Latest news with #AssociationofWomenforActionandResearch
Singapore Law Watch
20-05-2025
- Health
- Singapore Law Watch
Pregnant women in the workplace deserve better: Opinion
Pregnant women in the workplace deserve better: Opinion Source: Straits Times Article Date: 20 May 2025 From pay cuts to unjust dismissals, pregnancy can still derail a woman's career. The Workplace Fairness Act does not go far enough in preventing discrimination, say the authors. Jenny (not her real name) was undergoing a probationary period at work when she found out she was pregnant. She did not want to disclose this to her employer, but had no choice when she experienced complications requiring time off. After she returned to work, her employer fired her a day before her three-month probation was to end. She was not given any reason, and her employer docked her pay for the medical leave she took. Another worker, Anne (not her real name), applied for a job and was granted an interview. While filling out a form for this, she noticed that a health examination was required. Given that she was pregnant, she could not undergo the required X-ray examination. Anne e-mailed the company to say she was pregnant and asked for more information about the examination. The company ghosted her. Jenny and Anne are not isolated cases. They are among hundreds of women who sought help from the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) for discrimination and harassment as a result of pregnancy. Discrimination against expectant mothers in the workplace is a reality in Singapore and is often treated as part and parcel of the workplace culture. Apart from the fact that pregnancy discrimination is manifestly unfair, as a nation we are also facing a seriously low total fertility rate. We should be looking at how we can make bolder systemic changes that support parents in growing their families. This has to start with how pregnant women are treated in the workplace, in the home, and in society at large. Eradicating discrimination against pregnant women No woman should have to choose between her job and having children, but this is the reality when discrimination and harassment continue in our workplaces today. The Workplace Fairness Act (WFA) was passed this year. When it comes into effect in 2026/2027, it will prohibit employment decisions that discriminate against pregnant women. However, the WFA falls short of fully protecting pregnant women. The WFA applies only to a limited set of employment decisions: hiring, appraising, promoting, reducing employees' rank or status, training, dismissing, retrenching and terminating the contract of employees. This excludes a host of employment decisions that regularly affect pregnant employees, such as docking their salaries, giving them lower or higher workloads without their consent, and reducing their bonuses. These are noteworthy concerns. Indeed, the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM) Fair Employment Practices 2023 report confirmed that salary, workload distribution and bonus were listed as the top three most common forms of discrimination, at 43.4 per cent, 33.7 per cent and 26.8 per cent, respectively. Aware recommends that a wider range of employment decisions be covered under the WFA, including the ones identified by the MOM. Since the WFA has not come into effect, women like Jenny and Anne have no other option but to rely on the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP). Complaints of discrimination can be made to the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (Tafep). However, the TGFEP is not law, and there is no legal recourse against an employer who refuses to comply. In addition, to effectively rely on the WFA or the TGFEP, women need to prove that they have been discriminated against based on their pregnancy. This seems reasonable, on the face of it. However, in practical terms, it is difficult to prove. Many employers refuse to give a reason, or sometimes give reasons that do not seem genuine. In another case that Aware saw, Farah (not her real name) was 17 weeks pregnant and had her employment terminated. The reason given was that her position was redundant due to restructuring. Another fellow pregnant employee similarly had her employment terminated. In cases like these, it is difficult for employees to prove that their employers discriminated against them on the basis of their pregnancy. Aware calls for the burden of proof to be reversed in favour of pregnant women. So if a woman's employment is terminated while she is pregnant, there is a presumption that it was a discriminatory dismissal – and the burden is on the employer to prove there is a valid reason for the termination. Offer better support for parents Mothers whose children are Singapore citizens are entitled to 16 weeks of maternity leave. For the first two children, the Government pays 50 per cent of their pay and the employer bears the rest. However, for the third and subsequent children, the Government bears the full wages for the 16 weeks of maternity leave. This cost to the employer for the first two children is often glossed over. Such a cost could easily deter employers and be the source of discrimination. Since it is in the country's interest that people have children, full government-paid maternity leave should be extended to the first and second children as well. This means employers not being burdened by the cost of having more children in Singapore. In addition, it will also encourage more employers to hire temporary covers for employees on maternity leave, if there is no additional cost to the employer in doing so. Such a practice is fairer to existing employees too, rather than asking them to take on the work of the employee on maternity leave and breeding resentment among them – a further source of discrimination. Policies in countries touted as having the 'best practices' for childcare leave by the United Nations Population Fund are instructive to look at. In Sweden, there is generous parental leave of 240 days per child per parent (and 480 days for single parents). Parental insurance – funded by employers and the self-employed – broadly covers 80 per cent of income for 195 days (or 390 days for single parents) and covers the remaining 45 days (or 90 days for single parents) at a minimum rate. The leave can be used any time from 60 days before delivery (by the mother only for the pre-delivery period) until the child is 12; but after the age of four, parents have only 96 days per child. This is an excellent gender-equal policy and one that gives equal recognition to single parents, too. We echo our previous calls to equalise maternity and paternity leave – parenting is the equal responsibility of both parents. The parental policies in Estonia and Slovenia also resonate. They provide unemployed parents with some basic income as parental benefits towards caregiving of their children, especially in infancy. Time for reasonable accommodations Reasonable accommodations are often discussed in the context of disability, but they apply to a variety of situations, including pregnancy and caregiving. For example, pregnant women who are expected to