Wanted : Female police officers

I went to the police station today to seek advice (sorry, not at a liberty to say for what and for whom).  This is a small story about my experience.

 

I went during lunch hour. Even though there were only 2 police officers on duty, there was no crowd and I did not have to wait.  I sat down on one side of the counter. The other police officer was attending to someone else seated on the other side — 1 meter away. I could hear what they were saying. I felt uncomfortable having to talk about my case out in the open — there was no privacy or confidentiality at all.

 

The officer attending to me was very nice and helpful, within the constraints of what he could do. I told him I was seeking advice as I didn’t know whether this case was reportable and under what charges. I also told him that I was uncomfortable going into detail at this early stage — and in such an open space. He was very understanding, and asked the appropriate questions for him to know how to help, while giving me sufficient space and respect. Then he advised me to lodge a report formally, and under what charges.

 

He asked if I would feel more comfortable speaking to a female officer. I was quite impressed that he made such a suggestion, without me having to bring that request up. When I said that I would prefer a female officer, he picked up the phone to call for one. I think he made at least 10 phone calls. And still couldn’t find an available female officer — they were all either on call, or off duty.

 

He was most apologetic, and explained that he had tried calling 2 divisions and still could not locate a female officer. He asked if I wanted to lodge a report online. I offered to come back on Monday, because given the complexities of the case, I wanted to have the advice and assistance of an officer.

 

 He then said that the system was such that he wouldn’t be on duty on Monday, and didn’t know which female office would be on duty and would be able to attend to me. In another words, I couldn’t make an appointment. He said the best thing for me to do was to lodge a report online, specifying that I wished to speak to a female officer, and then wait for this officer to liase with me. I thanked him and left.

And went to my computer to write this post = )

 

I wonder how they would have handled an emergency case. Mine wasn’t.

It’s fair to accuse me of working from the ivory tower thus far. Most of my experience come from research, or from the stories of my social worker , cousellor, and advocacy work friends. Apart from my own life experiences, I have very little experience of actually going through the system.

 

So it was a learning experience for me today. I’m quite sure those of you who unfortunately have had to go these experiences, whether for yourself, your loved one, or your client, might find it familiar. I’ve certainly heard stories before. So I’m just sharing my experience.

 

If you’ll like to share your experience, you are very welcomed to put them in the comments. Hopefully if more people spoke up, there would be sufficient pressure and motivation for the different public entities in our country to make improvements. I think over the decades, we’ve come very far. But there’s always going to be room for improvement, which depends on everyone’s contributions — through suggestions and feedback, or through doing the hardwork of making the improvements happen. Which may be a good thing — allows people to keep their jobs and not get retrenched.

 

 

 

=============================

 

That very afternoon a female officer contacts me, much sooner than expected. When I went to the station to meet her, she was very helpful and professional. This was despite being swamped with cases and a never ending stream of incomming calls. I think her offers to help went beyond the basic call of duty. We do have good people around = ) We just need more of them. Many more.

 

 

=================================================

For more reading, refer to:

 

Sexual Assault Training of Law Enforcement Officers

Results of a Statewide Survey

Authors: Linda M. Kinney ab;  Eric J. Bruns bc;  Patrick Bradley d;  Joyce Dantzler e; Mark D. Weist 

For more reading, refer to:

 

Sexual Assault Training of Law Enforcement Officers

“Sexual Assault Training of Law Enforcement Officers” Pdf Article. http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/wanted-female-police-officers/women-law-enforcement/

Recommended Conversation Groups

  

These are on-going discussion/conversation groups that i’ve been to that are really fantastic. All NOT associated/affiliated/aligned with any religion/political group and yet there’s always the most interesting conversations on religion, politics, sex, economics, social issues etc.

 

If you have experiences of the groups here to share, or if you know of other fantastic conversation groups, it’ll be super fantastic of you to leave a note in the comments = ) 
to private message me : mathialee@yahoo.com

 

 

I’ve decided to create a permanent Page here http://mathialee.wordpress.com/recommended-conversation-groups/  , which I’ll update whenver something fantastic comes about.

