WOMEN'S CHARTER BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for resumption of debate on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

5.31 p.m.

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, as one of the women of Singapore, I gladly agree with the stand adopted by the Government when moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which is to raise the status of and obtain rights for the women as we have promised. Most of the provisions in this Bill are the same as those in existing laws. In principle, we fully believe that the Bill will suit the people, because it takes care of their welfare. The P.A.P. Government has promised to fulfil the people's desire for improvement.

This is the beginning of the many steps, which we will take towards solving women's problems. In the past people have exploited women. From the eighteenth century, women's problems have been discussed again and again. After two centuries, these problems are still fresh in the minds of many people. Although for a long time in history we have tried to solve women's problems, they still remain to be solved. The reason is this. Women's problems are not easily solved. It is very difficult to solve all these problems just by passing a Bill. Only after other social problems are solved can the women's problems be solved. In a society where people are exploited, it is very difficult to solve these problems. Only after a socialist society has been established can women's problems be solved. The P.A.P. Government is trying its best to help solve these problems. These problems are, among other things, economic, educational and moral in their nature. The solving of these problems is only the first step taken towards solving the women's problems.

In Singapore and in the Federation of Malaya, it is very common to see villagers, both men and women, going out to work early in the morning and coming home late in the evening. They are very busy. Women are very important in the life of the family. They take a direct part in laborious work. They work together with the men, and they help to shoulder the family responsibilities. The important thing for them is how to share the fruits of their labour, irrespective of the problems of distance and transport. We must let them enjoy the fruits of their labour and not let them be exploited by middlemen. They must not be restricted by conventional rules and customs. Although their intellectual standard is low, they must try to improve themselves every day. What we have to do is to see that they are not exploited again, and that they must not be deprived of the facilities of education. I give this example not with the idea of saying that village women and other women workers want to have greater respect shown to them, but in order to show that women's problems are closely related to other problems.

Some women want equality with men, but they do not take part in laborious work, nor do they cultivate their abilities and their talents. The mere passing of a law cannot change people's attitude towards them. It is useless to improve the society if the women cannot improve themselves. I want to tell the House that we do not face these problems realistically - in other words, if we do not change our social system but only pass a single law in order to solve the pro- blems of women or to raise their status - then it will be completely useless.

I want to tell all women that if we do not play a positive part in the work of changing the social system, but to depend on a single Bill to solve all their problems, then the result would be that they would be looked down upon by others. We want a socialist society to exist. This is what the people of Singapore want. But before this aim can be achieved, we must help ourselves.

I must again say that I agree with the Second Reading of the Women's Charter Bill, because the introduction of this Bill shows that the P.A.P. Government has the will to help women. The women themselves must, therefore, work hard.

5.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, with the tabling of the Women's Charter Bill in front of us, I feel the wives in Singapore will give a smile and will be happy now that their welfare is safeguarded. Although there are certain quarters who say that the Women's Charter is incomplete, on the grounds that it excludes education, economic and other provisions, I feel that with the present democratic government which we have in Singapore, there are, in fact, no restrictions on women. To any extent that the women would like to achieve in the fields of education or in other spheres, they can now do so. If there is any restriction on women going to the University, I am quite positive that this Government will introduce legislation to free them from such a restriction. There is no restriction whatsoever imposed on women. Hence, in this Women's Charter Bill, there is no mention of the provisions, which were enumerated by Members on the Opposition side.

Mr Speaker, it is our experience to date that the cause of women's suffering is marriage. There is a saying that a married man will give two things. If the women do not experience hell, they will experience heaven, because there is no law, which will guarantee the freedom or the rights of women. It is only the men who taste the good things in life. Therefore, with the enactment of this Women's Charter Bill, it will not only be the men who will be in a position to obtain all the privileges, but the women also will be able to obtain the privileges.

From what we have heard just now, it has hitherto been the fate of women to be ignored by the men, because if the women, who give birth to the children, are deserted by their husbands, then they have to shoulder the responsibilities without any recourse to the proper authorities to fight for their rights. Hence I think the women should be proud today because of the enactment of the Women's Charter Bill which we are debating now.

