Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, parting ways with someone you used to love or perhaps still love may not be an easy process. When a child is involved, it could get even harder.

Going through a divorce is an emotionally draining period and we should do our best to help fellow Singaporeans. We should make sure our policies do not make the divorce process more acrimonious.

The proposed amendments to the Women's Charter are a step in the right direction. They modernise our marriage processes, allow for no-fault divorces and expand divorce support programmes. They acknowledge the reality that marriage, despite our best hopes and efforts, may break down. In such situations, our laws should help everyone affected, especially the children, move on. But I hope we can do more, much more, and I have three suggestions to make. 

My first suggestion is with regard to parents with shared care and control. Couples know that if they get shared care and control of their child, they will have to fight each other for who gets to list their child as occupiers in their application for a HDB flat; essentially, who gets subsidised public housing. If one party gets sole care and control, then he or she is guaranteed this subsidised housing. 

Is it in the best interest of the child for their parents to have a more acrimonious divorce? We know that having a roof over your head is essential and perhaps one of the biggest worries following a divorce, especially for the lower-income. 

Sir, will the Government consider working with Family Courts and changing its policies to provide children of such parents with less housing instability? We know that our Courts are increasingly ordering divorced parents to have shared care and control. Such orders have almost doubled in recent times, comprising 9.5% of Court judgments in 2020, up from 5.6% in 2016. As mentioned, HDB requires such parents to obtain mutual consent from the other parent before listing their child as an occupier in an HDB flat application. This creates three problems, all of which are bad for the children.

First, during divorce proceedings, parents may fight more aggressively for sole care and control to secure their right to apply for a subsidised HDB flat.

Second, after divorce, parents may continue fighting over this issue of mutual consent.

Third, when one parent refuses to grant consent, the other parent and their child may be stuck in housing instability. This affects the child's material and emotional well-being.

I know those with difficulties can appeal. Since 2016, HDB has granted 13 out of 20 such appeals and approved another seven rental flat applications related to shared care and control cases. But allowing appeals does not solve any of the above three problems. Our policies may still create tension, conflict and instability as a default for children in such cases. I have three proposals for fixing this policy.

First, the Ministry should work with the Family Courts to enable the Courts to settle the question of mutual consent at the stage of divorce. If both parents reach an agreement, it should be stated in the Matrimonial Property Plan and reflected in the divorce judgment. If they do not, each parent should present their reasons to the judge, who can make an order on which parent gets to list the child as an occupier. This is not overly intrusive, as judges already settle property matters during divorce proceedings, such as by dividing the matrimonial property. Divorce rulings also already decide on custody, care and control and division of matrimonial assets, which are equally contentious. So, why not housing?

Second, HDB should drop its requirement for mutual consent as long as the other parent already owns private property.

And third, HDB should automatically allow parents to list the child as an occupier if both parents are of lower income.

These proposals will help avoid adding housing instability to the children of divorced parents.

My second suggestion is about the "Children-in-Between" programme. It is an exceptionally good programme that provides counselling and support for children whose parents are undergoing divorce. I raised this previously and am again calling for the Ministry to consider making it mandatory for all children whose parents are undergoing a divorce. In the past few years, many people undergoing divorce have approached me for help and many are in tears as they share their painful journey. Often, I see their child, at times, very young child, hugging their parents, comforting them and providing tissues to wipe their tears. The children step up but I often wonder if they truly understand what is happening to mummy and daddy and whether we are providing them with enough help during this very confusing, painful and distressing period for someone who is so young.

Sir, my proposal is that the Court should, by default, order that all children of divorced parents participate in the "Children-in-Between" programme. Parents can appeal to opt out. Currently, and, unfortunately, less than 2% of children affected by divorce attend this programme. We should do a lot more to make this number as close to 100% as possible.

My final suggestion is about renaming the Women's Charter. When the Women's Charter was enacted in 1961, it was instrumental in protecting the rights of women. Today's amendments ensure that the Charter continues to do so, including by clarifying the rights and duties of husbands and wives. As we modernise this law, we should also consider making its name more appropriate. My proposal is that we rename it to the Family Charter. This is for three reasons.

First, the bulk of this law protects not just women but men and children as well. This is true of the existing law. But it is also true of today's amendments. No-fault divorces, children support programmes and modernised marriage solemnisations are all good not just for women but also for families in general.

