GP Social Issues

Page 1

Reading 19: GENDER INEQUALITY - Leftover Women: The Resurgence of Gender Inequality in China (Review)

Why are Chinese women not marrying? Unlike their counterparts in the developed world, Chinese women receive no effective protection from the law in case their marriage dissolves (refer to the New Marriage Law). Knowing that bleak career prospects and a non-existent safety net await them, these women have every reason not to trade their career or personal freedom for a wedding.

The situation is worse for women living in the rural parts of China than those living in urban areas. Empowered urban Chinese women have a tough choice to make between intimacy and autonomy - but at least they still have a choice. Behind them are their rural sisters, who have much less control over their own fates.

Deprived of educational and social resources by patriarchal tradition and a capitalist economy, rural women have little bargaining power compared to their urban counterparts against unwanted marriages, inequality between spouses, or even violence within or for the sake of marriage.

Ways to solve the problem of women in China not wanting to marry?

Poverty relief programs or allowing women to have more than one husband (polyandry) have been suggested as possible solutions to their difficulties.

But there’s no discussion of what could be done for the urban women who might face the glass ceiling at work, or for rural ones who are married but suffering as the result of patriarchal traditions.

A better way to enhance the lure of marriage could start with the underprivileged in Chinese society. That means giving the decision to marry or not back to young people; promoting family-friendly workplace policies; and finally, securing women’s rights.

How have legal processes & structures sustained men’s & women’s relative status in China?

“New Marriage Law” in 2011 → property bought before marriage, either outright or on mortgage, reverted to the buyer on divorce. Previously, the family home had been considered joint property. Deeply held traditional beliefs state that men must be the homeowners and heads of the household, women rarely purchase homes. Their parents may even advise against it.

Experts agree the change would mostly affect women, since men traditionally provide the family home.

Majority of property deeds are in the name of men, if a marriage collapses, women becomes homeless

The new rules ignore a woman’s unpaid contributions to the home, including childbirth, child rearing, housework and caring for elderly family members.

The new legal interpretation “keeps stressing ‘fairness, fairness,’ but it doesn’t consider a woman’s weaker position,” said Ms. Li. “It doesn’t recognize at all the value of work done at home.”

Online ref - Dialogue 11/09/08 Marriage law interpretations ignite debate http://english.cntv.cn/program/dialogue/20110908/117622.shtml

Men can also use the property as a threat against women to force the women to comply to them as the women are disadvantaged by not owning the house & becomes homeless without the husband

This also discriminates against women in the field of child custody in a divorce → judge more likely to award custody to parent with house (father)

Laws against domestic violence → women are actively discouraged from reporting abuse: wives who go public are accused of “exposing family ugliness” on China

A recent analysis of open media coverage of domestic violence revealed that 70-80 women had been killed by their partners in the course of just 2 months. A husband who murdered his wife in 2009 after she had reported domestic violence to the police 8 times was given a mere 6 & ½ yr prison sentence for “ill-treatment” of his wife.

A 2013 UN study reported that 50% of Chinese men surveyed on intimate partner violence had physically or sexually abused their partner, and that 72% of Chinese rapists suffered no legal consequences. Marital rape is also not considered a crime in China.

However, there are also examples of courageous women facing down appalling discrimination e.g. Kim Lee who married the billionaire entrepreneur Li Yang

2. Discuss the economic & social consequences of a lack of “economic equality within (Chinese) marriages.

When the husband has the sole ownership of of the marital property, it inevitably gives him greater power in the relationship, & weakens the woman’s bargaining position on financial & domestic issues

In addition, this also makes the wife seem more inferior to the husband as they are disadvantaged when they don’t own the property ; men can use the property as a threat against the women to ask them to comply their requests as women could possibly become homeless if a divorce occurs.

Due to the New Marriage Law making it easier for men to own the marriage property, (and also partially because Chinese parents feel no responsibility to buy a house for a daughter ; a duty of a spouse), women have lost out badly in the massive growth in private home ownership of the past decade & a half.

On the Flip side, read “Why Scandinavian Women make the Rest of the World Jealous” by Lynn Parramore → conditions that have make gender equality a high priority in Nordic countries

1. Religion → not a very important factor

The Scandinavian Lutherans, who turned away from the excesses of the medieval Catholic Church, were concerned about equality — especially the disparity between rich and poor. They thought that individuals had some inherent rights that could not just be bestowed by the powerful, and this may have opened them to the idea of rights for women. Lutheran state churches in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland have had female priests since the middle of the 20th century, and today, the Swedish Lutheran Church even has a female archbishop.

