FAMILY VIOLENCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 4.36 pm

Dr Kanwaljit Soin (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and the Members of the House for giving me this opportunity to explain the rationale and provisions of the Family Violence Bill.

Work on the Family Violence Bill was a collective effort and therefore I take no personal ownership for it. Drafting started about 1 1/2 years ago. The people involved included lawyers, social workers, a criminologist, front-line professionals and social work students. There were both males and females involved. Input from victims was integral to the drafting of the main provisions of the Bill.

In May this year, the earlier draft of the Bill was given to the Police who forwarded it to the relevant Ministries. Subsequently, the relevant Ministries were given updated drafts. In July, draft copies of the Bill were sent to the relevant Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) after which in the same month, there was a meeting with many of them to discuss the rationale and provisions of the Bill. In late August, all Members of Parliament were sent copies of the draft Bill and input was invited. Feedback was incorporated into the final version of the Bill and thus this Bill is the result of much consultation, discussion and consensus.

Some of us in this House may be wondering what is the scale of family violence. What are the statistics? Is the problem big enough to warrant all the attention? Let me present the facts to you and then you can decide for yourself.

In the last 2 1/2 hours, while we have been discussing onerous Bills about employment and foreign workers, one Singaporean, and this could be a spouse, a child or an elderly person, has been hurt at home by another member of the family and has contacted the police for help. If we continue to sit here until 5.30 pm, we will have one more victim.

From figures provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs, we know that in 1994, 3,625 family members made police reports that they had been physically hurt by other family members, ie, 3,625 cases of family violence in 1994 were reported to the police. This works out to 70 cases per week or 10 cases per day.

Experts think that the actual number of family violence cases is three to four times the total number reported and this opinion was confirmed by the Director of CID when he revealed figures for the number of spouse abuse cases. He said the reported figures were the tip of the iceberg, an expression which was used earlier on in the House. If this is true, then we could be having 10,000 to 12,000 cases of family violence occurring per year. But today I will confine myself to official reported figures.

In 1994, we had three elderly victims each week, four child victims each week and 13 spouse victims each week, who went to public sector hospitals for treatment sustained because of family violence. These figures are from the Ministry of Health.

On top of this, we have two to three cases each week when family members are injured with dangerous weapons or end up with broken bones, dislocations, permanent loss of sight or hearing, or any of the other definition of grevious hurt. This is as a result of domestic violence.

In short, Sir, we have 10 people every day making police reports of family violence and three people every day seeking hospital treatment from injuries resulting from domestic violence. Thus, can we have any doubt at all that family violence is a big problem? Having established that, our next task as responsible Parliamentarians is to ask ourselves: How do we curb this problem of family violence and yet ensure that the integrity and the fabric of the family is maintained? Fortunately, some cases of family violence are resolved by the family itself and with help from relatives, friends and religious leaders. However, for the 10 cases that report to the police every day and the three cases that seek hospital treatment every day, it is likely that informal avenues have failed and that is why these people have ended up as official statistics.

At this juncture, Sir, let me hasten to assure the House that family violence is a universal problem and Singapore is no worse off than any other country. In fact, we might be a little better off especially in cases of homicide resulting from family violence.

Statistics alone tell us about numbers but there is a much bigger story behind these numbers. Let us look at the sad story.

1. The most important tragic result of family violence is the effect on children who grow up either witnessing it or being subjected to it. As family violence tends to be a hidden problem, we often forget that it may be the root cause of many of the social ills that afflict our young - dropping out of school, gang fights, juvenile delinquency, drug dependency, and poor performance in school. We spend so much time, effort, energy and money to address these social problems and yet we are so reluctant to address the likely root cause of these problems, ie, family violence.

2. These abused children grow up becoming abusers and victims and thus perpetuate the cycle of violence, ie, inter-generational violence.

3. Family violence can also be a sizeable factor in incurring economic costs to the state in the form of court expenses, hospital expenses, cost of running shelters and of social service agencies.

4. One less obvious but very important effect of family violence is lost productivity from work. A recent study in Queensland (Australia) which has a population of three to four million people found that the cost of domestic violence is A$500 million per year. We have not got any studies to assess our own economic loss in this area.

It will be at our peril if in the face of this overwhelming evidence of the social problems resulting from family violence, we continue to regard family violence only as a private matter, only as a family dispute and only as an issue that ought to be settled by friends, relatives and community leaders. Let me illustrate the danger of relegating family violence to just a family matter. This real life story was reported in the Straits Times on 14th July 1994. I quote:

"A 4 year old girl died when her father stuck her head into a pail of water, the final act of abuse, after more than one year of ill treatment. When her aunt who is an administrative assistant saw her niece being beaten up regularly by the child's father, she did not report it because she felt it was a family affair and therefore, none of her business."

Some of us harbour the misconception that an admission of the existence of family violence will be an assault on the integrity of the family. Should we continue to hold on to this misconception and allow our families to erode from within by domestic violence? Or are we going to face up to the reality even though it is unpleasant? Are we willing to make tough decisions to curb this social problem? As leaders of Singapore, we have a reputation for tackling difficult problems and we should not flinch from our duty in this issue.

Now that we have established that family violence is prevalent and a major social problem, how are we going to address this problem? The Acting Minister for Community Development is absolutely right when he said that family violence is a sensitive and intricate problem and legislation alone will not solve it. There has to be a multi-pronged approach involving public education, training of front-line professionals, cooperation between police and social service agencies, inter-ministerial coordination and many other strategies.

Aside from all these, we also need holistic legislation as a basic framework that is responsive to the dynamics and intricacies of family violence. Essentially, this legislation must provide the possibility of the restoration of a safe family and above all, a source of hope for victims, families and society as a whole, and even for abusers. The Family Violence Bill is an attempt to produce this responsive and responsible legislation.

I will now quickly summarise some of the reasons for coming out with a separate piece of legislation to address the "problem" of family violence.

(1) Absence of any single legislative act that deals specifically with the issue of family violence - this absence called for a new separate all-encompassing and holistic legislation that would give focus to family violence as a key social problem but yet try to keep the family together.

(2) Inappropriate legislation was being utilized - presently the Penal Code is applied in family violence cases where the injuries consist of broken bones and dislocations. In legal parlance, these are referred to as seizable cases. The Penal Code addresses the issue of violence between strangers and therefore is not suited for the sensitivity and complexities of abusive family relationships.

(3) Inadequate protection provided by legislation in the form of the Women's Charter. Only three sections of the Women's Charter, out of 185 sections, deal with family violence and these three sections only legislate the issuing of Protection Orders. Protection Orders form only one aspect of family violence legislation.

(4) Insufficient powers of the Police to help victims of family violence - this was the feedback from the victims of family violence who felt that the Police were not able to help them adequately. The reason for this is not that the Police were not trying their best but, to some extent, their hands were tied because of the categorisation of injuries into simple hurt and grievous hurt. 95% of family violence cases fall into the category of simple hurt and therefore in most of these cases, the Police are unable to proceed with investigation and further action. However, we must remember that simple hurt is not simple. It involves bruising, haematomas, lacerations, kicking, choking, and yet in legal parlance it is simple hurt; but it is not so simple for the victim.

We therefore need legislation that addresses all these gaps and concerns, taking into consideration the special situation of violence occurring in relationships of family, trust and dependency. And thus the Family Violence Bill came into existence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Family Violence Bill is divided into four parts and each part has a specific purpose. The first part deals with the definition of family violence and also defines who is a family member.

The second part deals with Protection Orders, penalties for contravention of Protection Orders, referral by judges of abusers for counselling and powers of arrest to be attached to Protection Orders in some instances.

Protection Orders are interim or long term orders in nature given by the Court to ensure the needs of the victim for personal safety. Legislation to deal with Protection Orders is formulated upon two beliefs:

(1) that family violence is only a private matter and therefore the burden is upon the victims to get protection for themselves by appearing in court; and

(2) that the Protection Order will be an adequate deterrent against further episodes of violence.

This, Mr Speaker, Sir, does not occur in reality. Often victims end up with multiple Protection Orders. This shows that the effectiveness of Protection Orders depends on the extent of respect shown by the abusers to these orders.

Thus, existing legislation is not only inadequate in providing protection to victims but also it fails to send a strong signal to the abuser to end his or her violent behaviour. Therefore the root cause of family violence is not addressed. Feedback from voluntary welfare organisations, shelters and from victims themselves list the ineffectiveness of Protection Orders as being a major drawback in curbing domestic violence.

Although Protection Orders are a necessary part of family violence legislation, they should not be the only and sole recourse for victims. Protection Orders do not take into consideration the full dynamics of abusive relationships where the victim suffers feelings of helplessness and hopelessness and yet is expected to initiate the process of obtaining the Protection Order for himself or herself. In fact, the process of obtaining a Protection Order may be difficult and demoralising for the victim although it may not appear as a hassle to you or me. And at this juncture, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to distribute the pamphlets of the Ministry of Community Development to Members. [Copies of pamphlets distributed to hon. Members.]

