significant improvements have been made in terms of police’ and lawmakers’ response to the problem of family violence in Singapore. However, there does not seem to be the same level of response in terms of protocol, policy and legislation in the area of violence against women outside the traditional boundaries of family. AWARE will continue to work with other organizations and the relevant ministries to pursue further improvements for women in Singapore.
Current Situation
Currently, there is an integrated approach to address the problem of family violence in Singapore among Government and community organizations. Below are examples of the framework in place.
Family Violence Dialogue Group
The Ministry of Community Development and Sports (MCDS) and the Singapore Police Force jointly chair the Family Violence Dialogue Group which is made up of Courts, Prisons, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, the National Council of Social Services (the umbrella body for social service agencies) and representatives from social service agencies. “The dialogue group enhances the strategic development of initiatives to combat family violence by facilitating work processes amongst the agencies, coordinating public education efforts as well as identifying new areas for collaboration on family violence” (MCDS, 2002).
Family Violence Management Manual
MCDS has produced a manual entitled Integrated Management of FamilyViolence Cases in Singapore which “spells out the protocol and procedures of each partner [Police, hospitals, MCDS, social service agencies and Family Court] in the networking system” (MCDS, 2002)
Promoting Alternatives to Violence (PAVE)
This is a one-stop community programme for families experiencing violence. Its scope encompasses preventive, developmental, remedial, research, public education, advocacy work as well as a video-link with Family Court so that victims whom judges assess to need an Expedited Order may be granted one immediately without going to the Family Court itself.
Safety Through Awareness and Responsibility (STAR) Project
The project, started in 2000, is a collaborative effort between AWARE’s Women and Safety Sub-committee and the Jurong West and Bukit Batok Police Centres. The group commissioned a theatre company, TheatreWorks, to produce a play entitled Making the Right Decision. The play “addresses current issues affecting youths today such as insult and outrage of modesty, emotional and physical abuse at home, gangster threats in school and the lures of internet communications…The objective is to create awareness on common crimes and violence perpetrated against women and to educate young people [both girls and boys] on the prevention and occurrence of these crimes” (Dean, 2002). As of today, the programme has reached 18 secondary schools and will end in November 2002.
Ten thousand copies of the booklet entitled You have a Choice are being published to be given out in schools and it will later be made available on-line. The booklet engages the reader to understand his and her choices and their consequences whether those be harassment, hurt and regret or support and open, honest communication.
ZO cards have also been printed as another means of outreach to the public on the ‘taboo’ subjects of incest and other forms of sexual assault.
Limits
Despite the inter-agency networking that exists in Singapore, AWARE still occasionally receives complaints about gaps in an already good and extensive system. The gaps point to more a problem of application and understanding of the law rather than the law itself.
One reason is that the police personnel who manning the community-based posts. These are often either national service men or young men below 25 years of age and are sometimes not mature enough to handle sensitive cases involving sexual assault or family violence. There is also the problem of a shortage of police officers and their quick turnover that continuous training in handling such cases must be maintained. In other words, the problem is trickling down good practice to frontline individuals.
In addition, these offences do not seem to be ranked as high in priority as drug-related offences, theft, gang fights or murders. This may explain the occasional lack of familiarity with appropriate protocol in handling such cases. The lack of physical evidence that an offence has been committed, coupled with an unsensitized attitude of police officers resulting in differences in interpretation of behaviour and consent, spell out disappointment, a feeling of helplessness and possible re-victimization of victims.
A rising concern in the area of violence against women is when such incidents occurs across international borders. With increased travel, it has come to AWARE’s attention that women can find themselves in vulnerable situations outside of Singapore but has no recourse when they return to Singapore. The solution of this problem perhaps requires countries to collaborate calling for an inter-government work group.
Summary
In conclusion, a summarized analysis of the critical elements contributing to the sensitization of the police and lawmakers to the problem of violence against women and women’s rights in reproductive health in Singapore is as follows:
1. Challenging mistaken beliefs with surveys and research.
2. Recognition of the magnitude of the problem.
3. Addressing attitudes and values through public education, publications, forums and training programmes (e.g. marking International Day to End Violence Against Women every year).
4. Dialogues with the police.
5. Political representation to propose changes in legislation.
6. Responsive and responsible government.
7. Openness to government and non-government partnership.
8. Collaborations and networking among government and community organizations.
The positive results seen in Singapore were not achieved by the efforts of an individual organization over a short period of time, but a collective and persistent one.
Bibliography
Anuar, H. 1991. How I Became Aware. Singapore: AWARE.
Association of Women for Action and Research. 1988. Population: An Issue of Current Concern (AWARE Position Paper No.1). Singapore.
Bill ‘may change family relationships.’ (1995, 3 November). Straits Times, p.29.
Chew, P. G. L. 1999. The Singapore Council of Women and the Women’s Movement (Reprint). Singapore: AWARE. The article first appeared in the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 25 (1), March 1994.
Dean, S. .2002. AWARE Sixteenth Annual Report: Women and Safety Sub-committee. Singapore.
Debate on the Family Violence Bill: What Five MPs Said – Amended Women’s Charter sufficient. (1995, 2 November). Straits Times, p. 24.
Ministry of Community Development and Sports. 2002. Policy Framework and the Integrated Management of Family Violence in Singapore. Singapore.
Ng, T. 2002. Pioneering Women of the Family Planning Association of Singapore. In C. Singam, C. K. Tan, T. Ng & L. Perera (Eds.), Building Social Space in Singapore: The Working Committee’s Initiative in Civil Society Activism. Singapore: Select Publishing. (p. 41-43).
Singam, C. 2002. Working for Gender Equality: An AWARE Experience. In C. Singam, C. K. Tan, T. Ng & L. Perera (Eds.), Building Social Space in Singapore: The Working Committee’s Initiative in Civil Society Activism. Singapore: Select Publishing. (p. 45-52).
Singam, C. 1993. Report on the Rape Study Committee. Internal notes for Rape Study Committee in Singapore.
Quah, S. R. 1998. Family in Singapore: Sociological Perspectives (2nd ed.). Singapore: Times Academinc Press.
Soin, K. (1995a). Speech made in parliament by Dr. Kanwaljit Soin: Second reading of the Family Violence Bill on 1 November 1995. Singapore.
Soin, K. (1995b). Speech made in parliament by Dr. Kanwaljit Soin: Third reading of the Family Violence Bill on 2 November 1995. Singapore.
Violence in the home: Stage set for legislative battle to deal with issue. (1995, 7 October). Straits Times, p.34.
Ward, C. & Inserto, F. 1990. Victims of Sexual Violence: A Handbook for Helpers. Singapore: Singapore University Press.
Comments :
Post a Comment