FAMILY VIOLENCE BILL

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [1st November, 1995],

"That the Bill be now read a second time." - [Dr Kanwaljit Soin, Nominated Member].

Question again proposed. 12.53 pm

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, in yesterday's debate, it was unanimously agreed that family violence shall never be condoned. Those who engage in acts of beating up family members should be severely punished. This, we are in total agreement. However, it is in the form of legislation between the existing Women's Charter and the Penal Code and the proposed Family Violence Bill that we must decide on which is the best to address this serious social ill. There is a significant difference both in terms of philosophy and procedure between the two. In the Women's Charter and Penal Code, it takes a more humane approach. Every effort is made to mediate and reconciliate the conflicting parties in order to preserve the family unit. The law will only be introduced as a last resort. Whereas in the proposed Bill, the law is to be called upon on the onset of a family conflict. It is confrontational and litigious.

I cannot reconcile the harsh high-handed and detached way of dealing with family conflicts as I feel that family conflict is a very complex and intimate problem that concerns family members who are bound by blood or marriage. Therefore, I wish to highlight a few provisions in the proposed Bill which I found extremely difficult to reconcile with.

Firstly, the underlying intention of the Bill is to introduce litigation into family conflict at an early stage. It runs contrary to our strong belief that we should endeavour to resolve family conflict as much as possible through tolerance, compromise and respect. We must recognise that family violence is a very complex matter. It involves deep emotional feelings, relationship which takes years to develop and in the case of husband and wife, affection and a very special type of bondage. It is totally different from the case where two persons are involved in a fight because if that happens, it is a simple matter of determining who is the guilty one, prosecute him or her, fine and punish the guilty party, and that is the end of the story. Can we do that for family conflict, given the emotional content and relationships bound by blood or marriage? Will life go on as usual once the so-called guilty one is being apprehended or punished? The answer is obviously no. Because once a conflict happens, family members are compelled to take sides to give evidence, testimonies or as witness in the court. The whole process will tear the family apart and set one against another. There will be a lot of consequential problems.

Therefore, I am strongly against the introduction of litigation into all forms of family dispute at an early stage. We should stick to our principle of dealing with family problems through counselling, education and, most important of all, promotion of family values. Only in severe cases where hurt or grievous hurt is detected, then the culprit should be apprehended and prosecuted.

Secondly, the introduction of Police to intervene at the onset of any family squabble is likely to make things worse as the possibility of reconciliation would definitely diminish, as both parties would take a confrontational posture and the end result is that the family loses control of the situation and therefore making it difficult for any amicable settlement. This runs contrary to our principle of settling family problems through conciliation, counselling and promotion of family values.

Calling in the Police should always be a last resort, besides it is unrealistic and impractical to expect the Police to be equipped with the skills and techniques to settle family disputes. One cannot imagine a young policeman confronting two very angry persons will know what to do to calm the disputing party down.

Thirdly, the provision of the Bill to allow a third person to report acts of family violence and institute investigation is equally disturbing. This effectively takes control out of the family. The rights of the family or the individual to self-determination must then be compromised. This will also open up to abuse as the third party can always take advantage of the opportunity to report on any family conflict occurring between friends and neighbours and report them to the Police and therefore create a chain of problems out of malice or spite. Even those who have the best of intention can inadvertently mess things up by doing what they think is a good deed.

While we must ensure that our old folks, children and spouses are adequately protected, we must also recognise that when people live together in a family unit, there must be the occasional quarrels and fights. The principle has always been to exercise restraint. There is a Chinese saying that best illustrates this precept, that is, " " (Da shi hua xiao, xiao shi hua wu), literally translated, it means to have a big problem turned into a small problem, and a small problem turned into no problem. This should be the best principle to resolve family conflicts. The approach should always be reconciliatory, not confrontational and definitely not militant.

To sum up, we must distinguish between the two. Family conflict may not necessarily lead to family violence and should be resolved as such. I am sure that the proposed amendment to the Women's Charter would provide a more positive step towards addressing the problem. And in actual family violence cases, I think our Penal Code has adequately provided protection for those victims. We can always propose further amendments to the Women's Charter and to our Penal Code when the need arises in the future.

In the meantime, I think the positive thing to do is to promote awareness of the problem of family violence and educate the likely victim to take a more positive stand and seek counselling and protection before the situation deteriorates. Perhaps one of the most serious dilemmas faced by victims of family violence is that they have to weigh the consequence of reporting the aggressor and having the prospect of being left all alone to fend for themselves should the aggressor be convicted and jailed, or to leave things as they are. This sense of fear of uncertainty often tilts the balance of the decision on whether to go to the authority or not. Therefore, it is important for us to provide them with the assurance that should they be unfortunate enough to fall victim to family violence, all support will be available to them, be it financial or emotional, by the Government as well as the society so that they will have the confidence and courage to come forward to bring the aggressor to justice. This, I feel, is a more positive step towards addressing the problem instead of introducing more litigation as proposed in the Bill.

I, therefore, consider the proposed Family Violence Bill redundant and, if passed, would serve no additional purpose but may even have a negative effect on creating more broken families and bring more pain and suffering to the family members.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

Sir, yesterday, we had a series of passionate discussions on this subject. It is interesting, but I feel that we have to get down to the ground and look at the issues soberly.

Sir, family violence, as I see it, is a tail-end of a family problem because when it gets into a violent stage, that is the end of the problem. It is very complex and difficult to deal with. Nevertheless, I think we should not condone any form of violence within or outside the family, and we should register and deal with this behaviour effectively.

Sir, if we examine it, family violence is only a minor issue because I am more concerned about mothers and children who are neglected, and mothers who are not maintained after separation. I think this is a greater problem that needs to be addressed because it represents a large number of people that we should be concerned about.

Sir, we have to look at the strategy. We have a problem, that is, domestic violence. How do we deal with it effectively? Do we need a separate legislation for it? Or do we look at the existing legislation and see what we can do immediately to strengthen it and looking at how we can deliver the services more effectively? What we can do to mediate in these problems and help the family to reconcile and come together again and find new meaning to their lives is the issue at hand. Therefore, the question is: do we need a separate legislation to deal with family violence? As I see it, there is no basis for this. Because there is a more urgent need to strengthen and to give more teeth to the existing legislation to deal with domestic problems.

Sir, I have spoken to many community groups and leaders and many of them feel that the existing legislation relating to family matters should be strengthened. There are a few reasons that I would like to advance for not supporting a separate legislation to deal with domestic violence. First, the Bill creates a negative label on the parties affected and further drives a relationship problem, ie, a wedge between family members. Second, family violence, in my mind, is a very complex matter and cannot be easily resolved by the provisions in the Bill. Because family relationship is a very personalised and complex matter and you need to encourage the couples to get together to see how these problems could be resolved amicably. Sometimes, the problems cannot be resolved. So what do we do?

Sir, despite all this, we still need to find ways for family members and spouses who have difficulties in marriage, conflicts, or domestic violence to resolve their problems.

The third reason that I am not supporting this Bill is that the issues covered by the Bill are not new. Many of these issues are related to marital problems, such as maintenance, abuse and neglect of family members. These could be dealt with under the existing legislation and in this case, the Women's Charter could be amended to tackle present and future family problems.

I hope the Minister will take the necessary effective steps to plug the problems arising from domestic violence. The cases should be referred to appointed family counselling agencies for follow-up. If this can be done and working in concert with the police, then I think we will have a very coordinated approach in dealing with domestic violence in the context of the family.

