An Interview with Dr Kanwaljit Soin

Old page design was by Women-Connect-Asia.com

Dr Kanwaljit Soin is an orthaepedic surgeon, a (former) nominated Member of the Singapore Parliament, and (former) President of the Association of Women for Action and Research 1991-93 (AWARE)

Dr Soin's thoughts on Women's issues:

KS: I do not think that any issue is specifically a woman's issue. In fact, all issues in society including those in a market economy should be considered women's issues - whether it involves finance, defence, whatever - they are all issues that involve and affect women.

"I do not think that any issue is specifically a woman's issue."

Even in areas where women are generally absent, these still affect women directly or indirectly--for example the army and business--men are able to participate in these areas because the women are minding the home in their absence.

However, sometimes for the sake of following conventional tradition we nominate the softer components of life, - issues affecting family, children, providing care or nurturing, - as women's issues- but these are actually issues that concern the whole of society and not only women. I have concentrated on some of these issues because many policy makers lack gender sensitivity and forget that rigid gender-roles can impede the full maximization of human capital. Gender refers to the ascribed roles of men and women in society. These roles are not biologically ordained. No specific gene provides for the maternal instinct. The so-called maternal instinct is actually a learned skill.

Men and women are taught their respective societal-defined gender roles from birth. For example, when we buy toys, we tend to give dolls to girls and guns to boys and thus begin to imbue girls with the "maternal instinct" Unfortunately, when we pigeon hole male and female roles, we may be short-changing our natural talents and inclinations. For example, nurturing is considered to be a female role and thus some men become hesitant to play a role at home because it is a role ascribed to women. This inhibition may prevent these men from shouldering a certain balance in life and restricts them to mainly an economic and public role.

Greater freedom in gender roles also leads to multifaceted individuals. In our society, a woman who loses her job still has her family, and hence she would be less likely to lose her identity as society also ascribes the role of a home-maker to women. Unfortunately, men do not share this option. As men are largely defined by their jobs/careers in our society, losing a job is likely to be a more traumatic experience, involving a greater loss of identity and dignity.

Therefore, ascribing women to "feminine roles" and men to "masculine roles" is limiting. A greater sensitivity towards gender roles would significantly benefit men as well. I am not advocating a revolutionary change but advocating for a society that is not so rigid. There should be more room for flexibility and compromise in gender roles so that men may participate more in the private sphere, and women participate more in the public sphere. This will allow both men and women to stay at home and play the role of a home-maker, at various times in their respective careers.

Society is still very patriarchal, even in the West. Women still hold secondary roles. In Singapore, the ruling party believes designating men as the head of the household will lead to stability in the family. I am frustrated by this mindset, although there are members in Parliament that empathise with me, especially those with daughters. In fact, egalitarian couples are more likely to have a stable relationship in marriage.

It is commonly assumed that greater education for females leads to an increase in the divorce rate but if we look at statistics in Singapore, married women with a generally lower education have higher divorce rates than those with a tertiary education.

In my opinion, greater equality between the husband and wife will lead to greater stability in the family. A more egalitarian family is better able to handle the stress of living. Interestingly, Singapore's two-child policy has served to help the feminine gender. As parents were limited to two children, they invested a great deal in the education of these children.

Even traditional families who preferred sons had to be content with daughters and started educating them to maximize their potential. Thus the family planning programme inadvertently raised the status of the girl-child but the status of women in society is still lagging behind the men.

There are too few prominent women in politics and public life. Society does not adequately recognise the ability of women to contribute. For example, does our society really value highly the role of mothers or housewives? Why are there are no housewives, regardless of their qualifications, nominated to public committees or advisory bodies?

A housewife or mother, especially one with a good education, must have skills and insights that would be valuable in such public advisory councils or committees addressing national issues. However, these skills are not adequately recognised. Hence, a job or a career appears to take precedence over a role as homemaker in public life. Therefore, while I believe that women who stay at home are fulfilling a worthwhile role, I would advise these women not to give up their jobs and careers completely. The independence that an economic role can provide remains important.

Dr Soin's thoughts on her role as an Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) and the NMP system:

This is difficult - how does one assess oneself? Let me say first that the NMP concept is a good one, especially in Singapore politics where we do not have a bipartisan system. The PAP is very strong but where are the checks and balances? However good an institution may be, it still needs an audit system in place. And a good government would want a system of checks and balances. Elections are held regularly and openly and some consider this enough of a safe-guard but I think that an ongoing system of check and balance is still necessary.

