0 200 400 600 800 1000
1995 1996 1997 1998
Boys Girls
Source: Statistics obtained from “Bad Girls: The Problem”, Straits Times, 14 Sep 1999.
There seemed to be an attempt by the Committee to downplay a very serious problem concerning female rebellion. Despite the obvious increase in female disciplinary problems and the growing trend in female juvenile offences, the chairperson Dr Aline Wong, emphasized that the findings were not alarming and that there was no need to overreact. Yet figures released by the Ministry of Community Development revealed that the proportion of cases of girls beyond parental control had risen from 59% in 1995 to 67% in 1998. This meant that two thirds of the total cases of children beyond parental control were teenage girls, the majority of whom were between 14 - 16 years of age.438 This attempt to downplay the severity of the problem of girls’ discipline reflects the government leaders’ desire to preserve a faỗade of hegemony being maintained with the traditional concept of femininity being the accepted norm. There was an obvious refusal to admit that society’s progress had brought about changes in the construction of femininity and gender norms.
Dr Anthony Loh, principal of Bukit Merah Secondary School, commented on the changes in the behaviour of schoolgirls:
Children hardly talked back then. Now they do. Children used to ask for permission to go out. Now they just tell their parents… What is most disturbing is the behaviour of girls. Following the latest fashion trends set by their favourite TV stars, like having dyed hair or smoking cigarettes, might sound alarming enough…but… he [Dr Loh] has caught a few of his schoolgirls sporting tattoos – not the washable stick-on ones but the real thing.439
Clearly, the modern schoolgirls were no longer like the schoolgirls of the past. These changes were the result of many factors, one of which was a more lax attitude in the discipline and upbringing of girls. Teachers had found it increasingly difficult to impose discipline on girls because of the ban on corporal punishment. Thus the result
438 “2 in 3 Cases of Problem Kids Involve Girls”, Straits Times, 12 Sep 1999.
439 “Help Yourself, Help Your Child”, Straits Times, 14 Sep 1999.
was an increasing problem of socializing girls into accepting a femininity that is defined as docile and submissive.
The report also highlighted some principals’ concern over a phenomenon which was termed ‘inappropriate gender behaviour’ in a few all-girls’ schools.440 Such misbehaviour consisted of sporting short hair and dressing like boys [Figure 5.1].
Figure 5.1
Gender-bender dressing
Source: Straits Times, 19 Sep 1999
According to the medical director of the Mount Elizabeth-Charter Behavioural Health Services Dr Tan Chue Tin, this was temporary and most likely mere attention- seeking behaviour: “In an all-girls’ school, bad behaviour receives a lot of attention and publicity whereas in boys’ schools they would just be naughty boys…it is just a fashionable fad and a passing phase.”441 Dr Tan added that this may also be the result of teenage rebellion and problems in the home:
…many of these girls also come from broken homes or have troubled relationships with their parents. Instead of identifying more with their
440 Ibid.
441 “It’s a Boy…No, She Just Looks Like One”, Straits Times, 19 Sep 1999.
mothers, some might be excessively close to their fathers and estranged from their mother. This prevents them from developing a female identity.442
A number of principals also concluded that this was not a serious problem and was simply a reflection of girls trying to work out their personal identity.
A critical reason why schools banned close-cropped hair for girls and frowned upon gender-bender dressing was because these acts were manifestations of a more serious problem, that of lesbianism. A Straits Times article in 1992 had highlighted this problem in girls’ schools. A principal of a secondary girls’ school reportedly had to call in the police to deter a group of lesbians from approaching her students.443 According to her, at least three other girls’ schools had the same problem. She first sensed something amiss when some of her students “started cutting their hair short, wearing men’s clothes and walking with exaggerated strides.”444 The principal discovered that two years earlier a group of older girls had tried to sell tickets to a lesbian party to her students. After approaching and speaking to the group that was troubling her students, she discovered from them that there were other similar groups hanging out at different shopping malls. It is not known if there was an increase in the number of lesbians, but it appeared that these lesbians were becoming more open in their activities. A psychologist explained that this sexual deviation among girls might have been caused by the growing number of women in the workforce.
According to her, girls turned to older lesbians for love and attention because their mothers were working or often not at home and not giving them the attention that they needed.445
442 Ibid. [Emphasis added]
443 “Girls’ School Calls in Police Over Lesbians Approaching its Students”, Straits Times, 5 Jul 1992.
