WOMEN'S CHARTER BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.53 p.m.

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's recommendation on this Bill, and I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

In proposing the adoption of this Bill, the Government is carrying out its promise as contained in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech [Hansard, Vol. 11 No. 1, Col. 9]:

"will enact legislation which, whilst recognising existing polygamous marriages, will make it an offence for persons to contract other than monogamous marriages in future."

The opportunity has been taken to consolidate the existing laws relating to marriage, divorce, the rights and duties of married persons, the maintenance of wives and children, and the punishment of offences against women and girls.

The Bill provides that every marriage solemnized in Singapore after the coming into operation of the Ordinance other than Muslim marriages shall be registered under the Ordinance. The Bill requires that before a marriage can be solemnized, the parties to the marriage must either give notice to the Registrar of Marriages and:

(a) obtain from him a certificate for marriage, or

(b) obtain a licence from the Minister.

The Registrar of Marriages may issue a certificate for marriage at any time after the expiration of 21 days and before the expiration of three months from the date of the notice. But before issuing the certificate for marriage, the Registrar of Marriages has to satisfy himself:

(i) that one of the parties to the marriage has been resident in Singapore at least 15 days preceding the granting of the certificate;

(ii) that both the parties are 18 years or over;

(iii) that if either of the parties is under 21 years old, the consent of the parent or guardian has been obtained or validly dispensed with;

(iv) that there is no impediment of kindred or affinity or any other lawful hindrance to the marriage; and

(v) that neither of the parties is already married under any law, religion, custom or usage to any other person.

If the parent or guardian of the minor refuses his consent to a marriage, application can le made to the Registrar of Marriages and to the High Court for the consent to be dispensed with. It is made an offence for a person to compel a person to marry against his will, or to prevent a person who has attained the age of 21 years from contracting a valid marriage. It is possible for persons who have valid grounds for objection to a marriage to do so by caveat. The validity of the objection will be decided by the Registrar of Marriages subject to an appeal to the High Court. It is made an offence for a person to make false statements or representations in a caveat.

The Minister, upon being satisfied that there is no lawful impediment to a marriage and that the necessary consent to the marriage has been obtained or validly dispensed with, may dispense with the giving of notice and issue a certificate for marriage and may grant his licence for the marriage. The Minister may also grant a licence where the female party to be married is under 18 years of age.

After a certificate for marriage from the Registrar of Marriages or a licence from the Minister has been obtained, the parties can have the marriage solemnized either by the Registrar of Marriages or by any person licensed by the Minister to solemnize marriages. Marriages may be solemnized by the Registrar of Marriages at his office, or by a licensed person at any place, for example, a church, a temple or a club. The Bill does not lay down any special requirements for the solemnization of the marriage except that it requires the parties to give their consent to the marriage freely and before at least two witnesses. Marriages can, therefore, if so desired, be solemnized according to the ceremony of the religion to which the parties belong.

After a marriage has been solemnized, it must be registered. Where the marriage is solemnized by the Registrar of Marriages, he himself will register the marriage. Where the marriage is solemnized by a licensed person, the parties to the marriage are required to register the marriage by giving the prescribed particulars to a Deputy Registrar of Marriages. Deputy Registrars of Marriages will be appointed by the Minister and may, for example, be the Head of a Church denomination or the Head of a Temple. Penalties are provided for failure to register and for giving false particulars of any marriage.

The Bill provides that all marriages solemnized in Singapore and registered under the Ordinance will be monogamous and will continue in force until dissolved by death or an Order of the Court. The Bill also provides that persons who are married whether to one or more spouses on the 2nd of March, 1960 (the date of the introduction of the Bill) will be incapable during the continuance of such marriage or marriages from contracting any valid marriage. Where a person who is married to one or more spouses on the 2nd of March, 1960, ceases to be married to such spouse or to all such spouses and thereafter marries again, he will during the continuance of such marriage be incapable of contracting any valid marriage. Similarly, where a person who is unmarried on the 2nd of March 1960, marries after that date, he will be incapable during the continuance of such marriage of contracting any other marriage.

