WOMEN'S CHARTER (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Women's Charter was passed in 1961. This is a very progressive piece of legislation to protect the interests of women. This Amendment Bill is in keeping with the changes of our time and our society.

Having heard what the Minister has said, I feel that the important aspect of this Amendment Bill that deserves our full support is its spirit. This is to say that we not only look after the individual's interest but that this Amendment Bill also extends the protection to cover members of the immediate family. It protects not only the women but also the children, the spouses, as well as the parents and sisters, etc. Personally, I feel that this is a good way to manifest our family values.

The next point I wish to support is that this Bill further extends protection to the family and defines the equal status and obligations of husband and wife, protects the rights of the weak, and gives the court greater power to deal with incidents of family violence. More significantly, a new chapter is added to the Women's Charter, ie, Protection of Family.

Here, I would like to make some comments on the three major points of this Amendment Bill, that is, maintenance, distribution of matrimonial assets and protection to victims of family violence. The salient point on maintenance is that the court is now empowered to grant maintenance to children above the age of 21 years who are incapable of looking after themselves. This is very good because, whether parents are divorced or not, as parents, they have the responsibility to maintain their children and see to it that they are given the opportunity to be educated. This amendment will ensure that the children who are still in school will not lose their educational opportunity as a result of separation or divorce of their parents. At the same time, the amendment provides that intellectually handicapped children will continue to receive maintenance from their parents even when they are above 21 years of age.

The amendment also strengthens the enforcement of maintenance orders issued by the court, and it re-defines "earnings" so as to include payments received from self-employment. That is to say, apart from the employees, the income of those self-employed people will also be included within the definition of "earnings". A defendant and his employer who fail to notify changes of employment and earnings shall be guilty of an offence and the fine is increased from $1,000 to $2,000. This amendment will reduce the risk of divorced women having to play "hide-and-seek" with their ex-husbands to chase for maintenance. It will also help them to reduce the cost of having to keep on instructing lawyers to apply for enforcement orders from the court..

The next point which I feel is even more important is that maintenance includes not only for the wife and children, but also for the parents and members of the immediate family. After the amendment, the parties will have to subject themselves to counselling or mediation, so that the couple who are contemplating divorce proceedings may have another opportunity to attempt reconciliation. The court will have the power to compel the couple to go for mediation and counselling with the hope of an amicable settlement to their differences.

On the question of maintenance, I have a minor clarification to seek from the Minister. My question is: When the husband defaults in payment of maintenance and is sent to prison for contempt of court, the wife, particularly if she is a plain housewife, may face financial difficulties. In the circumstances, what kind of assistance can be given to such a family?

The next point is when the parents are not prepared to appeal for maintenance for their children, the Amendment Bill makes no mention as to whether children who are above 21 years can apply direct to the court for their own maintenance.

The next point I wish to deal with concerns the distribution of matrimonial assets. The amended section 106(1) provides a more equitable basis for the division of matrimonial assets upon the breakdown of a marriage by empowering the court to divide between the parties to the marriage the matrimonial assets in such proportions as the court thinks just and equitable, taking into consideration not only the financial contributions by the parties but also the contributions towards the welfare of the family, particularly contributions in looking after members of the family, the aged or incapable parents and/or siblings of either the husband or the wife. I think this amendment is a great protection to housewives and women who have no source of income. But some women leaders and women organizations have raised one point with me and that is under the old law, it was clearly provided that when making the order to divide the matrimonial assets, the court shall make the division in equal terms to the parties. The amended section empowers the court to exercise its discretion with due consideration to the respective contributions of the parties towards the welfare of the family. That is correct. However, they are worried that with the removal of words to that effect, there may be discrepancies in the division of matrimonial assets by the court.

The third point is on the amendment relating to the protection of family. I fully support this new Part VIA of the Women's Charter. The protection given here is not confined to spouses and children, but the scope is expanded to include other members of the family, that is, including parents, siblings and even some intellectually handicapped members of the family.

The new section also enables the victims to obtain a protection order much faster and this will encourage people, who in the past did not dare to lodge a complaint against the aggressor, to seek the help of the court. At the same time, the voluntary counsellors will be able to give them proper counselling and guidance. I think this is good. However, my concern is that although the Women's Charter is to protect the victims and at the same time it does not want to involve police intervention unnecessarily, we should not overlook the role that can be played by the police in the protection of victims of family violence. Now with the extension of the scope of protection to family members, there may be more people seeking the help of the police in future. The Government, in particular the Ministry of Community Development, will have to meet an increasing demand for help for the victims of family violence. There is no mention in the Amendment Bill about what the Government will do in this respect, eg, improvement to the quality of counselling, the organizational structure and other operational measures to cope with the additional tasks. I would therefore like to ask the Minister how the Ministry of Community Development, the police and the counsellors would coordinate with one another to effectively carry out their duties in mediation and counselling.