In the meantime, let me tell Members what it entails to get a Protection Order. The victim has first to go to the Family Court in Paterson Road (has to find where Paterson Road is) and swear a complaint. A week later after the summons for the abuser is ready, the victim returns to court and accompanies the court process server to identify the abuser so that the summons can be served on the abuser. After that, the victim has to go to court at least one more time and also the abuser has to go to court, assuming service is effective, and sometimes another two to three times before the Protection Order is issued. If the victim is an elderly person or a spouse with young children and cannot afford a lawyer, then one can imagine what a big burden this is for the victim. And if you look at the Ministry of Community Development's pamphlets, you see the feelings of the victims - ashamed, isolated, confused, powerless - and yet we expect these victims to go and get the Protection Orders themselves. Also, the whole process of obtaining a Protection Order is a public process and has to involve third parties - so this route does not necessarily guarantee that relations are not soured up between the parties.

Malaysia has recently passed a Domestic Violence Act - the provisions of which are very similar to the Women's Charter amendments proposed by the Acting Minister for Community Development. The Malaysian Domestic Violence Act provides Protection Orders as the only recourse for victims. Subsequent to the passing of this legislation in Malaysia, weaknesses in the Act have become apparent and there are second thoughts as to the adequacy of this type of legislation. Should we not be learning from the experiences of a neighbouring country which is culturally similar to us or should we be re-inventing the wheel?

In formulating the Family Violence Bill we were very mindful of the weakness of any legislation that limits itself to Protection Orders. Therefore we knew that we had to go beyond Protection Orders and this is the rationale for Part III of the Family Violence Bill.

Part III of the Family Violence Bill provides enabling legislation for the Police to investigate cases of family violence even though the offence is considered "non-seizable" under the Penal Code. If the Police feel that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute a person for the offence, the Family Violence Bill further empowers the Police to inform the abuser that he or she will not be prosecuted if he or she submits himself or herself to a programme of counselling. If the offender agrees to this and there is no further incidence of violence on his or her part, then this is the end of the matter with the Police. However, if the abuser refuses to go for counselling or commits another act of violence, then the Police will prosecute the offender in court.

As far as we are aware, this is the only legislation that allows mandatory counselling to be used as a rehabilitative measure for the abuser without any prosecution in court. In this sense, this innovative legislation is one of the first family friendly legislative approaches to be used anywhere in dealing with the issue of family violence. In other countries (eg, Canada, USA and Australia) counselling can only be mandated for abusers after prosecution in court and not as in the Family Violence Bill where the abusers are not brought to court but the Police can offer them counselling in lieu of prosecution.

Now I wish to stress the following points about police intervention because many people have expressed fears about Police intervening in family matters and the possible abuses that may arise from this.

(1) By empowering the Police to carry out investigation of a case, we are not suggesting that in each and every case of family violence the Police have to take a pro-active approach and intrude into every home looking for violence as if they are looking for drugs or illegal immigrants.

(2) When victims do go to the Police to report violence in the home, it is a cry and a plea for help and often indicates that other avenues like extended family, friends and religious leaders have not been able to help and that is why the victims now turn to the Police.

(3) There may be some cases of reports made by victims of family violence where the Police feel that further investigation is not necessary, and in these cases the Police can use their discretion not to proceed further. Like any other offence reported to the Police, it is up to Police judgement to assess the situation. So you cannot have this scenario of a vindictive wife trying to fix her husband because the Police would be wise to that.

(4) In giving the Police more powers to investigate which include powers of arrest, it does not - and I repeat - it does not at all mean that the Police will automatically arrest the abuser after the offence is reported. In most cases the Police do not have to physically arrest the abuser. In nearly all cases of family violence, the abusers will give statements and allow police investigation after being asked to come to the station by the investigating officer by telephone or by letter. The powers of arrest need only come into play if the abusers refuse to cooperate and refuse to allow the Police to investigate the case. Powers of arrest are only latent and will not therefore sour up the relationship between the victim and the abuser.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.59 pm

Dr Kanwaljit Soin (Nominated Member): (5) Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to stress at this stage that the purpose of this Bill is not to include the isolated incident of abusive behaviour within the definition of family violence and therefore the Police will not be overburdened by minor complaints. Although distressing and regrettable, minor incidents of abuse probably occur within most intimate relationships. Thus, while all such behaviour is condemned, it is the persistence of such violence that establishes it as coming within the definition of family violence. The particular concern of this Bill is systematic and frequent violence in the family and not the isolated slap.

The enhanced role of the police that the Bill seeks to legislate is in tune with the community's expectation of the role of the police in such situations and therefore the community will welcome this enhanced role of the police. In a survey conducted two years ago by Dr Alfred Choi and Dr Jeffery Elderson, 510 randomly selected Singaporeans were asked on their attitudes towards family violence. The data revealed unequivocal public support for police charging or arresting a spouse if he commits an assault that in the Penal Code only amounts to simple hurt.

The Penal Code differentiates between "simple hurt" and "grievous hurt" cases. As I said earlier, grievous hurt includes fractures, dislocations, permanent loss of sight or hearing or some catastrophic event. If an injury is classified as a grievous hurt, then the police have powers to investigate and powers to arrest but if the injury is classified as simple hurt and this includes injuries like kicking, punching, choking, pushing or even hitting the head against the wall and if this results in bruises, black eyes, contusions, lacerations, haematomas - the police classify this as non-seizable, as simple hurt, and they are generally not empowered to investigate or arrest and therefore they cannot take up the case for the victims. This distinction of simple and grievous hurt is valid for violence between strangers because the violent episode is a one-off incident. It is not repeatable and the victim does not live in the same house as the offender. However, for family violence, this distinction of simple hurt and grievous hurt becomes artificial as the episodes of simple hurt are repeatable and yet the police cannot do much to prosecute on behalf of the victim.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this anomaly has been addressed in the Children and Young Persons Act where injuries and cruelty to children and young persons are considered as offences irrespective of whether it is a simple hurt or a grievous hurt. Child abuse is a specific crime punishable by specified penalties but is limited to children under the age of 16. Other victims of family violence, regardless of age, should get the same consideration from the justice system because they are also vulnerable members of society who equally need to be protected.

Thus, Part III of the Family Violence Bill follows the same principle as the Children and Young Persons Act where violence to vulnerable persons is treated as an offence. However, the Family Violence Bill differs in that it does not punish the abusers in the first instance by prosecuting them in court as legislated in the Children and Young Persons Act. Thus, the Family Violence Bill is more family sensitive than the Children and Young Persons Act.

In spite of the fears of some Members of Parliament, the Family Violence Bill is not criminalising family violence in the usual sense of the term. If that was the intention, then there would be no need for the Family Violence Bill as the Penal Code is presently available to carry out the function of criminalising violence in the home. Part III of the Family Violence Bill empowers the police to investigate a case of family violence but ensures that the police do not automatically prosecute the abuser even if there is sufficient evidence, as is done in other criminal offences. By offering counselling in place of prosecution, the whole tenor of the police investigation takes on a very healing and family-friendly approach and ensures that the family relationship is not strained.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I cannot think of any other course of action that is more family sensitive but at the same time effective in curbing family violence. What the Family Violence Bill is setting out to do is "conditional" criminalisation - the condition being that if suspected abusers go for counselling, then there is no further prosecution.

What is surprising is that, although the Acting Minister for Community Development and some MPs are against an effective police role in family violence and giving them more powers to investigate, this is not the view of the victims and the social workers. In a report in the Straits Times on 30th October dealing with the effectiveness of the amendments to the Women's Charter, the view of social workers was summarised thus and I quote:

`The seven social workers interviewed were concerned that the amendments [that is to the Women's Charter] still placed the burden of action on the victims, and did not give adequate powers to the police to send abusers for counselling or to investigate complaints.'

I would now like to quote Sister Delphine Kang who is the Sister in charge of the Good Shepherd Centre running a shelter for victims of family violence:

`I support the proposal to empower the police to investigate all cases of reports on violence [and she means family violence]'.

With her experience and her Catholic background, she is very aware of the need to keep families together and yet she also supports police intervention. This should help to allay our fear that police intervention might lead to family breakdown.

At this stage, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please permit me to narrate some real life cases of family violence so that we can better relate to the experiences of the victims and their family, and the complexities and difficulties involved in family violence.

These are all real life stories. Case 1 concerns Mdm A who is a 64-year old Chinese woman - divorced - worked as a seamstress to bring up her daughter and son. Daughter moved out of mum's house and lived with her employer for four years and then their relationship broke down. At that time, mum persuaded daughter to move back with her. The daughter became unhappy and since then has been verbally abusive to the mother and also beats her up physically every now and then. Mdm A also has a son who graduated from the National University of Singapore. On one occasion when the son beat up his mother, it caused swelling on her head and the mother had to go to Tan Tock Seng Hospital to get treatment for her injuries. Here, I would like to quote Dr Wong Kwei Cheong, who is not in this House, when he spoke on the Maintenance of Parents Bill and this is what he said [Hansard Vol. 63, Col. 324]:

`The highest level of filial piety is to bring glory to one's parents; then followed by caring for them in their daily life, to maintain them is in fact the lowest. For we even feed and keep our dogs and horses. What is the difference, if we show no respect to them [that is, to our parents]?'

