Corinna Lim

Corinna Lim (born 1965) is an openly gay lawyer who served as the Executive Director of Singapore's premier feminist organisation AWARE from 2010 to 2025. Her previous position at the advocacy group, which she joined in March 1992, was Honorary Secretary from 2006 to 2007. AWARE became more impactful and sustainable under Lim’s stewardship, with excellent services for women, and strategic research and advocacy programmes. She is also a board member of WINGS, the only nonprofit organisation in Singapore singularly focused on helping women through their later years.

Qualifications

Lim has a Masters in Public Administration from Columbia University and is a Fulbright Scholar. She graduated with an LLB from the National University of Singapore and was called to the Singapore Bar in 1988. She is currently a corporate counsel. Her experience includes 10 years in practice and partnership in Allen & Gledhill, Khattar Wong & Partners and Koh Ong & Partners.

Lim was for five years CEO of Bizibody Technology, a dot com start-up which transformed into an IT company providing IT solutions for the legal industry. Her experience here has much to do with how she transformed AWARE into an organisation that by 2020 had a team of 25 employees, supported by a group of passionate volunteers, running its services and programmes.

Personal reasons for serving at AWARE

While Lim did not enjoy the phase of her career when she worked as a lawyer, the practice opened her eyes to those who could not afford legal advice. She recounts: “I was doing legal counselling with the Singapore Association of Women Lawyers, and AWARE also had that service and they needed more lawyers, so I joined them (in the ’90s). My heart went out to those who needed help, and I wanted my work to influence real, positive change.” Those were the early days when she learned more about women’s rights.

On the AWARE saga:

"You don't realise how precious something is until you come so close to losing it. I consider myself to be one of the "middle guards" in AWARE. I had done some exciting things in AWARE like working on the Domestic Violence Campaign, helping Dr Kanwaljit Soin to draft the Family Violence Bill, campaigning for more support for older women as a result of the AWARE-Tsao paper on Women Growing Older but Poorer."

I was taking a short break from AWARE work after an active stint on the Exco when it happened - AWARE was taken over and we were engaged in the intense but thankfully short battle of reclaiming AWARE. All the different generations of women came together and, in an incredible show of solidarity and strength, we won back our beloved organisation. In the process, AWARE was reborn.

We are now in what is, arguably, the most exciting part of AWARE's history since it was founded.

Many hearts and minds were ignited on 2nd May, a day when women from all walks of life experienced and participated in the passion, the intelligence and the courage of AWARE. Singapore and AWARE will never be the same again and I am honoured and privileged to have served on the EXCO, and now as the Executive Director, at this time. The work has been punishing and I expect that it will continue to be tough. But I will give it what I can to make the most of this unique opportunity.

What I can contribute - my legal and management skills, creativity and the ability to bridge the Old Guard with the younger generation who move at the speed of light through the Internet[2]."

Dr Kanwaljit Soin, a Nominated Member of Parliament from 1992 to 1996 and a founding member of AWARE, roped Lim in together with two other lawyers to draft the Family Violence Bill. Soin recalls: “I remember the incredulous look on Corinna’s face when she first heard my idea to table the bill in Parliament. She offered to be part of the legal team, rolled up her sleeves and worked long and hard.” Although the bill fell through, the Women’s Charter was amended in 1997, adapting principles from the Family Violence Bill, which gave women more protection from violence. Soin adds with admiration: “Corinna has grown from someone who was a little diffident, searching for her place in society to a confident leader and eloquent champion of women’s rights and gender equality.”

Projects

• Domestic Violence Campaign
• Drafting Dr Kanwaljit Soin’s Family Violence Bill 1995
• Campaign for support for Older Women
• Fund raising
• Setting up AWARE’s training arm, Catalyse Consulting, targeted at companies to prevent and manage workplace harassment

Workplace sexual harassment

In late November 2018, Lim revealed to the media for the very first time that for three decades, she had kept silent about the sexual harassment she faced at work, even as she helped many others in similar situations as AWARE's executive director[3]. It happened when she was a young lawyer in her first year of work during a private lunch with a "well-known accountant" who was a client. He had insisted that they go for a two-hour lunchtime cruise during which he talked about his "bad sex with his wife". Then, he started asking about her preferred sex positions.

Lim, then 54, recalled: "Initially I was just so shocked, and I was very unsure since he talked quite softly." She tried changing the topic multiple times, but he would return to it each time. Shocked and uncomfortable, she constantly excused herself to go to the washroom. Thankfully, he stopped harassing her after that lunch. If he had continued the harassment, she would have been at a loss as to what to do, she admitted. "We were a 40-lawyer firm, and there were no policies whatsoever (against harassment), so I didn't tell anyone," she added. She was disappointed and angry with herself for not standing up to the client. "I felt I had let myself down. Here I was, a lawyer that trained to defend others, but I couldn't even defend myself - I felt very ashamed. At that time, I did not understand power dynamics and the silencing effect that it may have."

It was not until the #MeToo movement that she was encouraged to speak up about her ordeal, in the hope that it would spur others to likewise do so. Lim then began to strongly advocate a clear-cut policy against sexual harassment. "Policies are not just important to deter harassment," she explained. "A lot of this can be solved with minimal grief if the survivors were empowered by policies and training to say 'stop it, this is unacceptable, this is unprofessional', and if it stops there, that is ideal."

Lim was one of 10 women who appeared in the Aim for Zero campaign video by AWARE to tell their stories, without masking their identities, about the sexual violence and harassment they had endured, from workplace harassment to sexual abuse to rape[4]. It was the first time so many women had come forward on such a public platform to share their experiences. Lim hoped that the video would be able to empower even more to share their stories. She said: "When #MeToo happened, it became okay to talk about it. Now we could see that this is unacceptable. If we didn't talk about it, things would just continue the way they were, and perpetrators would get away with impunity. Speaking up made a difference."

Still frame of Corinna Lim from AWARE's Aim For Zero campaign video:[1].

Negotiation

Like a savvy negotiator, Lim speaks with fervour on a myriad of topics, tinged with the occasional dose of humour that puts one at ease - a quality that enables her to engage with different folks, whether heartlander, chief executive or civil servant. Lim, who has a twin sister, says: “I have regular dialogues with the government bodies that AWARE works closely with. It’s important to provide feedback on various issues, and share the knowledge. We’re like another pair of eyes on the ground.”

While AWARE has many loyal supporters, the group has its fair share of detractors who sometimes make hurtful comments on social media. Lim concedes: “It (criticism) comes with the territory of making social changes, even when it’s for a better and fairer society. Still, we have to be empathetic, thick-skinned and focus on what’s ahead.”

With her wealth of experience, Lim pays it forward, helping groups such as Daughters of Tomorrow (DOT). DOT’s executive director Carrie Tan says: “Corinna is a mentor and friend, and AWARE is a big sister to DOT. From 2016 to 2018, AWARE helped us with capacity-building, mentorship and funding.” To close friends like theatre thespian Pam Oei, there is another side to Lim. “She can be very blur for someone with an amazing brain power,” Oei muses. “Corinna approaches everything with curiosity, positivity and a twinkle in her eye.”

In December 2019, Lim scored a coup, interviewing former American first lady Michelle Obama when the latter was in Singapore for a talk[5].

Lim admits to being a workaholic. “Having a balanced work life is challenging for me as I enjoy what I do,” she says. “It’s really hard to say ‘no’ to opportunities, and taking on more stuff.” To unwind, she goes on hiking trips with her friends, having recently returned from Bhutan. “I read books on meditation, do tai chi to keep myself sane, and I’m a fan of local plays.” Still, the most rewarding aspect in life for her is helping women emerge from adversity. “This is what I wanted to do from Day 1. What’s better, after they survive the crisis with a little help from us, they become ambassadors of the cause, or come back to help other women in need.”

8th SR Nathan Fellowship for the Study of Singapore

Lim was appointed the 8th SR Nathan Fellow for the Study of Singapore for the Academic Year 2021[6].

She delivered the 8th IPS-Nathan Lecture Series entitled "Gender Equality: The Time Has Come" from late April to late May 2021 at the National University of Singapore. Lim felt that it was such a rare and prestigious honour to be invited to give the Lectures that she took three months off work to read, research, conceptualise and write the presentations[7]. The context for the Lectures was the ongoing gender equality review led by Law Minister K Shanmugam. In line with the very ambitious goal of this Government initiative to “imprint gender equality deeply into the collective consciousness” of Singaporeans, she aimed for these Lectures to:

• inspire visions for how Singapore could achieve a more caring and gender equal society
• boldly tackle sensitive topics and sacred cows
• provoke new and important conversations

As a prelude and teaser to the Lecture series, Lim was interviewed by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS)[8]. The main soundbite was: "These lectures are not about being anti-men in any way."

Lecture I — Herstory: The Road to Equality (29 April 2021)

Lim spoke about the most pressing concerns faced by women in contemporary Singapore and contributed insights into the national gender equality review[9]. The lecture was moderated by Dr. Kanwaljit Soin, a founding member of AWARE, a former Nominated Member of Parliament and an outspoken campaigner for women's issues[10]. The session was livestreamed on IPS' Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/IPSLKYSPP/live

Video caption:

"Gender equality is not a new conversation in Singapore, nor is it a settled matter. From Singapore’s inception, women were critical in fighting for their rights and forging the nation. Singapore’s early women pioneers paved the way for gender equality in Singapore, though not without opposition. The journey towards gender equality in Singapore has meandered and, at times, veered almost completely off course. Though the tasks ahead remain challenging, significant strides in recent years have given reason for hope. This lecture will explore this history, as a way of understanding the present and the needs for the future, and compare Singapore’s present position with other countries."

The welcoming remarks were made by Janadas Devan, Director of the Institute of Policy Studies. The Q&A session was moderated Dr. Kanwaljit Soin.

Transcript:

Welcome to the eighth IPS Northern Lecture Series. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this will be the second time we are conducting the lectures virtually over Facebook Live. Interestingly, the audience for these virtual lectures may well be larger than for the physical versions we did before. That was certainly the case for the previous IPS Northern Lecture Series, delivered by Professor Chan Heng Chee. Our eighth S.R. Nathan Fellow is, of course, Corinna Lim, the Executive Director of AWARE. She has been a women's rights activist for almost 30 years. Her lecture series is entitled "Gender Equality: The Time Has Come." Her first lecture today is entitled "Herstory: The Road to Equality," which appropriately sets the stage for the ensuing lectures by recalling the history of the women's movement in Singapore.

"Herstory," of course, can go back hundreds, if not thousands, of years. However, the question of gender equality in the modern era in Asia first arose entwined with the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movements. For example, in China, gender equality was a nascent issue in the May Fourth Movement in 1919. Protesters questioned why the West was dominant and China was backwards, concluding that China lacked democracy and science. They declared that "Mr. Science and Democracy" must replace "Mr. Confucius." There was no "Misses Democracy," let alone "Miss Democracy," but the emancipation of women soon became a central theme in Chinese modernity. The same phenomenon was observed in India and later in our part of the world, including Indonesia, Malaya, and Singapore. Again and again, "the women question" came to the fore with the burgeoning of anti-colonial nationalist movements.

There are a variety of reasons for this. Firstly, there were deeply symbolic reasons. For example, in the invocation of "Mother India" or "Vande Mataram," Asian cultures drew on the tremendous force of the feminine principle embedded in many Asian traditions to evoke nationalism and patriotic pride. Secondly, for pressing social and economic reasons, people in both the West and Asia became conscious in the late 19th and early 20th centuries of the oppressions women had suffered for centuries. In the West, people began agitating for the right to vote, while in Asia, people became more conscious of the terrible indignities women suffered, from "sati" in India to foot-binding in China, and from oppressive family structures to the physical mutilations of women's bodies.

Finally, there were political reasons. As Mao proclaimed, "Women hold up half the sky." Just as revolutionary movements mobilised workers and peasants, it made sense to mobilise the passions, energy, and force of women in the anti-colonial struggle. In Malaya, we saw the creation of "Angkatan Wanita Sedar" (AWAS), or "Movement of Conscious Women," as it was called, as early as 1945, immediately after the war. In Indonesia, there were radical left organizations like "Gerakan Wanita Indonesia," which in 1965 numbered 1.5 million people before it was squelched by the military government that came into power that year. In Singapore, both the pro-communist left and the non-communist left mobilized women. While it might have felt like "bliss was it in that dawn to be alive," as words were said of the French Revolution, a last blistering afternoon soon followed. The women's movement in Asia or elsewhere did not trace a straight arc onwards and upwards. The vote for women in the West did not see women assume half the positions in legislatures, any more than the education of women led inexorably to women being treated as equals in Asian societies. "Herstory" is still an unfolding revolution, which periodically and persistently has to be nudged along by women as well as men, in big ways and small. Thus, our decision to appoint Corinna as the eighth S.R. Nathan Fellow. The publicity video describes her as our "first activist fellow," though I should add that our first Nathan Fellow, Ho Kwon Ping, managed to get himself arrested under the Internal Security Act when he was a student. Our last Nathan Fellow, Chan Heng Chee, was, for my generation, the iconic dissident public intellectual whose face once appeared on the cover of Newsweek. Activism in Singapore need not always be a dead-end career. So, Corinna, your time has come. Thank you.

Honouring Women's Rights Activism

Thank you, Janadas, for that really impressive mapping of the history of Asia and women's rights. I am very pleased to be here today, and it is truly a great honor. Thank you everybody for tuning in; I know how busy everyone is, and I'm really glad that you are here. It would definitely have been better to speak to you in person, but I am cheered to know that the online delivery actually reaches more people. Because this lecture is going to be very much about the women's movement in the last 60 years, I would like to dedicate this lecture to all women's rights and gender equality activists—past, present, and future.

Last November, Janadas invited me to lunch at the Cricket Club and asked, "Would you be interested in being an S.R. Nathan Fellow for 2021?" I was really surprised but managed not to fall off my chair. I said yes, and here I am today, so honored and humbled to be the first civil society activist to be awarded this fellowship. My predecessors are either household names or very distinguished civil servants or academics; I don't quite fit into this mold. So, before I start, I want to say a big thank you to IPS and the S.R. Nathan Fellowship Committee. Thank you for your trust and for giving me this opportunity to speak about ideals and aspirations that are fundamental to Singaporeans: justice, equality, respect, safety, living purposeful lives regardless of gender, and care for our families and community. These matter to all of us, and these lectures will discuss how we ensure that our laws, policies, institutions, and mindsets embody and support these ideals.

In my work at AWARE for the last 30 years, as a volunteer and as its Executive Director, I have heard thousands of stories from women. Often, they are stories of distress, problems, and anxieties; sometimes, they have happy endings of empowerment. These stories come in through our helpline, our legal clinic, counseling services, the research we do, and our social media channels. I am very grateful to have been able to spend the last three months reflecting on the major issues that affect women, men, and families in Singapore today. In preparing for these lectures, I have drawn on my own experience, interviews with many men and women, and insights from experts and activists everywhere, both here and globally. I hope that my lectures will facilitate more discussion on gender issues and also help build more bridges between civil society and policymakers.

As Professor Chan Heng Chee said in her final S.R. Nathan Fellowship lecture, the recent COVID-19 pandemic shows that civil society organizations have a role to play as an early warning system for social issues and fissures in society. This includes addressing the plight of abused women, the aging poor, or foreign workers. No matter how unwelcome the feedback, the government and these organizations can work together, as both are interested in improving the lives of the vulnerable to build a better community. I could not agree more with Professor Chan.

Structure of the Lecture Series

This is the first of three lectures, and they are all connected. In the first lecture, titled "Herstory: The Road to Equality," I will talk about where we are in the development of women's rights and gender equality in Singapore, how we got here, and what lessons we learned along the way. I will then conclude with some broad points on the Gender Equality Review. Lecture Two, titled "The Caring Economy," will deal with some very thorny issues that our society and policymakers grapple with, such as women's participation in the workplace, gender equality at home, reasons why couples are less keen to have babies, and our fast-aging population. In Lecture Three, I will talk about men's violence against women, especially sexual violence, as well as men, masculinity, and women and girls' leadership in society. These lectures have been well-timed by IPS to coincide with the government's Gender Equality Review that is currently in progress. While the lectures do go beyond the scope of the review, it is my humble hope that they will contribute to the review and provoke deeper thinking and conversations on gender equality at all levels.

Defining Gender Equality and its Core Dimensions

So, let's start with some basic definitions to ensure that we are all on the same page. Firstly, what is gender equality? I'll use the UN definitions, which I find to be authoritative and clear. Gender equality refers to the equal rights, responsibilities, and opportunities of women and men, girls and boys, to enable everyone to fulfill their potential. Gender equality does not mean that women and men are the same, but that women's and men's rights, responsibilities, and opportunities will not depend on whether they are born male or female.

When we talk about gender equality, what aspects are we referring to? For our discussion, I'll be touching on these six core dimensions of gender equality: equal education, economic equality, equal division of power and influence, equal distribution of unpaid housework and provision of care, equal health, and the ending of men's violence against women. What you see here is what I call the gender equality flower. It has six petals, each representing a key dimension of equality, and at the heart of the flower are gender norms—beliefs, stereotypes, and ideas such as "men are natural leaders and assertive" or "women are bossy." So, we have to address the heart of the flower to truly make the flower bloom.

Let's take the light orange petal, education, as an illustration, located on the bottom left of your screen. Let's say a government offers girls and boys equal access to education, but parents believe that it is more important for their sons to be educated; equal education may not happen. We have to tackle that norm. These dimensions are also all linked to each other. For example, the blue petal, caregiving, is linked to the green and light blue petals, economic equality and leadership. If women are the primary caregivers at home, then they may have to shortchange their career and leadership aspirations, to the detriment of society. Because the six dimensions are all linked, we have to work at all six. A weakness in any dimension will stop the flower from blooming. So, where there are equal opportunities in all these areas, then we should also expect to see equal outcomes as well, such as an equal number of men and women in leadership, in the workforce, and as caregivers. Although men may not think too much about gender equality, it actually benefits them greatly too, and I will cover this in my third lecture.

Singapore's Standing in Gender Equality: Past and Present

Now that we've set the scene and the definitions, let's see how Singapore fares in the different dimensions of gender equality. When we talk about this, we need to look at where we are today compared to the past, as well as how each of the gender equality dimensions compare to each other. For this, I'm going to be looking at the World Economic Forum's Gender Gap Index.

What you see on screen is the report on Singapore for 2021. The graphic there is actually really informative. Singapore is overall ranked 54th out of 156 countries. This doesn't sound great, but let's not get too hung up about the ranking. There are many different indices; the actual ranking should be taken with a pinch of salt. This index ranks us worse than others. In the UN index, for instance, we are 12th. The disparity is large and really depends on what is measured. What I can say for sure is that Singapore is generally not in the top ten; it's the Nordic countries that constantly take the top spots.

What's useful, though, about this assessment is that it indicates the relative strengths of each country's gender equality dimensions and how close they are to parity. The figure on your left shows that this index covers four out of six gender equality dimensions in my flower: education, economy, politics, and health. The outermost circle indicates gender parity. You can see that for education and health, we are almost there; we are close to gender parity. For the economy, Singapore still has some ways to go, and when it comes to politics, political representation, we are quite far behind. With only three women out of 20 ministers in the cabinet, which is 15%, this isn't too surprising. This report does not include family equality and men's violence against women, but it gives a pretty good idea of where Singapore is in relation to the other aspects and should accord with most people's expectations. For the other two dimensions, I will deal with them in later lectures.

Now let's compare Singapore today to its past. The development of Singapore since its independence is, as Peter Ho noted in his S.R. Nathan Lectures, without precedent and nothing short of a modern miracle. Women have both benefited from this and played a critical role in Singapore's rapid modernization and growth. The education and empowerment of women formed an essential part of Singapore's nation-building strategy. As founding Prime Minister Mr. Lee Kuan Yew said in 1975, "Societies which do not educate and use half their potential because they are women are those which will be the worst off." The impressive record of Singapore women's development speaks for itself. There are three key statistics here: women's literacy rate rose significantly from a mere 34% in 1957 to 96% in 2019. The female labor force participation rate rose from below 20% in 1957 to 61% today. What's amazing is that the female labor force is actually more highly educated than the male labor force, because girls have outpaced boys in education; 41% of women in the labor force are degree holders compared to 37% of men.

How did we get to where we are today? Many of us have read and watched movies about the suffragettes and the women's liberation movement in the West, but how many of us know the Singapore story? We owe a huge debt to the activists who fought for women in Singapore to be treated more fairly and to be safe from violence. For this reason alone, it's important to tell their stories, and I will spend some time on this. Their stories are also insightful. Since the Gender Equality Review was announced, people have asked me, "How committed is Singapore to achieving gender equality?" "Why are they doing the Gender Equality Review now?" "To make gender equality a fundamental value—does that mean it was never a fundamental value?" "How then are Singapore women so empowered and educated?" These are fantastic questions, and the lessons from the past help us answer some of these questions and also guide us on what we can do to advance gender equality in Singapore.

Singapore's Women's Movement: A Historical Overview

In terms of the gender equality journey, I've roughly broken down our women's movement history into four phases: the Merdeka period, the Men's Years, the Women Return period, and Ground-up Activism. I'll deal with each one of these chronologically.

The Merdeka Period: Early Breakthroughs (Pre-1971)

The Merdeka period is where we see the first breakthrough for women's rights in Singapore that led to the enactment of the Women's Charter, policies for equal education for girls, and the inclusion of women in the labor force. This period is also an important part of Singapore's road to independence and the PAP's story of how it came into power in the 1960s. What Janadas said earlier about what was happening in the rest of Asia, we have the Singapore version of this. The main protagonists in this period are the Singapore Council of Women (SCW), not to be confused with SCWO, which is a modern organization today. The SCW was led by Shireen Foster and other women activists. The second protagonist is the PAP Women's League, led by Chan Choy Siong and Ho Pue Chu.

Let me set the stage. It's post-World War II. The population stands at one million persons, which had actually doubled its pre-war population. People were mainly crammed into shophouses in the city area or shantytowns. Living conditions were deplorable. Women emerged from the Japanese occupation eager to contribute to rebuilding Singapore society. They came forward to operate feeding centers and other welfare services. Women also rallied to the call of decolonization. For the first time, they joined political parties and stood for elections. There were female representatives in both the municipal and legislative councils. It was indeed an exciting time. We saw a mushrooming of women's groups. There were community service clubs such as the Chinese Ladies Association, work groups like the Singapore Nurses Association, and religiously inspired groups like the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA). Their focus was on service, welfare, networking, and recreation, not women's rights.

This changed in 1952 when a woman named Shireen Foster brought together the leaders of the key women's groups to form the Singapore Council of Women (SCW) to fight for women's rights. Shireen Foster hailed from India; she was an anti-colonial nationalist there and a firebrand—fierce, tireless. The SCW was led by a multi-racial group consisting of women in their 40s and 50s. They included notable names like Elizabeth Choy, Mrs. George Lee, Mrs. Xiao Pi Ling, Checha Davies, Che Zahara binte Mohamed, Vilasini Menon, and of course, Shireen Foster. The SCW decided to focus their energy on a single issue: abolishing polygamy. Polygamy was rife in those times; husbands set up multiple families, had no means to support secondary wives, and families were poorly treated and often abandoned by their husbands. SCW actively lobbied the government, community groups, and leaders on the polygamy issue for many years. Finally, they focused on local political parties who became more influential as Singapore geared up for self-government. Of all the political parties, the PAP took the strongest stand on women's rights.