But, this is not a very big factor because Scandinavians aren't big churchgoers. They tend to look at morality from a secular point of view, where there's not so much obsessive focus on sexual issues and less interest in controlling women's behavior and activities.

2. Women have the same right to sexaul experience & reproductive freedom

They came to be seen as having the right to sexual experience just like men, and reproductive freedom, too. Girls and boys learn about contraception in school (and even the pleasure of orgasms), and most cities have youth clinics where contraceptives are readily available. Women may have an abortion for any reason up to the eighteenth week (they can seek permission from the National Board of Health and Welfare after that), and the issue is not politically controversial.

3. Policies

Over time, Scandinavian countries became modern social democratic states where wealth is more evenly distributed, education is typically free up through university, and the social safety net allows women to comfortably work and raise a family. Scandinavian moms aren't agonizing over work-family balance: parents can take a year or more of paid parental leave. Dads are expected to be equal partners in childrearing, and they seem to like it.

Scandinavians have decided that investment in women is both good for social relations and a smart economic choice.

Page 2

Gender Inequality

Online Article 1 - The worldwide war on baby girls

Technology, declining fertility and ancient prejudice are combining to unbalance societies

In some rural parts of China, killing living girl babies once they are born are a common occurrence. This is because they feel that girl babies “don’t count” since they feel that it is impossible to get by without a boy.

However, the killing of girl babies results in sexual discrepancy and the ratio of women and men to become unbalanced. In January 2010 the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) showed what can happen to a country when girl babies don't count. Within ten years, the academy said, one in five young men would be unable to find a bride because of the dearth of young women—a figure unprecedented in a country at peace. (-ve consequence of killing baby girls can further lead to other -ve impacts below)

The number is based on the sexual discrepancy among people aged 19 and below. According to CASS, China in 2020 will have 30m-40m more men of this age than young women. For comparison, there are 23m boys below the age of 20 in Germany, France and Britain combined and around 40m American boys and young men. So within ten years, China faces the prospect of having the equivalent of the whole young male population of America, or almost twice that of Europe's three largest countries, with little prospect of marriage, untethered to a home of their own and without the stake in society that marriage and children provide.

The real cause of the skewed sex ratio in not only China and India, but also in other developed East Asia countries like Taiwan, SG, South Korea, is the combination of the overweening son preference & the use of rapidly spreading prenatal sex-determination technology and declining fertility. (Reading 19 - Qn 2: Account for why women in these developed countries continue to be afflicted w problems associated w the 3rd world)

“Son preference” is discernible—overwhelming, even—in polling evidence. In 1999 the government of India asked women what sex they wanted their next child to be. One third of those without children said a son, two-thirds had no preference and only a residual said a daughter. Polls carried out in Pakistan and Yemen show similar results. Mothers in some developing countries say they want sons, not daughters, by margins of ten to one. In China midwives charge more for delivering a son than a daughter. (Evidence of overwhelming preference of son over daughter in developing countries)

The development of technology of detection of sex of a child before its birth started to encourage sex-selective abortion. Until the 1980s people in poor countries could do little about this preference: before birth, nature took its course. But in that decade, ultrasound scanning and other methods of detecting the sex of a child before birth began to make their appearance. These technologies changed everything. Doctors in India started advertising ultrasound scans with the slogan “Pay 5,000 rupees ($110) today and save 50,000 rupees tomorrow” (the saving was on the cost of a daughter's dowry). Parents who wanted a son, but balked at killing baby daughters, chose abortion in their millions.

It is almost impossible to prove that an abortion has been carried out for reasons of sex selection, the practice remains widespread.

Ultrasound scans are also readily accessible even families in less developed countries, which further encourages sex-selective abortion. An ultrasound scan costs about $12 (after insurance?), which is within the scope of many—perhaps most—Chinese and Indian families. In one hospital in Punjab, in northern India, the only girls born after a round of ultrasound scans had been mistakenly identified as boys, or else had a male twin.

The spread of fetal-imaging technology has not only skewed the sex ratio but also explains what would otherwise be something of a puzzle: sexual disparities tend to rise with income and education, which you would not expect if “backward thinking” was all that mattered. In India, some of the most prosperous states—Maharashtra, Punjab, Gujarat—have the worst sex ratios. In China, the higher a province's literacy rate, the more skewed its sex ratio. The ratio also rises with income per head.

Why is it that developed countries still have the skewed ratio? Richer, well-educated families share their poorer neighbours' preference for sons and, because they tend to have smaller families, come under greater pressure to produce a son and heir if their first child is an unlooked-for daughter**.

