WOMEN'S CHARTER (AMENDMENT) BILL

WOMEN'S CHARTER (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Vivian: Column: 2044

Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”

Sir, the Women’s Charter is now 50 years old. Most of us in the House probably take it for granted. But it is worth reflecting that it was, in a sense, legislation ahead of its time. Today, it sounds almost quaint that 50 years ago, the Legislative Assembly had to pass a law to impose monogamy on our population. This law also provided for the rights and duties of married persons, the protection of family, the maintenance of wives and children, and the punishment of offences against women. This has been one of the defining pieces of social legislation; it has shaped our society and made an impact on our family relationships. It is worthwhile even today as we contemplate amending this law for us to reaffirm the family as the key pillar of our society. The family still forms the best foundation for nurturing our children. It is the nest from which we pursue our hopes and dreams; it is a shelter from the vicissitudes of life, and hopefully a haven for us to spend our last days in dignity and serenity.

But, the family is under strain. Mirroring global trends, divorces in Singapore have been increasing over the last two decades. There were 1.3 divorces per 1,000 people in 1990. This has now increased to 2.0 divorces per 1,000 of the population in 2003. Whilst these crude divorce rates appear to have stabilised around 2.0, the overall numbers are still high. Between 2005 and 2009, an average of 6,025 divorces were filed every year at the Family Court and an additional 1,780 at the Syariah Court. More tellingly, recent cohorts of marriages are divorcing faster and earlier. If we look at people who married in 1987, 3.2% had divorced within five years. If you fast forward to the year 2002 – of those who

Column: 2045

were married in that year, 5.3% had divorced five years later. So the point is that the survival span of marriages is falling. Equally worrying is the high incidence of defaults on maintenance payments. Over the last four years, there were about 3,400 applications for enforcement of maintenance orders every year.

But beyond the statistics, we also must bear in mind that the fallout from broken families is felt most keenly by the children involved. It is important therefore for us to mitigate the negative impact of family breakdown on children as far as possible. And parents play the most crucial and irreplaceable role in this. The maintenance of children is not the be all and end all of parental responsibility, but it is the starting point, it is an absolute necessity inasmuch as both parents are capable of doing so. And this responsibility cannot be abrogated to the larger community or to the State. Children need to be assured of their parents’ love and commitment despite the marital breakdown.

Consequently, one of the key objectives of this Bill is to enhance the divorce and maintenance enforcement procedures so as to empower individuals and the Courts with more options in order to resolve the issues and to mitigate the impact on children. In addition, this Bill also updates our laws pertaining to the requirements for marriages between Singaporeans and permanent residents.

Sir, I am aware that these family issues cut across all strata of society and affect most people very deeply. These are emotive issues and many people have very strong views. And that is why we embarked on an extensive consultation prior to the moving of this Bill. Many organisations and members of public had, at various points of the review, taken

Column: 2046

their time to develop and submit detailed recommendations for my Ministry’s consideration. I would like at this point to thank everyone for their valuable contributions. Naturally, we could not adopt every single recommendation because there was a diversity of views and sometimes even conflicting and contradictory views. And it is not possible for me here to detail our response to each suggestion but, for those of you who are interested, please log on to the REACH website and a more detailed response is available there. I would say that generally, in assessing all the recommendations, we were guided by the overall thrust of the Charter which is focused on protecting vulnerable family members, and also in keeping with our philosophy that the family should be the first line of support for all of us. At present, the Bill has incorporated much of what was submitted, during the last, in fact, two years of consideration. And I think the Bill is all the better for it.

Let me now go through the amendments in this Bill, starting first with the marriage laws.

Streamlining of marriage requirement

The current law requires at least one party of a couple intending to register their marriage in Singapore to have resided in Singapore for at least 15 days before a notice of marriage can be filed. The rationale is to ensure that there is an appropriate nexus between the marrying parties and our local marriage jurisdiction. Basically we do not want Singapore to become a place for a marriage of convenience.

With more Singaporeans and permanent residents residing overseas however, this requirement may have unintended consequences. Together with the minimum period of 21 days required between filing and solemnisation of marriage, overseas parties may sometimes

Column: 2047

have to take extended leave of at least 36 days if they wish to marry in Singapore. Clause 2 amends section 17(2)(a) to waive the 15-day residency requirement for overseas couples where both parties are either Singaporeans or permanent residents. This eases marriage procedures for such couples, whilst the law will continue to safeguard our marriage regime against abuse by people who have no relevant connection to Singapore.

Measures to address divorce and mitigate its impact

Sir, the Bill also seeks to reduce the risk of divorce and to mitigate its impact. There are four main changes as outlined in clauses 2-5 and clauses 12-16.

First, the proposed amendments to section 17(2)(f), section 21(1)(a) and the new section 17A empower the Minister to require certain categories of persons to attend a marriage preparation programme before they can be issued with a marriage license. Let me quickly reassure the House that the intention here is not to prevent anyone from marrying, but to better equip people who are getting married or who may face a higher risk of divorce for the challenges of married life. We know, for instance, that minors – that is young people who have less experience in life and are less prepared to cope with the stresses that come with marriage, such as managing inter-personal relationships, bringing up children, managing finances, handling conflicts, and so on – are at greater risk of divorce. Analysis of marriages and divorces in Singapore has shown that an individual marrying at the age of 20 is 1.4 to 1.8 times more likely to divorce than if he or she had married at the age of 25, assuming all other characteristics are the same. The marriage preparation programmes for minors will help them to better prepare for marriage, both psychologically and in a practical way.

Column: 2048

Second, the amendments introduce a new requirement in section 50(3A)-(3E) for divorcing parties who have children to undergo counseling and/or mediation at the Family Court. This will be done after they have filed for divorce. Unfortunately, the interests of children are sometimes compromised by acrimonious battles between divorcing parents, on custody and other related issues. With this measure, trained counsellors and mediators who are familiar with both the legal as well as the emotional/ psychological dimensions of disputes can help these parties to work out effective arrangements in the children’s best interests. And I urge all parents to consider their children’s welfare as paramount when settling ancillary matters pursuant to a divorce.

Third, the Bill makes related amendments to the Children’s Development and Co-savings Act to allow the Court to transfer matrimonial assets divided between parents into a Children Development Account. This will safeguard the interests of the children by earmarking some of these monies for their developmental needs.

Lastly, a new Chapter 4A of Part X will be introduced in the Charter to empower the Singapore courts to provide financial relief for divorces granted in overseas courts which are also recognised in Singapore. Under the present law, the Singapore court has power to grant important ancillary financial orders for maintenance of the ex-spouse and children and for the division of matrimonial assets if the parties obtain a divorce from a Singapore court, but not if they have already obtained a divorce overseas. Sir, with the increasing number of Singaporeans working and residing overseas and increasing marriages between locals and foreigners, this proposed provision will help those who are

Column: 2049

made vulnerable by foreign divorces and who have a relevant connection to Singapore to seek relief.

Let me give Members an example: A Singaporean woman who marries a foreigner and then lives in a matrimonial home in Singapore. Suppose the foreign spouse then obtains a divorce from a foreign court which is recognised in Singapore but for some reason makes no financial provisions. Currently, the Singaporean spouse will have no financial remedy in Singapore because the Singapore courts do not have the power to make such ancillary orders. With this new Chapter, the courts here will be able to make orders on matrimonial assets in Singapore and the maintenance for divorces that were obtained in foreign courts. This will plug an existing gap. The related amendments will also be made to the Central Provident Fund Act to effect this, as CPF monies may constitute part of the matrimonial assets to be divided between parties.

Strengthening enforcement of maintenance orders

Sir, the other main thrust of this Bill is to strengthen the enforcement of maintenance orders. Members of this House may recall that I had spoken at length in March last year on how the courts and my Ministry propose to make the enforcement process less onerous and to address the high default rates. The Family Court has already reduced the number of trips the complainant has to make by exempting the complainant from the service of summons stage and by reducing the number of mentions wherever possible. The option to file a complaint by a video-link at social service agencies will also be up and ready later this year, thus making it more convenient.

The courts had also announced in February last year that more attachment

Column: 2050

of earnings orders will be issued to require employers of defaulters to pay maintenance directly out of their salary. However, these attachments of earnings may lapse when a person switches to a new employer. To address this gap, section 85 will now be amended to allow the complainant to obtain a disclosure order from the court to get the CPF Board to release information on the employment status of the maintenance payer. The court can then make a new order to attach the payer's earnings from the new employer.

