WOMEN'S CHARTER (AMENDMENT) BILL (As reported from Select Committee)

Order for Third Reading read.

6.18 p.m.

Mr Speaker: A notice has been given by the Member for Delta of an amendment in respect of clause 28, as set out in the Order Paper Supplement No. 21.

Under Standing Orders, the Bill accordingly stands recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of clause 28.

No other Member giving notice -

Mr Speaker: Committee stage, what day, Inche Othman?

Inche Othman Bin Wok: Now, Sir.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

6.19 p.m.

Clause 28 -

Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir,I beg to move,

In page 8, lines 27 to 37, to leave out the whole of paragraphs (a) and (b) .

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a woman social worker, I express my welcome and support for amendments to any Bill which are beneficial to women. At present when our country is in the process of nation building, more than half the population are women. The Government can tap the resources of such a potential force and raise their social and economic standards.

Today, an amendment is proposed to the Women's Charter. I cannot see how the suggested amendment to clause 28 can benefit the women. I feel that when this amendment is implemented, the purpose for which it is intended will be defeated. Under the present Women's Charter, there are questions relating to divorce in respect of certain women who, because of their nature or their peculiar circumstances, cannot fulfil their matrimonial relationship with their husbands. Under the present law, there is no provision for them to separate. Because of this special consideration, the Minister considers it desirable, by the introduction of an amendment, to provide such people with an opportunity to get a divorce. The motive of the Government is good. But we should put our heads together and think in terms of whether more problems will be created for the majority when we consider the interests of a few people, and whether this will be of any good to the country or the people as a whole. We all remember that in 1959 our society was one where polygamous marriages were allowed. The women in Singapore were, therefore, in a very disadvantageous position. Then at that time, the P.A.P, decided to wipe out for all time such a bad system. Thus the Women's Charter came into being to enhance the position of women and to accord them their rightful status and position in their family.

But let us look at the provisions of clause 28 of this (Amendment) Bill. We see that there are many things which are detrimental to women. I would like all the gentlemen M.P.s in this House to understand that I do not only speak for women but also for them, because if this question arises it will affect not only women but also all the people in the same society. In other words, if a couple disagree with each other, they can avail themselves of clause 28 to seek a divorce. After they have lived separately for seven years, the Judge can make use of the provisions of this clause to grant them a divorce. At the moment, there is no such amendment, and I wonder how many husbands secretly and stealthily visit their mistresses! Although they have wives at home, they frequent bars and dance-halls where they meet their mistresses or some other bad women. As a result, the matrimonial relationship is endangered and the family life is disrupted, and this leads to divorce. If clause 28 is passed, it will afford men an even better opportunity to carry out their nefarious activities in the open. This is tantamount to the old practice in China where husbands were accorded the right to divorce their wives with a stroke of the pen. Certain husbands in Singapore will avail themselves of the opportunity and say, "I cannot get along with my wife. Our relationship is no good. I want to live separately from her and after seven years, I want a divorce." Certain women can also avail themselves of the opportunity to do likewise. Thus the provisions of this clause will be abused and many problems will be created. So more people will abuse the provisions of this clause. Fewer people will get benefit from it. So there will be more harm done than good.

In the Select Committee, the Minister said that husbands as well as wives can ask for a divorce on the grounds provided in this clause. But as we all know, man holds the economic power in our society. Very few women hold economic power in their hands. In the history of Singapore, we can see that all along women have been subjected to colonial and environmental suppression in society. Under the yoke of this two-pronged suppression, the women of this country have never been able to raise their heads. It was only when the P.A.P. assumed office that the people were gradually able to play an active part in the economic, social and political life of Singapore. That means that it is still the womenfolk in Singapore who were behind time, and it is difficult for them to compete with men. At the moment, as we all know, the victims are normally the women; seldom are they men. If there are any men who are victims, then it can be attributed to their ill-luck or they have themselves to blame. So if the clause is passed, I should think that women will still be the losers and men can revert back to their former polygamous position and they can then openly cohabit with their mistresses outside and in the end will be able to marry them. So it will create a very bad tradition in the family and I ask whether this tradition is good for our country. Obviously the answer is no. So I think this provision should be amended. If the Minister is thinking only in terms of a handful of women who cannot get along with their husband, then I think it is not quite necessary, because they have every opportunity under the present law to avail themselves of a divorce. If they want a divorce and if there is disharmony between them and their husband, they have provisions in the present law to get a divorce. Now if the husband wants to get a divorce, he will be able to get it under the provisions of clause 28 of this amendment Bill. He can go outside and mix with his mistresses and in the end he will get a divorce. So this will afford man better opportunities or facilities to carry out any misdeeds.