So modernisation and rising incomes make it easier and more desirable to select the sex of your children. And on top of that smaller families combine with greater wealth to reinforce the imperative to produce a son. When families are large, at least one male child will doubtless come along to maintain the family line. But if you have only one or two children, the birth of a daughter may be at a son's expense. So, with rising incomes and falling fertility, more and more people live in the smaller, richer families that are under the most pressure to produce a son.

-ve impact of the skewed ratio The crime rate has almost doubled in China during the past 20 years of rising sex ratios, with stories abounding of bride abduction, the trafficking of women, rape and prostitution. A study into whether these things were connected† concluded that they were, and that higher sex ratios accounted for about one-seventh of the rise in crime. In India, too, there is a correlation between provincial crime rates and sex ratios.

According to the World Health Organisation, female suicide rates in China are among the highest in the world (as are South Korea's). Suicide is the commonest form of death among Chinese rural women aged 15-34; young mothers kill themselves by drinking agricultural fertilisers, which are easy to come by. This is mostly because they cannot live with the knowledge that they have aborted or killed their baby daughters. -ve impact on well-being of mothers

BUT the situation is slowly, but surely changing. Yet the story of the destruction of baby girls does not end in deepest gloom. At least one country—South Korea—has reversed its cultural preference for sons and cut the distorted sex ratio . There are reasons for thinking China and India might follow suit.

South Korea was the first country to report exceptionally high sex ratios and has been the first to cut them. Although it takes a long time for social norms favouring sons to alter, and though the transition can be delayed by the introduction of ultrasound scans, eventually change will come. Modernisation not only makes it easier for parents to control the sex of their children, it also changes people's values and undermines those norms which set a higher store on sons. At some point, one trend becomes more important than the other.

It is just possible that China and India may be reaching that point now. The census of 2000 and the CASS study both showed the sex ratio stable at around 120. At the very least, it seems to have stopped rising. Locally, Ms Das Gupta argues, the provinces which had the highest sex ratios (and have two-thirds of China's population) have seen a deceleration in their ratios since 2000, and provinces with a quarter of the population have seen their ratios fall. In India, one study found that the cultural preference for sons has been falling, too, and that the sex ratio, as in much of China, is rising more slowly. In villages in Haryana, grandmothers sit veiled and silent while men are present. But their daughters sit and chat uncovered because, they say, they have seen unveiled women at work or on television so much that at last it seems normal to them.

Ms Das Gupta points out that, though the two giants are much poorer than South Korea, their governments are doing more than it ever did to persuade people to treat girls equally (through anti-discrimination laws and media campaigns). The unintended consequences of sex selection have been vast. They may get worse. But, at long last, she reckons, “there seems to be an incipient turnaround in the phenomenon of ‘missing girls' in Asia.”

Page 3

Online Article 2 - Women are better off today, but still far from being equal with men

The number of women owning small and medium-sized businesses is estimated to be between 8 million and 10 million, and although this is still far fewer than that for men owning similar enterprises, numbers are slowly growing.

In most countries, the informal sector is far larger than the formal one. For example, in south Asia more than 80% of men and women work in the informal sector, and in sub-Saharan Africa it is 74% of women and 61% of men.

There are also more women in formal paid work today than at any point in history. They now make up about 40% of the global formal labour force, and 43% of the agricultural labour force, although this varies considerably from country to country. For example, in the Middle East and north Africa in 2010, only 21% of women participated in the formal labour market, compared with 71% in east Asia and the Pacific. Men’s labour participation rates tend to be more stable, both across countries and in different income groups.

Only seven of 150 elected heads of state in the world are women, and only 11 of 192 heads of government. The situation is similar at the level of local government: female elected councillors are under-represented in all regions of the world and women mayors even more so.

In the private sector, women are on most boards of directors of large companies but their number remains low compared to that for men. Furthermore, the “glass ceiling” has hindered women’s access to leadership positions in private companies. This is especially notable in the largest corporations, which remain male dominated. Of the 500 largest corporations in the US, only 23 have a female chief executive officer. That is just 4.6%.

Even in the 27 member countries of the EU, in April 2013 women accounted for only 16.6% of board members of large publicly listed companies. This is up by 5% since October 2010, when the European commission announced that it was considering “targeted initiatives to get more women into decision-making positions”. But one in four big companies still have no women on the board at all, and the target of 40% by 2020 is still a long way off.

Although there is little data on women managers in the global south, one paper on the subject in Africa notes that: “The few figures available showed wide disparities, with Egypt at one end of the spectrum with only 10% of managers being women, while Botswana at the top end had 30%.”

