Louis delivered the following speech in support of Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill.

Louis: Madam, I would like to speak on four issues on this Women's Charter Amendment Bill and how we can make improvements.

Firstly, on Parenting Programme on Divorce – domestic violence situations. The new section 94A implements the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF)'s proposal that parties with children must complete a Mandatory Parenting Programme before they can file for divorce, if they have not agreed on divorce and all ancillary matters.

In particular, I believe that special consideration should be given to cases of domestic violence. I understand from AWARE that their experience is that the abused spouse is usually the one who wants the divorce whereas the abusive spouse may resist. In this situation, since the couple would not have agreed on divorce and all ancillary matters, according to the proposed amendment, they would have to go through Mandatory Parenting Programme unless this is dispensed with by the Court.

I am concerned that the abused spouse could end up being trapped in a legally perpetuated situation of domestic violence. This will not be in the interest of the child as, in addition to spousal abuse, there may also be child abuse in such a situation.

Although the proposed section 94A(4) allows Court's discretion in waiving the requirement of the Mandatory Parenting Programme, in my view, the law should explicitly and clearly state that no parenting programme needs to be attended in cases of domestic violence, rather than leaving the question up to the discretion of the judge.

Second, on Spousal Maintenance for Men, which many Members have spoken about. The Bill amends the Charter so that spousal maintenance is available to men, but only where they have been incapacitated and are unable to support themselves. I believe that spousal maintenance should be based on the principle of fairness, rather than gender. Maintenance should also be available to men in other appropriate cases, for example, where men make economic sacrifices to take a primary role in household labour and caregiving, even if such cases are rarely encountered.

Third, Violence against Women. At the moment, section 160 allows the Director of Social Welfare to detain girls aged between16 and 21 years on the following grounds: (i) if her lawful guardian requests the Director to detain her; (ii) if the Director considers her to be in need of protection and whose lawful guardian cannot be found; (iii) if the Director believes her to have been ill-treated; and lastly, (iv) if the Director considers her to be in moral danger.

Is there any investigation of the "lawful guardian" who makes such a request? Is the girl in question consulted about her own needs or wishes?

The underlying assumption is that the "lawful guardian" always has the girl's best interest at heart: this would not be true in situations of family violence.

Even if the lawful guardians have their charges' best interests in mind, after the girl has been brought into detention, the Director can detain her until 21 years old, according to the amendment, and the guardian would have no control. It is problematic that girls can be detained against their will when they have not committed any criminal offences and, in fact, are in vulnerable situations at times.

The provisions of sections 160, 161 and 163, even after the amendment, are still overly vague, broad and open-ended. There is still no clear information about the Director of Social Welfare's decision-making process concerning whether or not to bring a girl into detention, how long to detain her and what the conditions of her detention should be. What are the factors and criteria used for decision-making?

I hope that we can have more explicit definitions of the conditions under which minors may be placed in protective shelters, including domestic violence as one of these conditions.

I also hope that there will be submissions of the decisions of the Director of Social Welfare, with justifications, to the Family Court with a court review and a court order required for continuation of protective shelter to the woman or girl at risk, with the duration of the stay stipulated as well. At the end of the period of stay, the case should be reviewed by the Court.

On the PPO regime, I note the amendment to section 65 to allow married or previously married persons below the age of 21 years to apply for a protection order and expedited order for themselves and specific dependents. This is commendable, but it does not follow that a wife under 21 with her dependents can easily find shelter in a place of safety.

Will shelters for victims of domestic violence now accept married girls and women under 21? If not, what provisions are there for a wife who is under 21 and a victim of domestic violence to be housed in a place of safety?

In addition, I suggest that other than those who are married, all individuals under 21 be allowed to apply for Personal Protection Orders (PPO) and Domestic Exclusion Orders (DEO) so that they can be protected from all forms of domestic violence, that the need for parental consent be removed in such cases and that the application for protection can be made against anyone in their household.

Lastly, on Marriages of Convenience. I seek more clarity as to the process by which a marriage would be found void under the proposed new section 11A. The new section 11A(3) makes it clear that marriages will be deemed void if certain immigration offences are committed, but are there other circumstances in which section 11A would be invoked? If so, is there a court process involved or is it just an administrative determination? In my view, a decision of such gravity should be subject to judicial process.

In conclusion, I am recommending the following:

First, amend the new section 94A to explicitly state that in situations of domestic violence, Judges should not require divorcing parties to attend a Mandatory Parenting Programme.