The next point I wish to deal with is that there are now provisions for members of the family or relatives of the children or handicapped persons, or the personnel designated by the Minister to apply to the court for protection order on behalf of the victims. However, sometimes these children or handicapped persons may not have any relative or other members of the family to make this application on their behalf. Sometimes, the aggressor may be the guardian himself. In such circumstances, the victims may have problem getting people to help them in getting the protection order. I would like to ask the Minister whether he will consider appointing community leaders, voluntary organizations in the community or responsible persons of the family service centres as the people authorized to apply for protection order on behalf of the victims.

Overall, the Amendment Bill has placed great emphasis on mediation and counselling. I would like to ask the Minister what sort of plan we have in the future for the training of counsellors, and what sort of protection and safeguards will be given to the counsellors when they deal with such family disputes.

I am glad to note that the Minister has agreed to refer the Bill to a Select Committee for further deliberation. I fully support the Bill.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar GRC): Sir, I share the viewpoints raised by the GPC Chairman of Community Development, Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon. I also welcome the recommendation by the Minister to refer the amendments to the Women's Charter to a Select Committee. This is very important because it gives an opportunity for various organisations and individuals to provide inputs to further fine-tune the amendments which have been proposed.

Sir, the amendments to the Women's Charter are indeed timely, as it will provide relief to many mothers who are affected by problems of marriage. What is most important is that the amendments proposed will deal with the various contemporary issues related to marriage problems, particularly failures of marriage leading to domestic violence, neglect, protection for women and also failure to maintain the spouses. In this case, Sir, many of the spouses are in fact women and children who are helpless. This is an important move and the amendments address these problems. In the course of my work with many families, the issue is how to deal with wife abuse and neglect in terms of maintenance by the male spouse himself. The amendments do take care of the problems arising out of these areas.

I feel that even with the best legislation and the best of intention, it will not be able to solve all the problems of marriage. So the best panacea is for the problems to be solved and mediated by the spouses themselves. If the spouses can resolve the problems, then there is no necessity for the problems to be taken through the legal process because it is going to be time-consuming and resource depletion. It is going to be a very painful process. The best thing is to find mediation for this whole process. I am glad that the Ministry is making attempts to try and get the problems mediated through counselling and dialogues between spouses before solving the problems at the court.

There are two areas that I am basically concerned about. These are related to the amendments proposed. The first is the provision on the recognition of marriages for those who have undergone sex reassignment. There has been some controversy by various groups about this issue. The basic concern is the erosion to the institution of marriage. Are we indeed giving a signal that we support this direction?. If we are not, it is very important for the Ministry to debunk this notion that we are endorsing and allowing the institution of marriage to be eroded. I do sympathise with people who have undergone sex reassignment. It is a human problem and therefore we should be sympathetic. But what is most important is for us to set up, at least a board, to review the impact of these changes, and whether more people would be seeking sex reassignment is a question which we all do not know. It would be important for us to monitor the impact of these changes. I want to know from the Minister whether his Ministry would be establishing a board to review the impact of these changes that are to come.

The other area of concern is that we may have very good legislation to deal with domestic problems, maintenance of spouses and problems related to abuse, but there is always a time lag between taking legal recourse and the intervening action to deal with the problems. So what I am asking is, despite the good legal provisions, whether the Ministry has the adequate machinery available to intervene immediately in the problems faced particularly by mothers who are not maintained and who are affected by domestic violence. It is important to intervene immediately in this problem area because they are most affected and aggrieved. We must be able to respond quickly to deal with the problems and relieve them of the distress. I think that is the crucial issue at hand. So I am asking the Minister whether his Ministry would be working very closely with the Ministry of Home Affairs and other social service agencies to ensure early intervention to tackle these problems as quickly as possible. Otherwise, we may have very good amendments but the problems are not resolved immediately.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Sir, the Women's Charter is the major statute governing marriage and family relationships of non-Muslim Singaporeans. Therefore, the move to make major amendments to the Women's Charter is a very momentous event as it will affect and shape the fabric of our society. This legislation deserves the attention of all of us -- both inside and outside the House. Therefore, I would like to thank the Minister for agreeing to send this Bill to a Select Committee for further consideration.

I would like to suggest right at the outset that the Women's Charter is not an appropriate name for this legislation as it does not reflect the spirit of the legislation. The Women's Charter actually deals with family law. This becomes even more obvious when we look at some of the proposed amendments -- those dealing with family violence and the marriage of transsexuals. Do these concern only women? Of course, not. They concern the family. Therefore, what we should be doing is to incorporate the present Women's Charter and all other legislation dealing with the family, for example, the Maintenance of Parents Act, and make one big legislative effort and call it the Family Charter. However, in incorporating the Women's Charter into the Family Charter, we will first have to remove Part X from the Women's Charter because this section deals mainly with offences relating to prostitution and therefore Part X has no place in either the Women's Charter or the Family Charter. Part X of the present Women's Charter rightfully belongs to the Penal Code.

