INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION BILL

Column: 1255

INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

4.21 pm

The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Column: 1256

Sir, this Bill, when passed, will give effect to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Convention seeks to protect the best interests of children from the undesirable effects of transborder parental abduction and retention by providing an avenue for their prompt return and resolution of transborder custodial disputes.

Under the Convention, Contracting States agree to return a child who has been wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State, for an orderly determination by the Courts of the child’s habitual residence on the rights of custody and the rights of access. For the Convention to apply, both countries have to be Contracting States. There are currently 82 Contracting States.

Singapore is an open and globalised state. More and more Singaporeans are studying, working and living abroad and likewise there are many foreigners living and taking up residence in Singapore. It is therefore not surprising that there is an increasing trend of Singaporeans marrying foreigners, both locally and abroad. The proportion of marriages between Singapore Citizens and non-citizens has increased from 30.7% in 1999 to 40.8% in 2009. Given these trends, we can expect an increase likelihood of transborder custodial disputes. There are benefits for Singapore to accede to this Convention, in particular for the welfare and interest of children born and living in Singapore. This legal framework will allow us to secure the cooperation of other Contracting States for the return of these children to Singapore.

At present, Singapore allows for applications to the Court for orders and directions relating to custody, care and control, and access of the child when there is a marital dispute. However these proceedings often involve protracted and expensive legal battles.

Column: 1257

Acceding to the Convention will put in place the necessary mechanisms for the expeditious return of the child to the appropriate Court which will then determine the issues relating to the custody and welfare of the child. This is in line with our commitment to protect the best interests of the child.

My Ministry has worked with the relevant agencies, including the Courts and the Legal Aid Bureau, to operationalise this Convention. We have also consulted various stakeholders including lawyers, legal academics and women’s groups on the draft Bill.

Sir, allow me to briefly describe the key provisions in this Bill.

Singapore Central Authority

One of the key features of the Convention is that a Central Authority must be established in each Contracting State. This is provided for under clause 5 of the Bill. My Ministry (MCYS) will be appointed as the Singapore Central Authority. The Singapore Central Authority will be operational by 2011 once the Convention enters into force.

The Singapore Central Authority’s key role is to provide information on and to facilitate matters relating to the application for the return of a child and to work with other respective Central Authorities in the other States in dealing with such applications.

The Singapore Central Authority will advise and assist the parent who is remaining in Singapore to make an application to the Central Authority of the other Contracting State where a child has been wrongfully removed to or retained in. The Singapore Central Authority will monitor the progress of these applications. And under the Convention, the overseas Central Authority is obliged to facilitate

Column: 1258

the return of the child, to have the discovery of the whereabouts of the child, and the care and protection of the child. Similarly, the parent remaining in the other Contracting State can also apply to the Singapore Central Authority for its assistance to facilitate the discovery and voluntary return of the child and, where necessary, for the care and protection of the child. These are reciprocal arrangements.

Apart from providing for the application of the return of a child, the Singapore Central Authority will, as far as possible, also assist in facilitating access to the child upon request by the parent whose access rights were breached.

Applications to Court under the Convention

Sir, I shall now describe the provisions pertaining to applications to the Court for the return of the child under the Convention. The Convention stipulates that the judicial authorities are to order the return of the child to the country of habitual residence if the Court found that the child was wrongfully removed or retained.

All applications for the return of a child or access to a child under the Convention will be made to and heard by the Family Court. Clause 8 provides for this. The applicant may be the person whose rights of custody have been breached or any other person appearing to the Court to have sufficient interest in the matter.

Custody rights will be determined by the Court in the child’s country of habitual residence upon his or her return. This is based on the principle that the Courts in the child's country of habitual residence are best able to make decisions on the interests of the child. Clause 13 of the Bill thus provides for the stay of any decision on merits of the rights of custody, care

Column: 1259

and control or access upon an application being filed to the Court.

The Convention recognises the need to protect children and to take into account circumstances where the child should not be returned to his country of habitual residence. These circumstances include situations where, firstly, there might be a grave risk that the return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm; secondly, the person having care of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention; thirdly, if the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take into account of his or her views; and fourthly, where fundamental principles relating to the protection of human rights and the fundamental freedoms are in question. In these scenarios, the Court has the discretion not to order the return of the child. Clause 12 of the Bill thus allows the Court to receive advice from persons who are trained or experienced in matters relevant to the application when considering the return of the child.