To enhance the processes further, clause 8 amends section 79 to allow a committee of judges and lawyers to make rules from maintenance cases, including enforcement proceedings. This will facilitate the court in requiring parties to furnish all relevant information, especially on financial matters.

To address the high default rate, clauses 2, 4, 6 and 7 will introduce new sanctions against defaulters. To begin with, the courts' options will be expanded with more sanctions against recalcitrant defaulters. Currently, the courts may direct the arrears to be collected from the defaulter as if it were a fine and send him to jail or make a garnishee order against him. These sanctions are not imposable if the defaulter agrees to pay up at the last minute during a hearing. Imprisonment may also cause defaulters to lose their jobs and thereby exacerbate the problem of non-payment of maintenance.

Sections 71(d) to (f) and new sections 71A, 71B and 71C introduce three new sanctions, namely, the imposition of a banker's guarantee against future defaults; secondly, mandatory financial counselling; and thirdly, by community service orders. The banker's guarantee is targeted at those who have the financial means to pay, including those who are self-employed or not on regular employment, for whom an attachment of

Column: 2051

earnings order may not apply. Mandatory financial counselling will be imposed on defaulters who claim to have genuine financial difficulties but lack financial prudence. It is hoped that with some guidance, such defaulters can make good their responsibilities. Community service orders will be meted out as a punitive deterrent against recalcitrant defaulters, such as those who default repeatedly and pay up at the last minute with no cost to themselves. It is also a useful substitute for jail which can be imposed without hampering the defaulter's ability to work.

In addition, section 71(2B) to (2D) empowers complainants to report maintenance debts to designated credit bureaus. This aims to encourage defaulters to pay up or risk tarnishing the credit reputation and their ability to secure loans from banks and other financial institutions. Lastly, we have seen many defaulters who cite their obligations to a new family in order to justify their inability to pay maintenance to the previous family. As such, remarrying persons will now be required to make a statutory declaration on whether they currently owe any maintenance arrears. This measure signals to the remarrying party that obligations to one's previous family, especially children, continue even after remarriage. It also keeps the potential spouse aware of the partner's outstanding obligations. Whilst the presence of arrears will not bar the marriage from taking place, this measure provides an added impetus for defaulters to pay up.

Sir, finally, the Bill also updates the Charter with some technical amendments which I will outline in brief. Clauses 9 and 10 spell out new options for the court for service of summons and stipulate how attachment of earnings orders are to be served. Clause 13 makes a technical amendment to section 130 on how the court should regard the advice of welfare officers, and clause 17 makes related

Column: 2052

amendments to align the Guardianship of Infants Act to section 130. Clauses 14 and 15 make consequential amendments to section 132(1) and related amendments to the CPF Act respectively to account for the new Part 4A on financial relief for foreign divorces. Lastly, clause 18 empowers the Minister to make regulations of savings or transitional nature for a period of two years, to account for any further technical amendments to the Women's Charter or other Acts arising from this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude by emphasising the intent of this Bill. This Bill aims to facilitate marriages of overseas Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, to better prepare at-risk couples for marriage, to mitigate the impact of divorces and to strengthen the enforcement of maintenance orders. These amendments are aimed at making a real, positive difference in the lives of families, and especially the more vulnerable children and spouses.

It bears repeating here what I stated during the debate on the Maintenance of Parents Act. The fact that the majority of us should not have to use the Women's Charter, the Children and Young Persons Act or the Maintenance of Parents Act does not in itself mean that there is no need for legislation that reflects the accepted values of the majority of Singaporeans. The law reflects what we stand for as a society, it reinforces and reminds us of our values and responsibilities. The law also sets out some legal boundaries and liabilities, especially for the minority in our society who may egregiously fail to live up to their familial responsibilities.

Today, we reaffirm the family as the fundamental pillar of our society and renew our commitment that we will all fulfil our roles as parents, spouses and children.

Column: 2053

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.37 pm

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me time to give my views on the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill.

There are two main points I want to make: The first is a straightforward one, which addresses the impact of these amendments on the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill that had been moved at the last sitting. The second point relates to my perspective of a father and husband. Here, I should declare my interest as a board member of the Centre for Fathering – a VWO that promotes the fathering movement.

Sir, as you know, the Maintenance of Parents Act was originally written in the same spirit as the claim for maintenance of wives from their ex-husbands. I am happy to see that enforcement measures in the Women's Charter have been strengthened, in particular to protect women and their dependants, who have been awarded maintenance orders against defaulters. The law proposes to order defaulters to "furnish security against any future arrears of maintenance" with a banker's guarantee, attend financial counselling and attend community service, so as to rehabilitate them. I see that the same force against defaulters would be useful under the Maintenance of Parents Act.

Sir, a common principle stands behind both maintenance laws, which is that family members owe a duty of care towards one another – whether between parent and children, children and elderly parents or between spouses. This principle means that we should avoid

Column: 2054

having the state take over the basic responsibility of a family in looking after its own members. As we always say, when all else fails, the state can and should step in. In addition, we need to remind parents that as we expect children to care for us in old age, it is only fair and rational to support them well, even after a divorce. A man may no longer be a husband, but he remains a father and the duty of care does not diminish. In fact, because of the trauma of divorce on children, I argue that this duty in fact becomes weightier.

Sir, it is not often that we see marriage separate from family life but they are, analytically at least, quite distinct. A man is a husband and a father, and as I have said before, when he ceases to be one, he continues in the other. Marriage is a regulatory fact that can be changed; parenthood, a biological one that is immovable. Many of the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter Bill are good and deserved to be supported from a father's perspective. However, there is one area that can be improved – a father's access to their children after a divorce.

The roles of fathers have changed in the past 10, maybe, 20 years and continue to evolve. Fathers are expected not only to bring in the bacon, but to spend time nurturing their children as well. This role should not end after divorce. But the reality is that fathers generally have limited access thereafter, because of the demands from the ex-wife. I ask that the law recognises the parity of parenting in modern society and not allow the anger and frustration of a bad marriage to spill over to the right of a father to see his children. This asymmetry is all the more galling given that it is often the man who writes the cheque to support his children, but it is his wife that controls the access to the children. I do not want to suggest something as crude as a quid pro quo for maintenance

Column: 2055

payments but the end of a marriage is not an end to a father-child relationship. A man may make a bad husband but he does not automatically make a bad father. Yet the two are often conflated because it is the mother who suggests the grounds on which a father may visit. A man may fight hard on this, and well he should. My point is – why need he? Why does the law not ensure that he has a reasonable amount of access that he does not have to fight for? The child is also emotionally healthier if he is allowed to maintain a relationship with the father after the divorce.

Sir, I support the Bill.

4.42 pm

Mdm Cynthia Phua: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

The amendments are certainly welcomed. It is sad to see the estranged wife with young children in tow, coming to the Meet-the-People Session to seek redress and at times a listening ear to their woes. I feel that the amendments in themselves will greatly improve the situation for an aggrieved wife to seek redress but the Ministry should look further into simplifying the legal process.

The legal process still takes up a lot of time for a wife to have to go to and from the court or lawyer's office for various documentations and to make appearances in court. Often the wife has to work to support herself and her children. Going through the legal redress will sometimes result in a loss of income and even loss of jobs. Many of these women are not highly educated or holding normal office jobs. Often, they only have basic education and are working in factories or other establishments where absence from work may mean a deduction in wages and loss of jobs. Hence, for them, an appearance in court is not just a one-hour matter. Besides, they have to undergo the stress

Column: 2056

and the mental anxiety as often they do not have a clue of what is going on in the courtroom.

Also, any delay in settling the divorce and maintenance will mean the wife has to worry about paying for their monthly bills. She has to ensure the children get a roof over their heads, food at meal time and bus fares to get to the school. The impact of such a situation has very wide implications. Women under such circumstances become very vulnerable, especially if they do not have family members to provide the emotional support. The less fortunate among them may end up taking up jobs that in their right mind they would never have done so, that is, to moonlight in a red light district. The children, too, are vulnerable. With the mother's focus on earning to support the family, the children are neglected. Their school work suffers. Even worse, they become delinquents and get involved in gangland activities. It is easy for us to say the legal process only takes a few months to settle. But translate that into a family environment, a few months are enough to wreck many lives.

In my opinion, the amendments made here are an improvement but more can be done to shorten the legal process and also the assurances of getting the maintenance fees promptly. My concerns are: I have appealed before and would like to appeal once again for the extension of the legal process beyond the normal business hours. If we can keep the hours to 9.00 pm, this would also allow a woman who is working to turn up for a Court hearing outside her work hours. In addition, more cases can be dealt with and the waiting time is shortened.