The date, 2nd March 1960, has been chosen so as to prevent people from contracting polygamous marriages between the date of introduction of the Bill and the date of the coming into operation of the Ordinance. The Bill applies to persons who are resident in Singapore and to all persons who are domiciled in Singapore but are resident outside Singapore. The Bill also provides that such persons who, on the date of the coming into operation of the Ordinance, are lawfully married in Singapore and in the Federation of Malaya under any law, religion, custom or usage, shall, if such marriage has not been registered under the provisions of any written law in Singapore or of any enactment in the Federation of Malaya, apply within one year of the date of the coming into operation of the Ordinance to have the marriage registered. Failure to do so is made an offence, and provision is made for the settlement of disputes relating to the existence of such marriages.

The other provisions of the Bill re-enact, with amendments, provisions of the existing Ordinance in Singapore. The rights of married women in regard to their property and their person are set out in this Bill. The law relating to the maintenance of wives and children has been amended to give the wife a right to maintenance in certain cases, and also to give the Court the discretion as to the amount of maintenance to be given to legitimate and illegitimate children alike. The provisions of the existing law for the enforcement of maintenance orders, by the making of attachments of earnings orders to be served on and complied with by the employers of the persons ordered to pay maintenance, are re-enacted and extended to maintenance orders made by the High Court in divorce proceedings.

The provisions of the existing law relating to divorce are also re-enacted, but the Court is given jurisdiction to grant divorce in the case of marriages registered under the Ordinance, including customary or religious marriages celebrated before the coming into operation of the Ordinance. The Court is also given powers to exercise jurisdiction in certain cases where the wife is resident in Singapore, although the husband is not domiciled in Singapore. The grounds for divorce, nullity of marriage and judicial separation remain the same as in the existing law.

Finally, the existing law relating to offences against women and girls is re-enacted, but the provisions of the law have been strengthened and the punishments for the offence have been increased. It can be hoped with confidence that the Women's Charter will not only maintain but will also increase and safeguard the rights of women. It is felt that, because of the wide and far-reaching implications of the Bill, it should be referred to a Select Committee, and I therefore shall propose, when the Bill is read a Second time, to move that it be so referred.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.02 p.m.

Miss Chan Choy Siong (Delta): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding the Women's Charter which was introduced by the Minister for Labour and Law at the last Assembly sitting, with a view to improving the lot of women, I support the motion of the Minister. This Charter, as drafted has incorporated some of the provisions of a number of Ordinances. It has also incorporated the opinions of the people of Singapore. It has also adopted those of the existing laws in China, which have some merits. Therefore, I believe the Minister has improved this Bill, which is applicable to and practicable for the people of Singapore. This Bill, I believe, will receive the support of all sections of the people.

The fundamental principle of the Women's Charter is to enable women to have their rights safeguarded by legislation, and to give people far-reaching stability in marriages.

The marriage system provides for monogamy to enable both the husband and the wife to enjoy equal status in their matrimonial life. The previous evil custom will vanish with the coming into operation of this Charter The passing of this Women's Charter will not only enable women to be safeguarded in law but will also bring about a revolutionary change in society on a practical basis.

On this side of the House, I wish to point out that the fundamental principle of this Women's Charter is twofold. The problems of women are the result of an unreasonable society. Men take women as pieces of merchandise. The inhuman feudalistic system has deprived women of their rights. In a semi-colonial and semi-feudalistic society, the tragedy of women was very common. Men could have three or four spouses. Men are considered honourable, but women are considered mean. It was common in those days to regard having one more female in a Chinese family as being very despicable. Women in our society are like pieces of meat put on the table for men to slice.

The P.A.P Government has made a promise. We cannot allow this inequality in the family to exist in this country. We will liberate women from the hands of the oppressor. With the passing of this legislation, women can contribute their part to the country. Our country has now obtained self-government. To safeguard the stability of our parliamentary democracy, we must first of all have internal stability. We must put our society in order. Only then can we safeguard our parliamentary democracy. On the whole, the matrimonial system plays a very important part in the social order. There is a Chinese proverb, which says that if every family has matrimonial harmony, then we can control the country. The people in the old days abused marriages. They took to marriages as a schoolboy would take to playing. The rich had their way with marriages. This created disorder in the society, and the women rose against this unreasonable social system.