Where the child has been ordered to be returned, clause 8 of the Bill empowers the Court to impose conditions or require undertakings before the child can be taken out of Singapore. In addition, for the purpose of securing the welfare of the child, clause 10 of the Bill empowers the Court to make interim orders or to give interim directions for the care and control or access to the child before the determination of the return of the child.

Sir, the Convention also requires Singapore to provide legal aid and advice to applicants who are citizens or habitually resident in a country which is party to the Convention. This has been provided for in clause 17 of the Bill. Applicants applying for legal aid and

Column: 1260

advice under the Convention will have to fulfil the same means and merits test required by the Legal Aid Bureau in Singapore. In addition, the Legal Aid and Advice Act and the Legal Profession Act will be amended accordingly.

Sir, with the increase in cross-border marriages, this Bill will help deter and to resolve wrongful child removal and retention resulting from the possible breakdown of some of these marriages.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that in implementing this Convention, Singapore will facilitate the judicial or administrative proceedings necessary for the prompt return of the child in his or her best interest. This paramount principle will remain to always protect the best interest of the child.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.30 pm

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I wish to applaud the Government, through the good efforts of the Minister for Community Development Youth and Sports, for ratifying this Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The primary intention of the Convention is to preserve whatever status quo child custody arrangement existed before an alleged wrongful removal or retention, thereby deterring a parent from crossing international borders in search of a more sympathetic court. Since society and families have become more internationalised, international cases of child abductions have been drawing attention as a serious social problem. As child abduction is a serious infringement of the welfare of the child, preventing child abduction is an extremely important goal to be achieved by the international

Column: 1261

community. As more than 80 countries had already ratified the Convention, Singapore's ratification of it is timely and necessary. This Bill gives effect to our obligations under the Convention and I support it.

However, Sir, I have a few clarifications to seek. First, even as we adopt measures under this Bill in order to give effect to our international obligations, we have to ensure that we do not end up giving greater protection and support to parents caught in cross-border disputes involving the abduction of their children but less or little support to those caught in domestic abductions of their children. In other words, is this Bill giving more rights to parents caught in cross-border abductions of their children compared to those where the abductions took place in Singapore?

This Bill provides substantial support in order to swiftly return an abducted child to the aggrieved parent from a Contracting State. The Central Authority, which under this Bill, will be the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, would have to locate the abducted child in Singapore and then urge the errant parent or other persons to voluntarily return the child to the parent from the Contracting State asking for help. If this fails, then the Minister would either have to bring the case to court or offer various types of support to the parent from the Contracting State to file a lawsuit in Singapore. This is clearly stated in the Bill which provides for the Central Authority to "take all appropriate measures to discover the whereabouts of a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained". It also provides for the Minister to "provide or facilitate the provision of legal aid and advice, including the participation of legal counsel and advisers".

In the case of child abductions that take place domestically, however, no such assistance or less of such assistance is

Column: 1262

available. Usually the authorities would leave it to the affected parent to seek a court order as the Police view this as a domestic issue which they should not interfere in. Parents affected by domestic abduction cases suffer from the same anguish and pain as those involved in cross-border abductions and they should similarly be provided with help and support to locate their abducted child and to have the child returned to them.

This Bill will also provide legal aid to a parent from a Contracting State who applies to court for an order. Again, are we providing more rights to them compared to our own citizens involved in similar disputes but domestically? We need to have consistency and a balance between the procedures to deal with domestic disputes over parental child abduction and procedures involving disputes over international abductions or cross-border abductions to which the Hague convention applies.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the MCYS will work with the other agencies, such as the Police, to review the current procedures so that more could be done to help parents affected by abductions that take place domestically?

My second point is on the designation of the Central Authority under this Bill. The Hague Convention requires a ratifying state to appoint a central authority. The role of the central authorities in the Contracting States is to do their utmost to achieve the objectives of the Convention. The central authorities of these countries are supposed to be in close contact with each other and also to work with the various agencies in their own countries as well. The Bill provides for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports to be the Central Authority for Singapore. I seek a clarification as to whether this is appropriate and what are the reasons for designating the Minister

Column: 1263

as the Central Authority? In the US, for instance, the Central Authority is the Department of State's Office of Children's Issues that has been designated as the authority. Should a similar arrangement not apply in Singapore?

Finally, Sir, the Bill mandates the return of an abducted child to his or her "habitual residence" before the abduction took place. This is the most significant part of the Convention as the Central Authority's function is primarily to make sure that the child is returned to the place of habitual residence. However, there is no definition of what amounts to an abducted child's habitual residence in the Convention. Could the Minister give some indication as to what could constitute a place of habitual residence?