Mr Speaker, on principle, there is no human being who practises humanitarianism who will not support the principle of one-man one wife. I think those who do not support the principle of one-man one wife, that is, a monogamous marriage, have the intention of marrying at a later date more than one wife. During the debate on this Bill, there are people who have asked about the stand of the Muslim Members on the Government side on this Bill. Mr Speaker, after a thorough investigation into the religious beliefs practised by the non-Muslims, we find that there is no mention of monogamous marriages. Without interfering with these religious beliefs, we wholeheartedly support this principle of a monogamous marriage being implemented in Singapore. At the same time, there may be people who wish to take unto themselves more than one wife, by converting to Islam, because Islam permits polygamy. It is not my intention to go deeply into these matters, because the Muslims Ordinance is the subject of study by the Select Committee, which has not yet completed its deliberations. However, I would like to emphasise, firstly, to the new generation that, according to the Islamic law, a polygamous marriage is not encouraged. On the other hand, Islam encourages its devout followers to marry only one wife. This has been underlined in the Holy Koran in the fourth chapter, third verse, which permits a man to take unto himself more than one wife but with certain specific conditions. I am quite sure that if the men are sincere and hold on to their Islamic concepts, they will not go against this rule. Among other things, this verse permits polygamy. It permits, a man to take more than one wife on condition that "if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly ...then (marry) only one". So, Mr Speaker, I feel that not only in other religions but also in the Islamic law, a certain stiff condition is imposed on a man who wishes to take unto himself more than one wife. This condition does not concern money, but it is concerned that equity and justice should be meted out to the wives. It means that if we buy a red baju for one wife, then we have to buy another red baju also for the other wife. I am citing this as an example. Similarly in other matters, if we give 50 per cent of our love to the first wife, we must give the other 50 per cent to the second wife. But this kind of equity or justice cannot be fully practised, in spite of the fact that you are anxious to carry it out. Therefore, although the Islamic law permits polygamy, if the question is considered deeply enough, it will be found that the law itself does not encourage polygamy. It has been stressed that men cannot mete out justice to more than one wife. So, Mr Speaker, I think this decision will not be in contradiction to any religious beliefs. We should not smile because we do not come under the provisions of this Women's Charter, which we are debating today. Mr Speaker, I think it is the responsibility of the man to see that his wife does not take unto herself another husband. Similarly, the husband should not take unto himself another wife, thus disappointing his first wife. In other words, a crisis does not arise only as a result of material causes, but it also results from other factors. If we are not happy, we will grow thin. Then there will be unhappiness in the home, thus bringing about chaos. With the principle of one-man one wife, I think the society in Singapore will live in peace and harmony. Those who desire women to be at their whims and fancies will be controlled by this Charter. This Charter will also affect the millionaire who cannot see a beautiful woman without desiring to take her for a wife, although he may have been married. So, he must now decide which beautiful girl to take as his wife before he marries her. Under this Women's Charter, we cannot marry one girl today and, when she is old, discard her and marry another one. This Women's Charter will safeguard women's rights so that they can live in peace and harmony in the house. When this is achieved, the children will be well cared for and looked after.

Mr Speaker, the Member for Farrer Park touched on Federal citizens of Muslim faith who are married in the Federation and who have come down to Singapore. I have stressed just now that the marriages of Islamic people are controlled by the Muslims Ordinance, which is still under study by the Select Committee, and very soon we will be in a position to know how things stand. The enactment of this Women's Charter will not interfere with any section of the community. It is enacted in the interests of peace, prosperity and well being of the people of Singapore.

Mr Tee Kim Leng (Pasir Panjang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a hundred per cent in support of the Women's Charter. The women population in this country is nearly half of the total population. In other parts of the world they also make up half of the total population. In other countries the legislators dare not overlook the rights of women. We the P.A.P. Government, claim to be a Socialist Government. The principle of socialism is to treat all alike, irrespective of race or sex. In other advanced countries, women are in a position to enjoy an equal share of the fruits of their labour. We can say that they have achieved real liberation.

Here in Singapore, although we enjoy a modern way of living with modern facilities, we lack proper legislation to safeguard the rights of women. What is more sickening is that some people are still inclined to have feudalistic ideas. Day and night these people think of marrying concubines. Others never treat women as human beings but as playthings. We have seen a small section of the people - they are petty merchants - who take too much advantage of their establishments, which employ women workers, and who eventually make these women workers their concubines. Such things do happen. They are not rare. Once the Charter is put into operation, those having this ulterior motive will not be able to achieve their aims, and the idea of marrying concubines can no longer exist in this country.

Today, we in this Assembly who are debating the Charter believe that thousands upon thousands of women outside heartily hail the Charter. They wish that this Charter will soon be approved in the Assembly. Even the Strangers' Gallery in this Assembly is crowded with people, many of whom are women who have come here to hear the debate on the Charter. Among them are the wives of some Opposition Members. They have come here to see whether their husbands are honest and faithful to them.

The aim of the Women's Charter is to deal with the immediate problem of women's rights in matters regarding marriages. As to their other rights, I think the Government will make provisions for them step by step. This means that the time will come when women will be able to enjoy equality with men in all respects.

Just now the Member for Mountbatten expressed her regrets about the Bill because it is not provided therein that women will enjoy equal opportunity for education. We understand in Singapore at present that almost every woman is able to receive an education. If the girls can prove their worth, I think their parents will be pleased to lift them up. We can see for ourselves that there tire many women taking courses of study in local Universities, and that many even go overseas for further study. Therefore, in my opinion, the argument put forward by the Member for Mountbatten is invalid. Further there are many high administrative posts in the Government service held by women officers. Therefore, in order that this Charter be approved by the Assembly, I support the motion that it be referred to a Select Committee.

6.00 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ali: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, it was not my intention at first to participate in this debate on the Women's Charter. I have been ferretted out and therefore, I have no alternative but to say something. If the Opposition Members are asked to speak and they do not say anything, it can be construed as meaning that they are irresponsible. I would like to clarify for the benefit of the Member for Bukit Timah -

Mr Speaker: The Member for Bukit Timah has been promoted to be a Parliamentary Secretary. He should be referred to as "the Parliamentary Secretary".

Inche Mohd. Ali: (In Malay): I tender my apologies to you, Sir,I do not deny that I am still young. I am not blind to the beautiful things given to us by God Almighty. Who can deny that we, as married men, are not attracted by a beautiful girl in a cheongsam walking and exposing her beautiful calfs? This Women's Charter will no doubt bring about discipline in the morals of the people. I fully understand those matters, which might result in the break-up of my family and a disgrace to society. Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that if we try to clap with one hand, there is no noise. We must use both hands. So in the case of a man and a woman. Who will then be at fault? Is it the man or the woman who is to be blamed? Who is encouraging men to marry more than one woman? Why are women prepared to accept men who are already married? Therefore, we must go slowly and carefully in this matter, because, as a follower of Islam, I do not wish to interfere with the rights of the other communities who are friends of the Malays in Singapore. There is mutual respect among the different communities in Singapore. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary who spoke just now will agree with me on the reasons for the polygamous marriages, which took place in Arabia. Muslims took unto themselves more than one wife in ancient days. Many of the women were widows. The reason for the men in those days taking more than one wife was to stop these widows from going into prostitution. Mr Speaker, Sir, that is the point I would like to bring home to the Member who touched upon the stand of the Muslim Members of this House.