Why? For three reasons. The first was the PAP's socialist ideology. The early PAP had strong socialist leanings. Its 1959 political manifesto, "The Task Ahead," sets out its position on women's rights. It stated, "In a full socialist society for which the PAP will work, all people will have equal rights and opportunities irrespective of sex, race, or religion. There is no place in a socialist society for the exploitation of women." The PAP believed in the principle of equal pay for equal work. So, the call to abolish polygamy by the SCW was in line with the PAP's socialist ideology.

The second reason was pressure from the PAP's Women's League. This is the other protagonist I talked about. The PAP Women's League played an important role within the party to push for women's rights. This league was similar to the PAP Women's Wing today. In those days, it was made up of women who were mainly Chinese educated. The leader of the Women's League was a very capable politician, Chan Choy Siong, and her comrade Ho Pue Chu. They did call themselves comrades. Chan was Chinese educated, the daughter of a cheong fun hawker. She was only 23 when she joined the PAP. Between her studies, she helped out at her father's stall. She saw hawkers like her father victimized by corrupt city council officials. She developed a strong desire to eradicate corruption and improve the living conditions of people in Chinatown. Chan's husband, whom some of you may remember as the former Minister for Labour, recalls how determined Chan was in the party. He said she "took every opportunity at party meetings, conferences, Parliament, and mass rallies to campaign for women's rights." When the PAP won the elections in 1959 and formed the first PAP government, she was constantly pressing for the government to carry out the manifesto. Chan Choy Siong and the third Women's League member, Oon Siew Chen, got elected to the PAP Central Executive Committee. They formed 25% of this 12-member CEC, and they drove the PAP women's agenda to end polygamy and to ensure the equality of women with men. The growing number of voices demanding women's rights were part of this larger anti-colonial struggle for democracy and equal rights that Janadas referred to. This was best illustrated in a radio broadcast given by Chan Choy Siong in 1960, where she said, "We must unite the strength of the women in the fight for democratic, independent, non-communist, and united socialist society. Only when this target is achieved can the women be said to be completely liberated." In other words, if women's liberation is not achieved, then neither is real democracy and equality. It was truly progressive.

Now, the third reason why the PAP adopted this anti-polygamy stance and was so pro-women was that it was a strategy to win the women's vote, and this might be the most important reason. The 1959 elections marked the first time that voting was compulsory. Before this, few women voted. The PAP, calculating that the women's votes in this election would be critical, decided to include women's emancipation as part of its election manifesto. As Lee Kuan Yew later remarked in his memoirs, this strategy and the inclusion of five female candidates in the landmark election were really effective in distinguishing the PAP from other parties. And the strategy paid off. The PAP won a landslide victory. Lee Kuan Yew was elected as Singapore's first Prime Minister. A total of five women were elected—four from the PAP and one from an opposition party. Women were given equal education, and then the government divided schools into morning and afternoon sessions to double the capacity of schools to take in girls. So, it happened immediately, and women started going out to work in droves. The SCW pressed the PAP to fulfill its promise of ending polygamy after the elections, and the PAP lived up to this promise by introducing the Women's Charter. One thing to note here, because I'll be talking about it later, the PAP did not include gender equality in the constitution or pledge, unlike its reference to equality regardless of race, language, or religion, which appears in our pledge. I'll discuss this later.

Let me first say a few words about the Women's Charter. This is today still one of the most progressive laws on women's rights to have ever been enacted in Southeast Asia, and at that time, it was considered revolutionary. This was not just because it outlawed polygamy, but also because it did away with the English doctrine of coverture, which stripped women of their rights to sign contracts and own property when they got married. In speaking up for the bill, listen to the rhetoric of Chan Choy Siong, who did not mince words. She said, "Women in our society are like pieces of meat put on the table for men to slice. The PAP government has made a promise. We cannot allow this inequality in the family to exist in this country. We will liberate women from the hands of the oppressor, and with the passing of this legislation, women can contribute their part to the country." So, the Women's Charter was passed on 24 May 1961. The female MPs saw the charter as just the first step towards equality. We celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Women's Charter on 24 May 2021. This is also the date that I've picked for my third and final lecture, which I hope you will join me for, and together we can all toast and drink to the brave women—Shireen Foster, Chan Choy Siong, Ho Pue Chu, and many others—who set the rights of Singapore women off to a very good start.

What are the lessons to be learned from the Merdeka period? First, that women activists in politics and civil society play a critical role in advancing women's rights and gender equality. We see this again later. The early wins were only possible because of the relentless lobbying by female PAP activists and the SCW. The SCW took 10 years to outlaw polygamy. Major change takes time and persistence, so it is important to have activists and groups that can carry out sustained advocacy in and outside politics. A side note here: I'm not sure how many of you have heard this history before, but I certainly had not heard it when I was younger. It's only when I joined the women's movement that I've heard it, because it is not often told in the Singapore story. If this has piqued your interest, do Google and find out more, and you know, there are actually many other women who have remarkable stories.

The second lesson we can learn from this is that women voters have power. The PAP played their cards right in the 1959 election to court new female voters. Fast forward to last year, General Election 2020, we saw the emergence of more female candidates in all parties and manifestos that included gender issues in a significant way. Post-elections, we see parties setting up women's wings and launching initiatives that specifically target women. This trend is going to continue in an increasingly competitive political climate. Parties that pay attention to and understand women's needs and explicitly adopt positions that support these needs will find favor with female voters.

And the third lesson: equal opportunities for women to be educated and work are key to their liberation. Without this, we cannot even begin to talk about gender equality. In this respect, the PAP's economic pragmatism served women well. Educating women was both good for the economy and essential to women's development. The empowerment of women in the early 60s became really important when Singapore was rudely ejected from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965. At that point, with human capital as its only assets, thankfully, the women were already participating in the economy, and they were critical to our survival. If the story ended here, you might think this is a pretty good women's liberation story. Unfortunately, the trajectory of the Merdeka period did not continue in the next chapter of "herstory."

The Men's Years: A Setback for Gender Equality (1971-1983)

In the next period, we see what happens when the "men in white" lead the way without any women in the party, and I'm calling this period the Men's Years, from 1971 to 1983. With the passing of the Women's Charter, the SCW lost its sense of mission. Mission achieved, polygamy outlawed, they lost their sense of mission. Shireen Foster left Singapore in 1961. Support for SCW dwindled, and it was deregistered in 1971. On the PAP side, the big split in the PAP, where many MPs left the PAP to join the Barisan Sosialis, caused the party to lose half of its female MPs. Then, Chan Choy Siong retired from politics in 1970. Not much is said about this; we don't really know why, leaving an all-male Parliament. This was a very male Parliament. And the Women's League was dissolved in 1975. Parliament would not see another female MP for 14 years until 1984.

So, without the moderating influence of the women politicians and without a women's movement, we saw the unfiltered patriarchal instincts of the all-male Parliament and cabinet coming to the fore. This resulted in the making of the most sexist policies that the PAP government has ever made. These policies adversely affected women and families and served to reinforce rather than dismantle patriarchal values. Thankfully, all of these have been reversed, but not before they left their mark on society.

Let's have a look at two of the policies that were passed during the Men's Years. Policy one: the quota on female medical students. In 1979, a policy was introduced to limit the number of female medical students to one-third of every cohort. The government considered medical education for women a poor return on investment. It felt that many female doctors would leave the profession to have babies upon marriage, and training someone to be a doctor was a rather costly affair. So, Dr. Toh Chin Chye, the Health Minister, also said in Parliament that it was very difficult for a woman to be a good doctor because she also had to be a wife and a mother besides performing night duty in government hospitals. This policy resulted in less qualified male students being admitted to NUS medicine over more qualified female students. Many of the female students went overseas to study, and some never returned to Singapore. Policies from this era had long-term consequences. For example, a 2020 article in the Singapore Medical Association's newsletter stated that the one-third quota was a major reason that the National Healthcare Group had only 27% women in its senior leadership posts.

Policy two: medical benefits for families of civil servants. In the 1980s, the government passed a policy which extended medical benefits to the families of male civil servants. The same treatment was not given to female civil servants, with the reason cited as "too expensive." And in 1993, Finance Minister Richard Hu reaffirmed this policy on a different basis. This justification is even more problematic. He said the policy "preserves the social structure by supporting the principle of husband as head of the household. It is the husband's responsibility to look after the family's needs, including the medical needs. This is how our society is structured. It would be unwise to tamper with the structure." Times have changed much, as you can see. I don't think ministers today would be able to get away with such sexist statements. School quotas and civil servants' medical benefits are just some of the discriminatory policies that were made by the PAP government in the Men's Years; there were others.

How does one reconcile these discriminatory policies and the zero presence of female MPs with the PAP's manifesto, "The Task Ahead," which aimed to work for a society where all people would have equal rights and opportunities irrespective of race or religion? One view is that the PAP government started off with aspirations of gender equality but abandoned them along the way when the women left the party. Another view is that the government's support for women's empowerment was motivated by economic and political imperatives, not by any intrinsic belief in gender equality. The PAP's economic strategies were indeed favorable to women, but this should not be mistaken for a principled commitment to gender equality.

Now, whichever way you see it, it is clear that the "men in white" were men of their times. They wanted to develop women and men to be economically productive, but where gender was concerned, their ideal of women as the good housewife whose job it was to care for the family and support the husband's career served as that paradigm. This second perspective is supported by some later statements of Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, including this one in 1994, where Mr. Lee said, "Attractive and intelligent young ladies should go to finishing colleges so that they will be marvelous helpers of their husband's career." One might argue that the government itself perhaps did not have patriarchal values but was just not confident that it could shift patriarchal norms that existed in society, and there are some statements in history that suggest that. However, we should remember that social engineering is something that the Singapore government is comfortable doing and is good at. As Mr. Lee Kuan Yew said in 1987, "I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, and I had not done that, then we wouldn't be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse that we wouldn't be here and we wouldn't have made economic progress if we had not intervened on very personal matters: who your neighbor is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right, never mind what the people think." So, looking back at all this, I think that the government would have been able to work towards changing the patriarchal mindsets of its people if they had that inclination. Governments that are less paternalistic than the Singapore government, such as Sweden, have done so.

The Women Return Period: Resurgence of Women's Activism (1984-2010)

We will now move on to the next phase of "herstory," which covers the period from 1984 to 2010. This period sees the return of women politicians and activists, so I call this period the Women Return period. Within politics, the PAP recruited four women politicians: Dr. Dixie Tan, Dr. Aileen Wong, and Mrs. Yu-Foo Yee Shoon were elected in 1984 after a 14-year lapse, and Dr. S. Vasoo was elected in 1991. These women set up the PAP Women's Wing in 1989. Dr. Aileen Wong and Mrs. Yu-Foo Yee Shoon were particularly active in pushing for women's rights, but they were a small minority, and none of them were ever given a Cabinet appointment, so their influence was more limited. On the civil society side, things started to get active again in 1980. Leaders from various women's, business, and community groups came together to form the Singapore Council of Women's Organizations (SCWO). SCWO was set up as an umbrella body of women's groups to advance the status of women.

Then, in 1985, the government launched its highly controversial program, the Graduate Mother Scheme, to incentivize graduate mothers to have more children. At the same time, they introduced the Small Family Incentive Scheme to disincentivize non-graduate mothers from having more than two children, and this included paying them ten thousand dollars. These eugenic programs upset many women and led to the formation of AWARE (Association of Women for Action and Research) as a women's rights research and advocacy group.

With women activists back in the picture, the campaign for women's rights was reignited, and this time the burning issue was family violence. AWARE's helpline showed that family violence was prevalent, yet the laws were inadequate. When the police were called in, they could only stop the fight if it was still going on, but they couldn't actually arrest unless there were broken bones, an eye, ear, or limb hanging out—what the law calls "grievous hurt." The police had no powers otherwise. AWARE and SCWO came together to campaign for more protection against family violence.

Dr. Kanwaljit Soin, the moderator of this event and probably the most well-known women's rights champion of our time, was appointed as a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP). She reached out to me one day and a few other lawyers, and she said, "I would like to introduce a Family Violence Bill. Will you help me to draft this? Malaysia has just passed the Family Violence Bill." I was game, and we were off. These were pre-internet days, so it wasn't so easy to find precedents. The Family Violence Bill was introduced in Parliament in 1996, and this was only the second private member's bill to be presented in Parliament.

One of the main challenges to the bill was the argument that stronger laws might hurt rather than help families. But the ground support for this bill was strong because of all the public education, the library talks, and the exhibitions that women's rights NGOs had organized over the last 10 years. Remember, this was pre-internet. I remember the second reading. While Dr. Soin stepped up to the podium, I was up there looking down from the gallery. She gave a brave and stirring speech. There was a robust debate on the bill, and the result: Parliament rejected the Family Violence Bill. The government said the issue was not so prevalent and that we needed a separate bill to deal with it.

Nevertheless, all was not lost. It was a victory for women as the government came up with an alternative proposal to amend the Women's Charter to strengthen the Personal Protection Order (PPO) regime. The amended Women's Charter contained many of the provisions that were in the Family Violence Bill. For example, it expanded the definition of family violence to include non-physical violence, and it extended protection to a wider range of family members. Most importantly, it empowered the police to act upon the breach of a PPO without there being grievous hurt. But what's great is that the government went much further than just amending the law. It set up a network of Family Service Centers and specialist centers to support family violence survivors. It linked these centers to the police, the hospitals, and the Family Court, and this family violence network has been an important part of Singapore's ongoing strategy to address family violence.

So, what's the lesson here? Again, we see a repeat of the previous pattern: women's rights groups raise early warning signs about a social problem, the issue gains traction with the public. Within the political system, women activists, in this case Dr. Soin, as an NMP, push for legal change, and change happens after about 10 years of sustained advocacy. This pattern of change is actually not ideal to move the needle on gender equality. It's unreliable, being dependent on the presence and sustained work of a few brave women activists or NGOs to raise individual issues, and at that time, most of us were volunteers. Progress comes in spurts, followed by long intervals of non-activity and periods of backsliding. A strong women's movement is necessary but not sufficient to ensure progress. What we need for more consistent progress is an explicit commitment by the government to gender equality, a commitment with accountability.

Do we have this today? Many of you, if you've been following the story so far, might think not. But something rather unexpected happened in 1995. Seemingly out of the blue, the government ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The pressure to sign did not come from the women's activists in Singapore; it came from outside Singapore. Singapore signed CEDAW to be a good global citizen. At least two-thirds of the countries in the world had signed at least one or other human rights treaty. Singapore had signed none by 1995, and our presence on the world stage was growing. It was important for Singapore to fit in and show its support for the UN human rights system. Of all the human rights conventions, the treaties on women and children were the easiest for Singapore to adopt. We were already compliant with many of the provisions in these two treaties, and it was a lot more difficult for us to sign treaties on civil and political rights.

Now, the ratification of CEDAW is really significant because by signing, Singapore commits to protecting and promoting women's rights and to addressing negative gender norms and stereotypes. And the Singapore government generally is really good about trying to keep its convention obligations. Every five years, the government reports to the UN CEDAW Committee on what it has done to reduce gender discrimination in Singapore. Singapore has gone through five cycles of reporting to the UN. It has made good progress with each cycle. For example, by the second round of reporting in 2007, the state had reversed all of the sexist policies that were enacted in the Men's Years. Singapore NGOs are encouraged to and do participate in the CEDAW process by submitting reports to the UN on Singapore's compliance with CEDAW, and I remember going to Geneva a few years ago to actually make these submissions. The UN's committee, after hearing the government and the NGO submissions, then issues recommendations to the government, advising them on the further steps it should take to reduce discrimination against women. So, CEDAW has provided the government and NGOs with a really great process for ensuring that Singapore makes consistent progress towards eliminating gender discrimination. The CEDAW process has contributed to many positive changes in policy, including the Protection from Harassment Act, the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act, and the removal of marital rape immunity.

However, this does not mean that gender equality has become a fundamental value of Singapore society. When we think of values associated with Singapore, what do we think of? Words like meritocracy, multiculturalism, and pragmatism pop up in our heads. Few people would associate gender equality with Singapore the way they do with the Nordic countries, because even though we signed CEDAW, the government has not been very active in tackling the sexist norms that lie at the heart of the gender equality flower.

Ground-Up Activism: The Current Wave (2011-Present)

However, the next phase of "herstory," which I'm calling Ground-Up Activism, changes things a little and sets the context for the government to initiate the Gender Equality Review. So, this period is from 2011 to the current time. Social media has changed the way that we live, including the way that people do activism and social justice. There is no specific event to mark the start of this current phase where ground-up activism is enabled and powered by Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter. The year that I have chosen as the start year is somewhat arbitrary and subjective. It is the year of SlutWalk Singapore.

SlutWalk Singapore: provocative, bold, somewhat Un-Singaporean. I'm not sure how many of you have heard of it or remember it. The name stuck in my mind, as did the cause: to organize a march in Singapore to end slut-shaming and victim-blaming of sexual assault survivors. The Singapore march was part of a global response to a Canadian policeman's remark that women should avoid dressing provocatively in order not to be victimized. Other SlutWalk marches were being held across the globe. It was remarkable: one comment by a Canadian policeman, whose name no one remembers, inspired protest marches in the world, including a Singapore protest in Hong Lim Park.

Of course, I was impressed by the confidence and the go-getter spirit of the very young activists. They were mainly in their early 20s, I think. But what was more amazing to me was how these activists, with no prior experience, could in record time, relying mainly on their social media posts going viral, organize a globally inspired event which ended up being covered in the Wall Street Journal. This article was titled "SlutWalk Singapore Puts Feminism in Focus." I don't even think that any of AWARE's campaigns, with years of activism under its belt, has been such a feature of the Wall Street Journal. So, this, to me, signified the start of the exciting new era of social justice activism. Many of these campaigns, because they are responding to a particular moment in time, don't last long. SlutWalk SG lasted two years and disappeared after that. But they are certainly effective in provoking new conversations and ideas, engaging the community, and are often precursors to future initiatives and campaigns that may have more lasting impact.

Social media, higher education levels, and increased exposure of younger Singaporeans to global conversations have resulted in gender equality and feminism becoming widely discussed topics in Singapore. Established groups like AWARE, HOME, and United Women have also become very adept at using social media to generate public support for their causes. For example, in the last few years, AWARE has effectively used comics, videos, podcasts, online theater, and online petitions to garner support for its causes. Some groups exist just virtually; for example, Beyond the Hijab builds purely online communities to create awareness of Muslim women's true stories and issues. Many young activists learned about feminism through Instagram; they engage actively with feminist posts on a daily basis on topics ranging from rape myths and sexual consent to workplace discrimination and migrant spouses. Last year alone, AWARE's posts across all its social media platforms had a reach of more than 3.5 million.

Global movements like #MeToo have also had a sharp and long-lasting impact on sexual assault and harassment in Singapore, where the Sexual Assault Care Centre experienced a 300% increase in calls right after #MeToo started, and the number of calls to the center remains today at this high watermark. We have also seen the private sector, especially multinational corporations (MNCs) in Singapore, embrace gender diversity in a big way. They do this because gender diversity improves recruitment and the bottom line, and it makes the company look good. Companies set up women's groups and empower them to lead the company's gender diversity agenda in their organizations. These are then publicized on the company's website and social media pages, and most larger companies have jumped on the bandwagon to celebrate International Women's Day in a very public way.

In short, in the last 10 years or so, we have seen a democratization of the feminist agenda. These are no longer topics that fall within the exclusive domain of feminist activists and experts. Sexism, misogyny, sexual violence, intersectionality, unconscious bias, gender quotas, power imbalances, the motherhood penalty, and the gender pay gap have become mainstream topics for social justice activists, corporate warriors, and ordinary people. These are now seen as everyday problems that people encounter in their workplaces, homes, schools, and communities. There are also things that we can talk about openly. Social media has given us the language to process and discuss these topics, and because of all of this, norms have shifted. What used to be commonplace boorish behavior is no longer tolerated, and offenders can expect to be called out on this nowadays. Bystanders are expected to play a role in ensuring environments that are respectful, inclusive, and safe.

The Gender Equality Review: A New Chapter

It is against this backdrop that the government launched the Gender Equality Review late last year. On 20 September 2020, Mr. K. Shanmugam, Minister for Law and Home Affairs, announced that the government would undertake a comprehensive review of issues affecting women to make gender equality a fundamental value in Singapore society. The original motivation for this review was to tackle gender norms that give rise to sexual offenses. In the words of Mr. Shanmugam, the objective is to "cause gender equality to be imprinted deeply into our collective consciousness. Every boy and girl must grow up imbibing the value of gender equality. They need to be taught from a very early age that boys and girls are to be treated equally and very importantly, with respect."

Wow! Women's rights and gender equality activists are cheering on this progressive initiative. For us working in this area, we were actually taken by surprise. How come? Why now? However, upon deeper reflection of how far society has come in the last 10 years, perhaps we should not be so surprised. The time has come for gender equality in Singapore; society wants this, and the government has responded by initiating the Gender Equality Review. Thus, it is not surprising that the response to the many "women's conversations" that the government has organized has been excellent. Women want more; they want to go deeper. Many men are supportive too, as they know that it will make it easier for them to be active fathers.

There is much to be gained from this government-led initiative. As Minister Shanmugam rightly pointed out, gender equality will reduce sexual assault by addressing the root cause of sexual offenses. It will alleviate the caregiving burden that holds women back in the workplace. Gender equality is also good for business; it's good for the economy, and it gives people equal opportunity to fulfill their potential regardless of gender. Changing mindsets and implementing more gender equality practices has to be a whole-of-nation project and a long-term one, but it certainly cannot be achieved without the government taking the lead to set up the infrastructure for this to happen. Just as women's education and empowerment were essential for our success in the first half-century, gender equality will be absolutely essential in the next 50 years to deal with the critical issues of our day: low fertility rates, an aging population, economic inequality, and the sexualized world that we live in. I will talk more about this in my next two lectures.

I will end my first lecture with three broad points for the Gender Equality Review, drawing from the lessons of "herstory." The Gender Equality Review will culminate in a White Paper that sets out a roadmap for making gender equality a fundamental value for Singapore. Many people have expressed hope that the White Paper will not just be fluffy words that express nice sentiments; they want to see substance and commitment. I personally would like to see a White Paper that is bold, visionary, substantive, and long-term. It should set out a clear and comprehensive plan that sets out the steps that the government will take to role model, send signals, and set in place laws, policies, and programs to achieve its objectives. The White Paper should also encourage and spell out what community companies and families can do to promote gender equality in Singapore. Like the CEDAW mechanism, which has worked so well to advance gender equality, it is important to build in reviews and measures to ensure that we are on track.

