INHERITANCE (FAMILY PROVISION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.37 p.m.

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this Bill seeks to introduce into Singapore the provisions of the English Inheritance (Family Provision) Act of 1938. As this Bill will change the existing law and will affect the right of a person to will away his property as he likes, it is proposed to refer it to a Select Committee so that full consideration can be given to its provisions.

Sir, the former English law did provide for family provision in giving the wife a right to dower, by virtue of which if the wife survived her husband she became entitled to an estate for life in a third of all her husband's freeholds of which she has been seized at any time during the marriage. As this right to the wife attached even though the husband alienated the land, it gave rise to a great deal of practical inconvenience and was eventually abolished by the Dower Act of 1833. After that there was nothing to stop a man (or a woman with respect to her separate property), from devising and bequeathing his whole estate to charity or to a complete stranger and leaving his widow and children penniless. It was to prevent this evil that the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act of 1938 was enacted. The Act did not cast upon the testator any positive duty to make reasonable provision for his dependants, for it would be impossible to impose any such obligation, but it provides that if he fails to do so the Court may order such reasonable provision as it thinks fit to be made out of the estate for his dependants as defined in the Act. The Act was further amended in 1952 to extend it to cases of intestacy, as it was felt that the general laws of intestacy might leave a child inadequately provided for. The provisions relating to family provisions appear to have worked well in England and it is proposed to introduce them into Singapore.

Sir, the Muslim Law contains provisions to safeguard the position of widows and children in cases of intestacy. As there is already existing provision in section 41 of the Muslims Ordinance, 1957, to enable the court to vary the will of a Muslim testator to make provision for his heirs, it is therefore not pro, posed to extend the legislation to Muslims.

The Bill has been considered by the Singapore Bar Committee and has been agreed to by them.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first measure, to my knowledge, that this Government has introduced in deference to Opposition sentiment, and I would like to say that I welcome it and I am particularly pleased that the Government is conscious of the impact that this will have on our people for generations to come, and the need therefore to refer it to a Select Committee. It is my earnest hope that public-spirited citizens and organisations will be made conscious of the importance of this measure, will seek to study it and will make representations. It is an important Bill to meet a social evil whereby a man could deprive, by his will, his dependants from adequate support.

Though I welcome the Bill, I am frankly dubious as to certain aspects and the way they might work out, and I am, as I have said, glad that further consideration in Committee will be given to this Bill and, I hope, given to it in a completely non-partisan spirit.

5.43 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, first I want to echo what the Member for Anson has said about organisations and woman leaders in Singapore being made conscious of the importance of this Bill, and I hope the Government will also invite them to express their views before the Select Committee as they did on the Women's Charter.

The second point is that I would like to remind the Government that when the Member for Anson and I brought up the question in connection with inheritance, that when a man dies intestate his wife inherits only a portion of the property, whereas when the wife dies intestate the husband inherits all her property, the Government did promise to put it right. I hope this will be remembered during Select Committee.

The other promise was that when a man dies intestate and without children, the wife inherits half and the other half goes to the State. The Government also said it would do something about it when they do introduce a new Inheritance Bill to see that justice is done to women. So I would just like to remind the Government of their two promises and I also hope that women organisations will be given a chance to air their views.

5.45 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome this Bill but there are certain aspects of it which are, in fact, troubling me, and on which I had wished to speak this afternoon. But looking at the Order Paper, I found that the Government is going to refer it to Select Committee and so I will not raise the point this afternoon.

The Minister has said that the Bar Committee has cleared it, but there are certain legal aspects of the Bill which are, in fact, troubling me, and I do hope that when the Bill is referred to Select Committee, the Bar Committee will be invited to come and answer certain questions which could arise on this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just give some guidance? If the Member for Farrer Park wishes to touch upon certain aspects of the Bill in order to guide the Select Committee, then I think this is the appropriate moment, because we cannot presume that the Member for Farrer Park will be nominated to the Select Committee. Mr Rajah.

Mr Rajah: Sir, there are one or two points which, with your permission, I wish to touch upon.

It is clause 3 of the Bill - that is the important clause of the Bill. The Bill deals with the net estate, the net estate being the estate less debts and funeral and testamentary expenses and estate duty as on the date of death of the deceased person. Now, the intention of the Bill is, in so far as the family is concerned, to protect the husband or the wife and the children. There is nothing in the Bill which will preclude a person from assigning all his property away to somebody before his death. If the intention of the Bill is social, and it wishes to protect the wife and child, that position could be defeated, it seems to me, under this Bill by a man assigning his property away two days before his death, because the property which is affected by this Bill is the net estate on the date of his death. That is the first point.

The second point could be this. A husband during his lifetime might have made adequate provision for his wife and children and die intestate, but under the provision of clause 3, it would appear that .a further provision would become necessary for the wife and the children. This is the second point.

The third point which readily occurs to my mind is a daughter who has not been married or who is by reason of some mental or physical disability incapable of maintaining herself. Supposing such a daughter is married and dies with her husband, what then is the position?

Sir, these are what strike me as being some of the matters which could arise if the Bill were passed in its present form. I may be wrong, Sir, but these are matters which readily arise to my mind at the moment.

Mr Byrne: I will certainly take note of what the Member for Farrer Park has said.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

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