I do not oppose the Women's Charter, because it will be referred to a Select Committee. Sir, I do not deny that we must pay tribute to the Government for introducing this Charter. There is provision therein which will safeguard the moral rights of women, so that they will not be victimised or treated as chattels. As a follower of Islam, I would like to stress that I respect the findings of the Government without affecting the Islamic law of this country. However, as has been explained by the Member for Farrer Park, there are many provisions in this Charter, which could perhaps be misinterpreted in relation to the Muslims Ordinance, 1957. I hope that the Minister concerned will be in a position to explain in detail whether the provisions embodied in the Women's Charter are related to the Muslims Ordinance, 1957. This is the question that has been worrying me. I myself am not in a position to know whether the Women's Charter is related to the Muslims Ordinance, 1957. However, I hope the Minister concerned will be in a position to clarify explicitly the position, so as to remove all doubts, which may exist in the minds of the people of Islamic faith.

6.10 p.m.

Dr Toh Chin Chye (Deputy Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, unmarried Members of the House do not wish to pick a quarrel with husbands who are more experienced than them. After all, bachelors should not rush in where married men fear to tread. We all learn from experience, and it is therefore to be expected that some husbands become wiser men from their experience, and some husbands become sadder men! The wise husband tonight will support the principles of the Bill. It is a foolish husband who opposes this Bill, because if he goes home tonight he will have to face the consequences!

Mr Speaker, it is not only out of gallantry to the female sex but also out of political conviction that the P.A.P. Government today has introduced the Women's Charter. Just before the elections, we announced our election programme. In the "Tasks Ahead" (Part I), we said that as part of our Five-Year Plan we shall work for the emancipation of women. In this booklet, we said:

"Women who form nearly half of our population have an important part to play in our national construction. In the first instance in order to emancipate them from the bonds of feudalism and conservatism a monogamous marriage law will be passed. Such a law however will not apply in those cases where there is a conflict with their religious beliefs."

Today, we are fulfilling that promise which we made last year.

A traveller once wrote of his impressions as he moved from West to East. He described that as he went from West to East he found that the position of women became lower and lower. In the West, women were placed on a pedestal; in the Middle East, women were kept in purdah, and in the East women became beasts of burden. Sir, it might have been true forty years ago when the man travelled in his journey from the West to the East. It is true that we take the female sex for granted out in the East. It is equally true that, in the past, girl babies were at a discount in China and it used to be the past practice that girl babies were disposed of by drowning. Times have moved and conditions have changed, and it is equally right too that we in Singapore should recognise the deficiencies and the unequal treatment, which are meted out to the opposite sex.

How will this Charter affect the women of Singapore? Sir, this Charter will not affect those who are already married under the Christian Marriage Ordinance or the Civil Marriage Ordinance. We have taken it for granted that those women who are married under these Ordinances will be fully conscious of their rights - their rights of divorce if their husbands were to commit adultery, or if they were to take unto themselves another wife. It is because many of those women who are married under these two Ordinances are the English-educated that we fail at times to see that there are thousands of other women who have not received any formal education and who have not been married under any of these Ordinances.

The past we cannot change, but it is the future that we must protect. It is the future of those unfortunate women who may have been inveigled into a hasty marriage that we must protect. But I would say this: that the Bill alone will not stop a married man from keeping a mistress. That is not possible. What is more important is that our women should achieve the economic independence to make their lives secure; that is basic.

The Bill places certain restrictions upon the happiness of a married family, but in order to ensure that this Bill will work, it is equally important, too, that our women should realise that if they were to marry solely for economic security, then that Bill, or whatever Marriage Ordinance under which they marry, is as valuable as the piece of paper on which it is printed. Basically, the security of women can only be attained if their economic independence is assured, and conditions of work are the same both for women as well as for men.

The Member for Farrer Park has gone into some detail into the clauses of the Bill. I would like to say that it is more important that we should distinguish between the principles of the Bill and the administrative acts necessary to carry out the provisions of the Bill. It may be true that in this Bill there are certain clauses, which can be improved upon. We say that we are receptive to any ideas or suggestions, which can be put forward to improve such clauses. Therefore, the Minister for Labour and Law has stated that he is willing to commit this Bill to a Select Committee and to receive any suggestions or memoranda so that all these ideas could be incorporated to make the Bill perfect.

6.18 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, as a husband, I say that the law of one-man one wife should be upheld by every right-thinking person. As a father, I say that the happiness of the home can only be achieved if there is one mother and one father. To those of us who believe that from the happiness of the home will spring the happiness of the country, it is but right that one man should have one wife. I say this, Sir, with all humility. Many a time have I said that it is always the women who suffer most. It is but right that there should be laws enacted to protect women from the inhumanity and inequalities perpetrated by some wrong-thinking men.

After having said that, Sir, I will try to examine in what way the P.A.P. can justify the claim that they are fighting for the rights of women, and that this Women's Charter is indeed a charter for women. It is strange, Sir, that according to the reckoning or estimation of the P.A.P. Government, wives are classed with prostitutes in one law. That is their estimation. Surely there could be a law for wives and a separate law for the protection of women and girls. Why should wives be put on the same plane with prostitutes in the law? I cannot understand that. They say that it is only through such a law that women will have their just rights. It would seem that women have had no such rights until the P.A.P. came into power. It would mean that women had no equal rights for education, for appointment in Government service, for almost all the things that they are enjoying now until the P.A.P. came into power. And so, during the elections they thought that with 50 per cent of the voters being females, they would do a grand thing and put out a bait to the women, "If you vote us in, we will see that you are protected." But let us examine this proposed law and see in what way women are protected.