My second point: in the past, women's rights and gender equality NGOs have been the driving force of gender equality in Singapore. They are very important stakeholders for the government to engage, as they have deep knowledge and experience about the gender issues that their communities face. They also have extensive reach to the people who strongly champion gender equality, as well as those who are affected by sexism and misogyny. They already have programs that are trying to educate people on gender equality—boys and girls, men and women—so there's no need to reinvent the wheel in some situations. It is important to collaborate and for the government to reach out both to individuals and NGOs—bigger NGOs like AWARE, PPIS, and SCWO, and smaller groups, even some unregistered ones, who deal with niche issues like groups that deal with LGBTQ issues, Muslim rights issues, sexual violence issues, and low-income women. This will deepen the state's understanding of the issues on the ground. And lastly, in relation to this point of stakeholders, men should be involved in this project, not just as male allies but in their own right as the other side of gender equality. It's important to not just have a few men attend women's conversations; it is important that we convene men's-only conversations to allow them to share their perspective in a safe space and to have initiatives for men as well.

The third point is about the constitution and the pledge. Even though the PAP's manifesto, "The Task Ahead," referred to equality regardless of sex, this was not included in the constitution or the pledge. We now have a chance to change this. One of the most visible and substantive actions that the government can take to make gender equality a fundamental value is to add gender equality into the Singapore Constitution and our pledge. Currently, it doesn't appear, and if gender equality is to be established as a fundamental value in our society, it should be reflected in these two most authoritative expressions of Singapore's values. Imagine if every day girls and boys recited: "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language, religion, or gender." Gender equality would quickly be imprinted in the collective consciousness of all these young minds.

For the constitution, there are two ways of doing this. The first is to amend Article 12 of the Constitution by adding gender as a prohibited basis for discrimination. The second is to add a new clause that is aspirational and non-actionable. In my view, and as a lawyer, I prefer the first option, as I think that would be better aligned with the state's intention to make gender equality a fundamental value of our society. Start with the leaders. Such an amendment will ensure that the government and our laws do not discriminate on the basis of gender. The UN CEDAW Committee has regularly recommended that Singapore include protections against gender discrimination in its constitution. 80% of all constitutions in the world have explicit prohibitions against gender discrimination. All new constitutions enacted since 1945 in the world have included this protection. If it is not feasible to amend Article 12, there should at the very least be an aspirational provision on gender equality to signify Singapore's commitment to gender equality, even if it is not binding on the state. An aspirational section carries a strong symbolic value. Symbols are important when we're trying to shift mindsets.

Conclusion and Discussion

So this brings me to the end of the first lecture. What a journey, from the 1950s to where we are today! I hope that you have enjoyed the lecture and leave feeling informed about the past and hopeful about the future. Women in Singapore are highly educated and empowered, but we don't have equality yet. The substantive issues that I will deal with to further this conversation are support for caregiving and equality at home, which is my next lecture on 19 May. Women's leadership, men and masculinity, and male violence against women will be covered in my lecture on 24 May. The road to equality is long and arduous, but it curves in the right direction. I feel confident about the Gender Equality Review. The ground is so ripe for this, and the government is doing the right thing at the right time.

And now I look forward to hearing your comments and taking your questions for the first lecture. I'm so pleased that I will be doing this with Dr. Kanwaljit Soin, who is a dear friend, mentor, and one of the sharpest women's rights activists that I know, even at 82 years old. Thank you.

Opening Remarks from Dr. Kanwaljit Soin and Audience Q&A

Hello everyone. It's a great pleasure for me to be here today, and I'm very glad that so many of you have tuned in. I look forward to your participation. As Corinna has mentioned, she and I go a long way back; I've known her for 30-odd years, and she has become a great leader of both women and men. She advocates passionately for gender equality but in a way that inspires others to join her. Kudos to that. She is the feminist daughter that I never had, but I have three feminist sons.

Since I'm talking of feminism, I would like to clarify what feminism means to me. It is quite simple, really: a feminist is someone who accords equal respect and consideration to all sexes. And so, I'm sure there are many of you in this audience who also consider yourselves as feminists. We have heard an excellent, insightful lecture from Corinna. She has delivered the first installment of her three-part magnus opus, and I salute her for her content, clarity, and delivery. Before the virtual floor is open to everyone in the audience, I would like to ask Corinna the first question: "Corinna, how do you think the government and women's organizations can work together to advance gender equality in Singapore?"

Corinna Lim's Response: Collaboration and Resources for Gender Equality

My mic is on, yes, okay. So, I think that there are several phases to the whole Gender Equality Review. The first phase is the consultation, which it would be great if there were opportunities for the women's rights groups, gender equality groups, and not just women's groups but also some men's groups, to actually be able to provide in-depth feedback to the government. A lot of the conversations now are more focused on individuals, which I think is really fantastic. So, what I love about this initiative is that it is a people's movement, and as I said, you know, in the last 10 years, gender equality has become a people's issue. So it's great that the government is so actively consulting with the ground. But of course, the groups that have been working in this area, they've been working on this for many, many years. We hear thousands of stories, and we have been thinking for a long time about what the solutions should be. So there should be opportunities to actually have that in-depth discussion.

Then, perhaps, I'm wondering whether it might be possible for the government to set up some sort of a multi-group committee where different organizations will be represented. And, you know, I think taking the gender equality flower, maybe we can divide up into subgroups so that there will be working groups going forward. And it becomes the work of not just the government, and the accountability is not just the government, but really it is the stakeholders in this area that already have such a big interest in this that will work with the government to take it forward.

The other thing that I think, and this is not so much about groups, but I see a lot of companies that say, "Okay, you know, we're setting up a women's group," and then when the women's group wants to do something and they ask for some funding, there's none. So, I think there needs to be also resources that actually go to make this a reality. It's a very ambitious idea: how do we make gender equality a fundamental value, imbibed in everybody's collective consciousness? So, it needs to be long-term, and it needs to have resources. So, if there could be some sort of funding where individuals and groups can tap on this to further it. We have quite a few programs as well; we have "Birds and Bees" that are for parents, we have sexual assault first responder training that actually we can't do enough of because we don't have enough staffing to do more of this. But if there were more resources, certainly we can do more of these sexual assault first responder trainings, for which we have a waitlist of people. So there are all these existing ongoing programs which I think would be great to work with the government on. Thank you.

Audience Questions and Responses

Societal Norms vs. Government Influence in Female Representation

Finally, the audience, you've been waiting so patiently, and we will turn to your input and your questions. The first question that I see is to do with societal norms, and it's from Ms. Sussi Liang and Mr. Christian Mark James Paul. The question is, "Do you think that the lack of female representation in government during the 1970s and 1980s was caused more by societal norms rather than by the government? Where do you think these societal norms come from, and why do they continue to persist?"

Corinna Lim: Of course the government—I mean, it's hard to draw a line between the two—but I think the government, like I said, they were men of their times. Society wasn't so much into, you know, just ordinary people were not so much into gender equality, at least I think during those days, aside from the SCW. And there was that burning issue. So there wasn't all this conversation, and there were no women's rights groups, and so I don't think this was a big deal in society. But you're asking whether or not the fact that there were not more... I think, you know, who gets into government is up to the government to recruit and to look for specific talent. Today's government, if it's looking for women, they actually say, "We want to recruit more women. It's hard to get more women." And in those days, I don't think this was their priority because they didn't have those values of trying to have equal representation or even some representation.

Dr. Kanwaljit Soin: And also, I think if I may add to that, the PAP was the only effective party at that time. There wasn't much political competition, and as you said quite rightly, the PAP went out to look for their political candidates, and obviously, being men of their times, they missed out on the women. So it was just not societal norms, I think, that held women back; it was the lack of search, yeah, for women. I mean, it was interesting, and you know, that's why I mentioned Chan Choy Siong's background. She was not really so highly educated, and Ho Pue Chu was in fact a seamstress who couldn't speak English. So it wasn't so much then, you know, that you needed to have very high academic credentials. It was, I think, if you went out to look for... If there is one Chan Choy Siong and Ho Pue Chu, you could find others who were passionate about nation-building women to be on the party if you looked.

Historical Question: Other Parties' Manifestos on Women's Rights

Now there's a historical question, and this is going to be a little bit hard, I think, for Mr. Chandramohan, and he asks, "Did other political parties in the 1950s and 1960s also have manifestos to get women to have equal rights? If so, what are the details, and what did they fight for?"

Corinna Lim: As far as I know, they didn't have manifestos that included women's rights, and that's why PAP was so successful. It was very clever that they actually... you know, these parties did say we should have women's rights, but they didn't do anything about it. So you can see this in some of the debates on the Women's Charter because some of these parties did actually speak up, and you know, the PAP would say, "But what did you do for women's rights?" They did nothing. So PAP certainly was way more progressive than any other party in this regard, and I think from my reading of it, I think the activists did go to the other parties, but they said the time was not right yet to have issues to do with women in the manifesto. So I think from what I remember, that's true too.

Measuring Success of the Gender Equality Review

Now there's another question on the Gender Equality Review by Lee Yock Meng: "What would make AWARE think that the Gender Equality Review is a success?" That's a really good question, yes, very good question.

Corinna Lim: Yeah, so when we look at the, okay, so you have the petals, right? So you want some movement in each of these petals. You really want to try to change the norms as well. Now norms are harder to measure, but a good one is actually the World Values Survey, which has been carried out by IPS recently. That was one, I think it came out, and we have seen gender equality is already shifting. You see that young people have really quite different norms, so that's one that you can measure, that there has been some change. I think a really good measurement would be if there are more stay-at-home dads. So that probably can be measured if there are more stay-at-home dads. And for my research, I spoke to three, and it wasn't so easy to find them. What they've told me, I will share in the third lecture, it has not been easy for them as dads. They love spending time with their kids, and my heart goes out to them because I feel I should be fighting for their rights, and you know, we are, in doing this, we are... So I think that's a really good measurement, because once the dads, you know, fathers feel like, "Okay, you know, I can be the primary caregiver," maybe not stay-at-home dad but the primary caregiver, then women can actually do more in the workplace. They have more choices.

Dr. Kanwaljit Soin: And Corinna, I mean, besides biologically giving birth, they are nothing; the other ability to look after a child is not controlled by genes, it's just, you know, the societal norms. So you're right, if you have that...

Corinna Lim: In order for this to happen, though, right, for the ultimate goal is, you know, will caregiving—and I think this is one of the biggest norms that's hard to tackle right now, but it's already changing a little—can we come to a stage where both parties are seen as caregivers as well as breadwinners, which is one model? And then if whoever decides that they want to split the roles, then the person who is the caregiver is not disadvantaged and is respected regardless of gender. But a lot of things need to happen in order to achieve that.

Barriers to Inserting Gender Equality Clause in the Constitution

Now another interesting question, from Ms. Gillian Koh herself: "What are the barriers to inserting the gender equality clause in Article 12 in the Constitution?" Right up your alley! [Laughter]

Corinna Lim: Yeah, what are the barriers? Okay, like I said, Article 12 is not an anti-discrimination act. It really is about—it's a clause that will be binding on the government. So it means that the government cannot have any laws that are not gender equal. So you can think of some policies and laws already, the Women's Charter provision on maintenance, it's not equal. Only men with disability are entitled to get maintenance from their wives. So that and MediShield Life, right, which women's groups really fought for and said, "You shouldn't be charging us more premiums." So those things, they would have to review, and you can carve these out, but actually you have to do this review. So it doesn't have to happen tomorrow; you can say, "We want to try to move towards a gender-neutral and, you know, gender-equal state where all laws and policies are not in any way differentiated." So that needs to happen, yeah. Okay, I think we'll get on to the question, but it is binding on the government, and also, you know, the good thing about this is that in future, then we are protected against any discriminatory or different differential laws, except on, you know, really good grounds right that will be harder to justify.

The Power of Social Media Activism

The next question, regarding social media activism, comes from Nandani Balakrishnan: "The rise in social media activism for gender empowerment has helped to raise awareness among many young Singaporeans. Do you think such online conversations can help to facilitate greater offline changes as well?"

Corinna Lim: Absolutely, yes. In fact, I think we always say for our activism, we meet people where they are, and the most progressive people in the area of gender equality and any social activism are online. So how can we reach out to them in order to actually spread the message to the people who are not online? If we are looking long-term at the younger generation, then perhaps we don't target the people who are older, who might not be as interested. Instead, we target the young parents and young adults who are going to be more interested.

I also think institutions are really important places to ensure they set the right environment to promote gender equality. So, I would say the younger population and all our institutions, whichever institutions are truly affecting how people see and do things—companies, schools—there's a lot to do there. But let's not forget the older people: the mother-in-law, the mother, the grandmother. They are very important too, and we could target them through movies, films, and television. So let's not forget people of my generation. I'm thinking that young people will find ways to actually talk to their parents and the older generation and bring them around. But yes, I mean, these are all conversations that we can have with young people, like, "Who are the people you have some influence over?" It can start with very simple things, just like equal chores for boys and girls. We can roster based on age but not sex.

The Push for Equal Pay and Anti-Discrimination Laws

Now, another good question in the area of law, from Mr. Nan Paul Tambyah: "Is there any chance that we will get an equal pay for equal work law in Singapore?"

Corinna Lim: I think that's a very high-hanging fruit. I think actually anti-discrimination might be a lower-hanging fruit, and we certainly need one. This is a real-life problem. AWARE has a workplace harassment and discrimination advisory. We had 800 cases last year, and about a quarter of these were related to maternity discrimination. Even though we have protection against maternity discrimination, there are very specific laws that protect you, like you cannot sack someone when they're on maternity leave. But there are so many other ways people are discriminated against. So, actually, you need a general discrimination law. Age is going to be a big thing, for example. So, I would say that's probably easier. And I think the other thing about gender pay is that it's harder, it's slightly more difficult to try to measure. So, I would say that might, for me, be a second level.

Dr. Kanwaljit Soin: Just casting our minds historically, I think the three tasks that the PAP's first manifesto in 1959 promised was to abolish polygamy, to give equal pay for equal work, and to declare March the 8th as a holiday. So it looks like we have only achieved one so far.

Corinna Lim: On equal pay, I think what can be done is the progressive wage model (PWM). A lot of the jobs that women do are really lowly paid, and they're not on this progressive wage ladder. So I think that would be something to fight for. I think they're going to include retail, but teachers and some of the other more female-dominated professions, like nurses and health assistants, anyone in healthcare, should all be under the wage ladder.

Dr. Kanwaljit Soin: But I suppose what Mr. Tambyah was referring to is equal pay for equal work, you know, that sort of...

Corinna Lim: But, I mean, let's... I mean, I still feel that, for generally, the difference there is 6%. 6% right? So 6%, you know, is the total unadjusted is 16%, but that's because women give up work or they take different jobs; that's why you get 16%. But when you talk about equal work, that difference is 6%. Yes, right? So for me, it's not as important. Everything is important, but if I have to rank this, I would say anti-discrimination is number one. Make sure that women's jobs, the ones they've dominated and that are very lowly paid—childcare and eldercare—are put on the progressive wage model as quickly as possible.

The Evolution and Misnomer of the Women's Charter

Dr. Kanwaljit Soin: Right, we'll go on to the next one now. "Could you talk a bit about the evolution of the Women's Charter Act over the years? It is sometimes called a woman's bill. Does it live up to its name?" And that's from Sian Lao.

Corinna Lim: Does it live up to its name? That's really interesting because one of the big criticisms when it was first introduced in Parliament was that, "Wow, this is a very elevated name, it's a Women's Charter, but you're only dealing with polygamy," and then, "making sure that women can sign contracts, etc." So the criticism was that, "How come it doesn't deal with equal pay or making sure that women have equal opportunities in the workplace?" So, does it live up to its name? I think it is misnamed, and I feel strongly that we really should change the name Women's Charter to Family Charter. It is far more accurate. 80% of the provisions in the Women's Charter are about family law. But men, you know, when you ask men, a lot of men actually object to gender equality on two grounds: one, National Service, and two, that you have laws that protect women but not men. But the Women's Charter really has that name because historically it abolished polygamy; it doesn't give equal rights, you know, in the workplace or anywhere else. Yeah, so yeah, I don't think it's the right name for that charter. Yes, and it gives the wrong impression that women have something men don't have.

Closing Remarks and Future Lectures

Dr. Kanwaljit Soin: Well, I'm afraid it's time to close this discussion and say a big thank you to all of you for your meaningful input. Apologies for the fact that not all comments and questions were addressed, but hopefully, the next two lectures will provide more enlightenment on many of these issues, so please come back then. Now, allow me to close this session with a few words: Gender equality does not mean giving something to women by taking something away from men. It is not a zero-sum game, but instead, the two parts add up to more than one whole. That's why we must strive for gender equality: it ensures people-centered, sustainable development. We cannot have Singapore operating at half-strength. We cannot waste half the brains, half the inspiration, half the beauty and joy, and half the human resources of Singapore. So, let us all get together and work together to advance gender equality in our beloved nation. And here I'm going to say, "Majulah Singapura!"

Organiser: Well, thank you very much, Dr. Soin and Ms. Lim. We've come to the end of today's lecture. We would like to hear your views on the event; please click the link on our Facebook feed to submit your feedback. Karina's second lecture will be titled "The Caring Economy," and it will take place on May 19th. Details will be on our website and on our Facebook page. We hope to see you then. Thank you all for attending this lecture this evening. Good night.

Lecture II — The Caring Economy (14 May 2021)

[11]

Video caption:

"Women are taken to be the natural stewards of care, often bound to the home. In Singapore, where most women are in the workforce, these beliefs nevertheless persist. If couples have children, women are made to factor that into career considerations. These expectations do not exist for men. As Singapore’s economy grows and its people age, whose job is it to take care of our kids and our elderly? Are foreign domestic workers the solution? Why is Singapore’s total fertility rate at rock bottom levels, despite the billions spent on pro-natal measures? This lecture will deal with these questions and explore how we can build a robust care infrastructure to support our families, our economy and our nation."

The Q&A session was moderated by Lin Suling, Executive Editor of CNA Digital News, Mediacorp Pte Ltd.

Transcript:

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It is my pleasure to welcome you to the second of three NUSS lectures by our eighth S.R. Nathan Fellow, Corinna Lim. Following her lecture, Corinna will be taking questions during a Q&A session. The Q&A session will be led by Lin Suling, Executive Editor at CNA Digital.

First, I would like to go over some housekeeping rules before the event. This live stream is being broadcast live on Facebook. It will also be recorded and uploaded to our website and our social media platforms after the event. Please submit your comments and questions at any time throughout the course of this event, and we will try to answer as many questions as possible during the Q&A session. We would also like to hear your feedback and your views of the event. There will be a link in the feed later which you can click to submit your feedback. And so, without further ado, I would like to invite Corinna Lim to begin her second lecture, "The Caring Economy." Corinna, please.

The Pledge and the Gender Equality Flower

"We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language, religion, or gender, to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness, prosperity, and progress."

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you all for coming to my second lecture. I am really glad that you are here. I'm happy to report that from my first lecture, my revised version of the pledge, which I just recited, incorporating gender, was well-received by the media as a way of imprinting gender equality into our collective consciousness. I go further in this lecture to talk about our continuing project to build a just and equal society to achieve happiness, prosperity, and progress. This is the second part of our pledge.

Today, we zoom in on the issues of the Gender Equality Flower: caregiving work, fertility, aging, and gender. A big thank you to the people who left very positive feedback for Lecture One. Many of you said you were inspired by the stories of our early women's rights activists and that you liked my Gender Equality Flower. So here it is again as a reminder of the six core dimensions of gender equality, represented by the colorful petals, and the gender norms that lie at the heart of the flower. In this lecture, I will zero in on the dark blue petal at the bottom of the flower: equal distribution of unpaid housework and caregiving.

Why focus on this? First, because it is a laggard, and much more needs to be done. Second, and more importantly, it is holding back women's progress in other areas, especially in the economy and leadership dimensions (the green and light blue petals). And third, because this might just help Singapore to reverse its declining fertility rate. The main norm we have to change is this idea that men should be the primary breadwinner and women the primary caregiver of the family.

Care Work as Infrastructure

Caregiving for our young and old is central to three important issues: our low fertility rate, women leaving the workforce prematurely, and care for our aging population. These are super important issues for Singapore, and I will be dealing with each of them in turn. Getting men to share the care more equally at home is part of the solution, and I believe many men are ready and want to do this. With the right laws and support from employers, we can make this happen. But of course, it takes more than gender equality in the family to support our family's caregiving needs.

Care Work is Infrastructure. President Joe Biden, in the first 100 days of his presidency, released a massive infrastructure proposal that included family leave, investments in childcare, and at-home care for the elderly and disabled, together with rebuilding crumbling roads and bridges. What was inspiring to me was the idea that childcare, eldercare, cooking, and cleaning were seen to be just as vital to the functioning of the economy as roads and bridges. Care work is infrastructure. What Singapore needs is a robust care infrastructure to support our family's care needs, both childcare and eldercare. Without a strong care infrastructure, our economy and our society just won't tick. That's why I have titled this talk "The Caring Economy."

Adam Smith's Oversight and the Undervaluing of Family Care

First, let me start with a teaser for all of you: who cooked Adam Smith's dinner? I think that many of you would have heard of Adam Smith, also known as the father of capitalism. You might have studied him and his works. In his seminal book, The Wealth of Nations, written in 1776, Adam Smith used the answer to the question of who cooked his dinner to formulate his thesis of capitalism. Well, you asked me what did Adam Smith have for dinner? His dinner was bread, beer, and steak. So the answer to this question was the baker, the brewer, and the butcher. And why did they do it? Because of their own self-interest, which gave rise to what he called the "invisible hand" that drives capitalist markets.

But actually, Adam Smith overlooked something really important, which is this: he forgot his mother, Margaret Douglas. Adam Smith lived most of his life with his mother, Margaret, who cared for him and their home. Margaret cooked and served the steak, but she's completely left out from the picture, together with the wives of the baker, the brewer, and the butcher. Unfortunately, this incomplete picture of how a capitalist society operates has become the paradigm of economic life.

Family care work that is generally carried out by women doesn't get counted, and so it doesn't count. It doesn't count in the GDP and continues to be overlooked and undervalued by policymakers. Yet, capitalism depends on this very work. Without people caring for the workers, the economy would collapse. We caught a glimpse of this when schools and childcare closed during the lockdown. Care and work then collided under one roof: people's homes. Without childcare, parents were struggling to get anything else done with their kids at home. Many men also realized for the first time how much caregiving and housework their wives were doing on top of their paid work. The point is, if we don't see the caregiving being done because we are outside working or it is taken care of by someone else, we may just not realize how much work there is and how important it is. The undervaluing of family care is very much at the heart of this lecture.

Singapore's Abysmally Low Fertility Rate Next, let me move to the topic of Singapore's abysmally low fertility rate. Singapore's Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is today at an all-time low of 1.1 children per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1. All developed countries have gone below 2.1, but not as low as us. A lower fertility rate isn't necessarily all bad; it's partly a signal of how women and men are finding fulfillment in other areas beyond raising a family. But our TFR at 1.1 is considered to be dangerously low.