In fact, we even beat them as we see from these cases.

In the case that I had just mentioned of Mdm A, the son and daughter contribute financially to the mother's expenses but they continue to be abusive physically and verbally.

In this case, if friends and relatives are unable to help, what recourse has this 64-year old Chinese lady? Can we imagine her being able to go to the Family Court to apply for a Protection Order for herself against her son and daughter? Being Chinese, she probably believes in the Chinese saying which I am not able to pronounce but, with Mr Deputy Speaker's permission, I am going to hold up the Chinese characters and Members can see for themselves. I am told this is what it says, "Never go to court while you are alive and don't go to hell when you are dead". So you can imagine how reluctant this old Chinese lady will be to go to court to get the Protection Order for herself.

Case 2. Mdm B - 76-year old Indian woman - widowed - and has two sons and three daughters. Lives with her eldest son. She was punched by this son and the grandson in February 1995. This incident was not reported. Then some time later, Mdm B was pushed by her grand-daughter who is an undergraduate at a local university. This assault resulted in a fracture of her left ribs and contusion of her left hand for which she was seen at the Accident & Emergency Department of a hospital.

Under the present provisions, if this case is reported to the police, the injury is considered as grievous hurt because of the fractured ribs and the penalty is jail. Obviously, the grandmother would not want her grand-daughter to go to jail but she wants the beating to stop. Under the Family Violence Bill, the grand-daughter could be sent for counselling instead of jail. The matter would remain within the family and the police, and the victim's son and grandson would also get the message and be deterred from beating up the old lady again.

Case 3. Sally gave up her career when she married Tim, an academic. He exerted an obsessive amount of control over her. He expected her to write a daily agenda and he would call her at random from his office to check on her. If Sally was late preparing a meal or took down phone messages incorrectly, he would physically lash out at her. Sometimes, he would wake up in the morning and remember something she had done the day before and he would thrash her.

Incredible as it may sound, Sally still loved him despite his ill-treatment of her. Finally, after a particularly bad bout, she left the house to seek shelter at a crisis centre. Only when she heard that he was beating up the children, did she return home but the situation did not improve. She continued to be beaten.

In this case, how do we ensure that Tim goes for counselling so that he stops beating up his wife and children? From the Ang Mo Kio domestic violence pilot project, we can see that abusers are reluctant to go for counselling because there is no legislative backing. However, under the provisions of the Family Violence Bill, Tim could be made to go for counselling without prosecution and this would give some hope to the family that he would stop beating them up and the family could remain intact.

Today, although we are discussing the Family Violence Bill, what is very much in the minds of many of the Members is the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter disclosed recently by the Acting Minister for Community Development.

In my opinion, these amendments are much needed and overdue. The Acting Minister for Community Development must be commended for coming up with more effective legislation in relation to family violence and this legislation is an improvement on the existing situation. However, the amendments may still not go far enough. This is not only my opinion, but the opinion of social workers and front-line professionals. And the reasons for saying this are:

1. We already have the Malaysian feedback on the shortcomings of the Domestic Violence Act of Malaysia which is very similar to the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter.

2. The Women's Charter and the amendments are based on the premise that family violence is an affair of the family and the onus is upon the victims to obtain protection from the courts. Many victims are unable to take this initiative because the dynamics of continual family abuse leave them powerless and helpless.

By relegating family violence to an affair of the family, we are not sending a strong enough message that violence in the family is deplorable and society will not condone it. The rhetoric of just saying it without any legislative backing is not going to convince the abusers of the seriousness of this type of anti-social behaviour. And one of the most significant roles of the law is to make a clear statement to society that a particular conduct on the part of the citizens is unacceptable and will be socially condemned. Singapore has a formidable reputation for making this sort of clear messages and for maintaining law and order and dispensing justice.

3. In formulating legislation for family violence, Protection Orders cannot be the centre piece. Of course, the amendments announced by the Minister have given more effectiveness to the Protection Orders. But Protection Orders can only be one option available in the legislative armamentarium.

Finally, research and experience from other countries show that the most effective deterrent against recidivism in family violence is the threat of police investigation and arrest.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Family Violence Bill encompasses all the amendments to the Women's Charter as proposed by the Minister. Therefore, the provisions in the two pieces of legislation should not be seen as competing. The additional provision in the Family Violence Bill about police intervention should be seen as one more option available to the victim. Whether this additional option is used by the victim will depend on the circumstances of the victim and the family. If the victim and the family are not comfortable with police investigation, they do not have to go to the police. They have the other recourse of getting Protection Orders from the court. All this, of course, does not exclude help from extended family, friends, etc.

What I think we should be most concerned about this afternoon is not whether to accept the Women's Charter amendments and reject the Family Violence Bill. What we should be considering is what is the best way of providing protection for family members and yet strive to keep the family intact in situations of family violence.

I feel sure that the Acting Minister for Community Development and all of us are united in this objective. Thus, I would like to urge that the debate in this House be carried out with this intention in mind. Let us not concern ourselves for the present on what name the legislation will take eventually and where this legislation will be sited. That is a peripheral problem.

The central issue today is what are the main legislative provisions that will address the issue of family violence sensitively and effectively. I feel sure that the Acting Minister for Community Development will take cognizance of the debate and will incorporate the suggestions of this House into whichever legislation is decided upon eventually.

Before I sit down, Sir, I would like to remind ourselves that we must not forget the victim in this whole complex issue of family violence. The victim could be our child, our parent or our sibling. What are the recourses and options that we would want if the victim was someone near and dear to us? This question was put very succinctly by a columnist, Ms Irene Ng, in the New Paper yesterday and I quote her:

`Which approach would you prefer if you are an abused victim? As for me, I would like the one which gives me more options - everything as Mr Abdullah proposed - plus this: The option to ask the police to investigate this case.'

This seems to me like good advice.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed. 5.18 pm

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua): Sir, I am glad that the problem of domestic violence is receiving the attention of the House today. My colleague, Dr Soin, has done a service to the community by raising awareness about the problem. She has reminded us that although most Singaporeans live in happy families, some unfortunately do not.

I agree that violence within the family, whether against the women or an aged person or against a hapless child or even against a man, is undesirable. Society must show that it will not tolerate such behaviour.

But we must see the issue in perspective. It is good to discuss the problem. However, we must be careful not to blow the issue out of proportion. We must not make it seem that family violence is the biggest problem that Singapore families face today. We do not want to frighten our young citizens into thinking that marriage is a declaration of war, the home a battle zone, and the bedroom the scene of war crimes! Neither do we want the Bill to be viewed as a piece of legislation that will result in constant conflict between the two genders, ie, men and women.

I have met many community leaders and constituents over the years. During these meetings and the feedback sessions that I have chaired, they tell me that their main problems revolve around the need to balance family and work responsibilities, especially when we encourage the couple to regionalise and to go overseas. They also worry about inculcating the right values in the young. The common view is that while some violence occurs in some families, the problem is not pervasive. According to the Feedback Unit session chaired by Dr Ow Chin Hock recently, the participants felt that we should adopt a conciliatory approach, rather than a confrontational or legalistic one. They also felt that rather than dilute the Women's Charter through having a separate legislation, amendments should be made to the Charter to strengthen it.

We must be clear about our objective when tackling the problem of family violence. In the end, what we are working for is to help suffering families become healthy and strong, and to preserve family harmony.

Keeping this objective in mind, let us see how we can tackle the problem in the most effective way. Sir, I believe that the approach must be a multi-pronged one. We must, first, strengthen existing laws. Second, streamline administrative procedures of the police. Third, provide training to qualified counsellors and train the police on how to handle family disputes. Fourth, provide community support for families with such problems through the Ministry of Community Development, voluntary organisations and grassroots organisations. And, most importantly, fifth, inculcate the right family values through homes, schools and public educational programmes.

Before I go to the proposed Bill, I wish to point out that as far back as 1992, the MCD had been reviewing the Women's Charter. In fact, in 1994, the Inter-Ministry Work Group on Spousal Violence chaired by the Ministry of Home Affairs together with some women's groups had started a pilot project aimed at improving the existing police and other procedures dealing with family violence. This had provided valuable inputs and formed the basis for some of the amendments that will be proposed to the Women's Charter.

Now, I wish to touch on the proposed Family Violence Bill. In gist, the Bill is meant to provide for the following:

extending the coverage to the elderly and other family members;

widening the definition of family violence to include other family offensive conduct and not just physical hurt, including compelling a family member by force or threat to engage in any sexual act or conduct;

making counselling mandatory;

making it easier for victims to obtain Personal Protection Orders;

empowering the police to investigate and make arrest, if necessary, without a court order or warrant of arrest.

I am glad to note that the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter will cover the key points in the proposed Family Violence Bill and which had also been raised by the Inter-Ministry Work Group on Spousal Violence.

The proposed amendments to the Women's Charter will widen the coverage to include protection for parents, parents-in-law and siblings, other than spouses and children. It widens the definition of family violence so that it does not only include physical hurt but also the threat of causing hurt, restraining or confining victims against their will and harassments that may result in distress for the victims.