Sir, the Family Charter that I am proposing should be meaningful to all of us. Therefore, the drafting of this Family Charter should include the expression of the five core family values as ideals that have been accepted by all of us in Singapore.

Thus, the Family Charter will not only be the law to regulate family relationships and behaviour but it will also promote values and beliefs that our society holds dear. We would thus have a living and organic document that is of relevance to all of us. Of course, to enable this to happen, we must draft the legislation in ordinary understandable and readable English and translate it into all the official languages.

The next step would be to have this document -- the Family Charter -- studied in schools, colleges and other educational institutes and also studied during national service. Every child, man and woman should become familiar with the ethos and principles of this legislation and try to live by its creed.

Now, I would like to turn to some of the provisions in the present Women's Charter and the proposed amendments.

Marriage, for some people, is not only a union of the bodies but also a union of the souls. However, in the present local context, this cosmic view of marriage is not what many young people believe in. Instead, most pragmatic young people think of marriage as a matrimonial partnership, both in the emotional and economic sense.

When the Women's Charter first came into existence in 1961, only one in five women was in the workforce, but now women constitute 40% of the labour force. Half of the married women are working. But if you look at the younger women, Sir, the married female labour force participation rate is much higher, at 65%. Not only do we have more and more dual income families, but the husband and wife are both better educated.

In 1994, 70% of both brides and grooms (non-Muslim) had at least secondary education. Also, in 1994, 28% of brides with secondary qualifications married grooms with below secondary qualifications. Similarly, 37% of brides with upper secondary and 28% with tertiary qualifications married downwards in 1994. In the same year, 98% of grooms and 82% of brides were working.

The present day reality is that most wives work and some of them earn more than their husbands. We have to keep this picture in our mind as the context in which we should be amending our matrimonial legislation. If we do not do this, then our amendments will be outmoded and irrelevant.

Thus, for the modern young couple, a marriage is an emotional union and an economic partnership. Fortunately, some parts of the present Women's Charter are very progressive and reflect this aspiration of marriage as a partnership.

Sir, section 45 enunciates a vision of the equal partnership of the spouses, and I quote: "The husband and wife shall have equal rights in the running of the matrimonial households."

Section 46 does away with the outmoded belief that the wife's domicile by virtue of marriage is determined by the husband's domicile.

Furthermore, under section 61, not only a father but also a mother can be ordered by the court to maintain a legitimate or an illegitimate child financially. All these three sections affirm that marriage is a partnership inclining towards equality.

Thus, Sir, we have to keep three facts in mind:

(1) The general sense of equality expressed in the Women's Charter.

(2) The idea of marriage as a partnership which is espoused as an ideal by the younger generation.

(3) That most younger wives are in the workforce and a sizable number earn as much, if not more, than their husbands.

It is these realities that must be reflected in the Women's Charter and the amendments if the legislation is to make sense.

It is not satisfactory if there is a gulf between people's expectation of family life and the provision in family law legislation. Prof. Leong Wai Kum, who is from the National University of Singapore and a legal expert in marriage and family law, put this sentiment very succinctly when she said, and I quote, 'We respect a family law more when it mirrors our lives and hopes."

At this stage, I would like to point out some inconsistencies in the Women's Charter. On the one hand, the Charter treats the woman as a non-economic unit. Section 61 and section 107 empower the Court to order the husband to maintain his wife or ex-wife but not the other way round.

However, on the other hand, when it comes to the maintenance of children, the wife is treated as an economic unit. This is spelt out in section 122(3) and section 61(2). The Court can order the women to maintain her legitimate or illegitimate child. Thus, either or both parents have a duty to maintain a child.

I think it is time for us, Sir, to have consistency in the law. Furthermore, we must also reflect the reality of the wife as an economic unit as earlier figures that I quoted show very clearly.

We therefore have to amend the Women's Charter to allow husbands to claim maintenance from their wives, in appropriate circumstances. Presently, only a husband owes a legal obligation to maintain a wife. And here I quote Prof. Leong again, "A wife does not owe a similar obligation and can ignore the subsistence needs of her husband even if she were fully capable of meeting them. This cannot be right. So while this obligation is not likely to be enforced often, it should be a part of the law."

Therefore, I think it is only fair and equitable to give the Courts the power to order maintenance of the husband by the wife if such a necessity arises. This change will also allay any perceptions that the Women's Charter discriminates against men. In this era, maintenance should be on the basis of need and not on gender.

Two practical instances that come to mind are where a husband cannot find work due to illness or has care and custody of the children and can only do part-time work as he has to look after the children. In such situations, wives should be asked to maintain their husbands.