Look at the slide which our then DPM Teo Chee Hean presented to Parliament in 2010. The TFR then was 1.16, slightly above what it is today, and this slide shows that in just two generations, we will have one-third of the Singaporeans that we have today. So this is why TFR is an existential issue for Singapore. The main concern to address is this: how do we support the people who want kids to fulfill their parenthood aspirations? The government's Marriage and Parenthood survey showed that 80% of married couples would like to have at least two kids. 60% did not achieve their ideal, and this is despite the government efforts to support and promote marriage and parenthood. There are also people who have decided not to get married, or they are not attracted to get married and have kids, so we are also concerned about that group of people.

The government's annual spending on pro-natal measures has increased progressively by five times from $2.5 billion in 2000 to $5 billion in 2020. You can see this in the black bars, and yet the TFR, represented by the pink line, continues to fall even as we spend to try to stem that fall. And it fell further in 2021 to 1.08. So why did the pro-natal measures not work? The short answer is that the measures were just not sufficient to address the reasons why couples didn't have as many kids as they wished. They said: too expensive, too stressful, too difficult to manage work and family demands. These were the reasons given by couples in a government survey. So the issue is not just money; it's also about time, stress, and the actual work of giving care. The pro-natal incentives were mainly in the form of family leave and monetary incentives in the form of baby bonuses, tax breaks, and subsidies for preschool. Leave is essential, of course, and money is always welcome, but the actual burden of caregiving, especially the burden on mothers, was still not addressed.

Women Leaving the Workforce Prematurely

Let me take a sip of water. So let me move to the related issue of women leaving the workforce prematurely. As I said in the last lecture, girls have overtaken boys in education. Girls do better in schools and on average have better educational qualifications. But what happens when women and men enter the workforce? This slide shows the male and female participation rates in the workforce across age groups. In other words, what percentage of men are working, and what percentage of women are working? Blue is female, the green line is male.

Let's look at the green male line first. What we see is that between the ages of 25 to 55, close to 90% of men are in the workforce. They start retiring in their mid-50s. Now look at the blue female line; it behaves very differently. From the ages of 20 to 29, the blue and the green lines run together, women no different from the men. And then the blue line peaks at about 80% in the 30 to 34 age group, and from 35 to 39, it starts to go downhill. What do you think happens at 30 to 34? If you guessed childbirth, you are absolutely right. The median age of first-time mothers is 30.6 years old. So unlike men, women's ability to work is hampered by child rearing.

This pattern isn't too surprising; the same happens in many OECD countries. Women start working when they become mothers. But the difference is that for many OECD countries, including Japan and Korea, women return to the workforce after the children go to school at about, you know, when they are about 6 to 12 years old. The women's curve is in the shape of an "M"; the curve goes down but it goes up and then down again when they retire. But for Singapore, it's just downhill all the way. Why is there no M-curve for Singapore? Why don't our women return to work after their kids start primary school?

I have not seen any direct research on this, but we can make some intelligent guesses. First, PSLE. Women take time off to ensure that kids do well in primary school, so even as some women return, some get out. Then, aging parents. Women then take time off to look after their aging parents. This would be women who are in their 40s to 50s. And finally, ageism, which makes it hard for women and men to go back to the workforce at an older age after their family responsibilities are done.

Singapore's Labor Force Participation Rate Compared to Other Countries So how does Singapore's labor force participation rate fare against other developed countries? This slide shows how Singapore's ratio of female to male labor force participation compares to all other OECD countries. We want the number to be 100%, meaning the percentage of women working is the same as the percentage of men working. Singapore is represented by the red line, and we are not top of the class by any means. We're not very behind, but we are not in the top half. At 81%, we are just slightly better than Japan and Korea, the two green lines to the left of the red, and we are quite far behind the best countries like Sweden and Norway by about 10%.

Singapore's low fertility rates and women dropping out of the labor force are a waste of human potential, especially given that on average, Singaporean women are more highly educated than men. So we must try to do better. The issues of women's workforce participation and Singapore's low fertility rates boil down to one thing: the expectation that women, who are now educated and have careers, will continue to bear the brunt of the caregiving burden as they did in the past. This expectation sets up a situation where women have to choose between their careers and their children. Some give up their careers for family; others choose career over family. Either way, it's not ideal for Singapore; we end up with both low fertility and women leaving the workforce prematurely. Many places, including Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, face similar problems.

Learning from the Nordics: Gender Equality Solution and Care Infrastructure Can women have both career and kids? Countries like Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and Finland have shown that it is possible. With the right family support and care policies, a country can have it all: high fertility, working mothers, a competitive economy, and also very happy citizens. You know, the Nordics always top the charts for happiness. The experience of these countries showed that there are two things that governments can do to increase fertility and women's workforce participation. The first: embed gender equality into laws and policies, in particular, use parental leave policies to nudge husbands to be more active fathers—what I call the gender equality solution. The second: build a robust care infrastructure to support all families' caregiving needs. We need to do both.

Let's look at the gender equality solution first. The Nordic experience has shown that the best way to change societal norms on parenting is to give men and women equal parenting leave. If men don't take their leave, they will lose it, so many take it and end up loving it. As the Swedish Ambassador to Singapore said to me during a gender equality discussion, "No man ever regrets it." The Ambassador has four kids, and he took "daddy days" for all of them, up to as much as 90 days. So the norms have changed so much in Sweden that fathers who don't take paternity leave are frowned upon. Research has shown that dads who are actively involved in the early months of their kids' lives are much more likely to be active fathers in later years, so we have to be strategic to target the early years. These men also share domestic work and paid work more equitably with their partners beyond the paternity leave period.

So, what's the paternity leave situation in Singapore? As part of its pro-natal measures, Singapore extended paternity leave to two weeks in 2013. It was one week, and then it was extended to two weeks in 2017. And last year, 53% of men took their leave. To me, this is a positive sign of how social norms are changing quite rapidly these days. It's quite common to see dads walking around with their kids strapped onto their chest, or jogging, cycling, going to the store with their kids in hand, no moms in sight. More fathers have become active parents, although moms still do the bulk of the work at home. This particular pro-natal strategy is definitely worth pursuing because it benefits families directly and also creates a more gender-equal and pro-family culture in the long run.

Now, two weeks of paternity leave was a good start, but I think of it as a pilot. It is insufficient for fathers who really want to be equal parents. How much can a person do in two weeks? That might just be enough time for fathers to get the hang of things. It's really not so easy to be supporting baby and your wife during this period, and it does take some time to understand what the role is. So that's like orientation. We see companies like Aviva, Diageo, and HP voluntarily giving four months of paternity leave to their male employees in Singapore. They understand that this is what their male employees want, and it is a good way to attract and retain talent.

I also spoke to two parents, Ken and Liz, about their experience with paternity leave and early parenting. Ken is the father of a one-year-old boy. He shared his parenting experience about why men should have longer paternity leave. He said to me, "When I became a father, I relished being a freelancer because I had flexible hours that allowed me to spend a lot of time with my son and assume my rightful half of childcare duties. At the same time, I wondered about other fathers—fathers who had full-time jobs but only had scant paternity leave. I know that even if I was working as a full-time employee in a company, I would want to have as much paid leave for childcare as any new mother. My body, unlike my wife's, did not need physical healing and regeneration for breastfeeding after my son's birth. Therefore, it was all the more important to me that I could do the diaper changing, share in the sleepless nights through bottle feeding, and as my son grew older, spend as much time with him as possible." Today, Ken enjoys a wonderful relationship with his son. He tells me, "In many ways, my son is as close to me, if not closer, than to his mom. Sometimes when he's in trouble, he'll come to me first. He looks to me for comfort and play, but also for the conventional mom things: preparing food, setting him to soccer classes, story and bedtime routine." Ken's wishlist for policy changes include paid paternity leave equal to what mothers have and unisex toddler stations or diaper-changing facilities in men's toilets. He's had to change his son on top of a wet, wiped toilet seat too many times.

Liz is the mother of a five-month-old baby; she's my colleague. She shared the importance of having the support of a partner. She says, "One obstacle I face is the unequal amount of parental leave that my partner and I have. As he only had two weeks, I gave him my shareable month, so he had a total of 2.5 months, and I had three months. I had a condition where I feel a burst of negative emotions right before breastfeeding, and having my partner's presence at home at that time was really helpful for me to cope. My partner had to return to work during my maternity leave, which meant I had to do things like lifting the baby out of the cot myself, going against my physiotherapist's advice to not exert myself three months post C-section."

Now, while not every man is ready to take more than two weeks of paternity leave, our policies should support those who are keen to do so, and those who are not going to take it, so be it—it's their loss. The other unsatisfactory issue about the current leave is the disparity between mothers' and fathers' leave. Currently, moms have four months of maternity leave, and dads have two weeks. This huge disparity reinforces the idea that child rearing is primarily the mom's role. It goes against the idea of gender equality and also hurts women's career prospects. Women will not be equal leaders or in the workplace unless men assume roles as equal or primary caregivers. So the Gender Equality Review presents us with a wonderful opportunity to update our paternity leave provisions. Ultimately, we should aim for a situation where all parents have the same amount of parenting leave regardless of gender. If moms have four months, dads should have four months too, but this needs long-term consideration and planning, as employers will be greatly impacted by this.

So in the meantime, here is my recommendation to equalize paternity leave as part of the Gender Equality Review so it can be done more quickly. Here's the proposal: increase father's entitlement from two weeks to three months. Maintain mother's leave at four months. Cap the total paid leave for the family at six months. What this means is that parents can decide for themselves if they want to do three months for moms and three months for dads, or 60/40, four months for moms and two months for dads. And although the current leave situation allows men to share women's leave, no mom, or very, very few moms, give up that last month. Liz was one of them because actually three months may not be enough for them to recover. And it is their leave, so for them to share their entitlement is difficult. But if mom and dad both had their own leave and they just need to decide who's going to take how much, then it's much more likely that they're likely to do that.

Advocating for Active Fatherhood and Equal Rights

Now, I'm a huge advocate of active fatherhood for many reasons. Aside from the ones that I've shared, here are a few more. First, it's great for kids. When fathers were more involved, research shows that kids did better in schools, they were more empathetic, had higher self-esteem and life satisfaction, and when they grew up, they didn't get into as much trouble and were less likely to engage in substance abuse. Secondly, it's great for dads too. Fatherhood increases self-esteem and a sense of purpose in life. Dads take their health more seriously and reduce risk-taking behaviors. And thirdly, it role models gender equality for our next generation. Even if we don't achieve gender equality in this generation, the next generation will be more gender equal. When women went out to work, it changed the way that their children thought about women's roles in society. In the same way, men doing more at home will change the way that our children see men's role in society.

In line with the idea that fathers should be equal parents or sometimes even stay-at-home parents, we should also amend the Women's Charter to equalize men's rights to seek maintenance from their wives. Currently, Section 113 of the Women's Charter only allows husbands to apply for maintenance from their wives if they are incapacitated. Wives have an unfettered right to apply for maintenance from their husbands; they don't have to be incapacitated. This provision reflects the old patriarchal norm that men were the primary caregivers and had a duty to maintain their wives. It is time to update this provision and give men the same rights as women to apply for maintenance, and when husbands do apply for maintenance, the courts can make that final decision on whether it is fair to award this.

As the Nordic experience has shown, equal parenting policies are effective in setting more egalitarian gender norms in a family. Now in Sweden these days, it's common to see "Latte Papas"—this is an affectionate term for groups of dads who push their prams, go to a cafe, and have a latte. And I can't wait for the day when "Kopi Papas" become a thing in Singapore.

Building a Robust Childcare Infrastructure

Let's move on to the second solution: building a robust care infrastructure to ease the burden on women. Now this refers to the state providing public childcare services. In the late 1980s, when the government realized that family caregiving was hindering women's participation in the workforce, it launched the Foreign Maid Scheme to enable families to employ foreign domestic workers. At this point, the state didn't invest in building public childcare for all families, but the private market saw this opportunity and seized it, offering a range of services which cost as much as $2,000 per child at the high end.

To me, this is not the usual Singapore way of doing things. Our excellent social infrastructure in education, housing, healthcare, and transport has been the cornerstone of our economic success. The state provided high-quality flats, facilities, and services to ensure that the basic needs of all Singaporeans were met. The private market exists, but it's secondary. Why didn't the government, at first instance, invest in building a strong childcare infrastructure in the same way that it built a strong education system? And why did the government start aggressively building the childcare infrastructure only after less than a decade ago, when it has been desperately trying to increase total fertility rates for more than three decades? Why was there a delay of 20 years to build childcare?

I've been researching and pondering about this in the last few months, and in my analysis, there are three reasons for this. Let's go back to the Adam Smith story: unpaid care work is overlooked and undervalued in our capitalist system. Male decision-makers especially may not realize how important childcare is for women to work; lack of childcare doesn't impact men's work as much as women's. Second, patriarchal thinking: women are supposed to do the housework and take care of the family—that's the patriarchal idea. So if women can't handle those duties, then pay another woman, a migrant domestic worker, to do this for low wages. No need to provide public services. And the third reason is an elitist or eugenic way of thinking. Our early leaders, in particular Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, were fixated on the elitist idea that intelligence is an inheritable trait. So this idea led the government to introduce the Graduate Mother Scheme in 1985 to incentivize graduate moms to have kids. Under the scheme, children of graduate mothers got priority admission to schools; the moms got tax breaks. But on the flip side, low-income and poorly educated couples were discouraged from having kids; they were paid $10,000 to stop at two kids. This Graduate Mother Scheme was so unpopular, it was reversed the next year.

However, this elitist way of thinking didn't go away. Since the government was not keen for less educated families to have more kids, there wasn't a need to provide childcare for them. Better-off families could afford their own domestic workers and to pay for private childcare. Private solutions may seem very attractive; it saves the government from having to take on the burden of managing or providing these services. However, relying on the market to provide solutions to fulfill basic human needs like childcare is deeply concerning, as it increases social inequality. Certainly, in AWARE's research report, "Why are you not working?", the lack of accessible preschool was one of the reasons why low-income mothers were not working.

It is only in 2013 that the government really focused its attention on childcare provision when it set up the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA). Since then, the state has made great progress in building the preschool infrastructure, including improving the quality of preschool services, making it more affordable and accessible, and creating the KidSTART program to support the healthy development of kids from low-income families. Families who now earn less than $2,500 a month can pay as little as $3 a month for full-day childcare after subsidies. And in 2019, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced that the government will double its annual spending on the pre-school sector to $2 billion in 2025. "A heavy investment, but worthwhile and necessary," said PM Lee.

So from this graph, you can see how Singapore has increased its annual spending on preschool by about five times, from $300 million to $2 billion a decade later. And the latest indications are that government-supported preschool will be able to meet at least 80% of families' needs by 2025. That's the Singapore way. We had a late start, and there's still some catching up to do.

So let me go back to my colleague Liz, who shared also about her search for infant care. Even as I speak, Liz is desperately searching for infant care for a five-month-old baby because she wants to go back to work. She's anxious and stressed as she's used up all of her maternity leave, yet she can't get back to work until she can get full-day infant care for her daughter. She's been on the waiting list of nearby preschool centers; she would go on more, but this is the maximum number of waiting lists that she's allowed to be on. Her family monthly household income is about $7,000. Sparkle Tots is the most affordable center; after subsidies, it will cost the family $480, about 7% of their income. One other center has space in September, five months from the time she applied, but they are higher-end and charge $1,500 per month. That's 21% of the family income; it's actually beyond the couple's budget, but they may have no choice. So many couples today face this predicament with securing infant care availability and cost. Hopefully, this situation too will get better by 2025.

Urgent Priorities for Childcare and Education System Overhaul

Now, aside from providing more affordable preschool places, there are other urgent priorities to work on. First, we don't have enough childcare teachers, as the pay and recognition aren't great. Second, childcare fees are still much higher than primary school. The lowest rate for full-day childcare (not infant care) is about $700, compared to primary school fees at $13. Also, the fee should not depend on whether the mother is working or not. Currently, the case is that working mothers pay a lower fee. It is ironic, and it is because childcare was designed originally as a scheme to support working mothers. Childcare really should be a public good that is available to every single child, so working and non-working parents should be paying the same.

Third, we also need to enable our preschools to cater to kids with special needs. This is a growing problem in Singapore; there's an increase in the number of kids with developmental problems such as autism, behavioral issues, and speech delays. Currently, the early intervention programs are outside the preschools, so this makes it really challenging for parents who have to transfer their kids from one place to another in the middle of the workday. I am really, really glad to see the government's current focus and investment on developing the preschool infrastructure. It is critical, and the good news is that the research does show that the availability of formal childcare, by lowering the care burden, positively influences parents' decisions to have kids. So hopefully, good access to quality childcare will improve fertility rates, and even if it doesn't, our families and kids really need it.

So far, I've been focusing on the caregiving infrastructure for children. The education system is a separate but related system. It used to be a great public system, but these days parents spend a lot of money on tuition to help their kids do well in PSLE. In Singapore, households spent $1.4 billion on tuition. Not all of this is for PSLE, but we know that nothing beats the PSLE in terms of parental involvement and tuition. The upshot of this is that primary school has now become a public-private system that amplifies inequality. Rich kids get tuition in every subject; poor families scrounge around for free tuition in the subjects they need help in; middle-class families give tuition to the kids for the subjects they are weak in. So it does promote inequality.

The PSLE system has also created a huge amount of unpleasant care labor for parents. Parents spend a lot of time searching for the best tutors, ferrying kids here and there, coordinating timetables, nagging and scolding their children, and getting upset with each other because it is also stressful. It's now quite normal for one parent, usually mom, to resign from her job or take one year off to support her kids through PSLE. A mother whose child was struggling at Primary Five told me that she quit her job as she felt that she would not be able to live with herself if her child did poorly and she had not done everything she possibly could to support him, because the stakes they see as very high. It's heartbreaking to hear these stories. This is not what childhood and parenthood should be about. The PSLE system is clearly not working. This is one of the reasons why I think that our women's labor force participation curve does not have an M-shape. Research from East Asia has also shown a negative correlation between total fertility rate and household spending on education. There have been calls to abolish PSLE. I strongly support those calls that we abolish or overhaul the system, and in assessing the system, I hope that policymakers will take into account the impact of PSLE on women, our economy, fertility rates, and social inequality. There must be less costly ways to provide our children with a good education.

Climate Change and Fertility Rates

Corinna Lim: Will we be able to successfully reverse our fertility rate if we implement the gender equality solution, abolish PSLE, and make high-quality preschool universal? I wish I could guarantee this. I know these solutions will help many families and that it may make it more feasible for people to have kids. But we also have new challenges ahead of us: climate change.

Christian and his partner Heng Yen are recent graduates in their mid-20s and part of the climate justice group SG Climate Rally. They are waiting excitedly for their BTO flat, which should be ready by 2026, but they've decided not to have any kids for this reason. Christian shared with me: "My partner and I recognize that this world is rapidly deteriorating, both socio-politically and ecologically. The science shows us that we are teetering on the edge of no return, with more diseases, natural disasters, and unpredictable changes on the horizon. Recognizing this reality, the conversation around having a child becomes quite non-negotiable for us. We cannot knowingly bring a child into this literal and metaphorical burning world." Even though it sounds somewhat depressing, it is important to know what some members of the younger generation are thinking and to hear their concerns. Singapore and the world have to really think about how people can thrive without overburdening our planet and without having to rely on economic models that are dependent on population growth. It is ironic I'm standing here and talking about how we can increase our fertility when population growth is actually one of the problems that have led to climate change. I hope that this will be the subject of another S.R. Nathan Fellowship.

The Opportunities and Challenges of an Aging Population

Let's move on to another topic: our aging population. Let me ask you a question: Assuming good health, if you could choose to live either till 70 or 90, what would you choose? This is a no-brainer, right? Most people would choose to live till 90, and that is one of the remarkable benefits of Singapore's development in the last 50 years. Singaporeans are living longer than almost any other nationality. The average life expectancy in 1965 was 66.6, and today it is 83.5. We gained an extra 17 years' lease of life. 83.5 years is the average life expectancy, which means that many of us alive today may live to beyond 90 years old. Our longevity is certainly something to celebrate and can be a huge boost to our economy. Older individuals today are generally healthier and wealthier than those in past generations, and they seek to remain engaged and relevant for years beyond the retirement age. As you know from my last lecture, my feminist mother, Dr. Kanwaljit Soin, is 80 and still practices as an orthopedic surgeon. My real mother, Jun Lim, is also 80, and she still enjoys working as a housing agent. They both do more strenuous workouts than me. I tell them jokingly, "When I grow up, I want to be like them."

Older workers offer valuable experience and talent. They provide perspective, experience, stability, and through their insights, they can serve as mentors and role models to younger counterparts. I have been the beneficiary of many wiser mentors. Studies have found that the productivity of both older and younger workers is higher in companies with mixed-age work teams. Also, an aging population opens up new markets as older people will have different needs. So if managed well, our aging population may indeed be our only increasing natural resource.

But usually, when people talk about aging and our aging population, it's with a sense of dread, apprehension, and anxiety. The images that we associate in our mind with aging are those of illness, disability, vulnerability, and the sacrifices and burden of caregiving. When we think about the aging of our older relatives, we worry about the impact it may have on our lives. If they should fall sick or become disabled, will we be able to cope with our own families, our jobs, and caregiving? Do we have to change our living arrangements? Can we afford the care that our loved ones need? In short, the aging population offers both opportunities and challenges.

Here's the thing though: we can only reap the benefits of the gifts of longevity if we have a strong care infrastructure to support our aging population's needs. In other words, we need to meet the challenges before we can benefit from longevity. But more than that, if we fail to meet the challenges, longevity becomes a liability for our economy and society. So the stakes are high: meet the challenges, get a bonus; don't meet the challenges, not just you don't get the bonus, it becomes a liability. So it's a bit different from children. With children, if we don't have a strong care infrastructure, not enough support, people just won't have babies. With older persons, that is not an option. Many of us have two parents, and we have no choice, and we would want to care for them. So if our parents are unable to cope on their own, and if we have to, we will make other adjustments like give up work at 55. This then leads to further problems down the road for caregivers and society: no longevity benefits, just liabilities.

The Current Elder Care Infrastructure and its Shortcomings

With those things in mind, let me talk about the current infrastructure of elder care. The question is, does our current infrastructure support the people who need care and the people who give care to enable us to benefit from longevity? From my perspective, the answer is not yet, but I am actually really worried about the current pace and trajectory of the development of our elder care infrastructure. Will we get there, and will we get there soon enough?

Here's why I'm worried: Our current national strategy is to have people age at home — what we call aging in place — rather than in institutions. Of course, all of us want that, right? Research shows that in most families in Singapore, this home care is given by a family member, usually female, supported by a migrant domestic worker. Sounds familiar, right? That was our childcare strategy too. Of course, not every family can afford to hire a domestic worker, nor are all domestic workers fit to look after specific elder needs and conditions like dementia and stroke. Currently, the family carers have inadequate public support. For example, there isn't even a single day of mandated elder care paid leave in Singapore. For childcare, each parent is given six days of paid leave.