Second, bundling family- and children-specific laws under a Women's Charter has the unintentional effect of suggesting that women have some unique place in raising children. It runs against everything else this Government is saying, that men need to contribute equally at home, that employers should not treat women and mothers differently. I know the Government does not mean to send this message, but that is what it looks like. This is bad for women and it is bad for families.

Third, there is a rising, incorrect sentiment that the Women's Charter is bad for men. Research by AWARE and Quilt.AI found that one of the main narratives in online misogyny is that "men are unprotected by the law." The problem is summed up by one of the examples cited in the research: "Where is the Men's Charter?" Undoubtedly, we know these voices are wrong. But renaming the Women's Charter to accurately describe its scope can help defuse the anger.

I am aware that Part 11 and other provisions of the Charter are specific to crimes related to women. We can move them to the relevant criminal statutes, such as the Penal Code.

Let me be clear. Renaming the Women's Charter does not mean we have achieved the goal of gender equality. Data and stories make clear that there is still a painful inequality in everything, from attitudes to affluence. The renaming would help reshape minds, but it would not be enough by itself. We will continue to need changes in laws and mindsets to make progress on the road towards gender equality.

In summary, my points today are one, that the Ministry should make flat applications easier for parents with shared care and control; two, the Ministry should mandate the Children in Between Programme for children with divorced parents; and three, that we rename the Women's Charter to the Family Charter. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Ms Sun Xueling (The Minister of State for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, I thank Members for the robust debate, the pertinent issues raised and their support for the Bill. Important issues have been raised by Members regarding the proposals and the very institution of marriage and family in Singapore. 

Let me first reiterate our core beliefs regarding marriage and divorce, which our proposed amendments intend to strengthen. Marriage is the cornerstone of family formation in our society. We must protect the institution of marriage by ensuring the significance of the solemnisation and registration of marriages and that marriages contracted here are genuine. 

Divorce must be a last resort. Our first priority is to save marriages where possible. Where there is no alternative but divorce, our aim is to help families heal and move on. Reducing acrimony and promoting child-centricity in divorce are key.

The Women's Charter is a significant Act, enacted in 1961. Ms Carrie Tan and Mr Louis Ng proposed renaming the Women's Charter to the Family Charter. We will not be doing so in today's amendments as, if we look at the provisions on marriage and divorce, the provisions are gender-neutral and do not discriminate in favour of men or women.

The Women’s Charter sets out how family and family relationships should be managed. To quote Prof Leong Wai Kum, School of Law, SUSS, "the Women's Charter promulgated the idea of marriage as an equal cooperative partnership of different efforts". The Women's Charter also provides for protection of women and girls in the areas of vice, prostitution activities for which there is good reason for this distinction as women are disproportionately affected. And while Singapore women today are better educated with better employment opportunities, there are still vulnerable women who require the protection of the Women's Charter.

Moving on to the issues regarding the marriage-related proposals, in reviewing the marriage processes under the Women's Charter, we sought to achieve two key things.

Firstly, we sought to enhance the marriage process to provide greater convenience to couples. The amendments will enable us to take the marriage process online via the "Our Marriage Journey" portal later this year.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh raised concerns of marriages of convenience and I assure Members that the Registry of Marriages will continue to perform due diligence. If there are concerns, the declaration would be performed in-person or via video-link, instead of online, and the Registrar may decide not to permit solemnisation via video-link.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how many marriages of convenience we have seen and how many have been involved in vice activities. Between 2014 and 2021, there have been 388 individuals convicted for engaging in or arranging such marriages. We do not track if they have engaged in vice activities.  

Ms Joan Pereira asked if the digital certificates would apply to both civil and religious ceremonies and who would issue the digital certificates. Digital certificates would apply to all solemnisations and will be issued by the Registrar of Marriages. 

Ms Ng Ling Ling voiced concerns that digitalising the solemnisation may downplay its significance. We understand her concerns. Hence, couples may choose to hold their solemnisation in-person. Indeed, we have seen that most couples still prefer to hold their solemnisations in-person. In addition, while a digital marriage certificate will be issued, a hardcopy ceremonial marriage certificate will also be provided as a keepsake. Through the "Our Marriage Journey" portal we will continue to emphasise the importance of the solemnisation.  