In fact, when the newspapers gave an almost word-for-word report of this Bill, first wives of rich men were jubilant and gleefully said, "Ha! ha! See that woman there? She is no more. I am the first wife." What does this Bill say? That that woman shall be of an equal status and shall be registered as the wife! Poor misguided wife! She laughed too early! She did not try to examine what that law provides for her. If she had, she would have felt despondent, at least before such a Bill ever came out, she could have had the pleasure of looking at the second wife of her husband and saying, "You so-and-so." But today after this Bill comes into force, would she dare to do it, when that woman can say, "I have as much claim on that man as you have. And the P.A.P. Government say so."

Mr Byrne: What has the S.P.A. done?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, it is not a question of legislation. We cannot regulate the life of a man and his wife by legislation. It is education, it is training, it is upbringing. It is the home environment. It does not mean that, if we were to tell a man before he steps into the home after his work just to kiss her, that his family life would be a happy life. It cannot be laid down that way. Marriage is a contract - that is quite rightly said here. But it is a contract which demands from both parties understanding of what life means; the understanding that one must give to the other, and not what one must take as much as one can from the other. That can never be legislated, no matter what government is in power. That can only be brought about by education. And that can be brought about easily by mothers who look after the children and tell them, "This is the thing that is expected of you. When you grow up, when you marry, this is what you should do." It is not for the law to say that.

And again, the P.A.P. say that it is by registering a marriage that the wife gets protection. But, as the Hon, the Deputy Prime Minster says, even though the man registers his marriage, there is nothing to prevent him from keeping a mistress outside. The only restriction on him is that he shall not have another woman of equal legal status. That is all. So it is not because the law says, "Thou shall love thy wife" that a man will always love his wife, it cannot be done that way. I have been married many, many years, and I know that we have ups and downs in married life. But it always comes down to this, Sir: if there is real understanding, even though marriage demands sacrifice from both, life can always be happy. Yet they say, "With this law, women can indeed be free from the inequalities perpetrated by men." But what are they protected from? What I can say is that under clause 45 it has been brought up that a woman shall have a legal right and a legal claim on the man's property. Can the law prevent a man, before he dies, from saying to his wife, "Here you are. Take all this that I have. I will just give that miserable house to you in my will." Where then is the protection for the wife whose marriage is registered? All this is just trying to dangle something in front of the women and make them say, "It is a wonderful Bill!" Women, I am sorry to say, and I am sure the men will have to admit it, are so easily misguided, if men know how to use sweet words. Just like this: "Vote us in and thou shalt only have that husband to thyself." What a bluff! Sir, it says here - and I will go through it clause by clause if I may. The most important is clause 166, the gist of which says that every man and woman who have been married in Malaya before the 2nd of March, 1960, under any written law in the State must register. If my grandfather were still alive, he might have to use his walking stick just for the pleasure of saying, "Please, I am married. All my children are legitimate." Must you ask an old man to go there and register? Or a man having three wives. How do you want him to register with the wives? If he has a special preference for the third wife, he will bring her along and register. Three days later, he might register the second wife, and finally, if he remembers, he might bring his first wife. What protection is there for the first wife? And again, if the first wife has been so angered and so hurt by the husband, who has two other wives, would that first wife willingly say to the husband, "Come on, darling. Let us go and register and be married again." She might spit at the man and say, "Get out of my house! I will not see you." How then can you effect the registration of marriage of that man and the first wife? Where then is the protection for the woman? It is nothing but just this carrot.

Clause 4 (2), Sir - I have been trying to read it and trying to understand it. If I read it aright - and I think I am right and it is for the Minister to prove I am wrong - clause 4 (2) says that if I have one wife and subsequent to 2nd of March 1960, I cease to be married to her, then I can marry again under any custom before this law. And that is all right. But I cannot marry another woman up to the date of that marriage to replace my wife. That is quite right. But then if a man were to have three wives, then under this sub-clause (2) of clause 4, he can say to one of his wives, "Ah, you are a bit too old. Get out!" Subsequently he ceases to be married to that wife. Then he can, Sir, under this sub-clause, replace this wife with another one, so that he has his full complement of three. That is what this law says. He can still have his full complement of three.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Change the law!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I am glad that the Hon. the Deputy Prime Minister has said that you can change the law. I am glad that in this particular case the Opposition has pointed out the error on the part of the Government. Yet the Government says that it is looking after the interests of all women!

The solemnization of a marriage in front of the Registrar is, of course, a solemn affair, and the procedure requires both parties to give notice to the Registrar of an intention to marry. The Government knows that there are so many people in Singapore today who do not understand English, and yet these people have to give notice in English. And under clause 18, a person has the right to enter a caveat in case he feels that he has some objection to any proposed marriage. But if he does not understand English, how could he go to the notice board and read and try to find out whether his son, or his daughter or his nephew is proposing to get married to another person? Or how can a woman find out from the notice board that her husband is now trying to get married again under this law? I would suggest, Sir, that it would be very helpful to the people if other languages could be used, not only English.