Second, make spousal maintenance available regardless of gender, on the basis of fairness and need.

Third, section 160 allows the Director of Social Welfare to detain girls aged between16 and 21 years is extremely vague, broad and open-ended. I seek more clarifications on this and also for the submission of the decisions of the Director of Social Welfare under this section to be reviewed by the Family Court.

Fourth, I note the extension of the PPO regime to married under-21s and would like to raise the question of whether these people will now be able to access shelters and "place of safety" if they become victims of domestic violence.

Fifth, I recommend that all individuals under 21, not just those who have been married, can apply for PPOs on their own behalf.

Sixth, I seek more clarity as to the process by which a marriage can be found void and whether a decision of such gravity will be subject to judicial process.

Madam, I do feel that the proposed amendments are appropriate and timely. We, however, cannot legislate everything. Legislation is only one piece of the puzzle. There are also policies, support programmes and services and public education. They are all part of the overall effort. Family and community also have a strong role to play in strengthening and supporting families. Madam, my request for the Government to review the above points I raised, notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

Mr Tan Chuan-Jin (The Minister for Social and Family Development): I would like to thank Mr Louis Ng for highlighting that it is really an entire effort. Legislation is an important part but it is not everything, because you cannot legislate everything. What we plan and what we do intend to do and carry out is, to make sure that where there are needs to be met, the needs will have to be addressed. It need not be addressed fully necessary by legislation itself, but programmes, services to be there. And especially, as highlighted, family and community play a very important part as well.

Mr Louis Ng suggested that the Mandatory Parenting Programme should be automatically waived for victims of family violence in order to expedite the divorce proceedings and highlighted the particular profile of the families undergoing these difficulties.

I think there is even greater need for these divorcing parties to be directed to receive help. We have measures in place to minimise the risk to victims of abuse.

Firstly, families facing family violence will attend this programme at the Family Violence Specialist Agencies where the staff are trained to handle cases involving family violence. Secondly, in cases where it is beneficial to the family and child for divorce proceedings to be expedited, section 94A(4) empowers the courts to allow divorce proceedings to continue even when the parent has not completed the programme.

The idea is that while we do recognise the challenges that families face when violence occurs, we also recognise that these families need help and to intervene where we can. We also make sure that clauses are available, steps are available for families to be assisted even when this violence is perpetuated and continues to be perpetuated.

Another area that garnered much interest was spousal maintenance. Members have put forth a wide spectrum of views. Members such as Mr Seah Kian Peng, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh and Mr Louis Ng spoke about moving towards a more gender neutral approach. I hear you. I fully understand because we do see instances where there might seem to be a compelling need to move along these grounds while on the other hand, as I have highlighted, there are also other views.

Mr Louis Ng asked if the decision to void a marriage should be subjected to the judicial process. Marriages are void only when at least one party is successfully charged and deemed guilty by the Courts under section 57C of the Immigration Act for entering into a marriage of convenience. Such cases would have been scrutinised through the judicial process. It is only consistent that such marriages are consequentially and automatically void, given that the act of entering into such a marriage is an offence.

Mr Louis Ng suggested that all persons under 21 years be allowed to apply for a Personal Protection Order (PPO) and Domestic Exclusion Orders (DEO) for themselves against anyone in their household, without the need for parental consent. It would be in a minor's interests to have a reliable adult apply on their behalf. The application may be made by the parent who is not the perpetrator of violence. If the parents or guardians are themselves the violence perpetrators, a relative or any social worker appointed by the Minister, can step in, without the need for consent from the minor's parents or guardians.

Mr Louis Ng also asked about the circumstances in which the Director of Social Welfare can detain vulnerable female minors aged 16 to 21 years old in places of safety. All cases which come to the attention of the Director are thoroughly investigated. A girl will only be admitted to a place of safety if the Director is satisfied it will be in her best interests. For example, if it is unsafe for the girl to remain with her immediate family or if she may engage in morally risky behaviours.

Mr Louis Ng also asked if married minors who have suffered domestic violence can seek refuge at places of safety. Yes, they can seek accommodation and support from crisis shelters.

Louis: Can I ask the Minister for a clarification with regards to section 160. Is it solely the Director of Social Welfare who makes a decision to detain a girl or is it up to a team of people? If it is solely up to one person, then may I ask if we could have a proposed amendment to make it a team of people that makes this decision?  

Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, the Director of Social Welfare would be advised by the staff and that is the approach that we are taking for this. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the status of the review on the need to repeal marital rape immunity as stated by the Government during the 32nd Human Rights Council; (b) when immunity from marital rape will be repealed; and (c) whether this will be a total or partial repeal with exceptions.

Mr K Shanmugam (MHA): This issue is being reviewed actively. We will give an update when the position is clearer.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered his budget cut on Violence Against Women at Committee of Supply 2018.

Louis: Sir, the criminal justice system should support survivors of domestic, sexual and other forms of gender-based violence who step forward for help. However, some feel that their experiences are not well-understood and encounter insensitivities as they seek justice. This re-traumatises and discourages them from coming forward.

Can the Ministry provide mandatory and recurrent capacity-building for members at all levels of the criminal justice system, including lawyers, law enforcement officers and healthcare staff, so they can better deal with survivors in a gender-sensitive way?

For the on-going review on marital rape, is the Ministry looking at a complete removal of immunity or considering other positions? If so, what are they?

Mr K Shanmugam (MHA): Mr Ang Wei Neng spoke about the Vulnerable Adults Bill. Our MSF colleagues have been working hard on this. And I understand the Bill will be tabled in Parliament soon. Mr Louis Ng asked about marital rape, and that is also under review. Let us be clear. Violence against women is wrong – no ifs and no buts on that. So, removal of immunity against marital rape is being studied.

Second, I want to talk about process reviews and changes; the steps we are taking to improve our processes.

When you look at investigations, our investigative processes, will aim to take better care of the victims' well-being. In particular, we are looking at the investigations and court processes for sexual crimes, to better protect victims of such offences.

Mr de Souza and Mr Louis Ng asked about this. I first announced in August 2016 that we were reviewing this. We have listened to the victims to understand their concerns. We have worked with several organisations – MSF, hospitals, Courts, and NGOs, to improve our processes and the way our officers interact with the victims. Some examples of the changes that have been made, we have selected and started training a group of officers. We call them Sexual Crime Duty Officers. They will conduct interviews with victims.

We have introduced the One-Stop Abuse Forensic Examination (OneSAFE) Centre. Victims can be examined by a doctor on-site at CID, without the need to shuttle between CID and hospital, and having to recount what happened to them once at the hospital and once to the police officers. Everything could be done in one place, at the OneSAFE Centre.

We have developed a training video for our officers on how to question the victims in an empathetic way. AWARE helped us with that. They will then understand and have greater empathy for the trauma faced by victims. In June this year, the Police, together with KK Hospital, and other partners will pilot a Multi-Disciplinary Interview (MDI) model. This would be focussed on children who have been sexually abused by family members. 

It is necessary to gather the facts from these children. But, again, one can imagine or understand the stress that such children may undergo if they have to be interviewed separately by the Police, doctors and child protection officers. It adds to the stress. And so, we will seek to integrate these interviews so that the children need not repeatedly recount their traumatic experience.

In addition, court processes will aim to better protect the victims of sexual assault cases, including automatic protection of identity, closed-door hearings and the questions about the victim's sexual history and unrelated behaviour. There will be restrictions on what sort of cross-examination will be allowed, subject to the overall jurisdiction of the Courts. That will be set out when we deal with the legislation. We will define the precise scope, what we are intending to do, and how the process can be taken forward.

Another process is the Appropriate Adults Scheme. We started this in 2013 for persons with intellectual disabilities and mental health problems. This was extended in 2017 to support young suspects. Independent volunteers are the Appropriate Adults (AAs). They are trained to provide emotional support to the interviewees.

In 2017, the AAs provided support for about 700 interviews during the course of investigations, and the feedback has been positive, both from the volunteers who are AAs, as well as the Investigation Officers (IOs).

In April this year, we will roll out the AA scheme to more Police and CNB units so that they can support more young suspects. And it will also include Customs and CPIB.

Separately, we are also looking to identify and deal with the basic issues that lead people to crime.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

(Supplementary Question) Louis: I just want to ask, moving forward, whether MOM will consider including in the tripartite standard, some guidelines on how employers can help employees who are facing domestic violence.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, while I understand the Member's concern about domestic violence, I think the question really, we have to ask is, whether the employers are best placed to intervene. I am not so sure that the answer is so clear for everyone.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)