In Singapore under the colonial government, marriages were given a feudalistic aspect. The ideals behind marriage were not respected. In this new society there are many people who have many wives. To the rich people, their wives are their property. But to the poor, things are very difficult. These are due to the bad marriage system and it also affects our society. In order to show respect for marriage, we must have a sound marriage system. Of course, to depend only upon a law to get rid of all these bad practices and customs is very difficult, because marriages in Singapore have not been put on a proper basis for many years. It takes a very long time to educate the people to regard marriage in the proper light. Only then can we have a good and sound marriage system. Only then can we solve the problem of marriages and the relationships between men and women.

4.09 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, the principle of one man one wife is an excellent one, and I wish to compliment the Minister for Labour and Law for his attempt to implement this principle through the Women's Charter. I am glad to hear that he is trying to maintain and increase women's rights. If all the men in Singapore have the same concern for the welfare of women, probably we will not need a Women's Charter; probably it will be the men who will be the meat on the table to be sliced, and become merchandise to be purchased! However, Sir, the question is, does the Women's Charter implement this principle of one man one wife? If so, are the clauses in the Charter the best method of implementing it? Instead of restricting a man to one wife, the Charter makes it legal for the man who has got more than one wife before 2nd March, 1960, to have as many wives as he likes, provided he has not missed the boat by 2nd March, 1960!

Another fact which I find difficult to understand is that, while one clause compels people to register their marriages - it even imposes a fine up to a maximum of $3,000, or a maximum period of 3 years' imprisonment - in another clause (clause 32) it gives no legal effect to the registration. Clause 32 states:

"Nothing in this Ordinance or rules made thereunder shall be construed to render valid or invalid merely by reason of its having been or not having been registered any marriage which otherwise is invalid or valid."

Sir, if it does not give extra legal status, then why compel a man to register his marriage? I also feel, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Bill does not deserve the name of "Women's Charter". To be worthy of that name, a Women's Charter should uplift the status of women not only in one field, but in all fields, such as political, economic, social, legal, civil, educational and professional. This Charter only deals with the civil rights of women. It merely touches on one aspect of the economic right, and that is property right.

A problem which has been worrying women ever since 1948 is that of equal pay for equal work. This has not been touched on at all. Thirteen countries in the world have rectified that principle and have made it law. The United Kingdom, unfortunately, have been unable to implement totally this principle of equal pay for equal work because of economic circumstances. But they are doing it step by step and they hope to implement it completely by 1965. A Women's Charter, I feel, should at least take the first step towards the principle of equal pay for equal work, even if it is not able to implement totally the principle.

4.15 p.m.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr G. Kandasamy) in the Chair]

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Sir, Indonesia has a woman Minister for Social Affairs and a woman Minister for Labour. India has a woman in the Cabinet, a woman member on the National Planning Commission, a woman delegate to the United Nations. She is not only on one of its Commissions, but she is also a delegate to the General Assembly of the United Nations. This woman has now been elected President of the General Assembly. India also has an Ambassador to the Court of St. James. The Philippines has a woman member in the Cabinet, a woman Ambassador, a woman Consul-General, several women Judges of the Supreme Court, and prosecuting attorneys. Scores of women, Sir, are holding very high political, judicial and administrative posts in many Asian countries.

In Singapore, Sir, may I ask how many women are holding such high posts in the judiciary, administrative or Governmental departments? Why is there not even one woman Minister amongst the Ministers? Probably the answer is that the women in Singapore do not possess the necessary qualifications. If this is true, should the Women's Charter not provide education for girls and women so as to equip them for such high posts? If the Charter is worthy of its name, should it not provide opportunities for women so that they could rise to such posts?

Sir, at the U.N.E.S.C.O. Conference held in Paris on 3rd and 4th of November last year, 78 representatives of 50 non-governmental organisations recommended the following:

"Enforcement of compulsory education for girls where it exists and its institutions where it does not yet exist.