I have said that this question is not just one relating to women. It is also a social problem and all Members of Parliament should give it careful consideration.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, concerning the objection raised by the Member for Delta who considers that the 7-year period is too long, I think this does not really affect the issue. Although seven years is fairly long, if the couple after separation feel that it is painful to both of them to carry on separately and if they want to come back within this period, I do not think there is any disadvantage to the woman. The Member for Delta has also said that taking up divorce proceedings is not the special privilege of the man. I think that relates to both parties.

As to the question whether or not a marriage is successful, it is up to both parties to see that they respect each other. The Women's Charter is mainly to promote the one-man-one-wife system. We can say that it has worked quite successfully. But the Member has also said that there are and there will be many men who will have concubines or mistresses. I think this is the responsibility less of the man than of the woman. If a woman is not vain and is willing to take up a proper job, no one will force her to become a concubine or a mistress. If she were a vain woman looking only for the luxuries of life, then it is her own fault. So I hope that women will stand on their own feet and show that they are strong of will and determination, and I also hope that the Member for Delta, as a woman social worker, will educate them to seek proper jobs and compete with men for equality.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: Mr Speaker, a point of clarification.

The Chairman: Would you like to wait first in case there are any points raised by other Members?

Madam Chan Choy Siong: I only want to clarify one point.

The Chairman: Yes, please proceed.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, just now the Member for Sembawang has said that women should be realistic and stand on their own feet and earn their own livelihood. But I remember one case: there was one woman who is a relative of his who, for three years, could not get any job.

The Chairman: Madam Chan, that was not a point of clarification. That was a thrust of the sword!

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to take up one point on the question of divorce. From the Report of the Select Committee which met several times, we see that other points on the amendment were not raised except this question of how a divorce should be granted. I for one am strongly against divorce. This question centres on two persons. Before a marriage is contracted, the two parties must fully understand and realise the heavy responsibilities of parenthood. The upbringing of their children lies solely with them. If they could not get along together and want to go their own way for their own convenience, then do they or do they not think that the children would be the first to suffer?

Mr Chan Chee Seng: What if they have no children?

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Never mind whether there are any children or not, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs has pointed out. Surely in a marriage there is always the hope of begetting children, and I am very correct here.

The other point is: once a divorce is granted, as I have said, the children will suffer and not the parents. If they do get a divorce and go their own way thereafter, they can, after all, look for new pastures!

Sir, these are the points I wish to make, and I am strongly against this idea of divorce. A marriage is for good. It is a river of no return. Once you plunge into it, you either sink or swim.

The Chairman: Mr Ng, perhaps I should draw your attention to clause 34 which introduces new provisions for the welfare of children.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I was just elaborating on this point in clause 28 which brings in the question of a period of seven years - a sort of separation before a divorce is granted. I say: no divorce at all.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo (Bukit Merah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I sat on the Select Committee on the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill, and the Member for Delta was also on the Select Committee. The suggestions put forward by her today had, if I remember correctly, been raised in the Select Committee. Now that this same amendment is raised again, I feel it is rather redundant; actually it is not necessary to repeat the opinions already uttered.