Sir, what is important is the follow-up support and our capacity to organise a good service delivery system to tackle the problem. More so, we need to find ways in preventing families from getting into this terminal stage of the problem itself. I would like to see that more resources are deployed to support the family enrichment programmes, ie, marriage enrichment and family life education. If we are able to review these areas and deploy more resources for these areas, I think we can reduce the number of families facing such problems.

Sir, as I see it, there is no urgency to have another legislation to deal with family problems in a segmented manner. Yesterday, our Parliamentary colleague, NMP Dr Kanwaljit Soin, said that many of these families are quite reluctant to go and seek help because of their background and profile, and she quoted a Chinese saying. Today, I would like to bring to her attention that there is another Chinese saying which says, " " (ya men ba zi kai, wu qian mo jin lai), in short, it means doors are open but you need money to come in.

Sir, in fact, we should examine the existing legislation. We have the Women's Charter which deals with domestic issues - family relationship, maintenance and support for children. We should try and see how we can strengthen this. I hope that the Minister will be able to incorporate many of the good points which have been brought up by NMP Dr Kanwaljit Soin. Dr Soin's viewpoints are quite valid and she has suggested many ideas. I hope that her viewpoints which are in the Family Violence Bill can be fully incorporated into the Women's Charter. I do not support that the Family Violence Bill be introduced as a separate Bill, but I would suggest that the Women's Charter incorporate all the viewpoints that have been brought forward.

The Senior Minister of State for Health and Education (Dr Aline K. Wong): Mr Speaker, I support the intention of the Bill which is to curb family violence and to give more protection to the victims. Family violence is a problem that exists throughout the ages and across cultures and societies. I know all of us put a great deal of emphasis on family values, moral education and so on. But the reality is no moral exhortation can eliminate it.

Countries that have domestic violence laws have not seen a fall in cases committed either. The law can only protect the victims, but not solve the root problems that cause domestic violence. We all agree that the victims should be protected and that the abusers should be deterred from repeating the offence and, where they still persist, bring them to justice. So the question is how can this be done without destroying the fragile family relationships.

In discussing the Bill, we have to bear in mind there are two different types of issues involved here. First, what are the specific measures proposed and how effective are these measures? Second, should these measures be incorporated into a single piece of new legislation, or should they be incorporated into existing legislation? Since the Acting Minister for Community Development has already made known how the Women's Charter is going to be changed to give greater protection to victims of domestic violence, I think we should discuss the above questions by comparing the provisions in the Bill with the changes that the Minister said would be effected to the Women's Charter. The details disclosed by the Minister are sufficient already for us to discuss the merits of the Bill.

When I first heard about the Family Violence Bill and saw its first draft, I thought it was a pretty good idea to have a piece of legislation to bring all members of the family under one law. However, after I studied the Bill and its successive drafts, I am no longer sure about its various provisions and am in doubt as to the wisdom of having a separate piece of legislation that has such a wide coverage.

Let me start with protection of the child first. The Bill proposes to extend protection of young persons against domestic abuse by covering children above the age of 16 who are not protected by the Children and Young Persons Act. This appears to be a useful extension. However, it is difficult to view a young person between age 16 and 21 as requiring the kind of legal protection intended by the Bill. Some of these young people may already be working, or are in national service. I should think therefore the extension of coverage under this Bill would, in practice, apply mainly to the disabled child who is especially vulnerable to domestic abuse, including sexual abuse.

A Sunday Times article on 24th September 1995, entitled "Families do not want to talk about child sexual abuse" mentioned that most child sexual abuse victims were usually girls, and they were usually under the age of 10. This would appear to confirm that the existing legislation is adequate to protect young children. Nevertheless, the newspaper report pointed out that intellectually disabled children were especially at risk. I think, for these children, there is a case for extending protection beyond age 16.

Also, the provision under clause 19 of the Bill for "any persons" to report to an enforcement officer is useful in the case of child sexual abuse, since the family is unlikely to want to report to the police on its own. However, whether these two useful aspects of the Bill can be adopted expeditiously by the existing Children and Young Persons Act, or should they be incorporated in a new piece of legislation dealing exclusively with domestic violence, I think we should leave it to the legal experts to decide. My point is extending the coverage of children by itself is not a sufficient justification for having a separate piece of legislation.

Let me come to elderly abuse. The present legislation does not enable the elderly to apply for a Personal Protection Order under the Women's Charter even if the elderly concerned are women. The Penal Code protects the elderly against physical abuse. However, it does not appear to protect them against psychological harm or harassment where there is no criminal intimidation. By comparison, the Bill provides for Protection Orders as well as covers harassment. So on these counts, the Bill can extend wider protection to the elderly.

Under the existing law, the elderly have to cross several hurdles before protection can be sought. They have to make a police report. They have to take a medical examination and take out a summons against the abuser. These are formidable hurdles for the elderly persons. Apart from these hurdles, we know that most parents are unwilling to report their children to the police. The Bill proposes to make it easier for a third party such as the police to intervene. While this may ensure a quick relief to the victim, my question is: would third party intervention make it more difficult for the parent to be eventually reconciled with his own children, thereby preserving the family unit? How can we strike a careful balance between the ideal of preserving the parent/child relationship with sufficient protection for the weaker members of the family? There is no easy answer to this question.

But what bothers me besides this nagging question is that this Bill lumps the issue of elderly abuse together with child abuse and spousal abuse under one legislation. I am of the view that these three types of violence should not be lumped together, especially where the elderly are the parents or adopted parents or relatives who have taken care of the family, in much the same way as the parent does. This is because parents gave birth to us, brought us up and provided for us. We must treat them with the utmost respect and provide for them in their old age. This same moral precept underlies the Maintenance of Parents Bill. The parent/child relationship is really on a different moral plane from that of the spousal relationship. While husbands and wives should respect each other as individuals and should care for each other, they can seek divorce if the marriage does not work out. But we can never divorce our parents.

I therefore feel that we should not lump the issue of parental abuse together with spousal violence. Whether the existing Penal Code should make the penalty more severe for parental abuse or whether there should ideally be a separate legislation altogether to deal with parental abuse can be a matter for further discussion. Here, I should add that even where the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter provide for the protection of parents and adoptive parents, the question still remains as to whether we should treat the parents on the same moral plane as spouse, siblings, children and so on.

Let me now discuss spousal violence. Available statistics on family violence are very patchy. They come from different sources and these show conflicting trends with regard to child abuse and elderly abuse. The signs appear to be clearer on spousal violence, the greatest majority of which are wife beating. The number of Protection Orders, Expedited Orders and Domestic Exclusion Orders issued by the courts has nearly doubled over the last five years. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that more men are beating up their wives now as compared to five years ago. This definitely has to do with the fact that more women are now willing to come out and make reports and that the police are now more helpful to the victims.

There is enough literature as well as field experience to show that wife abuse is the result of a complex web of social, emotional and psychological factors which are often compounded by financial difficulties and such irresponsible behaviour as drinking and gambling. Thus, legislation alone cannot help the victim or the abuser over the long run. There must be enough counselling and support services to help the family break out of the cycle of violence.

A prominent feature of the Bill is to make investigation by the police mandatory and counselling compulsory. The question is: do we have enough resources to cope with a sudden surge in demand for investigation and counselling? As the Minister for Home Affairs said yesterday, he is concerned that with a sudden surge in demand for counselling and investigation, a disproportionately large amount of police energy and resources would be absorbed by a relatively small number of cases of family violence.