Sir, there are some inconsistencies in the Bill, and I will not touch on them because the Bill is going to a Select Committee. But I would like to touch on the principles while I am here. Clause 23, sub-clause (7) - this is the solemnization procedure. The couple appear before the Registrar with two credible witnesses. The Registrar then says something and the parties shall answer in the affirmative. But further down, because the ceremony is a solemn one, it is required that each party must make a solemn declaration. And here again it is in English. But sub-clause (7) says, so long as someone explains to the two contracting parties in the language they understand, that should be enough. They need not have to make the declaration in the language that they understand. Surely it is the intention to make it a solemn affair, to make it binding, to make both parties feel that that is a very important event in their lives, and that they should be called upon to make the declaration in the language that they understand.

The Member for Mountbatten has touched on clause 32. This is a bit complicated, and I find it difficult to understand when a marriage is valid and when it is not valid. It does not mean that it is valid if it is registered. It can mean that although it is registered it can still be invalid. And what is the purpose of registration? If after registration it does not make it valid, other processes have to be gone through before one can claim that a marriage at the Registrar's office is a valid marriage.

Now clause 39 says that a couple can get married by a person who holds a licence. He need not be the Registrar or a Deputy Registrar. But then under clause 39 (1) , Sir, it is an offence if that person knowingly solemnizes the marriage - I read paragraph (c) Sir -

"after the expiration of three months from the date of the notice of marriage given under section 13 of this Ordinance,".

What is required under the Bill is that a couple proposing to get married shall give notice to the Registrar. The Registrar shall put up the notice on the notice board for at least three months. But if the Registrar is satisfied, after 21 days, that that marriage shall take place, he can, but before the expiration of three months, issue a certificate for marriage. So if the Registrar were to issue a certificate for marriage, say, about 80 days after the date of the notice, and the couple had to make arrangements for the marriage to take place, and the date of the wedding exceeded the three-month limit, how is the poor person who is licensed to solemnize the marriage to know that he will be committing an offence if he solemnizes it because the three months' period has expired? I think what is necessary for the man who holds a licence to solemnize the marriage is that it should be only necessary for him to receive a certificate for marriage. So long -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is probably going against the Standing Order which deals with the Second Reading of the Bill. I will read the Standing Order. It is Standing Order 67, paragraph (2): It says:

'On the order for the second reading of a Bill being read, a motion may be made, "That the Bill be now read a second time", and a debate may arise covering the general merits and principle of the Bill.'

The hon. Member is going into details. Certainly to my mind they are details, which can be debated in Committee. Those details do not, to my mind, come under the definition of "general merits and principle of the Bill". If I were to allow the hon. Member to continue, we would more or less be resolving ourselves into a Committee.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I am obliged to you. Sir. The most important clause of this Bill which the public are concerned about is clause 166 - the compulsory registration of marriages, which were not performed under any written law. They feel that this law, if it is going to achieve anything is only to protect those women who are the wives of rich men or men with some property. The majority of married couples in Singapore belong to the poorer class of people. There is, therefore, no question of property involved. There is, therefore, no question of the wife wanting to claim the property of the husband when the husband dies. In cases of this kind, in poor families, when the husband dies, the wife will have to pawn something that she has in order to have the husband buried. Therefore, Sir, there should be no compulsion about registration. To those women who feel that they should have their rights protected, it should be open to them to bring their husbands along and register. There is no need for a poor farmer to bring his poor and aged wife to the Registry just for the pleasure of having a marriage certificate. To them their marriage is not only legal, it is also sacred. That piece of certificate is not going to make them any the happier. Therefore, I would urge upon the Government to drop this question of compulsory registration. But if they do insist on compulsory registration, then it is necessary that the fee should be a very small one so that everybody can afford it.

There is in this clause no grace given to a married couple to register if a man is sick in bed and could not get out of bed within one year to have his marriage registered. Or if a man is away from the country on business, on study, or on something else, and cannot be back in time within one year to have his marriage registered, then he is going to be punished. I submit, Sir, that there should be a proviso whereby cases of this kind can be given grace.

6.44 p.m.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to speak on the motion, but after having endured for some considerable time the irrelevancies and trivialities from the Member for Cairnhill -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the Hon, the Minister should decide what the Speaker himself ought to decide, and that is, whether or not the matters are irrelevant or trivial. Perhaps if the Minister will continue the debate on the general merits and principle of the Bill, he will be relevant.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, I merely intended to make the point that I was moved to making this speech as a result of the remarks made by the Member for Cairnhill.

At the beginning of his speech, it was clear to me that the Member for Cairnhill was suffering from a peculiar kind of obsession, and that is, how the Bill would affect the status of first wives vis-a-vis secondary wives, in the course of his address, he referred to this problem on no less than three occasions. First, he thought that the first wives who might have considered getting some benefit from the Bill would be sadly disillusioned, because all wives would be treated equally under the Bill. Then he expressed the view that the man may want to register only one of the younger wives and neglect the older wives. And finally, even when he came to the question of the language used, he was concerned lest the wife who could not read English would be unable to find out what the intentions of her husband were in regard to taking another wife.

Sir, the Member for Cairnhill must have been moving for a long time in polygamous circles to be so well acquainted with social problems confronting such families. And, of course, as we all know, his Party has the support of many millionaires who are habitually maintaining large families with several wives. But it is not the purpose of the Women's Charter to give protection to wives or the first wife or families of millionaires. If this problem is still exercising the mind of the Member for Cairnhill, perhaps he can move a private Bill designed to protect the interests of first wives of millionaires. But the Women's Charter tries to bring about more than just monogamous marriages. In other parts of the Bill, there is a procedure set out for the regulating of disputes, for the protection of the rights of children, and for divorce. By and large, this does represent a major advance in social legislation, not only in this country, but perhaps in the whole region of South-east Asia. 1 do take grave objection to the reference by the Member for Cairnhill that this Bill is no more than the carrot dangled before the donkeys. This may be -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the Member for Cairnhill went so far as to refer to women as donkeys. I think he just said it was carrot-dangling.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the implication was fairly clear, particularly when he strengthened his illusion by symbolic gestures. However, Mr Speaker, I do want to make the point that in introducing this piece of legislation, the P.A.P. Government is not carrying out a vote-catching manoeuvre. We promised this legislation to the electorate and we were moved to do so by deep and profound convictions as to how a good society should be regulated.