Would the Minister therefore please consider amending section 61 (subsection 1), section 107 and section 108 (subsection 1) so that either spouse can apply for maintenance and appropriate assessment can be made of the amount of maintenance?

Now, Sir, I would like to discuss the amendment that deals with the division of matrimonial assets, namely, section 106.

Under the present section 106, matrimonial assets are categorised into two main types: those acquired by the joint effort of both parties; and those acquired by the sole effort of one party. In the case of matrimonial assets acquired jointly, there is a direction for the Court to incline towards equality of division.

Sir, our Courts have taken a very enlightened approach towards the interpretation of section 106. From looking at the body of case law since 1990, it is obvious that the Courts have reduced the differentiation of joint and sole efforts to insignificance by observing that they may award "up to 49%" of the matrimonial assets acquired by the sole effort of the other. This was enunciated by Justice Chan Sek Keong as he was then. In other words, there is power to divide 50-50 for jointly acquired assets and 49-51 for solely acquired assets.

We have a substantial body of case law since 1990 which has interpreted section 106 on the principle of inclining towards equality. This interpretation reflects the present day reality of a partnership in marriage.

Therefore, Sir, what is the need to repeal and re-enact section 106? Have there been any principles enunciated by the Courts that have been unsatisfactory or where justice appears not to have been done? What have been the shortcomings in interpreting this section so far? Should we not follow conventional wisdom -- if it is not broken, do not fix it.

The new section (clause 19) proposed by the Minister abolishes the differentiation between assets acquired jointly or by sole effort. It might appear on the surface that this new section (clause 19) is made especially to take into consideration the contributions of the home maker but before we assume this, let us look at the likely consequences if the amendment becomes law:

(1) The weight given to the other factors, including the home-making and welfare of the family, will depend upon each judge hearing the case. There is a subjective element here.

(2) As legislators, it is our duty to clarify and fine-tune the legislation to help the courts in their decision. We cannot leave it entirely to the Courts to decide what is just and equitable -- we have to clearly lay down the principles on which the division of matrimonial assets should be based.

(3) Also with the repeal of section 106, the old body of case law built up since 1990 may no longer be applicable and used as a precedent. It seems a pity not to build upon the existing body of case law which appears to be just and equitable and in practice has inclined towards the principle of equality of division of matrimonial assets, whether acquired by sole or joint effort and thus recognising the home-making and family welfare component.

I have therefore two suggestions for the Minister:

(1) Not to repeal and re-enact section 106 on the division of matrimonial assets as the present practice of the Courts has been just and equitable and reflects the reality of married life in Singapore today; and

(2) If the Minister wishes to repeal and re-enact section 106, then there should be a direction to incline towards equality of division. This House should assert the principle that "both spouses are equally valued whether he or she concentrates on the economic or home-making role as both roles must be performed equally well if the partnership is to flourish." -- also a quotation from Prof. Leong.

If we do not assert this principle of inclination towards equality of division, then we are undermining the complementarity of roles in a marriage partnership.

Turning to the definition of matrimonial assets, I would like the Minister to confirm that the definition includes club memberships and CPF monies. The Court of Appeal has decided that CPF monies should be part of the matrimonial assets. This was the case of an appeal in the Appeal Court and Justice Goh Joon Seng speaking for the Appeal Court said, and I quote:

`In our view the fact that the fund in a member's CPF account is subjected to restrictions as to its use and disposal until he reaches the age of 55 and is inviolable except to the extent set out in the CPF Act does not make it any less of an asset. If the fund is accumulated during the marriage then it constitutes an asset acquired during the marriage.'

Of course, this ruling should apply to the CPF sums of both the husband and the wife and here again no distinction should be made if the spouse is male or female. I suggest that the CPF monies of both spouses be pooled together and considered as part of matrimonial assets.

Now I come to the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter that are concerned with violence in the family. I have said quite a lot on this matter in this House when the Family Violence Bill was being discussed. I will not repeat what I have said on this subject but there is one observation that I wish to make.

Some Members of this House were against the Family Violence Bill because they felt that the intervention and involvement of outsiders would have a detrimental effect on maintaining family relationships. Yet some of these same Members did not have these reservations in supporting the Maintenance of Parents Bill. I find this stand incongruous and inconsistent.

In the case of the Maintenance of Parents Bill, the problem of the number of parents needing maintenance from their children appears small and yet the House passed the Maintenance of Parents Bill which intrudes into the family home and into family relationships.

However, in the case of the Family Violence Bill, the problem is much larger (as acknowledged by the police) and yet Members of this House expressed reluctance at the intrusion into the family home and family relationship. I believe a consistent stand would send the right signal to the people.

Sir, my one concern is that the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter to do with family violence will not be effective in curbing and reducing the incidence of family violence and so in six or seven years' time, there may be a younger Member of Parliament standing exactly here and quoting the statistics to show that. At that time, some of us may not be here to be held accountable for not doing what was needed in the first place. I hope I will be proven wrong in this prediction.