 

 

 

Indignation

http://indignationsg.wordpress.com/

My experience: This year’s line up of talks & forums is incredibly enlightening. Apart from Indignation, I don’t think we can ever get this sort of content in Singapore.

  In August every year

  

  

Singapore Humanist Meetup

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=41667702434&ref=ts

http://www.meetup.com/Singapore-Humanism/about/

To meet, in a socially safe environment, fellow secular Humanists, agnostics, atheists, freethinkers, non-religious and other people who believe in rational, scientific inquiry and the universal goodness of the human spirit. Meet to discuss current affairs and latest trends in research relating to psychology, ethics, biology, and religion, and more.

My experience : The topics discussed so far are very varied, and different topics attract a different crowd. No matter what, the conversation has been fantastic.

Nex Humanist Meet up : 29 Aug 09

The Meaning of Humanism  (this is a re-run; the last discussion was fantastic. It’s 12 – 5pm, and after it ended , we went to a kopitiam to continue for another few hours. That good)

 http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/event.php?eid=112218273771

 

 

 

Red Drinks

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=39307232156&ref=ts

Red Drinks are informal gathering sessions for people interested in the human and civil rights. Come join to discuss issues related to human rights, freedoms and civil liberties

My experience : People who come have so far been enthusiastic, active, concerned young people — not experts that make you feel you came for a lecture, but enriching conversationalists that always make you feel like you grew.

 

Next Red Drinks: August 26, 2009 8-10pm

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/event.php?eid=119073291635

Although official figures are not available, it is estimated that more than 10,000 residents in Singapore are relying on food handouts given out by welfare organisations. Food For All, founded by NUS student Heather Chi in 2006, currently documents and surveys food rations programmes in Singapore with the aim to understanding the current system better and getting perspectives from the ground on how the poor and hungry can be helped better.
Independently funded, Food For All’s enormous tasks are further compounded by a lack of official data, high operational costs and an absence of co-operation with other civil society groups.

At this month’s Red Drinks, Heather Chi will helm the discussion on this important but understated issue of food rationing in Singapore. Please join us.

 

 

 

 

 

ProAction Cafe

 
http://sites.google.com/a/pro-action.eu/pro-action-caf-/
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=48576752529&ref=ts

I had the most amazing experience.

It’s called Pro-Action Café, where a bunch of about 20 people come together , and about 4 or 5 put forth a topic/question  and “host” a table. The rest of the participants go round at 20 – min intervals — my friend called it “speed-geeking”. The organizers intentionally try to have as internationally diverse a group as possible and the cultural diversity just shatters all your stereotypes and beliefs!!! It’s an experience of a lifetime, and this is coming from someone who’s been to so many different conversation groups!!!

The topics posed the other night
– CHoice., enjoyment (what do people mean when they tell you ‘enjoy yourself’ and why do they say that) , international conversations esp fr conflict zones, education (what is an educated person), looking after parents (should you) .

 Every 2nd last Wedn of the month.

Next ProAction: 23 Sept

 

 

 

Green Drinks

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=4848279897&ref=ts

http://www.greendrinkssingapore.com

 Green Drinks is platform for environmentalists to discuss sustainable living and related issues in an informal networking session, over drinks.

 

My experience: I”ve not attended yet, but i’ve heard that its great

 

 

Other Ad-hoc , periodic pow-wows

- InteresThink

- BarCamp

-TedX (next Tedx    *TEDx MITClubSingapore*       Date:  Saturday, 12th September, 2009    Time:  6-9pm)

Keep a look out & do share info if you know of any!!!

Cold Water

I’m sorry I had to close this blog a little while. There was a bit of personal craziness and drama in my life.

And on this note, I’ll dedicate this particular blog post to my friends

My friends are intensely private people (and so i can’t talk as much about them as i am dying to), but you know exactly who you are. I religiously believe that the best people who ever existed on this earth are my friends — God’s been unfairly good to me. 

