MENU

MENU

Donate Now
Login

Year: 2020

home

High time S’pore’s justice system recognised ‘freezing’ as a response to trauma

This commentary was originally published in TODAY on 22 September 2020.

Research has shown that freezing is one of an array of reactions that may occur during a traumatic event. It is an instinctive, involuntary response programmed into our bodies to help us survive threats to our safety.

Various forms of temporary paralysis, including a reflexive reaction known as “tonic immobility”, are common in animals. They may go numb, limp or become unable to make a sound when faced with danger. They have also been observed in soldiers during battle.

Yet when sexual violence survivors say that they froze during their assaults, their accounts are routinely rejected.

In a recent case, a man was acquitted of molesting another passenger on a flight, in part because the judge found it “entirely unbelievable” that the woman had not drawn attention to the incident while it happened.

She reported that she “froze”.

The judge said: “She could offer no credible answer to why she had not alerted a crew member, or simply got out of her seat and freed herself of the torment.”

While we are not questioning the outcome of the case, we are compelled to point out the fallacy in this argument that it was unlikely for the woman to not have reacted more conspicuously.

Freezing kicks in when it becomes apparent that a victim can neither defeat (“fight”) nor escape (“flight”) the source of danger. While fight and flight have the benefit of being visible, a person freezing may appear to not do anything.

This may be why some find freezing so difficult to parse as a reaction to violence.

Yet freezing has its bodily logic: Going physically, emotionally and mentally numb is our attempt to protect ourselves from feeling the full extent of the trauma.

Ultimately, what is important to remember is that freezing is not a conscious choice. It is impossible to predict whether it will kick in, no matter how “prepared” we think we are.

When the erroneous belief that freezing is implausible becomes a factor in a sexual assault case, it invariably undermines the plaintiff’s credibility — a true disservice and a deterrent to survivors who are unsure whether to come forward themselves.

To improve the trauma literacy of the justice system, the Association of Women for Action and Research has recommended that a specialist court be set up for cases of sexual violence and that basic trauma training be mandatory for all personnel involved in such cases.

If we can prevent this ignorant argument from being trotted out once more in court, we are hopeful that we can send a clear message to survivors who are too often plagued with confusion and guilt over freezing and who think that their bodies have failed them.

That message is: Do not blame yourself for however you reacted during your assault.

Your body did not betray you; it was designed to ensure your survival by whatever means possible. The fact that you are still standing means your body did exactly the right thing to keep you alive.


Kelly Leow, Communications Manager, AWARE

Here’s what women really want regarding gender equality

This commentary was originally published on Channel NewsAsia on 23 September 2020.

SINGAPORE: Women’s rights advocates woke up to a pleasant surprise on Sunday (Sep 20) morning when the Government announced Singapore’s first-ever review of women’s issues, with a view to identifying and tackling gender inequality.

Besides the announcement itself, the way the review was framed is extraordinary. Instead of focusing on short-term concerns, the review will look at “underlying, structural issues”, to ensure that gender equality becomes a fundamental value.

For a society where that principle is, unfortunately, not enshrined in its Constitution, this shift is all the more laudable.

For far too long, we have foregrounded individual examples of the discrimination, exploitation, harassment and objectification that women confront in numerous arenas. We focus on each week’s carousel of stories on over 400 illicit videos taken by an undergraduate, sexual harassment in a Grab ride or alleged mile-high molest – and then move on.

We’re not seeing the bigger picture.

Gender inequality forms the bedrock of women’s experiences of life. It starts from the personal, from the time a person is born. It is reinforced by culture, policies, laws and institutions as she moves through the world.

We cannot achieve any societal objectives relating to the challenges facing women – whether in suffering violence, managing reproduction, working or supporting families – without this systemic understanding, this feminist lens.

At AWARE, where we have been advocating for women’s rights for 35 years, we are optimistic this review will be a turning point in our country’s journey to equality.

