Globalisation is one of the most pervasive phenomena of our times. It has permeated deep into our society, and caused profound changes to our lives.

Yet events in 2001 seemed to shake the faith of many proponents of globalisation. First, the global economy experienced its most severe deceleration since the 1974 oil crisis. As a result, the volume of global trade was virtually stagnant in 2001. Foreign direct investment flows were halved.

Secondly, after 911, many people were shocked at the ease with which the terrorists and their resources had been able to move across borders. They realised that terrorism has gone global too. They are asking to tighten borders, and even to close them.

Then came the collapse of Argentina's economy. This is a big blow because Argentina had embraced globalisation.

But on closer examination, the evidence suggests that globalisation has held up remarkably well despite these shocks. The apparent ‘reversals’ in globalisation, as reflected in the slowdown of global trade and investments last year, must be measured against their unprecedented surge in the year 2000. Moreover, global trade last year was still some 3.2 times that in 1985. FDI flows were 14 times larger.

Neither did 911 appear to have had a significant impact on global investments. A recent survey by the United Nations showed that 70 per cent of respondents expected investments in their foreign operations to rise over the next three years.

But the clearest testament yet that globalisation will push ahead, must be the great international interest surrounding China’s accession to the WTO in November 2001.

This is welcome news. When we remove the emotions, globalisation is actually a good strategy to bring about economic progress. Following the WTO Doha meeting, the World Bank estimated that broad progress toward freer trade could increase the GDP of developing countries by an extra US$1.5 trillion by 2015, and help an extra 320 million people out of poverty.

The impact of globalisation on men and women is different. I was told of this analogy, that globalisation is to the world, what marriages are for most couples: transformative, for better or for worse. Also, like marriages, globalisation affects women differently from men, particularly in the developing world.

Supporters of globalisation argue that all women are winners. Globalisation grants them greater opportunities and economic independence, thus raising their social status. This is significant, given the relatively lower status of women in many developing countries.

For educated and highly skilled women everywhere, globalisation has certainly opened up new horizons. It has given them access to better-paying employment, and to opportunities previously unavailable.

Things, however, are more complicated for their less educated colleagues. Critics claim that globalisation perpetuates the exploitation of such women. Basically, their argument is that globalisation has led to a proliferation of sweatshops, which employ mainly lowly-educated women. Such women work long hours for low pay and under harsh conditions.

In addition, globalisation increases the vulnerability of women. When governments and companies have to restructure their economies and organisations to remain competitive in the global market, women are usually at the greatest risk of losing their jobs.

My view is: whatever our conclusion from the debate, countries should take proactive steps to ensure that the impact of globalisation on their women is more positive than negative. Globalisation is unstoppable and irreversible. We should help women profit from the opportunities opened up by globalisation, and minimise their vulnerabilities.

First and foremost, we should ensure that both men and women have equal access to education and training. Using per capita GNP as an indicator of economic development, it is clear that the level of education attained by the womenfolk of a country is positively correlated with a country's wealth.

Increasing the educational level of women will also help to narrow the wage gap between men and women. Although globalisation has seen an increase in the labour force participation rates of women, there is still a gender wage gap.

In Singapore, the education of females has been key to equalising opportunities. The intake levels of females at our polytechnics and universities have increased steadily over the years, from 42 per cent and 50 per cent respectively in 1990, to about 47 per cent and 53 per cent in 2000. This has helped to close the gender wage gap, from 21% in 1991 to 11% in 2000 for professionals, and from 39% to 19% for production crafts-persons.

In May this year, Singapore ratified a core ILO convention - Convention 100 on Equal Remuneration. The ratification of this Convention is an affirmation of our belief in the fair and equal treatment of men and women at the workplace for work of equal value.

Beyond equal pay, we need to create an environment that provides work-life balance. This is particularly important because more husbands and wives are working nowadays. We need to help both men and women balance their career aspirations and discharge their family responsibilities.

In Singapore, the labour force participation rate for married women has increased rapidly – from 43% in 1991 to 52% in 2001. Dual income couples amongst all married couples have increased from 37% to 45%. So flexible work options, which enable women to combine both work and family, are important.

Recent research indicates that whilst globalisation has opened up many employment opportunities for women, many women in developed countries still choose not to work full-time. A sociologist from the London School of Economics studied the work patterns of women from the developed nations in the nineties. She found that the majority of women (60% – 80%) in developed countries structured their employment around their family responsibilities. A minority, about 10%, was "work-centred". Another 10% were completely "home-centred", that is, they did not work. In other words, the majority of women, whether out of necessity or preference, integrated both work and family responsibilities.

A 1995 Singapore survey of women who were not working found that 77% of those who were interested to work, preferred part-time jobs. This preference was reinforced in a 1998 finding that 50 out of every 1,000 employed females worked part-time, compared with 17 for every 1,000 males.

The overall proportion of the Singapore workforce in part-time work is very small compared to most developed economies. In 2001, only 4.7% of employed persons in Singapore were engaged in part-time employment, compared to 24% in the US, 22% in Japan and 25% in the UK. We still have some way to go in terms of promoting flexible work options in Singapore.