 

 “And all I’ve got is your hand”          - Damien Rice

 

 

 

 

Meritocracy & 8:22

It seems apt on National Day to pause and ponder: How effective has Meritocracy been as a tool for achieving our national vision being a democratic society based on justice and equality, and how effective Meritocracy has been at achieving happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. http://www.ndp.org.sg/pledge.php

Few would argue that Singapore’s astounding meteoric rise from Third World to First World has a lot to do with our practice of Meritocracy, amongst other things. All things considered and weighed out, Singapore is arguably one of the best places to live in for most people.

That said, no country is perfect, no administration is perfect, and Singapore is not the exception. However, the fact that we, as a country may never be perfect, is an unacceptable justification for not striving towards improvement or even perfection. Once we’ve realised our imperfections, we owe it to our fellow citizens and friends to address our imperfections. To simply congratulate ourselves and excuse ourselves from the need to further improve, would be to reject  further progress for our nation.

It is in this spirit that I pause and ponder about how effective Meritocracy has been.

 

 

Meritocracy is about rewarding or providing opportunity to individuals based on merit.

 

Some of the questions I’m asking:

 

 

1. What is the criteria for merit? In another words, what do we consider to be good? Is our criteria valid and fair?

 

2. How do we measure merit? How do we measure how good one is? Is our measure accurate?

 

3. Who will benefit from this criteria of merit ? When we say that a person must be good, who should this person be good for?

 

4. How do you reward merit in a fair and just manner?

 

 

Before you read my opinions below, I invite you to STOP. Pause for a moment and ponder. Come up with your own answers, jot them down, and then question your own answers until you are satisfied.  ( I’ll be delighted if you would leave your answers in the comments = )  )

 

 

 

And now, my personal views:

1. What is the criteria for merit? In another words, what do we consider to be good? Is our criteria valid and fair?

One can argue that in the days of Emperors, meritocracy was already practised —- except that their criteria for being “good” was to be of nobel birth. Why was that invalid and unfair? Because being of nobel birth did you absolutely no good when it came down to actually doing the job. A valid and fair criteria for this “good”/”merit” is that the quality we seek must be the primary enabler of what we want to achieve.

Here we prize intelligence and academic ability, probably at the expense of the arts, sports, culinary skills etc. What about a sense of justice, empathy, compassion, emotional intelligence etc? Do they factor in our meritocratic system? Should they?  What about a person who excels at the languages but fails at the maths and sciences? or vice versa? How do you place him? When a worker is given a poor performance assessment, is he really a poor worker, or are the KPIs badly set?

I was looking at my Friends list on Facebook. And I can genuinely say that for 90% of the 250+ people there, I can think of  at least one quality they possess more than anyone else. The other 10% I can’t think of any because I simply do not really know them at all. Yet not all of this 90% would be well placed in our institutionl meritocratic system. Clearly, institutional meritocracy goes by a far too narrow criteria.

 

 

2. How do we measure merit? How do we measure how good one is? Is our measure accurate?

Written exams measure our ability to think and write within a couple of hours. It is also a test of short term memory. Are these truly measures for intelligence?

When we impose “correct” answers for every single exam question asked, how do we test if a person is “creative” ? The exams really grade a person based on compliance. Is this a measure of a person’s ability to function in the larger society where there are no answers to be found at the back of life’s books?

And given the way a person’s choice of subjects or jobs or paths in life are shaped/restricted, performance can sometimes be an indication of whether one had the opportunity to be in right place.

 

I once came across an article/book (I can’t remember from where now, if anyone knows, let me know please? ) where LKY showed that a couple of generations ago, there was no correlation between the educational achievements of the parents and the children. However, in the next generation, after our meritocratious education was in place for a generation, there was a correlation — graduate parents tend to have graduate children. He explained that in the earlier generations, smart people did not have the opportunity to excel, while their children did, and so we could not see correlation. However when these children grew up to be parents, their children continued to be in the same system which provided the same opportunities. Given equal opportunities, one can see that successful parents tend to have successful children.