Mr Speaker: Mr Byrne, in reply?

6.50 p.m.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must confess that the Member for Tanglin has gone up very high in my estimation on his performance this evening. We have heard words of wisdom flowing from the lips of his colleagues, and although he is usually attracted by such debates, he has, on this occasion, thought fit -

Mr Speaker: Order. It is true that I have been away from this Chair for some time, but I have a list of Members who spoke and I cannot see the name of the Member for Tanglin on my list. I do not think that the conduct of the Member for Tanglin warrants remarks of that nature.

Mr Byrne: But he has hitherto got himself involved in such debates, so I actually have to compliment him on the great sagacity which he has shown this afternoon in remaining silent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during this debate, we have heard from the Members opposite that this Bill, far from being the Charter that it claims to be, is just a fake and a sham, just a gimmick on our part - a carrot that we dangle before the women electorate of the State. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the Member for Mountbatten express great distress that there was no expression of our belief that women should get equal pay with men, that women should have the same social advantages as men. We can understand her distress, since everybody knows that she is the Chairman of the Pan-Pacific Women's League, which is an agency of the United Nations. But in that situation she has lost sight of the important thing that this Bill really does for the women of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that the greater majority of the population in Singapore are Chinese and that, by their personal law, they are able to contract polygamous marriages. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is making a very great change in the personal lives of the greater majority of our citizens. It marks a complete break from the past and it is a big step forward. And it is just for that reason that we have thought it important that we consider this piece of legislation as something outside the ordinary stream of legislation that we consider it to be, in the real sense of the word, a Charter for the women of our State.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have considered this to be a Charter for these reasons: One, that it makes a great change in the personal law of the greater majority of our citizens; the next thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that this Bill seeks to place on one common register all marriages which take place in our State. Hitherto, there have been marriages, which have been registered on a special register governing the registration of Christian marriages. There have also been other registers for monogamous marriages which have been contracted under the Civil Marriage Ordinance. We propose in this Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, to bring on to a common register all marriages in future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the laws affecting women and children are spread widely throughout our legislation, and it needs the training and experience of a lawyer to find one's way through that mass of legislation. We thought that this would be an excellent opportunity to collect all such legislations together, to improve on them as far as we can, and then put them in this one compendious and comprehensive piece of legislation which we have thought fit to call the Women's Charter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there have been a lot of criticisms on various clauses in this Bill. They arise not because there are faults in this Bill, but because the Members opposite have not given this Bill the attention that it really deserves. Let me deal with the criticisms that have been made of the various clauses of this Bill. Let me take what the Member for Mountbatten has said.

She has expressed great surprise that although under clause 166 of this Bill all polygamous marriages which have taken place before 2nd of March are required to be registered why is it then that clause 32 provides that:

"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."

Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be quite impossible for any legislation to provide that when a marriage is registered, it must necessarily therefore be a valid marriage; and that if a marriage is not registered, then it follows from that that it is not a valid marriage. Mr Speaker, Sir, touching on this point, it looks as if the Member for Mountbatten has failed to understand clause 166 of this Bill. In that clause it is clearly stated that where there is a dispute as to a marriage, then that dispute can be referred to the Registrar for a decision; and if the party is still dissatisfied, then he or she can take the matter further to the High Court for a decision. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have written those provisions into the law to provide for a case like this, where, say, a husband brings a wife to be registered under the provisions of this clause. It may turn out that, in fact, he is not married to her. A case might also arise where a man might bring his second wife to be registered. The first wife might challenge the marriage of the second wife. Both these cases could be challenged under these provisions of the law, so that in either case, if there has been a challenge and if the matter in dispute has been decided by the Registrar in the first instance, or by the High Court Judge on appeal, then there would have been a decision made as to the validity of each marriage. This is provided for in clause 166. So that is the reason why we have found it necessary to provide that, unless the procedure that is open to the parties when there is a dispute under the provisions of clause 166 is followed, registration as such does not under clause 32 in any way affect the validity or invalidity of a marriage.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Mountbatten also mentioned the case of a man who is already married under Chinese customary law leaving this country and going abroad and marrying a young European girl. She asked, what would be the position of the principal wife in that case? Mr Speaker, Sir, if that should happen, this law itself would safeguard the position of the principal wife. All that she has to do is to get herself placed on the register and she will be recognised as that man's wife under the provisions of clause 166.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Mountbatten also referred to clause 35 of the Bill. She says, "Woe betide all mothers here in Singapore once this clause becomes law. They will lose possession of all their daughters and you can expect the worst once this clause is enacted into law." Let us look at this clause, Mr Speaker, Sir. What does it say? It says:

"Any person who uses any force or threat-

(a) to compel a person to marry against his will; or

(b) to prevent a person who has attained the age of twenty-one years from contracting a valid marriage,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to [penalties]."