On this note, Sir, I support the Bill. This is indeed a progressive Bill and this a right move on the part of Singapore to adopt to rectify this Convention.

4.36 pm

Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef: Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill, which will assist in the local application and implementation of the Hague Convention and I feel it is time for Singapore to align and become a signatory of the Convention which has been around since 1983 with 82 members to date.

Let me reiterate the two main aims of the Convention, namely:(1) to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to, or retained in any signatory state; and (2) to ensure that the rights of custody and of access under the laws of one state are effectively respected in other signatory states. As such, Sir, it will be beneficial for Singapore to join as a signatory.

In today’s global village that we live in, cross-border interactions, relationships,

Column: 1264

and even marriages are increasing. In the event that some of these do work out, there are certainly risks of one parent taking the child out of the country where the other spouse is not. If not done amicably, or done on a unilateral basis, these can have consequences, most certainly. And the Hague Convention can, thus, offer a framework to help in the resolution of such situations.

Parental child abduction is a global phenomenon, Sir. For example, there was a 27% rise in the number of applications made under the Hague Abduction Convention between 1999 and 2003 and Singapore is certainly not exempt. In a local study by Debbie Ong et al , from 2001 to 2006, 26 cases of child abductions were dealt with by our Family Courts. Twenty-two cases of the 26 were abductions outside Singapore and four within Singapore. Overall, 16 out of the 26 cases or 62% remain unresolved to date and the 10 cases that were settled took an average of 15.3 months to be solved. Some of the cases that involved outgoing countries included countries such as Australia, Canada, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Netherlands, Malaysia, New Zealand, Vietnam and the UK; and the incoming cases involved countries like Thailand and Norway.

This Bill, Sir, is also a very good illustration of how, national, regional and even international collaboration and teamwork can come into play to assist in alleviating difficult situations. As States abiding to the Convention will have their own unique laws, will there be any other international understanding or binding agreement on the matter? I would like some clarification on that, please. And it is also stated and I quote, "this Convention shall apply as between Contracting States only, to wrongful removals or retentions occurring after its entry into force". This would mean that there will be no retrospective effect of the Bill. What will be the options then, for

Column: 1265

cases that are pending or ongoing, ie, those that happened before 2010?

Sir, with reference to article 4, it is stated that the Convention shall cease to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years. Can I clarify what will happen if the abducted is a mentally subnormal person or child who is, say, 17 years of age? What would be the approach for such cases? Also, Sir, with regard to section 13, the clause and I quote, "by any person appearing to the court to have sufficient interest in the matter", there perhaps should be some clarification on this, for example, who is "the persons"? Should it be previous caregivers, a next-of-kin, a child welfare officer or a VWO personnel, etc? Some clarification would be needed on that as well.

Sir, all in, I support this International Child Abduction Bill. Singapore has much to gain with this Bill and from the Singapore study I quoted earlier, the majority of abductions are out of Singapore, thus, ceding to the Hague Convention and passing this Bill will help Singapore-based citizens recover their children quickly.

4.40 pm

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Bill seeks to implement Singapore’s obligations under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction signed on 25th October 1980. It enables children abducted from countries abroad in breach of custody or access rights to return to those countries for their cases to be settled there. This is to prevent protracted court battles over child custody and to provide clearer direction for the courts, for example, in divorce cases where husband and wife reside in different countries. The intent of the Bill is to protect the minor child. Given the increase in the number of cross-cultural marriages between Singaporeans and foreigners, this Bill will

Column: 1266

become even more significant as it may have direct implication for these Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, as I stand in support of this Bill, I have four queries for the Minister. First, given that it has taken us serious deliberations before we finally acceded to the Convention, may I ask what were the Ministry’s concerns regarding this Convention and how have these concerns been addressed? Second, a reason given by some countries which have not signed the Convention is the protection of their citizens and their children from abusive foreign spouses. Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister to share with us the number of reported cases where Singaporean wives had to flee from abusive foreign spouses?

With the passing of this Bill, how can we continue to help Singaporeans who are caught in these crisis situations? Relating to this is my third query on child custody battles involving foreign spouses. Do we have cases currently pending judiciary outcomes and how will the passing of this Bill affect these families?

Finally, the focus of the Convention is the prompt return of the child. This is unlike domestic proceedings involving children where the welfare of the child is the chief consideration. What if a case arises where a very young minor child brought here by the Singaporean parent does not want to leave? Will the children’s requests be taken into consideration by the courts in informing their decision?