Just before I end, Sir, I would like your permission to distribute to the Members the results of a survey on family violence carried out by The Body Shop and AWARE during the period November 1995 to January 1996. Do I have your permission, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: The number of forms that were filled was 1,680, and the highlights of the survey were:

79% of the respondents think family violence is a social problem and not a private one;

77% of the respondents think family violence is never justifiable; and

90% of the respondents would like to see tougher laws on family violence. This survey and a previous one done by Dr Alfred Choi and Dr Jeffery Elderson should make some of us rethink our stand on the issue of family violence and the role of the law.

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments. With our rapid changing lifestyles and increased complexities in our social environment, it is timely that we introduce these amendments to update the present provisions in the Women's Charter. Committing this Bill to a Select Committee reflects the importance attached to these amendments and I fully support this.

There are two major amendments which I feel will make the most impact on the Bill. The first is the introduction of Part VIA - Protection of Family. In our present day highly pressurised urban environment, individuals as well as families are under great pressure in coping with everyday problems. Relationships between family members become more complex and fragile due to the pressure of work and also exposure to different cultures and media influence. It would be naive to believe that all marriages, no matter how blissful they seem in the beginning, will be able to endure the long passage of time without at some point of time friction arising between husband and wife, or between in-laws, and even between parents and children. This friction can sometimes lead to family squabbles which can get out of hand and sometimes physical confrontation, such as couple fighting each other occasionally, is not uncommon.

Hence, it is only right that we legislate provisions to prevent such incidents from getting out of hand and deteriorating into one party abusing the other. However, not all these squabbles lead to irreversible reconciliation and definitely not all these squabbles necessarily mean one party intentionally abusing the other viciously and constantly. Therefore, a more comprehensive and clearer definition provided in this section will enable the affected family members to apply for protection orders in order to have greater protection against possible abuse, but at the same time, more importantly, make it possible for efforts to be made to sort out their problems and hopefully keep the family and marriage intact. It is more positive than to treat every such case as a criminal case and bring in the police to institute criminal proceedings in which case, the chances of reconciliation would greatly diminish and we will have more and more broken marriages. Only when all avenues have been exhausted, including what has been provided in section 119(3) where the court may refer the parties for mediation or attend counselling fails, the accused party will be dealt with under the Penal Code. This is in line with our emphasis to promote family values, sparing no effort to maintain family cohesion and harmony. But in order to deal with this increasing number of such family conflicts, the MCD should have immediate plans to recruit more trained and more qualified counsellors and set up more Family Centres to cater for people who need these facilities.

The other amendment which I consider to have great significance is in determining the division of matrimonial assets between the divorced parties. The following consideration is being included under clause 19 [new section 106(2)(d)], and I quote:

"the extent of the contributions made by each party to the welfare of the family, including looking after the home or caring for the family or any aged or infirm relative or dependant of either party;" Sometimes, there is a preconceived notion that unless a wife pursues a successful career, her contribution to the family will not be considered as equal to the husband and, worse still, she is perceived as being subservient to the husband. I strongly disagree with such perception. To me, the contribution of a good mother and a good homemaker is equal, if not greater than the breadwinner. There is nothing more noble than the contribution made by a mother who has brought up her children with love and proper guidance and there is no job which is more important than to keep a peaceful and harmonious home for the family.

I am glad that these amendments have recognised their contribution and put these misconceptions to rest. I have no problem in leaving it to the judge to determine the quantum of this contribution, as it differs from case to case and also different circumstances require different consideration.

Finally, I would like to conclude by suggesting that since the provisions in the Bill are much more family-oriented than just covering women matters, the Minister can consider amending the name from Women's Charter to Family Charter. 4.18 pm

Mr Bernard Chen (Brickworks GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure the House that I did not check my speech with my brother before I speak.

I support the general provisions of the proposed Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill. The amendments address the issue relating to family violence and provide some of the solutions to some rather difficult problems faced by all our families in Singapore. I would just like to reiterate some of the points I made in this House when the Family Violence Bill was debated. Dr Soin accused some of the MPs for not keeping their word. I have to assure her that I did not speak on the Maintenance of Parents Bill. So I am not one of the guilty parties.

As I said, first, family problems cover a wide range of causes and different parties. They involve abstract concepts of love and trust between spouses, parents and children. Second, these problems are best resolved by the affected parties rather than having the Government step in to force them to come to terms with one another. Third, measures to reduce family violence, such as inculcating family values and promoting filial piety, should start early in the schools, if possible, instead of waiting for the problems to become too serious to handle. The proposed Amendment Bill covers most of these grounds, in particular, the definition of "family violence" is now much tighter as it spells out clearly what is meant by violence.

