WOMEN'S CHARTER (Review)

Mr Charles Chong asked the Acting Minister for Community Development and Sports whether his Ministry will review Part VIII of the Women's Charter on maintenance orders to ensure that the provisions are more gender equal.

Mr Charles Chong asked the Acting Minister for Community Development and Sports whether his Ministry will review sections 69(1) and 113 of the Women's Charter to include a means test for women seeking maintenance from their husbands or former husbands.

The Minister of State for Community Development and Sports (Mr Chan Soo Sen) (for the Acting Minister for Community Development and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, as Question Nos. 11 and 12 are related to the Women's Charter, with your permission, I would take both Questions together.

Mr Speaker: Please do so.

Mr Chan Soo Sen: The hon. Member has asked if my Ministry would review Part VIII of the Women's Charter, which provides for the maintenance of wife and children, to ensure that the provisions are more gender equal. He has also asked if my Ministry would review sections 69(1) and 113 of the Women's Charter to include a means test for women seeking maintenance from their husbands or former husbands.

Sir, the short answer is not quite yet. Let me explain, Sir. Despite the progress we have achieved since independence, gaps continue to exist between man and woman on the economic front. The percentage of economically active women in the workforce is 54% in 2001. This is significantly lower than that for men of 78% in the same year. As a group, women workers' average salaries were lower than male workers. This is not really because we have unequal pay for the same job, but rather because women are generally still working in the lower-paid professions. These are realities. Therefore, the economic reality of the situation is such that the law must continue to provide protection for women and children.

Notwithstanding this, the hon. Member might wish to know that section 69(4) of the Women's Charter provides for the Courts to consider all the circumstances of the case when ordering maintenance for the wife. These include:

(1) the financial needs of the wife;

(2) her income or earning capacity, property and other financial resources;

(3) any physical or mental disability of the wife;

(4) the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage;

(5) the contributions made by each of the parties to the marriage and to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family;

(6) the standard of living enjoyed by the wife before the husband neglected or refused to provide reasonable maintenance; and

(7) the conduct of each of the parties to the marriage, if the conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it.

As the law currently provides for the Courts to make a fair and equitable judgement when making maintenance orders, we feel that there is no necessity for a means test as suggested by the hon. Member. For this reason, the Courts do not always grant applications for maintenance, and have indeed dismissed some, while in other cases, have granted a lesser sum for maintenance than what was asked for.

Mr Charles Chong (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister of State aware that the present reality is that there are approximately 1,800 households in Singapore where the husband or the man is the full-time home-maker? Under these circumstances, would he not also agree that in these cases, the men may need financial support should their wives divorce them?

Mr Chan Soo Sen: As I have mentioned, Sir, the court will take all these into consideration when making the order.

Mr Charles Chong: Sir, there is absolutely no provision for men under the Women's Charter to claim maintenance from their wives or their ex-wives. The court cannot make a maintenance order.

Mr Chan Soo Sen: Sir, we are talking about the Women's Charter, not the Men's Charter.

Mr Charles Chong: Would the Minister of State then not look into amending the title of the Charter into a Family Charter rather than a Women's Charter, to make it more gender equal?

Mr Chan Soo Sen: I think the issue of amending the Women's Charter into a Family Charter makes the whole matter much more complicated. In fact, the family also includes children. This matter was actually discussed some years ago. The decision at that time was that it was not worthwhile to complicate the Women's Charter by amending it into a Family Charter because the Women's Charter was working well and it is still working well.

Mr Charles Chong: Is the Minister of State aware that the current Women's Charter already includes the protection of children? Therefore, how much more complicated can it be?

Mr Chan Soo Sen: I do not really feel that there is a need to further complicate it. The Women's Charter's objective is to basically protect the women and children in the case of matrimony. This particular objective is still valid because, as I have mentioned earlier, the socio-economic reality today is that the men are still stronger than the women and children.

Mr Charles Chong: Mr Speaker, Sir, with your kind indulgence, just one more supplementary question. Back to my first supplementary question, in 1,800 households in Singapore, the situation is that the man is the full-time home-maker. Would the Minister of State not agree that in these cases, men too need some protection?

Mr Chan Soo Sen: What form of protection? I think the reality is that if these men would like to go and look for a job, there are various channels to help them to do so. In our society, if a man is healthy with no physical disability, to say that he has got problems looking for a job and therefore needs a whole Charter to protect him, it would appear a little bit excessive.

Mr Charles Chong rose ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Chong, you promised me that was the last one.

Mr Charles Chong: Yes, Sir, but the Minister of State's response really leaves me with no choice. The protection which I am seeking for these 1,800 men is basically the same that is afforded to the women in Singapore under the Women's Charter. Would the Minister of State not agree that this would be more gender equal and equitable?

Mr Chan Soo Sen: I would be very happy to listen to Mr Charles Chong's proposal on specifically what protections are needed. It does not automatically follow that whenever there is a need for protection, we must go and create a whole Charter for the men.

Dr Lily Neo: The Minister of State said earlier that usually, women are in the lower-paying jobs. May I ask the Minister of State why this is so as women in Singapore are supposed to be given the same opportunity in education and in job placements.

Mr Chan Soo Sen: Sir, I think this is a totally different question. The Questions are on the Women's Charter. The Women's Charter was created to protect women and children because of this economic reality. The hon. Member is asking why there is this economic reality. Perhaps we should discuss it some other time.

Dr Jennifer Lee: Would the Minister of State not agree that it would be much more equitable, when we are talking about preserving families and protecting the rights of families, that a spouse who dedicates his or her time to supporting the family, thereby sometimes giving up the ability to build a career, that whatever gender that spouse is, should deserve the ability, if the marriage should break up, to getting some maintenance? Specifically, that would be the kind of protection, I believe, that we would be asking for - maintenance for either spouse in a marriage - for the spouse that had actually dedicated time away from building a career to building the bonds and looking after the family.

Mr Chan Soo Sen: Sir, to preserve the family, the best way is to ensure that the marriage does not break up. Therefore, we have in line various forms of social services to help the family preserve its integrity. We feel that is a more positive way of solving this problem raised by the hon. Member.

As for this gender equal issue, when it comes to, say, a divorce, I thought my short answer was "not yet". I did not say "no". This question is asked in the present tense, that is, for the time being, not yet; 100 years from now, who knows?