The Minister has assured that the courts can exercise discretion. Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister, what constitutes being of age and sufficient maturity?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon. Members for their

Column: 1267

support of the Bill and for their relevant questions and comments.

First, Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan asked what are our considerations and why did we take so long? I think Members of this House know that the Singapore Government takes its commitments extremely seriously, in particular, before agreeing to an International Convention which will place obligations on us. We need to be very sure first that it is the right thing to do. Secondly, that we have set up a mechanism so that we can do the right thing. Thirdly, that we have consulted our stakeholders and people know what this is all about. So, it has taken us some time but we are now on the verge of acceding to this Convention.

The next question was posed by Mdm Halimah and she asked why the Bill appears to name the Minister as the Central Authority. I would like to reassure her that it is the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports that will be appointed as the Central Authority. My role as Minister is to oversee that this is done properly and in accordance with the law as passed by Parliament. The Authority will, therefore, be a new department set up within the Ministry to perform its role.

The next question I wanted to deal with was from Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef and she said, basically, how would we deal with the applications given that we will be dealing with trans-border disputes. If we sign on, we will be the 83rd country and there are likely to be 83 different unique legal systems in place. Well, on accession, all Contracting States are required to discharge their obligations and their responsibilities as spelt out under the Convention.

The Convention recognises that the Contracting States may have their own

Column: 1268

uniquely legal and judicial arrangements and, therefore, Contracting States have the flexibility in the way they implement the provisions of the Convention.

There is a permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law which will monitor the operations of the Convention in all the Contracting States. They will monitor them, for instance, by having yearly questionnaires on the state of the implementation in the respective States. There will also be special Commission Meetings which are organised and there will be reports which we will all have to submit and, based on these reports, they will do their best to ensure that there is alignment and that the objectives and the key principles and the spirit behind the Convention are fulfilled even while we know that implementational details will differ.

The next question was on the issue of age. I think Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef brought up the example of an abducted child who was mentally subnormal but is now 17 years and therefore technically beyond the remit of this Convention. Mr Speaker, the Convention seeks to protect children specifically under the age of 16 from the harmful effects of parental abduction and retention. For a successful application under this Act, the child must be below the age of 16 when the application is made to the Central Authority. The age cut-off is based on the premise that children below the age of 16, by definition, are more vulnerable and in greater need of protection. But for other exceptional cases like the example she has cited, the parents can still apply to the courts under current domestic laws if there is custody or access issues to be determined. In other words, discretion still lies with the Family Court.

The next question posed by Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef was to clarify how do you define a person appealing to the Court to have sufficient interest in the matter. A person who is eligible to apply

Column: 1269

for the return of a wrongfully removed or retained child would include a person whose rights of custody have been breached or any other person where the Court exercising its discretion, feels has a right to be heard and has an interest in the outcome of the case. I do not want to excessively hard-code this because, again, I want to remind Members of the House that we do need to leave these decisions, which are difficult decisions, even in the best of times, to be made at the discretion of the Judge in the Family Court.

Mdm Halimah asked a question on whether the Bill in mandating the return of a child who was habitually resident in the Contracting State immediately before that action, constitutes breach of custody or access rights, and asked me on the definition of "habitual residence". The term "habitual residence" is not defined specifically in the Bill. This is in line with the practice of the Convention and the Contracting States. In other words, it is not defined so that the Court will have discretion to determine the child's country of habitual residence and the Court will arrive at such a determination based on evidence adduced. For instance, let me correct a common misperception. The country of habitual residence does not refer to a child's domicile or citizenship or passport that the child may hold but the Court, instead, will take into account factors which determine a child's personal ties to a place. Relevant factors that a Court may consider – I want to emphasise "may" because their discretion still takes precedence – would include factors like the age of the child, whether he or she has his own views, the maturity of the child, the child's cultural affiliations. For instance, the language he or she speaks or the place that he or she has the most links to, the country, perhaps, where he has been in school the longest, and so on. There will be many other factors. The point I am trying to make here is that, we cannot be sitting in this House hard-code

Column: 1270

all the different permutations or factors which the Court would have to take into account.

The next point I want to touch is on the welfare of the Singaporean parent and the child and Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan has enquired as to the number of reported cases where Singaporean wives have had to flee from abusive foreign spouses. From 2007 to 2009, on average, there were 17 Protection Orders made by Singaporean wives against their foreign husbands but obviously this only refers to cases within Singapore. I do not have the statistics for cases of Singaporean women living overseas who have filed for similar protection from abusive foreign spouses.