Normally there are three very wrong opinions on the part of women on women's problems. Firstly, they take pride in being able to be on an equal take pride in being able to be on equal footing with men. For instance, if a woman can drive or be a pilot, then she takes pride in it as symbolising her ability to compete with men. But for men, they do not take pride in being able to sew. So this would be a retrogressive attitude on the part of women. They want to follow what men do - to be able to join the Army and fight, etc. - then that would be the glory of women. That is the first wrong concept on the part of some women.

Secondly, they regard women as a kind of material property. Even Plato talked of women as wives as well as property, and the treatment of women as chattels or property is also a wrong concept.

Thirdly, women regard themselves as weaklings who cannot compete with men in politics, economics and other fields. And so they want to seek special protection under the law or some other means of protection. Thus it will impede their progressive movement and lead them to some other misguided path and put them in dire difficulty.

The Member for Delta has been harping on the fact that women in the present society are unable to be on an equal status with men and, therefore, it is necessary to let them have some special protection under the law. Of course, we do not want to have any laws that will not protect women. But in the end when women rely on legal protection alone, that will do more harm than good to them. Because if they want to enjoy bliss, one of the many types of bliss would be matrimonial bliss, i.e., to have a good family relationship. If womenfolk are not satisfied with their lot and though they lie on the same bed with their husband but have different dreams - seeking some other unrealistic aims - then they will be very unrealistic. It actually amounts to seeking privileges and advantages and not something else to maintain a good family relationship. Thus it would bring the marriage relationship down to a material level. Because there are some men who are economically less well-off than others, if material or financial resources are the sole yardstick in maintaining family harmony, then it will put the matrimonial relationship on a commercial basis.

The Chairman: Mr Lim, would you try to relate your remarks to Madam Chan's opposition to the seven-year provision? Please speak on details rather than on general principles.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I feel I should direct my remarks to her because she regards women as the weaker sex. We should also pay attention to another point. We should not put certain restrictions on women. We should not make them continue with their unhappy family life after waiting for seven years. Though the amendment provides that after seven years of separation a woman can get a divorce, it is not giving her a free hand. There are other considerations to be met before such a divorce can be granted. I would like to draw your attention to this wording in clause 28 (b):" ... and is unlikely to be reconciled with him." This clearly says that even after seven years' separation, the party concerned cannot get a divorce automatically. It is up to the Judge to see that there are facts to show that the party concerned is unlikely to be reconciled. So if there are such facts, then the court will decide in favour of a divorce. Such a situation will affect the two parties. It is not just the women who will suffer. It is not because woman is the weaker sex that she is willing to suffer such stark cruelty. It is not for us to make divorce more difficult to get from the legal point of view, and make the law more refined to prevent divorce. What the law should do is to simplify the position for reasonable marriages and to simplify other matters. For instance, the British Law Society has suggested that if both parties cannot live together, then they can, by mutual consent, get a divorce. That is something arising out of the actual situation in England. We think this could be a very good guide for us.

We should also pay attention to another point. The Member for Delta has just now suggested the deletion of paragraphs (a) and (b) in clause 28. But she has not suggested that the proposed new paragraphs (c) and (d) in clause 28 should also be deleted. It would seem that the Member's attitude is that a wife can have the right to seek a divorce after seven years' separation, but not the husband. So it would be more proper for us to take care also of the other party, and not just one party. Otherwise, it would give people the impression that this is something in favour of women and that the Member would like this to be a woman's world. And she would rather see men in dire difficulties. I feel that the amendment moved by the Member for Delta is not proper and it will put our society in dire difficulties. Therefore, I oppose her amendment and her views relating thereto. If I want to talk, I can pour out a torrent of words, but because of the limited time, I would like to sit down now.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if I am not mistaken, the Member for Bukit Merah seems to be encouraging divorces.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: (In Mandarin): In order to correct the wrong impression of the Member for Sembawang, I would say that the trend in law is such that we should make it as our guide. I do not mean to encourage divorces by quoting that example. At least I can declare that I do not encourage it. I do not like to see anybody, including the Member for Sembawang, asking for a divorce on unjustified or trifling grounds.