Another important proposed amendment to the Women's Charter is that it now makes it very much easier and faster for the victim to obtain a Personal Protection Order so long as the victim can prove on a balance of probabilities that violence will be committed.

The powers of the court will also be broadened. The court will be able to attach a warrant of arrest to a Protection Order. This means that if the abuser hits the victim, the police is given the power to arrest him or her. The court will also be given broader powers to order counselling for the abuser.

Finally, the amendment allows a third party to apply for Personal Protection Orders on behalf of the abused child or incapacitated adult.

One important issue in the Family Violence Bill is that when anyone makes a report of domestic violence, the police is expected to intervene, and can arrest without a court order or warrant of arrest. We agree that the police should be proactive in this issue and look into the case. However, I feel that this can be covered under the police operating procedures and need not be included in the law. My concern is that to stipulate it in the law or criminalise the whole issue at an early stage is premature. Such a drastic measure should not be supported. This is because interference from the police or a third party may aggravate the conflict between the abuser and the victim and affect the family relationship as a whole. The law must not be made too rigid to exclude personal choices and flexibility. It must protect the victim, but not take things out of their hands. The amendments to the Women's Charter serve therefore to protect the vulnerable members of our families and allow them to choose which course of action to take.

Another point which the Family Violence Bill touches on concerns compelling a family member by force or threat to engage in any sexual act or conduct. I fully agree that sexual abuse of family members should be severely punished. And I note that this has already been provided for under existing laws, such as the Penal Code. Even for sexual relationship between spouses, if the victim can prove cruelty in the behaviour of one spouse that can constitute a ground for divorce.

The sexual relationship between spouses is a very private and personal matter. It should not be brought under public scrutiny and be subject to prosecution under our law. From the feedback I have received, people have asked what amounts to marital rape. When can a wife be said not to give her consent to sex? Opening it to public scrutiny affects not only our Asian sensitivity on the issue, but it is also an area of conflict best resolved through counselling.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, given these proposed amendments to the Women's Charter, I am of the view that it is not necessary for us to have a separate piece of legislation. But more can be done to improve the procedures for handling family violence cases by the police and to improve the counselling services provided in Singapore.

Since police officers at the neighbourhood police posts may be the first people that abused victims approach for help, we must do more to train them to be more sensitive. We must also train them to be more supportive of victims and to be helpful in correct ways.

Another channel should be provided to victims of family violence who for one reason or another choose not to go to the police. It has been proposed to appoint a Commissioner under the MCD to handle claims for maintenance under the Maintenance of Parents Bill. The Commissioner's scope of work can be widened to include providing conciliation and mediation to family members who are in conflict.

The Ministry of Community Development should continue expanding the number of Family Service Centres which can also act as the eyes and ears to seek out those who need help. Government should devote more resources to build up this support network. Within itself, MCD should set up a permanent unit to receive complaints from victims, provide counselling and rehabilitation to both abusers and victims and help victims to apply for Personal Protection Orders, if necessary. It should also set up a helpline for families in distress. We should look into the root cause of the problem. If family violence is caused by abusers who are addicted to alcohol, drugs or gambling, then these problems will first have to be addressed by making counselling and rehabilitative services available to such families.

To provide more effective counselling, MCD, together with voluntary organisations, should provide accredited professional training for counsellors, which is presently lacking in Singapore. I feel that MCD's budget of $1 million to promote family values is too small. There are many creative ways we can come up with to promote family harmony, similar to the programme Extraordinary People which is shown on TV.

We must not be too ready to think that the law alone will solve the problem. It will not. In America, the law protects children from being abused by parents. That appears to be very good. But look what happened? Children have sued their parents for disciplining them! The number of child abuse cases is still increasing. The laws in the developed countries may be very comprehensive. But, in reality, does it mean that in terms of social development, family cohesiveness, husband and wife relationships, parents and children relationship of these countries are better off than us? I do not think so. We should not follow the developed countries blindly. Instead, in the long run, we should rely on our own values and experience to develop our own model of dealing with problems within the family. We should develop legislation in accordance with our own social norms and to suit our needs. We have taken this approach in many instances and I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, you will agree with me that we should continue to do the same in this particular case.

At the end of the day, whatever we do we should strike a balance between humanity, rationality and law.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, since this very important Bill requires the police to do so many things, I feel it is necessary for me to say something right at the outset.

Sir, family violence of any degree, whether it is an intimidation or actual physical abuse, should not be taken lightly. The Ministry of Home Affairs and the Police do not condone such behaviour. As a society, we should prevent and deter such occurrences and protect the victims. It is not just a concern of breach of peace in a neighbourhood or of physical injuries being caused. More importantly, domestic violence, if left unchecked, can quickly lead to a breakdown of the family unit. It affects not just the two parties in disagreement, but also the children, as Dr Soin mentioned. If a child sees heated quarrels and physical abuse constantly, he or she may become predisposed to violent behaviour in adult life. We should not allow this to happen.

We do not pretend that such a problem does not exist in our society. It is an age-old problem in all societies. No society today has eliminated this totally. There is also no evidence to suggest that those countries which resorted to legal responses are more successful in dealing with it. While we recognise that family violence does take place in some homes in Singapore, we should not exaggerate the scale and the extent of the problem. Nevertheless, I agree that more can be done to minimise it and to help families in distress. The question is what and how. In this light, let me laud Dr Soin's effort in drafting this Bill. She has done a good job at it. But whilst we must be firm in dealing with such cases of family violence, we should not be heavy-handed in dealing with a matter that involves emotions and family relationships. We should not hastily or mindlessly apply the full intrusive and coercive force of the law when this may not be the best course of action in the interest of the family. Some Singaporeans already complain that Singapore is overly regulated. Do we want another separate piece of legislation that calls on the Police to intrude into the family's living room, bedroom, or kitchen to deal with a family dispute whenever one is reported? Or to make a value judgment as to who is right or wrong in as complex a matter as a dispute between spouses? I will take it as a compliment that our Police Force has been asked to intervene in such private and personal matters as family disputes, as Dr Soin would have them do. The public's trust and confidence in the Police speaks well of the Police as an objective and impartial law enforcement agency. But are they the best people or in the best position to do this?

Dr Soin thinks that the Police currently has insufficient powers to investigate and to deal with cases where only simple hurt is caused. This is simply not true. The Police does have powers to deal with these cases. It can investigate simple hurt cases. It can warn or even prosecute the offending party under the Penal Code for the offence of Voluntarily Causing Hurt. In practice, when called to the scene of the family violence, the Police officer will intervene and separate the parties, warn the abusing party for his or her behaviour and breach of peace, if necessary. If a complaint is made at the Neighbourhood Police Post (NPP), the NPP will interview the complainant, warn the abusing party, if necessary, and advise the victim of the options open to him or her to seek legal protection. Where grievous hurt is caused, the Police will prosecute.

Where only simple hurt is caused, the Police will warn or even prosecute the abuser if the circumstances warrant it, for example, in repeat cases. In 1994, Police took prosecution action in 14 cases of voluntarily causing hurt out of the 3,625 cases of domestic violence reported. In seven of these 14 cases, the victims later decided not to proceed against the accused in court. The prosecution had to respect their wishes in order not to worsen the situation at home. But you can imagine that a great deal of resources was wasted in these cases when the complainants later decided not to go ahead in bringing the culprits to court. You can also imagine the frustration of the investigation officer. But the Police had to respect their decision because it is important to keep the family intact. In the remaining seven cases, the accused persons were given prison sentences ranging from one week to six months.

Let me just quote a couple of these cases. In one case, the accused punched his mother, ie, the victim, on the shoulder. The victim's brother intervened to stop any further assault from taking place. Both parties refused to heed the Police advice at the scene to resolve the matter amicably. The victim appeared to be in imminent danger of further assault. The Police then intervened. The accused was charged in Court and sentenced to one week's imprisonment.

In the second case, the accused assaulted his wife, ie, the victim, after an argument over an alleged extramarital affair of the victim. The accused, who smelt of alcohol on the arrival of the Police, was alleged to have kicked the victim on her stomach and her body. It was later determined that she did not sustain any serious injury. The victim appeared to be in imminent danger of further assault and the Police intervened. The accused was charged in Court and was given six months' imprisonment.

So the Police does take action even on simple hurt cases when the situation justifies. But the Police does not warn or prosecute every case as a matter of routine because family disputes are by nature complex. They involve emotions and relationships among people in the same family. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for a Police officer to establish which party is right or wrong when he arrives at the scene. Indeed, in a family dispute situation, both parties may each have varying degrees of fault. The origin of the problem could have occurred a long time ago, or over a petty matter which either party could or would not take full responsibility for. It could also have been an accumulation of many incidents and neither party is completely right or wrong. Let me take this opportunity to quote from a note sent to me by the Society Against Family Violence about this complexity of family relationship. It says here:

`In the literature reviewing the process before, during and after an abusive situation, the abused women are not always portrayed as vulnerable or in a state of trauma. They are often equally violent. Family violence must be examined interactively, both parties having to take responsibilities for contributing to the fight. Abusive relationship is like an onion with many layers of forces working in competition against each other and in many strands of meanings, memories and feelings. Once we look at abuse in relational terms, we begin to take some blame of the men and return some responsibility back to the women to reach a balanced therapeutic management in the recovery process of the family. Ignoring such understanding reflects a lack of understanding of the complex emotions in the twining victims of violence.'