We would suggest a sharper focus be placed on three key areas: The uneven share of care responsibilities, gender-based discrimination and harassment at work, and the sexual objectification of women.


THE UNEVEN SHARE OF CARE WORK

Caregiving and housework are everyday tasks that maintain life, both daily and generationally.

These include caring directly for oneself and others, including children and the elderly. It also includes maintaining physical spaces and organising resources as part of the indirect process of care – for example, the tasks of cleaning, cooking and shopping.

All this is mostly unpaid, underappreciated work women have traditionally performed for their families and communities. This traditional expectation is rooted in an antiquated idea that certain traits, such as being nurturing and caring, are somehow innate to women – a persistent myth despite plenty of research overturning its biological basis.

The International Labour Organisation estimates that in Asia Pacific, women spend 4.1 times more time on unpaid caregiving and housework than men.

While no similar time-related data is available for Singapore, other indicators help paint a picture of the nature and effects of caregiving and housework on women.

According to Singapore’s Labour Force Survey 2019, of women outside the labour force, 43 per cent are not working because of caregiving and housework responsibilities.

By contrast, only 0.04 per cent of men are outside the labour force because of caregiving and housework. We also know that women spend a median of nine years outside the labour force providing eldercare.

Caregiving isn’t just exhausting, time-consuming work. It also robs women of their professional incomes without compensating them for their labour.

In order to mitigate the heavy burden of caregiving and housework, many households hire migrant domestic workers. Yet these workers (almost all women) also face their own set of challenges, such as long hours and poor compensation.

The review should take concrete steps to recommend what a gender-equal Singapore would look like for them, as well.

GENDER-BASED DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT AT WORK

Between September 2019 and September 2020, AWARE’s Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Advisory received 172 calls, with over 30 per cent concerning some form of discrimination.

Of these, about 80 per cent concerned discrimination against women with maternity and caregiving responsibilities. These women lost job opportunities, were denied promotions and reasonable accommodations, and faced mistrust and suspicion because of their caregiving duties.

The same traditional ideas that push women to take on the lion’s share of caregiving at home seem to also make them less “reliable” to employers.

This discrimination has serious consequences. Women in Singapore are on average paid 6 per cent less than men for performing the same kind of work. They are also concentrated in low-paying jobs, if they do work instead of providing caregiving fulltime.

Their need to take breaks from the workforce renders them unable to progress as far and as quickly in their careers as men.

Finally, they put less aside for retirement – women on average have 11 per cent less than men in their CPF accounts.

Although the Government has taken steps in the past few years to educate and incentivise employers to act fairly, such as through the promotion of flexible work arrangements, in the absence of legislation that clearly lays out employer duties and responsibilities, many get away with little more than superficial commitments to minimise work-life conflict.

Women are also harassed at work – which the US federal court has interpreted as a form of gender-based discrimination. The last workplace sexual harassment survey in Singapore of 500 respondents conducted by AWARE in 2008 found that over 50 per cent had experienced some form of sexual harassment at work.

More recent surveys, like YouGov’s omnibus research in 2019, suggest that figure remains high, with at least a quarter of women here reporting experiencing some form of sexual harassment.

While the law on sexual assault is clear, the Government has adopted a light touch on workplace harassment, choosing to issue a Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment, rather than specific legislation on workplace harassment.

It is possible for victims of workplace harassment to seek remedies against the harassers under the Prevention from Harassment Act (POHA). However, POHA neither informs the employer of protective and preventative measures it must comply with, nor informs workers of remedies available to them against the employer.

Similarly, the Advisory encourages employers to have workplace harassment and grievance handling policies in place, but it doesn’t hold them legally liable for harassment acts of employees carried out in the course of their employment or for negligence in dealing with complaints of harassment.

Countries such as Australia have introduced the Fair Work Act, which enshrines the principle of workplace equality and sanctions employers for discriminatory practices in law.

Our Government should consider turning Singapore’s Fair Consideration Framework into a Workplace Equality Act, to send a strong signal to employers by laying out their legal liabilities. The Framework currently does not have the weight of law enforcement behind it.