Globally, research by accountancy firm Grant Thornton in 2013 found that women now fill 24% of senior management roles, a percentage that is gradually creeping up. But women make up only 16% of board members in the rich-world G7 economies compared with 26% in the Bric economies (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and 38% in the Baltic countries. Interestingly, one possible reason for this is that women in the latter have more access to childcare from extended families or from women they employ as nannies.

In Japan, 93 out of every 100 people in top positions are men, in the US this is 80 out of 100, and even in the countries at the top of the list, only China has more women than men, and this is a leap from 25% the previous year. And interestingly, despite many years of legislation for gender equality, Sweden and Norway are only 27 and 22 in the ranking of top countries.

Women don’t have power in other areas either – even in 2013, they still made up only 21.4% of parliamentarians. Most recent figures show that 17.2% of ministerial posts worldwide are held by women – up from 16.1% in 2008, which shows just how slow progress can be.

And often, even among the elite, women do not do as well as men. Eighty-eight per cent of women aged 30-39 see their earnings decline when they have children. A study of Harvard graduates in the US found that median earnings in 2005 were $90,000 for women but $162,500 for men. Among full-time, full-year workers, median earnings were $112,500 for women and $187,500 for men.

What is interesting too is that despite the fact that in many countries girls are forging ahead of boys when it comes to educational attainment, this doesn’t always pay dividends when it comes to employment. Despite the youth bulge in much of the global south, even secondary and university education, where girls and young women are excelling, are failing to translate into employment for many young women.

One report from the World Bank notes: “Progress in education is not matched by higher labour force participation. By age 24, women lag behind in all regions. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the gap is around 26 percentage points. The gap is even larger in south Asia, where 82% of men are active in the labour market, against just 28% of women.”

An International Labour Organisation (ILO) study of 83 countries found that women earn 10%-30% less than men. Even in the US in 2010, women working full-time still earned only 77% of the male wage. In sub-Saharan Africa and east Asia and the Pacific, young women aged 15-24 who are working earn only 82% and 84% respectively of the amount young men earn in an hour. According to the ILO, if present trends continue, it will be another 75 years before the principle of equal pay for work of equal value is achieved.

The cost of women not being engaged in paid work is huge: according to one report the economic cost of failing to educate girls to the same standard as boys in 65 low- and middle-income countries was estimated at $92bn a year. And according to the IMF, whole economies are losing out – if women and men had more equality at work, it would increase GDP in the US by 5%, in Japan by 9% and in Egypt by 34%.

Page 4

KS BULL 2017 ISSUE 1 (pg 15): “The fight for gender equality is far from over; in fact, it has just begun.” Discuss.

To many, 2016 seemed to be the year of feminism. Everyone from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, to Hollywood superstar, Emma Watson, was jumping on the feminism bandwagon. The Japanese government had passed policies that were aimed at eradicating the endemic sexism that existed in the Japanese workplace. However, the shock election of Donald Trump as the new President of the United States of America came as a rude reminder, that the cause of feminism and its fight for gender equality was far from over. If a man who boasted about ―grabbing women by the pussy‖ could be elected as President, what did that say about the fight for gender equality? Nothing good. Therefore, while the fight for gender equality has made huge leaps of progress in recent years, I believe that there is still much to be done.

It is impossible to deny that huge leaps of progress have been made in recent years, in large part due to governments recognising the importance of engaging both genders equally, to bolster lacklustre economies. In the light of many developed countries, such as Japan, that have an increasingly ageing population, the importance of engaging every member of the population of working age has never been as prevalent as today. By promoting gender equality in the form of equal pay or less sexism in the workplace, governments can encourage more women to join the workforce, increasing the total working population, which helps bolster the economy. For example, one need only look at Japan which has long been a male-dominated society, where women were often expected to stay home and look after the household while men worked to support the family. However, just last year, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe passed policies that mandated educational workshops in Japanese offices to eradicate sexism and harassment, which is characteristic of many of the men from the older generation. This was part of his Abenomics push to bolster the Japanese economy that has been suffering blows from its increasingly elderly population and low birth rate. While the success of his plan has yet to be seen, this shows that governments across the world have indeed realised the importance of gender equality, which has led to progress in recent years.

The progress in gender equality is also in no small part due to the societal awakening brought about by social media. Many feminist movements are born in Western countries, perhaps due to more liberal perspectives. These movements may never have moved beyond their birthplaces if not for the speed and wide reach of social media. For example, the #HeForShe campaign spearheaded by outspoken feminist, Emma Watson, would not have the influence and awareness it did, if not for social media. There have been intense social media campaigns to raise awareness, by engaging prominent male actors, such as Ben Whishaw to post using the hashtag to show their support. The platform of social media also allowed the common man or woman to engage in the movement and show their support. This allowed the message of gender equality to spread far and wide, raising awareness of its importance among both members of society and their leaders. This has helped to drive progress in recent years as well.