444 Ibid.
445 Ibid.
The rise in numbers of female offences and incidences of cross-dressing and lesbianism by schoolgirls were signs of increasing rejection of the traditional notions of femininity and its corresponding gender behaviour. They also indicated the problems that these girls had in constructing their gender identity as a result of rapid changes in the family and society.
Socio-Economic Progress: Femininity and the Paradox of Modernity
According to the 1998 Committee on Discipline of Female Pupils, the problem arose from a number of sources, among which were parental loss of control over their children and the negative influence of the media.446 These sources were the result of economic progress and the concomitant social changes resulting from this development. With economic progress and as Singapore increasingly became a global communications hub, girls were exposed to influences from a wide range of media such as the television and the internet. Negative influences from the dominance of sex and violence in the media are difficult to control, especially for children in nuclear families, left on their own with little supervision from parents who were both working outside the home. The lack of proper guidance from parents also meant a loss of positive role modelling of social values and culturally acceptable norms of behaviour. There was, therefore, a breakdown in the transmission of traditional notions of femininity in the home.
Dr Alfred Choi, a criminologist who has studied youth crime in Singapore, attributed the rising trend in juvenile delinquency to three aspects of social change, viz., changes in the family, education and youth.447 There have been substantial
446 “More Offences by Secondary Girls”, Straits Times, 14 Sep 1999.
447 Alfred Choi & Lo T. Wing, Fighting Youth Crime: Success and Failure of Two Little Dragons, pp.
210-212.
changes in the family, the first of which is the predominance of the nuclear family (one-family nucleus) taking the place of traditional extended families in Singapore.
In the period between 1957 and 1980, the number of one-family nucleus increased from 188,618 to 397,125, a growth of 110.5%. The multi-family nuclei household increased by only 60%, from 32,181 to 51,521 in the same period.448 The one-family nucleus household continued to grow rapidly and by 1990, constituted 85% of total residential households, compared to 78% in 1980. In the year 2000, although it declined somewhat to 82%, the proportion of multi-nuclei households also dropped precipitously to 5.6%. There was also a significant rise in one-person and other no- family households, indicating the rising problem of marriage avoidance in Singapore [Table 5.2].
Table 5.2
Private Households by Type of Household, 1957 - 2000
Number of households Type of Household
1957 1970 1980 1990 2000 One Person
Other No Family Nucleus One Family Nucleus Multi-family Nuclei Total
61,450 (21%) 14,833 (5%) 188,618 (63%) 32,181 (11%) 297,082 (100%)
50,007 (13%) 13,860 (4%) 272,164 (71%) 44,492 (12%) 380,523 (100%)
42,386 (8%) 18,492 (4%) 397,125 (78%) 51,521 (10%) 509,524 (100%)
34,578 (5%) 23,173 (3%) 559,580 (85%) 44,399 (7%) 661,730 (100%)
75,577 (8%) 38,152 (4%) 758,108 (82%) 51,488 (6%) 923,325 (100%) Source: Stephen H.K. Yeh, Households and Housing, Census Monograph No. 4 (Singapore: Dept of Statistics, 1985), Singapore, Census of Population, 1990: Households and Housing, Statistical Release 2 (Singapore: Dept. of Statistics, 1992), Singapore, Census of Population, 2000:Households and Housing, Statistical Release 5 (Singapore: Dept. of Statistics, 2001).
448 Stephen H.K. Yeh, Households and Housing, Census Monograph No. 4 (Singapore: Dept of Statistics, 1985).
According to Stephen H.K. Yeh, a professor of Sociology and Population Studies, this rapid growth of the nuclear family reflected “the increasing preference for privacy and independence among young married couples.449 This resulted in significant reduction of grandparents’ involvement and participation in nurturing grandchildren. In the past, children had mothers or grandparents at home who would nurture and teach moral values to them.
The second change within the family was the increasing number of families with both parents working. Economic pragmatism entailed the maximization of Singapore’s resources. Hence the government actively pursued a policy of encouraging women to join the labour force. This policy has had success as the female labour force participation rate (FLFPR) has increased significantly. The FLFPR, which was a mere 21.6% in 1957, reached a high of 53% by 1990 but dropped to 50.2% by the year 2000 [Chart 5.4].
Chart 5.4