WOMEN'S CHARTER (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Culture and Social Affairs (Inche Othman Bin Wok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill makes a number of significant amendments to the Women's Charter, 1961. The Explanatory Statement to the Bill sets out in detail the reasons for the amendments, and for this reason and also because it is proposed to refer this Bill to a Select Committee if its Second Reading is approved, I do not propose to deal in detail with the amendments proposed. I shall only confine myself to a few of the amendments which affect the principle of the legislation.

The purpose of the Women's Charter, 1961, was to bring all marriages (other than Muslim marriages) solemnised in Singapore within the ambit of the Charter, so that all such marriages in Singapore will be solemnised and registered under the Charter. This clearly has not been achieved, for there are still a large number of Chinese customary marriages which appear to be solemnised outside the Ordinance. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Ordinance to make it clear that Chinese customary marriages will come within the provisions of the Ordinance and that they must be solemnised and registered under the provisions of the Ordinance. Let me at once say that it is not the intention of the Government to prevent such customary marriages from taking place, as it is not the intention of the Government to prevent Christian or Hindu marriages from being solemnised in Singapore. All that will be required will be that a person, before going through a Chinese customary marriage, should comply with the provisions of the Ordinance relating to freedom to marry, age and consent. All persons will be required to obtain a certificate for marriage under the provisions of the Ordinance, but once he has obtained this, he is free to have his marriage solemnised or performed or carried out in any way he likes.

The second major amendment in the Bill relates to the rights of married women as regards their property. The Bill seeks to make it clear that married women may deal with their property in the same way as men.

The Bill next seeks to bring the law relating to divorce in line with recent legislation in other Commonwealth countries. When the Women's Charter was enacted, the provisions of the Divorce Ordinance were incorporated in it without any substantial amendment. The law relating to divorce has, however, moved forward and the tendency in many countries is to recognise what is known as the "breakdown" principle - that is, that if a marriage is broken down and the Court is satisfied that the parties can no longer live with each other, then it is right that the marriage should be put an end to. This principle, Mr Speaker, Sir, which has been accepted in Australia and New Zealand and in many European countries, is adopted in the amending Bill. The Bill also seeks to provide more opportunities for reconciliation before a divorce is decreed.

The Bill also provides that the children of void or voidable marriages should be regarded as legitimate, as it is not their fault that their parents have contracted the void marriage.

It is hoped that the Bill will be welcomed as a further step in the improvement of the position of women and children in our family law. The rationale of the Bill is that the happiness of the family should be fostered by the law, but when all efforts fail, it is better for the parties to part rather than to be forced to live together in unhappiness and strife.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Women's Charter was formulated in 1961 and passed in that year. By its enactment, we can understand that the purpose is to enhance the position of women in Singapore, to enable them to secure their rightful place in society - equal to men - and to enjoy the same rights and privileges as men. Since its introduction and during the period of its enforcement, we have found that certain provisions in the Ordinance cannot give effect to the purpose that we intend. As these provisions do not achieve the purpose, it is, therefore, proper and correct that the Minister should introduce amending legislation.

But there is something in this amending Bill which I regret very much. The Minister has omitted a point which is more important than what he has said. This is in relation to the representation which the previous Minister received from the Women's Section in the P.A.P. The representation stated that the Women's Charter, in addition to enabling women to secure their equal and rightful place in Singapore, should also eradicate the practice of polygamy - the practice of having three wives and four concubines - which has caused disharmony in the family and disturbance and disquiet in our society. According to the law then prevailing, certainly if any one wanted to marry he had to register under the Women's Charter to get his marriage legalised before it was recognised by the law. Then would the practice of monogamy be effected. But we have found that there is a big loophole. This is in regard to the definition of the word "mistress". A man can have many mistresses outside his family. If he does not register, then in the eyes of the law he cannot be punished, and this invariably constitutes a system of polygamy. From the time when the Women's Charter was enforced up to now, we have found that the number of divorces has been quite high. This has been due mainly to such a practice as I have said, that is to say, though women have nominal protection under the law, the law has, in effect, not provided actual protection for them, because their husbands could cohabit with many mistresses outside their homes. As a result, it leads to disharmony in the family which in turn leads to divorces. All this is because of the definition of the word "mistress" which is not clear.