I would like to make the following suggestions. The new section 60B provides for the making of protection orders in respect of family violence and confers on the court wide powers. The normal courts of law give the impression of austerity, more often implying that the parties have reached the point of no return. As I mentioned earlier, we need to ensure that all possible avenues of reconcilation are explored before calling it a day. It would, therefore, be more appropriate to refer such matters to the Family Court and the terms of reference of this Court should take into account the soft approach required to resolve these disputes. The exception would be when physical violence is committed, then the full weight of the law should be brought to bear on the culprit. This reconcilatory approach would enable the parties to come to some compromise and give them sufficient time to have effect, some give and take, and resolve the issues amicably outside the court, if necessary, so that all avenues are explored before the final decision is made.

Section 60B also provides for counselling for offenders. In our previous discussion in this House, many Members have expressed reservations on counselling done by the Police, for example, and other people who are not trained. It is vital that this counselling must be done by trained counsellors. I am not too sure about the body the Minister has in mind of appointing in this section: would it be a Government body or a voluntary organisation staffed by professional people, bearing in mind the increasing number of cases to be resolved? We would need to ensure that there is an adequate supply of counsellors, whether they are made available to the Ministries or private organisations, to make sure that the problems are tackled expeditiously, especially in cases where time is of the essence and immediate counselling is required to prevent further violence being perpetuated.

I have to say here that at least I agree with the NMP in one score that the present Women's Charter is not quite appropriate for the amendments that we are going to introduce because of the inclusion of other parties such as parents and children in the Amendment Bill. But instead of having an all-encompassing family charter incorporating 10 or 15 legislation, I think it would be simpler just to change the name of Women's Charter to Family Charter and we would then have a legislation that we can change from time to time taking into account circumstances which may change in the future.

I support the Bill.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the main part of this Amendment Bill is to incorporate into the Women's Charter, clauses dealing with the protection of family members, so that when faced with violence, they can have recourse to the court to apply for a protection order.

However, the Bill does not specify which Government department should immediately render assistance to the victims upon being informed of the occurrence of such family violence, for example, helping them to apply to the court for a protection order, and to prevent them from being assaulted again the moment they have returned home after obtaining the court order. When family violence occurs, the victim may not know what to do. She may not know how to apply to the court for a protection order, and what evidence she has to produce to the court. Further, it takes time for such orders to be granted from the time of application. Meanwhile, how does the victim protect herself from further abuse and injuries?

I am of the opinion that if the Bill only provides for the victim to apply for a court order, and the police could intervene only when the victims are subjected to further abuse, then the victims are not really getting the necessary protection. The Government should legislate to set up a Family Crisis Centre. As soon as the victim lodges a complaint, officials from the Centre should immediately visit the family, understand the situation and provide the necessary counselling service. Furthermore, the official should go one step further to help the victim apply for a protetction order from the court, or to render any other form of assistance, if necessary.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.25 pm

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Sir, I would like to thank Members for their contributions and comments. I am heartened by the comments given. It shows that, generally, without exception, they support the Bill in most respects, except for some refinements. These refinements would certainly be dealt with when I commit the Bill to a Select Committee.

Let me try and address some of the views expressed. Mrs Yu-Foo, among other things, asked about protection for voluntary counsellors, ie, how safe is their work as voluntary counsellors and whether some kind of protection could be given to them. I can assure the Member that counsellors are not voluntary actually, but they are professional social workers. In other words, they are social workers attached to Family Service Centres, for example, or some other VWOs. So they are not volunteers in the first place. And, secondly, if a professional social worker sees that he may be subjected to or fear some kind of problems when handling with the perpetrators, I think the police would be more than happy to provide him with protection.

She asked whether children above 21 years could apply for maintenance on their own. This is something which we can consider. Perhaps, we can elaborate on it further during the hearing of the Select Committee. However, I would like to sound a note of caution here. We have to study the implications carefully. We should not, by doing so, encourage a more litigious society whereby family members sue other family members for everything. But certainly we can look into this suggestion further.

I will now address the issue on the division of matrimonial assets tending towards equality, which has been touched upon by NMP Kanwaljit Soin. Sir, the concern is over the removal of the words "incline towards equality" in the existing provision of section 106 and its re-enactment into a new section 106. The concern is that the new provision is not as just and it will not provide for an equitable distribution to women.

Sir, the existing section 106(2) states that for assets acquired jointly, the court shall incline towards equality of division. In such instances, the court would take into consideration (1) the extent of the contributions made by each party in money, property or work towards the acquisition of the assets; (2) any debts owing by either party which are contracted for their joint benefit; (3) the needs of the minor children (if any). The inclination towards equality stated in the existing provision does not necessarily mean a 50-50 division of matrimonial assets acquired by both parties. The equality is in relation to the proportion each party has contributed to the acquisition of the assets. This means that the share of each party is determined by how much that party has contributed. If a party has contributed a small proportion, his or her share will likewise be small.