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan also wanted to know how many Singaporeans are victims, how Singaporeans who are victims of abuse can be helped in the event that they face such a situation. Singaporeans who face spousal abuse can seek advice and counselling support from social workers in the Family Service Centres. If there is evidence of abuse, our child protection and our family violence mechanisms within the Ministry and in the other relevant Ministries will be activated. And victims of abuse who need shelter while the Court proceedings are ongoing can be housed in a crisis shelter until the crisis is resolved. As I have mentioned in my earlier speech, the Convention recognises the need to protect children and to take into account circumstances where the child should not be returned to his country of habitual residence. And these circumstances include situations where there is a grave risk that the return would subject the child to physical or psychological harm. If there is lack of evidence of grave risk or harm, the Singapore Central Authority will also work closely with the overseas Central Authority to make sure that protective factors are in place before the child is returned. So, again, the point I am trying

Column: 1271

to make here is that this will have to be a multi-agency effort and sometimes even a trans-border effort in order to secure, first, the safety of the child and, secondly, the protection of the more vulnerable member of the partnership.

There was another question: what if a case arises where a minor child brought here by the Singapore parent does not want to leave? Will the child's request be taken into consideration? I think I have answered this earlier. The Court will certainly listen to the child but the Court will have to take into account the age and maturity of the child and the totality of the best interest of the child. It will be a factor for consideration but it cannot be the only or substantive factor to be considered by the Court. There was another question on cases which are currently pending judicial outcomes. I would like to reassure Members, and I know that even as we speak there are cases ongoing, that families who are currently undergoing Court proceedings, they will not be affected as Article 35 of the Convention states specifically that there will be no retrospective effect. So for those cases which have already commenced, we will let the law take its course.

Mdm Halimah brought up a larger issue of whether there is any disparity in treatment: first, a disparity in treatment where the parental abduction has occurred locally and then whether there is a disparity in treatment between citizens and foreigners. Let me deal with the first question on disparity between parental abductions which have occurred locally in Singapore versus trans-border. I think the first thing that I would like to remind Members is that the objective of this Convention is not about returning the child to the parent. It is about returning the child to the country of his or her habitual residence so that the relevant

Column: 1272

Court will make that determination. Therefore, in a case where the child has not been removed out of Singapore, the issue does not arise at all because this child and both his or her parents are in Singapore and subject to the jurisdiction of Singapore Courts. So there is no question of disparity in that case. The other issue is whether we are treating citizens and foreigners equally. As I said earlier in my opening speech, even when someone applies for legal aid, they will have to pass the same means and merit tests that all citizens will have to undergo. So I can give Members of this House an assurance that there will be no disparity in treatment.

In conclusion, Sir, I would like to emphasise that being a party to the Convention, provides an avenue for expeditious and clear resolution of such trans-border custodial disputes and, hopefully, actually deters parents involved in an acrimonious breakdown of a relationship from trying to take the law into their own hands and abducting their children. This Convention works on the principle that in such circumstances, the proper Court should make a determination after considering all factors in order to secure the best interest of the child. Our acceding to this Convention allows us to operationalise our commitment to this principle.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, I just would like to clarify the point that I made earlier. I think the Minister missed my point. I am fully aware that the purpose of this Convention and this Bill is to return the abducted child to the place of habitual residence of the applying parent. What I am asking about the disparity is that abductions also take place locally by a parent, and usually one parent abducting the child where the other parent has been given custody, for instance. I want to ask whether the Ministry will review existing procedures that are in place because, very often, the feedback I get is that the

Column: 1273

parent, who is affected because his or her child is being abducted, will be told that this is a matter for the Court to decide. He or she, who is aggrieved, should go to the Court to enforce the order. Whereas under the Convention, under the Bill, the Central Authority will have to assist in locating the whereabouts of the child when it involves cross-border abductions, and it will have to try and persuade the errant parent to return the child voluntarily, failing which, to assist the aggrieved parent to file a case in Court. So there is a lot more assistance rendered to the parent of a child caught in cross-border abduction as compared to a child caught in domestic abduction because, often, the Police would say that, "Look, this is a domestic matter. Could you please go to Court and get your order enforced?" which I think now that we have this Bill to take care of cross-border abductions, the same principle should extend even to abductions of children from parents who have custody of them domestically. So, that is what I am asking for a review.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I thank Mdm Halimah for that additional clarification of her question. Let us go back to the example of a trans-border abduction, where, pursuant to the application of this Convention, a child has to return to the country of habitual residence. As I said earlier, it does not mean that necessarily this child be handed back to the other parent in the other country. What it obliges us to do is, where possible, where it can be done voluntarily and amiably, to persuade the parent here to bring that child back to the other country and submit himself or herself to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court in that country will still decide on the question of access and custody.