Second, we sought to update the necessary safeguards to ensure that the institution of marriage is not abused and continues to be protected. Beyond legislative amendments, upcoming initiatives also boost our efforts to strengthen marriages and families. We have brought together stakeholders, community partners and Singaporeans to co-create and implement solutions through the launch of the Alliance for Action to Strengthen Marriages and Family Relationships last year. We have also woven support for couples into the marriage process. 

Mr Melvin Yong suggested more can be done to encourage couples to attend marriage preparation courses, including by making it mandatory. The "Our Marriage Journey" portal will recommend and encourage couples to sign up for such courses. However, it is only mandatory where one party is below the age of 21, as the dissolution rates for such marriages are relatively higher. Nonetheless, we strongly encourage all couples to attend marriage preparation programmes and we provide rebates of $140 for couples to attend the 12-hour PREP workshop, or $70 for supported programmes offered by the community.  

I also agree with Ms Joan Pereira that it is important that solemnisers are equipped with counselling skills. We have started a pilot initiative, Journey with You, in short, referred to as JOY, which enables licensed solemnisers to mentor newlyweds in the first year of marriage. They will undergo training and are provided referral resources. 

Let me move on now to the issues raised on the divorce proposals. I am glad that there is consensus between Members on several areas. 

First, as raised by many Members, divorce is and must be a last resort. Where possible, we aim to save the marriage and help couples resolve their issues.

I agree with Mr Yip Hon Weng that couples should be encouraged to seek counselling early before marital issues worsen. Where there is no other option apart from divorce, we aim to help couples to heal and we also ensure that the welfare of the children is protected.

Mr Melvin Yong brought up the worrying trend of more recent cohorts divorcing earlier. He asked why such a trend has emerged. We believe that this is due, in part, to higher expectations of marital satisfaction and greater stressors in the early years of marriage, especially as more couples are dual income and they juggle career and parenthood. This is a trend not just emerging in Singapore but it has been apparent in many parts of the world for some time. 

Therefore, as raised by Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, our commitment is to protect the marriage and save it where possible. But we must do more, beyond legislation. The legislative amendments must be seen in totality with non-legislative initiatives which will help couples resolve issues at all stages of their relationship. When stresses begin to emerge, we have marital and family counselling under the FAM@FSC to help families resolve issues early.

Mr Melvin Yong suggested that marriage therapy be made more accessible and affordable. Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked if there are sufficient trained professionals to cater to demand, what the average waiting time is for appointments and if there is remedial action if the couple do not attend subsequent counselling sessions. Ms Mariam Jafaar similarly asked about funding and resources for such services. I would like to say that by the end of this year, there will be 10 FAM@FSCs across the island that can support couples facing marital and familial stress and they will be well-equipped to manage the projected demand. In terms of waiting time, parties will be contacted by the agency within a week.

As these counselling sessions are voluntary, there is no remedial action that can be taken by the Ministry or FAM@FSC should the couple not choose to continue. Nonetheless, if counselling were ordered by the Court, then, in the case of non-compliance, the Court may make any further orders as it deems fit, including staying proceedings until parties have attended counselling. 

If couples are not able to resolve their issues and are contemplating divorce, we are also working on a Family Assist portal which will provide couples with links to marital counselling and allow reflection and also information so that couples can make an informed decision. 

Finally, should couples choose to proceed with divorce, within the divorce process, couples are given opportunities to resolve their issues and to u-turn on their decision.

Mr Yip Hon Weng had asked if the Ministry will consider mandating pre-divorce counselling for couples citing DMA. Ms Mariam Jafaar raised similar points on requiring divorcing couples to take parenting education courses and making counselling mandatory. With the amendments, all divorcing couples with minor children must attend MPP before filing for divorce. At MPP, counsellors may assess the couple's suitability for reconciliation and refer them for further support.

Mr Melvin Yong asked if this pre-divorce counselling could be extended to those who cite unreasonable behavior. We agree it is good to do so but our priority at this point is to extend MPP to all divorcing couples with minor children, regardless of the fact that they cite. We will explore extending pre-divorce counselling further at a later stage.