In a situation where an asset is acquired jointly, the court does not take into consideration the home-making efforts of any party, as I mentioned earlier. Therefore, a housewife would lose out if her contribution was small. However, if a party has not contributed to the acquisition of the asset, as I mentioned earlier also, section 106 allows the court to divide the assets or proceeds in such proportion as the court thinks it is reasonable. But in such instances, the home-making efforts of a party are taken into consideration by the courts. It is therefore more advantageous for the home-maker not to have made any contribution at all. This is the anomaly in the current provision which the court has asked to be addressed.

Sir, the new provisions will in fact benefit rather than put women at a disadvantage. The proposed provisions will not put a woman, who is a full-time home-maker or a working and contributing party, in a worse off position. It will not. In fact, a working and contributing woman will be better off under the proposed amendments, as the courts can now also take into consideration her home-making efforts, regardless of the extent of her contribution to the assets. This would provide for a fairer distribution of assets than the current provisions.

The Member for Yuhua also asked about the police's role in the protection of victims of family violence and also in improving the quality of counselling so that they could provide effective service. Sir, I can assure the Member that the police's role is much greater than previously. During the debate on the Family Violence Bill, I did indicate to the House that there was a pilot project in Ang Mo Kio whereby the police, the VWOs and the FSCs network together to handle family violence cases. I am happy to report that this networking the working between the police and the VWOs will be replicated in other parts of the island. And indeed the police, especially the front-line policemen, are being trained on how to handle family violence cases. Indeed, new recruits at the Police Academy are being trained in such skills.

On improving the quality of counselling by social workers, as I also mentioned earlier in my speech, in fact, starting today, the Ministry of Community Development has started a course for social workers, specifically on how to handle family violence cases. Because issues and problems of the family are rather complex and very complicated, therefore, they would need different skills from trying to handle juveniles or the aged. This will continue and certainly MCD will also continue to liaise with NUS on the kind of training that could be provided for social workers with a view to improving their quality of service.

She also asked whether people could be appointed to apply for a PPO. Indeed, there is provision in the amendment that the Minister could appoint people to apply for PPOs and certainly I would consider VWOs and non-Government organisations or even grassroots leaders to play that role.

On the training of counsellors, as I mentioned earlier, we would continue to train and improve the quality of our social workers.

Dr Vasoo asked whether there would be an erosion of the institution of marriage with the amendment to allow transsexuals to marry. We do not think so. We also have other programmes which will try to strengthen the institution of marriage and the institution of the family. Nevertheless, we will, as suggested by the Member, continue to assess the impact of the change.

He asked what would happen during the time lag between legal recourse and the implementation of any solution to the problem. In other words, what he called the "intervening action" with regard to maintenance and with regard to domestic violence. I would like, especially for domestic violence, to try to give an idea of what we have worked out with the police on the procedures of how to handle these cases. In fact, this would also answer Mr Low Thia Khiang's question on what help can be given to victims of family violence.

Violence cases can come to the police's notice by:

(1) a report lodged by the victim himself or herself at the NPP or the police station.;

(2) a "999" call;

(3) a report by a medical officer; and

(4) a referral by a VWO.

After that, when the police senior investigation officer (SIO) gets the report, he will document the report. In other words, he takes down the particulars of the report and classifies the case as seizable or non-seizable. For outright seizable cases, the police could arrest the perpetrator and charge him in court, if necessary, on the spot. For non-seizable cases, the police could warn the perpetrator or take summons action against the perpetrator, if necessary. And in all instances of reports, the police will explain to the victim the options available to the victim. In other words, what the victim can do to alleviate the problem and, if necessary, either refer the victim to a VWO for further counselling or if the victim insists that he wants a more heavier hand, then the police can intervene. In other words, the options would be explained as and when the report is received. The police will also explain to the victim how to apply for a personal protection order (PPO). If necessary, the police could also ask for the help of a VWO to accompany the victim to court to get the PPO. These are the procedures that have been drawn up.

It does not stop there, Sir. After all this, the duty officer in the NPP and the VWO keep in touch with the victim. The VWO who is in charge of the case will also keep in touch with the victim after the report. The VWO will monitor the case and will assess whether the case is high risk, moderate risk or low risk and follow up accordingly. The VWO will keep in constant touch with the police on the condition of the victim, in case the victim comes again to report and see what follow-up action could be taken. There is always constant discussion between the VWO and the police on the case, even after the case has been handled and the victim goes home.

With regard to serious cases, what happens is that we try to make sure that the victim does not get hurt. The court can give an expedited order or a domestic exclusion order. A domestic exclusion order simply means that the court would disallow the husband to step into the house, even though the house belongs to him, so that they do not get into contact and therefore the abuse does not continue.