I have a different take. Successful parents tend to be able to provide more opportunities for their children — tuition, connections, good advice , private transport (which reduces time loss in the bus) etc . By the 3rd generation , the playing field was not even once more. Plus our elite schools tend to have better facilities — the argument being that we invest our resources where we are likely to get the highest returns.

So what in fact happens is that children of less successful parents have the odds stacked against them from birth and they are then further disadvantaged going through the education system.

M eritocracy , is essentially lost.

To have meritocracy at the point of graduation and job entry, the education system CANNOT be meritocratious. What it needs to do is to actually provide more opportunities and resources to the underperformers to even out the playing field.  Is meritocracy something that can be intentionally practised at every level if we want to have meritocracy at the final highest level?

 

 

3. Who will benefit from this criteria of merit ? When we say that a person must be good, who should this person be good for?

We have a tendency to judge schemes and policies based on their cost-effectiveness. We measure effectiveness and success accross the board as an average figure.

What if we actually judged schemes and policies based on justice and equality? What if we broke down the population into subgroups, and asked, how much disparity is there?

I suspect that most schemes and policies will disadvantage certain groups for the benefit of others — most call this a necessary evil when it happens. Can there truly then be meritocracy when we simply pick one group to favour and measure “good” by?

 

 

4. How do you reward merit in a fair and just manner?

What does one reward merit with? Opportunities? Bonuses? Resources? How much? Who decides what is fair?

Are the people who are deemed to have insufficient merit then undeserving of opportunity and resources, when it may be of no fault of their own, or worse, when it is due to faulty assessment of merit?

Should the distribution of basic necessities like food, health care, education etc be based on a meritocratious system as well? Is that just?

Is meritocracy always just and equal?

 

 

 

And so, in principle, while I agree with Meritocracy, I’m wondering if true Meritocracy is indeed a utopic ideal, that like communism, simply cannot applied in real life without bringing about more injustice and inequality, even thought we may have progress and prosperity (as a whole) .

No to rape: Towards Criminalising Marital Rape

I was privilleged to be at the No To Rape :Towards Criminalising Marital Rape seminar yesterday evening. http://www.notorape.com/Seminar/ (abstracts available)  (See also http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Singapore/Story/STIStory_405235.html )

 

Some of the points that struck me, listening to the speakers, ( in addition to my previous discussion here: http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/why-is-it-illegal-to-beat-your-wife-but-legal-to-rape-her/). The following is reported as I have heard it. I may have heard wrongly or misunderstood certain points, so all error is mine. I’ll appreciate it a lot if you do point out errors.

 

- Marital rape doesn’t happen in isolation; it almost always is part of a violent and abusive relationship. Without the criminalisation of marital rape, the abuser can only be punished for incidental crimes, but not the actual crime of rape. Thus currently, the abuser can already be punished when he rapes his wife under a different charge — what will be affected is the EXTENT of the punishement ( Benny Bong, Chan Wing Cheong).

 

- How will criminalising marital rape weaken family bonds, when what this law criminalises is violence, hurt and abuse, the very antithesis of family bonds? (Benny Bong)

 

- If a husband forces his wife to perform oral/other sex acts on him, or forcefully performs those acts on her, he can be punishd for it. It is only with penile-vaginal rape that marriage grants him immunity. (Chan Wing Cheong)

 

- The govt gives this reason for granting immunity from the charge of rape within marriage : that it will change the nature of the marriage relationship.
Yes it will. But that would be a change for the better : one which recognises that a woman is still a human being with the capability and right to decide who and when she wants to have sex with. (Chan Wing Cheong)

 

- Possible ways of criminalising marital rape (Chan Wing Cheong) :
a) treating marriage as irrelavent where rape is concerned (Thailand, Japan, Taiwan, Phillipines, HK, NZ, Australia, UK)
b)treating marital rape as a different criminal offense with a different nme (Malaysia, India) (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20090806/tap-as-malaysia-marital-rape-2nd-ld-writ-b3c65ae.html ; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3592740.stm)
c) extend the scope of the present exceptions to marital rape immunity