Also, I would like to appeal for a change in the legal procedure for non-attendance by the ex-husbands. If the ex-husband does not turn up for a Court hearing, judgment should be made against

Column: 2057

him and the necessary maintenance due to the ex-wife be given by a bank guarantee. The Court should not allow for a postponement or an adjournment of the hearing as it puts the ex-wife under even more stress and unfairness. Otherwise if an adjournment or postponement is given, the family would be denied the basic subsistence which they need urgently. The ex-spouse knowing that judgment would be made against him for non-appearance would then get the firm message that he has to be responsible for the children.

This leads me to the issuance of bank guarantee. There is no mention of top up after it has been used. Also is three months' duration sufficient? The length of the bank guarantee would need to be sufficient to last the whole legal process of the claim for maintenance fee. Based on my experience, six months is needed for even an efficient corporation to recover rent arrears, not to mention an ex-spouse with low education claiming for maintenance arrears.

Reading section 71A again, the court has asked that the banker’s guarantee be handed to the claimant within one month from the date of the order. There is no mention of the consequences if there is a default of handing over of the banker’s guarantee. This effectively can mean no money again for the waiting family. To ensure the banker’s guarantee is in the hands of the claimant, upon receipt of the application for the claim of maintenance fee and if there is prima facie case of arrears, the court while waiting for the hearing should order the respondent to produce a three-month banker’s guarantee at the hearing itself. This way, once a Court judgment is passed, the banker’s guarantee can be handed over to the claimants during the hearing instead of the ex-wife having to wait for another month. Worse, if there is no payment,

Column: 2058

then another application has to be filed and she has to wait and attend another court hearing.

I also urge the Minister to consider empowering the auxiliary police force to execute the arrest warrant for enforcement of maintenance orders, instead of relying only on the police force who have many other pressing responsibilities. The errant spouse could be made to bear the cost of engaging the auxiliary police. This will also help to expedite matters. In addition, the warrant of arrest should be made expediently. Presently, we know there are many outstanding warrants of arrest waiting to be served.

Lastly, I would like to urge the Minister to consider restricting an errant husband who is in arrears of maintenance from travelling overseas, without the Court’s permission. In addition, I would like to urge HDB to check with the Credit Bureau in assessing the errant spouse application for public housing as well.

For the preservation of families – in order to enhance and preserve marriages, I would like to propose that the marriage preparatory course be made compulsory for all marriages instead of only for minors and divorcees. If this cannot be implemented now then we should consider this for the future. Many couples spend at least six months to a year to prepare for their wedding ceremonies. I am very sure that they would not mind spending a weekend or two together attending this course to build a good foundation for their married life. MCYS could recognise the various religious organisations’ marriage preparation courses. Those who do not want to attend the courses by the religious groups can attend such courses in the Family Service Centres which MCYS is boosting its manpower and providing more resources. To encourage attendance at such courses, in the marriage application to the Registry

Column: 2059

of Marriages, the question should be asked if the intended couple has attended any marriage preparation course.

I support the call by AWARE for the marriage preparation course be made mandatory for marriages with spouses who are non-Singapore citizens. This would help both parties to realistically face integration into the Singapore lifestyle and the dependency of the Singapore spouse for the residency status of the non-Singaporean spouse. The non-Singapore spouse is extremely vulnerable when the children are young or should the Singaporean spouse suddenly passed away. I had one case in my MPS last year.

In conclusion, last year I made a call for mandatory counselling for the children whose parents are undergoing a divorce. I would like to state again that the children are the most vulnerable and the most innocent victims. Please help them. The least we can do is to provide them with mandatory counselling. We need the court to protect them and allow them to address their anxieties, their sorrows and help them with the integration and adjustment to a home with a single parent. Many besides losing their family, also find themselves losing their neighbourhood friends, their classmates, their teachers and so forth because they have to be relocated from their original home. As an adult, not many of us are able to adjust to such major changes, let alone the children. I would like to once again appeal to the Ministry and the Minister to reconsider mandatory counselling at least for a start for children below the age of 12.

4.52 pm

Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef: ( In Malay ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mr Speaker, we are debating on a very important Bill. Within the Malay community, we see many

Column: 2060

women who are affected and left stranded with hardly any stable source of income even though they have several young children to fend for. Many of them have abundant arrears and bills that are left unpaid and usually these debts are incurred by their ex-husbands. Sometimes, they do not even have a fixed shelter or home.

It is often a major challenge to track down their ex-husbands. How do we correct this difficult and challenging problem? Should we start from the creation of awareness and emphasise on a sense of responsibility from a young age? Should it begin from a good moral upbringing and with parents setting good examples?

We have seen many young ladies left in the lurch in this vicious cycle of dysfunctional families which would be passed on to the following generations. We have to stop this cycle now and take the necessary action.

In my view, all sectors have to work with the Ministry and this includes the voluntary welfare organisations, non-Government organisations, community leaders, schools and mosques. We must stand united, work with one another and, together, prevent and break this unhealthy cycle.

( In English ): It is indeed timely for us to debate this Bill once again. The last amendment was in 1996, some 14 years ago. In clause 2 with reference to section 17, it is stated, "the Registrar shall not issue a marriage licence unless the party states in the statutory declaration whether he owes any arrears with respect to maintenance which is payable under a maintenance order". I support this enhancement to the Bill and hope the enforcement and implementation will be carried smoothly. Also, how will the information be communicated to the new spouse? Will it be at or before the

Column: 2061

marriage agreement? Or formalised at some other settings?

Next, pertaining to the marriage preparation course in clause 3 which has by now been implemented for sometime especially by some religious groups but not on a compulsory basis, are there any longitudinal follow-up statistics currently to show co-relation between those who attend the courses and the number of years they stay married? On the contrary, how about those who do not attend the course? Are there statistics to show that there are more divorces amongst these couples? I feel it is important as it is clearly stated in this Bill, Sir, the purpose of this is to reduce the rate of divorces among the prescribed classes of persons and we certainly want to keep a close surveillance of these prescribed classes of persons.

In regard to financial counselling where defaulters are required to attend compulsory counselling sessions, are there current figures to show how many defaulters on average we have annually? And what proportions subsequently comply? Certainly we need to look for more efficient ways to handle and track these cases down as making it compulsory is one step. I would also like to ask the Minister if he is able to update the House on the SCWO's (the Singapore Council of Woman Organisations) plan to commence maintenance support central which was to offer a one-stop assistance providing legal advice, financial and family counselling, Credit Bureau reporting, childcare needs, housing needs advice, and follow-up assistance. This appears to be a feasible suggestion as it would be helpful and time-saving for the single parent who has to look after children, negotiate time for various appointments pertaining to all the various issues they have to handle. Will the Ministry consider supporting this?

Column: 2062

Also, Mr Speaker, pertaining to clause 6 on the new enforcement measures for defaulters; it will only work well if there is buy-in from all parties concerned whereby they also need to support Credit Bureau reporting. The Ministry would need to consider doing more targeted publicity together with the NGOs and VWOs working in this area to help create awareness on this area.

Sir, I would also finally like to know what if the reverse occurs, that is, husbands have to claim maintenance from their wives. And in this day and age, I think you would agree with me it is not unlikely to happen.

In 1996 when this Bill was last debated, it was put forth to the Select Committee to have this matter considered. The decision at that time was "the Committee notes that women have advanced over the years; however, the Committee also notes that there is still some disparity though a decreasing one between most men and women. As such, the Committee agrees that it may not be timely to introduce such a provision now." We have moved on, Sir, 14 years to be exact; can I ask the Minister if he feels we are ready now to include a clause for the men? I feel this is now necessary so that it can be invoked in the event it becomes necessary and relevant on a case by case consideration. I do not, however, Sir, support changing the name of this Bill from the Women's Charter to the Family Charter as has been suggested by some quarters.

With the consideration to be given to the suggestions I have made, Sir, I support the Amendment Bill.

*Cols. 2165-2166.

4.58 pm

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Mr Speaker, Sir, the comprehensive measures set out in the Bill concerning maintenance payments

Column: 2063

appear disparate when it comes to their implementation. To streamline them, I support the proposal for the establishment of an administrative centre for maintenance payments to help others trapped in the nightmare of unpaid maintenance payments.