This Act could include reasonable accommodations that employers should be obligated to make for caregivers – including providing them with the right to request flexible work arrangements to balance work and caregiving responsibilities.

Surely Singapore is now on stronger footing to take this bolder step, after more companies have seen firsthand how remote working does not compromise productivity since offices migrated into homes this coronavirus pandemic.

Finally, the Act could also include sections on workplace harassment, to ensure that employers have in place pertinent policies, training and grievance and disciplinary mechanisms.

SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION OF WOMEN

Problematic attitudes that reduce women to objects – tools for the sexual pleasure of others – within Singapore society can be found across all demographics and age groups.

The devaluation of women based on appearance can be damaging. Sexualised portrayals in the media affect girls and women in tangible ways: Many develop eating disorders, self-esteem issues, depression, deep anxiety about their appearances, and feelings of shame.

Of course, sexual objectification is harmful to boys and men, too. It ties their success and attractiveness to dominance, power and aggression, and erodes their own humanity and empathy.

Underreporting of sexual violence is a huge problem, with over seven in 10 clients of AWARE’s Sexual Assault Care Centre (SACC) not making formal reports. If we are conditioned to see women as sexual tools, no wonder women are reluctant to come forward and seek help after sexual assault.

These survivors assume their complaints will be dismissed or excused by bystanders and authorities alike. They have shared with SACC how their own families and friends reacted to their experiences with disbelief, judgment or victim-blaming comments, finding fault in the survivor’s actions as opposed to focusing on the perpetrator’s.

Comprehensive sexuality education that focuses heavily on consent will be essential in fighting sexual objectification and sexual violence in future generations of Singaporeans.

Programmes should be introduced in an age-appropriate manner in schools, and reinforced in colleges and workplaces. Parents should be equipped and encouraged to talk to their children about gender roles, healthy relationships and sexual consent.

Beyond these priorities, we also urge the Government to review past and present policies from an intersectional lens, to analyse their differential impact on not just men and women, but women with disabilities, ethnic minority women, migrant women and more.

Cementing gender equality as a fundamental value has been a long time coming. Let’s not squander the opportunity.

Shailey Hingorani, Head of Research and Advocacy, AWARE

In tackling sexual violence, let’s take a landscape view and not a portrait

This op-ed was originally published in TODAY on 14 September 2020.

Sexual assault is being treated with more seriousness than ever before.

But this was not always the case. A few years ago, when I told people that I work as a social worker, providing support services to women who face sexual assault in Singapore, I would meet with confused faces. “But that doesn’t happen over here. Are you sure?”

Once, I told a cab driver about my job. He angrily responded that he would stop the car on the highway and ask me to get out if I spread the false notion that even one case of sexual assault has ever happened in Singapore.

When the team at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) started a helpline in 2011 for women who had faced sexual assault, we also thought to ourselves: “We are not going to get that many calls.”

Within six months of the pilot, Aware had given support to around 40 cases, or one case every three days. Fast forward to 2020: Aware supports close to 800 cases a year or about three cases a day.

Today, I quote these numbers whenever I am greeted with disbelief about the prevalence of sexual violence in Singapore. But then I grapple with another set of follow-up questions: “Why do these victims go to unsafe places alone, meet this person in a hotel, or stay out at night?”

I remember the same cab driver looking at my knee-length skirt and commenting in his rage: “It’s because of what you girls wear, that this happens.”

Stories portrayed in the media today also tend to focus on what the survivor did or did not do to warrant an unfortunate event like sexual assault. When we look at perpetrators, we often see them as individuals with a mental illness, or as someone sexually deprived. It’s human nature to want to make sense of a senseless act of violence.

But by doing so, we perpetuate sexual assault myths.

We tell our daughters not to wear certain clothes, instead of telling our sons not to objectify women.

Institutions and organisations end up focusing on encouraging victims to find newer ways to protect themselves, or on making punishments harsher in the name of deterrence.