I understand that this Bill is closely modelled on the Domestic Violence Act of Malaysia. There, implementation has been delayed because the necessary machinery has yet to be established. Similarly, countries like Australia which have domestic violence laws took a few years to put in place a machinery of relevant judicial, social and community services before introducing their domestic violence laws. So, why should we rush into passing a law that cannot be implemented effectively straightaway? Furthermore, the effectiveness of counselling depends very much on the stage at which family disputes are subjected to outside intervention. Given our Asian culture, most people prefer not to wash the family's dirty linen in public. While this preference is a good thing as it helps to keep the family intact, by the time a wife reports spousal violence to the police, it is likely that the situation has already deteriorated to such a serious level that third party intervention would be unable to do much for them, just as Dr Vasoo has mentioned.

But in my mind, an opposite scenario is more likely to take place under the Bill. It is that a family may be locked into a situation where it cannot retrieve itself once a report is made to the police. Police officers who have been handling family disputes under the existing law have found that many women are not willing to press charges against their husbands even where grievous hurt has been committed. This is because many victims do not want to lose a breadwinner or be blamed for breaking up the family, as after all he is the father of her children. Typically, the victims only want the police to deter the abuser and help him to cool down. But under the Bill, a police officer will be required to investigate and prosecute upon receiving a report, unless the abuser goes for voluntary counselling after the occurrence of the first report. Thereafter, prosecution cannot be avoided. Thus, even though the intention of the Bill is to break the cycle of violence at an early stage, it may have the unintended consequence of deterring women from seeking help if they still desire to maintain their family relationship.

Viewed against the above, a proposed amendment to the Women's Charter is to empower the court to impose additional orders when granting PPOs such as requiring the abuser to attend counselling. This is a more discretionary approach. Counselling will be employed where it is judged to be effective or where there are chances that the marriage can still be saved. I am more for this discretionary approach.

Sir, the lack of discretion in the hands of the law enforcement officer is the single most troubling proposal under the Bill. I think this would lead to more problems than it would resolve. Like Mrs Yu-Foo, I also feel uncomfortable with widening the definition of "domestic violence" to include marital rape. Even in some countries where marital rape is recognised in law, it applies only to specific circumstances such as when the couple is already separated.

Mr Speaker, family relationships are highly emotional personal matters. Hence, they should be treated with the greatest sensitivity. While it is laudable that we should want to extend more protection to victims of abuse, I think in our eagerness we must not make matters worse for the family. It is here that I find the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Maintenance of Parents Bill both sensible and sensitive. The approach taken is conciliatory and, even where mediation fails, a Tribunal will hear the case in chambers. Open litigation is avoided. I would recommend a similar approach to be adopted for domestic violence when the Women's Charter is revised.

Finally, do we need a new piece of legislation to extend protection to victims of domestic violence? I would not go so far as to say that, if child abuse can be covered by the Children and Young Persons Act, and if elderly abuse should not be lumped together with spousal violence, then the Family Violence Bill is really about spousal abuse, and mainly about wife abuse, and hence its provisions can very well be accommodated within the Women's Charter. Let us not preclude these two other groups of victims for the moment. Let us still consider the question whether there should be a single piece of legislation to deal with domestic violence, including child abuse and elderly abuse.

Mr Speaker, a separate law such as the Bill has the advantage of sending a strong signal that our society does not condone family violence. But what I am worried about is that it will send too strong a signal or, worse still, send a wrong signal.

It is not just that the Bill may give a wrong impression that domestic violence is a very serious problem in Singapore. It is also that, by highlighting such a problem through having a distinct piece of legislation, we may begin to change the way family members look at their own relationships. It is to the credit of Dr Soin and AWARE that much public discussion of this topic has been generated over the past few months. However, as I observe from the experience of some countries in the West, when the definition of domestic violence is too broad, you may cause the society to become more litigious. And when terms such as "child abuse", "spouse abuse", "psychological abuse", "hurt", "harassment", "marital rape" and so on become common coinage in the media, in people's conversations and in their subconsciousness, people's attitudes towards maintaining the family as a unit will also change. Where the law intervenes or is resorted to too readily, people will be less inclined to solve family problems through reconciliation or take moral responsibility for their own behaviour. In the long run, we may all be the losers.

By comparison, the Women's Charter and other legislation are already in place. They can be reviewed to incorporate some of the positive features of the Bill. For Dr Soin's information, both Mrs Yu-Foo and myself have found that, at the grassroots, the women frankly do not mind one way or the other, so long as the Government is doing something to extend protection, so long as they know where help can be found when the need arises.

I hope the Acting Minister for Community Development would not wait too long before the specific amendments to the Women's Charter are introduced in this House. Some lawyers have suggested that the Women's Charter should be thoroughly reviewed to make it into an all-embracing Family Law. I would recommend that we take one step at a time. Amend the Charter, as the Minister has intended, and include the positive aspects of this Bill on family violence but as soon as possible, and before the proposal for a Family Law is studied thoroughly. I would like to remind the Minister that for a long time, women lawyers and organisations have pointed out the need to improve the present provisions for division of matrimonial assets, enforcement of maintenance orders and related matters. We women cannot wait any longer. 1.29 pm

The Acting Minister for Community Development (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi): Mr Speaker, Sir, as I sat listening to the debate on this Bill yesterday, I would not blame anyone leaving this Chamber more confused about the differences between police intervention in this Bill and police involvement that complements the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter.

Listening to the Nominated Member of Parliament elaborating on the role of the Police, it would appear that what the Bill provides for is similar to what the Ang Mo Kio project hopes to achieve. The Member spoke of police discretion, the benefits of counselling, keeping the family intact, and of healing, not destroying; the very same spirit, intent and philosophy of what MCD and MHA are in fact promoting.

But the nub of the matter, Sir, is that there is a difference between the approach provided for in the Family Violence Bill and the MCD/MHA approach when it comes to police involvement. Sir, the difference is subtle, but it is fundamental enough to separate the Bill and the amendments to the Charter.

Before I point out the critical differences, let me at the risk of repetition, state my premises yet again to put my stand in proper perspective:

(1) That violence in the family should not be condoned and that society must find ways to protect victims and potential victims from the clutches of such violence.

(2) That the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter should be seen in the context of the efforts of the police and the service agencies as piloted in the Ang Mo Kio project. Hence the police is involved, contrary to what the NMP would have the House to believe. The amendments should not be seen in vacuum because it has always been emphasised that family violence should be tackled through legislation as well as the police, service agencies and the community.

(3) That family violence is a problem in our society (and indeed in virtually every society, as alluded to by Dr Aline Wong earlier) albeit not an endemic one here as the Member tried to demonstrate with her statistics yesterday.

(4) That it is recognised that the existing legislation and supporting services are indeed inadequate, hence the work of the Inter-Ministry Committee and the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter.

Yesterday, the Minister for Home Affairs elaborated on the differences in police approach in the Family Violence Bill and in the Women's Charter amendments. I checked again with the police and the legal authorities yesterday evening and this morning on the import and meaning of the provisions in the Family Violence Bill, especially clauses 13 and 14 as they pertain to police intervention. Clause 13(1) of the Family Violence Bill obliges the police to investigate every case reported. The purpose of a police investigation is to determine if an offence has been committed. Evidence has to be gathered and witnesses have to be interviewed. This could mean going to the home where the violence took place to obtain evidence and talk to other family members involved.

Contrary to what Dr Soin said yesterday, the police has no discretion at the scene, to offer counselling instead of prosecution. The police (Investigation Officer) will have to, after investigation, submit his investigation papers (IPs) to the Public Prosecutor and only he or an officer authorised by him, ie, the Public Prosecutor, can exercise that discretion.