This part which I quoted is not in the article that was published in today's Straits Times written by Ms Claire Chiang but it is the same note that she sent to me.

So under such circumstances, for a Police officer to intervene in every case, even if it is only to give a warning, would be inappropriate and heavy-handed, and may be accused of being biased. This is in fact what clause 13(1) requires the Police to do. It may be even counter-productive as Police involvement is likely to aggravate the distress in the family. There must be other ways to deal with the situation to address the root cause of the problem, eg, referring to a counselling body.

Therefore the issue is not giving more powers to the Police since they already have these powers, but whether the heavy hand of the law or the Police ought to intervene in every case where flexibility and great sensitivity is required.

In many developed countries, policies and strategies have been introduced which have emphasised legal and police intervention to address family violence. Yet the assessment generally is that the legal responses can be blunt instruments and counter-productive in a number of cases. The belief in most societies, including ours, is that the family is and should remain our basic social institution. Strengthening and supporting the family should therefore be the primary objective of community-based preventive programmes.

Sir, Dr Soin also appears to think that the Government is not doing enough to address the problem. Is that really so? Since April last year, an inter-agency Work Group on Spousal Violence was formed by my Ministry to recommend measures to improve and coordinate the management of spousal violence cases and to find innovative ways in dealing with them. Here I would give credit to Dr Soin for the impetus in setting up this Work Group because after the last Committee of Supply debate when the subject was raised, I asked my Ministry to look into ways and means of dealing with this problem and I established this Work Group. Hence the Work Group was set up with representatives from MCD, Police, Ministry of Health and the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations (SCWO) to seriously study how we should cope with this problem.

A year later in March 1995, the Work Group in its progress report to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Community Development recommended that:

Firstly, conflict resolution be introduced into the Police management of domestic violence on the ground. The component of conflict resolution would involve the VWOs and would be coordinated by MCD. So we started a pilot project in the Ang Mo Kio Police Division in April this year. I will say more about this afterwards.

Secondly, priority was given to the preparation of medical reports for court purposes and a revised medical form be used to enable the court to issue a Personal Protection Order (PPO) immediately on application by the victims;

Thirdly, the training needs of all service providers be reviewed. The subject of domestic violence would be included in the training syllabus for Police Officers;

Fourthly, a database on domestic violence cases be built up to facilitate policy formulation; and

Fifthly, the current public education efforts be improved to increase public awareness of the problem and the assistance available to them.

So these recommendations are very useful. As MCD was at that time reviewing also the Women's Charter, the Work Group recommended that MCD introduce provisions to strengthen the protection given to victims of spousal violence by attaching powers of arrest to all PPOs in the first instance, introducing compulsory counselling for abusers if the situation demands, and specifying the penalties for breach of PPOs. In short, the Work Group has addressed quite a number of the main provisions of this Family Violence Bill.

I should also mention that at the operational level, the CID has a Women and Family Violence Committee to discuss operational issues concerning the investigation of rape, molest and domestic violence cases. This forum which includes representatives from the SCWO and various Heads of Investigations of Police Divisions discusses such matters as the use of more female police officers and the special training of investigators for handling such cases. It also discusses specific cases of child abuse, rape and family violence. This Committee was formed in 1992 when it was then called the Rape Management Committee. But in November 1994, it expanded its agenda to include also molest and family violence cases.

Sir, let me now say a few words about this pilot project which introduces conflict resolution to the handling of spousal violence cases reported to the Police. The project is being carried out at Ang Mo Kio Police Division and involves five NPPs, namely, Cheng San, Chong Boon, Ang Mo Kio, Teck Ghee and Kebun Bahru and two Volunteer Welfare Organisations (VWOs), namely, Ang Mo Kio (Family) Service Centre and HELP Family Service Centre. The pilot project has been on-going since April this year. A preliminary report put up by Police HQ indicates that in the period 17th April 1995 to 16th October 1995, the five NPPs recorded a total of 68 cases of spousal violence. Of these, 18 (or 26%) were referred to the two family service centres for counselling. In the remaining 50 cases, three were undergoing counselling, six had reconciled and 41 turned down offers of counselling. Of the 41 victims who turned down counselling, 13 indicated that they were filing for divorce whilst the vast majority did not want any third party intervention because they made their report only for the purpose of record.

Of the 18 cases referred to the VWOs for counselling, two are repeat cases and the victims are still undergoing counselling. But they have refused to have their spouses prosecuted. One of them was offered temporary shelter by the VWO but she declined. Of the 18 cases referred for counselling, the VWOs have reported good progress made on four cases, satisfactory progress on 10 and the other four cases were terminated by the victims.

This pilot project shows promise as a constructive community-oriented approach to the issue of family violence. It has, however, revealed that in a large majority of cases, victims made police reports only for record purposes, some to buttress their case for a divorce. Some others simply did not want to involve a third party, ie, the counsellors, in their problems. The two family service centres involved in the pilot project are very supportive and I thank them for that. But in their feedback, they have expressed some concern that if the case load increases significantly, they would not have sufficient trained counsellors to sustain the programme. Indeed, I see this as a major constraint in implementing Dr Soin's proposal on compulsory counselling for the abuser and the abused if the abuser does not want to be prosecuted. Given the Bill's approach to make family violence a seizable offence, all this will demand a huge amount of counselling resources. Singapore today simply does not have enough qualified and experienced counsellors to cope with this demand as they are also needed to counsel other types of cases, for example, juvenile delinquents, drug abusers, and so on. And petitioners like these two family service centres and the association against family violence should know well enough.

MCD and my Ministry support the recommendations of this Work Group. These, together with the pilot project, offer a conciliatory approach to family violence. The Family Violence Bill, on the other hand, seeks to involve Police at the very outset, leans towards an adversarial if not a combative approach. The Bill also has the effect of criminalising family violence. Dr Soin may say, no, not quite. But let me elaborate.

Firstly, clause 9(1) of the Bill makes the commission of an act of family violence a specific offence. Such acts include even the "causing of harassment with intent to cause anguish to a family member". Offenders, even first timers, can be jailed (clause 9(1)). Is this what the people want? Can we imagine what will happen to the family if the offending party is jailed for abusing the victim even the first time round?

Secondly, clause 13(1) empowers the Police to arrest an offender without an order from the Magistrate and without a warrant of arrest. This amounts to making family violence a seizable offence which is what the Bill is intended to do, and just like offences as theft, robbery, housebreaking and voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Is it necessary to go this far?

Thirdly, clause 13(1) also obliges the Police to investigate every complaint whenever information is received or whenever the complaint is made. Currently in none of our present laws is the Police required to investigate every matter reported to the Police. The Police can exercise discretion and it does so wisely. When the Police carries out an investigation, it is to establish whether an offence has been committed and to take enforcement action accordingly. That is the meaning of "investigation". Do we really want the Police to investigate every report when it may be better to call a counsellor, or maybe even to leave the matter be if Police investigation would only aggravate the problem?

Sir, I do not think we should criminalise family violence. We should leave that to the Penal Code. Perhaps it is not Dr Soin's intention to criminalise family disputes, but this is what the Bill amounts to. Nor should we require by law the Police to intervene and investigate every case and effect an arrest without a Court Order. A typical police constable on the ground is one in his twenties and many are not yet married. In fact, almost half (45%) of our 2,950 junior officers are below 25 years of age. Given the complexity of family violence cases, he will have to refer this case to his Sergeant who is more experienced and mature to consider the circumstances and make the crucial decision whether to arrest and prosecute. This will be the scenario if the Bill becomes law and all acts of family violence become seizable offences. Do we want to use our Police Sergeants to respond to every complaint of family violence at the expense of their attention to crimes on the streets? We should get our priorities right. Or does Dr Soin want to empower our young police constables to investigate and decide whether the abuser and the victim should be sent for counselling? He is under 25 years old. Of course, he knows and is trained to do his job. Indeed, the Police Commissioner has introduced the concept of empowerment to his officers. By this, police officers on the ground are encouraged to adopt a "take charge" attitude and exercise initiative and responsibility where appropriate. However, there are situations where judicious restraint is called for and family dispute is one of them.

Sir, Dr Soin's Bill also covers other family members, for example, children and the elderly. Our society does not condone spousal violence; similarly, we also do not condone mistreatment or abuse of children and the elderly. Children deserve special protection; the elderly, our respect. In protecting children against family violence, we must, however, not unwittingly blur the difference between real abuse and disciplinary measures such as scolding or parental caning. Although clause 3(2) of the Bill excludes force used on a child "by way of correction", the Bill's wide definition of family violence coupled with making family violence a seizable offence, may in time bring about a situation where parents would think twice before applying disciplinary measures on their children for their own good. This is worsened by the fact that the Bill also encourages reporting of family disputes or violence by members of the public (clause 19). I think members are aware of a case in the USA reported last year in September in The New Paper that a mother slapped her child; somebody complained to the Police, the Police came, arrested the mother and wanted to charge her for abusing the child. But, fortunately, with wisdom, the Police decided eventually to drop the charge. As an Asian society which believes in the strict upbringing of children, we cannot afford to let this happen.