In many countries with a bicameral system, the upper house is often appointed, so what is wrong with having NMPs who are also appointed? As a concept it appeals to me. Even if there should be a bipartisan system, there is a role for NMPs to add another perspective to issues

I do not think that the NMP concept is the People's Action Party's scheme to co-opt potential Opposition candidates. NMPs and opposition parties do not substitute for each other --it is not a zero sum game. There is unlimited talent in this country, only a dearth of willingness because of the political culture here. With one dominant party in Singapore and with the state and this party being considered as synonymous, some people are hesitant to enter opposition politics as it could be construed as being disloyal to the system.

"...some people are hesitant to enter opposition politics as it could be construed as being disloyal to the system"

If we really want a culture of consensus, we need to move away from combative politics. We need more channels of participation in politics and the NMP concept is such a channel.

Do you have any tasks left undone? What are they and how do you propose to continue with your efforts on them?

There is so much more to do - I cannot consider the work to be finished but there comes a time to call it quits and for others to continue. There is a need to hear different voices and different views.

I have had four good years of learning. I have become politicised and hopefully a little wiser. I also hope that I have served the scheme well.

Being an NMP was one of the roles of my life but I have other roles too and I will move on.

Would you consider going into politics long term?:

I have consciously stayed away from thinking about this subject while I was an NMP. Being an NMP means being non-partisan and not being into party politics. I am interested in politics but not sure about party politics. I have not made any plans.

It is sad that the PAP feels that political debate should be confined to the political arena. I think everyone should be involved in political discussions, only those who want political power should join party politics. Why should we set implicit OB [Ed: out of bounds] markers when we already have legal OB markers in our statutes and laws? They should be enough to circumscribe political debate.

We have gone so far in some areas towards an open society, for example, economic liberalisation, globalisation and so on, but we still lack political space, so much so that our society may be suffering from a touch of schizophrenia--a great deal of economic openness that is not matched by the political sphere People are now hankering for more than economic satisfaction, especially the young people. In Singapore, civic society is expressed in welfare and service- orientated groups but there are few advocacy and special interest groups . There is room for that.

"We have gone so far in some areas towards an open society... but we still lack political space."

Some reasons have been given for the reluctance of women to go into politics but we do have our fair share of capable women in the private sector. What do you think the government or the society could do to encourage more women to come forward to serve in the public office?

We have two areas on which we can work. The first is to create a pipeline for women to get into politics. This could start in the appointment of more women to public committees and councils which are funded by public funds. There could be a minimal representation for women members - not necessarily 50/50, just some women. We need this intermediate step to create role models and groom more women for public roles. We can't just expect women to go into politics overnight without graduated public exposure and experience.

The second is modify the GRC system- to have at least one woman in each GRC. Parties will have to make sure they find women like they currently find minority candidates. There is no dearth of good women in Singapore? Can we not find 15 or so of these women to fill up GRCs? With no established tradition of women in politics, we have to help them into the political arena.

Short-time affirmative action has historically helped the disadvantaged and this principle can be applied to get more women into politics. The principle of meritocracy is not always applied fairly in this area. When you look for capable candidates to fill positions in public committees or councils, and you look for them in places like the armed forces, the upper echelons of civil service or on the golf courses, you will of course find few women.

And so women - even women with outstanding academic records or previous working experience and talented women who are home-makers are overlooked. Surely there must be some highly qualified women that are willing and capable of serving on some of these public committees. I believe that when enough women are in public life and seen as role models, then it would be a small step to move into politics.

Women's vote is important. For example, in the 1959 election, women's votes were crucial, and the PAP specifically targeted women voters. But over the years, the women's vote have not been specifically targeted. The woman's vote will become important in future but no one has done a survey on how women vote, and none of the political parties have addressed this issue.

Women leaders maintain that society cannot expect women to be a superwoman who have it all and do it all. Yet you are an admirable example of someone who has managed to juggle the roles of wife, mother, doctor, women's leader and NMP. How do you do it and what advice would you give women in Singapore?

It is not fair to ask women to be superwomen, or men to be supermen for that matter. We are all merely men or women. It is good to take up multiple roles, it helps to fulfil our lives, but we can not be first rate in everything. However, I am fortunate that my kids are grown up, so it may not be fair to use me as an example.

The problem for men and women is the same. A nurturing father may also want to spend more time with the family. We should recognise that people want multiple roles. The community must invest in support systems to allow citizens to do this.

One of the ways is accessible and affordable childcare. Childcare centres could be set up near homes and work places - small firms could pool resources together to do this. At present, even though childcare costs are subsidised, low income families still find it difficult to cope financially. Most childcare centres cost $400/month and the government pays out $150/month in assistance, so two kids would cost $500/month. Some of my nurses pay up to $600/month for childcare, so a woman who does not earn much would have to give up her job in order to look after her child.

However, if the mother stops working, the family's income is halved. And this is the group of people who especially need to work to have a better standard of living. Thus, our present childcare system discourages women who earn less to continue working. Something should be done on this.

