Following AWARE Singapore’s (AWARE) two statements which, among other things, called on Viswa Sadasivan (Sadasivan)—who is a former Nominated Member of Parliament and current host of the National University of Singapore Society’s (NUSS) Inconvenient Questions (IQ) web series—to make a “full and unreserved apology” to Sharul Channa (Sharul) and Kiran Kandade’s (Kiran) for instances of sexual harassment by him towards the two women, Sadasivan has replied on Facebook that he, among other things, did not accept AWARES’s “characterisation of (his) conduct”.

He further stated that he was of the opinion that he had already apologised adequately to both women noting that he had apologised privately via email to Ms Kandade because he “believe(s) she needed to hear directly from [him] and not via social media.”

He went on, “As for Ms Channa, I had sent her a full statement of ‘unconditional apology’ by email on Thursday 4 February. This was done within minutes of finding out that she was upset by my statement. It also acknowledged and respected her wish not to air the interview,” adding, “I meant everything I said.”

Sadasivan further stated that he did “not believe that issues such as this can ever be resolved effectively on social media”.

For those unaware, the controversy erupted when Sharul made a Facebook post about how Sadasivan made sexual innuendos directed at her during an interview for IQ over zoom. Since Sharul’s revelations on Facebook, Kiran has also stepped up to reveal her own experiences with the former NMP, showing screenshots of a WhatsApp conversation for several years ago when he had asked her for a kiss when she was trying to seek training/consultancy work from him.

This resulted in two statements issued by AWARE on 7 Feb and 11 Feb and now, Sadasivan’s statement (above).

AWARE has now responded to Sadasivan’s statement, explaining unequivocally what constitutes “workplace harassment”.

Among other things, it said that “workplace sexual harassment is defined by the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW, which Singapore signed in 1995) as “unwelcome sexually determined behaviour as physical contact and advances, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography and sexual demand, whether by words or actions.”

“Such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem… it is discriminatory when the woman has reasonable grounds to believe that her objection would disadvantage her in connection with her employment, including recruitment or promotion, or when it creates a hostile working environment”, said the organisation. This would have applied to how Sadasivan had conducted himself with Sharul and Kiran.

Further, AWARE was of the opinion that this case was a public interest case which was why it has been made public instead of private.

“Given the public interest in this case, we would like to address the inaccurate assertions about workplace sexual harassment set out in Viswa’s statement. Unfortunately, Viswa’s misinformed views about workplace sexual harassment are not uncommon, so this provides an excellent opportunity to explain how workplace sexual harassment is determined.”

The organisation went on to stress the how intent is “immaterial in establishing whether or not certain behaviours constitute harassment”.

This is a direct response to Sadasivan’s statement when he said, “The situation must be fairly assessed, also taking into account factors such as intent and context.”

AWARE noted that by the global standard definitions of sexual harassment, “The determinant is, instead, whether the victim was offended or distressed by the statement and whether that response was reasonable. (Intention can come into play but as a mitigating factor in deciding a perpetrator’s punishment.)”

It continued, “Accordingly, we do not believe that Viswa has solid ground for denying that his behavior constituted sexual harassment. In Sharul’s case, he said he understood that Sharul might have seen it in the way she did, indicating that he thought it was a reasonable reaction. In Kiran’s case, he belatedly apologised to her.”

The organisation also addressed the role of social media in addressing cases of sexual harassment and Sadasivan’s remark that he doesn’t thing issues like this can be resolved effectively on social media.

AWARE noted that privately addressing allegations of harassment doesn’t always work in the victims favour as “entrenched systems are easily employed to silence, discredit and dismiss them”, adding that private resolutions can be very “isolating” for victims.

It went on to point out that social media disclosures are also risky as it leaves victims open to victim-blaming and harassment, as evidenced by what Sharul and Kiran have had to face since going public with their stories.

“Victims don’t make the decision to go public on a whim,” AWARE stressed, adding “We should not, therefore, be dismissive of social media as a channel for dialogue and justice—it is often the only recourse available.”

It explained, “This case also shows the need for more non-criminal channels to report workplace harassment. Freelancers like Sharul and Kiran do not have access to unions or government bodies like TAFEP to report to. Accessible channels would reduce the need to resort to social media.”

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Australian and S’pore PR fined $3,000 for assault on jazz singer

Australian Aaron Peter Jeremicjczyk, a 39-year-old Singapore permanent resident, has been fined…

SDP: Allegations by PM Lee's siblings raise concerns regarding present administration of Singapore

The Singapore Democratic Party has issued a statement on the ongoing dispute…

Entrepreneurship And the Future State of Affairs – Part 2

This is part 2 of the article on entrepreneurship by Leounheort. Part…

当心遭滥用 学者吁监督反假新闻立法

香港浸会大学传播学院媒体与传播研究中心主任施仁乔(Cherian George)教授,警惕领袖、公民组织都要小心监督有关打击假新闻的立法过程和法令内容,因为当权者可以假借反假新闻法,进一步钳制新闻和言论自由,打压异议分子。 施仁乔说,他更愿意称呼假新闻为“错误或虚假讯息”,他承认不实讯息会对社会造成伤害和损失。 假消息引发信用和道德恐慌,人们很快就下定论必须立法保障社会免受伤害。施仁乔不否认法律对于遏制假消息散布的功能,立法可以是打击假新闻的方案之一,但是他更关注法律本身一视同仁,不遭当权者滥用。 “政府说谎伤害更大” 针对不实消息、指控,各国都有相应的法令,但我们需要确保法令定义更清楚,不应过于模糊,给予的惩罚应合理与罪行相对应,不可能部落客不小心转贴一则假新闻,就要重罚判监他10年。 再者,有关法律应是一视同仁的,不能只是针对民众、异议分子,政府要员也不能例外。“历史显示,掌握国家机器的当权政府,发布假消息造成的伤害最大、影响更广泛。” “我不是影射任何高官领袖一定会撒谎,但是假消息的伤害程度多大,也取决于手上握的权力。因为社会上没有任何个体、组织的权力,会大过掌权政府本身。” 他直言,亚洲政府包括新加坡政府,都有制定狭隘定义、钳制性恶法的不良记录,赋予政府相当大的权力,但是没有其他单位可以制衡、监督政府。 若要立法管制假消息,任何国会议员、媒体和公民组织要很小心监督,因为这类法律很可能被用来对付异议者和任何反对政府的声音。 法令让政府自己来决定什么才是“假新闻”,但是当政府自己发布假消息时,就会出现非常棘手的司法问题。 由美国东西方中心于新加坡举行的2018年国际媒体研讨会,获得超过350名来自30个国家的媒体工作者和学者出席,商讨在科技和现代环境下的媒体处境。…