Turning to specific enforcement measures, the Bill provides for the Court to order recalcitrant men to provide a banker’s guarantee (BG) but the Bill can go one step further to help the claimant by requiring the defaulter to furnish a second BG – without the need for a fresh Court order. This second BG serves as a replacement the instant a claimant is forced to present an existing BG to the bank. That a woman has to turn to the Court which then orders that a BG be furnished to her indicates the likelihood of another default in maintenance payments by the former spouse is higher than in cases in which a BG is not issued in the first place.

Sir, on the subject of community work orders, I recognise that they have nuisance value when applied to defaulters in Singapore who have money in the bank but who do not pay up. Yet, unless the defaulter is extremely wealthy, I would say that late interest penalties – which can hit the pocket – serve as a bigger deterrent than community service.

I urge too that remuneration be considered for defaulters who are financially strapped but the money paid to the defaulter goes directly to the claimants. Tasks that are suited to this scheme include those of litter warden and utilities metre reading.

Sir, as for allowing arrears reports to be lodged with a Credit Bureau, I note that the Bill is silent as to when the black mark is to be removed against the defaulter once he makes good the arrears. To be even-handed, the Bill should stipulate that any reporting to a Credit

Column: 2064

Bureau be made within a specified period of the date of the relevant Court order. This will limit room for mischief on the part of disgruntled claimant who files the Credit Bureau report even after maintenance payments are no longer in arrears.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: 5.00 pm

I am heartened that the Bill provides for mandatory post-filing counselling for couples with children. I would like to suggest that, instead of allowing for judicial discretion in this, the counselling sessions be made mandatory. A time period should be stipulated within which couples should present themselves at these sessions. The sooner these are scheduled, the better. The aim is to minimise acrimony, sharpen the couple’s awareness of the toll that divorce can have on their children and to reinforce to the couple that they are still responsible for their children, whichever side has custody of the kids when they split up.

The Bill imposes an obligation on re-marrying divorcees to declare maintenance debts although this should be information which the re-marrying divorcee should volunteer as part of his duties to his new bride without the law having to step in. But if the law has to do the prodding, then it should go all the way where the divorcee should be required to declare the existence of any maintenance order – not just arrears in maintenance payments.

The maintenance and custody obligations of the divorcee can be discussed at pre-marriage counselling sessions. These sessions should be attended by the divorcee together with his new prospective spouse. Sir, as these declarations do make an impact on individuals and families and especially on

Column: 2065

the low-income families, would the Ministry consider punitive measures against those who make false declarations?

Sir, I would like to add to the recommendations for pre-marriage counselling targets to include cases where the groom is Singaporean and the bride, a non-English-speaking foreigner. The counselling should be extended to Singaporean women and their prospective foreign husbands who do not speak English. As globalisation intensifies, there would be several such cases of Singaporean women marrying men from other countries. These foreign men need help to assimilate too, particularly into their new extended family and society. Sir, I would like to ask the Ministry what programmes does the Ministry have which help ensure such assimilation?

I share the view of my colleague before me. Times have changed and these days we do find role reversals where the woman brings home the bacon while the man stays home as house husband. In such a case, when the couple divorces, the man deserves consideration to receive maintenance payments. Sir, I would like to know the Ministry’s stand on this matter.

On this note, I support the Amendment Bill.

5.03 pm

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Sir, I support this Bill. I wish to touch on aspects of the Bill governing divorce and ancillary matters.

I do not practise matrimonial law. Frankly, I have little stomach for it. Many years ago, a man came to see me about getting a divorce. He said his wife was

Column: 2066

mad and had attacked him a few times with a pair of scissors. He could no longer live with her because he feared for his life. He wanted to know whether their HDB flat would be sold and how much he would get. I asked whether they had children, and he said one young son. I asked what provisions he was making for the child, and he said that his wife could take care of the child. I said, "I thought your wife was mad", and he said, "Well, she is not that mad." So, it was really about him cashing out and moving on.

Divorce is difficult, and particularly painful when young children are involved. But if two people decide that they do not want to stay married, then that is their decision to make. Our laws should facilitate a smooth and equitable separation. However, different considerations should apply where one spouse is financially dependent on the other, and particularly where young children are involved. Children should not have to suffer for their parents' decisions.

I have encountered a number of cases at the Meet-the-People Session (MPS) where one divorced parent, almost always the mother, appeals for a rental flat for herself and her young children. Usually, the matrimonial home is sold following the divorce and the mother has no ability to buy another home. While a rental or interim housing is usually found for them, the question is why no provision was made for the children in the first place before the divorce was allowed.

Our laws should make clear that the decision to divorce does not just involve religious, moral, social or emotional considerations, but will have direct and severe financial and practical consequences. Parents, whether divorced or not, should not be allowed to shirk their responsibilities, particularly towards their children. The majority of parents are responsible, but there is a good number who are not.

Column: 2067

This Bill makes an attempt to give the law more teeth in enforcing maintenance orders. These are useful. But allow me to make some observations. The amendment to allow community-based sentences makes sense. It is of little use to the applicant if the ex-spouse loses his job or income because he is sent to jail. We should also consider expanding the types of orders and sanctions to encourage the errant spouse to try harder to meet his obligations. In the UK, for example, the defaulting party may be required to surrender his travel papers or driving licence, or even have a curfew order slapped on him. What will work will depend on the facts, and we should give our judges a wider discretion to make effective orders.

The amendment to allow the Court to order a spouse to furnish a bank guarantee is less helpful. Banks will require an applicant to furnish security before issuing the guarantee, which will be a stumbling block for many. It may also create more problems as parties may dispute over the terms of the guarantee and which will give rise to more litigation, where calls on the guarantee are made wrongly or are challenged.

But, more importantly, we need to take a step back and rationalise the system so that maintenance issues can be dealt with simply and expeditiously, and no party can frustrate the process by employing delaying and other tactics. However one looks at it, the enforcement of maintenance orders is tedious and can be discouraging. Many applicants are women with little financial resources. Usually, they cannot afford a lawyer. They will typically be juggling work and raising their children, and can ill afford time to keep going to Court when their ex-husbands do not keep up with payments. Even after an application is filed, the hearing may be adjourned because parties will ask for time to file affidavits or get information. Many are

Column: 2068

litigants in person, and so the Courts will likely give them more time or the benefit of the doubt. Even after an application is resolved, she will have to file another application if there is another default, and the process goes on and on.

The Family Courts, with its heavy workload and adherence to strict and formal procedure, may not be best suited to deal with matters of maintenance. I understand that the Government has rejected suggestions to set up an agency to handle maintenance payments and defaults. The reasons given include the fear that the State may over time be required to take over basic family responsibilities; and that more resources may be expended chasing what is ultimately secured. This response is not persuasive, particularly as we have set up a whole regime to allow parents to apply for maintenance.

Substantial resources are currently being undertaken at the Family Court, including the time of District Judges in dealing with maintenance application. This is unnecessary as determining the quantum of maintenance is almost always not a legal exercise. It turns on matters such as the earnings, needs, financial obligations and lifestyles of the parties. The exercise is really no different from the maintenance of parents, for which we have set up special tribunal to deal with claims fairly and expeditiously. There is no rationale for treating the obligation to maintain spouses and children differently. Indeed, the number of maintenance claims for wives and children easily exceed those for parents, making the need for a special body even more relevant. Like the Parents’ Tribunal, procedures can be simplified and the agency given the power to get information. This would relieve the applicant of the need to investigate the spouse’s claims or file affidavits, and result in quicker and more equitable orders. Would the Minister consider

Column: 2069

setting up such an agency to deal with maintenance issues?

Our efforts should also begin upstream. I therefore support the move to require marriage preparation courses for some. A number of religious organisations have had this for some time. Could the Minister tell us if any prescribed classes have been identified, other than for minors and divorcees? Further, would there be a need to undergo such courses if the couple has already attended one conducted by their own religious groups? If not, how will MCYS ensure that such courses will meet required standards?

Finally, subsequent to the amendments to the Women’s Charter in 1996, our Courts are given a broad discretion in respect of the division of matrimonial assets and to take into consideration the needs of the children. This includes the power to defer the sale of the matrimonial property or to refuse a divorce order in the absence of a proper plan for the children. Currently, divorcing parties are required to file parenting plans to deal with the welfare of the child after the divorce. However, I understand from my friends who practise matrimonial law that such plans are often treated as a form-filling exercise, lacking in detail or given little weight. It is troubling to come across cases where the needs of the children have not been adequately taken care of, particularly their housing needs. It is even more troubling that one parent is allowed to marry again and start a new family when the needs of his first family remain unresolved.