Secondly, there are formal services like day care centers and home care services which are supposed to support family caregivers. However, families do not use this because they are too expensive. Based on Lien Foundation's report, "Care Where You Are," a family of three with a household income of about $8,000 would have to spend nearly one-third of its income on eldercare. Overall, the out-of-pocket expenses that families have to pay are much more than for childcare. There's also a severe shortage of nursing homes, and respite care is difficult to access. All this is being improved, but currently, the situation is not good.

So, AWARE's research in this area shows the following trends emerging as a result of the shortages: Many family members, usually women, are giving up their jobs to take care of their relatives. These family caregivers are mostly in their 50s. They're not just disadvantaged by their loss of income and ongoing expenses during this period of full-time caregiving; many of them disrupted their careers before they built up enough savings for themselves when they grow old. Many of them are single daughters, so they do need to return to the workforce but will face the issues of loss of confidence, workplace ageism, and not having kept up with technological change. It will be extremely difficult for them to return to work when they are in their late 50s. Also, many of the family caregivers and domestic workers we interviewed were suffering from prolonged stress and fatigue. Four hours of sleep every night for a prolonged period is exhausting. Many exhibited signs of caregiver burnout. Once again, we undervalue care and are not investing enough to build a robust eldercare infrastructure.

Age Biases and the Need for Investment

In the case of eldercare, I think there might be also age biases in society that elders are "over the hill" and economically provide poor returns on investment. Some people think if money is limited, invest in kids and compromise elder care. If you did think this, I hope that my earlier statements have shown why we need to invest in both for our economy to reap the benefits of our human capital. If we don't do this, our economy and workforce will suffer. And when I say build a care infrastructure, I don't mean that it has to be an HDB model where the government owns everything. The private sector will have a role to play, but the government must be involved to oversee, fund, and manage as necessary to ensure that the services are universally accessible to all. So it could be like our education model or childcare model.

If money is not enough, we either find money from other sources, or raise taxes, or use insurance. The long-term insurance we have been too conservative in our long-term care investments. Just to illustrate, about eight years ago, Singapore started to build more nursing homes because we really need them. There were calls from the public to provide single or twin rooms, and in the end, the government decided on dorm-style layouts of six to eight beds. Here's a photo of the nursing home. What do you think? Would you like to spend your last years here, or put your parents in this nursing home? Some people that I showed this photo to thought this was a hospital. I have not found anyone who would like to spend their last years here if they had a choice. It seems short-sighted to try to save money and build dorm-style nursing homes that people are averse to. With this as the only other alternative, family caregivers feel they have no choice but to take care of the seniors at home, even when they are not in the best position to do so.

So I strongly, strongly urge the government to review its approach to long-term care. There is a lot at stake for the economy and our society if we don't invest enough, and soon enough, to support our family caregivers. It takes time to build up affordable home care services, center-based care, nursing homes, paid leave, and a much wider array of residential options. So we should start investing more now, and not scramble to do this 10 or 20 years down the road as we did with childcare. It may call for more taxes, but perhaps people will accept the need for higher taxes if they understand how they and their families can benefit. More funding in this area also offers opportunities for the marketplace to innovate technological solutions and services. Given the large cohort of seniors, the lack of adequate infrastructure will cause a lot of pain in the community.

Learning from Japan: A Vision for Elder Care To help us imagine what good public care infrastructure looks like, here is a short video of a government-funded nursing home in Japan. It is an extract from the Lien Foundation's very helpful "Genki Kaki" series where they brought two Singaporean caregivers to Japan to find out how Japan does elder care. Japan aged faster than us, so they've had many more years in getting it right. So, you know, this is their experience after many more years of being old. Let's watch the video.

[Video plays, showing a Japanese nursing home. Saito-san is introduced, briefly explaining the place. Music plays. Footage shows residents singing and tapping their hands to the rhythm.]

I think the other big difference I find between Singapore and Japan, not just the staff, but even the residents appear to be a lot happier and friendlier towards each other. She was singing away, she was tapping her hands on her thigh to the rhythm, so I think she's a very happy, contented person. Although she's got no family, it must be something that the home has done to cheer her up, for her to forget her loneliness. This is the gold standard for public nursing homes: very high quality and professional, and inspires confidence that seniors will be treated with dignity and comfort. That's what I imagine good quality long-term care should look like.

It's important for Singapore to think about what's the level of provision that we should ensure for everybody. What is our HDB standard for nursing homes and home care services? What level of privacy and comfort will assure people that their dignity will be respected right up till the end? The dorm-style nursing home does not seem to meet people's expectations. The Japanese model is eye-opening. Singapore is on its way to becoming one of the oldest countries in the world. Let's build elder care systems that we can be really proud of—systems that speak to who we want to be as people: decent, caring, compassionate, respectful of our seniors.

A Vision for Singapore in 2040 and Beyond

In this lecture, I've covered issues that are most pertinent today to care and families and provided recommendations for policy changes that can be effected as part of the Gender Equality Review or in the near future. If we succeeded in building a caring economy, what would our society look like in 2040? Come with me as we journey into the future.

The year is 2040. Dads are loving being fathers. They can't get enough of it. Fathers talk about how they see life differently; they talk about how they want to be the best person they can be for their kids. We see a lot more children these days. The fertility rate has turned the corner; our TFR is now at 1.6. Work changed a lot because of the pandemic; working from home became the norm. It became easier for parents to balance work and family. Good thing that happened, as it has become really difficult and expensive to hire domestic workers. Many families then decided they could do without a living domestic worker. Also, now we have a great childcare system. Childcare quality improved every year. Kids with disabilities now attend the same childcare as other kids. Singapore is now among the top four, top five for childcare systems in the world. Haha, we always have to be top ten! Our long-term care is now number two in the world, next to Japan. We can be really proud of that because we came a long way. Children are enjoying school; exams, no more PSLE. Primary school is more fun. The kids also say that new pledge, you know, with the word gender in it. Singapore has become a "silver-haired paradise." "Silva" is in silver. We have men and women everywhere, economically active, contributing in many ways, from the cabinet to the boardroom, malls, fast food counters, and new community centers. Also, the government did a great job in making it easy for seniors like me to travel everywhere easily and for free. Their project to make Singapore a silver-haired paradise worked really well. I wrote this from my HDB studio apartment in the Eastern HDB retirement village. Many of my friends also moved here as well. It's great because we can look out for each other. So that's what I see of the Singapore of 2040. Do you think this is possible? It's important to be able to dream of the society that we want for ourselves. Now let's all work to make that dream come true.

This brings me to the end of my second lecture. It's been a journey writing this paper, and at the end, I found myself left with one final thought: that to establish gender equality as a fundamental value, we need also to establish care and compassion as values that define the Singaporean. I hope that this lecture has given you much food for thought and look forward to all your questions. The third lecture is called "Reset: Men, Women, Violence." I will take a compassionate look at men and masculinity, the impact of shifting gender norms caused by our internet generation on boys and girls. We'll look at domestic and sexual violence and what our various institutions—families, schools, workplaces, even National Service—can do to build a more gender-equal, caring, and respectful culture. Thank you very much.

Q&A Session

Organiser: Thank you very much, Corinna. I'd ask that everyone keep submitting your comments and questions. We'll now be shifting to the Q&A session of this lecture. May I now invite Lin Suling, Executive Editor at CNA Digital, to start the Q&A session.

Lin Suling: Hi, I'm Lin Suling, and welcome to the Q&A section of Corinna's second lecture. I'm very honored to be here. Corinna, I first met you at the National Youth Council dialogue, and we were on separate panels, but it was both looking at diversity and inclusion in the workplace. Yes, I remember that. Many big questions were asked: how much of family responsibilities should people leave at the door when they get to work, and is work-life integration a one-way street? But that was in 2019, and a great deal has happened since then, not least a raging pandemic. And we were reminded of it today when tightened measures were announced: no dining out, group sizes being reduced. So as the moderator, I would exercise my right to ask you the first question, which is, could you talk a little bit about COVID's impact on women, and looking also at the tightened measures, are there areas of concern we should pay specific attention to? What sort of support do you hope to see in place as well?

Corinna Lim: Yeah, so COVID, yeah, looks like it's going to take some time before we see the end of that. But one thing, a few things came out, specifically in relation to women. One was care, and how we saw the care needs really right before our eyes in our homes, right? As I was saying in my lecture, it became very, very clear that there were a lot of care needs that in our day-to-day life, you know, it was happening because other people were taking care of it, but that's just really how essential it is. Now, it's interesting that things like childcare and elder care are seen as essential services but are not really treated as very important services. They don't even have a progressive wage model for these industries, for example, so the pay is quite low, right, especially elder care. So we had a scheme where we would recruit and train women for childcare and elder care. A lot more people took up the childcare work than the elder care because of the pay, right? So one is, we will see these care needs again intensify, and parents may have to be, if we are in lockdown again, it will be a repeat of that situation. Maybe it's better the second time around because we already know what to expect, right? But we will see those care needs really intensify and emerge, and parents will struggle in their homes.

The other thing we saw was domestic violence—a sharp rise in our helpline calls on domestic violence as people were, you know, domestic violence is about domination and power and control. And so, when people could not get out of their homes, and everyone had to stay there, and maybe the stress was high, it just gave rise to a lot more domestic violence, right? So we could expect that if we have another lockdown in the current situation, you know, if we can still get out of the house, it may not give rise to so much domestic violence. The work situation for, like, the F&B industry, for example, any industries that have to shut down, even for a short time, and especially if they have low-income families who have very thin safety nets, they have hardly any savings, so a shutdown for them is really, you know, they're living hand to mouth. It has huge impacts. The government was great in coming in very quickly, right, and this is one of the things that we hope to see again if we get to that situation. Can we make sure that that immediate lifeline is there, right, for the people who really need it? And now that we have had some experience with actually giving this sort of financial support quite quickly, I think again, the second time will be better. The first time, there were people like this self-employed scheme struggling with the forms, right, there was a lot of confusion, the service hung, all these things happened. But that was a learning experience, and really the government did really well in just making sure that they were there and they were generous enough, right, to support those immediate needs. Things like elder care, you know, was tricky because the centers closed, the community care centers, so the caregivers at home were like, oh, I think they were really suffering because there was no place that they could actually, you know, take their relative to go to for the day. Yeah, so yeah, care needs are going to again intensify, and it's the family members, no choice, the family members will have to support, would do it, yeah. But this is where we realize how important it is to have that care infrastructure.

Discussion on Paternity Leave and Family Choices Lin Suling: Just to switch gears a little bit and talk about the lecture on the questions that are coming in from online. So your proposal to have an increase in the amount of fathers' leave entitlement to three months, there's a question here about whether, "Why not propose the increase of father's entitlement to four months such that it's equal to mothers? Why three?"

Corinna Lim: Yeah, you know, I struggled back and forth, and I, I, this was the part that I, I would love to suggest four, but it is not realistic at this point to go from two weeks to four months. And, you know, I did speak to quite a few people about this, including people who ran small businesses, and they're like, "How will we survive if, you know, the man and the woman all go on leave?" That is not currently something we can manage. We need more things in place first, right? And how do these countries that have one year leave, how do they do it? So there is a much stronger, much more robust part-time or interim or temporary sort of contract work industry for every type of industry. There is that kind of work, right, and there are people who just specialize in actually providing, you know, matching you when you need a maternity cover, right? So there are people who who just do this maternity covers, right? Lawyers who are just always just covering for people. So you need to have those things in place. It's a bit chicken and egg, but I think if we just did it now, it would be very difficult. Also, the funding is an issue, right?

So I've been looking at funding models as well. And interestingly, the best practice is not really what we have. The best practice, according to I think what the ILO, is something called employment insurance. So it is that the employer just, so that the employer doesn't bear the full burden of giving this leave, because this leave the country wants it, the country wants babies, the employees want it, but the employer doesn't really get to gain as much. So they are reluctant, right? They will do it, but they're reluctant. So even to say, "Can we have elder care leave for three days?" the employer will say, "No, they can't," right? This year is a bad year. It's already very bad for them in other ways, so we cannot. So we are sort of held ransom by employers because they can't. So I think we have to look at different funding models. So insurance, this employment insurance, is that the employee pays, say, 0.5%, and the employer pays as well. It funds all the leave, not just paternity, parental leave, family leave, you know, leave for single parents, for single persons as well. It just goes into this pool, and the government also can top up, right? So it's sort of spread out more, and it's not like, you know, "bad luck this year, three persons in my small company went on leave, it's a big hit to my bottom line," right? So I think we need to look at all of these things before we can say four months. As much as I would like to, that's why I said we should ultimately work towards that, but for now, I think this is what we can manage. And even this, I think, is a stretch, but I think we can do it, because not a lot of people, a lot of men will take all two months, right? So I think, you know, it will be a phased approach, it will be a naturally phased approach as people get used to this, but those who want it, we should go for it, right? Yeah.

Lin Suling: So do you expect that success would be more men taking leave? Yes. And if so, then why not let families choose, because ultimately families have a diversity of choices and the men and women make the decisions?

Corinna Lim: Oh no, circumstances that more men take the like four to two, I mean the women still get the same, right? The women will still get four, and the men will get two, right? Three and three, I think, you know, some families will do it, but more likely if the men take it, they'll probably do four and two, because again, I think women are anchored to the four months already, right? We're like, "Okay, hey, this is mine, four months is mine." But you know, the math, oh, I had three, I, I purposely made it like four and three but kept at six because I didn't want a man to be seen as like, "Uh, can you please give me some leave, right? That's the woman's leave." Just leave it. I mean, going back to the intent of this gender equality solution, the problem you've identified, or at least the idea that we want to reach towards, is having more children and more babies. Yes. So this is a relevant question here where the question, therefore, is why do we assume that the way to do that is to help women manage caregiving needs for children, for newly born children?

Fertility, Marriage, and Valuing Caregiving Work

Lin Suling: There's a comment here from O King Xiong saying, "Compared to years ago, actually fewer Singaporean women are getting married, and married women have a total fertility rate that's near replacement." Do you think, therefore, that the focus should be on encouraging more marriages or more women getting married instead?

Corinna Lim: Yeah, I did see some research on this, and they said, you know, the reason, the self, you're trying to solve the same problem. The people who are not getting married, it's because they don't want to have kids also. So actually, it's all tied up. So it's not necessarily that you treat the two as different pools, right? You just need to make having a family a very happy thing, right, so that people will, like, get married. Because if you are not planning to have children, then you're like, "Okay, you know, getting married or not, if I meet the right guy, that's good, but I'm not actually going to be so active doing it," right? So then they focus on their career. So it's not so different, right? I think that what we're doing now, I mean, the proposal will actually help the people who are not actively thinking of families because it's so difficult, right, to think about having a family. Those two pieces of the puzzle, I think this, we're trying to solve the same problem, right? The main issue is it's too difficult to have families, so people don't need to get married, they're not getting married, right? Then the people who are married, are they having their two or three kids which you want them to have, that they want to have, right? And so I, I still feel like it is all about making it easier to have families.

Compensation for Caregiving and Redefining Infrastructure

Lin Suling: Related to that also is a question about how much value we place on home responsibilities and caregiving. So a related question here comes from Madilha Abdal, and she asks us, "Should housewives be compensated for household and caregiving work, which she says is essentially unpaid labor? And how feasible do you think such a policy would be in Singapore?"

Corinna Lim: Yeah, this one is quite a contentious one in relation to childcare. I feel why is it contentious? It's okay. Some Nordic countries have done it. It's contentious because we actually do want to encourage women to work, because there are many benefits to being able to, you know, go out there, work, build your networks, build your skills, all of that. It's it's a better position for the women at the end of the day. And so some of the countries have found that if we give this caregiving allowance, then more women actually just stay at home, which makes them maybe less equal, right? It weakens that the whole positioning.

I feel differently about elder care, right? The women who are giving up work, they would not give up work, and they're giving up work at this point when they actually should be building their savings. I feel that that group, we should seriously consider this proposal, right? That we, there is a caregiver allowance, because we, we should understand that if we don't do it now, we might have to do it later when they are older and they don't have money, right? So it's actually better to just support them now and recognize that they are doing something. If they weren't doing it, we would need more nursing homes, etc. We would need more infrastructure. But all of Singapore wants people to age in place, so as a society, I think we can actually have a justification for this. And the, the argument about, you know, they should be working rather than staying at home doesn't so much apply to this group, right? They've already been working for a long time.

Lin Suling: So what do you make of the discussions last week in Parliament? This question came from our Facebook follower also. She asked us, "How in this week's debate, there was an exchange of views on the S.G. Engage Act, as you recall, between DPM Heng Swee Keat and some members of the opposition, and there was a discussion about whether we should redefine infrastructure to include human capital and social policies, right?" Her question is, "How would you respond to that, and would you make a case for the inclusion of caregiving in infrastructure spending?"

Corinna Lim: I'm not sure what the significance of making it in Singapore a part of the infrastructure, you know, expenditure, but I think caregiving is infrastructure, right? That's, that is my thesis for my lecture. We have to treat it, and when I say infrastructure, I mean it is fundamental, just like education is infrastructure to me, right? So yes, it is about services and it's about human capital. So yes, if that's answering the question. I'm not sure what the significance is though, if we say it is infrastructure, does it mean it will have more money, right? But I think what's important is to see it as so fundamental to the health of our economy that we are willing to put more, invest more into it, right? Knowing that we don't, the economy and the society will suffer.

Valuing Caregiving and Addressing Industry Feminization

Lin Suling: So, of course, another way to look at it also is how much do we pay caregiving and roles that are considered feminine. This question comes to us from Sarah Tan, and she asks us, and her comment is, "Due in part to what she calls the feminization of industries, for example, caregiving, education, hospitality, do you think more needs to be done to address this refusal to give recognition and wages to what is absolutely work?"

Corinna Lim: Absolutely, right? So if it's, if that's what it is, that we need to see it as infrastructure, this work is just so devalued, right? Why is childcare and was elder care so poorly paid? Why is it on the PWM, right, even though we think of it as essential services? So I, you know, I think there is a pattern of this. That's why I was trying to draw from our childcare experience to our elder care experience. We just see this, and it continues this undervaluing, right?

Lin Suling: How do you square up the dilemma that it could increase cost?

Corinna Lim: Yes, it will increase cost. We have to pay for this. So somehow, we have to fund this, right? Like I said, we as a society, we have, it's a, you know, we're so used to not, and one of the problems is because of the solutions that we've had with, like, domestic workers, it's completely devalued care. That work now is worth so little, and everything else, childcare, et cetera, the base, they're comparing it to having a domestic worker, because we went for that cheap solution, which has no future. The domestic worker doesn't build skills that contribute to the economy. If we had not relied on that and we said we need to have professional care, more professionalized care, we could have built that, you know, more of a professional care industry. But now, you know, we are a little bit hampered by the fact that we have very cheap sources of care, so a lot of things need to change. The other thing about the domestic workers' solution, not only is it hampering the growth of our other care industries, it's also, I think, a very risky thing to rely on the supply of domestic workers, which you ultimately do not control. It's like you want to have your own control over your water supplies, because it is basic to life, we really would like to build, we should try to build a more robust local infrastructure, right?

If we have to rely on external support, and we will, then let it be higher-skilled individuals who come in. We apply this principle to every other sector of our economy, prioritizing skills and carefully managing the number of people we allow in. However, this approach isn't consistently applied to domestic workers; statistics often exclude them, indicating a lack of control in this area. This is a structural problem that needs to be addressed.

You've made a compelling case for government investment and a strong focus on the care economy. In addition to the policy moves you've outlined, what do you think is the role of the community and businesses in enhancing the care economy's recognition and value, or have you given up on the private sector's involvement?

No, I haven't given up on the private sector. I don't see the roles as completely separate. For instance, in childcare, while many providers are voluntary welfare organizations or private entities, the government provides funding, controls standards, and offers training. They largely oversee the sector, but private players still conduct the business activities. So, I believe it's important to have both. I certainly don't think the government should be the sole provider of these services; that would be far too much. Instead, their role is to collaborate with the private sector, identifying needs and guiding the growth of provisions.

I'm mindful of the time, but would you mind if we take two more questions?

Culture and Work-Life Balance

We've discussed various aspects of gender equality, but a larger question arises: how much of this is about culture? Constant Singham raises this point, stating, "I have a concern. It seems like Singapore's corporate-centric culture and values play a huge part in why some may avoid caregiving work, and Singapore's working hours are some of the longest in the world and do not give time for a social life, a family life. What do you think we can do about that?"

Thanks, Connie, that's a great question, and of course, Connie would ask it. It's absolutely true. We are struggling; that's why I talk about a "caring economy." We need both. I think we're too skewed towards the economy and have really neglected the caring part. We need a better balance in society. I don't know if this goes well beyond small, individual actions because it's about working hours. How are we going to deal with that when it's also tied to globalization, capitalism, and neoliberal systems that have become faster and more intense? Life years ago, if you remember when you started work, was slower, right? It was different. It wasn't as intense as it is now. We didn't have as many devices, and certainly not the ones that mean you're never truly off work. How do we deal with this? Some countries have implemented rules, like "no texts after 7 PM."

Ultimately, we as a society have to want that change. Yes, there's a strong corporate momentum that's hard to stop. Climate change offers a bit of a crisis, and younger generations care more because it's their future. At some point, will this stop us? Will it cause some of us to pause and say, "We can't go on; it's not sustainable"? So yes, this is a global issue, and as I said, Singapore and the world must find ways of really working differently, more sustainably.

Mindset Changes for Government and Society

My last question then comes from Suenmu, who asks, "What do you think are the key mindset changes that the government needs to adopt in order for your proposals to be feasible and hopefully implemented?" I suppose she's asking because you've got quite a few to chew on tonight.

A key mindset change: I tried to, in a way, present this lecture so that I wasn't too radical in challenging the way I think the government works, which is that it really is a very pragmatic government. So I've used that pragmatism. There are some limits to just being pragmatic all the time. I think we have to talk about values. And so I showed that last video because I think it just shows us what caring means, what dignity means, and you know, we have to see it and we have to want it as people.

So, for government mindset change, I don't know. I hope that we have made a compelling case today to say, "Please do not undervalue care, because it is very important for the economy, for stability, for society, for the long term." For the people, I think we have to start thinking about what is important to our society. So when it comes to taxes, for example, if I say we need to pay more tax, that's us paying because we feel these values are important. We want to age well. If that becomes more important, and what's interesting is that the older generation becomes the largest cohort of people, right? They will be the voters in the next elections, and you know, they will have a say. So they're going to be like, "Okay, you know, we want better, whatever." At the end of the day, I think the fundamental shifts come from the people.

Corinna, thanks so much. You're welcome. Drawing this to a close, it was very nice talking to you. Thank you.

Closing Remarks

Thank you, Tim. We've come to the end of today's lecture. We would like to hear your feedback on the event. Please click our link in the Facebook feed to submit any of your views and feedback. Corinna's third and final lecture will be titled "Reset: Men, Women, Violence," and it will take place on the 20th of May, which marks the 25th anniversary of the passing of the Women's Charter. We hope to see you then, and details will be on our website and Facebook page. Thank you all for attending this afternoon's lecture, and have a good evening ahead.