 

- Currently the marital rape law stipulates that the woman must not be living with the husband and proceedings must have been initiated for seperation/divorce or formal court/police ordes have been obtained. Given the circumstances of housing in Singapore, the woman might already be in the process of getting a divorce but still in the same house as the man, because alternative housing is not yet available to her. Or in a different scenario, the wife may already have moved out but has not yet initiated formal proceedings. In these 2 scenarios, marital rape is not recognised, even though, in principle, it has the same characteristics as what the current law allows for marital rape to be criminal. The scope of the present exceptions to marital rape immunity should at least be extended to these scenarios. (Braema Mathi)

 

- Even if few women would be willing to charge their husbands under this law, the law serves its function as a signal of what society recognises as acceptable behavior (Siew Kum Hong)

 

- To those who want to preserve the institution of marriage : Do we want to preserve marriage at all costs for the sake of the institution itself? Do we want to preserve marriage in both its good forms, as well as the bad, abusive forms? Or do we want to preserve marriage only in it good forms, which is the what the institution of marriage is all about to begin with — love?  (Siew Kum Hong)

 

Additionally, I raised the following point during the floor discussion:

There are women who know that their husbands are having extramarital affairs / paying for sex. Yet because they are made to belief marital sex is their obligation, they put themselves at risk for HIV and other STIs. In Singapore, the majority of women with HIV/STIs are infected by their husbands. With the law in place, we have the legitimacy to educate these women that, even in a marriage, you have the right to say NO, or the right to insist on condom use or no sex. When the State signals that sex is obligatory through the provision of marital rape immunity, it reinforces womens’ beliefs that they must say Yes, at the expense of their health.

 

 

There are some who believe that there are religious grounds for supporting this marital rape immunity. In the course of preparing for the No T0 Rape campaign, Rev David Burke ( Pastor at the Orchard Rd Pres Ch; also lecturer at several theological seminaries training future pastors of the Protestant church here)  gave the following comments to our questions (his answers in CAPS):

 

A man forces sexual intercourse upon a woman who did not consent to having sex at the time.  According to your faith, is this a form of wrongdoing by the man?  Please explain why

YES IT IS WRONG. 

ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUALLY CREATED IN GOD’S EYES (Gen 1:2-27).  THE WOMAN’S INTEGRITY AND WILL ARE TO BE RESPECTED. AND SO RAPE IS A SIN (Deut 22:25)

 

A man forces sexual intercourse upon a woman, who is his wife.  She did not consent to having sex at the time.  According to your faith, is this a form of wrongdoing by the man?  Please explain why.

YES THIS IS WRONG.

THE APOSTLE PAUL TEACHES THAT HUSBANDS AND WIVES ARE TO TREAT EACH OTHER WITH RESPECT AND MUTUALITY (Eph 5:21)AND THAT THE HUSBAND IS TO EXERCISE A SACRIFICIAL AND LOVING SERVANT LEADERSHIP TOWARDS HIS WIFE (Eph 5:25-28). FORCING HER TO HAVE SEX, (WHETHER PHYSICAL, VERBAL OR EMOTIONAL FORCE) IS INCOMPATIBLE  WITH THIS. THE COMPLEMENTARY VALUE TO THIS IS THAT HUSBAND AND WIFE ARE BOTH TO RESPECT THE NEEDS AND DESIRES OF EACH OTHER AND NOT TO WITHHOLD INTERCOURSE EXCEPT IN MUTUALLY AGREED AND TIME-LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES (1 Cor 7:2-5). iIF CHRISTIAN HUSBANDS AND WIVES ARE LIVING BY THESE TEACHINGS THE QUESTION OF RAPE IN MARRIAGE WILL NOT ARISE AS THEY WILL EACH RESPECT AND SERVE THE OTHER IN LOVE AND MUTUAL SUBMISSION .