The issue with this narrow view of focusing only on the victim and/or perpetrator is that we remove responsibility from everyone else.

It’s a bit like blurring the background behind the subject in portrait photography.

By using a wide-angle lens to see the expanse of the landscape surrounding the subjects — institutions that directly or indirectly condone sexual violence, and a society that excuses these acts of violence — we get a more holistic perspective.

And if we accept shared responsibility, we will be able to end sexual violence sooner than later.

Singapore has only just begun to see sexual violence from a landscape view and we have a long way to go.

Last year, a university student took voyeuristic videos of another student while she was showering.

From a portrait perspective, we could argue that the survivor could have been more vigilant about her surroundings, or that the perpetrator needed help and perhaps harsher punishment.

But when the survivor spoke up about her experience, it highlighted the landscape of campus sexual assault.

It emphasised the responsibility of educational institutions to provide a safe environment for students, which led to the review of campus policies, and the establishment of the first-ever Victim Care Unit in a local university.

When the #metoo movement erupted in 2017, survivors took to social media to share their experiences of sexual assault.

While Singapore did not see as much an outcry as other countries, Aware’s Sexual Assault Care Centre saw a 79 per cent jump in the number of cases reported, around the time #metoo went viral.

And the caseload has remained high since.

Portrait analysis would not allow us to see beyond an increase in individuals reaching out for help.

But a landscape analysis would show that when many people openly speak about sexual violence, other survivors are encouraged to reach out for support. This view gave birth to Aware’s public education campaign Aim For Zero, to promote zero tolerance to sexual violence in Singapore.

For many decades, husbands who committed marital rape had immunity embedded within the law. It took many survivors sharing their stories and a handful of organisations taking up their cause to change the law.

The Government listened to these stories and, in 2020, repealed marital rape immunity.

The Ministry of Home Affairs has also taken many steps towards training police officers to handle cases of sexual violence with more sensitivity.

But in a landscape view, sexual violence cannot be the responsibility of a few.

One survivor, one organisation, and one government body cannot overcome it alone. The pressure that survivors face to “speak up” is unfathomable.

We need more dedicated sexual assault crisis centres – for children, men, women, families, and survivors from vulnerable populations.

Creating specialised service arms, more research, and more training for professionals to understand various aspects of sexual violence (such as technology-facilitated sexual violence, sex trafficking, sexual abuse by a helping professional) is the need of the hour.

And we need more funding for social service agencies to support these efforts.

We need social workers to look at sexual violence not just from a micro perspective but also macro perspective.

We need to ask ourselves why families we are working with are more likely to disclose other forms of family violence than sexual violence.

We need the media to be curious and publish broader, more expansive stories about sexual assault, whether or not these cases go all the way to court.

They can look deeper into under-explored topics, such as the prevalence of sexual violence among people with disabilities.

We need all employers to review their policies and build a zero-tolerance culture to make workplaces safe for their employees.

We need medical professionals to see sexual violence as more than a law and order issue. Given the impact of sexual violence on mental and physical health, sexual violence is a public health concern.

One case is too many. But many cases also share a theme — that sexual violence is a reality in Singapore.

Let’s start by moving away from the portrait mode and looking at the issue from a landscape mode.

So that next time I tell someone what I do, I hope to be met with a different question: “What can I do to end sexual violence in Singapore?”

Anisha Joseph

Head of Sexual Assault Care Centre and Women’s Care Centre

AWARE

Grant automatic extension of short-term visit passes for foreign spouses of S’pore residents amid border closures

This op-ed was originally published in TODAY on 14 September 2020.

In a written reply to a parliamentary question filed on Sept 4, Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam said that from February to July 2020, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority received 8,395 applications from migrant spouses of Singaporeans to extend their short-term visit pass. Of these, 2.8 per cent were rejected.

The Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) is relieved to see that the majority of short-term visit pass extension applications have been approved. Yet we remain cognisant of the fact that living on 30-day passes is still a stressful experience for many families amid prevailing border closures.