However, it is evident that while progress has been made, there is still much left to be done. In apparent mockery of the feminist movement, there was the uprising of the Meninist movement that pushed their misogynistic views on various social media platforms such as Reddit. Rape threats to outspoken feminists are commonplace and authorities do not pursue these threats. There are a few reasons why I believe that there is still much to be done.

Firstly, the older generation often hold very conservative views about their cultures and the role of women in society. For example, many religious fundamentalists of Islam still believe that the female has no place in anywhere but the home and hearth. The Taliban did not allow girls to go to school and enacted harsh laws that restricted the freedoms of women. Even the Western world is not free from such problems. After the 2016 Presidential election, it was found that many of the 42% of women who voted for Trump, were from the older generation who believed that a return to more traditional values, was more decidedly ―American. These conservative views have prevented a lot of future progress as the older generation still occupy positions of power and can enforce their view on society through their policies, that may even breed new generations of conservative views. The older generation also are large in numbers and thus have larger voting power. The politicians who only care about re-election will pander to such viewpoints as it benefits them. Therefore, such conservative values continue to hinder a lot of progress.

Secondly, there is a mindset within society that women are less capable than men. This is a belief that has been reinforced through gender stereotypes that boys are traditionally better at thinking subjects, such as Mathematics and by a patriarchal society where having women in parliament or on a director‘s chair is a victory to be celebrated rather than just the norm. In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive by themselves and often require someone to approve any major decisions they make or even a visit to the hospital. Is the woman really that incapable of making her own informed decisions? It does not help that often these women have been socialised to believe that it is normal and expected to be subservient to their fathers or spouses. A household survey carried out in India showed that 52% of Indian women felt that it was normal if their husbands beat them for going out without his prior approval. This mindset that women are not capable is one that is also holding back progress in gender equality and often is the root of a lot of gender equality.

Till now, a large part of my argument has focused on empowering women. However, in a recent speech by Emma Watson, she reiterated that feminism and gender equality were about equal rights for both males and females, not just bashing men and raising up women. This is an issue that has often been overlooked by activists and governments alike – the equality for males. While males do often have the advantage in our largely patriarchal society, they also face discrimination. For example, many males never seek treatment for mental illnesses as it is often viewed as not ―manly‖. The stereotypes that we hold not only affect women but also impose unhealthy standards on males. In the United Kingdom, the rate of suicide is 3 times higher for men than it is for women, many cases often linked to depression or eating disorders. There have been campaigns to raise awareness of male mental health, for example, Movember that has raised millions of dollars and widespread awareness for male health issues. However, these campaigns often pale in comparison to huge UN-funded campaigns, such as the HeForShe campaign. Until we acknowledge that males also suffer from such unrealistic expectations and try to progress in equality of treatment for males, we may never truly achieved gender equality. Gender equality means neither males nor females should be superior to the other.

We as a society should examine the equality of gender equality, as often the more well-to-do classes benefit, like in India where many middle class women have seen liberties increase while those of the lower castes continue to be trapped in poverty and inequality. We must make sure that gender equality is not a commodity for the rich, but a right for all. We must also be wary of superficial gender equality. For example Rwanda boasts a 62% female parliament, however the women politicians interviewed are still expected to be subservient to their husbands at home. The difference between statistics and reality is one that we must be careful of as we advance the agenda of gender equality.

Ultimately, I feel that while great leaps of progress have been made in gender equality, there remains much to be done. Until we can overcome the underlying mindset and sexism as a society, the fight has only just begun.

Page 5

Inclusiveness of a society

(A) PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

Online Article 1: The hard - and heart - part of inclusiveness for the disabled (http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/the-hard-and-heart-part-of-inclusivenes-for-the-disabled)

A recent survey shows that many Singaporeans remain uncomfortable interacting with people with disabilities. To change mindsets, create more opportunities for interaction.

This is disappointing, especially after all the efforts by the Government and charities to improve the lives of those with disabilities in the past decade.

The Lien Foundation survey of 1,000 people on their attitudes towards children with disabilities (http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/sporeans-dont-walk-the-talk-on-special-needs-kids) found that close to two-thirds of the respondents shared the belief that Singaporeans are willing to share public spaces with children with special needs, but are not willing to interact with them.