If the Family Violence Bill were to become law, Sir, family violence will not be "like any other offence". This is simply because unlike all current laws including the Penal Code, which give police discretion, whether to initiate investigation, the Family Violence Bill (Clause 13) "requires", I repeat, "requires" the police to investigate every case.

Sir, I oppose the passage of the Bill, not for what it seeks to achieve, ie, to enhance protection of victims or potential victims of family violence, but for its approach and tone and for the fact that there is already existing legislation in the Women's Charter to address the same problem and which can be amended to enhance its effectiveness.

The Bill proposes a more direct, mandatory and visible intervention by the police on reports of family violence. It obliges the police to investigate all reports of family violence and gives them the power of arrest without warrant regardless of the credibility of the report, the gravity of the offence and whether it is the first and only occurrence or a repeat offence.

Sir, conflict among members of the same family is significantly different from those between strangers, neighbours or even friends. The emotional mechanics that come into play when people linked by blood or marriage inflict physical or psychological pain or damage to one another is extremely complex and sensitive. Family members will still have to contend with their relationship in the aftermath of that conflict. This has been alluded to by Dr Wong earlier too. Do they sever their relationship? Do they want to retain their relationship to the status quo ante? Or do they make adjustments just so they remain related, albeit on a different basis? Sir, these are decisions best left to the victims themselves.

Strangers do not have to face these emotional challenges as the perpetrator caught and punished is neither a spouse nor a sibling or one's relatives, or even one's child.

We therefore have to be extremely careful in our handling of and intervention in family violence. Making it mandatory for the police to intervene right from the start, to probe, to question, to record statements, to ascertain guilt and to put all these on police record (because that is what investigation means) could worsen an already brittle relationship between the parties involved, thus making it harder for them to reconcile and for the family to become whole again.

The argument offered in support of the Bill is that victims are often helpless in the face of family violence and that unl ess the authoritative figure of the police intervenes, the victim can hope for no protection. Battered faces, lacerations on the body, even broken limbs; this is the picture of family violence portrayed every time the subject is raised in talks, forums and discussions. Indeed, Sir, these descriptions were mentioned several times yesterday in Dr Soin's speech and in even greater detail. It was made to appear that this is such a widespread and common face of family violence. It touches the emotions. It was designed to enrage us, to make us want to extract an eye for an eye against the perpetrator.

Sir, without belittling the suffering of these victims and while this may be true in some cases, the reality in most cases is not as gruesome and the victims not as helpless as put. There is a wide range of abuse with various shades of gravity especially now that the definition of family violence has been widened. But the Bill treats them all equally as seizable offences.

Most of the reported police cases, as mentioned by the Home Affairs Minister yesterday, merely want to place the offence on record and not to proceed beyond that. Some have already, as in the case of spousal violence, contemplated divorce.

Sir, just as the Member could quote of specific cases where police intervention would be more desirable and effective, I and the Minister for Home Affairs can likewise cite other cases where intervention results in negative consequences. The story of Madam Ee Seng Mui quoted in yesterday's The New Paper is one such case. Anecdotal evidence such as these can only raise emotions and provide grist for arguments.

The Member also quoted extensive statistics yesterday on the number of reported cases of family violence, concluding that the problem is growing worryingly. Sir, as a former statistician, I know how numbers can be crunched to spin a different tale from reality. The Member has not demonstrated conclusively that these numbers indicated an actual increase in incidence of family violence or merely an indication of growing awareness of and knowledge about family violence. If awareness is indeed an ingredient, then the rising number of reports made is testimony to people's acceptance of the PPO as a legal instrument to handle family violence.

Sir, victims do not report or pursue their reports precisely because they do not want third party interference. There is a variety of reasons for not wanting this interference - from hoping that matters would clear up and followed by reconciliation; the sense of shame should others know of their disagreements, or wives saying "I still love him despite all this". Who are we, Sir, to butt in when we are unwanted and decide for them what should be done? Who are we to deny them their concerns and hopes, silly or senseless they may seem to us? Do we know better than them to decide what choice they should take in their relationships?

Far better, Sir, for us to tell them of the choices and options available to them and to help them make the best of the route that they have chosen.

I had had a discussion with the President of the Society Against Family Violence, that very body which works on the ground, quietly and committedly, to develop community resources to tackle the problem of family violence. They know the reality on the ground. They had no hand in drafting the Bill. They are concerned with the overly legalistic approach to solving the problem and the confrontational stance of this Bill.

Indeed, Sir, the Bill is confrontational. It is more heavily weighed towards punishing the perpetrator. The offer of counselling to the abuser may appear to be conciliatory but, in my view, it is more a concession in lieu of prosecution, rather as an after-thought than a principal ingredient of the Bill.

Perhaps it is because of this orientation that the authors fail to address the operational challenges and lack of community resources when they proposed mandatory counselling and police intervention the way they do. They expect and leave the rest of the community services to pick up the responsibilities after the law has shown its teeth.

Sir, my Ministry and the Ministry of Home Affairs, on the other hand, are mindful of the reality - the resources available, the preparedness of police personnel and the values that our families hold. Hence, we opted for incremental changes in the law and building up community resources and police readiness at the same time to complement these changes. This is the rationale for the Ang Mo Kio project which we hope to develop and refine further. These are the premises for the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter.

Sir, my Ministry's mission is to strengthen families to make them whole and to heal any rifts or concerns that may threaten the well-being of the family. It is therefore our conviction that every opportunity should be given to the family to heal and mend itself after a conflict. Disagreements, Sir, skirmishes and quarrels are part and parcel of family life. This is a reality we must accept.

It is infinitely better for families to want to be counselled and to want to weather these storms rather than being reluctantly made to do so. Hence, the approach that we are taking in tackling the problem of family violence. It is more a total approach, combining the judicious involvement of the police, the professional counselling input of the service agencies and the natural inclination of most families to want to sort out their problems internally before seeking outside help. Serious physical hurt or seizable offences will be punished under the Penal Code with or without the Bill and regardless of whether the Women's Charter is amended or not.

Dr Soin said yesterday that the Domestic Violence Act of Malaysia which was very similar to the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter had its shortcomings. Her implication did not escape me, Sir. But the truth is something else.

When the Secretary-General of the Malaysian Ministry responsible for the Act visited my Ministry earlier this year and when I met the Minister in Beijing at the 4th World Conference on Women, they told me that the Act was not yet implemented because of operational problems and because of differences in the State and Federal laws, not due to what the NMP implies.

Dr Soin also implied yesterday that the amendments to the Women's Charter were modelled after the Malaysian Domestic Violence Act 1994 and implying that it had its shortcomings because of the reliance on the PPOs.

Let me put the record straight. Earlier this year, Dr Soin submitted her Bill on family violence to CID. Except for the word "Singapore" which substituted the word "Malaysian", the Bill submitted was virtually a replica of the Malaysian Act. Of course, the Bill, as it now stands before the House, contains many modifications.

When the Inter-Ministry Committee looked into the issue of family violence, it looked at not only the Malaysian but other Acts as well. In fact, there are many things we do not agree with in the Malaysian legislation. So let us not talk about who copies what and from where. It serves no purpose.

Sir, Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon yesterday suggested - and I think Dr Vasoo alluded to it, so did Dr Wong - that my Ministry could perhaps look into the widening of the scope of the proposed tribunal in the Maintenance of Parents Bill to include providing conciliation and mediation to family members in family violence cases and to issue PPOs.

Sir, my Ministry is in fact looking into the feasibility of such a widening of responsibility. We will certainly consider this to see how the concept can be developed further.