I also fully agree with Ms Shahira Abdullah that religious organisations can play an important role in mediation and counselling and parties may choose to opt for counselling by religious organisations if they are of the same faith. I would like to thank Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim for sharing the Syariah Court's experience with implementing the Marriage Counselling Programme. Indeed, it is through learning from the Syariah Court's positive experience that we have decided to introduce pre-divorce counselling.

Members also agree that it is key that families are supported throughout the divorce process.

On the Programme for Children, Ms Joan Pereira raised the importance to support all children, including the older ones. We fully agree and, as part of the MPP, the counsellor would encourage parents to sign their children up for suitable programmes. 

To Mr Louis Ng and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim's queries on why the Programme for Children is not mandatory, what the types of interventions under the Programme for Children are and whether there can be a national body to harmonise programmes for all children affected by Muslim and civil divorce, I would first like to assure Members, such as Ms Shahira Abdullah, who also brought up the need for Muslim marriages to be supported, that MSF and MCCY work closely together to ensure that the programmes offered to all children affected by divorce are similar.

In addition, the Programme for Children is also available to children affected by Muslim divorce. There is, therefore, no need for a separate body to oversee this.

The Programme for Children covers various component items. It includes an assessment of the needs of the child, counselling, psychological services as well as specific evidence-based programmes, such as Children-in-Between.

MSF had considered mandating all minor children whose parents are undergoing divorce to attend a programme to help them cope better with the divorce. However, we believe that parents, even as they undergo divorce, must still assume primary responsibility for their children's well-being rather than have the Government mandate a programme for their children. We are also mindful that mandating counselling for all children may also cause additional stress and that not all children may be ready for the programme. 

Lastly, on the issue of child access enforcement, I agree with Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim that children should not be used as a negotiating tool in their parents' quarrels and those who breach access orders must face consequences. Both Members also brought up the need for enforcement orders to be made judiciously, especially in the case of a term of imprisonment.

I assure Members that the Court will take all aspects of the case into account in making its orders, including whether the child had refused access to the parent and a term of imprisonment is intended to be imposed only on egregious cases of non-compliance. The Court may reverse the grant of care and control to the access parent if it is in the best interest of the child to do so. On orders to make-up access, as with all orders related to the child, the Court will make this order taking into consideration the best interest of the child. 

For parties with counselling orders, FAM@FSCs and DSSAs will work closely with the Courts to support them in issues faced with access. The 10 FAM@FSCs set up by the end of this year will be able to manage the expected caseload. 

However, we have also heard different views raised by Members, particularly on whether we should make the divorce process more expeditious or whether doing so could lead to easier divorces and erode the institution of marriage. 

I fully agree with Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Melvin Yong that a balance must be struck between making it too difficult for couples to divorce and making it too easy to give up their commitment.

Beyond non-legislative efforts to strengthen the family and upstream measures to help families facing stress, we also want to ensure that the divorce process affords parties opportunities to save their marriage and u-turn on their decision, and the divorce process, even with the introduction of DMA, is not made easier nor faster.

For this reason, the safeguards to ensure the decision to divorce – that it is a considered one – remains. This includes: (a) the three-year minimum marriage period before divorce can be filed; (b) a minimum three-month period before divorce is finalised; and (c) that the existing five facts for parties remain for parties who prefer to rely on them.

The divorce process also remains largely the same no matter which fact is cited, including DMA. In fact, citing DMA requires further submissions to the Court: (a) the reasons leading parties to conclude that their marriage has irretrievably broken down; (b) the efforts made by parties to reconcile; and (c) considerations given to the arrangements to be made in relation to the parties' children and financial affairs.

It is also for this reason that we will not be reducing the three-year minimum marriage period before a divorce can be filed, as Ms Carrie Tan has suggested. The three-year minimum period is an important safeguard to ensure that couples do not enter or exit a marriage lightly. The first year of marriage is often not an easy one, given the many transitions and adjustments for couples. The three-year minimum period will thus allow couples sufficient time to adjust, seek help and overcome difficulties, rather than just leave the marriage just because things are difficult. If they truly wish to pursue divorce, the three-year minimum period will also allow them sufficient time to consider their decision carefully and also make attempts at reconciliation.  