Many Singaporeans with foreign spouses have reached out to us in the last month to share their frustrations and distress at having one member of the family be on a STVP during already uncertain times.

Some scrambled to apply for an extension a few days before the pass is due to expire — they had hoped that their application for a long-term visit pass would be approved in the meantime, allowing them to reside with their family in Singapore for a longer period of time.

Those whose long-term visit pass applications were rejected have to continue relying on these 30-day short-term visit pass passes for their right to stay here.

The New Zealand government recently announced that those presently in the country on visitor visas due to expire before the end of October 2020 will receive an automatic five-month extension, in view of global travel restrictions.

We hope that Singapore would consider implementing a similar policy of granting an automatic five-month extension for foreign spouses of Singaporeans and permanent residents.

In his reply, Mr Shanmugam said that to assist those with genuine difficulties arising from the pandemic, the authorities will consider additional factors, such as prevailing travel restrictions and flight connectivity, when assessing the extensions of renewal of passes.

At the same time, extensions are already generally approved — meaning that the vast majority of applicants actually meet the requirements. It would be more resource- and time-efficient to grant extensions automatically instead while travel restrictions are still in place.

More importantly, it would bring great relief to families who presently have to worry every 30 days or so about whether they are going to be physically separated.

Chong Ning Qian

Senior Executive of Research

AWARE

Address gaps in aid for vulnerable groups

This letter was originally published in The Straits Times on 14 September 2020.

We are heartened to see Members of Parliament recognise the impact of Covid-19 on vulnerable groups (Do not leave vulnerable groups behind as economy transforms amid Covid-19, say MPs, Sept 2).

However, there are gaps that still need to be addressed, specifically, the complexity in applying for financial relief and the exclusion of migrant spouses from receiving certain types of aid.

Through the Mind The Gap (MTG) fund, the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) and a team of volunteers have been providing financial and logistical support to 52 low-income families, whose members include single mothers, caregivers, migrant spouses and the self-employed.

These families have been hit especially hard by the pandemic, with 80 per cent of them suffering a significant loss in household income.

Many of our MTG recipients described facing obstacles in applying for Covid-19-related financial schemes, such as the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme (Sirs).

They were often unaware of what they were eligible for. They were also unsure of their own working status (that is, whether they were considered self-employed) and had trouble producing evidence of this status.

Without sufficient guidance, many people simply forgo the application entirely.

Migrant spouses, in particular, found it hard to navigate financial relief. Most Covid-19 schemes exclude migrant spouses, despite their contributions to our nation and the fact that they have Singaporean children.

We do have some success stories. One individual, Shah, had never applied for government schemes and did not initially know about Sirs. An MTG volunteer encouraged Shah to apply, and he eventually did so successfully with the volunteer’s guidance.

The approval of his application enabled Shah – the breadwinner of a family of five – to make payments towards his utilities, rent and bank loan.

We echo many advocates’ calls for more proactive assistance with rental payments for low-income families like Shah’s, and a simplified application process for financial relief.

We also urge the Government to extend greater compassion to migrant spouses by giving them additional aid during crises, if not the same as what’s afforded to Singaporeans.

Lee Yoke Mun

Projects Executive

Association of Women for Action and Research

Positions Filled: AWARE Traineeship Programme (multiple positions)

We are no longer accepting applicants for these roles.

AWARE is offering multiple nine-month traineeships to recent university or polytechnics graduates. The trainee positions range from Advocacy and Research to Marketing and Communications, Accounts Administration and Learning and Development.

Throughout the traineeship, there will be ample learning avenues for Trainees to gain specialised experience and to learn more about AWARE’s work and programmes for gender equality. This is an excellent opportunity to immerse yourself in a leading NGO at the centre of Singapore’s feminist community.

These traineeships are part of the SGUnited Traineeships Programme, which enables young graduates to develop their professional skills across various sectors.