Mr Speaker, Sir, undoubtedly there are some provisions in the Bill which have merit. And Dr Soin and the drafters of the Bill ought to be complimented for their effort. I am not averse to incorporating them as amendments to the Women's Charter. But I cannot, in all honesty, give my "assent" to the Second Reading of the Bill and I must say "no" to the Bill. But what I will offer, Sir, is to commit the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter to a Select Committee so that the Nominated Member and other Members of this House, as well as the public, can still propose inclusions to the amendments that would enable the piece of legislation to provide enhanced protection to victims of family violence.

Let us work together to achieve our common objective.

Mr Imram bin Mohamed (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, as I see it, there are two main issues that need to be debated with regard to the proposed Family Violence Bill.

(1) Is there a need to enhance or tighten the present legislation?

(2) Is Police intervention desirable for all cases of violence? I shall confine my arguments within this ambit.

The incidence of family violence is on the increase if we go by the statistics revealed by the Government. The figures show that the number of Protection Orders issued for spousal violence has more than doubled over the last five years, and is heading for a record increase this year. This rising trend in family violence indicates that existing legislation has not been entirely effective in dealing with this problem.

One weakness of the present legislation is that it is not deterrent enough. The law does not effectively ensure that the perpetrator of a violent offence on a family member will be taken to task. The victim could report to the Police. But unless grievous hurt is evident, it would be difficult for the Police to prosecute under the Penal Code because of difficulties in getting evidence. Witnesses may not want to come forward because of the private nature of the conflict. Further, since they are still living together, the offender could apply pressure on the victim not to proceed with the complaint. The complainant may also not want to proceed with Police action when told of the possible punishment the offender may face.

Police statistics revealed that of the 3,625 cases of voluntarily causing hurt involving family members in 1994, about half the complainants did not want to proceed beyond making the initial complaint. The victims could seek to file to the court for legal protection under the Women's Charter. But many see this as an onerous process or are simply intimidated by the courts. As last year's statistics showed, only one of seven complainants sought and was given protection from the courts. Thus, a large number of abusers got away scot-free with little the legislation could do to check their violent streak.

There is therefore a need to give more teeth to the law to deal with recalcitrants of family violence. We need to send a clear message. The society does not condone violent behaviour within the family environment.

Several Members have stated that though family violence is on the rise, we should not exaggerate the problem and blow it out of proportion. However, we should not treat the problem too lightly either as family violence, if allowed to continue unchecked, would result in a disharmonious relationship in the family. This would lead to a multitude of social problems, like those we are experiencing today and which have been attributed to dysfunctional families.

The Bill also proposes that Police be empowered to investigate all cases of family violence reported to them. Members have articulated a number of arguments against this, such as the undesirability of Police intrusion into the home, a lack of expertise to handle family disputes, the premature and confrontational nature of Police intervention.

I feel, however, that the proposal has many merits too and should be given serious consideration. For a start, it would serve as a strong deterrent to would-be perpetrators of domestic violence. The public too would see the Police as a more acceptable form of intervention than the courts. This is because Neighbourhood Police are seen as friendly, more accessible and can provide more immediate relief. The courts, on the other hand, are viewed as remote or intimidating to a victim in distress. The Police need not intervene prematurely. The Police usually come into the scene when a report is made and the victim has a choice to seek other recourse before going to the Police to seek help. I would agree with Members that Police action would be construed as confrontational if the Police were to merely apprehend and prosecute the abuser. However, under the provisions of the Bill, the Police would offer offenders the option of going for counselling in lieu of a prosecution. This has several merits.

Firstly, it is a conciliatory move. Whilst wielding a big stick, the Police will first offer a humane punishment. The stick is only used if the accused is uncooperative.

Secondly, the abuser is compelled to go for counselling which is probably the best therapy for people who are inclined to hurt their loved ones. It offers a chance for a recalcitrant to be rehabilitated.

Thirdly, it would be an acceptable form of punishment to most complainants who wish only to reconcile and to continue living together with the offender in a harmonious environment. Of course, to achieve effective Police intervention, Police personnel need to be adequately trained in handling family disputes. The Police would need to look into this requirement and our judgement of the merits of the Bill should not be influenced by the lack of such Police personnel at the present time.

Looking at it positively, since the police station or Neighbourhood Police Post will always be the first stop for victims looking for legal protection, a sufficient number of adequately trained personnel of the Police could play a vital role in mediating a conflict and reducing the initial trauma of the family members.

Having said all that, I however feel that the Family Violence Bill need not necessarily be adopted as a separate code. It could form part of a wider Family Charter which should also incorporate the Women's Charter and perhaps the Maintenance of Parents Bill. The Family Charter is then a one-stop legal tool that spells out the rights of each and every member in the family. It also ties in with the available judiciary channel, that is, the Family Court.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Soin deserves to be commended for her excellent effort in coming up with the Bill. Not only did it provide the impetus but the Bill will, though not perfect in its detailed provisions, provide a good base and contain the necessary ingredients to make it into a good piece of legislation.

I support the adoption of the Bill and for it to be sent to a Select Committee for refinement and incorporation into the Family Charter.

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to highlight the many areas of convergence in this discussion of family violence.

First, most of us believe in the fundamental principle of the family as the basic unit of society and there is a strong consensus in Singapore that family violence is wrong and should not be condoned. There is also a consensus that existing legislation is inadequate and that additional legislation is needed.

Second, there is also widespread recognition that family violence is a very complex, emotive and private issue. We all hope when family violence does occur, that there can indeed be reconciliation, mediation, restoration of family unity. There is also agreement that a mediatory, reconciliatory approach to family problems is a preferred alternative and that the first best is for family violence to be resolved within the family with the help of relatives, friends and other support groups.

The debate before us is therefore not whether there should be additional legislation but over the where and the how of such additional provision. In this, Dr Kanwaljit Soin is to be commended for bringing family violence to the forefront of public policy. By taking the initiative to propose a formulation of the necessary legislation in this House, she has enabled us all to focus on what exactly is needed in terms of additional provision. That by itself constitutes significant value-added. We may or may not support the Family Violence Bill per se but the introduction of the Bill has enabled the discussion to progress forward to this point of the second level of debate which is regarding the where and the how.

I would also like to give credit to the volunteer organisations who have worked with the Government in the area of violence prevention, such as the Society Against Family Violence, AWARE and SOS in the Women and Family Violence Committee which work together with the CID, and also the Society Against Family Violence in AWARE which has worked with the Government in the Inter-Ministry Work Group. I believe that considerable work has been done already by these, including the establishment of the Ang Mo Kio Pilot Project, and these should be given credit. I believe also that it is the work of many of these volunteers working without remuneration that have also resulted in the formulation of the amendment to the Women's Charter which was done together with the Government.

There are two specific issues here. The first is regarding whether family violence should be in a separate Bill or whether it should be incorporated in amendments to the Women's Charter. I have no strong views regarding the location of the legislation and I believe that for those who suffer abuse, their first problem is recourse to protection, recourse to some solution rather than what exact legislation there is as to what protection can be given to them.

What matter more therefore are the provisions for violence protection, violence prevention and family rehabilitation. For example, technically speaking, the entire Family Violence Bill could actually be incorporated as an entirety, as an amended section in the Women's Charter rather than a separate Bill per se.

Having said these, I would like to add that it does seem odd to include family violence for all members of the family, including husbands and elderly parents under the Women's Charter. If this is the course of action of the Government, then I am in favour of the proposal of changing the title from Women's Charter to Family Charter.