Now, in a local case, first, many of these so-called child abductions sometimes occur even before a divorce has been made absolute or even before a custody

Column: 1274

order or access order has been issued. In such a circumstance, there is no question of abduction or kidnapping because both parents have rights to access and, in fact, have a duty to take care of the child. So you cannot have a situation where one parent goes to the Police and says, "I want you to go and find the other parent because he has taken my child away." And the Police will quite rightly say, "What court order do you have? What judicial arrangements have been made?" If you have a court order which says you have custody of the child and the other parent has contravened that court order, the jurisdictional regulatory and enforcement actions will kick in. But, in the absence of that, the Police are still quite right to say, "This is a domestic dispute. The proper forum for it to be settled, first, preferably is between the two adults who are parents of this child. If you can't, you go to Court, you get a court order and the court order will be enforced." I think underlying the Member's question is an appeal to the authorities, wherever possible, to help facilitate the mediation between parents and to make sure the court orders are enforced.

I think we can certainly look into that and we should try to do better there, but I want to emphasise that that is not the subject of this Convention.

So, when a person has been ordered under this Convention to bring the child back, he or she is just restoring status quo ante . There are two people in a single country who may have a dispute about custody and care of a child and they have to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court and they must comply with the court order. Each respective country after that will have its own ways of enforcing those court orders. So, that is the point I wanted to make. The Member has a valid point but I did not want to conflate it into the debate on this Bill because this Bill does not resolve all the domestic problems that surround this very difficult and usually acrimonious breakdown in

Column: 1275

relationship. The only generic point I want to emphasise here is to make an appeal to all parents that we should prioritise in the best interest of their children, and that unilateral action and certainly action against the law on trans-border abduction is not the ideal way to solve the problems that have been generated by a breakdown in the relationship between parents. I think we all understand that but, having said that, we also recognise that life is not perfect, relationships can always cause problems, and in this area you actually see otherwise normal good people behaving at their very worst because emotions are so raw. To put this in context, we are just trying to reduce and deter the complications of trans-border abduction, but there is still a lot more work that will have to be done in the domestic sphere.

Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef: One clarification for the Minister. In the process that the child has to be brought back to Singapore or to one of the Contracting States, who pays for the airfare to transport the child back? Because it just so happened that last week I saw a man – an unemployed man – who actually had to come out with his own money to bring his child back from Vietnam. I wonder whether those are some of the things that may need to be sorted out.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The Convention requires a Contracting State to look after its own expenditures – the expenditures incurred by the central authority. I do not think that necessarily commits us to paying for all the airfare and accommodation that will often be generated from this hunt for missing children. So, I am not going to make a commitment in Parliament now that we are going to incur all those expenditures.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: One last clarification, Sir. I heard the clarification

Column: 1276

from the Minister. Is that a reassurance that when it comes to disputes involving domestic abduction cases where one parent has custody or access, that there will be greater coordination between MCYS, for instance, and the Police to help in terms of locating the child? I am talking about a case where the parent already has custody or one parent has access but is denied access because the child has been abducted and kept somewhere else where this parent cannot have access to the child or this parent having custody does not know the whereabouts of the child. It is a most perplexing situation, not helped by being asked to go to Court to enforce the custody order or the access order. So, will there be that coordination support system from the relevant agencies?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I am sympathetic to the Member's request. I know where she is coming from. But we must also understand that this is still, at the heart of it, a civil dispute, and that a proper forum for resolving civil disputes, in this case, is the Family Court. So, if you go to the Police Post, the Police must, by definition, advise you to go the Court to resolve this dispute, get a court order, and enforce the court order.

Now, Members of the House will also know that we are on a slightly different topic but on the issue of maintenance payments and other issues, there are administrative steps that we can take to make it easier to secure court orders and to facilitate enforcement of court orders. To the extent that we are working on all that, clearly this is a related area where if we can do that, we will facilitate. But I do not want to subvert the correct forum in which disputes are settled and the authority for making those decisions. It is the Family Court and we should not usurp it or in any way short circuit the rules of justice. I think as a lawyer herself, she will appreciate the position that I have to take.

Column: 1277

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill – [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.