Special assistance for girls' education in the form of scholarships and grants. Organisation of vocational guidance and increase in the number of girls' vocational schools especially adapted to the needs of modern society. Organisation of seasonal courses in certain areas or of travelling schools. Use of audio-visual aids as temporary substitutes for schools. Use of propaganda to change parents' attitude to inspire girls to want an education and to favour women's participation in various professions, especially in the higher echelons."

Sir, I realise that not all those recommendations are adaptable to conditions in Singapore, but a Women's Charter should make some provision to improve the education of women - (a) to prepare them for holding the high posts which they deserve, and (b) to prepare them for showing the responsibility that they should show, and also to enable them to make wise use of the rights that have been granted to women. I believe the hon. Lady from Delta has stressed the importance of education. I associate myself with that statement. Education for women is very important, as they represent 50 per cent of the population of Singapore; and if the Government wishes to have contributions from them, they certainly must have sufficient education.

Another point in the Charter, which may cause some confusion, Sir, is the expression "lawfully married under any law, religion, custom or usage". Sir, this so-called Chinese custom or usage in marriage ranges from a grand ceremony of 12 days to a simple burning of two candles and three joss-sticks. The burning of two candles and three joss-sticks does not necessarily constitute a wedding. Sometimes this is a daily practice of obeisance in some homes. Would it not then be possible for the man, who has picked up a prostitute from a brothel and has lived with her for a short time, to be forced into marriage by this prostitute, because he has gone through this act of burning two candles and three joss-sticks probably as a daily obeisance? But, as I have said, it could also sometimes be interpreted as a wedding ceremony. Moreover, Sir, is it not possible that this prostitute may, if this Charter is passed and her marriage registered, be granted the same legal status as the honourable and legal first wife and be given the same right to the man's property as the legal wife? Surely, it is not the intention of the Charter to protect prostitutes and mistresses at the expense of the honourable legal wives.

Another confusion which the Charter might create is in cases such as this, Sir. Let us take a man who marries a Chinese girl here. Let us say he went through the 12-day grand ceremony. After 30 years, he goes to Europe and marries a young European girl. He naturally registers that marriage. Now, this Charter says he must register his other marriage or marriages. As far as that Chinese wife is concerned, she is still the legal wife. As far as the public is concerned, she is still the legal wife, and on the death of that man, she is entitled to claim part of his property. If she is registered today, she may be forced to go and live with the second wife. If she does not, then after three years the man can claim desertion and divorce her. She thus loses all her right to claim his property. Moreover, would the fact that her marriage has been registered after the registration of the marriage between her husband and that other young girl in Europe make her, who was married 30 years ago and by whom grandchildren have been born, a second wife, because her marriage has been registered after her husband's marriage with the European wife? Granted that this legislation legalises illegitimate children - which is a good thing because children should not suffer for the sins of their parents - I do hope that the Minister (I am sure he is capable of doing it) will find a better way of helping these illegitimate children in getting out of this situation and helping the women without penalising or making the first and legal wife suffer. They have suffered enough mental torment and social humiliation already.

There is yet another boomerang, Sir, which might hit the women if this Charter is passed. At present, no court of law will grant a decree for divorce on a marriage which has been solemnized by a national custom, no matter whether the husband marries or keeps 10 wives. Even if he deserts her and does not live with her, on his death she could claim his property and in the public eyes she is still his wife. She still holds that prestige provided she is not married to another man. Now, she is required to register her marriage and, as I have mentioned before, she might be forced to go and live with the secondary wives, otherwise the charge of desertion after three years might make it possible for the man to divorce her. Is this not a boomerang on the first wives? If this Charter is passed, Sir, I am afraid the mothers in Singapore will have to wear sack cloth and go into mourning - to mourn for the death of a mother's privilege and a mother's right. If any mother dares to threaten to disown her son or daughter who is over 20 years of age, if he or she marries a person she disapproves of, clause 35 makes her liable on conviction to three years' imprisonment or a fine of $3,000, or both.