Engagement Fee: $1,800 – $2,500 per month
Term: 9 months
Starting date: Immediately
Eligibility: Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident; and

a. Graduated or graduating in calendar year 2019 or 2020 from ITEs, polytechnics, universities or other educational institutions (e.g. private universities and overseas institutions); or

b. Graduated earlier from above institutions and completed National Service in 2019 or 2020.

A Recap: Bad Company – understanding Singapore’s workplace bullying problem

written by Maia Harrison

The online event Bad Company, which took place last Thursday, 27 August 2020, was a discussion on the pervasive and often ambiguous issue of workplace bullying. Moderated by AWARE’s Head of Research and Advocacy, Shailey Hingorani, it featured an in-depth presentation of the behaviors and impacts of workplace bullying, as well as recourse options for victims.

The event opened with some informal audience poll questions over Zoom. The audience was asked if they had ever been bullied in the workplace, and a surprising majority of respondents—61%—confirmed that they had been bullied. This statistic alone demonstrated the necessity of such an event: Workplace bullying was a tangible issue for many in attendance, not an abstract one.

Caroline Callow, Senior Organisational Development Facilitator and Trainer for Catalyse (AWARE’s corporate consulting and training arm), spoke first. In her presentation, Caroline described the behaviors that constitute workplace bullying, noting that most instances of bullying occur in an ambiguous “grey area” that makes it difficult for victims to gauge the severity of their situation. She also launched a further series of polls, asking audience members to differentiate between rudeness, banter or bullying; chasing for information or intimidation; oversight or exclusion. Audience responses to polls were mixed, confirming that workplace bullying is situational, influenced by social and cultural differences and highly dependent on contextual clues.

The team of panellists and organisers at AWARE and Catalyse’s Bad Company event

The second speaker was Mamta Melwani, Senior Executive for AWARE’s Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Advisory (WHDA). Mamta observed that workplace bullying nearly always reveals itself in a pattern of behaviours, though it can sometimes consist of one single incident. It also occurs within many different relationships—from employee to employee, manager to employee, and employee to manager.

Mamta explained that workplace bullying often overlaps with other discriminatory forms of behavior such as sexual harassment: 55% of discrimination cases seen by WHDA overlapped with workplace bullying. Finally, she gave more information about the services provided by WHDA, as well as the steps individuals can take to build up a strong case against bullying—such as noting down incidents of bullying in a timeline, speaking to advisors for professional and emotional support, and creating paper trails as evidence of bullying behaviours.

Godelieve Van Dooren, a partner at the human resources consulting firm Mercer, spoke next. Her presentation focused on the tangible benefits of diverse and tolerant workplaces. She emphasised that inclusive environments are crucial for business success, because “people want their organisations to do the right thing”: i.e., affinity, pride and emotional purpose are the most important factors for productive employees. The second part of her presentation described best practices for HR, including a culture of zero tolerance of bullying, continuous employee education and thorough investigation of every allegation.  

Our final speaker at the event was Asiyah Arif, counsel at Providence Law Asia, who spoke about legal options available to victims reporting workplace bullying. The first, and arguably most important, step is preparation: creating a credible case against an employer. This might involve review of a contract and grievance policy, as well as the compilation of evidence and a preliminary lawyer consultation. Asiyah explained that options for recourse fall under three categories: criminal prosecution, civil remedies or action under the Protection from Harassment Act (as workplace bullying often constitutes harassing behaviour). However, she stressed that no matter what victims choose to pursue, their own personal well-being should be prioritised at every step of the process.

Throughout the event, audience members submitted dozens of questions to the panellists: Did certain environments facilitate workplace bullying? Was there a distinction between gaslighting and workplace bullying? Could workplace cultures in Singapore ever change? Panellists addressed as many of these enquiries as they could. These thought-provoking questions revealed an audience actively engaging with the issues and added nuance and clarity to the discussion.