Sir, while I understand Dr Soin's passion on the issue of family violence, I do not go along with the Bill's heavy-handed approach in dealing with family violence. Dr Soin quoted a Chinese couplet. It says " " (Sheng bu ru ya men, si bu ru di yu). I think we have to understand the historical and cultural context under which that couplet was framed. In the old days, in the Magistrate's Court in China, the Magistrate was both the judge, the prosecutor and the Police. And of course people at that time also preferred to settle matters on their own through the clansmen and the elders of the clan, rather than to involve a third party like the Magistrate's Court. So it is important to understand that. But today, in Singapore's context, it is different. I think Singaporeans are not afraid of going to the Police. We have our NPPs and community policing. It has been successful for the last 12-13 years. People are very willing to go to the Police whenever they have a complaint to make. And that is seen from the examples dealt with by our NPPs and from the many episodes I heard from my Police Officers. The people are now prepared to go to the Police. So we should not worry about that too much. In fact, to quote another Chinese saying, I think we are also fully aware that " " (Qing guan nan pan jia wu shi), which means that even the most honest judge cannot deal with family matters. There is also another Chinese saying: " " (Jia he wan shi xing), which means that when you have a peaceful and harmonious family, then everything will be peaceful and calm. " " (Jia shuai shi bu ping) means that when you always quarrel, you will never have a harmonious family. I think in our context, we will rather have Jia he wan shi xing to deal with this problem ourselves, rather than to go to the Police.

Sir, family disputes occur in diverse situations and the needs of the family in each situation vary because of the relationships and emotions involved. For this reason, the parties involved should be handled with understanding and sensitivity, and not always with the cold and strong arm of the law. I prefer a more mediatory and conciliatory approach which gives the family in distress a better chance of resolving its problem, with the Police intervening only in the more serious situations, where there is a breach of court order or where the situation is assessed to likely lead to serious hurt. Amending the Women's Charter along the line recommended by the Work Group offers a better legal framework for addressing the problem in the best interest of the family and our future generation. At the same time, more should be done by community and social service organisations to understand and analyse the root causes of family violence, and to devise innovative and therapeutic intervention techniques in dealing with such situations. They need to build up their resources to cope with the increasing demand for their service.

Finally, more also should be done to strengthen and support the family rather than introducing another wedge to divide it through a separate and new legislation.

Mr Bernard Chen (Brickworks GRC): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me at the outset state that, just like any other Members of this House, we are well aware of the problems facing families. In my 18 years as a Member of Parliament, I have conducted 15,000 meet-the-people cases, like many of you, and I have come across innumerable family disputes, between husbands and wives, parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren. There were of course the usual problems between in-laws. These disputes came in all shapes and sizes and there cannot be a definition that can encompass all of them. Suffice to say that most of them are extremely complicated and difficult to resolve. Second, as a Roman Catholic, I am a firm believer in upholding family values and the preservation of family harmony. The Catholic faith, as in most other religions, believes that family is the core of society. Without family peace, there can be no peace in the society at large. It is, therefore, incumbent upon all of us to nurture and promote family harmony for the good of society.

Unfortunately, however, the problems of family are non-exact. They arise from a wide range of causes and different parties. Complicating these problems is the abstract concept of love and trust between spouses, parents and children. There are also all kinds of pressures from within the families, heightened by pressures from outside. This explains why in centuries past, whether in Asia, Europe or America, family disputes have persisted and no government has yet been able to put this problem to rest. It is quite likely that for centuries to come, we will continue to grapple with these problems.

The difficulty lies in how much and how far should government get involved in the resolution of such disputes. At what point should the government intervene, if at all, at the dispute stage or when such disputes erupt in physical violence or unbearable mental torture? A key question to address is: if love is the basis of marriage and when such love is lost, can government force the parties together by way of legislation? Again, in the case of disputes between parents and children, without a good understanding of the forces at work, can government resolve the problems to the satisfaction of all and not risk making the problems worse by such intervention? Conventional wisdom suggests that legislation is not the answer and government should stay out of these frays because it is not equipped to solve the problems satisfactorily. In the cases of family disputes, I have come across as an MP, I feel more often than not helpless in finding solutions that would resolve the problems that can satisfy all. The exception is when actual physical violence occurs or about to be inflicted. Existing legislation have adequately covered such cases and, if need be, as the Minister for Home Affairs pointed out just now, these legislation can be tightened to make them more effective.

This does not mean, however, that we should not do anything. On the contrary, much can be done by other indirect means. For example, we can start at the schools and work on the young people before they enter marriage. We can promote the concept of filial piety among our children. We can also persuade our elderly that love and respect is a two-way traffic. They must be able to give as well as receive. Another way is to get the voluntary organisations to be more involved, as stated by many Members just now. They are better trained to handle the problems. To the parties in dispute, they are more acceptable as they are not as heavy handed and final as the government. Religious organisations can also be enlisted to help. All religions subscribe to family harmony. While we have to watch out for religious sensitivities, much can be achieved if these organisations can provide conduits for the resolution of such disputes.

The fact is that all these programmes are now in place, under various Ministries and organisations. We have to see that they are pursued with earnestness and those doing the jobs are given the resources and training to do so. Having said all these, we have not come to the core of the problem, how to tackle the issue of "love" and the lack of it that would eventually lead to family problems. My parish priest, who is now 82 years old, often said to newly-wed couples in the church that marriage is no joke. Before marriage, he says, pimples become dimples. After marriage, dimples become pimples. How to make dimples stay as dimples is, I submit, not the job of the government, but the participants themselves, whether they are spouses, parents or children.

Let me now come to the Family Violence Bill tabled by the Nominated Member of Parliament. Clause 3 of the Bill gives the definition of "hurt" or what constitutes as family violence. I find the definition to be too wide and general. For example, "attempting to place a family in fear or hurt". What constitutes "attempt" and "fear"? The Bill puts the onus on the court to decide. How would the Court decide, without having to spend considerable time to delve into the complicated details? The definition in clause 3(e) on "harassment" is another. What constitutes "harassment" and the "anguish" caused? Can the husband's refusal to talk to the wife be considered as harassment as it causes anguish to the wife? In the same token, does the wife's constant nagging constitute harassment? Clause 3(d) defines wrongful restraining or confining a family member against his will. How will the Court decide a case where a teenager accuses his parents for not letting him out at night for a variety of reasons? It could well be that when my son is stopped from going to see midnight shows by me or by the mother, he can actually sue us under the Family Violence Bill, and why not in the NPP. Finally, how do we treat the case where a family member accuses the other of compelling him/her by force to engage in any sexual act or conduct? Who is going to be the arbiter in such intimate relations between husband and wife? Definitely, not the Government. In all these cases, the introduction of a third party, a stranger to all the family members, is going to make matters worse. It forces everyone to take a defensive stance and abandon the better expedient of give-and-take. It will further reinforce fighting among the families and breakdown in discipline, leading to more family violence. I find it difficult to support these definitions.

One purpose of the Bill is to put the onus on the courts to decide on issuing Protection Orders. Further, the courts are asked to decide in cases where there is a "balance of probabilities that family violence has been or is likely to be committed". This is a tall order for the courts, given the myriad of scenarios that lead to family disputes which may or may not end up in violence. The Bill further requires the Police to play a much more direct role in dealing with family disputes, including providing assistance to seek alternative residence or shelter. With due respect, as the Minister for Home Affairs said just now, the Police is not trained nor equipped to deal with such problems. This may be true of TV dramas. In real life, the Police's main duty is to maintain law and order.

A more fundamental issue is whether such direct intervention by the courts and Police will, in fact, solve the problems. I would suggest that they will make matters worse. It is human nature to resent interference from authorities. Such resentment is more so in Asian societies, where going to the court is often deemed to be bringing shame to the family. It is often the last resort. By the time the courts are enlisted to help, the point of no return is reached and breakup of the family becomes inevitable. The very act of going to the court will break up the family. If we make it easier for everyone to go to the courts, we can expect families to disintegrate with increasing frequency, not only between spouses, but also amongst parents and children. We should not force families to go to the brink by encouraging them to go to the courts or the Police. Rather, we should get them to try other means of reconciliation that will go to preserve the fabrics of family harmony. In the end, family members must themselves try to resolve the problems without government intervention. The Government can only help in clearly defined cases where complainants themselves ask for help and are prepared to accept the consequences that may follow, including the breaking up of families.

To conclude, I believe that this Bill would create more problems than it solves. It introduces an unnecessary third party into disputes which can better be resolved amongst the parties themselves. By intervening at the wrong time and place, it will make matters worse. Cases of family disputes which have resulted in actual violence are adequately covered by present legislation which can be further improved to take into account new requirements. I am therefore unable to support this Bill.