Public education is needed to raise awareness of disability issues. Over one-third of those surveyed in the Lien Foundation poll said children with special needs are not part of their social circle. Even those who know a special needs child (through friends or relatives) say they are not always comfortable interacting with the child. The most common feelings they have in such interactions are empathy, pity and love. Half of the parents polled were uncomfortable about their child having to sit next to one with special needs in class.

As for the disabled themselves, a survey of 1,000 people with disabilities, released last Thursday by the National Council of Social Service (NCSS), found that 62 per cent of them do not feel they are included, accepted, given opportunities to contribute or reach their potential by society.

It is clear that the calls for inclusion of people with disabilities have not gained traction with many ordinary Singaporeans. The Government has done a lot more for the disabled in the past decade, like giving more funding for education and therapy services, among other things, for children with special needs. But the hard - and heart - part of changing mindsets to accept and include those with disabilities remains a challenge. And this is not something that can be achieved just by pouring money into it.

More needs to be done to promote inclusion. And there is some urgency in this, because the number of young children diagnosed with developmental conditions, such as autism, speech and language delays and global developmental delay, has tripled in the past decade. Last year, about 4,000 children were diagnosed with developmental problems, up from about 1,300 in 2005.

Experts have said that about 5 per cent to 6 per cent of children born here have some form of developmental problem. With more diagnosed, more of those with mild conditions will go on to mainstream schools. Also last year, there were about 13,000 students - or about 2.7 per cent of the student population - with mild special needs or learning difficulties in mainstream schools. That's almost triple the number in 2006 .

The number of the disabled in Singapore is likely to rise. More children may be diagnosed as awareness, detection and capabilities to manage these conditions improve. Singapore is also ageing rapidly, and old age and illness can render a senior disabled.

MINDSET SHIFTS

It is a no-brainer, but public education is needed to raise awareness of disability issues. Over one-third of those surveyed in the Lien Foundation poll said children with special needs are not part of their social circle. Even those who know a special needs child (through friends or relatives) say they are not always comfortable interacting with the child. The most common feelings they have in such interactions are empathy, pity and love.

This suggests that the lack of interaction and the concerns about their children sitting next to a special needs child spring more from ignorance and uncertainty than prejudice. If so, the best way to change mindsets is through interaction, by creating ways to facilitate meaningful interaction between people with and those without disabilities. This can help correct misconceptions.

Charities that support those with disabilities, such as the Disabled People's Association (DPA) and SPD, have been holding talks to raise awareness about disability issues for years. The DPA goes to schools, offices and other organisations to get the public to understand what people with disabilities are going through and to think of how to ease the barriers. Some students who attended these talks have gone on to run similar campaigns at their schools, said DPA executive director Marissa Medjeral-Mills.

On a larger scale, the NCSS also launched its disability awareness campaign last Thursday. Through a website (seethetrueme.sg) and public talks on various disabilities as well as tips on how to communicate and interact with people with disabilities, among other measures, the NCSS hopes to promote inclusion.

Raising awareness aside, there also has been a greater push to promote inclusion and interaction between children with and those without disabilities. For example, in 2012, the Education Ministry said the 20 special education schools for children with disabilities would be paired with mainstream schools, so that students from both schools have opportunities to mingle, for example, during recess and at school events.

In January, a charity started Singapore's first inclusive pre-school. At Kindle Garden, run by AWWA, children with disabilities learn and play alongside other kids in the same classroom. About 30 per cent of its children from 18 months to six years of age have disabilities, such as autism or Down syndrome. School principal Lena Koh said both groups of children get along, play and learn together naturally, without fear or hesitation. "Children do not discriminate or single out children with disabilities," she said. "It's the adults who tend to do that."

This is an encouraging sign. Research shows that children with classmates with disabilities learn how to interact with those who are different from them. They are more likely to develop positive self-esteem, confidence and leadership skills when their experience of such interactions is positive, said Dr Kenneth Poon, associate professor of early childhood and special education at the National Institute of Education.

Page 6

(A) PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

Online Article 2: People with disabilities in the spotlight (http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/people-with-disabilities-in-the-spotlight)

KEY FINDINGS:

• 62 per cent of the 1,000 people with disabilities surveyed do not feel they are socially included, accepted or given opportunities to achieve their potential.

• 57 per cent of people with disabilities feel they have no control over their lives.

• People with disabilities feel the public sees their differences as limitations for which they need protection and different treatment.

• Only 3 per cent of the 1,400 members of the public polled would be comfortable marrying a person with a disability.

• Only 36 per cent would be comfortable with being close friends with a disabled person.