Sir, this does not only deprive a woman of a mother's right but also of her human right. It would not be inappropriate, Sir, to describe this Charter as the rich women's charter, as they seem to be the only people who could possibly benefit by it. By registering her marriage, whether she be the first, second, third or tenth wife, provided she has been a wife before 2nd March, 1960, a woman will strengthen her claim on the man's property. As far as the poor man's wife is concerned, she has no property to claim. Neither is there a likelihood that her husband will take another wife, because he already finds it difficult to feed his one wife and several children, and another woman would not want to be his second wife just for the sake of starving. It is the rich man's wife who lives in fear that her husband would indulge himself in the luxury of having more than one wife. But poor or rich, a woman will be required to spend nearly $20 in registration fees, photographs, her own transport, her husband's transport and transport for the witnesses. Probably this is only a fleabite to the rich woman, especially when the bait of inheriting a big property is in view. But to a poor family, it might mean a month's pocket-money for the children, or a month's market money for the family. Why should the poor children be deprived of their pocket money, or the poor housewife of her market money so as to enable the wives of millionaires to strengthen their claims on properties? Why should the poor be exploited for the benefit of the rich? Why should they sacrifice a day's earnings to queue up at the Registration Office and spend nearly $20 just to enable the wives of millionaires to inherit a fortune? Why should a poor couple who are probably over 80 years of age, go through the inconvenience of travelling perhaps 10 miles and queuing up for a whole day for the benefit of the millionaires' wives? Who is the Women's Charter supposed to cater for? The poor masses of women, or the handful of rich men's wives? I suggest, Sir, that registration for those married before the 2nd of March be made optional. Those who feel that they are going to benefit by it can register their marriage. The Minister, I know, is capable enough of inserting clauses into the Charter so that those men who refuse to register their marriages when they should do so would not escape registration. The poor to whom it can only be a burden and nothing else should be spared the ordeal. However, if Government insists that registration for those who were married before 2nd March be made compulsory, then may I humbly suggest that the registration fee be just a token payment of one dollar instead of, I believe it to be (at present) $14, that the identity card number be used for identification purposes instead of photographs, so that a poor couple will not have to go into unnecessary expenditure, and that registration be decentralised so that the poor people can walk to the registration centres instead of travelling several miles? As many centres as possible should be organised so that the poor people need not waste their day's earnings queuing up to register.

The Women's Charter in its present form not only deprives the honourable first and legal wife of her privileged position as the wife, not only does it create some confusion by contradictory clauses, not only does it exploit the poor for the benefit of the rich, not only does it rob a mother of her prestige and rights, but it is in itself too insufficient to be worthy of the name of the Women's Charter.

May I suggest, Sir, that it be referred to a Select Committee, because the principle of one man one wife is a very important and essential principle, and its implementation will make history. We should therefore ensure that the dignity and prestige which the Charter deserves is not destroyed by rushing it through without first ensuring that all avenues have been explored to make it as near perfect as possible.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Dr Sheng Nam Chin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the principle of one man one wife as embodied in the Women's Charter. I personally do not believe that any reasonable person could oppose the idea that one man should have only one wife. The People's Action Party's stand on this matter has had the full support of the people of Singapore, as this was one of the election issues of our Party.

I would like to emphasise, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that this Bill is introduced primarily for the purpose of regularising the position with regard to monogamy. I believe that all the Members in this House support the idea of monogamy. However, there is a very big difference between believing in an idea in a rather vague sort of way, and making legal provisions to regularise such beliefs. In Singapore, it is unfortunate that the situation arises in which any marriage, unless it is conducted under Christian rites or under the provisions of the Civil Marriage Ordinance, can be regarded as a polygamous marriage. The transitional problems that arise out of legalising monogamy are therefore legend and varied, and may indeed lead to certain unavoidable or even sometimes somewhat amusing situations. For instance, in attempting to implement the provisions of monogamy, it is necessary to require all married people whose marriages have not been conducted under Christian rites or under the provisions of the Civil Marriage Ordinance to register. Every married man (unless his marriage has been registered) would be required to register his wife or wives, and thus the amusing situation arises, as mentioned by the Member for Mountbatten, wherein the Government, in attempting to legalise monogamy, has actually legalised the existing polygamous marriages in the case of the married man with more than one wife.