Mr Chin Harn Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to comment on the Family Violence Bill. I think Dr Kanwaljit Soin must be commended for bringing up to the attention of this House a matter which seems not to have been covered in our laws. On her own initiative and with her own resources, she has prepared a Bill for this House to consider.

Now the ball is at our feet, so to speak. When the Bill was first moved, I believe there was some reaction against legislating on family violence. This objection is based on the ground that family violence is not all that common in Singapore. As the Acting Minister for Community Development has confirmed his intention to amend the Women's Charter to reflect the tenor of the Bill, there should be no more argument about the need to regulate family violence.

The question before this House is the actual form of legislation to be adopted - making a new Act or enlarging an existing Act. The Minister has given his cogent reasons for the Members here to believe that his proposed amendments to the Women's Charter will serve the desired purpose.

Sir, I myself favour the proposed amendment of the Women's Charter because this Act is meant to serve as a framework for the protection of women and children. As such, the Women's Charter can serve as a basis for future consolidation of legislation on related matters.

Though the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter do not contain all the provisions of the Family Violence Bill, I support the amendments on a longer term view. I see the Women's Charter as a building with a strong foundation and a strong framework to permit more storeys to be added on later. The Family Violence Bill or, for that matter, the Maintenance of Parents Bill, is like a structure that is designed to be a single-storey or double-storey building. You have to pull down the whole building and rebuild, if you want some more rooms, like what you see is going on in the private housing estates. Although not a betting man, I would prefer to put my money on the Women's Charter as the Act with a scope for future expansion.

Taking the liberty of reading between the lines of the Ministerial statement on the Women's Charter, I like to believe that there would be further amendments to the Women's Charter. One amendment I like to see is that the Women's Charter includes provisions on Muslim marriage, divorce and maintenance. Another amendment I like to see is the incorporation of the Maintenance of Parents Bill into the Women's Charter.

But one amendment I particularly like to see is the renaming of the Women's Charter to reflect the increasingly bisexual character of its provisions. Sir, a change in the name of the Women's Charter seems to me inevitable if the Act is to be amended also to regulate family violence and, possibly, maintenance of parents, regardless of sex.

However, the main thing is that there should be some legislation to regulate family violence and related matters, be it Women's Charter, Hen-pecked Husbands' Charter or whatever other name.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we believe that anyone who uses violence in the family should be punished. Therefore, the Workers' Party supports legislating to protect the weaker members in the family. At the same time, we feel that family violence concerns not just violence, but also the individual character and personality of the members of the family as well as the complicated aspects of human relationship.

In legislating, we have to take into consideration the legal procedure and the appropriateness of the unit responsible for enforcement of the law. The Workers' Party supports the principle and spirit of the Family Violence Bill, but with regard to the contents of the Bill, we are unable to accept the following provisions:

First, clause 13 of the Bill provides that upon receipt of a complaint of family violence, the Police can arrest the abuser without having first to obtain a warrant of arrest from the court. We agree that the Police can interfere in a case of family violence, but only at an appropriate time. It will not be prudent for us to legislate in such a way as to allow the Police to arrest the party concerned without a warrant of arrest. Besides, when a family dispute becomes very heated, it would require someone who is very mature and experienced to deal with it. So, who shall be the best person to handle such a situation? Do not forget that nowadays a lot of policemen are young national servicemen. Do they have enough experience and a sense of judgment to interfere in a case of family violence and not to make things worse?

Second, clause 19 of the Bill provides that anyone who has reason to believe that family violence is being or has been committed may give information with respect thereof to the police. Upon receipt of the information, the Police will have to investigate into and intervene in the matter. This provision can easily be abused. When someone gives information, the Police starts its investigation, and may make a wrong decision and even decide to arrest a certain member of the family. Then a simple dispute in a family may escalate into serious trouble just because someone informs the Police, resulting in the breaking up of the family. I think if the victim in a family violence seeks help from the Police, there is no cause for criticism. However, if we legislate to allow any third party to give information to the Police upon which the Police must commence investigation and intervene in the matter, there will be serious sequelae.

After Dr Soin has introduced this Bill, the Government also announced that it was going to amend the Women's Charter to offer more protection to the victims in family violence. The brief contents of the proposed amendments were announced in the newspapers only on 27th October 1995.

The Acting Minister for Community Development said in a dialogue session that family violence was not a new issue and that the Government had been looking closely into this matter since 1993. Why is it that after looking into the matter for such a long time, the Government has not been able to legislate effectively? This is indeed most regrettable!

Now I am unable to know the exact contents of the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter, and I am not sure whether the amendments would incorporate all the details and provisions in the Family Violence Bill. I am also unable to determine whether the amended Women's Charter will be more effective in dealing with family violence matters than the present Family Violence Bill, especially clause 20(1) of this Bill which deals with how enforcement officers could better help victims in cases of family violence. Will the amended Women's Charter make it easier for victims of family violence to lodge a complaint? Or will it be just giving the victims some false hope and feeding them on illusions?

In order to be fair to Dr Soin and to be fair to the proposed Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill, I move that Parliament do postpone the debate on this Bill until the Government has introduced the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill, and we could debate the two Bills together during the Second Reading of the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill.

(In English): Sir, I would like to move a motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Are you moving a motion?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I would like to move a motion to defer further debate on the Family Violence Bill in view of the proposed introduction of amendments to the Women's Charter.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Low, if you would like to move a motion, please put it on paper and give it to the Clerk of Parliament.

Mr R. Sinnakaruppan (Kampong Glam GRC): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all Singaporeans cherish the desire of building strong family ties. Nobody likes to see violence, whether physical or emotional, in the family. It is destructive, it is depressing and it is demeaning. The Government has been looking into this seriously in the last two years. As early as 1993, MCD has embarked on a comprehensive review of the Women's Charter. In 1994, an Inter-Ministry Work Group has been set up to address spousal violence issues and concerns.

The Family Violence Bill, tabled by Dr Kanwaljit Soin, somewhat duplicates a significant portion of the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter. Nevertheless, the spirit of her Bill is laudable, her efforts commendable. The problem is that the cart was placed before the horse. Dr Soin publicised her Bill and with the ensuing media blitz, she has touched the hearts of many Singaporeans. I give her credit for her efforts. But the Ministry of Community Development, who chose not to publicise their proposals in the past two months or before because the amendments are still being fine-tuned, has somehow not been given due credit, either by the press or by some sectors of the public. The press said that the Minister killed the Bill. The Ministry of Community Development and the Minister deserve much more credit as they had initiated the whole process more than two years ago, long before the Family Violence Bill was conceptualised, as Dr Soin said, 1 1/2 years ago.

No one, not even the Minister, is opposed to the broad principles of Dr Soin's Bill. What the Ministry of Community Development is saying is that when we have an existing legislation which could be amended, it is meaningless to have another new legislation. It does not make any sense. It would be like reinventing the wheel.

Sir, we should develop comprehensive family laws incorporated into one legislation and for this, the Women's Charter is the most appropriate vehicle. The Charter, when it was first enacted, was hailed as enlightened law. It still is. It requires some fine-tuning. Many representations to the Select Committee on the Maintenance of Parents Bill asked for the establishment of comprehensive family laws. In this regard, first, the title of "Women's Charter" should be amended and I would urge the Minister to do so. It could perhaps be called "The Family Code", not the Husbands' Charter, as Mr Chin Harn Tong has said. We could then bring about other related laws into this Code. Many men ask half in jest, half in sarcasm, where is the Men's Charter? This Family Code would cover every member of the family.

When we develop this Family Code, we cannot simply ape the legislation and policies of the western or other societies because social norms differ. During a recent regional meeting, I discussed the Family Violence Bill with some of my ASEAN parliamentary colleagues and, in particular, I had the benefit of drawing on the experience of a legislator from Malaysia. He felt that their Domestic Violence Act 1994 was not working very well in Malaysia, as Dr Soin has said. But the difference is that I understand from professionals and even from the senior officials of MCD that the Family Violence Bill, and not the amendments to the Women's Charter, is modelled after the Domestic Violence Act. In other words, it is the Family Violence Bill which is being modelled after the Domestic Violence Act of Malaysia, and not necessarily the amendments to the Women's Charter. So, as it does not work in Malaysia, I feel that we should evolve our own law and not adopt laws from other jurisdiction whose social and economic conditions may differ or where such laws simply do not work.

The Family Violence Bill would encourage a confrontationalist attitude in the family. We cannot allow this to happen to our basic building block of our society. Contrary to Dr Soin's intention of containing family break-up, it would instead lead to diametrically opposite consequences.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are an Asian society. Our legal system which is largely based on the English system is adversarial. Our family law should reflect the social values of our society and we should cut off our dependency on English legal precedents. We should encourage mediation, conciliation and counselling. I had made this same point during the debate on the Maintenance of Parents Bill. I am happy to note that the Select Committee has adopted this approach in their recommendations.

The idea of mediation and conciliation has also been proposed by a senior lawyer, Mr Shriniwas Rai, in his letter to the Straits Times published on 18th October 1995. Mr Rai called for development of our family law which reflects our own society's needs.