Divorce should not be an opportunity to cash out or get out, with the welfare of the children treated as an ancillary matter, like the division of property. Parents must accept that their own rights should become secondary to their child’s. They should not be entitled to exit a marriage

Column: 2070

until there is a comprehensive binding and properly documented plan to take care of housing, schooling and other needs of the children until they turn 18 or 21.

I ask the Ministry to conduct a review of matrimonial cases to determine whether they are being dealt with in a manner consistent with its policies and objectives, and to enact more effective rules to improve outcomes for children.

5.11 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Marine Parade): Sir, let me declare my interest as a practising family lawyer.

Sir, I support the Bill to amend the Women's Charter. In particular, I support the proposal to make it mandatory for certain classes of people to attend marriage preparation courses. Given the increasing number of divorces in Singapore, as alluded to by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, I will even advocate that marriage preparation courses be made mandatory for all couples who wish to get married. They can have a better idea of what to expect in a marriage. They can understand that the concept of "living happily ever after" is a fairytale concept and that it requires a lot of effort, mutual give and take to keep a marriage healthy. However, may I ask the Minister how does the Ministry intend to monitor this if the parties decide to register their marriage out of Singapore?

I also ask the Minister to clarify clause 6 of the Bill. Sir, I support the proposal to offer other sentencing options for a person who defaults in paying maintenance pursuant to a maintenance order. In particular, I support this proposal to allow the Court to order the person to provide security against future default. In my view, this will help to ensure less default, especially among recalcitrant defaulters who are able to pay, but unwilling to pay despite the maintenance order.

Column: 2071

I am, however, concerned about clause 6(b)(f) that allows the Court to make a community service order in lieu of other orders. I am worried that this may be seen as a soft option for the Judges.

Firstly, if the defaulter is an unwilling party to pay, he will be usually unwilling to perform such a community service order. This will make a mockery of community service where such defaulters do their community service grudgingly.

Next, Sir, I understand many recalcitrant maintenance defaulters do make payment when threatened with a jail term. By allowing this softer option, would Judges take the easier route or sentencing defaulters to perform community service instead? How about the arrears of maintenance? If arrears remain unpaid, any sentence of community service is of cold comfort to the party waiting for payment of the maintenance, especially if there are children involved. Not only do they not receive payment of the maintenance, they are sometimes not eligible to apply for financial aid because of this imputed income that they are supposed to have received through the maintenance. In some cases, they may even have to pay taxes on the maintenance.

Sir, I am not unsympathetic to parties who default in payment of maintenance due to financial difficulties. However, for any party who faces financial difficulties due to job loss, medical crisis, or circumstances beyond control, then in such a situation, the Court should advise them that they should apply for variation of the maintenance order, instead of frequently disobeying a Court order.

Next, Sir, allow me to seek a clarification on clause 5 of the Bill. Having practised as a family lawyer, I notice that mediation and counselling is not the silver bullet that would solve disputes between

Column: 2072

spouses. Frequently, parties ordered to attend counselling are unwilling to do so. Or one party goes for the counselling with the mindset that he or she is the aggrieved party, and the other party is the wrong party. And that person would frequently insist that the counsellor orders the spouse to follow his or her wishes.

May I ask the Minister what is the intent of this clause 5? Do we have enough experienced counsellors who could help parties see reason when they have disputes about their children? For example, where I say the father behaves violently towards his wife, he then insists that his children visits him regularly. How is the councellor expected to persuade the children to want to see the father in the face of extreme violence in their presence? Sir, what are the success statistics from the past cases which have gone for counselling? Does the counsellor know what power he has and what he is able to do?

What if one party repeatedly fails to attend the counselling? If cost is awarded, how does a non-defaulting party expect this cost to be paid? My understanding is that the Court normally awards nominal cost of between $200 and $300. No litigant would actually incur further expenses just to enforce payment of nominal cost. Is there any other practical way to enforce order of cost against a defaulting party?

Next, Sir, what are the options for the Judge if counselling or mediation is not successful? Currently, many lawyers feel that the Court bends over backwards to help parties seek an amicable resolution of the matter. However, this may cause delay in the closure of a painful period in the parties' lives. Both parties are inconvenienced time and again because of the Court's desire to send them for repeated counselling when clearly this will not be productive. Children are also sometimes ordered to attend counselling when they are unwilling to do so. Are there any guidelines for the Courts as to

Column: 2073

the minimum number of attempts at counselling before the Court makes an appropriation order regarding access or custody of the children.

For cases involving children, are the Courts empowered to order unsuccessful litigants not to voice his or her unhappiness through emails or over the Internet? Sir, I notice that this is becoming quite a recurrent practice where parties resort to writing emails to various Ministers, Prime Minister, MPs, and so on, voicing their side of the story or they come out onto Internet to tell their side of the story. And, invariably, this embarrasses the spouse and many a time the children involved. How does the law protect the innocent party against abuse over the Internet?

Sir, I support the Bill.

5.17 pm

Ms Ellen Lee: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as a family law practitioner, I applaud the slew of measures introduced in this Women’s Charter (Amendment) Bill. Most family law practitioners, Family Service Centres’ social workers and members of the women's organisations that I have spoken to like the enhancement on enforcement of maintenance orders which is much needed to protect the claimant who, inevitably, is a single mum struggling to maintain her job and to take care of her children. However, there is a defect which we thought should have been made good. Most times, employers do not allow the claimant to take unpaid leave and when she does, she also has to incur costs to go to the Family Court repeatedly to enforce payments in arrears. Usually, it is these multiple trips to the Family Court that wear down the claimant and cause her to forego her right to claim maintenance for herself and her children as provided for in the Court Order. As

Column: 2074

such, we are disappointed to note that the current changes do not seem to make it any easier for the claimant by dispensing with the requirement that she has to go to the Court for enforcement.

One possible solution is for the Government to consider the establishment of a central body to administer maintenance payments and to facilitate the collection of outstanding payments, with powers to access information from Government databases, similar to the powers given in the recent amendments to the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Act. There are several models of such agencies in the world, some of which have been very effective in administering the collection of arrears. For example, the British Columbia Family Enforcement Programme is an opt-in system which appears to be highly effective. The users do not seem to have to pay an agency fee whilst the agency is funded by fees collected from the defaulters. The agency administering the programme does not only administer and collect claims. Where the default is due to the defaulter being out of a job or facing some short-term financial crisis, the agency can facilitate parties to arrive at arrangements where payments are temporarily restructured to give the defaulter some flexibility in making payments. Thus, the Court Order remains intact but the payment schedule is adjusted to provide flexibility. The British Columbia government has outsourced the debt collection and administration functions to the private sector. It is thus recommended that the Women’s Charter could be amended to impose late interest on maintenance arrears or, alternatively, that the Court can be empowered to impose late payment interest. This will serve as an incentive for punctual payment and also compensate the claimant for the delay in payments.

Next, I would like to repeat what I have asked for during the COS debate on

Column: 2075

MCYS in 2010 where I urged the Government to consider renaming the Women’s Charter, the "Family Charter". The Women’s Charter contains the rights and responsibilities of the parties to a marriage and it covers every conceivable aspect of marital and family law – registration and dissolution of marriages, division of matrimonial assets, maintenance provisions and the welfare of children and protection from family violence. The "Family Charter" is a more accurate and appropriate name for this important piece of legislation. The name "Women's Charter" is no longer significant in today’s Singapore as it was when it was introduced in 1961. It misleads by giving the impression that women are solely or primarily responsible for the family, which is not what the Women's Charter is. It also gives the impression that it is a statute that protects wives against husbands and that husbands have fewer rights than wives in Singapore. In the same vein, it gives the impression that it is the only legislation which offers legal protection to women. The change of the name to "Family Charter" will remove these widely held misconceptions, in particular, the inaccurate impression that family law favours wives over husbands and women over men. It does a disservice to the society and families in Singapore.

By the same token, husbands are not entitled to apply for maintenance from their wives under the Women’s Charter. The amendments do not change this position. I urge again that this position be changed to allow husbands the right to apply for maintenance in appropriate cases. For a start, it could be confined to situations where the husband is sick or incapacitated and cannot work at all and he has to rely on his wife for a living, but he is not receiving any financial help at all from a wife who can well afford to give him some money.