I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that there are many other similar transitory teething problems which the Bill as it is has created. In committing the Bill to a Select Committee, the Government is ready to listen to constructive proposals as to how to avoid such transitory difficulties. On the principle of the Bill, Sir, of one man one wife the Government is irrevocably committed.

I support the principle of the Bill without reservation.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it may seem strange that we men should rise to speak for a Charter that seeks to prevent the wandering encroachments of the male. I am saying this, Sir, not merely to gain the affection of my wife but as a general principle, which all decent-thinking men should follow.

It is generally recognised that women, though the equal of men in many respects, are still physically much the weaker sex. Women are still too exposed to the economic and moral forces - or, shall I say, the immoral forces - in this cruel world of ours. Accordingly, it becomes necessary for society to seek provisions to protect these women from the clutches of certain men. They especially need the protection of a Government which is working towards a more equal and just society.

The P.A.P. stand on this, Sir, is too well known to need repetition, it is in the Five-Year Plan. I would like to point out, however, that although many have mouthed platitudes about the rights and equalities of women, it has become the duty of the P.A.P. Government to implement what a lot of people have talked about so much. It has been left to the P.A.P. to take up the cudgels on behalf of the women, pioneer their just cause, treat them as true equals, and enshrine this equality in a concrete and tangible form, in what we have before the House today - the Women's Charter.

At this point, Sir, may I answer a couple of points raised by the Member for Mountbatten? She said a little while ago that women have not been given the opportunity for higher education so that they might be better equipped to perform higher duties like Ministership or fill higher posts in the Government. Surely, everybody knows that education in this country is free, that everybody can go to any higher seat of education to equip himself or herself so that ultimately every person will have an equal chance. In view of our present policy of giving equal treatment to all the streams and to males and females, surely that would be a proper answer to the Member for Mountbatten.

She mentioned a little while ago about registration and how it would make this Charter a rich woman's Charter because the poor woman would have to spend a lot of money going about and ultimately wasting a lot of time and spending a lot of money which she might not be able to spare. Perhaps the Member for Mountbatten is a bit too quick in prejudging the issue. Surely she knows that today we are only talking about the principle of the Bill and that the actual running of the registration of marriages will ultimately be decided upon after due consideration. Surely she is not trying to teach the Government what to do. The P.A.P. Government knows more than that.

An hon. Member: Like what?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Anyway, it will no longer be necessary now for women to fight their own battles all alone. The whole weight of the State machinery will be brought to bear on those anti-social elements who seek to enslave women to their whims and fancies. Only too often, Sir, do we hear of stories and unfortunate cases where a mother of several children is left destitute and to fend for herself and her children by some errant and irresponsible husband; or where an expectant mother finds out all too late that she has been led up the garden path, that her so-called marriage with the man is not legally binding, and that she has been tricked into the position of a subservient, clandestine mistress. The Women's Charter will help to rectify all these anomalies.

Of course, in spite of all this in the Charter, there will still be women who will be weak and who will be greedy enough to succumb to temptation; and there will be women who will lead men astray, though this in most cases is not absolutely necessary. However, as our country is just on the threshold of a new era and will need all the energy and help from all quarters - male as well as female - in the gigantic task of nation building, it might be advisable for those who are blessed with more zest and vitamins in their system than may be good for them, to re-channel their exuberant energy into other socially useful and non-population increasing types of productive occupations. The practice of the noble art of sexual sublimation will serve as a shining example to our future generations and will also lighten very much the burden of the Family Planning Association. It is a long cry, Sir, from primitive communism and polygamy as had been practised throughout the ages in various parts of the world. Customs die hard, but in all progressive countries, the one man one wife system of marriages is the recognised social order. In embodying this principle in the Statute Book, we are merely reflecting the current and modern views of society. The Women's Charter has become an all in one and a one to one Women's Bill of Rights.

Contrary to what the Member for Mountbatten has intimated, I will even go so far as to say that this Women's Charter, which is before the House today, will find, as various other charters in other parts of the world have found, the same kind of place - that is, as a permanent monument and milestone - in the history of social struggle for the betterment of the world.