The next point that I would like to make on the Family Code is that cases of family violence should not end up in criminal courts, as envisaged in the Bill. Instead, cases involving family violence, both physical and emotional, should be heard by the Family Court. Differences between family ought to be tried in an atmosphere of conciliation rather than confrontation. I would urge the Government to transfer the entire divorce, custody, maintenance and matrimonial property disputes from the High Court to the Family Court. The Family Court should be assisted by full-time trained conciliation officers. This Court should come under the purview of the Ministry of Community Development rather than the judicial system. It should be headed by a President who should be a family man or woman.

Sir, now let me comment on the provision in this Bill for police intervention. To me, this is by far the most bizarre and perhaps the most unpragmatic aspect of this Bill. The Minister for Home Affairs has spoken at length as to why this is unpragmatic. This provision criminalises family violence and could exacerbate the already fragile family relationship. If this becomes law, soon our Neighbourhood Police Posts (NPPs) will have to be renamed Family Counselling Service Centres. Let us not get carried away. We have about 7,000 full-time regular policemen in Singapore and some more National Servicemen. Their primary job is to keep Singapore crime-free and to keep our roads safe for motorists and pedestrians.

Let me give a simple analogy of a policeman's intervention to a family violence call. I will use the scenario of a traffic accident as an analogy.

When two cars collide in a road accident, and if a traffic cop is nearby or is summoned to the scene, he is not going to arbitrate to determine who is right and who is wrong. Neither is he going to counsel the two drivers. All he would probably do is to just book them, book them both, or arrange to arrest them, if necessary, and get them to clear the road as soon as possible. That is what he is trained to do. And if he ever tries to counsel them, I sure do not want to be caught in the ensuing traffic jam.

Sir, the point that I am making is that police intervention could lead to a more adversarial and confrontational approach to the issue of family violence. It would be difficult to train the crime busters to become patient family counsellors, as the Minister has pointed out. The job of investigation and counselling should be left to the social workers, the professional counsellors and the Volunteer Welfare Organisations (VWOs). I cannot imagine how the police officers, especially young 18 year old National Servicemen can effectively deal with complex family violence matters. According to the findings of the Inter-Agency Working Group on Spousal Violence, the pilot project at Ang Mo Kio Police Division has shown that the majority of the family violence cases do not want outside intervention, especially police intervention. The police should only be brought in when there is physical hurt.

While I maintain that police intervention is not the answer to handling family violence cases, I strongly endorse that no effort should be spared in finding other means to assist the victims quickly and to appropriately preserve the family. At the same time, recalcitrant wrong-doers and abusers must be punished sufficiently to ensure that it becomes a severe deterrent for other potential violators.

Sir, the feedback that I have received from the Indian community is that family violence is on the rapid increase and that the Government should take appropriate steps to bring it down. Ten years ago the divorce rate in the Indian community was low. Now it is rapidly increasing. Both parents are now working and as a result they spend less time not only with the children but with each other. Children are at the receiving end.

SINDA and other community organisations are trying to step up their drive to build strong family ties. The Ministry of Community Development and SINDA have jointly produced a filmlet on family. This filmlet has received favourable feedback from the community. Therefore, while legislation is necessary, public education on family ties is just as important, if not more important, and the Government must continue to allocate sufficient resources towards this end.

Sir, I would now like to refer to an article written by journalist Ms Wang Hui Ling in the Sunday Times on 15th October 1995. In this article Family violence deserves support, she made a passionate appeal to MPs to support the Family Violence Bill. In her opening paragraph she said, and I quote:

`Nominated MP Kanwaljit Soin's Family Violence Bill seems unlikely to become law, judging from the reactions of Members of Parliament interviewed by the press so far.' She goes on to explain why it deserves support and she ends by saying, and I quote:

`MPs might want to ask themselves this when discussing the issue: If my parents, my daughter or son were in this situation, which piece of legislation would I want in place to protect them.'

I want to point out to Ms Wang that when the PAP MPs, I do not know about the Opposition MPs, debate in Parliament, they would not in any way be prejudiced by pecuniary interests. As legislators and as peoples' representatives, we approach issues in exactly the same way, whether it affects or protects our kinship or our constituents. I hope Ms Wang is enlightened about how the PAP MPs approach parliamentary debates.

Sir, in conclusion, I would urge the Minister to eventually send the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter to a Select Committee where the public could be invited to give suggestions to improve the Bill. In this way, we would be getting the public to make valuable contributions to the proposed amendments.

Sir, the hon. Member for Jalan Besar GRC, Mr Peh Chin Hua, made a submission to the Select Committee on the Maintenance of Parents Bill. Similarly, the former NMP, Mr Chia Shi Teck, also made a similar representation. I would therefore urge Dr Soin to do so if the Women's Charter is sent to the Select Committee.

Sir, after Dr Soin has listened to the views of this House, I would urge her to withdraw this Bill. Today's discussion is very beneficial. I am sure that the Minister would take the views of the Member and other Members into consideration when he makes the amendments to the Women's Charter.

Sir, although I do not agree entirely with Dr Soin's Bill, I would nevertheless like to acknowledge the contribution that she has made in enriching family law. I like to believe that she has achieved her objectives.

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would try to be brief considering the time we have reached.

I have listened carefully to all the speeches that have been made in this House. It seems to me that we have broad agreement on a lot of things. We are agreed that the law is not a panacea and that the law is not the first line of defence against the erosion of family values. It is education, it is creation of an atmosphere, creation of a societal value, that preserves the family. But we must also be aware that we cannot leave it entirely to education of the morals. You look at China, it has got 4,000 years of history and it is still not a perfect society. I do not think we ever would reach a perfect society. Every moral imperative has to have some sort of support from the law if it is to be effective. We have heard from the Minister for Community Development and the Minister for Home Affairs that they are basically in agreement with the principle that the laws we presently have need to be enhanced. If one looks at the press statement that was issued by the Ministry of Community Development, one cannot but be struck by the fact that many of these proposals are in fact almost the same as those contained in the Bill that has been proposed by Dr Kanwaljit Soin. If I may just take this House through the proposals in the MCD's paper.

Amendment (1). To extend protection to cover other victims who in the opinion of the court should be regarded as a member of the family. That is in the Bill.

Amendment (2). To provide a wider coverage on types of actions which can be considered as family violence, wilfully or knowingly placing or attempting to place the victim in fear of physical injury, causing physical injury to the victim by such act which is known or ought to be known would result in physical injury, confining or detaining the victim against the victim's will, causing mischief or destruction or damage to property with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause distress or annoyance to the victim or causing continual harassment with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause distress to the victim. Again, if one compares that with clause 3 of the Bill, most of it is there. There are, of course, differences. But these are differences of detail, not really differences in principle.

Amendment (3). To make the burden of proof a balance of probabilities. It is in the Bill.

Amendment (4). To confer on the court broad powers, to include additional orders in the Protection Order. It is there as well.

Amendment (5). To provide penalties for contravention of Protection or Expedited Order. At present, in the Women's Charter there are no penalties for contravention of the Protection Orders. I think you will find this also in Dr Soin's Bill.

Amendment (6). To allow applications to be made by a child or an incapacitated adult.

Amendment (7). To attach power of arrest.

So really the controversy seems to boil down to Part III of the Bill, which is the question of police intervention. I have listened to the Minister for Home Affairs and I think what he says has very much substance. The Police are really not equipped to do this. But that does not mean, with respect, that we should throw out the Family Violence Bill. It would be ironic indeed if after all these debates and after accepting the general principle, that the law does need to be beefed up, we throw out this Bill and when the Women's Charter amendments come up, basically the same provisions surface again in slightly different form. The Women's Charter itself, if I may borrow a phrase from Lewis Caroll, is a portmanteau. It is an act that has several things in it. If you look at its history, it replaced the Christian Marriage Ordinance, it replaced the Civil Marriage Ordinance, and it has got bits of the Minor Offences Act stuck in it.

Members have called for the expansion of the Women's Charter into a comprehensive family code, a call which I fully support. I fully support the approach that has been suggested time and again in this House that the courts are not the best mechanism, not the best forum for handling family disputes, whether they be violence or whether they be maintenance. If we say no to this Bill, it must be on the understanding that we are not saying no to the principle, that the details will come up again, and that much of the drafting and suggestions here will eventually be incorporated into the Women's Charter. It is very difficult at this time, as Mr Low has pointed out, to actually make a judgement as to which set of proposal is better because we do not know what is going to go into the Women's Charter. But if past practice is any guide, may I urge, like Mr Sinnakaruppan, that the Minister refer the Women's Charter amendments to a Select Committee, and at that point these provisions can again be suggested and debated.

In conclusion, may I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think that the exercise is valueless. In fact, it is very good that Dr Soin has brought this to consciousness and, as the Minister himself has acknowledged, it has provided the impetus for consideration of this problem. If, at the end of the day, it is the feeling of this House that it would be better to deal with the amendments within the context of the Women's Charter, then so be it. But let us keep in mind that it is not the principle we are rejecting. We may quibble about the details but I think we are all agreed that it is necessary that the law should be beefed up.