Lecture III — Reset: Men, Women, Violence (24 May 2021)

[12]

Video caption:

"When discussing gender equality, we tend to focus on just one gender: women. We speak of “women’s development”, “violence against women”, “women in leadership” and so on. But we rarely talk about masculine norms. This lecture will explore masculinity in Singapore and its implications on gender equality. It will also look at violence against women and discuss how the internet, porn and #metoo, have affected gender relations, online harassment and sexual violence in Singapore. What can our institutions — families, schools, workplaces and National Service — do to promote healthier masculine norms and more respectful environments that empower everyone?"

The Q&A session was moderated by Eunice Olsen, Founder of Eunice Olsen Media and former Nominated Member of Parliament. The closing remarks were made by Janadas Devan, Director, Institute of Policy Studies.

Transcript:

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the third and final lecture on gender equality. Thank you for joining me today. This lecture series has been a massive undertaking for me, but it was certainly well worth the effort. I learned a lot in the process of doing the lectures and feel a great sense of accomplishment to be contributing to the study of gender equality in Singapore. This being the third and final lecture, I wish to acknowledge the people who have supported me throughout.

First, a huge thank you to IPS and especially to its Director, Janadas Devan, for awarding me this prestigious S. R. Nathan Fellowship. Janadas, I know that you took a big risk to ask me, a civil society activist, to deliver these lectures. Believe me, I felt the weight of responsibility to be balanced and constructive. Thank you also to your IPS team who supported these lectures: Events Team, Zahida and Celyn; Operations Support, Mazlan; and Public Affairs, Kaisu, Derwin, Minchen, and Eunice, for organizing the series. Most of all, my deepest gratitude to my research assistant, Fiyatra McFadden, who hosted two of my lectures. Fiyatra, you were simply brilliant in providing me with the research, graphics, editorial, and logistical support. The historian in you gave me greater insights, and as a male feminist, your inputs have been invaluable. I shall really miss working with you. It does take a village, and I am blessed to have gotten great inputs and emotional support from friends and colleagues through this journey: Robin, Shelley, Margie, Connie, and Rebecca. I really could not have done these lectures without all of you.

The Role of Men in Gender Equality

When we talk about gender equality, the first thing that often comes to mind is that it's a women's issue—the fight for women's rights. Take, for example, the public conversations for the Gender Equality Review; it's titled "Conversations on Singapore Women's Development." It is described as a national effort to understand Singaporeans' aspirations and ideas on how to further advance our women in Singapore. The unit in the Ministry of Social and Family Development that manages Singapore's compliance with CEDAW (the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women) is called the Office of Women's Development. I understand why that's the orientation. In a world where men dominate and the default voice and perspective is usually male, women need safe spaces to share the truth and experience—spaces where they find comfort and support when they have been abused, violated, or unfairly treated, and where they can come together to push for a more gender-equal world. This, in fact, has been AWARE's mission as a feminist women's rights group. AWARE runs a women's helpline, counseling support groups, and the Sexual Assault Care Centre. We've been focusing on the women's perspective as career women, family caregivers, single mothers, migrant spouses, mothers in low-income families, and survivors of gender violence. The work never ends, but we won't solve misogyny, gender discrimination, violence, and exploitation if, as a society, we don't deal with the issues that men face as men.

My work has involved focusing on women, and prior to this lecture series, I hadn't really gone too deeply into understanding men's experiences. What is it like for men living in a world that expects them to be the breadwinner, to always be strong, powerful, self-reliant, stoic, and dominant? The script for what it means to be a man in Singapore is fast changing, driven mainly by women's empowerment and their expanded role in society. The change is good; we have to keep moving towards equal opportunities for all. The patriarchal system accords men with higher status, more power, money, and opportunities, but it comes at a very high cost, and we need to understand what it is in the system that makes it hard for men to change even though they may not find the situation ideal. Going forward, I hope that men will understand how patriarchy hurts us all, including men, and will want to join the gender equality movement to grow beyond the constraints of patriarchy. Men need encouragement and support, and in this lecture, I will focus on men and masculinity in Singapore: what are the norms that shape their psyche and patterns of behavior, and then what we can do to support men to embrace a more gender-equal mindset. Finally, I will talk about how we best educate and protect our next generation of men and women who are growing up in a hypersexualized world.

Understanding Masculine Norms

There hasn't been much research on the topic of masculinity in Singapore. In fact, that topic is fairly new in the world. Women's studies began much earlier because of the systemic oppression of women. Simone de Beauvoir's iconic study of women, The Second Sex, elegantly captured the woman's condition in this one famous line: "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman." In other words, femininity is a social construct; biology does not determine what makes a woman a woman. A woman learns her role from society. Simone de Beauvoir was way ahead of her time; The Second Sex went on to inspire generations of feminist work, and today science has caught up. Brain scientists now understand that human brains are extremely plastic and malleable. As babies, our brains start off soft as clay, and as we grow up, our brains are changed by our life experiences, jobs, hobbies, and social messages that we receive repeatedly. Over time, these repeated actions and messages get wired into the brain's network. Take girls, for example: the pink dolls that they play with, the fairy tales of princesses being saved by Prince Charming, the many messages girls receive to be sweet and agreeable mold and shape their brains. As de Beauvoir said, "One is not born, but becomes, a woman." So knowing that gender is a social construct has been extremely empowering for women. Women realized they could, and so they began to change the script handed down to them by society, and the main resistance to this change has been, and here's where de Beauvoir's next most famous line comes in: "The problem of women has always been a problem of men." To be clear, men themselves are not the problem. The problem is one of masculine norms, the social construct that makes men men. So, to borrow the words of de Beauvoir in the context of men, "One is not born, but rather becomes, a man."

So, what are the masculine norms that define men's lives in Singapore, that make men in Singapore men? If these norms are a problem, what needs to change? To set the stage, here's a video that AWARE made about the gender messages that men and women receive every single day:

[Video plays, showing various messages and stereotypes associated with gender, such as "Don't cry," "Don't be such a girl," "Be a man," "Stop nagging," "Are you gay?"]

As there isn't much research in this area, I carried out my own survey and interviewed a dozen men. They fall into three main groups: men who had not thought too much about gender issues, men who bucked the male stereotype, and men who have run support groups for men. My presentation in this section is based on whatever research I could find, my own personal experiences, and these interviews. Although somewhat anecdotal, it does provide some good starting points for further discussion.

Let's start with a definition of masculine norms. Masculine norms are beliefs that define what are acceptable and appropriate thoughts, feelings, and actions for men. They are embedded in formal and informal institutions, nested in the mind, and produced and reproduced through social interactions. They play a role in shaping men and women's often unequal access to resources and freedoms, thus affecting their voice, power, and sense of self. Globally, the work on masculine norms started only in the 1980s, quite recently. A few psychometric measures have been created to assess the strength of these norms, and as far as I know, there is no research on the applications of these measures in Singapore.

Here is a list of masculine norms from a well-established psychometric measure known as the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory, or what psychologists call CMNI. There are nine norms on this list. The ones in the left blue box are more negative; they are often harmful to men and the people in their lives. They are: emotional control, risk-taking, power over women, playboy (which really refers to promiscuity or the idea that you have a lot of sex without feelings), violence, and having to present oneself as very heterosexual. They generally fall in the category of what people today think of as toxic masculinity. The other three norms—winning, self-reliance, and primacy of work (which means making work your first priority always)—they're not toxic if they aren't taken to the extreme. For example, it's good to have a desire to win, but not to try to win at all costs. This list gave me a good way of making sense of the men's stories that I will be sharing today, to show how these norms shape real men's lives and the effect it has on them and those around them.

The Prison of Masculinity: My Father's Story

Let me first share the story of the man whom I know best and who I love and respect: my dad, Francis. He passed last year, just after his 83rd birthday. He was born in the late 1930s, just before the war. I think of him as the typical pioneer generation guy: hardworking, reliable, disciplined, family man with conservative views. He married my mom, June, an intelligent, strong-willed, independent woman. Together they had me and my twin, and my younger sister. Gender-wise, in the family, we were outnumbered: four women to one man, and four very strong women at that, if we don't count our domestic worker and our dog, who are also female.

Dad was a good man. He loved his family, worked very hard to make sure that all his daughters had a good start to life. He loved sports, and he coached and mentored us, his girls, to be competitive tennis and squash players. In terms of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI) assessment, which I showed earlier, he would have scored very high on primacy of work, emotional control, and self-reliance. Dad took his role as breadwinner and protector very seriously. Work came first, always, and then the family. Outside work, Dad did spend a lot of time with the family, but most of our conversations when we were young were centered on school and tennis, and then later on our professional lives. So it was still very much about work, but our work. Sometimes we talked politics, but that could get a bit heated. He was extremely stoic, never talked about his feelings or problems, and didn't know how to connect with me and my sisters emotionally. Likewise, even though we loved and respected him, we weren't close to him.

When Dad retired at 65, he fell into a depression. Like many men, his life revolved around work. Without it, he was quite lost. The few friends he had were his colleagues, and after he retired, the friendships waned. So Dad was depressed for a few years. For me, the saddest part of this story is that although we lived together in the same flat, I had no idea that he was having a hard time. We were just so disconnected. I only found out about his depression a few years later after my mother told me about it, at which point I was crushed. How could I be so blind and oblivious to my Dad's pain and humanity? My dad did everything he was supposed to do as a good man, including suppressing his emotions and being self-reliant. Dad never knew this, I wish I had told him, but he is one of the reasons why I do this work championing gender equality. It breaks my heart to think that most men have to live as Dad did, locked in a prison of masculinity.

I'm happy to say that the story has a good ending. Although Dad had many health conditions, he was blessed with longevity. Perhaps growing old, having nothing left to prove, and knowing we are all living on borrowed time helped him transform. He became a totally different man when he broke out of his masculine jail. In the last 10 years of his life, he became comfortable with himself, laughed easily, and was fun to be around. Every day was precious to him, and he made it a point to tell Mom and his girls how much he loved us and how proud he was of us. He shared his reflections of life, including his regrets, and one sweet memory of Dad that I will always keep in my heart is him lying on his bed, holding my hand and telling me about his various trips to the oncologist. He would hold my hand for a long time, and I will forever feel my dad's loving touch. Dad passed away in his sleep, the way he wanted to go, without bothering anyone. I believe Dad died well, with love and peace in his heart.

This is an illustration of the "prison of masculinity." Many men are still trapped in this prison. My dad was lucky; he had the extra years to find himself and to live a much fuller life. Not every man who is trapped in this prison of masculinity will have that chance. For those dads who are watching this and feeling like they might have some breaking out to do, please start right away. Just go to your kids, give them a big hug, and tell them you love them. It won't be easy to break out in every aspect of men's lives because the norms of masculinity are often reinforced by other men, by women, and by the structures, environment, and policies of the world that we live in. Also, the rest of society has become very used to how men are; we just think, "Oh, boys will be boys," or "Men have egos," and leave it at that. But there are some glimmers of hope. I believe that change will happen once men begin to see how much they have to gain when they get out of their prison, and it's beginning to happen. I also hope that there will be more men's groups formed and that they will be active like the women's movement. Women's groups can't do this work for men, but you will have our full support.

Dominance, Violence, and Bullying

Let's move on to the theme of dominance and violence. Almost all the men that I interviewed spoke about dominance over other men or boys. It was about having to be the alpha male, whether it was to be good in sports or studies or an officer in NS. One had to distinguish oneself and win friends that way. The pressure to prove manhood is constant because it's a game of dominance. You have to keep being better, stronger, faster, more successful than the next man, so it's non-stop proving themselves over and over again. Women don't face the same pressures, and the dark side of this dominance is violence, and this came up much more than I had expected. Before I started my interviews, I was surprised and disturbed by the level of violence, bullying, assault, pain, and humiliation that boys and young men inflict on each other. This does show up in some statistics as well as in my interviews. I will share some stories, and these are the stories that I can share on a platform like this. There were much more brutal stories that I heard.

I'm sharing Tim's stories. By the time Tim was 15, he had a few incidents of harassment and bullying which made his school life miserable. These are two of his stories. Trigger warning: for the next two minutes or so, I'll be sharing some pretty graphic stories which are necessary to illustrate the point. Also, Tim is not his real name.

Tim attended an all-boys school. When he was in secondary one, there was a well-known bully in his class. As a transfer student from another country, the bully was three years older and much bigger than all the other kids in class. One day when Tim went to the toilet, this older boy, out of the blue, unsolicited, attacked Tim and stuck a finger into Tim's anus. It was painful and humiliating, but Tim did not report this incident to anyone. He says, "It didn't occur to me that reporting was something I could or should do—not to a teacher, not to my parents. It was a shameful thing that had to be brushed off or buried." Now, Tim is not physically a wimpy kind of guy; in fact, he was a national school swimmer. He would go every day to Toa Payoh Swimming Complex to train with other national swimmers, doing the laps, five to six kilometers on school days and double that during holidays. Now, one day after a training session, when all the swimmers were cooling down, an older boy wrapped his legs around him in the pool, kept him in a lock, and peed on him. It was not only an act of bullying but a performance for the entertainment of that bully's clique. Tim was again humiliated, but again there was nothing to be said about it. As Tim told me, "It was a ragging that had to be endured." Incidents like this made him very uncomfortable with jock cultures and all-male cliques that he saw around him, and as an adult, Tim would struggle with depression and rage and all the attendant problems of alcoholism and self-harm. He says, "I don't think my depression can be fully attributed to childhood bullying and assault, but certainly those events played a major role in shaping my rather dim view of human society and a sense that one had to combat aggression with aggression."

I'm grateful to Tim for sharing his stories of sexual assault and bullying. We don't hear these stories often, and I've been thinking about that. I think men don't report these stories or seek help because such confessions would violate the masculine norms that "real men don't show their hurt." They shouldn't cry when faced with adversity; just "suck it up and get on with things." At 15, Tim was already well socialized as a young boy to be stoic and not to betray weakness.

I started to look at the situation in Singapore and found that we have a very serious school bullying issue in Singapore. A recent OECD study showed that 15-year-olds in Singapore experience more bullying than their peers in other countries. We are the third highest, after New Zealand and Latvia. Nearly 30% of Singapore students describe being frequently bullied; that's 3 in 10. What is more worrying and salient to this lecture is a high level of social pressure in schools to make boys conform to norms of masculinity, what we call gender policing. The OECD survey shows that teenage boys face social pressures to be manly through teasing, harassment, bullying, and social exclusion. They were told to "man up" and to "take it like a man." Those considered to have feminine traits were called "sissy," "pondan," "aqua," or "gay." And boys who were victimized were four times more likely to commit violence against others. In other words, violence breeds violence.

The Link Between Toxic Masculinity and Violence

Peer pressure is a powerful influencer. A few men I interviewed said that they were part of all-male chat groups where some men would regularly send sexual messages or images that objectify women. These WhatsApp chat groups are either professionally connected or former classmates or sometimes army mates, and some of the professionally connected groups involved men at very senior levels of management. The interviewee said that although they themselves did not circulate these sexual texts or messages, neither did they call out this behavior. It's important to note that the men I interviewed were all decent, respectable, capable, and thoughtful men, and that's why I chose to interview them. The three main reasons that they gave for not taking any action were: one, it's pointless; their speaking up would not stop this. Second, that they would lose social capital. Third, they thought it was probably harmless and that the guy who sent these messages were not really bad guys who would hurt women. They were quite sure that that was the case.

Speaking up against toxic acts of masculinity is very difficult in a group setting. The person who steps up and calls it out risks losing his "hard-won masculinity." Remember, they have to keep working at it, and it's been called precarious, meaning that it is hard to win and easy to lose, so they don't speak up. As for the idea that these locker room exchanges are harmless, what do you think? Going back to brain science, the repeated locker room banter shapes and molds the brain. Even if men don't consciously think they have less respect for women as a result of hearing these kinds of conversations, below their level of awareness, their brains are making associations. It's not harmless.

So what is the link between toxic masculinity, bullying, and gender violence, all the things I've spoken about? Research has shown a close link between school bullying and gender violence. Young boys who engage in bullying were much more likely to engage in sexual harassment of the other sex as teenagers. Childhood bullying was also correlated to intimate partner violence among young adults and with domestic violence. It is also well established that the toxic masculinity norms of violence, power over women, and emotional control are at the root of violence against women. So the implications are that to prevent or reduce gender violence, we must engage men and boys. We must try to reduce the kind of gender policing and bullying that happens in schools, and we must promote positive masculinity norms. And while there have been ad hoc campaigns like AWARE's White Ribbon Campaign, where men take a stand against gender violence on November 25th, the International Day to End Violence Against Women, there has not been any sustained work to engage men and boys.

National Service and Masculinity No lecture on masculinities in Singapore would be complete without an examination of National Service (NS). It is also a relevant matter when it comes to promoting gender equality. Research carried out for AWARE by Quilt.AI, an internet research company, showed that across the main social media platforms—and they examined hundreds of posts and messages—they found that NS is the number one reason that men assert to oppose gender equality in Singapore. So it's extremely relevant. This section on NS is based on the limited, surprisingly, research that is available on NS and the accounts of men that I interviewed for this lecture.

NS is the hallmark of Singaporean masculinity. It's the rite of passage that almost every single Singaporean boy goes through to become a man. The men that I spoke to described NS as a hyper-masculine experience. After all, it's designed to toughen up our boys and also to build bonds between males across ethnic and class divides. However, there are aspects of NS that bring out the more negative norms of masculinity. The exclusion of women, the use of homophobic and misogynistic insults like "gay," and the constant shaming and humiliation by superiors for minor infractions creates an atmosphere that many people would describe today as toxic masculinity. This environment gives rise to "blanket parties", which was a term that I learned and it is in the Singlish dictionary on the internet. It's a situation where the group turns against one soldier who is perceived to be the weakest link or is disliked. They throw a blanket over him, and they rain blows on him. Also, it results in an environment where soldiers talk about sex a lot, like sharing explicit details about sexual intercourse with their girlfriends or organizing trips to Geylang with their buddies after booking out.

Here is how my youngest interviewee, who is still in NS, described how men interacted: "Predatory behavior is almost encouraged. Everyone's favorite subject is girls, dates, Tinder matches, looking up women on Instagram." He says that creeping is also quite blatant. If anyone mentions they have a sister, the inevitable follow-up is something along the lines of, "Is she pretty? Can I get her number? Is she single? Does she have a boyfriend?" It's a kind of image of men as an uncontrollable monster who just needs sex, and it's constantly normalized. I find it really disturbing that the rite of passage of manhood in Singapore is one that involves such toxic masculinity norms and practices.

Masculine Norms and Public Health

It's not just about women. Unhealthy masculine norms are also linked to suicide, crime, and substance abuse. Did you know that men's suicide rate is double that of women's in Singapore? As of 2023, there were 305 male suicides compared to 124 female suicides in Singapore. And this is true in most other countries. Mrs. Wong from the Samaritans of Singapore explained that this is largely due to the fact that men tend to compare themselves to a standard masculine role that emphasizes strength, independence, and risk-taking behavior. They feel continued pressure to solve issues on their own and to suppress feelings of distress. In Singapore, and again in most other countries, 70% of drug abusers are men, and 90% of inmates are men. Research has shown that the higher rates of crime and drug abuse by men are also linked to masculinity norms. Masculinities expert Michael Flood says, "The rate of violence and crime committed by men reflects very long-standing dominant traits of masculinity that come from how we socialize men and boys to dominate, to take risks, and refrain from empathy." So, you know, we wonder why we've not looked at this issue more, because it is a social issue and it's a public health issue.

Understanding masculine norms and engaging with men and boys with this lens offers much potential for advancing gender equality, improving men's health, reducing crime and substance abuse rates. Knowing that masculinity is a social script that can be changed, there is much scope and need for changing negative masculine norms. Governments, parents, schools, workplaces, community groups all have a role to play.

Policy Recommendations for Engaging Men and Boys

I have three main recommendations as to what, from a policy level, we can do to take things forward in relation to engaging men and boys regarding gender equality and promoting positive masculinity norms. Masculinity norms affect men's development, their interactions with women, and their engagement in the family. So masculinity is both a part of the problem and the solution to gender equality.

Thus, my first recommendation is for the government to commission a study on masculinity, men, and boys as part of the Gender Equality Review. We need to understand masculinity in Singapore. I've just done a very brief research, but we really need to understand this and its implications on gender equality, violence against women, and men's health issues. The study should include an action plan on how we engage with men and boys to promote healthy masculine norms in Singapore. Areas that should be included in the study should include areas like equality in the family, intimate partner relationships, health and well-being. Many Western countries like the UK, Australia, Canada, U.S., and organizations like the UN have now started to actively focus on men and masculinities. In the UK, the government commissioned an in-depth study on this and issued a report titled "Changing Gender Norms: Engaging with Men and Boys." There are many interesting nuggets, findings, and recommendations in the UK report, including these three: First, they found that a belief that some men and boys have about the entitlement to sex and to control relationships can lead to aggression when these ideas are challenged. Second, they found it was important to use a strength-based approach; for example, let's broaden the idea of masculine strength to include tenderness or caring for a child. Third, that there is no one masculinity; it has to be, as with feminism, an intersectional approach. We need to look at the masculine norms across religion, social class, sexual orientation, and aging men for the health issues. The Canadian government in 2020 set aside $11 million in order to engage groups and men on masculinity issues. At this point for Singapore, I think that a study on masculinity is the priority, but if there are resources, the study should also include a study on feminine norms.

My recommendation two is for the government to initiate or support the establishment of dedicated support services for men. A few of the men I interviewed spoke about the need for specialized services to support men who are facing stress and challenges in their lives. Most men, like most women, will go about in their own sort of merry way, living with the norms that they have been socialized to live with, and they've grown up with until it comes to a crisis. A crisis could be going through a divorce or being caught for a sexual crime, and it is at these points that men then, you know, we can start to work with men on trying to make sure that they don't go back to these things. So it's important to have the service, and it should be designed to take into account masculinity norms and men's aversion to seeking help. So this recommendation, which I've spoken to counselors about, is to offer dedicated services like a men's line (note it's not a helpline), coaching (not counseling), and men's groups (not support groups). So we need to design services to suit men's needs and name and market the services appropriately. The aim of the services is to provide a non-judgmental, non-shaming, hope-giving environment that acknowledges men's painful experiences. It will be a space where men can allow themselves to be vulnerable and not experience it as weakness or shame, where they can work through their vulnerabilities and discover strengths in themselves and hope for the future, and where they can gain healthy acceptance of the good men that they are instead of constantly being disappointed by not being able to measure up to unrealistic masculine norms. A lot of masculinity is about being accepted by other men. Well-facilitated men's support groups have a lot to offer. Brian Tan, who is the CEO of Dads for Life, shared about the excellent work that the organization was doing within the safe space of small, all-male groups. Men would share honestly about their parenting struggles and concerns, but as they shared about this, other issues that they haven't spoken about to anyone will come out. Dads for Life has more than 40 such men's groups all over the island. The high number of Dads for Life groups is really a sign of the effectiveness of these supportive all-male groups, and we need a range of groups like this to support men on different issues, for example, groups for men contemplating divorce, dealing with their own infidelity, men facing abuse in the family, and men with compulsive sexual fetishes.