Nonetheless, where there are legitimate reasons where a party may need to exit the marriage before the three-year minimum marriage period is up, the Women's Charter allows for that. In cases of exceptional hardship or depravity, parties may seek the Court's permission to file for divorce before the three-year minimum marriage period is up. However, where parties have made and failed at every effort to save their marriage and have no other option left but divorce, then there is a need and a place for DMA, in cases where parties agree on the divorce, to reduce acrimony.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked why DMA is needed when the separation fact allows couples to divorce without apportioning fault. Divorcees who have filed for divorce on the simplified divorce track have shared with us in our engagements that though they had agreed on the divorce and ancillary matters, having to cite a fault-based fact did dredge up pain and hurt and the hurt deepened when parties read the affidavits from each other. They expressed how they wanted instead to be able to take joint responsibility for the marital breakdown instead of citing fault. They also told us that they found it difficult to rely on the separation fact as they felt that their lives were put on hold during the separation period and they could not move on. This was not good for their well-being.

It was also not good for their children's well-being because, try as they might, they admitted they could not focus on their children until the divorce was finalised. In the meantime, the children were exposed to the tensions in their relationship during the separation. DMA therefore allows such couples to jointly take responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage and heal and to move on from the divorce.  

Mr Lim Biow Chuan raised concerns as to whether DMA would effectively reduce acrimony, given parties must submit the reasons leading them to conclude the marriage has irretrievably broken down and they may disagree on matters concerning their children and finances. It is inevitable that, in certain cases, even with DMA, the couple will still face acrimony in the divorce process. However, providing the option for parties to jointly take responsibility rather than pinning the blame solely on one party would more likely set the frame and mindset for a less acrimonious and conflictual process. Thereafter, when parties proceed to the ancillary discussion, they are more likely to do so without the resentment of either having to bear full blame for the divorce or the pain of having to dredge up past hurts. Having jointly taken responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage, they can begin ancillary discussions more amicably. 

I would like to emphasise again and assure Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Yip Hon Weng that DMA differs from the no-fault divorce that we see in other jurisdictions. 

Unlike other overseas regimes where parties are not required to prove that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, or where the filing for divorce by one party is sufficient to prove the marriage has irretrievably broken down, DMA is a sixth fact to prove the sole ground of divorce and it is done through an agreement that cites: one, reasons for the breakdown; two, efforts at reconciliation; and three, considerations for children and financial matters.

One party cannot unilaterally divorce the other. Some jurisdictions have removed the ability for a party to contest the proceedings. Under the Women’s Charter, the defendant is able to file a defense against a divorce application, irrespective of the fact cited.

I would also like to assure Ms Sylvia Lim that we do not expect the number of divorces to increase significantly with the introduction of DMA. Spikes, or long-term increase in divorce rates occur when the regime switches from fault-based to non-fault-based. We had made this transition in 1980 from a purely fault-based regime to a hybrid regime with no-fault grounds and we had introduced a Simplified Divorce Track in 2015. We saw no significant increase in divorce then.

Members also raised queries on the divorce-related proposals. Regarding the details of DMA, Ms Hany Soh asked what reasons are acceptable to substantiate that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. This could include reasons such as a deep-seated difference in values and the intention is to avoid reasons that point blame only at one party, and children should not be cited as the reason for divorce. In fact, as Ms Shahira Abdullah has pointed out, one of the aims of DMA is to spare children the pain of having their parents make, prove and disprove allegations against one another’s misdeeds, so children are better able to cope with the divorce.

Ms Ng Ling Ling asked how the Court would assess if a marriage is still reconcilable and whether MSF would be able to make recommendations to the Court. Mr Yip Hon Weng similarly asked if the assessment would involve professionals in family matters. Ms Sylvia Lim expressed concerns about whether DMA would lower the threshold for divorce compared to the other five facts. Ultimately, the legal test for the granting of the divorce is the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. There are currently five facts with their own respective requirements. DMA is a broad ground, but parties will still have to meet the threshold of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. If parties cite evidence relating to one of the five established facts, but do not quite meet the prescribed requirements, it remains open to the Court to grant the divorce on the grounds of DMA. But before doing so, the Court will have to access the facts carefully, bearing in mind that a divorce cannot be granted under DMA if there is reasonable possibility of reconciliation.

The Court will have to carefully consider whether or not to depart from the requirements of one of the five established facts, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case. DMA is a different fact on which you can obtain a divorce, but it is not an easier fact.  