 

If the answers to 2) and 3) are “yes”, according to your faith, are both forms of wrongdoing equally wrongful?  Please explain why.

I SEE BOTH AS SEVERE FORMS OF WRONGDOING THAT ARE SINS AGAINST GOD AND A HARM TO THE WOMAN INVOLVED.  BOTH VIOLATE THE WOMAN AND BOTH INVOLVE THE USE OF FORCE TO INFLICT THE MAN’S SELFISH DESIRES IN A MOST PERSONAL AREA. NEITHER IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

 

We are campaigning for the Code to be changed, so that marital rape and other forms of rape are treated in the same way under the law.  Would the teachings of your faith support this change?  Please explain why.

YES. I WOULD ARGUE THAT RESPECT FOR THE WILL OF AN INDIVIDUAL IS A UNIVERSAL VALUE ARISING FROM OUR COMMON CREATION IN GOD’S IMAGE. AND NOT A DISTINCTLY CHRISTIAN ISSUE. & THUS THAT IT IS RIGHT THAT THE STATE PROTECT POTENTIALLY VULNERABLE WOMEN FROM SUCH VIOLENCE.

On imposing religion

Most moderates, whether religious or not, would agree that we all have a right to believe what ever we want to — God, flying spagetti monsters, whatever. Most moderates would also agree that we ought not to impose our beliefs on each other, eg. through insisting a religious view be taught as a universally-accepted view in school , or put into law, or through unsolicited insistent attempts at convertion.

 

However, if a particular religious belief/interpretation has practices that put the lives/well-being of people in danger, eg. burning of widows at their husbands’ funerals, child sex/sacrifice, killing of infidels, rejection of life-saving blood-transfusions for their children, most moderates would also agree that we need to intervene into these practices, even if it means we are “imposing” our moderate views.

 

 

What I am wondering about, is how we would view a situation that is less clear-cut:

 

If a vegetarian/vegan views his/her vegetarianism as a religious requirement, he might not see the need to impose that vegetarian requirement on non-believers. I’m assuming he’s a moderate who recognises other people’s rights to different beliefs.

 

However, what if the vegetarian does not see vegetarianism merely as a religious requirement, but as a universal moral requirement that his religion just happens to be more enlightened about compared to other religions? What if he sees eating meat as a heinous crime against animals (the way we see child sex/sacrifice as a heinious crime), and he sees that he needs to save and protect animals in order to live with his own conscience?

 

Would we be able to accept and understand and even condone his aggressive, perhaps millitant, imposing of vegetarianism on all of us? The way we accept how society imposes on people who practise child sacrifice as part of their religion, in order to protect the children?

 

 ”when it comes to Common space, we need a Balance” Yep. The question is HOW to balance?

While vegetarianism might seem trivial (no offense to the vegetarians; I meant trivial in the sense that we don’t have a lot of militant vegetarians outside KFC in Singapore) , I think this is the very principle that religious people have used for issues such as
 - abortion
-euthanasia
-stem cell research
- sexuality education
etc

There are some people who impose their religion/vegetarianism/moderate beliefs out of arrogance — because everyone MUST follow their idea of truth.
But there there are those who impose their religion/anti-abortion/anti-homosexuality/vegetarianism/anti-child-sex , not out of arrogance, but to protect the perceived helpless victims.

So where do we draw the line? How do we strike the balance?
 

Our usual counter arguments are :

abortion — fetuses are not “human” ; the right of the female-human is greater.
In the past, proponents of child sacrificers/ widow burners etc have claimed that children / widows are not fully human either.
Today, we don’t accept their values and go ‘ sure, go burn your widows, but I won’t burn mine, because I recognise we have different values’

See the parallel?

“We have to agree to disagree” Will you say to child-sacrificers, ‘we agree to disagree, so you go ahead to sacrifice your children, while i won’t sacrifice mine’ ?

What do we do? Do we pick and choose what we want to believe and impose, the way we have accused religious people of picking and choosing what to impose?

 
(Apologies to all vegetarians for my use as an eg. )