My recommendation three is about National Service. We should review National Service to see how we can promote positive masculine norms and make National Service, in the long run, gender equal. I know this is a major ask and will require a lot of consideration. Aside from the fact that this proposal would be a huge boost to promoting gender equality in Singapore and create positive masculine norms that have implications for public health and criminal justice, there are two more reasons to go down this path: first, our population is shrinking, and the number of male conscripts is set to decrease to about a third by 2030; and second, it may be a means for us to ensure that we have sufficient care workers to support the care needs of Singapore's aging population. So I'm thinking of a National Service that goes way beyond just military service. This recommendation includes two possibilities: Option A: Expand NS to include non-military service such as community social work or healthcare, and/or Option B: Review Basic Military Training (BMT) and any other aspect of NS to eliminate all unnecessary practices that promote unhealthy masculinity norms. Option A is not a new idea. My S. R. Nathan predecessor, Ho Kwon Ping, suggested that in anticipation of a time when Singapore may in fact need women in military defense, we should take the first step of conscripting all women to do five months of healthcare or social care work. So like a little baby step. I think this is possible as a little baby step, but ultimately we should make NS totally gender neutral so that everyone, regardless of gender, can opt for two years of military, police, civil defense, community, healthcare, or any other total defense areas that need people. The equal participation of women in NS will automatically make NS less toxically masculine.

As for Option B, some interviewees noted that the more permanent units people were assigned to after their BMT (Basic Military Training) had a less toxic culture, partly because there were some women in those units. They said that military discipline still existed but without the unnecessarily harsh practices to break men down, which seemed to be the approach in BMT. This interviewee thought that this model, which focused on discipline and professionalism, should be followed for BMT as well.

Now, I would like to show a short, light-hearted video from IPS's scenario planning project called "Prism," where they ask the question, "How will we govern ourselves in 2030?" This was just to tickle the imagination of the participants in that earlier exercise. Please enjoy.

[Video plays: A clip from "Singapore Sings" featuring a national service woman with "dynamite vocals" and a male cheerleader who has just finished his NS at a childcare center, highlighting the diverse roles national service can take in the future.]

Youth, Sex, and the Internet

This next part of the lecture will deal with youth, sex, and the internet. Pornography is now widely available on the internet. We don't know how widely it is used in Singapore as there are no studies about this, but a search on Similarweb for the top visited websites here showed that one adult site was ranked 16th, ahead of Netflix, Reddit, and LinkedIn. What's alarming is that our boys are exposed to porn from an early age: nine out of every ten teenage boys between 13 and 18 watched or read sexually explicit materials in 2017, according to a survey done by Touch Cyber Wellness. More than half of them intentionally sought it out. Some were exposed to it even before they started primary school. In contrast, only 8% of girls, less than one in ten, were exposed to pornography, either intentionally or by accident.

What's also worrying is the type of porn that is available on the most easily accessible sites. This is a UK study which reviewed over 1,000 titles on the three most popular porn sites in the UK. It probably will not be so different in Singapore. This is what they found: one in eight titles contained depictions of sexual violence. The most common category of sexual violence was sexual activity between immediate family members, with fathers and mothers being the main perpetrators. The second category of sexual violence was physical aggression and sexual assault, with women being gagged, choked, or slapped. The third highest was images taken or uploaded without consent, including revenge porn, upskirting, and images taken by spy cameras.

In the past, there were concerns that porn would lead to more rape. There's no clear evidence of this; however, that does not mean that porn consumption and addiction is harmless. Let's examine what the research does show about the consumption of porn by men and boys. Most mass-market pornography conveys the beliefs that sex is divorced from intimacy, which embodies the "playboy" masculine norm, and that women are always ready for sex. This often leads to men being quite dissatisfied with their own sex life, which, of course, is a problem. Those who watched violent porn were also more than six times as likely to have engaged in sexually aggressive behavior, and increased use of porn by adolescents predicted more sexist attitudes and perpetration of sexual harassment two years later.

What should be our biggest concern is this: the fact that many young people are turning to porn as the default sex educator. A study of 16 to 19-year-olds in the U.S. found that a quarter of them listed porn as their most helpful source of sex information. Porn sex is really not like real sex, but they are using this as their education on real sex. Porn is not going to go away; it's pervasive. So the only effective antidote is to put pornography into the right context so that young people understand that what they see is fantasy and doesn't represent healthy, consensual relationships. Humiliation, shaming, and scare tactics don't work; they drive porn-watching behavior into the shadows, thereby denying educators and parents the opportunity to counter unhealthy ideas that porn may be seeding in young minds. What we need, more than ever before, is good sex education.

The Need for Comprehensive Sex Education

So let's pause for a moment to consider whose role it is to carry out this education. Who should be the primary sex educator in Singapore: is it the schools or is it parents? The Ministry of Education (MOE) says parents are in charge. Their website says, "As parents, you have a primary role in your child's sexuality education. No matter where they get their information from, you, the parents, are the best person to teach them what is right or wrong." Do parents actually live up to this role? No, they don't. An OS survey showed that 9 out of 10 youth did not talk to their parents about sex honestly. I have found very few youths who will talk to their parents about sex. A second survey with parents showed that parents knew or felt it was their responsibility to talk to their kids about sex, but only 3% of parents were comfortable to do so. So, given that many, many parents don't know how to have frank discussions with their children, schools should then play a bigger role.

Let's look at how effective our schools' sex education program has been so far. AWARE has been tracking this for many years, and the feedback from youth has been consistently negative. A 2017 article on MOE's sex education program in Today, the newspaper, contained this response from a student about the program: "They keep talking about abstinence and how we should not have sex. It's not wrong, but I think with young people, the more you tell them not to do something, the more we want to do it, because we are at that age to try out different things." Another article in the well-known millennial website, The Millennials of Singapore (MOSG), says that the MOE program is unrealistic: "Teens are having sex and it's silly for anyone to think otherwise. That makes it all the more crucial that teens are provided with necessary information to help them in making informed choices rather than trying to prevent the impossible, i.e., teenagers having sex and living with the idealistic mindset that teens will abstain till marriage. School should address the obvious problems straight on." So it's time that sex education lessons started giving students answers to questions that they shouldn't be looking for on Google.

What is MOE's stated approach to sex ed? This is what they say: "Sex ed is about sexuality education in schools promotes abstinence before marriage and teaches facts about contraception, consequences of casual sex, prevention of diseases, and how to say no to sexual advances." It's basically pretty much about abstinence. Is abstinence before marriage realistic in Singapore today, considering that people here tie the knot much later these days—28 for women and 30 for men? You are supposed to be abstaining until you are that age. AWARE's recent focus group discussions on sex education affirm the earlier youth views that school sex education is inadequate. They also shared that the topic of pornography is either avoided altogether or dismissed as taboo. Secondly, there isn't enough discussion about youth engaging in activities like sexting and cases where intimate photographs are shared without consent.

One problem that we have is that there isn't much public data and research available. We have seen an increase in media reports on voyeurism, upskirting, and non-consensual sharing of young women's intimate photos, many of these involving incidents on campuses. In the last four years, AWARE's Sexual Assault Care Centre saw a tripling of sexual violence cases facilitated by technology. So, as part of the Gender Equality Review, I urge the government to initiate or support research to find out more about the sexual behavior and the sex ed needs of our youth today. The research should include information on where youth get their sexual information, what sexual behaviors they are engaging in and at what age, what challenges they face in their sexual lives, especially in relation to porn, sexting, and sexual exploitation. What are youth values, skills, and knowledge on sexual matters, and their views on how school sex education programs can be improved? It is so, so crucial for the voices of the young people to be included in the creation of a sex education program that meets their needs.

Implementing Comprehensive Sex Education

So the youth have said the sex-ed program is inadequate; it's too focused on abstinence, risk, and disease. And you know what? They are on the right track. The United Nations and the World Health Organization advocate for countries to provide Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), which goes beyond abstinence-focused sex ed. Instead, CSE should focus on equipping young people with knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values that will empower them to realize their health, well-being, and dignity, to develop respectful social and sexual relationships, and that will enable them to consider how their choices affect their own well-being and that of others. They need to understand that this is protection for these young people for the rest of their lives, not just at a specific period where they are younger. Of course, it should be age-appropriate, so what we tell someone at 7 is very different from what we tell people later.

What else should it include? Here are some key points: First, CSE must focus on consent and respect and healthy relationships. Second, it should cover gender norms and stereotypes. Research shows that curriculum that is focused on gender issues and power dynamics are five times more effective at reducing the rates of sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy than curriculum that ignore gender. Third, it must include peer pressure, bullying, harassment, and gender-based violence. And lastly, it must educate on the use of digital sexual communications and on the availability of porn.

Our government is reviewing the school's sexuality education as part of the Gender Equality Review. I urge the government to be bold in its review and implement a comprehensive sex education program for all schools based on best practices, and we have this document from the UN and WHO to start us off. If we don't get this right, the default educator is porn, which our young boys are already accessing at 9 years old. We are failing our kids if we don't provide these critical life skills that they need to navigate their sexualized world. Parents who are not comfortable with their children going through a more comprehensive program should be given a chance to opt out, but they should not hold back the education of the next generation of kids. To implement CSE, we must invest in training CSE teachers who are able to adopt an empathetic, sensitive, and non-judgmental approach to sex education, who understand youth culture and are gender-informed.

Promoting Gender Equality in Schools

A final note on promoting gender equality in schools: there are lots of opportunities to educate our youth on this, not just through the sex education program or the Character and Citizenship Education program. It can be included in literally every subject. Here are some ideas, and let me show you something. This is a delightful and educational book called Awesome Women. It is produced by the Singapore Council of Women's Organizations and it is full of stories and illustrations of famous women scientists, activists, artists, entrepreneurs, and a whole bunch of other outstanding Singaporean women. So this book can be used by arts teachers, science teachers, history teachers to inspire kids about the women who broke barriers and made history. For English, maybe you could have a debate between kids on "Women are the Stronger Sex." And perhaps for CCE, a project to interview family members and friends about how they have experienced gender roles and expectations in their lives. If our teachers are gender-trained, the possibilities for stimulating young minds to learn about gender in the real world are endless. And once the kids see the inequalities, they will naturally work towards fixing it. So the starting point is to include gender education in our teachers' training program, and when teachers get it, the rest will follow. If we are to make gender a fundamental value in Singapore, we need to train our educators about gender and encourage them to build this into their class activities. Let this be in the government's white paper on gender equality.

The Future of Gender Equality in Singapore

We are reaching the end of the lecture series. What a journey, from the 1980s until today. What does the future hold for us? More than ever, I am hopeful and excited about the future of gender equality in Singapore. Here's why:

Game Changer Number One: Inspired by #MeToo, Women Speak Up and Change Systems.

1. MeToo changed the world, Singapore included. Its ripples of change created further ripples as women spoke up publicly against their perpetrators and systems that allowed perpetrators to get away too easily. Here are two of the cases where public complaints led to major systemic changes: The first, Monica Baey's Instagram post about NUS's mishandling of her voyeurism, caused NUS to review and revamp its harassment policies and processes and to train its staff and student leaders. The second, national hurdler Kristen Ong's complaints about SportSG's handling of her case, contributed to SportSG creating a new framework on managing harassment in sports. These public cases are just the tip of the iceberg, but #MeToo shifted the whole iceberg for good, and it's still shifting. Calls to AWARE's Sexual Assault Care Centre rose sharply after #MeToo; they continue to rise. AWARE's monthly sexual assault first responder training sells out within a day. Young people want to know how to support friends who have been assaulted. Companies got the memo; many have invested in initiatives to create more inclusive and respectful workplaces. Men have told me that they have changed the way that they date, and if a woman pauses, for example, they say, "Okay, I understand, maybe you're not ready." So they give more space for this and they listen more. So that's game changer number one.

Game Changer Number Two: The Transformation of Fatherhood.

I talked about fatherhood in the second lecture and how dads in Singapore are becoming much more active fathers. Fatherhood brings out the gentler and more emotional natures of men. That's why it's so important for equal parenting leave; it not only helps women, it goes a long way to reduce toxic masculinity. Let me just share this one quote with you by Michael Kaufman, the founder of the White Ribbon Campaign, the Canadian campaign which went global where men take a stand against violence. He said, "The transformation of fatherhood will be for men what feminism has been for women. It is the thing that is redefining our lives in a powerful, life-affirming, forward-moving way." Like many others who started with work to end violence against women, Kaufman sees fatherhood as a very positive way of liberating men from their prisons of masculinity and a way of reducing violence against women.

Game Changer Number Three: The Government's Current Gender Equality Review.

The government's current Gender Equality Review, with the ambitious and inspiring aim to imprint gender equality deeply into our collective consciousness, promises to be a game changer. As I said in my first lecture, the ground is so ripe for this, and the government is doing the right thing at the right time. Today we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Women's Charter. This was our first major breakthrough in the women's rights movement of Singapore, and I hope that one day we will look back and celebrate the Gender Equality Review as a historical event, the moment of pivot when Singapore started to embrace gender equality and never looked back. On my part, I have come up through these lectures with many ideas to take the conversation to the next level and to provide a path, a vision for gender equality in Singapore. I commit to do whatever I can to support the work of the Gender Equality Review.

I promised a toast in my first lecture to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Women's Charter. To all of you who care about and continue to work on this issue in your families, schools, workplaces, and society, cheers to the next 40 years! Let's continue to fight the good fight for a more caring society, for a gender-equal Singapore. Thank you.

Q&A Segment

Hi everyone, and thank you so much for tuning in to this lecture and also for staying with us all the way. Now it's time for our Question and Answer segment with Corinna. Thank you for all your questions, and there's also been a lot of engaging discussions going on in our Facebook comments, so please keep that going. We need to keep the conversation going, right Corinna? Yep, this is the start.

Well, thank you, Corinna, for that really insightful lecture. I thought, you know, it really brought the three lectures to a close very nicely because you dealt with some really deep core issues of gender equality. I'm really privileged to be here and to be part of this conversation. I think while Singapore is, at this point in time, going through a really difficult time, so is the rest of the world. But these are really important and necessary conversations to have, isn't it? Because at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves, what kind of nation do we want to emerge in a post-COVID world? And as much as it takes collective effort to work on the pandemic and to overcome the pandemic, it also takes that collective effort around gender equality.

So, I guess my first question to you is, you know, you talked so much about so many policies that we need to put in place and very, very good suggestions that you've put forward today. Now, while we wait for that to happen and the Gender Review is coming up later this year, for anyone watching this, and since there's a big focus on men today, whether it's your son, husband, brother, or partner, what can you do to help move the needle towards gender parity?

Individual Action and Systemic Change

We can probably take a lot of cues from how women have done it in the past, which was, you know, women started by just reflecting on their own situation in small groups and thinking, "This is rather unfair, right? And why is the situation like this?" So I think, first, it's a reflection for the men who actually want to do something about it, to think, "Well, in my sphere, what can I do if I care about something like this?" I think many men, especially I've heard men who are fathers of daughters, they're like, "I want this world to be a better place for my daughter." And then they start to do things in their workplaces, for example, because they're inspired, they want the world to be a better place for when their daughter grows up. So they start with whatever they can do. Some could be, if they are leaders in their workplace, just making sure that they don't have this unconscious bias or they are made aware of this, so they get training, they talk about it, they have new policies to deal with harassment, etc., in the workplace. And this has been great, right?

It is very difficult for any one person or even a few people to change the way that they are when the rest of the group is really making it very difficult. If they speak up, they are going to be ostracized, they are going to lose their social capital. So it has to be that the environment has to actually say, "We don't like this kind of behavior. We, as a workplace, we want to have respectful workplaces," right? That's why shifting structures and organizations will help. We can't expect this work to be done just by individuals, right? The calling out is too difficult.

Now, of course, let's just take the men's WhatsApp group, right? And I've been thinking about that, like, you know, what could men do when they are in a situation which is a private group? I think that if there's one person, one guy there, who's feeling uncomfortable about things, there are probably other men who are, except no one is saying anything. So you could have side conversations with someone else to say, "Hey, you know that thing that was just circulated? I feel uncomfortable about it. How do you feel?" So you don't have to expose yourself to the whole group, but you're sort of doing a sensing, right, to see whether or not other people are. And then when there's critical mass, and critical mass is usually, we can do something, or maybe exit the group, but then this group might be helpful for you, so this may not be a good idea. Or just have drinks with the person who's sending, and then, you know, just without calling the person out in a group situation, making the person lose face before his peers. These could be other ways, right?

I've said that the family situation about kids, it's very easy to show affection to kids, right? But the Asian family, and I learned this from someone who works with men who have addictions to sex and porn, and one of the things that he shared with me is that the Asian family seems to be quite a cold, unaffectionate sort of family. The norms are, you know, husband and wife, you may not see them even hold hands, and actually that is not so good for the kids. They need to actually have that connection. Boys need to see men connect with women. So it's not just about being affectionate to your kids, it's about being a loving person and not being afraid to show that. So my dad, for example, was kind of aloof, cool, because he was uncomfortable, right? So it was awkward until his last years, and then all that dissolved, and I'm sure many people can relate to that. So, you know, if you can just take these small steps with your own family, it might go some ways. Absolutely, and I think that's the thing, right? I mean, you, especially with your kids, you want to show them right that it's okay to have affection and it's okay to show love. And it's also okay to show when you're uncomfortable or when you're unhappy.

The Evolution of Fathering

Boys learn their first role model is the father, right? And how the father is, which is why it's quite hard for men today, because many of the men I interviewed, their fathers were very distant. Either they were working very hard and sometimes not even in the same country, or they were emotionally distant, right, because they also had fathers who were distant. So, you know, that's sort of an evolution of how fathering is supposed to be. Many of the fathers today, if they had dads who were distant, they might become that kind of dad. But understand that your son is looking at how you are, and that you may be feeding his brain with this kind of image of how fathers should be, which is kind of a more distant and maybe more about discipline or more about advice or more about work, right? So I think that fathers can really sort of think about this and about how to put yourself in the shoes of your kid, how do you think they are seeing you as a person and how you are treating your wife and the kids. That's also in terms of, I'll stop there, but yeah, because there might be other things about voice and all of that, which is quite, there's a lot more that we can talk about, right?

National Service and Women's Roles

And I just want to get to the question. Of course, this has been a quite a hot topic on Facebook as well, on National Service. We have a question from Wanshin Tan who is asking, "What's your opinion on women who go through childbirth, do housework, and take care of families? Wouldn't asking them to do NS pose as an additional burden for them?" We've had quite a few responses to that. Okay, yeah, I mean NS is one of those things that I knew we needed to talk about. Exactly what the final solution is, I'm not sure. For example, for, I think if the woman already has kids, she's a mom already, then to ask her to do NS at that time, that's a bit much, right? But for women who aren't, and I'm thinking that NS will be when people are younger. I don't think that it is, if men can do it, right, I would say that women too. And it is not just about, it's national service, and I don't want to think of giving birth as national service, right? That idea is, to me, not the right idea, right, thinking of it that way. And we have to think about that's giving birth, but right now the problem is that who's taking care of the child? It should be both parties. It should not be the woman's role, and this is where the problem is. So when do we do this, right? It's a bit chicken and egg, but we really should be socializing the idea that both men and women can do national service. Both men and women are equal parents; they have equal responsibilities. They can choose to divide up roles the way that they want, but they are equally responsible for the care and the caregiving of the kid, right? So I can understand why people were like, "Oh, isn't that asking a lot of women?" But also, yes, it is today, because women still do twice the amount of housework and caregiving that men do. And it's also not seeing it that the women's role is to have children as well, right? Yeah, that's the other thing about gender. It's not to say no, yeah, and many women choose not to now, exactly, yeah, absolutely.

Patriarchy, Matriarchy, and a Gender-Equal World

Now, let's talk a little bit, going back to the idea of patriarchy versus matriarchy as well, with a question from Marcus Lowe that says, "Why would men work towards creating a patriarchy that works against men? Furthermore, doesn't a matriarchy, for example, some Peranakan households, tend to regress into tyrannical hierarchies as well?" Oh, I am not so familiar with the Peranakan households. But the idea of the patriarchy, right, it is not men. From the stories I shared, which is why I shared the stories, when you look at the lives of men, if you can't connect or are not allowed to connect to your own feelings, I think that is such a huge cost to pay as a human being. Why would, you know, and when I think about my dad's life, which is why it saddened me so much, and as a young person, I didn't know how to reach out to him, and even as an older person, I feel like he did most of the reaching out in the last years because I was just kind of stiff, right? But it is such a huge cost to pay for men to benefit from the patriarchy. And so, yeah, I think men have to choose. But look at all the downsides of it, the crime rate, all of that. You know, we've never thought of this as a men's problem, but it is, because women don't commit crimes and have substance abuse in the same way. So if we start to really think about it, I think that men might see that they have a lot to lose in a patriarchy. Yeah, absolutely, and we're not just talking about patriarchy. I think there was a comment that was made, it's not about saying, "Oh, you take away patriarchy, therefore you put a matriarchy in there." It was, you're talking about a gender-equal world, and this is one of the comments that were made, right? And I mean, at the end of the day, it's looking at how it has also, like, men have a role to play in the entire gender conversation, right, which is something that we've always talked about. I think the idea is just that no one should be restricted to their roles, you know? And when you think about girls, you're like, "Oh, you know, my dad said, like, you know, as a girl, I can be anything I want to be," and girls have that freedom. The boys don't have that same freedom, right? For me, the policing, the constant, the masculine norms are way more restrictive for boys.

So I asked, just for fun, I just put out a question, as AWARE, to put out a question on today's age, "Would you prefer to be a boy or girl, a man or woman?" And interestingly, it was kind of 50/50. NS was the only one where some women said, "Aside from NS, you know, I would prefer to be a man." And some people said man because they're more privileges, but many people said, "I want to be able to feel and cry and all of that." You know, this is very important; it's part of being human, and we deny that, and it's a huge cost. Yeah, absolutely. But it's good that those men actually recognize that it comes with privileges being a man, so they obviously acknowledge it as well, right? I mean, so something that we have to do, like you say, as a society, to change that. Yeah, yeah.

Women's Role in Toxic Masculinity and Systemic Change

Also, on the topic of toxic masculinity, we have a question from Janessa C. She asks, "Do women have a part in contributing to toxic masculinity too? Some women say that they are sexually attracted to men who are more masculine in their behavior, and how can our society shift to allow men to be whatever they are?" For sure, this is not just the peer influence, which I focused on, is huge, but for sure, women are also part of the problem of this, right? It is not about men or women; it is about patriarchal norms that are in society, which are nested in our heads and in every social interaction that we have with a man or with a woman. That's often that, right? So women who tease men about being too effeminate, they're part of the problem, right? That is going to make it difficult. So, yeah, we have to have this conversation. It starts with personal reflections, and there is a feminist mantra that I really like, which is: the personal is political. You want to make change, you sort of start looking at your, you know, what is your situation? And so I think we all have a part to play, and women are definitely part of this. Which comes back to your earlier point as well, right? I mean, as much as it is hard sometimes for an individual to do something, that self-reflection is also very important, because individuals do play that role. And then we need the bigger structures to then be put. Yes, so the personal is political, and it is about the political structures, yeah. Right, so if NS is currently the way it is, right, if our paternity leave situation is the way it is, all of that is making it difficult for people to make those personal changes as well. Yeah, right? So to me, it starts with, that's why I said, teach the teachers, right? Then it will flow. I think that kids understand this instinctively, right? When they see the injustice, they're like, "Yeah, why can't I do this too?" Right? They will call it out, right? We just need to give them that knowledge.