I would like to point out something about clause 28 in the amending Bill before us today. This appears on page 8, line 35, in which connection the Minister has mentioned divorce just now. When a couple have been married for some time and find that they cannot live together, they separate. During their period of separation, they may hope to resume their harmonious relationship and live together again. But this amending Bill provides that if after seven years of separation they cannot hope to be united again, then their separation can be confirmed. Arising from this provision, the pretext, "I am not satisfied and cannot live happily with my wife," can be used as an excuse for divorce to marry someone else. During this period of separation the law does not provide the couple with any means to reconciliate or to be reunited. So I feel that this provision in the Bill is not quite satisfactory, that if a husband, whose marriage was registered under the law, finds that he cannot live together with his wife again after a period of 7 years, he could ask for a divorce. Why should a period of seven years be provided? That is not quite correct. We should have a proper and more effective provision in the law to prohibit or restrict the man from getting more mistresses outside the home. As it is, the Women's Charter will be ineffective. In other words, we want to implement the law to protect women and enhance their position in society, and generally to improve society as a whole. This amending law is providing men with more opportunities to evade their rightful duties to their wives, which will worsen the women's position. Is this in keeping with the P.A.P. policy as promised to the electorate in 1959? I do not agree with this provision in clause 28, and I hope the Minister will reconsider it when the Bill is in Select Committee, in the hope that women can enjoy their rightful place in the new society now that Singapore has advanced from self-government to independence. In this new era women should be enabled under the aegis of the Government to develop their strength and ability to serve the country and contribute to the betterment of society.

6.18 p.m.

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, although I am physically occupying a seat customarily reserved for the Opposition, let me assure you that my heart is with the Government. In this respect, I am sure I speak for all my colleagues on this side of the House. It is fitting that I should now rise to support the Government on this Bill.

The Women's Charter is one of the noted pieces of social legislation introduced by the Government. It seeks to protect the rights and interests of women and children in the Republic and to abolish polygamy. When it was introduced in 1961, it demolished, as it were, by a stroke of the pen, the polygamous haven that was Singapore, no doubt to the regret of many a polygamist! The Charter has been in existence for the last five years, and during this time certain loopholes were discovered. It is appropriate that the Government should now take stock of this piece of legislation and try to bring it up to date.

I was rather surprised just now when I heard the hon. Member for Delta criticising one of the clauses in the Bill. This clause seeks to permit the dissolution of a marriage after separation for seven years, during which time all attempts at reconciliation have been unsuccessful. It would appear, from what she has said, that once a marriage is contracted, it should never be dissolved. That, Mr Speaker, I cannot agree to and I do not think it is in line with present day sociological trends.

Mr Speaker, the basic unit of a country is the family. Whether a country is happy or progressive depends upon whether this basic -

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can I clarify in a few sentences? Just now I have clearly pointed out that the Minister in this amending Bill has provided one redundant clause, namely, clause 28. I do not mean that once a person is married he or she should not be allowed to divorce for proper reasons, because the law clearly and specifically provides that when a couple have registered under the Ordinance for two years, any one party who has been cruelly treated, or has any dissatisfaction or has sufficient reasons, could petition for a divorce. Then why have this redundant clause saying that after seven years they can petition for a divorce? Since they are already allowed, after two years, to petition for a divorce, why should you now add seven years? This would encourage a husband to leave his wife to get a new wife.

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no experience in matters matrimonial, but I can assure the hon. Member for Delta that seven years is a long time to wait, and if I were -

Mr Speaker: Mr Tang, are you speaking with the experience of a bachelor of seven years' standing?

Mr Tang See Chim: I am speaking, Mr Speaker, Sir, as a bachelor of 34 years' standing! Mr Speaker, Sir, as I was saying before the interruption, whether a country is happy or progressive depends upon its basic unit, that is, the family. As I see it, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no point in keeping two persons together who cannot agree with each other and who hate the sight of each other and are at loggerheads all the time. It would not then be a holy wedlock but it would be a wholly deadlock if the hon. Member for Delta had her way! I am glad that the Government is committing this amendment Bill to a Select Committee and no doubt representations from the public, especially from organisations connected with children and women, will be made to this Committee. I wish the Select Committee well in its deliberations. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment Bill in principle.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: (In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, in connection with clause 28 of this amendment Bill, if a man has been separated for seven years, what will happen to his life? The period of separation is not proper, because if a man and a girl want to live properly, then the number of years of separation should be reduced. Only then will their future be happy. My request is that the period of separation should be reduced or deleted.

Inche Othman Bin Wok: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to say more at this stage as the Bill will be committed to a Select Committee. However, I would like to assure this House, particularly the Members for Delta and Anson, that the Select Committee will be happy to receive and consider constructive suggestions.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Inche Othman Bin Wok: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.