What is wrong with that clause? Should it not be enacted as law that any person who forces or threatens any person to marry against his or her will should be subject to penalties? Surely that is a reasonable proposition. It does not deprive mothers of the custody of their daughters. It says:

"Any person who uses any force or threat-

(b) to prevent a person who has attained the age of twenty-one years from contracting a valid marriage,

shall be guilty of an offence...".

If a daughter is 21 years old, she has got the right to decide her own future. This law provides for parental consent in the case of marriages of minors who are between the ages of 18 and 21. Clearly, the Member for Mountbatten has shown that she has not taken the trouble to read the provisions of this Bill. If she had done so, she would never have made that suggestion to this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there have been suggestions that, as a result of clause 166, the position of principal wives is going to be depressed, and mistresses, concubines and prostitutes are going to reap the benefit from this legislation. Sir, surely that could not be submitted to be so by the Members opposite if they had really taken the trouble to read this Bill. I have explained to them just now that under clause 166, it is already provided that where the parties appear before the Registrar and if there is any dispute as to whether they were, in fact, married, that issue of fact can be tried by the Registrar. If they are still dissatisfied with the decision of the Registrar, it goes to the High Court on appeal. All that is provided for in this legislation.

Then the Member for Mountbatten started talking about the fees, and soon. She said, in all sincerity, that she believed that the Government was going to charge a fee of $20. I do not know where she got that information from. We are still considering these matters. These are matters of detail, but I am very surprised to know that she has a fixation in her mind that the fee charged is going to be $20.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will go on to consider the objections of the Member for Farrer Park. He has taken exception to one clause of the Bill - clause 3 (2). He says that the exemption here only applies to Muslims who are married under the provisions of the Muslims Ordinance, 1957, implying that it would be possible under this Bill for Muslims, who are not married under the provisions of that Ordinance, to contract a marriage under this Bill. Mr Speaker,. Sir, if he had taken the trouble to look at clause 16 of this Bill, he will find that before any marriage can be solemnized, it will be necessary for the parties to produce a certificate of marriage. It is stated there what the conditions are before a certificate of marriage is issued. One of the conditions there is that they must swear a declaration to the effect:

"that neither of the parties to the intended marriage is married under any law, religion, custom or usage to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is proposed to be contracted:".

If a Muslim who was married not under the provisions of the Muslims Ordinance but under the provisions of the Muslim law in the Federation comes here and tries to contract a marriage, he would have to swear a declaration that he is not already married under any law, religion, custom or usage. If he makes a false declaration, then he is subject to penalties for doing so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park has said that he has given this Bill very close scrutiny and he has decided now that there are only two new clauses in this Bill. He has mentioned that these two new clauses are clauses 45 and 166. Sir, we of the P.A.P. Government are not people who try to hide things from the public. With this Bill we have taken the trouble to publish a comparative table showing the sources from which we have obtained the various clauses of this Bill. If the Member for Farrer Park had taken the trouble to count the clauses here which we have acknowledged to be new, then he would have found that they all add up to 13 new clauses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, he has dealt particularly with clause 45. He says that clause 45 is making a radical change in the law and is unknown in any legislation. I would advise him that clause 45 is taken from the Swiss Civil Code and it has been considered by eminent jurists before. And he says, "Look at clause 45 (1). Now everybody knows that the duty of a husband is to maintain his wife. And here it says that the duty for caring and providing for the children is now placed on the shoulders of both husband and wife." Mr Speaker, Sir, it is true, in our experience, that when a husband is unemployed or is unable to work, the duty of maintaining that home falls on the woman, particularly if she is able to work and she is, in fact, working. What is wrong with that? As far as the duty of the husband to maintain his wife is concerned, we have strengthened the law, so that if the hon. Member had only taken the trouble to look at clause 62 of the Bill, he would have seen the way in which we have strengthened that duty. We have said that if a husband has ill-treated his wife and his children and he has been convicted for doing so; if he has deserted his wife; if he has neglected to provide reasonable maintenance for her and his children; if he has treated her or any of his children with cruelty; if he is a habitual drunkard; or if he is living in adultery with another woman; he would then be liable to maintain his wife. Under the present law, as everybody knows, before a woman can get a maintenance order against her husband, she would have to prove her case; and if the husband says to the Court, "In spite of what has happened, I am prepared to take her back," the moment he does that, then she is deprived of an order of maintenance. Now we have changed the law here. We have given her an absolute right to maintenance in these circumstances. Surely we have not in any way changed the duties in matrimonial relationships. The hon. Member does not follow clause 45 (2) when he asks, "Why should it be that the husband and the wife shall have the right separately to engage in any trade or profession or in social activities?" Mr Speaker, Sir, he asks, "Well, what do "social activities" mean?" Now if a wife wants to play rnahjong, surely the playing of mahjong is a social activity. I suggest that is just a frivolous argument. Although the husband and wife are associated in a matrimonial home, they are individuals and therefore they can, as individuals, engage in trades and professions. They form a family unit and they are also associated as a family unit in society. All that this provision says is that it would not be right for a husband to place restrictions on the wife taking part in social activities. What is wrong with that? That would be a very sensible thing to introduce in a Bill like this, particularly in a Chapter, which deals with the rights and duties of husband and wife.

The hon. Member says that, as clause 45 (3) reads:

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

he has no quarrel with that.

He goes on to clause 45 (4) and he says that that introduces a novel provision of law. The sub-clause reads:

"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."

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park obviously does not pay due regard to the provisions of clause 48 of the Bill. Clause 48 re-enacts what is the present law, that whatever a woman has which belongs to her before she marries continues to be her separate property on marriage, and that after marriage, if she engages in any trade or occupation or employment and acquires new property, that property which she has acquired after marriage shall continue to be her own separate property. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are situations where a husband and wife can acquire family property, and it would not be right for either of them to regard it as property which is their own and distinct from the family property. That is the sort of thing that this clause deals with. Mr Speaker. Sir, this is the sort of criticism that we have from the Front Bench opposite.

