General Assembly WOM/1875 - Ministry of Social and Family ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Experts’ Questions and CommentsMs. ZOU, expert from China, said significant progress had been made in Singaporewith regard to the education of women. Were its training centres open to women seeking toenter or re-enter the workforce, and women with very limited skills or experience? Werethey open to foreign workers? If not, what programmes were open to foreign workers?Additionally, the report noted that the compulsory education act excluded children withdisabilities, she said, asking the delegation to clarify its position.NIKLAS BRUUN, expert member from Finland, recalled that, despite theCommittee’s recommendation that Singapore withdraw its reservation to article 11, it had notdone so. An in-depth study of the content of that article had not been conducted bySingapore, it seemed, as the country already adhered to most of its obligations. Why didSingapore then continue to maintain its reservation to paragraph 1(d), regarding women inthe labour market? He hoped the delegation could assure the Committee that it would atleast reassess its withdrawal.Additionally, did Singapore conduct objective job evaluations? Were remediesavailable to those who suffered from the non-compliance of an employer with regard to theprinciple of equal work for equal pay? Laws could be used to prosecute sexual harassmentin the workplace, but he said that even more effective legislation was needed. WasSingapore paying special attention to the problems that vulnerable categories of womenmight face in the workplace?On the issue of foreign domestic workers, Ms. HAYASHI, expert from Japan, drewattention to the point in the report that such workers were given the choice of additionalcompensation, instead of rest days. Why did only foreign workers lack compulsory restdays? On the resolution of employment disputes in which employers were at fault, sheasked for figures on the number of foreign domestic workers who had actually submittedcomplaints under the conciliation provision. How many had received compensation? Hadthey been able to find another employer, following the settlement?Finally, she noted that migrant foreign domestic workers in Singapore were subjectedto mandatory tests for HIV and pregnancy. Were either of those findings grounds fordeportation, and if so, did that not violate their rights?PRAMILA PATTEN, expert member from Mauritius, also asked about sexualharassment in the workplace. Could the delegation clarify under what law employees couldseek redress from management? To what extent did the Penal Code contain an adequatedefinition of sexual harassment? Had it developed a national sexual harassment preventionstrategy?It was commendable that mothers were given 16 weeks maternity leave, she said.However, the policy suffered from problems of implementation; furthermore, it seemed to belimited to citizens and to married women. One example of an implementation gap was thecase of Singapore Airlines, which required pregnant flight attendants to resign. Were thecurrent penalties for sexual discrimination in the workplace sufficiently strict? Had a studybeen conducted to measure the impact of work-life balance initiatives? Many companieswere still not embracing such programmes, she said. What new measures were envisagedto encourage the participation of women in the workforce?On article 11 of the Convention, which addressed health, MAGALYS AROCHADOMINGUEZ, expert member from Cuba, expressed concern about the situation of certain“invisible” women in Singapore. Employers had been responsible for guaranteeing health
services since 2006, she recalled. Had a follow-up assessment been taken on the effects ofthat change on the health of women migrant workers?How did Singapore ensure that workers were not laid off in an effort by employers notto make health payments, or that women were not prevented from leaving work to havemedical checkups? she asked. She also echoed concern about mandatory HIV andpregnancy tests for migrant women workers. What measures were adopted for compliancewith, and follow-up to, anti-discrimination rules in the workplace? Finally, she asked about areference made in the report to an increase in medical coverage for older women and thosewith severe disabilities. Why was that increase restricted to those with “severe” disabilitiesonly?Ms. PIMENTEL, Chairperson and expert from Brazil, asked whether womenundergoing childbirth and other necessary health procedures, who were not covered byhealth insurance, had access to free prenatal, antenatal and related care in hospitals?Was pre- and post-test counselling, or provisions for treatment, available for those foundto be living with HIV/AIDS? Would Singapore consider the recognition of same-sexpartnerships in order to make health-care benefits more equitable?Moving to article 16, Ms. HALPERIN-KADDARI, expert from Israel, asked if the name“Women’s Charter” might be changed to a more general “Family Code”. In areas of sharia,such as the need for wali permission to marry, polygamy and unequal inheritance rights, shewondered if more harmonization with domestic laws could be sought. Why not adopt theposition that there was a presumption that a man was never able to provide for secondwife? That would leave the law in place, but end polygamy in practice.Regarding civil family law, especially divorce, Singapore offered a very liberalunderstanding of the consequences of divorce, she said. However, a stay-at-home mothermight receive less property in a divorce. Could the delegation provide more information onthat, as well as on the distribution of intangible property and future earning potential?Relating to maintenance, she wondered if there was a framework for the Government toprovide for women and children who were not able to collect debts from men who defaultedon their payments.Marital rape was only defined as a crime in cases when the couple no longer livedtogether, she noted, which was “extremely alarming”. Could the delegation provideinformation on any changes envisaged? Lastly, what were the rights of de facto unions, orthose couples not formally married?
Page 1 and 2: General AssemblyWOM/1875Department
Page 3 and 4: principles involved were applied ex
Page 5 and 6: Introduction of ReportMs. BINTE YAC
Page 7 and 8: Experts’ Questions and CommentsDU
Page 9 and 10: Delegation’s ResponsesThe head of
Page 11 and 12: Experts’ Questions and CommentsVI
Page 13 and 14: Delegation’s ResponsesMs. YACOB a
Page 15 and 16: Experts’ Questions and CommentsMs
Page 17 and 18: however, was that the provision wou
Page 19: Delegation’s ResponsesMs. YACOB s
Page 23: * *** *For information media • no

General Assembly WOM/1875 - Ministry of Social and Family ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?