perform certain physical tasks at the workplace should reasonably be given tasks commensurate with their ability during pregnancy. Accommodations that pregnant employees need for the health and safety of their own bodies, and to some extent that of their unborn child, are reasonable asks. It is important to remember the focus is on what is reasonable in the circumstances, for both employers and employees. In most developed social democracies, the obligation on employers to provide reasonable accommodations is included within employment Acts or alongside anti-discrimination policies. The principle behind this is that most anti-discrimination policies – which prohibit employers from choosing not to hire employees with protected characteristics – need to also require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for their employees when they are hired. In Singapore, the Government has chosen to pass the WFA without a mandatory obligation to provide reasonable accommodations. Instead, the aim is for Tafep to issue guidelines on reasonable accommodations with the hope that all employers will adopt these guidelines. This means that employers are not legally compelled to provide reasonable accommodations. We hope that Tafep and MOM will track the adoption of the guidelines by employers and will also track how well employers are responding to employees' needs and providing reasonable accommodations. This will enable the Government to assess earlier rather than later if legislation is required to make it obligatory for employers to provide accommodations that are reasonable. The Government can also help employers to adopt these guidelines by providing them with grants to put in place the various reasonable accommodations – for example, lactation rooms and refrigerators to store breast milk – and other incentives to encourage adoption of the guidelines, such as tax incentives. We call for more substantive measures to support mothers in the workplace, at home and in society. This month of May, when we celebrate mothers, it is time we set our sights on good policy that values how precious motherhood is. Sugidha Nithiananthan is director of advocacy and research at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware). Adilah Rafey is a research executive there. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
Malay Mail
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Sexist, racist abuse of women candidates in Singapore GE2025 draws backlash from gender equality NGO
SINGAPORE, May 2 — As campaigning for the Singapore general election comes to a close, the spotlight on women candidates has taken an unsettling turn — with objectifying catcalls, sexist online remarks, and racist jibes overshadowing political debate and drawing sharp condemnation from the country's leading gender advocacy group. Yesterday, the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) took to Instagram to denounce the wave of sexist and racist commentary that has dogged several women candidates throughout the campaign. Calling the behaviour 'distasteful' and 'dangerous', Aware warned that it could deter future participation by capable women in politics. 'A woman on the ballot should not have to face being objectified, degraded and stereotyped,' the group said in a strongly worded post. 'It is insulting and humiliating.' The group shared screenshots of derogatory remarks targeting female candidates, and flagged instances where the focus had shifted from policy positions to physical appearance. Among the more glaring examples was the crowd behaviour at a Workers' Party rally, where loud catcalls of 'super chio bu' — a colloquial term for an attractive woman — were heard as Punggol GRC candidate Alexis Dang was delivering her speech. Another candidate, Red Dot United's Liyana Dhamirah, who is contesting Jurong East-Bukit Batok GRC, revealed she had been subjected to 'racist and sexist' abuse online, prompting her to file a police report. Meanwhile, Aware also took aim at a YouTube series titled Chio Bu of GE2025, which singled out several women candidates, including the People's Action Party's Sun Xueling and Bernadette Giam, for their looks. 'Harassment and discrimination should not be the price of entry into politics for women,' the organisation stated, adding that such conduct reinforces 'deeply entrenched gender and racial bias'. In its post, Aware stressed that reducing women politicians to their looks 'sends a loud message' that their leadership potential is not taken seriously. It added: 'This kind of behaviour perpetuates myths that women are less capable, less serious, and less competent to represent others.' Calling on the public to act, Aware urged Singaporeans to reject discriminatory behaviour: 'End sexism and racism against women in politics. Call it out when you see it.' The Singapore general election takes place tomorrow.
AsiaOne
02-05-2025
- Politics
- AsiaOne
'Call it out when you see it': Aware criticises treatment of women candidates in GE2025, Singapore News
From objectifying comments online to catcalling in person, this general election has seen a focus on women candidates — with much of it centring not on their policies or ideas, but their physical appearance. Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) took to Instagram on Thursday (May 1) to slam sexist and racist remarks that have surfaced throughout the campaign period. The gender advocacy organisation described these actions as "distasteful" and "dangerous". "A woman on the ballot should not have to face being objectified, degraded and stereotyped," Aware wrote. "It is insulting and humiliating." Aware shared multiple screenshots of sexist and racist comments targeting female candidates and the organisation warned that such an environment will only "discourage capable women from stepping forward" in politics in future. At a Workers' Party rally, loud catcalls of "super chio bu" were heard from the crowd as Punggol GRC candidate Alexis Dang was delivering her speech — drawing attention not to her words, but to her appearance. Elsewhere, Red Dot United's candidate for Jurong East-Bukit Batok GRC, Liyana Dhamirah, spoke out about receiving "racist and sexist" comments online, for which she filed a police report. Aware also highlighted a YouTube series titled Chio Bu of GE2025, which singled out female candidates such as People's Action Party's Sun Xueling and Bernadette Giam. "Harassment and discrimination should not be the price of entry into politics for women," the group said. In the caption, Aware stated that such behaviour reflects deeper issues of entrenched gender and racial bias which only reinforces myths that women are "less capable, less serious, and less competent to represent others". Reducing women in politics to their appearance "sends a loud message" that their leadership potential is not of importance. Aware urged Singaporeans to take a stand and "do better" by not engaging in sexist, racist, and harassing behaviour, both online and offline. "End sexism and racism against women in politics. Call it out when you see it," the group said. [[nid:717566]] For our GE2025 microsite, visit here. amierul@