Mr Lee Teck Him (Tiong Bahru): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are now discussing the Women's Charter. Originally I did not intend to speak. But having heard the speeches by various Members, I am compelled to say something on this matter. Apart from the fact that women have always accused men of having done some misdeeds, they have always said that it is not the men who are the victims, and divorce always puts women, not men, in a disadvantageous position. There is a Hokkien saying about a woman being an Oh you tan. In such a case, if the man does not want to get a divorce, then would he have to become a "tortoise" of some sort? Can a man endure this without divorce? It is very correct then for him to seek a divorce. Divorce is a misfortune for the children. Who suffers? It is the children who suffer. I say that to get a divorce would be like getting rid of the sores or boils on the body. If the boil is not cut off, it will enlarge and endanger other parts of the body. So I feel that it is justifiable to get a divorce on reasonable grounds. If it is true that a divorce will encourage a man to get married to another woman, then I will oppose such a thing. I disagree with the saying that divorce means another marriage. It is not correct. Who will do that? Some women will do that. It is not something men can help. If a woman does not want to get married to a married man, what can the man do? Who will be wrong? It is such a woman who is wrong. Who entice the men? It is the women who use their feminine wiles to entice the men. So I say that when women have done something wrong, they should not claim that the men have wronged them. The Chinese have a saying: If you marry a dog you follow the dog; if you marry a cock, you follow the cock. But in Singapore this is different. Very often women want to climb over the head of men. If men do not claim divorce, they should. I do not encourage divorces. We should understand that divorce is painful.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we should direct our remarks to the seven-year period. I feel that it should not be so long. If they do not wish to reconcile, it would not work. Even after 70 years, they would not reconcile if they do not wish to. The most important thing between the husband and wife is a feeling for each other. Without this feeling, there is nothing left.

Just now the Member for Delta has said that men can go out and misbehave. Women too can do likewise. So do you want the men to be some sort of "tortoise"? Seven years is too long. It is not practicable. I would suggest one year. If there is no feeling between the husband and wife, what is the use of carrying on for seven years? Can they be reconciled? They cannot if there is no feeling for each other. The most important thing in marriage is that the husband and wife must feel for each other.

The Member for Delta has said that most men want to get concubines or to get married once more. Whose fault is this? I can say that it is the fault of the women who are willing to be concubines to men. Why do they allow men to get concubines? This may be due to some sort of encouragement by women. If a man has two wives, of course, he has done wrong. But the woman who is willing to be his second wife is also to blame. If a woman has two husbands, whose fault is it? Of course, it is the fault of the woman. So we must decide each case on its merits or demerits. What I mean is do not encourage all to get a divorce. But when it is necessary to get a divorce, we must do so; and when it is not necessary to get a divorce, we should not. And it does not mean that divorce means getting married again.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Mr Speaker, I do not want to involve myself too deeply in this Bill. It is not that I am altogether disinterested. I do not think that I will have to take advantage of any clause that is proposed today. Mr Speaker, Sir, the previous speakers in the House have somewhat misled us when they discussed whether or not divorce is a good thing. The Member for Delta very chivalrously protected the rights of women. I do not know what the Minister for Education has to add to what she has said.

The Chairman: Mr Fong, you must keep personalities out of the debate.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Yes. But she presupposes that all men are evil. On the other hand, the Member for Tiong Bahru presupposes that all women are evil. Sir, I think we are not here to discuss whether men or women are born evil; neither is the discussion on the question of equality of women. The Member for Delta has complained that the economic machinery is controlled by men. I think it is through no fault of men. With regard to advertisements in the newspapers for jobs as lorry drivers or tractor drivers, in a. hundred per cent of cases you do not find women applying for such jobs. They simply refuse to apply for these jobs because they acknowledge their physiological inferiority.