The introduction of a marriage preparatory course is a good start to give

Column: 2076

intended spouses a right perspective of marriage and how to sustain it for better or for worst and, more importantly, for life. However, these courses should be made mandatory for the Singapore citizen and non-Singapore citizen couples in all the four official languages. This will help to ensure that the non-citizen spouses are properly integrated into the Singaporean culture and way of life and that a non-citizen applicant is fully aware of what their immigration status will be when they marry a Singapore citizen. This will also help the Singapore citizen and the non-citizen parties to better understand each other's expectations in marriage.

With this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

5.23 pm

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Thank you, Sir, for this opportunity to share my views. This Amendment Bill covers, among other issues, measures to address divorce and its impact. With your permission, Sir, I would like to focus my comments on the proposals relating to divorce.

The new section 12A highlights the importance of marriage preparation courses for those who are deemed to be at high risk for divorce. For this group, the Amendment Bill specifies that they must attend compulsory marriage preparation classes before the marriage licence can be issued.

I have no issue with the emphasis on marriage preparation courses. Based on research I conducted in Singapore on marriage and divorce, there is evidence that suggest the significance of marriage preparation in sustaining marriages – both the formal courses as well as through informal preparation that invokes discourses with social support networks. It is not easy to nurture and sustain a

Column: 2077

happy marriage. As partners progress through life cycle, expectations of couple-hood will change with the emerging needs of the persons involved.

What we expect of marriage in the initial stages of courtship will be quite different when we face the challenges of parenthood. And our demands of our spouses will again be quite different as we age together. An effective marriage preparation programme will help married couples anticipate these challenges and equip them with the skills to navigate through the demands.

Mr Deputy Speaker, on the discourse of marriage preparation, I have two queries for the Minister.

First, does the Minister have plans to develop a framework that will guide the development of marriage preparation courses? Without a framework for assessing quality and validation, it will be difficult to differentiate effective programmes from the rest.

The paradox of familiarity that is often associated with discourses relating to the family gives the illusion that marriage and family issues can be addressed by anyone, just because they are familiar topics in our everyday lives. But that is indeed a misperception.

Given that this Amendment Bill seeks to make attendance at marriage preparation courses compulsory for specified high-risk groups, it is essential and critical that we have in place clear guidelines on what must be expected in an effective marriage preparation course.

My second query concerns the existing marriage preparation programmes. How are these currently evaluated and do we have a database that documents which programmes have a higher success rate in

Column: 2078

sustaining marriage? If not, will the Minister consider setting up a comprehensive database that tracks outcomes of marriages that have gone through the respective courses?

A more serious concern I have with section 12A is on the definition of who is at risk for divorce. While I appreciate the need for minors to attend compulsory marriage preparation courses to raise their awareness of the demands of marriage and to equip them with life skills that will help sustain the marital union, I disagree that we should place divorcees in the same category. I feel strongly that if we make it compulsory for divorcees to attend marriage preparation courses, we will end up negatively stigmatising both the divorcees as well as marriage preparation.

Sociological research on divorce highlights many factors that may trigger marriage dissolution. I do not agree that there is sufficient evidence for us to tag a person who has to endure a failed marriage as being at higher risk for divorce in subsequent unions. That would not be a fair assessment. Further, remarriage rates in Singapore are still relatively low, and there is insufficient data to suggest that divorcees suffer a higher rate of divorce in their subsequent marriages.

I appeal to the Minister to reconsider making marriage preparation compulsory for those who had suffered a failed marriage. Divorce is a very painful process for all involved. We should not make it harder for these individuals when they seek to reconstitute a happy family. Instead, I suggest that we strongly encourage all couples to attend marriage preparation before they enter the marital union formally. But before we can do that, we should have in place a comprehensive framework that guides what effective marriage preparation courses must cover.

Column: 2079

My final concern is with section 50 of the Bill, which specifies compulsory mediation before divorce where children are involved. While I strongly support mediation and other measures that might avert marriage dissolution, I wonder if mediation at this late stage where irreconcilable differences may have already set in may be too late.

Sir, may I ask the Minister if mediation is already in place now for divorce petitions? If so, can the Minister share with us data on the number of petitions for divorce that were withdrawn after successful mediation. Will the Minister consider putting in place a system that allows individuals involved to seek mandatory marriage counselling for the family unit when one party fears that the marriage is not progressing well? And to allow children of unhappy marriages to be eligible petitioners for mandatory counselling for their family.

Sadly, there are many trapped in unhappy marriages and who are in need of help and guidance but they do not know where to turn to for help. Short of contacting a lawyer, these individuals sometimes have no one else to turn to. Will the Minister consider setting up a marriage centre where families can contact for help on marriage-related issues?

Thank you, Sir, for your kind attention.

Ms Audrey Wong Wai Yen: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill.

First, let me place on record my thanks to the Ministry for the extensive public consultations before proposing the Bill. I am particularly supportive of the additional mechanisms in enforcing maintenance orders and the provision for persons to apply for financial relief after foreign divorce proceedings, subject to certain conditions. This latter provision,

Column: 2080

like many of the amendments, recognises the changing reality of Singapore society. Apart from the increasing number of marriages between Singapore citizens and foreigners, many Singaporeans today also live and work abroad and might get married or separated abroad.

I applaud the tightened measures on payment of maintenance orders that include giving powers to the Courts to order community service for defaulters, requiring defaulters to post a bank guarantee against future defaults, credit bureau reporting and requiring divorcees re-entering into marriage to declare any arrears in maintenance. For this last amendment, I would like to ask if it might actually make sense, in fact, to require the divorcee to declare that he is under a maintenance order rather than only declaring his arrears. Nevertheless, the amended Bill certainly puts more teeth into the enforcement of maintenance orders, in light of the increase in the number of applications for enforcement – an increase of 10% between 2008 and 2009 – with a total of 3,585 such cases in 2009 alone.

While we recognise the need to protect women and children who might suffer if the husband defaults on maintenance, there should also be a measure of fairness for those defaulters who might have genuine financial difficulty. So, for example, in the event of a defaulter who is reported to the credit bureau, if he regains his financial footing, there should be a streamlined process for him to inform the credit bureau and for the credit rating to be re-adjusted as quickly as possible. In addition, the attachment of earnings orders that are served on the defaulters' employers could be done in a discreet manner so that the person's employment is not jeopardised. Because if this person loses his job, the children that he is supposed to maintain are the ones who will suffer.

Column: 2081

I turn now to some questions for clarification. First, regarding the requirement for certain categories of persons to attend a marriage preparation course. I hope the Minister can clarify who falls under this class of persons. Will this include foreign spouses – non-Singaporean citizens who are not fluent in Singapore's main languages or familiar with our culture – as some of these may enter into marriage with a Singaporean through the auspices of a matchmaking agency?

Marriages between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans are increasing today. The report by the National Population Secretariat in 2009 indicated that in 2008, four in 10 marriages involving Singapore citizens are between a Singaporean and a non-Singaporean. Thirty percent of citizen births involve a non-Singaporean parent. There are more local men now choosing foreign brides through matchmaking agencies; and unfortunately these women can be put into vulnerable situations. For instance, they are ineligible for permanent residency and their husbands could send them back and cancel their social visit passes if the marriage does not work, thus separating them from their children. I understand that the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) has reported that its helpline has seen a number of such cases where the women were not even aware that they were not eligible for permanent residency. I hope the Ministry will seek further means to improve the situation for these women and to ensure the integration of non-Singaporean spouses into our society.

The question of who should be prescribed to attend a marriage preparation course is very sensitive because it means effectively State intervention into people's private lives and private decisions. I am concerned that this could give rise to suggestions of

Column: 2082

discrimination against some of the Singapore population who may feel offended or stigmatised because the State might declare them, essentially, as not being ready for marriage. As Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan has mentioned, for divorcees, it could end up with them feeling stigmatised if they are asked to attend marriage preparation courses prior to re-marriage.

On what grounds would a couple be selected to attend these courses? Does the requirement for attending the marriage preparation course extend to couples marrying under Muslim law? At present, religious groups already offer marriage preparation courses. As other Members have already expressed, there are concerns about how this would be coordinated with the MCYS' own programmes. Will there be common guidelines or frameworks for all these marriage preparation courses? What would be the content and who would be the ones delivering these programmes?

I would also like to ask for clarification on section 50 about Court-mandated mediation or counselling for the couple or family. I presume this is to ensure that children should be protected. However, the Act is not very clear as to the purpose of the mediation or counselling. At this stage, it is clearly too late to require the couple to go for reconciliation as divorce proceedings are already in motion. It would be useful to spell out the guidelines on when such counselling or mediation sessions will be mandated.