Addressing Misconceptions in Sexuality Education

I just have a question on sex education that is not here, but I'm just going to ask you. Since we've talked a little bit about teachers, we often hear this: "If you talk about it, you're going to be encouraging it." Corinna, I think we need to put this to rest today, especially when it comes to sexuality education. The idea of "when you talk about it, you're encouraging it"—what do you have to say today?

The UN document that I spoke about, the technical guide to sexuality education, is based on a massive review of all the evidence on this, and it came with a very clear conclusion: comprehensive sex education actually delays the initiation of sex, results in kids having fewer sexual partners, and encourages the practice of safer sex. In fact, this is the way to achieve those outcomes. Kids did not actually have sex earlier. This has been our experience as sex ed trainers in international schools. We do surveys before and after, and you know, the kids are really quite thoughtful. Once they know that this is a question they have to consider, and that they are empowered to think for themselves, with all the considerations, many of them will actually come to the conclusion that "I'm not ready." They're just not ready. So, not this, not now, maybe two years down the line, I don't know, but they actually know when they are or are not ready. Of course, we say speak to your parents; if you're religious, you need to take those considerations into account. But yes, the kids, very impressively, can make this decision. We're talking about older kids, not the young kids, the older kids above 13, because they are given an opportunity to express themselves. They get an opportunity to talk about issues they might be thinking about or that they're afraid of. Yes, we need to open up that space for them.

The #MeToo Movement and Due Process

I have a question here about the #MeToo movement from Reshvin Kaur. She asks, "The #MeToo movement has been a net positive that is encouraging women to speak out and report sexual harassment. However, it seems to promote a trial by social media without any due process that establishes their guilt, perpetuating a guilty until proven innocent culture. What are your thoughts on this, and is there any way we can mitigate this without undermining the good that the #MeToo movement has done?"

Yeah, I mean, this is a tough one, right? Because social media was the way that people without power could actually call things out. So that is the good thing. But there is that side of it, which is the trial by social media. There's that. I don't really know what to do about it. I did think, in the course of coming out with these lectures, that Singapore might do well with something called an apology law.

An apology law is interesting because a lot of the times, I see that not just on social media but in other sexual harassment cases that I've come across, something's gone wrong. Now, the perpetrator knows that he or she did something wrong, but you cannot apologize, because if you apologize, you might actually be admitting liability, right? So that's why a lot of people don't apologize. And not that an apology is something that the other party wants in every case. So the apology law allows people to give their apology without legal liability. It can or cannot or may not be accepted by the other party, but at least I have a chance if I really feel remorse and I want to say and do something about it, I can. And it doesn't mean that now I will get a lawyer's letter to say, "Okay, you know, we're taking you to court," right? Because that's always the fear. So I feel there must be some more ways than just social media, and even the criminal justice system is harsh. I don't see a lot of ways for rehabilitation in the criminal justice system, so perhaps we can build that in too, right?

So, are there more ways for mediating in the criminal justice system? If someone brings a complaint, then the police can say, "If you want to, we can also see if we can arrange for a mediated settlement," right? So more of that, and also more of maybe it's not a jail sentence, but we want this person to get treatment, which is also not really available in the current system, right? Something called the mandatory treatment order is not usually used in these cases. So I do feel there must be a more diverse range of ways that we can deal with these offenses. The social media one is the one that I find, "guilty until proven innocent"—that was what it was. I don't know that I see it that way, but I see that everyone gets very upset, and we're not any closer to, you know, I mean, it may be part of the solution. You know, we want this person to... I mean, what... is there a way to get justice? Is that what people want? And the person who is actually making the complaint is also very victimized by social media, correct? It is very polarizing, yeah. So I don't find, as much as you get support, you might also get the vitriol. And what, you know, this is highly upsetting. So I sometimes think it's a lose-lose situation. It's not a win-lose situation; often it's just lose-lose. Very seldom have I seen win-win, right? So in that sense, it's very unsatisfactory.

I guess just bringing back to something that you said before about a feminist lens, right? I mean, whether it's policy or even a criminal justice system, everything put forward, if you have that feminist lens, sometimes I think it will change that perspective of policy or whatever it is that, you know, you put forward as well. Something that we can also think about building into our systems. I think where there are organizations involved, it's a bit better. The hard ones are where you're calling something out, and you know, it's not in a work situation, yeah. So at least with the organizations, it's the organization; there's someone that is in charge of trying to deal with this conflict that has arisen, right? But yeah, social media, when everyone is just in the community, it is the only way to call it out, yeah, but also it's like, I mean, that's your way of saying, "Look, this happened, and I need help. I need somebody to do, I'm trying to speak up, I'm trying to reach out."

Public Education and Penalties for Sex Crimes

I also think that not enough people are sufficiently well-informed about these areas as to what is right and what is wrong, right? So, sometimes it is that I see it as something you've done to disrespect me, the other person doesn't get it, right? And then they sort of maybe sometimes arguing at different levels, but, you know, this idea that it's not about intention, many people didn't get that for a long time, right? We say it's not about intention; it's so long as that person has reasonably felt hurt, then that is a problem, that is harassment, right? So if you don't understand that concept, you will feel aggrieved that this person has accused you because you just said, "But I didn't intend to hurt you." So, I think public education in general would be extremely helpful.

And just moving on from that to this question on penalties for sex crimes from Shermis Ong. She says that the government recently raised penalties for sex crimes this year, and in your view, is that sufficient, or do you think more should be done in punishing and deterring sexual offenders, something you touched on in your presentation?

You know what they found is, the punishment has to be adequate. Making it very harsh, unnecessarily harsh, has definite downsides, okay? Because in our experience doing this work, actually many survivors, they want some accountability, but not necessarily for the person to be punished so harshly. And if that is what the possibility is, they might actually not report, okay? So that's one thing; it might deter people from reporting. What is more important is that when you report, that it is taken up, and that whole process is way more important, I feel, right, than what the punishment is. If potential perpetrators know that there's a really high chance that the criminal system is efficient, it is, you know, they will be taken to task, it's not so much the punishment. And the punishment, I feel, is not even so much the shaming. I think that is the biggest, for many cases, the biggest punishment, yeah, right, the public shaming that there is. So I think that the recent changes were great because they made, like, voyeurism, upskirting, very specific crimes. I didn't look so much at the punishment, which I'm sure is okay. But it's more about, you know, is the system actually, when you go to the police, they will take up the case, right? Which I think it is, and the police have been improving in the way that they deal with these cases. I think a lot of them also just, you know, they say that, "Look, I don't want this to happen to someone else," yes, and that comes up a lot, right, when people report, yes. And that's why we always say, if that's the case, then just report, right? Because even the police calling up someone can be a very good deterrent. Even if the police decide not to proceed with the case, it is still a very good deterrent. The system can be a lot gentler still with the victim. I still find it's, you know, the whole criminal justice system is just a tough system to have to go through, yeah, right? So, but there are things that I feel can probably still be tweaked in order to improve the victim's experience through the system, right? I think they've done a lot of things at the court level, but, you know, just even having to wait one year, you know, one year at least, where you have to keep telling the story, right, and you know that there will be a day in court, that's a trauma. You can't really move on, yeah, right? So the timing and all of this, we've asked for specialized court actually, yeah. So so that these cases are treated in a very different way. It's perhaps fast-tracked, and everyone in there is gender-informed, trauma-informed, right? They really know what they're doing throughout the whole system, from beginning to end. Just reliving the story, I mean, that's trauma in itself for a lot of the survivors, I think. Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Overcoming Barriers to Reporting and Leadership's Role

I mean, I just want to move on from there, and I'm getting this "begin to wrap up" thing coming up, but just following from that, somebody has asked, Mandy, and I'm just going to put these two questions together: Mandy Chi Manlow and Arthur. Mandy asked, "In your case study of a boy victim of sexual harassment, you discussed how masculinity norms caused him not to report the harassment. However, cases of female victims feeling reluctant to report their cases are also found. Do you think there are other major factors apart from masculine norms that are preventing male victims to speak up?" And Arthur is asking, "How would you respond to powerful and influential leaders who are dismissive of people who talk about gender issues as complainers?" Maybe if you can take these two together. The second question I'm not sure of, but let's deal with the first question.

I think that for men and women, it's just really hard to complain about these things, right? There's a lot of stigma, and there are norms that prevent women, and there are norms that prevent men. I can't say that one is more difficult than the other, but for the men, I think that it is actually, we just don't think so much about these things. But that's the whole thing about, firstly, he was not told; he didn't know, right? This is many years ago, and I don't think that men and boys get the same kind of advice about things that could happen to you as a boy, yeah, right, as girls do in relation to sexual assault, right? So that's one, right? They don't get as much attention in these areas. Two is the whole thing about, "Yeah, you are supposed to just suck this up," right? "Be a man," just "be a man," yeah. Then there is the homosexuality thing, just like, "present yourself in a heterosexual way." What does it mean, right, when you go and you say, "This happened to me, that someone did this to me"? So those... and but with the women, it is a lot of other norms that we've been talking about a lot. So, you know, victim blaming—there's a lot of them, it's huge, yeah, it's really huge. So there, you know, I just chose to focus this lecture on men, even though there are a lot of issues. I just feel that we know those issues, they've come up more. I wanted to highlight this because this impacts women, right? At the end of the day, it is like, "Can we just stop sexual assault? Can we just stop that?" In order to stop that, we have to work with men, but we have to support women through all of the stigmas, the victim blaming, you know, all of that that they are facing, right? That work has to go on, and AWARE will continue to do it, right? But someone needs to work on the men's piece, which is like, not us, but, you know, how can we support someone else to do it? Yeah, it has to be done, and I'm hoping after this lecture, some a group of people will step up to do this, yeah, me too. You know, that's sort of a feminist lens, yes, right? So I call out to the community everywhere, right, that we need to do this work in order to shift.

What was the second question? So the second question is about leaders, for example, when you talk about, he was saying, sorry, that, you know, some people, some leaders might say, "Oh, if you're talking about these issues, you're actually just complaining about it." And maybe, you know, beyond that question, this maybe could be a call to leadership as well, whether leadership in government, leadership in organizations, in educational institutions, you know, what do you want to say to leaders, you know, who people come up to you and say, "You know, these are issues that are happening, you know, these are, you know, something that's going on in our institution or these are policies that you need to change," and not to dismiss it, but to say that, you know, and to have the mental state of mind to say that, "Look, something that affects our life in more ways than we can imagine, and something that we need to do about it."

I mean, my difficulty with the question is it seems a bit abstract, but, of course, good leadership would not just be dismissive of these things, right? I mean, so it's a bit hard to process that. But, yeah, was it in relation to sexual assault? No, it was probably just about, it was about, I think, leaders. This question has disappeared somehow, but on leaders dismissing people who talk about issues as complainers. So I guess my follow-up question from that is, and you know, just to wrap things up as well, is do you have any a message for leadership in government, in educational institutions, and corporates when it comes to gender equality, to moving our society towards gender parity?

A Message for Leaders and the Future of Gender Equality

I think that if people understood gender, like, you know, and I've tried to use these lectures to also provide some education on this: why men and women behave differently, not because they were born differently, but it's all about the experience that they've had and how supportive environments can bring out the best in men and women, right? If we have that focus of what can we do to bring out the best in our boys and girls, men and women, understanding that gendered experience that they've lived through, I think that would be the way forward, right? So I hope that gender education becomes a part of schools. That is the way forward. And then for all the adults, you know, there's so much that I learned. All this, I'm not trained in this. You know, I didn't go for, I'm a lawyer by training, but yeah, you can definitely pick all of this knowledge up, right, just by engaging and doing the work, doing the work. But also, yeah, you know, be an AWARE member, or just immerse yourself in this area and find out more, right? It is actually, yeah, people can, if they want to, learn this, right?

Well, Corinna, I just wanted to say thank you. It's been a huge privilege having this conversation with you, and more than that, I want to thank you for all the hard work that you've done with the people that have helped you with this, put together these amazing lectures. I think the first ever. And I really seriously hope that the government will take a lot of your points into consideration for our upcoming Gender Review, which I'm sure all of us are very much looking forward to. Yeah, thank you.

I would like to say to everyone, you know, the Gender Equality Review for me is such a massive opportunity for us to actually say what we want in relation to gender equality and where we should go in relation to this. So there are many ways that you can make your ideas and wishes and views known. There are conversations that are going on, both organized by government. AWARE has been organizing some as well. You can write in. There's a REACH website. I think they are getting a lot of, probably a lot of responses, but yes, it's not going to go on forever, so please, this is the right time to really get involved, right, and to say. And if you like these lectures, please share it with as many people as possible. I've really tried to push the envelope a little bit further, and some of these ideas are a little bit on the wilder side. Maybe not today, but it's important to plant that seed, and maybe in years' time, it will happen. So thank you very much. Thank you so much, Corinna.

Concluding Remarks and Upcoming Events

Well, thank you to all of you who have been tuning in for our extended question and answer segment. Thank you for your questions, and please keep the conversation going, like Corinna says, share this lecture, and also continue your comments on the site. Thank you. Thanks, Corinna. Thank you, and for what you do as well, thank you.

We have come to the close of Corinna's lecture series. I would like to thank Corinna for delivering three excellent lectures. Her lectures have demonstrated that gender equality is not an issue of concern to only a few; it is something that concerns every Singaporean, and indeed, perhaps everyone in the world. As it so happens, there was a massive article in The New York Times yesterday on how the global population was declining rapidly and will do so over the course of the next century. Fertility rates are declining almost everywhere, including in the Scandinavian countries, in the United States, even in India, where the TFR (Total Fertility Rate) is now hovering around two if not lower than two. In China, the population is set to decline over the next 30 years from 1.4 billion now to around 800 million. There are a number of reasons for this, and at the risk of simplifying a very complex subject, one reason is undoubtedly gender inequality. Without exaggeration, one might say the future of our species, its very existence, may well hinge on gender equality.

I would like to thank everyone who's been involved in making this semester's S. R. Nathan Lecture Series a success, including each of Corinna's moderators of the three lectures, as well, of course, as Corinna Lim herself. Our next S. R. Nathan Fellow will be Ravi Menon, the Managing Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore. We will announce details of that lecture series soon. But before that, within two weeks, on June 23rd, IPS will have a major conference on gender equality, which will be opened by President Halimah Yacob. Please look out for the details. This will be a wholly virtual conference because of the COVID restrictions. We were to hold it as a hybrid event, but we've had to change our plans and to now be a wholly virtual event. So please do tune in for the lecture, for the conference, which will be held on June 23rd. In the meantime, thank you all very much for joining us and attending these three series of lectures, and I think they'll be long remembered for the quality as well as the breadth of the vision that Corinna sketched. So everyone, thank you very much for attending, and have a good evening ahead.

Reaction

Many people were inspired by the call for gender equality to be included in the Singapore National Pledge and Constitution (Lecture 1), the abolition of the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) and the equalisation of paternity leave (Lecture 2). Caregiving (Lecture 2) resonated with a lot of people, who agreed that Singaporeans needed to do and invest a lot more to support their family caregivers. Lecture 3 provoked important new conversations on comprehensive sex education, harmful masculine norms and National Service. It generated much controversy as early media coverage caused some misinterpretation of what Lim actually said[13].

Coming out as gay

During the Institute of Policy Studies' 35th Anniversary Conference[14] on Monday, 12 June 2023 held at the Sands Grand Ballroom on level 5 of the Sands Expo and Convention Centre, Lim, speaking as Executive Director of AWARE, revealed to the audience and the media that she was a gay woman[15]. Her remarks were made in a personal capacity and she was applauded by the organisation she represented for taking the brave step of coming out in public. She was part of the 3-member panel in a discussion topic entitled "Revisiting pluralism" which commenced at 2pm and was moderated by Prof Chan Heng Chee from the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design. The other two panelists were K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, and Zuraidah Ibrahim, Executive Managing Editor of the South China Morning Post. The following is a transcript of Lim's comments with additional edits for clarity[16]:

"Good afternoon, Minister Shanmugam, Professor Chan, everyone. I am grateful for this chance to speak on a topic that is close to my heart. I speak from the vantage point of someone who is both privileged and marginalised, and as someone who has worked in the social justice space for more than 30 years. You can read about my privileged position in my profile. My marginalisation is my experience as a gay person in Singapore — covering up my sexuality from my family, colleagues and, until now, the public sphere.

When I was younger, there were no acceptable words to speak about this. The term LGBT only made it into the Singapore lexicon in the 2000s. Being a stigmatised minority is difficult, and even more so when this marginalisation is hidden and invisible. It is no fun in the closet. In fact, it is pretty painful and lonely. So, as a young lawyer, my main aim was to migrate to a more gay-friendly country, with lots of nature. That was 30 years ago. Thankfully, I found the women’s cause—or it found me. And I am still here. My work as a gender equality activist has been an important part of my identity. If I could not speak up for myself safely, I could do so for the women who had it a lot worse than me. The women who were victims of family violence, sexual assault, workplace discrimination and harassment.

Why now?

This is the first time that I am sharing about my own personal situation in a public setting. I think it is partly to do with the repeal of Section 377A. It somehow seems it is safer to talk about this. If we are to take the “pluralism” journey forward in Singapore, it’s important to create brave spaces for the marginalised to share their experiences. Only then can we start talking more deeply and sensitively about these topics without causing antagonism and polarisation. And so I chose to speak about this today, even though it is still a bit scary, to ground this discussion in the lived experiences of a marginalised person, and to emphasise why it is so important for Singapore to get this right.

First, we want people in Singapore to feel like this is their home, where they can be fully appreciated and accepted for who they are. A place where they can show up fully at work or in the community and where they do not have to hide or be ashamed of any aspect of themselves. I know of too many LGBT persons who left Singapore as they did not feel that they could thrive here. I came close to being part of that statistic of people who left, but I’m glad I stayed.

The pace of change in Singapore

The recent repeal of Section 377A shows that Singapore is constantly evolving. Change always feels too slow for any activist; by definition, we cannot be satisfied with the status quo. But in the past 30 years, I have seen changes in almost all areas of work that AWARE is involved in: housing for single parents; protection against workplace harassment; the recent changes to the Women’s Charter strengthening protection against non-physical violence; the White Paper on Singapore Women’s Development affirming gender equality as a top national priority; the forthcoming Workplace Fairness Act. All these changes are of critical importance to the lives of single mothers, LGBT persons and people experiencing abuse and violence, workplace harassment and discrimination.

In Singapore, change is sometimes too gradual. It took a long time for the Government to repeal Section 377A. But once it did, the Government did a fantastic job in consulting the various stakeholders and doing a “national mediation” on this issue. I know from my friends in the LGBT community that they have had many discussions with policy-makers. Minister Shanmugam said that pluralism is essentially about social cohesion. I see pluralism as being about embracing diversity and promoting equal, active participation in society. There must be a welcoming of different views and perspectives.

As a civil society organisation that fights for gender equality, AWARE approaches advocacy in the following ways:

• Advocacy must be data-driven, backed up by research.
• We always try to assume good faith.
• We believe in engagement. It is important to consider the positions of all stakeholders closely.
• We have back-door meetings while also engaging the public to create awareness, educate and influence public opinion.
• We understand that we are playing the long game.
• Dialogue and understanding is key. So are reasonableness and dogged persistence.

The above approach is not possible for many groups that do not have access to policy-makers. It is therefore critical to create this access. Since 2011, I have seen the Government become a lot more approachable to groups with causes. And this is a very good thing.

True pluralism

A precondition for pluralism is this: The Government must protect minorities. If we are to embrace diversity, we must ensure that minority groups are not bullied by the majority. So, things like the Workplace Fairness Act are critical. I am very disappointed that, at this point, it looks like the Workplace Fairness Act will not protect against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. With Section 377A repealed, there is no reason not to extend protection against workplace discrimination to everyone, including LGBT persons. It would be ironic for our first workplace anti-discrimination legislation to be itself discriminatory by excluding LGBT persons. Going forward, this issue can only get more complex. How we deal with pluralism has a deep impact on people’s lives. It’s important that we get this right."

Stepping down from AWARE

After 16 years at the helm, Lim stepped down as Executive Director of AWARE at the end of 2025[17]. She had shaped the organisation's journey in countless ways - leading the push for stronger workplace protections, better paternity leave, improved housing access for single mothers, and stronger legal safeguards for survivors of sexual violence. AWARE expressed its deep gratitude to her for being instrumental in growing the organisation into the force it was then.

In Corinna Lim's place, Lim Shoon Yin took on the role of Executive Director from 1 January 2026. Shoon joined AWARE with more than 25 years of experience, including over 15 years in senior global roles advancing diversity, equity and inclusion at Shell, Microsoft and Givaudan. More recently, she had served as the Global DEI Capability Lead at Russell Reynolds Associates. Across her career, she had worked to dismantle systemic barriers, champion women’s leadership, and create safer and more inclusive workplaces – commitments that lay at the heart of AWARE's feminist mission. Beyond her professional achievements, Lim Shoon Yin was also a mother of four, a Special Olympics volunteer, and a long-time advocate for disability and LGBTQ+ inclusion.

See also

• AWARE saga
• Workplace discrimination against LGBT people in Singapore

References

• https://aware.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/Corinna-Lim-bio-as-ED.pdf
• https://www.herworld.com/women/women-now/aware-executive-director-corinna-lim/
• https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/former-lawyer-recounts-harassment-by-client
• https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/speaking-up-on-sexual-abuse
• https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/research/s-r-nathan-fellowship-for-the-study-of-singapore/8th-s-r-nathan-fellow-corinna-lim
• https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/events/details/ips-nathan-lectures-by-ms-corinna-lim-lecture-iii-reset-men-women-violence
• https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/toxic-masculinity-time-to-tackle-it-on-all-fronts
• Goody Feed, "AWARE Chief Proposes Reviewing NS to Eliminate Toxic Masculinity & Lessen Gender Inequality", 25 May 2021.
• Mothership, "It's 2021. Why do women continue to take on a disproportionate burden of caregiving?", 22 May 2021.
• Mothership, "Make NS gender neutral & review it to weed out toxic masculinity: AWARE chief Corinna Lim", 25 May 2021.
• Mothership, "AWARE director: Is focusing on ‘abstinence before marriage’ still realistic sex ed in S’pore today?", 29 May 2021.
• The Independent Singapore, "Weed out toxic masculinity and let women do national service, says AWARE chief", 25 May 2021.
• The Straits Times, "Call to review NS to weed out toxic masculinity", 25 May 2021.
• TODAY, "IPS lecture: Govt review needed to promote positive masculine norms in S’pore, says Aware executive director", 24 May 2021.
• https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/aware-executive-director-to-step-down-at-end-of-year-successor-to-take-over-on-jan-1

Acknowledgements

This article was written by Roy Tan.