Sir, I support the Charter wholeheartedly.

4.46 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe many men support many things for many reasons. The Member for Queenstown supports this Bill. So it seems he still wants to retain the affection of his wife! That is a good reason, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I can think of no better reason for supporting this Bill than that advanced by the Member for Queenstown. I do not know how many of the Members in this Assembly are placed in the position where they could have taken more than one wife if they had wished to. Speaking for myself, I am in the position where I can only take one wife, which I have already done. So the implications of the Bill, in so far as I am personally concerned, do not affect me. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps, I am in a better position to look upon this Bill in a completely objective and detached manner.

The principle of one man one wife and, if I may say so, one woman one husband, is acceptable to all of us. But what some of us on this side of the House are worried about is the manner in which this Bill has been drafted and whether some of its provisions are really in the best interests of both men and women as such. As it says in clause 3, this Bill is designed to "apply to all persons resident in Singapore and shall also apply to all persons domiciled in Singapore who are resident outside Singapore." Therefore, the scope of the Bill is to take in everyone living in Singapore, be he a Singapore citizen or otherwise; and also to take in Singapore citizens or people who are domiciled in Singapore and living outside. There is a further provision in sub-clause (2) of clause 3 which says that certain provisions "of this Ordinance shall not apply to any person who is married under, or to any marriage solemnized or registered under, the provisions of the Muslims Ordinance, 1957." The Minister has made a statement that this Bill shall in no way affect any Muslim living in Singapore. I am going to suggest to the Minister that, as drafted, it does take in some Muslims.

First of all, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill affects all persons resident in Singapore. Therefore, the Federation Muslims living in Singapore come within the ambit of this Bill, because sub-clause (2) of clause 3 exempts only Muslims who are married under the provisions of the Muslims Ordinance, 1957. Federation Muslims, married under the Muslim laws in the Federation and who come into Singapore are apparently affected by the provisions of this Bill. What the consequences are is not as intended by the Minister.

Secondly, Mr Deputy Speaker, the point I wish to touch upon is clause 45. This clause and clause 166 are the two clauses, which can probably be called the Women's Charter, because every other provision (except for the provision which says "No person shall marry more than one wife after the 2nd day of March") is already contained in the existing provisions of our law in this State. Therefore, clause 45 is worth reading out to Members of this House, because it is really the meat of the Bill. Clause 45 reads as follows:

"(1) The solemnization of marriage creates a conjugal union between the husband and wife and they thereby mutually bind themselves to co-operate with each other in safeguarding the interests of the union and in caring and providing for the children.

(2) The husband and the wife shall have the right separately to engage in any trade or profession or in social activities.

(3) The wife shall have the right to use her own surname and name separately.

(4) The husband and the wife shall have equal rights in the running of the matrimonial household and in the ownership and management of the family properties."

Now, let us examine clause 45, sub-clause by sub-clause.

"(1) The solemnization of marriage creates a conjugal union between the husband and wife". The Women's Charter is not going to create that. When a man and a woman join together in matrimony, be it holy or otherwise, it does create a conjugal union. So we really do not need the Women's Charter to tell us that.

"...and they thereby mutually bind themselves to co-operate with each other in safeguarding the interests of the union and in caring and providing for the children." I will admit that this goes beyond the law as it now exists. The law, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I understand it now, is that once a marriage takes place, it is not only the right and privilege, but it is also the duty of the husband to look after his wife and his children. The legal liability to maintain the wife and children fairly and squarely rests on the shoulders of the husband and on no other person. But the Bill, in seeking to create equality between man and woman in marriage, allows the wo man to share the financial responsibility of looking after both herself and her husband and her children. Does the Government really want to change the law in that respect? If this Bill goes through as it is, that will be the net result.

Sub-clause (2):

"The husband and the wife shall have the right separately to engage in any trade or profession"-

that is the law as it now exists, but something has been added to the clause, which says:

"or in social activities."