Regarding the provisions against family violence, there are two issues which I would like to address. The first issue is that of a central role given to counselling. I believe that counselling is indeed an important step towards reconciliation, a first step, nevertheless, but a very important step and counselling for the victim, the abuser as well as the other members of the family, for example, children who have witnessed constant abuse of one parent by another is a vital aspect of the rehabilitation process and in as much as abusers are often reluctant to undergo counselling, this needs to be made mandatory. I therefore support the provision for mandatory counselling for the abuser in the Family Violence Bill.

In addition, I would suggest that not only counselling be made mandatory but that treatment of illnesses which could lead to family violence also be made compulsory. For example, there is, at present, no such provision for abusers who become violent because of, say, alcoholism or mental illness, to undergo compulsory treatment.

The second issue is that of protection for the victim. The objective here is to facilitate protection of the victim in such a manner which is the least disruptive to the family and there are two alternatives before us - the Family Violence Bill which advocates a direct intervention of the police and the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter which make it easier for the victim to obtain a Protection Order from the court.

There are pros and cons of those approaches. One strong case for the empowerment of the police is that it does lessen the burden of action on the victim who is already undergoing severe emotional trauma. In this, the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter to make it easier to obtain a Protection Order may perhaps not go far enough in offering immediate protection for the victim. The victim still has to go through a series of procedures in order to apply for the Protection Order. Furthermore, applying for a Protection Order takes time and effort with no guarantee of preservation of privacy. In this, I would like to suggest that, in terms of the amendments of the Women's Charter, if the amendments could go further in taking care of the preservation of privacy for the victim and in taking care of the ease of applying for a Protection Order, then I think that would go a long way towards facilitating protection for the victim.

There is one major disadvantage of police involvement and that the Minister for Home Affairs has elaborated on yesterday, so I need not go into it. And I believe that this indeed does constitute a major disadvantage of police involvement.

Regarding whether police involvement will make things worse for the family, there are two contrasting opinions. On the one hand, Dr Soin's view is that police investigation in a discreet, quiet manner and, if necessary, advocating counselling for the abuser, does in no way interfere with the intactness of the family and is preferable to obtaining a Protection Order from the court. On the other hand, the Government's view is that police involvement could make things worse for the family. Which point of view is more correct? As somebody who is a non-expert in this issue, I would suggest that we pause for a moment, take the time to deliberate carefully on this issue, perhaps in Select Committee, make reference to available research before making a decision.

This brings me to another major point. Violence prevention is not merely an issue of legislation alone. A holistic approach to violence prevention would include the strengthening of other institutional aspects. I am glad that the Acting Minister for Community Development mentioned this just now in his speech.

Allow me to highlight two other dimensions which already exist but which should be further developed. The first is the need to provide greater training for front-line professionals who are directly involved in violence prevention, namely, the police and social workers. Family violence is such a complex issue that those who deal with it should be adequately equipped. For example, violence prevention can usefully be part of the curriculum development of the Police Academy. There is also an urgent need for more trained social workers, including from the university, especially if counselling is given a central role in violence prevention. At a broader level, greater understanding in society regarding family violence and violence prevention would be helpful. Public education has a valuable role to play.

The second dimension is the need to strengthen the linkages between each component in the violence prevention system to ensure that the system, as a whole, works smoothly and effectively. The Inter-Ministry Work Group is a good start to collaboration between the various Government agencies and voluntary welfare organisations. Further integration of these linkages, such as between the police and the voluntary welfare organisations, for example, in the Ang Mo Kio pilot project, would be positively helpful.

Ultimately, the nub of the matter is financing. Needless to say, violence prevention is not a profitable operation. It cannot function on the bottom line basis unlike, say, for example, the MRT. If the Government is serious in preventing family violence, and I believe it is, then it is time that they should commit more resources and funds to violence prevention work.

In conclusion, many of the provisions of the Family Violence Bill have much merit and are worthy of serious consideration. If the view of the Government is that the Family Violence Bill goes too far, I would submit that perhaps the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter do not go far enough. Perhaps, some middle ground could be found, for example, in Select Committee deliberations of the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter. If it is the collective view of experts and practitioners that legislating police intervention is too extreme, why not as an alternative provide for strengthened police intervention by training the police so that the attitude of the police is one of sensitivity, of having enough training, of expertise, in order to deal with cases of family violence. It is my sincere wish that we will very soon see strengthened legislation against family violence. I reiterate that it is the provisions which count, not the location of those provisions.

I support the spirit and a number of provisions of the Family Violence Bill. 2.07 pm

Dr Kanwaljit Soin (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all the Members who have taken the time and trouble to contribute to this debate which is, I think, a very important social issue. I would also like to express my thanks to those who commended me for my efforts in coming out with this Bill. My special appreciation goes to the few lone voices supporting the Bill.

However, as I was listening to the response of the Members to the Family Violence Bill, I had the feeling that some of us were not talking on the same wave-length. In spite of quoting official statistics, some of the Members still made the point that we should not overblow the problem. I find that difficult to accept. If there is a problem, there is a problem. By pretending that it is smaller, it is not going to go away. And, here, I would like to refer to the Acting Minister, Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, and his reference to statistics. I am afraid that Government has only been keeping statistics for family violence in the year 1994 so there is no way for me to show whether the problem is increasing or not and that was not what I was indicating. All I said is that we had a big problem on our hands and I think the statistics do bear me out on that.

The next misunderstanding seems to be the very concept of family violence. Some Members referred to it interchangeably as a family dispute and, thus, talked of the problems of settling family disputes. Of course, all of us in this House know how notoriously unrewarding it is to intervene in family disputes. However, family violence is not just a family dispute. It is an abuse of power within a relationship of family trust or dependency. Because it is an abuse of power, nearly always it is the one with more power who inflicts violence on the less powerful.

Let me illustrate this. More husbands abuse their wives than the other way round. It is mothers who abuse their younger children and not the other way round. It is grown-up children who abuse their elderly parents or grandparents and not the other way round. Of course, one could have a dispute between a grown-up child and his grandparent and most of us would be reluctant to intervene to settle who is wrong and who is right. Even the most astute judge will find it difficult. However, if he finds that whatever the apparent dispute, if he finds that the elderly parent or grandparent is being beaten up by the grown-up child, are we still going to insist that as it is only a family dispute, the law should be hesitant to intervene, and if the law does intervene, as it has been mentioned under the Penal Code, it is not suitable to intervene?

Our main aim should be to stop the violence and it is less important whether or not we can settle the dispute. The two parties can continue with whatever disagreement or dispute as long as one does not use violence on the other party. Since family violence is caused by an abuse of power irrespective of other factors, like alcohol and drug dependency which are only aggravating factors, there is still an underlying abuse of power. There has to be a vulnerable member in the relationship who is the victim. It cannot be that, this week, the grandparent beats up the grown-up child and, next week, the grown-up child beats up the grandparent. Whatever the dispute or disagreement, what remains constant is that the grandparent is the one who gets beaten up and the grandparent is the victim. So the victim remains constant. Since a vulnerable member of society is being subjected to violence, I cannot accept the view that society does not have a role, in fact a duty to stop this violence. We will be guilty of an act of commission if we do not respond effectively to the pleas for help of the victims.

The most effective existing mechanism which society has to curb violence is the justice system with its arm of law enforcement. By not using this available mechanism effectively and fully, we are in fact condoning family violence by expecting social service agencies and informal avenues to solve the problem, although I am not at all excluding the role of these agencies and avenues. But this should only be in addition to the most important role of legislation and the police. Unless we accept this, the issue of family violence cannot be addressed effectively and adequately.