There is an issue of equity as well. Childcare centres can give children a headstart in life. They prepare children for school, and may provide computer lessons and other courses as well. Lower income children most need child care that gives them a head-start.

What are your views on the traditional roles of women in society? What about the traditional skills of women and do you think that these traditional skills are obstacles in the way of emancipation of women?

It is difficult to reconcile these interests. It comes back to the point that our lives have to be more balanced. If we want to remain No. 1 in economic competitiveness, something has got to give. These are choices we have to make and I think we have to have a sense of balance in making these choices.

From some key indicators such as the education level and income parity between the two genders, Singapore women seem to have made tremendous progress. Critics against women's groups use such indicators to support their claim that there is no inequality between the two sexes. What are your views on this?

It is correct to say that in the education and employment arenas, women are doing better but everybody (both men and women) is doing well and so it is not a good yardstick We must distinguish between women's strategic position in society and their practical needs. The second is fairly well looked after but the first could be improved on. Singapore's shortage of labour has meant that women are required in the workplace. Hence, we have more women in the work force now and this gives a false sense that there is nothing to fight for. However, even though women represent half the intellectual talent in Singapore and half the life experience, less than 20% of senior public policy decision makers are women. Thus, decision making is still in the hands of men.

The argument cited is not good. It is intellectually inaccurate. We should use other markers to gauge women's progress. I would group them into four aspects: 1) gender roles 2) physiological needs 3) physical needs and 4) psychological needs. We talked about the first earlier, and the need for greater flexibility and compromise in gender roles. The second aspect is quite well taken care of in Singapore, and refers to a woman's physiological needs. This would include food, shelter, healthcare and other such needs which are not significant problems in Singapore.

The third aspect refers to the physical environment where the woman lives, and includes family violence or crimes against women, and here we need to put in place systems where women are not abused. The fourth relates to psychological needs, and may range from mental stress to greater participation in decision-making processes. It has been found that women do suffer from more stress, and are more prone to attempted suicides. In examining the situation of women through these four indicators, we may develop a clearer picture on the status of women in Singapore.

Compared to women's groups in other countries, the women's groups in Singapore are less combative, adopting a constructive and consultative approach. But a report in the Straits Times about a year ago mentioned that some younger members of AWARE were impatient as they felt that the consultative approach did not bring about changes fast enough for women. What is the situation now for the women's movement in Singapore?

Women's groups are fragmented here as civil society is weak. It could also be because the women's movement is confronted by a situation where there are lots of women's issues, but no real single burning issue to rally the various groups of women together. The issue that came close to rallying the groups was family violence.

One of the remarkable things of this century is the women's movement. This is a classic example of putting others above self. The women leading this movement are usually middle-class professionals who are basically successful and fulfilled people --this makes it all the more remarkable that they band together to try to create a more gender friendly society to help the less privileged. The women's movement transcends class and ethnic divisions.

"One of the remarkable things of this century is the women's movement."

I am not sure if I agree younger women want faster change. I think younger women members are quite happy. Education and employment for them have improved. There is no glass-ceiling in some of the newer areas of work so younger women tend to be satisfied with the status quo. The situation could however change when they enter a different phase in their lives, for example when they have kids or when they have to look after older parents. They will then feel the pressures of a gender-blind system.

Information technology has advanced tremendously in recent years and has revolutionised lives beyond the board room. A recent report in the Straits Times says that the bulk of Information Technology(IT) users are males and under 30 years of age. What role does IT play in your life? What could be done to enable more women to enjoy the benefits of IT?

"Speak Mandarin" initiative divided younger people from dialect speaking grandparents. IT is now a source of distancing the younger and the older generations. IT is not only for the young. What about people in their 50s? I am concerned about older women who have a sense of disorientation and uselessness and disempowerment because of illiteracy in IT.

I would like to teach older women how to use the computer, the Internet, and even play computer games, to make old age more productive. How we can do it is the big question. For a start, we can perhaps introduce computer games, which do not require literacy skills, to the older people. Computer games may also be used to help improve the motor skills of the aged. Computer skills may help grandparents to better monitor the activities of their grandchildren when the latter are using the computer. They may even provide a medium for bonding the older and young generation.

Adults used to be the repository of wisdom. Now the tables are turned. The whole of society has changed and the old are learning from the young. Unquestioned respect for the elderly may be replaced by a new kind of relationship.

I want to be involved in IT. My sons are helping me in this. I used to be quite hopeless in IT but I have since learned about internet and the usefulness of IT and I am enjoying it.

Write in your comments and see what other readers have to say.

---

Interviewed by Tan Say Yin, Edmund Chia and Wynthia Goh
Copyright 1998 All rights reserved.