In general, we have to consider whether this piece of legislation will build a happier community rather than discuss whether the men or the women are evil beings. Sir, this is indeed a very advanced piece of legislation. In some countries they are still looking forward to having this kind of legislation, but they have not so far got it. I think we are perhaps among the first Asian countries to bring about this legislation. To have two persons living together who are totally incompatible is not only disastrous to them, in that it is a mental strain on both parties, but it is also a definite detriment to the family, if they have any children. So this provision in the Bill is a means to regulate such a situation and not to encourage divorce as suggested by some hon. Members in the House. It provides a solution for this kind of cases. I do not believe there is a possibility of reconciliation if both parties are simply incompatible. So this is a means to allow both parties to acquire freedom to seek a divorce. They can still apply to court for a divorce, and if it is granted, then they are free.

The hon. Member for Bukit Merah has pointed out that the Member for Delta has deliberately proposed to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 28 but retain paragraphs (c) and (d) so that the women can take advantage of the clause and put the men in a disadvantageous position. That is why there are four paragraphs in that clause to provide equal rights and opportunities for both parties to seek a divorce or to seek a solution - freedom from the anxiety that when they go home one evening, they might find somebody who is out to annoy him or annoy her, as the case may be.

I support this clause 28 of the Bill and I would like to make it clear that its aim is to provide a solution for some married people living in misery and not a clause specifically provided to encourage divorces in Singapore.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Sia Kah Hui): Mr Speaker, Sir, seeing that the Member for Delta is the only rose among the thorns in this House, I think I will say a word on her behalf in view of what the Member for Bukit Merah has said. It is true that she, as a member of the fair sex, accepts the fact that in the present setup of society, women play second fiddle and, more often than not, they are the injured party. This is not a question of right or wrong, as the Member for Bukit Merah has said, but whether she is realistic and practical in her approach and is not afraid to face facts. Although I do not agree with all that she has said, I feel that, to be fair to her, she is right in standing up for what she considers to be necessary for the advancement of her sex.

Inche Othman Bin Wok: Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment to clause 28 was raised for consideration by the Member for Delta during the proceedings of the Select Committee on the Bill, of which she was a Member, and was negatived by the Committee after careful consideration. I think the Member is somewhat concerned over this clause because she considers that its provision may work against the interest of women in Singapore. I should like to assure her that this is not so. All that we are proposing to do with this new provision is to create an additional ground for divorce, and this provision is novel in that it allows for divorce by consent, in addition, I repeat, to the present grounds for divorce which are already provided for in the Women's Charter, but with this difference. Under the existing provision, it is possible to get a divorce only when one of the parties has done something wrong, e.g., the commission of adultery, or is of incurably unsound mind. It has been found that there are many instances where, quite obviously, the marriage has failed and it is no longer in the interest of either party for the marriage to continue, although neither of them has committed adultery or done anything wrong or is of incurably unsound mind. I think the Member for Delta will agree that in such circumstances it would be better for the parties to part. But, unfortunately, they cannot get a divorce under the present law which has no provision for divorce by consent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I assure the Member for Delta that in the event of a divorce by consent being granted by the court under the amended law, no disadvantage is likely to accrue to the female party? She will be able to claim the usual relief in the payment of alimony by her husband or apply for custody of the children, if any. None of the existing rights or benefits which the present law provides for women in divorce proceedings will be affected in any way. The only thing is the provision for an additional ground for divorce.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, my main point is why there should be the necessity for the Women's Charter and what is its purpose? The purpose, I feel, is to enable our society to be one in which the husband and the wife in a family can have mutual respect for each other and to encourage such families in our society. If paragraphs (a) and (h) of clause 28 are agreed to, then they will clearly go counter to the purpose of the Women's Charter, because, on the one hand, we want to encourage people to have happy and harmonious families, yet on the other hand, we will be providing more grounds for divorce. Thus, I cannot get the true and exact meaning and purpose of the Women's Charter and, therefore, accept the assurance given by the Minister just now on that point. I do not say that this provision will be detrimental to the wife after the divorce. But what I mean to say is that, at the moment, we are not just looking after a handful of people who want to get a divorce but that this provision for divorce would be misused by some people who need not get a divorce but who may avail themselves of this provision to get a divorce. That is one of my main grounds for proposing my amendment. I do not disagree if the divorce comes about as a result of the two parties not being able to get along any more. But if this amendment is to resolve a few cases, then we will be doing more harm than good. That is the gist of my amendment.