Dr Soin suggests changing the name from Women's Charter to Family Charter. This was also suggested by Mr Kenneth Chen and Mr Bernard Chen. I do not know whether it is a family affair, but they have also suggested calling it Family Charter. Sir, it is not a question of merely changing the name from Women's Charter to Family Charter, especially as implied by Dr Soin that it also implicates other legislation. It has got to be looked into very carefully. It has got to be studied deeper, because it has got to do with complementarity and whether it contradicts with other legisation. This could be a long-term development of the Women's Charter.

She mentioned maintenance for husbands. I wish to clarify that under the existing provisions of the Women's Charter, the court can also order a woman to contribute towards the maintenance of a child, as the Member has mentioned, where the court is satisfied that she has the means to do so. As for allowing maintenance for husbands, I am of the view that the existing provisions of allowing only women to claim maintenance from men should be maintained, at least for the present. Call me old fashioned if you will; call me a male chauvinist if you must, but my upbringing and my background tell me that it is the duty of the husband to maintain the wife. And I think I speak for most, if not all, the husbands in this House.

On CPF and club membership as matrimonial assets, the Bill is silent on CPF. In fact, the court has ruled in several cases that CPF, as mentioned by the Member, is part of matrimonial assets. The court has interpreted that CPF monies form part of matrimonial assets and available for division in a divorce and the spouse has the proprietary right to the member's CPF monies. However, CPF savings thus divided may only be withdrawn when the member reaches the age of 55. It does not therefore serve the purpose of meeting the immediate financial needs of the ex-spouse in most cases. However, the court has ruled, as I said, that CPF is part of matrimonial assets and we should continue to let the court decide. The reason why we do not specify what constitute matrimonial assets is that if we were to list each and every item -- club memberships, CPF, COEs -- it is a bit of a long list. Therefore, we would let the court decide which will fall under matrimonial assets and which will not.

As regards violence in the family, we note her observations. I do not want to repeat the arguments which I had put forward when we debated the Family Violence Bill. But I am not really sure whether she could compare it with the Maintenance of Parents Bill which was a new Bill in the sense that it was legislated to look into a problem that had not been looked into previously. Whereas in the case of the Family Violence Bill, you already have provisions in the Women's Charter and therefore you can just enhance the Women's Charter. Be that as it may, if the Member still feels that there are arguments for the Family Violence Bill or indeed to strengthen further the amendments to the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill, she could do so during the Select Committee representation.

Is family violence a social problem? Yes, it is a social problem. I do not think anybody would argue that family violence is not a social problem. The very fact that we are here debating the problem and the fact that we have put forward amendments to the Women's Charter to address this problem show that it is not a problem which is suffered by the victim himself or herself, but is a problem which the whole community should put its mind to. The Member can be assured that the Government is very concerned about family violence and indeed we are also looking into how to make people more aware of family violence and how to make family violence a more repugnant act in our society. This indeed we will be looking into in our public education programmes.

I think I have replied to most of the questions. In any case, this is not the end of the debate. As I said, I will commit the Bill to a Select Committee.

In closing, I would like to say that there is general agreement on the spirit and intent of the Women's Charter. It is a unique legislation and it has contributed a lot to the welfare and well-being of our women, children, the institutions of marriage and the family. The amendments which we have proposed will hopefully further deepen this contribution and I seek Members' support in passing it through its Second Reading. As I have indicated earlier, I will commit this Bill to a Select Committee for it to be further refined and if Members feel that they have further contributions to make, and indeed if any organisations outside feel that they have further contributions to make, they can do so when the Committee sits.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Sir, can I seek a point of clarification, please? I respect the Minister's view. He wants to be old-fashioned or male chauvinist. But I would like to clarify that when we are making a public policy stand we will have to leave aside our personal feelings and look at what the social context is. So I would like the Minister to clarify this point about maintenance in view of the statistics that I quoted that many women are marrying downwards now and earning as much as, if not more. In that type of a social milieu, Sir, would the Minister reconsider that husbands can be entitled to maintenance under appropriate circumstances because in the end it is the welfare of the family that may be compromised if in appropriate circumstance we do not award maintenance to the husband?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Sir, I appreciate the Member's concern. Notwithstanding what I have said, I think we can still discuss this further in the Select Committee.

With regard to whether it is my personal view, whether I am old-fashioned or male chauvinist, I do realise that, Sir. In fact, Members must have known that my own stand on marriage between transsexuals, for example, is quite different from what I have said here. In other words, amendments could be made to allow this. So there is a difference between how I feel and how I feel the law should be applied to the community.

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap: Sir, I want to clarify that I never suggested incorporating all the other Acts into the Women's Charter and call it a Family Charter. I was just saying that this particular Bill, as it is, should be considered a Family Charter.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: I stand corrected.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such number of Members as the Committee of Selection may nominate." - [Mr Abdullah Tarmugi].