We should dispel the myth that flexible work arrangements hurt the bottom line. The Harvard Business Review cited research which showed that flexitime often results in a reduction in paid absences, better work organisation, and improved morale and job satisfaction among employees. Part-timers were no less productive than their full-time counterparts.

Indeed, talented men and women will increasingly look for work that allows work-life balance. From a business perspective, and particularly for Singapore where manpower is scarce, flexible work practices are also a competitive strategy to tap female talent.

Many successful companies have recognised the value of work-life balance. Courtney Pratt, CEO of Toronto Hydro Corporation said: "If you don’t have great people, you can’t have a great company. If you aren’t prepared to put in place a whole range of policies, procedures and programmes and everything else that allows people to have work-life balance, then increasingly, you are not going to get the best people. This is not corporate social work, it’s a business imperative."

So we should not see the implementation of work-life policies only as a cost. There are benefits both to the organisation and to the individual. It is a potentially win-win situation.

In Singapore, we set up the Work-Life Unit in the Ministry of Community Development and Sports in September 2000. This Unit collaborates with the Ministry of Manpower, the Singapore National Employers Federation and the National Trades Union Congress on work-life strategy.

Also, every two years since 1998, a Family Friendly Firm Award has been given to recognise companies which adopt work-life friendly practices and culture. Many companies now provide staff benefits that go beyond the minimum stipulated in our laws.

One model company is IBM. Since 1988, it has offered a three-year personal Leave of Absence to allow staff to take time off after the birth of their child, and return to the workplace thereafter. The company also offers a full range of flexible work schedules, including compressed workweeks and arrangements to work at home.

The Singapore Public Service too, recognises that family friendly policies are not just a matter of staff well-being but a strategy to attract and retain good officers. It has a range of family friendly benefits.

Currently, women officers are allowed to take full-pay unrecorded leave to look after their sick children who are below 6 years old. But given that an older child would still not be able to consult a doctor on his or her own, I have asked the Singapore Public Service to increase this age cap to 12 years. And to recognise that parenting is a shared responsibility, I have suggested that the Public Service extend this provision to fathers as well.

For women who have left the workforce due to child-bearing and care responsibilities, back-to-work initiatives are important to facilitate their re-entry into the workforce. Adequate training opportunities must be provided for them to renew their skills and pick up new ones.

In Singapore, the Government has legislated measures to help housewives wishing to return to the job market. For example, they can obtain funding support from the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund for skills upgrading programmes.

Changes on the work-front alone are not enough to alleviate the pressures women face in a competitive world. Research indicates that globalisation has an impact on women’s decisions as to when and if they marry, and the number of children they will have. We also need mindset changes about the roles of men and women on the home-front, if family life is not to suffer from the economic pressures of globalisation.

If women take on a full day’s work and bear most of the responsibility of homemaking and childcare as well, it should not surprise us if they decide to have fewer children. However, no government can dictate or legislate equal participation in the home. We can only encourage both men and women to change their attitudes and habits. One small step in this direction in Singapore was the introduction of home economics for boys and technical studies for girls at the secondary school level in the nineties, and of the sexuality education module for secondary school students from 2000, which includes an emphasis on shared responsibilities at home.

We also need strong social support systems for child and family care.

In Singapore, the Government works with the people and private sectors in the development of social infrastructure to support families in their care responsibilities. A comprehensive network of childcare centres, student care centres, family service centres, and elderly care services, has been established.

The Government provides childcare subsidies to full-time working mothers and single fathers. With effect from January 2001, a childcare subsidy is also given to mothers who are not working. To ensure that student care is within the reach of parents, financial assistance is provided where appropriate.

Increasingly, as both fathers and mothers work, and grandparents too, feedback from the younger generation of Singaporeans indicates that support for infant care, that is, children below 18 months of age, would be needed. To address this, a pilot Family Day Care Service was launched in March this year. This programme employs mature workers like housewives and retrenched workers as carers, after appropriate training. Parents can place their infants with these carers with peace of mind.

In the area of elder-care, families can look towards a new community-based facility known as Neighbourhood Link. This is essentially a base and resource centre for neighbourhood support networks and mutual help groups, which help frail or elderly people in the community. Introduced last year, 20 Links will be set up across Singapore over the next five years.

In summary, globalisation brings many opportunities, but also many challenges. Women can benefit if they are given the education and skills to make full use of these opportunities. But at the same time, changes on the work front, home front and in society are necessary, to ensure that women - as well as men - can find an effective work-life balance.

We are aware that Singapore is a city-state and our experiences are not fully applicable to other ASEAN countries. But the principle is the same everywhere. Women must be given equal participation in the country's development and must have equal share of the benefits. The role of government is to facilitate a level-playing field.

Before closing, I suggest that the ACWO harness the power of networking. Affiliations with international business federations such as the Commonwealth Women Business Leaders Network should be encouraged. This will widen the global network for women to connect and network, pick up good practices, and hopefully open up greater business and career opportunities.

For our friends from abroad, I hope you have some time to see more of Singapore outside these conference rooms. Enjoy your networking.

Thank you.

. . . . .