The Court will have to access the agreement based on the matters set out in the statement of particulars submitted by parties to the Court, which contain the three requirements needed by DMA, and make an assessment that the efforts detailed suffice to satisfy the parties-centric test that parties have made best efforts and have done all things necessary to attempt reconciliation. This is not present in the current five facts, including forced separation with or without consent. All these represents a paradigm shift that is different from, but not necessarily easier than the current five facts. Over time, the Courts will develop case law on DMA. In all cases, parties have to meet the three year time bar before they can apply for divorce. A party who relies on DMA will thus not necessarily be able to obtain a divorce sooner than a party who relies on adultery, desertion or unreasonable behaviour. It all depends on the facts.

For couples with minor children, they will have to attend MPP at the DSSA or FAM@FSC before filing for divorce or filing a counterclaim when served with divorce papers. We will enhance the MPP to encourage couples to consider reconciliation, if possible. For couples who are open to reconciliation, a counsellor can help to support them through this process, and otherwise, the couple may proceed to divorce should they wish to do so. At the point of filing, should the Court assess that reconciliation is still a reasonable possibility, the Court may refer the couple for counselling at the DSSA or FAM@FSC. After counselling, parties may continue with the divorce process should they choose to do so.

Ms Joan Pereira similarly raised concerns on the submission of efforts to reconcile to the Court. In particular, Ms Pereira was concerned that this would add tension to an already strained relationship. The premise of DMA is to allow divorcing couples to come together and help a broken relationship without further strain. We expect that couples who cite DMA would have discussed their issues and how to resolve the dissolution of the marriage in an amicable manner. It is for this reason that the fact is founded on mutual agreement. If there is no consensus on all matters, it is highly unlikely that the couple would opt for this fact. The application therefore gives the couple space to discuss, communicate and resolve all issues including reconciliation efforts before presenting this application by mutual agreement to the Court.

To Ms Hany Soh’s query on whether DMA may only be cited on the Simplified Track and if divorces filed citing another fact can later be allowed to proceed on an amended claim under DMA, we envisage that most parties who cite DMA would file on the Simplified Track. However, DMA is not limited only to the Simplified Track, and those on the standard track may choose to cite DMA as well. As for whether parties who originally cited another fact can later be allowed to amend their claim and cite DMA, parties can apply for leave to amend the claim subject to fulfilling the requirements of the Family Justice Rules.

Ms Mariam Jaafar asked about a minimum time period for the proceedings to allow for reflection. Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked how long the process will take from the time divorce is filed and if the couple can appeal the Court’s decision. The average duration taken depends on the track that the divorce application proceeds on. For couples who contest the divorce or ancillary matters, the duration varies and could take some time. For couples who divorce on the Simplified Track, the time taken from filing to the grant of the interim judgment is approximately six to 12 weeks. Thereafter, there would another minimum number of three months to the final judgment.

We envisage that couples who cite DMA would likely file for divorce on the simplified track, but citing DMA instead of the existing five facts and that would not change the duration in any way. As for appeals, as this is a consent application, it is unlikely that there should be an appeal. And should one party change their mind, they can apply to set aside the grant of the Interim Judgment.

Regarding Ms Mariam Jaafar's suggestion for a minimum period after the divorce is finalised for counsellors to check in on couples to ensure that they are coping well, any family that has issues with the divorce or its impact can seek post-divorce support at the FAM@FSCs and the DSSAs.

Ms Ng Ling Ling asked how the Court will ensure that the agreement under DMA is entered out of the parties' own volition. Ms Sylvia Lim also asked if the Court would act as a watchdog, in cases of vulnerable spouses who may be coerced into agreeing into a divorce under DMA and to unfavourable terms under the divorce relating to their children and their financial affairs. As I have said earlier, we rely on family lawyers to prevent such cases. In addition, the mandatory parenting programme or MPP, which I have been referring to, it is a mandatory pre-filing program for parents and this can act as a safeguard against such instances as the counsellor may identify and assist such spouses. Indeed for an agreement to be made under DMA, the Court must amongst other things, assess that parties are acting voluntarily and have the requisite knowledge of the terms.

Members also raised queries on other aspects of the divorce process. Mr Melvin Yong asked about the penalties that may be imposed on parties should they be found to have divorced for financial benefits, such as to own multiple properties without additional buyers’ stamp duties.