They also signaled that although workplace bullying is being taken increasingly seriously in Singapore (partially as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic placing a spotlight on the intersection of mental health and work), there is “so much more to do”, as Mamta put it. It’s important that employees and employers alike actively facilitate inclusive workplaces in Singapore, not only to increase productivity, but also to safeguard the wellbeing of all workers.

The Mind the Gap COVID-19 relief fund: September 2020 updates

In collaboration with Beyond Social Services and other organisations, AWARE has been providing support to low-income families through the Mind the Gap COVID-19 relief fund.

AWARE has focused its support on households with single mothers, migrant spouses and self-employed persons. From MTG, most families receive $500 a month for six months in 2020.

We’ve put together this infographic with more details about our applicants. Read on.

For more information on Mind the Gap, click here (Please note, we are no longer accepting new applications, but we can refer applicants to other partner organisations.)

Does the ride-hailing industry have a sexual harassment problem?

This commentary was originally published in Channel NewsAsia on 1 September 2020.

SINGAPORE: The recent case of the Grab driver who drove young women, including one 17-year-old, to secluded areas and harassed them is not an isolated case of harassment via ride-hailing service.

Multiple local reports have surfaced since 2016 of drivers committing acts of sexual violence – molesting passengers, masturbating in front of passengers or, in one case, assaulting a passenger who fell asleep in the backseat during the ride.

Nor is this issue exclusive to Singapore.

In December 2019, Uber released its first-ever safety report, revealing that 3,045 sexual assaults had been reported in rides in the United States in 2018.

Closer to home, in Asia, an attack on a female rider by a Grab driver in Indonesia triggered a national conversation on sexual harassment in 2019.

A 2014 rape case caused widespread outrage against Uber in India, leading to the service being temporarily banned.

China’s largest ride-hailing giant, Didi Chuxing, came under fire after two explosive murder-and-rape cases made headlines in 2018.

We have to ask: Does the ride-hailing industry have a sexual harassment problem?

Gig economy and sexual harassment

Sexual harassment cases have been reported in the context of other services that are mainstays of the gig economy, such as Airbnb and food-delivery apps.

For example, a foodpanda deliveryman in Singapore was blacklisted recently in August after he reportedly entered a customer’s flat without permission and sexually harassed her.

All these incidents should be viewed within the larger issue of violence against women, which must be met with zero tolerance. Yet there seem to be conditions inherent to gig economy companies, and ride-hailing services in particular, that create the potential for abuse – whether of customers or workers.

The typical customer tends to have some faith in the recruitment processes of these companies, believing that ride-hailing drivers are thoroughly vetted for prior history of harassment and assault.

However, that is far from standard in the gig economy. In 2017, Airbnb was sued for negligence by a woman who claimed that the company had allowed her to rent a room from a man previously accused of domestic violence.

In Singapore, a GrabHitch driver previously convicted of outrage of modesty was found guilty in 2019 of molesting two passengers within an hour of each other.

When complaints of sexual harassment at the hands of a worker are indeed filed, the companies’ responses frequently disappoint.

In Indonesia last year, Grab came under fire for allegedly trying to convince a victim to meet privately with a driver, after she reported him for kissing her forcefully on the lips, so he could “give an explanation directly”.

When the traumatised woman declined, the company publicly faulted her on Twitter for refusing the meeting “despite already receiving an explanation from [Grab’s] side”.

When such cases of sexual harassment occur and crimes have been alleged, should ride-hailing giants bring in law enforcement or dismiss these cases as misunderstandings that can be privately resolved?

One further concern: People may go away with the impression that women’s safety is less important until it gets public attention. Uber was compelled to drop its forced arbitration requirements for sexual harassment reporting after a CNN investigation in 2018.

Workers too in the gig economy could do with stronger protections. After all, the 2019 Uber safety report actually found that female drivers experienced sexual harassment and abuse at similar rates as passengers.

Companies have notoriously avoided responsibility for sexual harassment against their drivers by claiming that they are just platforms enabling peer-to-peer service.