Now, I would like to turn to some major concerns expressed in this House. One, the fear of the heavy-handed approach of the law. The very purpose of the Family Violence Bill is to eliminate the heavy hand which is now present under the Penal Code and in place of this heavy hand, extend a family sensitive approach. This family-friendly role is the centre piece of the Family Violence Bill. However, unfortunately, this does not seem to have been appreciated enough by Members of this House. The Minister for Home Affairs has said that the Family Violence Bill makes family violence a specific offence in which even first-time abusers could be jailed for acts, such as harassing family members. This is not what the Family Violence Bill sets out to do. Yes, the Family Violence Bill does make family violence a specific offence but it does not jail first-time abusers. That is the whole point of the Bill. It offers counselling instead of prosecution and jail. There is no heavy hand of the police but a family responsive approach.

The Bill should not be characterised as antagonistic towards families and doing more harm than good. I cannot understand this interpretation of the Bill. If there are a few provisions in the Bill which appear to give this interpretation, I am sure that, with legal advice, we could change the interpretation of these provisions. The Minister for Home Affairs said that, under the present law, the police have enough powers to act in domestic violence and cited that the police took prosecution action in some simple hurt cases. I notice that this happened in 14 cases out of 3,625 cases in 1994. The Minister then said that in only seven out of these 14 cases were victims willing to proceed with prosecution. This is precisely the problem that the Family Violence Bill tries to address. The victims do not want the abusers to be jailed but they want the law to intervene in such a way that the beating stops without the abusers going to jail. This expectation of the victims should be anticipated and the police would not be frustrated if they are attuned to the dynamics of abusive relationships and thus alert to the issues of dependency, fear, general haplessness and responsibility for the children, which is what prevents victims from wanting the abusers to go to jail. Thus, this is another point that the Bill makes, ie, the present laws are not appropriate for family violence. Even if the police had enough powers and laws to prosecute offenders, these powers and laws are not suitable for family violence cases. And if they are abused, then they will end up in a situation of trying to fit a round plug into a square hole.

This is borne out by what the Minister has told us of the frustrations of the police and the waste of resources. If the laws and powers for the police were formulated within the framework of the dynamics of abusive relationships, then there would be no frustrations and no waste of resources. If we are using the wrong instrument to do an operation, obviously the operation will fail.

The main concern of the Family Violence Bill has been to take into consideration the complexities of family violence and this legislation is attempting to be responsive to the situation of family violence. Thus, although it makes family violence a specific offence, it does not prosecute the offender initially and very few people have highlighted this. All that has been highlighted is that if an offender commits violence after counselling or refuses to have counselling, then he is prosecuted.

I think we need to compare another scenario. And this scenario is if we look at the Protection Orders which are given to the victims, and especially now that the Acting Minister for Community Development has suggested that powers of arrest be attached in the first instance. Sir, we have a victim who goes to court first and then gets a Protection Order with a power of arrest. The next time she is beaten up, the police are obliged to arrest the offender because the offender has breached the court order, which is a very serious offence. And this time, the police are obliged to prosecute the offender and this time the police do not even have the discretion of offering counselling. So after getting a Protection Order and if the Protection Order is breached, the police have to prosecute the offender and send him to jail.

Under the Family Violence Bill, the victims go to the police. The police do not send the offender to jail in the first instance. They advise counselling. And after that, if another offence occurs, only does prosecution and jail come into the picture. So what is the difference? Eventually, on the second offence, it is exactly the same thing. But for the first time, if we look at it under the Women's Charter amendments, the onus is on the victim. She goes to court and gets the Protection Order. Under the Family Violence Bill, the onus is on the police who give the option to the offender of getting counselling and not hauling him to court. So I still feel that the approach is not as different as it has been made out to seem.

Another fact that has to be highlighted is that in the Family Violence Bill, we are taking into account the wishes of the victim and the need to keep the family intact. But we are ensuring that the offender takes responsibility for his actions and is willing to go for counselling, so that there is a possibility of violence ending in the family.

Another fact that has to be highlighted is that there is resistance in this House to empowering the police to help the victim. This is the main objection to the Bill. The rest of the Bill seems acceptable as the Women's Charter amendments and the Bill are pretty much similar. Many Members have accepted the amendments of the Women's Charter in principle, although we have not seen the actual amendments yet. Thus, the main thrust of the debate is the objection to this part of the Family Violence Bill that gives the police more powers.

What I find surprising is that although Members of the House are resisting this, the situation is different when seen from the point of view of front-line professionals in family service centres and social work agencies who are dealing with family violence on the ground. They are convinced that there is a definite role for the police and at present, this is not being fulfilled.

How do we resolve this divergent thinking, as put by the hon. Member, Dr Lee Tsao Yuan? I would like to suggest to the two Ministers involved that we ought to look more closely at this difference in approach and try to come to a common platform of action. The Minister for Home Affairs has also mentioned these difficulties which the police will face in addressing the problem of family violence.

(1) There is a shortage of manpower to deal with all cases of family violence. There are 90-100 police posts in Singapore. Ten cases of family violence are reported daily. If only one in 10 police posts has to handle one case a day, this does not appear to be such a burden. However, if more manpower is required, then I am sure that the Minister for Finance, who is fortunately in the House this time, would agree to permitting more finances for this. He would agree if we convince him that the effects of family violence are going to cost society more in the long run, both in economic terms and social effects. To use an old proverb, "a stitch in time saves nine" is very appropriate here. And the Minister for Finance, being a very astute Minister for Finance, would see the advantage of spending money now so that we do not end up by spending it long term with the added social effects.

(2) The other point that the Minister for Home Affairs mentioned was that the police personnel are either national servicemen or young men below 25 years of age and cannot handle family violence cases. This is not an insurmountable obstacle and the police can be trained for this. I was heartened to hear from the Minister that the police are already beginning to be trained. And I would also urge the Minister not to look at the role of the policemen only to solve crimes, not to look at them only in the form of cops and robbers, but to extend the role of the police into the community, which I understand is already being done, where the police and the community are one part of a whole, and not just to solve crimes, like as I said robberies, thefts, murders, which, fortunately, the numbers are going down very much in Singapore.

Just like we have a rape squad dealing with rape victims, we could also have a family protection squad to deal with family violence cases. Here, the involved officers need not all come from the police. The Ministry of Community Development could also help to provide a group of specially trained family protection officers to work with the police. I would therefore like to urge the two Ministers to give some thought to this proposal.

Another point I would like to highlight at this stage is that the Women's Charter amendments also involve a big police role. I have already outlined what happens when a Protection Order is breached and the police then have to come in to arrest the offender, because this is mandatory if there is a power of arrest attached to that order. I do not think that the role of the police can be eliminated or reduced whether you apply the Family Violence Bill approach or the Women's Charter amendments approach. However, the Family Violence Bill has the added advantage of offering one more option to the victims. The victims and those people who deal with this problem on the ground want this option to be available. Should we continue to deny to them? Of course, I understand and empathise that at this stage we do not have enough counsellors or trained police officers to attend to this very real problem. If the Family Violence Bill becomes legislation, it does not have to come into effect straightaway. We could plan to have the infrastructure ready in the next one or two years and only then put the legislation into effect. However, if we do not move the legislation now, we will not have the legislative framework and it will be difficult to get things going quickly and in a focused manner. The Bill could be the impetus to effecting changes to produce the necessary front-line professionals. This should solve the matter of logistics.