This apparently is some new right to be conferred on the women of Singapore - that after this Charter has been passed, they are going to have complete equality in so far as social activities are concerned. What these "social activities" are it is difficult to know. As I understand it, Mr Deputy Speaker, "social activities" might mean a number of things. It might mean the mahjong table; it might mean the dance floor; it might mean a number of things in which the wife will socially amuse herself. Any activity, which provides social amusement to any person, I understand, is a social activity. Therefore, if the wife wants to play mahjong at 8 o'clock at night, she says, "Look here, darling, I am off to a game of mahjong." I am afraid the poor husband will then be quite helpless to do anything about it, because the Charter says complete equality of rights to the mahjong table. That, as I look at it, is the interpretation of the expression "social activities". Perhaps the Minister might have some other interpretation.

Sub-clause (3) says:

"The wife shall have the right to use her own surname and name separately."

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Does the Member object to it?

Mr Rajah: No, I do not object to that, but I hope the women are satisfied and pleased with that.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Certainly!

Mr Rajah: It is a thing, which does not cost the man anything. Sub-clause (4):

"The husband and the wife shall have equal rights in the running of the matrimonial household and in the ownership and management of the family properties."

This is more serious. Quite frankly, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not quite follow the meaning of this. The implications of this sub-clause could be very drastic. Some of the phrases used are such that they cut across the whole conception of property and operation of the law of property in Singapore. "The husband and the wife shall have equal rights in the running of the matrimonial household" - now what exactly does that mean? I do not know, but it could mean a number of things.

An hon. Member: Half the bed!

Mr Rajah: Well, it could mean half the bed, Mr Deputy Speaker. It could mean many other things. The law as it now stands is that in so far as the matrimonial household is concerned, it is the husband that is the master. He is the guardian of his children. He is by law obliged to maintain the matrimonial household according to the best of his means and according to his status. If it is the intention that a person has equal rights, then it must also mean equal duties? Does it mean then, after this Charter has been passed, that women will become financially liable in equal shares? If that is the intention, I wonder what the women opposite and behind me think of it!

". . . and in the ownership and management of the family properties." "family properties" is not defined. "family properties" is a phrase which is not known in our system of law. Therefore, it is very difficult to know what it is intended to mean, because the succeeding clauses, particularly from clause 47 onwards, keep on talking about the separate property of a married woman. Any property that she has before marriage, any property that she gains by virtue of her work, or profession, or business, remains her separate property, and the man cannot touch it. So it is a bit difficult to understand how "the husband and wife shall have equal rights in the running of the matrimonial household and in the ownership and management of the family properties". Perhaps the Minister has an explanation. If he has, I shall be obliged for it, but at the moment I see no explanation for it, and I do not know how the Courts are going to interpret the phrase "family properties".

The other clause, which, I think, is part and parcel of the Women's Charter and which, in fact, really puts this Bill beyond the existing law is clause 166. This clause provides for transitional provisions regarding those gentlemen who have been fortunate enough - or unfortunate enough - to have married more than one. This clause says that all such persons must register their marriages within a year of the coming into operation of the Ordinance. As drafted, Mr Deputy Speaker, the obligation to register not only lies on the male, but also on the female. So if the female wishes to have her marriage registered, she may do so. If she does not do it, then of course she herself is liable to imprisonment for three years or to a fine not exceeding $3,000. This, of course, is the other end of the Charter, which gets her round the neck.

I am glad the Minister has agreed that this Bill should go to a Select Committee, because my own view is that, while supporting the principle of one man one wife, and one woman one husband, the conceptions in this Bill with regard to "family properties" and matrimonial household" are such that they should be carefully examined in the Select Committee with a view to finding out whether they do not cut across, or are in conflict with, the existing provisions of the law as we now know it.

The last matter on which I would like to touch, Mr Deputy Speaker, is this. Long before this Bill reached the hands of the Members of the Assembly, we, the Members of the Assembly, read the full details of this Bill in the Press. How the Press got hold of the provisions of the Bill I am not in a position to say. The Minister might be able to tell the House how it was that, in breach of the privilege of the House to look at the legislation first, the Press was able to get hold of the provisions of this Bill long before the Members were able to.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think this is a convenient time for tea. I shall suspend the sitting until 5.30 p.m. sharp.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.03 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.