In 2019, a Guardian investigation found that female drivers of Uber and Lyft in the United States who experienced a range of harassment received little or no support from the companies.

In Singapore, a passenger was sent to jail in 2018 for repeatedly molesting his Uber driver while she was driving. She waited until the trip was over to report the case.

Some attempts to shift gears

Over the last couple of years, ride-hailing companies have put out a mixed bag of preventative policies to address sexual harassment.

In Singapore, Grab bans drivers who commit sexual assault, and provides digital training on what constitutes harassment to all its employees. It also outlines in its code of conduct for drivers what inappropriate actions to abstain from to avoid being inadvertently accused of sexual harassment.

While those measures appear to have been well thought through, others – such as Chinese company Didi’s trial move in 2018 to limit drivers who can accept late-night passengers (to those who have driven for at least six months, with more than 1,000 safe trips logged) – seem to be based on erroneous beliefs that sexual violence only happens at night. We weren’t able to find any publicly available data on the programme’s impact on increasing the safety of female passengers.

Companies have also turned to technology for solutions. For example, since 2017, Grab has introduced a new feature in Southeast Asia that allows passengers to notify security and share their ride trajectory with emergency contacts.

This action triggers a call from an external security company that assesses the passenger’s situation and escalates matters to the police if required.

Meanwhile, in the hopes of deterring harassment and improving dispute resolution, Gojek has since 2019 allowed drivers in Singapore to opt for the installation of inward-facing recording devices in their vehicles. Recordings are stored for seven days and can be accessed by authorised data controllers in cases of dispute.

In Indonesia, a team of women have launched a ride-hailing service, Ojesy, populated with only female drivers. PickMe, a ride-hailing service in Sri Lanka, allows rider opt-in, allowing female drivers to only drive female passengers.

These moves are reminiscent of the practice in India, Japan and elsewhere to introduce dedicated women-only cars on trains.

A university student in Singapore started a similar women-only carpooling group on Telegram last year, after experiencing harassment by a male driver.

While such ground-up actions are to be lauded for finding new ways to create safe spaces for women, such ideas can be inadvertently problematic: They place the burden of preventing sexual harassment on women, sending the message that women should curtail their freedoms to avoid violence.

Holding companies accountable

Companies in Singapore should use the national attention generated by the recent Grab case to put serious measures in place against sexual harassment of both workers and customers.

While ride-hailing giants have for years condemned such crimes and vowed to put up stronger precautions, these cases seem to recur at alarming rates.

The fluid, private nature of the gig economy, where service exchanges between worker and customer take place inside cars and other private settings, makes data on sexual harassment even harder to obtain than regular workplaces.

Where the same concerns plague the ride-hailing sector as a whole, it would be a missed opportunity to strengthen public safety if only implicated companies take corrective steps to close loopholes.

Following Uber’s lead, all ride-hailing companies should release statistics regarding sexual harassment and assault, and information about remedial action taken to investigate each case and prevent recurrence.

If they don’t already have formal systems in place for sharing records, they should share pertinent information with each other about drivers banned for misconduct, so perpetrators don’t get passed from one company to another.

They should also improve support for female drivers. During orientation, drivers could be educated about the risks of sexual assault or harassment by passengers, actions that companies will take and guarantees that remuneration will not be affected. Companies can provide real-time recourse to help if such incidents arise.

One of the reasons why Grab was established was precisely to address taxi safety concerns, according to interviews with cofounder Tan Hooi Ling.

One hopes that companies would be motivated by the moral impulse to do what’s right, but there is also a strong business case to put in place stronger safeguards.

Firms looking for a more utilitarian reason to take sexual harassment seriously need only to look at a 2018 report released by the International Finance Corporation and Accenture, which analysed attitudes towards ride-hailing in countries such as Indonesia and the United Kingdom.

It found that many women cite sexual harassment as a chief reason to avoid ride-hailing services entirely.

Shailey Hingorani is Head of Research and Advocacy at AWARE.