As Mr Lim Biow Chuan has also reminded us in a sobering manner, mediation and counselling is not a magic pill, and there are many reasons why people may choose not to go for counselling even if they are required by the Courts to go for it. I would like to suggest that perhaps it might be useful for the Courts or the MCYS to refer couples with children who are divorcing to

Column: 2083

Family Service Centres, for instance, or to the children's schools so that the situation can be continually monitored as the children go through this painful process.

My final question concerns section 71B which gives the Court the power to order a maintenance defaulter to attend financial counselling. The Act does not specify what the consequences will be if he does not attend the counselling and how the order will be enforced.

I turn now to the call by some members of the public requesting the Ministry to set up an authority or central body to facilitate the claims and payments for maintenance orders. As other Members of the House have pointed out, it takes time to apply to the Courts to enforce payments and as many claimants affected by this are less educated, are struggling financially and often need to work long hours as well as look after the children, it is difficult for them to keep going back to the Courts. I applaud the MCYS and the Courts' efforts in setting up new measures to facilitate the enforcement. However, I would urge the Ministry to continue to streamline the legal procedures and to help these claimants.

Sir, the Women's Charter first enacted in 1961 was certainly a ground-breaking piece of legislation giving protection to women and children and is the basis of our Family Law. It has been amended as society changed. The present amendments, I believe, reflect a balanced and logical approach to the realities of Singapore today, placing the needs of the most vulnerable segment of our society at its heart. I know men and women who have separated or divorced and understand how painful it is even for those without children. And I believe that our legislation constantly seeks to address the issues that surface as the situation in Singapore changes.

Column: 2084

Ms Ellen Lee has proposed that the Women's Charter be renamed the "Family Charter". The term "Women's Charter" could give the impression that the Bill is about conferring more rights on women and might give the mistaken impression that women have more rights than men when it comes to ending the marriage and maintenance. However, in fact, the Women's Charter is a Family Charter which affirms the family as the basis of our social structure yet seeks to ensure fair treatment of those who might be most badly affected when families break down, ie, women who are financially dependent on their husbands, women who are the primary caregivers of the children and the children who have the rights to a nurturing and secure environment as they grow up. I will not call for the Women's Charter to be so renamed as the Family Charter as I believe there is still a role for a Bill that specifically mentions women even in today's Singapore. However, as a Bill that protects the family and especially the rights of children, the Women's Charter continues to be an extremely important piece of legislation for our society, and I thank the MCYS Minister for proposing the amendments.

With that, I support the Bill.

5.40 pm

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Deputy Speaker, I intend to take both Bills through the House today. So, I hope you will forgive me if I rush through the proceedings. I may not be able to answer every query but I assure Members that my staff and I will provide answers to each and every specific question that they have raised in the course of this debate.

First of all, let me say I am very heartened by Members' reasoned, logical and persuasive arguments. I am heartened

Column: 2085

because it has shown that we are moving in the right direction, although I suspect many of you wish we move faster, and maybe the pace is not to your satisfaction. But we are moving in the right direction. Let me get down now to the specifics.

There have been many queries about the marriage preparation courses. Evidence from overseas research, as well as our own local experience, have suggested that these programmes are indeed helpful in strengthening marriages. We conducted a survey in 2006 of 800 people, 97% of them who have attended marriage preparation programmes reportedly found them useful. Also, the Muslim community has expanded marriage preparation courses for minors since 2007. They set up two INSPIRASI centres. This measure appears to have borne fruit, as divorces resulting from Muslim minor marriages have fallen by about 15% from 2007 to 2009, and, in fact, by one-third from 2003. The present proposal seeks to extend this practice to civil marriages that have a higher risk of divorce. As there is already a good system in place for Muslim couples, there is no need to amend the Administration of Muslim Law Act in order to require marriage preparation for Muslim marriages.

However, we have also been very careful. As Assoc Prof. Straughan has said, before we even embark on the suggestion of mandatory marriage preparation for everyone, we have to be very clear first, who will benefit, then the quality of the providers. And that is why I have moved very, very carefully and in a very slow way. So we have only, for a start, confined ourselves to marriages involving minors because this is one area where we have clear evidence that this is a group that is more at risk and this is a group for whom intervention makes a

Column: 2086

difference. As evidence surfaces for other groups, we can then consider it in the future, but I am not willing to rush into this. I will take Assoc. Prof. Straughan’s point that we must accumulate the data and the evidence before we make further moves in this area. Similarly, I do not intend to apply this requirement for marriage preparation to marriages involving divorcees, or to foreign brides or foreign grooms, until we can better ascertain the risk profiles for these different categories of couples. It is also neither necessary nor feasible to mandate the programme for all couples or for us to track those who marry overseas for attendance for marriage courses. What we will do, however, is that we will certainly be prepared to exercise more flexibility and to also work with both secular as well as religious organisations which are providing such marriage preparation courses.

There was also a suggestion that we needed to have a marriage centre to provide help on marriage-related issues. Well, I am very pleased to tell Members that, in fact, the National Family Council set up Marriage Central two years ago. This is a one-stop resource point to promote strong, healthy and happy marriages. Marriage Central provides easy access to a whole slew of marriage-related programmes and resources through various platforms both in cyberspace as well as in real physical space. The physical space is located at the Woodlands and Jurong Regional Libraries. I would encourage couples who seek help on marriage-related issues to approach Marriage Central.

There was also concern expressed by Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Assoc. Prof. Straughan and Ms Wong about the timing and effectiveness of the requirement for divorcing couples with children to attend counselling or mediation at the Court. Let me be very explicit here and clarify that the primary intent of this measure is to

Column: 2087

mitigate the impact of the divorce on the children. It is not about reversing the couple’s decision to divorce or to help them resolve their personal problems or to restore their marriage. If that happens, that is an additional bonus but that is not the main intent. In fact, the efforts to save the marriage are better pursued upstream through marriage preparation and enrichment programmes and, also, as I alluded to earlier, by providing accessible touch points such as Marriage Central. But couples who have already filed for divorce are unlikely to benefit from mandatory counselling if one or both parties are unwilling to undergo counselling in order to improve the relationship.

So, the proposed measure is simply to ensure, indeed to insist, that parents put their children's interests ahead of the conflict that they have as a couple and that they must work out, hopefully amiably, the issues of custody maintenance and division of assets, particularly in respect of their children. I agree totally with Mr Hri Kumar that a parenting plan should not be a paper exercise. It is not a form-filling exercise but it should reflect a joint commitment by both partners to put the interests of their children first. Currently, Court statistics indicate that a significant proportion of the submitted Parenting Plans are proposed but have not been agreed upon. I think that was what Mr Hri Kumar was alluding to.

The aim, then, is to address this by ensuring that both parties come to an agreement on effective, workable and practical parenting and care arrangements for the children under the guidance of trained mediators and counsellors who are familiar with the legal, emotional and psychological dimensions of the custody dispute. This measure will be implemented in stages because we need to make sure that we have adequate numbers of trained and qualified counsellors and mediators.

Column: 2088

Nevertheless, we still felt that it is important for the Court to retain the discretion to waive the requirement for special cases where counselling or mediation may not be in the interest of all parties, such as those involving family violence or abuse. To address Mr Lim's concern that an uncooperative party may try to stay the divorce proceedings by not attending the requisite mediation or counselling, the proposed provisions empower the Court to exercise appropriate discretion against non-compliant parties. For instance, the non-compliant party may be ordered to pay a reasonable amount in costs.

Mdm Cynthia Phua, quite rightly, has expressed her sympathy for children who are affected by their parents' divorce, and it is obviously not the fault of the children. However, I am afraid that I still cannot agree to the Member's repeated calls for mandatory counselling for children because I believe that it is better to maintain the current arrangement where the Courts have the discretion to refer the children for counselling on a case-by-case basis, based on the Judge's assessment. Each family and each divorce is unique, and in this House, as we formulate legislation, we need to be careful to retain enough flexibility and discretion in the hands of Judges who are dealing with each family and each case, rather than for us to succumb to the temptation to hardwire all our prescriptions into the resolution of complicated family disputes. I would still maintain the position that I would rather leave this question in the hands of the Family Court Judges.

I shall now move on to the comments on the measures and enhanced enforcement of maintenance orders. Mr Kumar, Mdm Phua, Mdm Ho and Ms Lee have all suggested additional sanctions against maintenance defaulters and, indeed, there were many other

Column: 2089

suggestions on members of the public as well; including confiscating travel documents, imposing curfews, imposing interests for late payments and a plethora of other uncomfortable sanctions.