The Member for Cairnhill has also not treated the provisions of this Bill in the way that they ought to have been treated. He has charged the Government with introducing legislation, which will enable prostitutes to be classed in the same category as married women. Surely, as a responsible member of the community, he could never have made such a charge if he had taken the trouble to read the provisions of this Bill. He has said that education, and not law, will achieve the purposes that we have in mind. Mr Speaker, Sir, why was it necessary then that we should have these provisions in clause 166? Are we trying to inflict hardship on our women? Are we going to make things more difficult for them? If we are going to introduce a law governing monogamy, the only way that we can introduce it and be sure that there is monogamy is to provide, at the same time, a system of registration for all existing marriages. We have heard the Member for Mountbatten say that the polygamous marriages which have taken place under local Chinese custom are of various kinds. She has referred to some as "joss-stick marriages" and she has called others more important marriages.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if we legislate that from the 2nd of March any person who has previously been married cannot take unto himself a second wife, and merely legislate it in that way, what guarantee have we that there would be monogamy in our State? It is always a disputable question whether a person who has been married to four or five wives under the local Chinese custom would consider those marriages to be binding marriages. A rich man with four or five wives might, if he is not required to register, very well contract a marriage under this law. He may say, "Well, I do not regard those marriages as marriages at all. They were joss stick marriages." We cannot have that situation happen. I do agree, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it would be necessary for us to make provision for the registration of these marriages in such a way as not to cause any hardship to the community. That is a matter of detail, which the Government is looking into very seriously now.

There is also the period of grace referred to by the Member for Cairnhill. We realise that the period of one year may be too short a period. That is why we have thought it necessary that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, so that provisions like this could be looked at with a view to improvement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has also referred to clause 4, sub-clause (2) of the Bill. I really fail to understand what difficulty he has seen in this clause. All that the clause says is that on the 2nd of March, say, a man has been married under local Chinese custom to one or more spouses. Then after that date he suddenly ceases to be married to any such spouse or spouses. And if he contracts a marriage after that date, then that marriage will be a monogamous marriage. That is all that it says, and that is what it must say. It is as simple as all that. What is the difficulty? It is so reasonable and so logical and so sensible that I cannot see any difficulty in it myself. One cannot see any difficulty unless one wants to see the difficulty in this clause.

On clause 23 (7). This is the form of the marriage ceremony. The Member for Cairnhill finds difficulty in understanding why it is necessary that if the parties do not understand the English language, it will be necessary for the English language to be interpreted to the parties. Is this a difficulty? If these declarations and these forms are to be used, it will be necessary to explain them fully to those who participate in this ceremony in the language they understand. That is all that it provides.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park asks me to explain to this House why it was that long before this Bill was introduced to the House (the words are "long before") he had read the main provisions of this Bill in the local newspapers. If he had only taken the trouble to look at clause 4 (1) he would have read the following:

"Every person who on the 2nd day of March, 1960, is lawfully married under any law, religion, custom or usage to one or more spouses shall be incapable, during the continuance of such marriage or marriages of contracting a valid marriage under any law, religion, custom or usage with any person other than such spouse or spouses."

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill was introduced on the 2nd of March. Those newspaper reports appeared on the 1st of March. This Bill makes it an offence for any person who was already married under, say, Chinese customary law, to marry again after the 2nd of March. It was necessary that great publicity be given to this fact, because this Bill is making a very important change in our law. The operative date was the date on which this Bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly, and it was necessary, therefore, that advance notice of that be given. It is the practice in this Legislative Assembly not to publish details of Bills unless and until copies of the Bill are first circulated to hon. Members. But in this case, it was quite an important announcement and it was very necessary that the public should have had advance notice of the fact. And the advance notice was the day before - not "long before", as the Member for Farrer Park stated here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are matters, which I would otherwise have dealt with in Select Committee, but I have been forced into the position where I have had to deal with these representations, when the principle of the Bill is debated. I would say again, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if they had considered this Bill to be a very important Bill, then they would not have adopted the attitude they had adopted when this Bill was under debate. In the past, we have introduced other Bills and have been accused of springing surprises on them - introducing amendments just before the Bill was to be debated. But in this case, the Bill has been in their possession since the 2nd of March, and they have had ample time to study it. And if they had really taken the trouble to read this Bill and understand it, I am sure they would not have dealt with it in as light-hearted a manner as they had done this afternoon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with due respect, I would say that the Government do not claim that they are perfect and that they are introducing a perfect Bill. But we are trying very hard to do something for the people of Singapore. We are castigated and are said to be dangling carrots before the electorate. But we have been in politics only very recently. The Members opposite, Mr Speaker, Sir, have been in politics for quite a long time. Now, if they had any regard for the rights of women, they would have done this on their own before. Because of their past neglect, they jumped upon us just now. We are interested in doing what they had failed to do. I do say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Bill is an important piece of legislation. It will do for the women in our community what no other piece of legislation can do. It is no use thinking in terms of high-sounding phrases in legislation if the most important thing is not done first, and that is, if a woman who is the mistress of her home and queen of her home is made to share that home with another woman. If that is so and if that situation is allowed to continue, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is meaningless and sheer nonsense to talk about the rights of women. And I do say that we are, in fact, asking the House today to approve a very important piece of legislation which we can, in all modesty, claim to be a charter for the women of Singapore.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. -[Mr Byrne].