I assure Members again that DMA does not make it easier for parties to get a divorce. In fact, parties who choose to go on DMA have to satisfy the Court that there is no reasonable possibility of reconciliation. Lawyers must also do their part to ensure that divorces are genuine and their clients are not intending to enter into a divorce just in name.

Ms Ng Ling Ling asked where one party refuses to attend MPP, whether the other party would be hindered from proceeding with the divorce, such as in cases of family violence where the perpetrator may be unwilling to attend. In a case where one party refuses to attend MPP, the other party will still be able to proceed with the filing of the divorce after they have themselves completed MPP. As for the perpetrator, he or she must attend the MPP if he or she wishes to file a counterclaim to put forth his or her points relating to the divorce and ancillary matters to the Court. The DSSAs and FAM@FSCs will also provide or refer parties for support if they disclose experiences with family violence.

Regarding the issue of child access enforcement, I would like to assure Ms Hany Soh that should parties be ordered to take part in therapeutic programmes or counselling at the DSSAs or FAM@FSCs, that they will not incur any fees. As to increasing the number of complimentary sessions for parties to carry out supervised access at the DSSAs, there are no plans to do so as the intention is to foster a sense of responsibility in parents in managing their own relationship to co-parent effectively, by requiring them to contribute a sum for supervised access. Supervised Exchange and Supervised Visitation is intended as an interim measure to help parents work towards independent access.

I would also like to assure Members that should any parent face issues of access to their children, they are able to seek help at the FAM@FSCs and DSSAs. As Ms Mariam Jaafar has raised, there is no difference in services offered to men and women.

As to increased legal assistance to parents, the means test is reviewed at regular intervals, every five years or so, with the last amendment to the means testing done in 2019. MinLaw will continue to review the means test regularly in order to ensure that less privileged persons who need legal help continue to get it. The Legal Aid Bureau also has a merits test in order to ensure that legal aid is not given for frivolous, unmeritorious claims. Thus, it is not just about ensuring that those who need it get legal help for access matters but that the manner in which they conduct the case and the merits of their position in the case are reasonable. For access matters, Court litigation should very much be the last resort.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and Mr Lim Biow Chuan also raised concerns regarding the provision to allow the Court to direct the bailiff to restore a child to the physical custody of a person in whose custody, or care and control, the child is placed. The Courts will only order the bailiff’s assistance in cases where their presence is absolutely necessary, and not in all cases. To safeguard the child’s well-being, the bailiff will be accompanied by the applicant, usually the other parent. Where required, the bailiff is also empowered to activate auxiliary police officers for support. It is pertinent to note that the same powers exist in the Guardianship of Infants Act and is available to all parents and guardians of a child. This proposal seeks to extend the same relief to parents who have divorce, nullity or judicial separation proceedings.

On the issue of maintenance enforcement, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Ang Wei Neng noted that the current maintenance enforcement process can be further enhanced. As I have said so earlier, MSF is working with MinLaw and the Family Justice Courts to study how to provide more efficient and effective enforcement of maintenance orders and to minimise repeat enforcement. We are considering the feasibility of taking up these amendments under a separate legislation.

Ms Carrie Tan and Mr Ang Wei Neng also raised the issue of allowing maintenance applications to be made for husbands, without the condition of incapacity. We had considered this. However, while women are in a much better position today than they were many years ago, we recognise that even today, in a marriage, it is more likely for a wife to give up her career to care for her family, while her husband continues working. And this means that post-divorce, women tend to be financially more vulnerable.

The current provision therefore provides maintenance for the parties that tend to be more financially vulnerable post-divorce – women and incapacitated men. While we want to move toward gender-neutrality, those who are more vulnerable must be protected. In any case, the Courts refrain from granting high amounts of maintenance to wives who are able to work, even if they had not worked or stopped working for some years. The Courts' goal is to award reasonable maintenance that will meet the financial needs of the wife until she can secure for herself some form of employment and adjust to her post-divorce situation.

The issue of parental alienation was also brought up by Ms Mariam Jafaar. We do not think that there is a need to define the term "parental alienation" in order to ensure that those who are impacted by it are supported. Rather, parents who believe that they are victims of parental alienation are encouraged to seek help for themselves and their children at FSCs or DSSAs. And if such methods fail, parents may consider legal recourse.

Source: Hansard