To be honest, my Ministry studied each suggestion very carefully, including suggestions like confiscating handphones and revoking driving licences. But we decided not to embark on this. We felt that many of these suggestions were difficult to enforce fairly and the sanctions bore little nexus to the offence itself which is not paying the maintenance arrears. However, you noticed that in this Act, we have introduced new sanctions. These new sanctions include things like community service orders, the requirement to declare maintenance debts before remarrying, the imposition of banker's guarantees on defaulters and the reporting to credit bureaus. These are incremental measures. Let us see and wait to measure the impact of these measures before contemplating even more onerous sanctions.

There was much discussion on community service orders. I want to emphasise that it is not meant to be a soft option. It is meant to give Judges a wider menu of deterrent sentences which they can impose in order to encourage appropriate behaviour by the defaulters. The defaulters who are required to perform community service are still required to pay their maintenance arrears. It is not in lieu of, it does not take them off the hook. And the merit of having such orders available to the Judges is that they can impose that without affecting the defaulter's employment and, thereby, aggravating the financial situation further.

On the measure to declare maintenance debts before the party remarries, I agree with Mdm Ho and Ms Wong that the remarrying party should

Column: 2090

also declare whether he is liable to pay maintenance, in addition to whether there are other outstanding arrears. This is actually the intent of the provision because the party will have to first declare if there is any maintenance order and then declare whether there is any arrears owed pursuant to those maintenance orders. I will also note Mdm Ho and Ms Audrey Wong's point that there must be a limited window for reporting arrears to the credit bureaus in order to prevent abuse and also to make sure that the credit reports are accurate and timely.

As for the provision of a banker's guarantee, we have gone through this in detail and we crafted the legislation in a way to make it as easy as possible for the complainant. Basically, the complainant can make a claim on the banker's guarantee without going to Court to prove that there was a default. And if there is any excess claim from the banker's guarantee, it will be offset against future maintenance payments. Limiting the amount guaranteed to three months is a practical move as many defaulters may not have enough money on hand to guarantee the larger sums of money for maintenance.

Requiring a second guarantee to kick in automatically would pose judicial issues because it may be potentially unfair to the defaulter, if there was no subsequent Court hearing to determine whether he had indeed defaulted the first time round. We had to arrive at an appropriate balance between convenience of complainant and fairness to the potential defaulter.

In pursuing stronger enforcement, we are also mindful that we must give defaulters a fair chance. Hence, the credit reports will be updated when they settle their arrears. And for defaulters who are issued with attachments of earnings orders, their employment should not be jeopardised. In other words, I am telling

Column: 2091

employers, "Please do not terminate someone simply because of the attachment of earnings orders against them". In fact, if any individual feels unfairly dismissed because of this, he has recourse through the Ministry of Manpower for unfair dismissal.

For Court-ordered financial counselling for defaulters, as with Court orders in general, non-compliance to such orders is tantamount to contempt of Court, and it carries a potential fine or even imprisonment.

Mdm Phua has also asked for the Courts to extend the hours to 9.00 pm (almost parliamentary time) [ laughter ] in order to facilitate the access by working women. As things stand, first, I want to acknowledge the incredible hard work that has been committed on the part of the Courts to already make significant changes to streamline the current enforcement process by reducing the steps and allowing for filing of complaints through video-link. With regard to operating at night, we actually went to them with the suggestion and they informed us that this may not be practical. There are currently Night Courts but the Night Courts currently deal with essentially regulatory offences in which the offenders almost always plead guilty. If the offender decides not to plead guilty, his case will subsequently be heard in the day Court. Such maintenance hearings, which often entail respondents' and claimant presentations, may be lengthy and there may be insufficient time for such proceedings to be conducted expeditiously at night. So, the Court preference is still for these hearings to be conducted during regular office hours.

On Mdm Phua's suggestion to engage auxiliary police to execute warrants of arrests for defaulters, this may not be feasible because it would require the errant spouses to bear the costs of hiring an auxiliary police in order to arrest them.

Column: 2092

This will inevitably impair their ability to pay and we do not want this to result in reduced amount that is available to the ex-spouse and children. We will continue to study how we can make life more uncomfortable for defaulters but without impacting their ability to pay.

Several Members, including Mr Hri Kumar, Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef, Mdm Ho, Ms Lee and Ms Wong have also called for the establishment of a dedicated agency on maintenance and they use the analogy of the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents. But let me reiterate why we are not prepared to do this yet.

First, the family should be the first line of support for individuals, and only when that fails, does legislation provide for the appropriate sanctions as decided by the Courts based on the relative merits of each case. Our preferred approach is to strengthen the existing legal framework and that is why we have worked on improving and streamlining the Court processes, amending the Women's Charter, so that the family members will find it easier to hold each other accountable. I would prefer to let these new measures run in first, measure their impact, before we decide on the next step.

It is also worthwhile pointing out that even the Tribunal for Maintenance of Parents does not enforce maintenance orders. It may decide on maintenance orders but it does not enforce maintenance orders. The Tribunal and Commissioner's office provides legal avenues and a process for a parent to obtain a Maintenance Order. But thereafter, that Maintenance Order, if it is not complied with, is enforced through the Family Courts, the same Family Court using the same procedures and same sanctions that are available under the Women's Charter. So let us try to work this system first. We have made some

Column: 2093

significant improvements. Let us measure its impact.

Finally, there were calls, not only within this House but outside this House, for greater parity in the treatment between men and women, in particular in two areas, access to children for men and whether we should change the "Women's Charter" into the "Family Charter".

Let me first agree totally with Mr Seah Kian Peng that men should be given reasonable access to their children by their ex-wives. Ex-wives should not use access to children as a bargaining chip for the collection of maintenance. We should all, as adults, recognise that children have a right to both parents and will almost always benefit from access to both parents. And no matter how ugly the dispute between the adults is, we should not make our children hostage or bargaining chips.

I would, however, also go on to add that breaches in access orders are also punishable as contempt of Court, which can also lead to a fine or imprisonment. So just as expect the men to pay for the maintenance arrears, women should also comply fully with the access orders issued by the Court.

There were also calls in the name of gender equality for men to be able to claim maintenance from women. Let me put it to you this way: 14 years ago, the Select Committee said we were not ready yet. I am afraid at this point in time, the answer is still we are not ready yet. I hope it will not take another 14 years but I am sure every time we review the Women's Charter, this question will arise. Let me tell you why I think we are not ready yet. In terms of the labour force participation rate and incomes, today, there is still a gap. The labour force participation rate for women is 55%, as

Column: 2094

compared to 75% for men. I do not have the figures for income offhand but you all know there is a gap. Secondly, all of us who do the Meet-the-People Sessions will notice an asymmetry. It is women and their children, almost exclusively, who come to us for help because of problems of post-divorce or the failure to pay maintenance.

The brutal truth is, even today, although we have made much progress, women and children still need protection. We also have to ask ourselves whether, as a society, we have reached a point where the majority of us are willing to say that a woman has the responsibility to support a man, even after a divorce. I think an increasing number of people have come down to that view. I am not sure outside this House that the majority of people has come down to this view. So, my sense is, we will hold the current position, flag this as an issue for constant review and certainly the next time round, hopefully as we make further progress, we can get to that point.

Similarly, this is also not the time to rename the "Women's Charter" as the "Family Charter" because it does not have the exclusive monopoly on family law. An example of another law is the Maintenance of Parents Act, which is also related to family but, clearly, it stands alone. If and when we get to the point where we propose a Family Charter, I think the Ministry will have to amalgamate all these disparate pieces of law in order to do that. I do not think we are ready to do that, and I do not want to rush into it but I think the roadmap for the future is clear.

So, let me end by saying that the many views expressed both within and outside this House show that as Singaporeans, we still attach great importance to the institution of marriage, to dealing with the tragedy of divorce and to mitigating the impact on the children. These issues are not things which can be easily resolved, and certainly not simply

Column: 2095

by passing laws. There is a need to balance many interests – the rights and the protection of the ex-husband, the ex-wives, the children; the rights of individuals and their decisions on marriage and divorce versus making sure that the State's intervention is appropriate but not excessive, and there is a need to get a balance between efficiency in implementation of Court orders and with rules of natural justice. I will conclude by saying that this piece of legislation, 50 years old, groundbreaking, continues to evolve. I think we have made important steps now but this is not the end of it, and there will be changes in the future.