The Member for Bukit Merah has also said that by my amendment I have shown that I regard women as weaklings. I would say that it is because of our present society that women are still not able to raise themselves to the standard of men in the economic and other fields. Who dare say that women are the weaker sex? If such a person dares to say that, let him see what is happening in China. It is mostly women who lead the Red Guards. We should say that the problems of women, whether they are weaklings or not, are attributable to the social system. Given the right opportunity, I feel that since there is no distinction in capacity between men and women, women will be able to achieve equality with men. So if the women's problems in our society are not solved as social problems, then we have yet to achieve a truly socialist society. I do not mean to say that the law is the only means to resolve women's problems, because this is a very passive way of dealing with them. In actual fact, the Government should afford women more opportunities to do their part. If the women, having .got such opportunities, still cannot be successful, then we can say that they are weaklings. But, at the moment, from the recruitment policy of the Government, we can see that the ratio of men to women recruited is still in favour of men. If there are 10 positions, women can only get two or three, and the rest will go to the men. So how can you describe women as weaklings? This is a problem linked with the whole structure of society, and since we are not yet economically able to afford women a better position, we should not allow them to suffer any disadvantages and allow such an anomalous position to exist.

Sir, I beg to move.

The Chairman: The Question is,

"In page 8, lines 27 to 37, to leave out the whole of paragraphs (a) and (b)."

As many as are of that opinion, say `Aye'.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: Aye.

The Chairman: To the contrary, say `No'.

Some hon. Members: No.

The Chairman: I think the Noes have it? The Noes have it.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: Division, Sir.

The Chairman: The hon. Member should have asked for a division before I said, "The Noes have it," for the second time.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Inche Othman Bin Wok: Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is an important one in that it seeks to bring up to date the various aspects of the law making special provisions in the interest of women in Singapore.

As the Bill has already been considered by a Select Committee and the Committee's Report is before the House, I shall confine myself to a few brief remarks.

Most of the provisions of the Bill are, as hon. Members are aware, of a legal nature designed to improve the law in line with up-to-date legislation in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The other provisions have been introduced to improve the working of the Women's Charter in the light of some six to seven years' experience of administering the law in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Madam Chan Choy Siong: Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Take a division.

The House divided: Ayes, 23; Noes, 3; Absent, 25. Ayes Noes Ang Nam Piau Chan Choy Siong, Buang bin Omar Madam Junid Ng Kah Ting Chan Chee Seng Rodrigues, Bernard Chow Chiok Hock Fong Sip Chee Gonzales, R. A. Ho Kah Leong Ho See Beng Jek Yeun Thong Lee Khoon Choy Lee Teck Him Lim Guan Hoo Lim Kim San Lim Soo Peng Othman bin Wok Rahamat bin Kenap Rajoo, S. Ramaswamy, S. Sia Kah Hui Sim Boon Woo Tay Boon Too Wee Toon Boon Yaacob bin Mohamed Al-Haj Absent A. Rahim Ishak Nair, Mrs Devan Barker, E. W. Ng Yeow Chong Chan Sun Wing Ong Pang Boon Chew Chin Han Rajaratnam, S. Chor Yeok Eng Selvadurai, P. Goh Keng Swee Tang See Chim Govindaswamy, P. Teo Hup Teck Ho Cheng Choon Teong Eng Siong Lee Kuan Yew Toh Chin Chye Lim Cheng Lock Wong Soon Fong Lingam, S. V. Yeoh Ghim Seng Mahmud Awang Yong Nyuk Lin Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.