Now, I want to address a few specific queries that were raised yesterday. One was on clause 3(1)(a) which refers to an attempt to cause family violence. This is no different from the present section 68(2) of the Women's Charter where threatening to use violence is justification for the granting of Protection Orders. So why are Members put off with this part of the definition of family violence?

Clause 3(1)(c) says, "compelling a family member by force to engage in any sexual act or conduct;". Members have to remember that family members extend beyond spouses. We should not confine ourselves to spouses alone here and just talk of marital rape. In any event, marital rape is not an offence under the Penal Code and therefore the intention of this Bill is not to make an issue of marital rape. However, just for information, I have this pamphlet of the Ministry of Community Development passed out yesterday and their definition of "abuse" includes when you are threatened by force to engage involuntarily in sexual relations. So even the Ministry of Community Development recognises this as a form of abuse.

Clause 3(1)(d) says, "wrongfully restraining or confining a family member against his will;". Correction towards a child below 21 years of age has been clearly excluded in the Bill and so there is no ambiguity where discipline towards young people is concerned.

Clause 3(1)(e) says, "causing harassment with intent to cause ... anguish ...". Those of us who are familiar with domestic violence will know that stalking, ie, following the victim around after she moves into a shelter or alternative residence and making harassing phone calls at her place of work are two frequent forms of harassment. This form of harassment causes fear and intimidation in the victim. We should not trivialise the issue by talking of nagging as harassment.

Trained police officers or enforcement officers should be able to make a distinction between actual harassment and mere nagging. The hon. Member, Mr Bernard Chen, said that the very act of going to court will break up the family. If he truly believes that, then how can he support the amendments to the Women's Charter which must involve the victim and the abuser to go to court to get a Protection Order?

Mr Bernard Chen: I have not supported yet!

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: The hon. Member, Mr Low Thia Khiang, was concerned with clauses 13 and 19. He felt that clause 13 gave too much powers to the police. This could be modified, if necessary, by necessitating that the police get a warrant of arrest from a Magistrate, as is done in the Children and Young Persons Act.

Clause 19 which allows any person to give information to the police on commission of family violence is another area of concern. Even if this clause is not present, no one can stop a person from giving information to the police on any offence. However, if this clause causes some anxiety to Members, then it could be deleted.

The hon. Member, Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon, recommended that legislation should be made according to our own social norms. This is precisely what has been attempted in the Family Violence Bill. Part III of this Bill is innovative legislation to suit our local conditions.

If I may now address some of the concerns expressed today. I think I have answered some of them in my other remarks, but first of all I would like to say how happy I am that Mr Tarmugi had announced that the amendments to the Women's Charter would go to a Select Committee and there would be an opportunity to give in more inputs at that time. I think it is very commendable of him to do so. It involves the community and all of us to continue this debate.

The other matter that he was quite unhappy about was clause 13(2) where he said that the interpretation obliges the police to investigate every case of violence. I am sure that he is right although my understanding was different. But at the same time what it requires of us is to make the police officers understand what is the offence of family violence and, as I said yesterday, it is not an isolated slap. If they understand what is the offence of family violence, then they are going to investigate it but after investigating, if they find that there is no offence they are not going to pursue the matter. But if there is an offence, then of course, they should pursue the matter if it is a specific offence. If, as I said earlier, the Minister thinks that this is too wide, I am sure we can find a way to address his concerns in not making clause 13(1) as intimidating as it appears.

I think he also talks of the discretion of the police. No legislation can take away the discretion of the police. It is always there. They can always decide whether to pursue with a particular case, of course, with the Attorney-General's advice, or not to pursue it. So I do not think the Bill can possibly take away the discretion of the police.

The other matter that the Minister said is that it makes simple hurt and grievous hurt a seizable offence. But I would like to remind the Minister that in the Children and Young Persons Act a precedent has already been set by making both simple hurt and grievous hurt as seizable offence.

The other matter which is not very important, but I think it is good to clarify, is that the Minister said that the Society Against Family Violence was not consulted and had no part in this Bill.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: No, in drafting this Bill.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: In drafting this part of the Bill. I beg your pardon. I would like to tell him of the input of the Society Against Family Violence into this Bill. The last President of the Society Against Family Violence and their Consultant Counsellor had a long discussion with me where we went through the provisions of the Bill and they gave their input to it. Also, the Vice-President ---

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: May I clarify, Sir?

Dr Kanwaljit Soin resumed her seat.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is true and I do concede that the Vice-President of the Society Against Family Violence did have a hand in drafting the Bill. That is Dr Alfred Choy.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: No, I was talking of the past President of the Society Against Family Violence, Dr Esther Wong. She and Dr Clyde Moorthy went through the provisions of the Bill with me because Ms Claire Chiang, who is the President of the Society Against Family Violence, told me that she is sending Dr Esther Wong as her representative to discuss the Bill with me as she had some urgent personal matter to attend and would I then accept that as her voice. But Dr Alfred Choy, who is the Vice-President of the Society Against Family Violence helped the Bill in his personal capacity, and not as a Vice-President.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Yes, that is right.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: But I still think that the Society Against Family Violence seems to be getting a lot of attention and even the Minister for Home Affairs quoted the letter from Ms Claire Chiang. I respect her expertise in this area, but I think there are other experts, social workers and many other people who do not agree with that line of thinking. As Dr Lee Tsao Yuan has said, we are not experts. We are not able to judge who is right and who is not.

I am sure I have not addressed some concerns. The hon. Mr Kenneth Chen said that it was introducing litigation to the family at an early stage. I have already addressed that. That even in Protection Orders, if they are breached, we have to take the abuser and the victim to court.

He talked about the introduction of police intervention at an early stage and the family loses control. No, I think at any stage if the victim does not want to pursue the matter with the police, the police cannot continue with the matter because they cannot then carry out the investigations.

The other matter that he mentioned was that we must only call the police as a last resort. I agree. Usually when the victims go to the police, it is not for the first time that they have been beaten up. It is usually after a number of times that they go to the police. So it is usually a plea for help. At that stage, they do need help.

Dr Vasoo said that family violence is the tail-end of family problems and we should concentrate on tackling family problems. I completely agree with him. But family violence is a problem and thus also needs to be addressed.

Dr Aline Wong raised some very important philosophical and thoughtful questions and I think many of us do not have the answers to that. In her usual very thought-provoking way, she has added another dimension to the debate.

If there are points that I have not made clear, I would like the indulgence of the House because I do not want to take up any more time. I have been urged by some Members of this House to withdraw the Family Violence Bill. I have given this serious consideration. I have no wish at all to enter into any legislative battle with the Acting Minister for Community Development. I respect him far too much for that. However, I feel that I cannot withdraw the Family Violence Bill. As I indicated earlier, it is not my Bill but embodies the effort of many people. It takes into consideration the hopes of many victims. It respects the viewpoint of many professionals working on the ground who want effective family-friendly legislation. I think I would be failing in my duty to all these people if I withdraw the Bill. What is not important to me is the final name and the form that the substance of the Family Violence Bill eventually takes. However, the principle and the spirit of the Bill are very important and cannot be set aside. This is the message that will come through if I withdraw the Bill.

However, I wish again to express my appreciation to the Minister for Home Affairs and to the Acting Minister for Community Development in keeping an open mind to listen to a Private Member's Bill and in agreeing to look at the provisions that could be incorporated into legislation so that the final objective of all of us is achieved in this House, that is, we try to reduce the incidence of family violence and at the same time keep the family intact. I would again like to thank the Speaker and the House very much for listening so patiently to me for two days.

Question put, and negatived.