• People view those with autism or intellectual impairments less favourably compared with people with physical disabilities.

Six in 10 people with disabilities do not feel that they are socially included, accepted or given opportunities to achieve their potential, a government survey has found.

Of the general public who were polled, only 3 per cent of respondents would be comfortable marrying someone with a disability, and just one-third are fine with being close friends with a person with disabilities.

People also view those with autism or intellectual impairments less favourably compared with persons with physical disabilities. These are some of the findings from a series of surveys last year by the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) that polled a total of 3,500 people, including caregivers of those with disabilities.

Beyond the physical hardware and infrastructure, what is even more important is to raise awareness within the wider community of disability issues, and to nurture the right attitudes when interacting with persons with disabilities among us

Studies show that there seems to be a lack of understanding or awareness by the public about persons with disabilities, especially those with less visible impairments such as autism. The lack of understanding often results in the public hesitating to interact and support persons with disabilities or to overcompensate in helping them regardless of their desire to be helped or not. There is a need to moderate both approaches.

More than a third of the public will not hire people with disabilities if they are employers.

Mindsets are hard to change so we need to go into the schools and start with the young because they are more open and receptive.

Page 7

(A) PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

Online Article 3: Singaporeans 'don't walk the talk' on special needs kids (http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/sporeans-dont-walk-the-talk-on-special-needs-kids)

Key findings

• 30 per cent agree that Singapore is an inclusive society.

• 64 per cent believe Singaporeans are willing to share public spaces but not interact with the special needs community.

• 50 per cent of parents are comfortable with having a child with special needs sit next to their own child in class.

• 49 per cent believe new laws are necessary to better promote the rights of children with special needs.

• 10 per cent are confident of interacting with children with special needs.

While most people believe that children with and without disabilities can study together, only half of parents polled are comfortable with having a special needs child sitting next to their own child in class.

Furthermore, only one in 10 Singaporeans is confident of interacting with special needs children.

These were some of the findings of a survey, released yesterday at a press conference, which asked more than 1,000 people for their experiences of inclusion in daily life and early education. The survey was commissioned by local philanthropic house Lien Foundation.

The findings suggest that Singaporeans are tolerant towards, rather than accepting of, special needs people.

Singaporeans embrace the idea of inclusion, but there is a gap between what we think and what we do

Inclusion means ensuring that everyone, including those with disabilities, is given opportunities to realise his potential in the same environment.

Asked about the current level of acceptance and degree of social interaction between the public and special needs children, more than half of the respondents said Singaporeans are willing to share public spaces with such children, but not to interact with them.

Only 8 per cent of those polled feel that Singaporeans are willing to go the extra mile to make a special needs child feel welcome.

Yet nearly half of them believe that new laws are needed to promote the rights of such children.

For instance, eight in 10 of them believe it should be compulsory for such children to go to school. They are now exempted from the Compulsory Education Act.

One possible reason why special needs children, such as those with learning and behavioural difficulties or physical disabilities, are not accepted fully in society is the lack of interaction between the public and such children.

For over a third of respondents, such children are not part of their social circle. Only a quarter of parents surveyed report that their children are friends with them.

However, the survey also found that Singaporeans' uncertainty about interacting with special needs children falls when the frequency of interactions rises.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Page 8

(B) LGBT COMMUNITY

Online Article 4 : Why some causes resonate (http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/why-some-causes-resonate)

Amendments to the Public Order Act now bar foreigners from using assemblies and processions in Singapore to promote political causes.

Pink Dot, which began in 2009 to promote understanding and acceptance for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, had previously relied on support from multinational corporations. But last year, the Government said it would "take steps to make it clear that foreign entities should not fund, support or influence" events held at Speakers' Corner, like Pink Dot. This worried the organisers, but the 50 Singapore sponsors have surpassed last year's 18 sponsors, and they reportedly raised 70 per cent of the 2016 sponsorship amount even before official fund raising began.

Pink Dot has been controversial. Publicity for the event has largely taken place on social media and, in recent years, religious conservatives have come out to campaign against it online. For instance, a group of Muslims started a Wear White movement in 2014, which received support from segments of the Christian community. Mr Shanmugam had said on Monday that the matter is one for "Singaporeans, Singapore companies and Singapore entities to discuss without involvement of foreign culture wars".

Attendance at Pink Dot has increased from 2,500 people in 2009 to an estimated 28,000 by 2015, according to media reports. Clearly, the event has gained resonance with some members of Singapore society, even though as a whole, we are still conservative in our views on homosexuality.

An Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey conducted in 2013 with more than 4,000 respondents found that more than seven in 10 felt that sexual relations between two adults of the same sex and gay marriage were always wrong or almost always wrong, though it would be interesting to take the pulse again four years on.

Why do some (causes/campaigns) resonate with Singaporeans and gain traction in local and foreign media, while others fade into oblivion?

First, how messages are framed - or how specific dimensions of an issue or event are highlighted to the public - matters. Research in media studies, political science and sociology demonstrates how framing shapes people's assessment and opinion of an issue by focusing their attention on specific aspects of the issue. Various studies have shown that campaigns which enjoy greater success - usually measured by participation numbers - tend to have messages that their target audience can identify with.

In the case of Pink Dot, the organisers have been consistent in drumming one key message over the years - that Pink Dot is for "everyone, straight and gay, who supports the belief that everyone deserves the freedom to love" and it "stands for an open, inclusive society within our Red Dot (Singapore)". The themes of equality and inclusiveness dominate the messaging, and the values of love, respect and friendship appeal to individuals with different social identities and from varying stages of life.

The message is reinforced by the messenger: The support expressed by those from different segments of Singapore society and by local companies also undermines the argument that Pink Dot merely promotes "Western values", which supposedly prioritise individual choices over societal and familial responsibilities.

Second, linked to the above, the ability to communicate an issue in a way that speaks to different audiences is key.

Beyond the communications insights that Pink Dot offers, it provides a stark and timely reminder of the precarity of social harmony in Singapore. To different people, Pink Dot means different things - supporting gay rights, demonstrating solidarity with the LGBT community, and upholding the values of non-discrimination that many Singaporeans identify with. This accounts for the diverse mix of people who turn up each year, from LGBT individuals to heterosexuals, from the young to the old, and from singles to the married with children in tow. At the same time, there are those with deep religious convictions or traditional family values who feel strongly that Pink Dot threatens Singapore's social fabric.

Views on Pink Dot are clearly polarised and any consensus is unlikely, given that some religions are categorically against homosexuality. But on a similar note, some religions also practise religious exclusivism - that their faith is the one true faith - and yet, they have found a way to co-exist in our multicultural society. Can Singapore's tradition of multiculturalism extend to these contentious issues? We may not agree all the time (with regards to diff family members having diff religions), but our differences are subsumed under our respect and acceptance of one another's beliefs and values.

A study conducted by my colleagues from IPS on protecting the public space in the face of growing cultural and religious pluralism in Singapore recommends the sharing of personal stories that emphasise common identities. This will help us extend our empathy to those beyond our family and friendship circles. Peaceful and respectful diversity is what makes Singapore uniquely Singapore. Let us not take the diversity for granted, let us hold on to it, and let us continue to build on the diversity.

Page 9

(B) LGBT COMMUNITY

Online Article 5: Legal, societal discrimination leaves LGBT people vulnerable to abuse

A 35-year-old man, who had a sexual relationship with a male teacher, extorted $197,000 in cash and about $52,000 in valuables from him in exchange for his silence, a district court heard on Tuesday (Jan 12 2016). These criminal acts were carried out by an unscrupulous individual. But he was enabled by the atmosphere of secrecy that our society has collectively imposed on LGBT people. While any married person might fear exposure of adultery, the teacher in this case faced further vulnerability because of the legal, societal and institutional discrimination that treats same-sex relationships as invalid and shameful.

As long as we demand that these relationships stay furtive, the people in them will remain vulnerable to abuse.

Indeed, the prevalence of sexual blackmail was cited by British parliamentarians in the 1960s as one reason for decriminalising homosexuality.

The experience of the Sexual Assault Care Centre (SACC) at the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) reveals a similar disturbing issue: Section 377A can discourage some men from reporting sexual violence against them to the police. They fear that in describing the sexual assault or their interactions with their attackers, they will reveal that they have, themselves, violated Section 377A, and thus be, themselves, subject to police investigation.

Most people face great social and emotional barriers to reporting sexual assault.For some, Section 377A adds the fear that the authorities will treat them not as the victim of a crime, but as a perpetrator. The Government’s position that the law will not be proactively enforced does not adequately allay this concern. Individuals are understandably nervous about whether such a stand will truly override the weight of the written law, which plainly says they have committed a crime. Moreover, for someone who has faced a potentially traumatic sexual assault, even if he is not subsequently prosecuted, the prospect of police investigations for an alleged crime can be enough to deter reporting. His attacker is, therefore, never held to account.

The extortion case and SACC’s experiences show some of the great human costs of a supposed moral stance against homosexuality.

As long as our society continues to discriminate against LGBT people, we will aid and abet their abuse.