Administration of Muslim Law (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill proposes amendments to the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA).

Before we go into the specific amendments of this Bill, I would like to first share with Members the context for AMLA and how it supports our Muslim community. The Administration of Muslim Law Act was put in place during the founding years of our nation so that Muslims could continue to have matters pertaining to marriage, divorce and their estates governed by Muslim law. This began during the British Administration. Even as the British brought English law to Singapore, the British Administration also allowed room for the indigenous inhabitants, the Malay/Muslims, to continue having their personal matters governed by their customs and beliefs, and AMLA continues this practice.

In the founding years of our nation, Mr Ahmad Ibrahim, the first Attorney-General of Singapore, and leaders from the Muslim Advisory Board, the All-Malaya Muslim Missionary Society, the Mohammadiah Movement and the Singapore Religious Teachers' Association, also known as PERGAS, led the effort in establishing a central and uniting voice to represent Muslims in religious affairs. Thus, AMLA established the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura, also known as MUIS, to be the central administrative body for the Muslim community and designated the Mufti as the highest religious authority for Islam in Singapore.

Among the community, there was a strong interest in strengthening the institution of marriage and to nurture stronger families. So, AMLA also strengthened the Syariah Court (SYC) and the Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM).

The Government continues to maintain this legislative arrangement, which recognises the history and heritage of Malay/Muslims in Singapore.

When the Bill to pass this Act was first introduced in this Parliament in August 1966, then Minister for Social Affairs, Mr Othman Wok, emphasised that the Bill did not seek to deal with substantive Muslim law itself, but its administration. Let me emphasise this again. The Bill did not seek to deal with substantive Muslim law itself, but its administration.

Muslim law derives from Muslim religious sources and the Act does not alter this. Religious guidance and opinion come from the consensus of the asatizah community, led by MUIS, and officially issued by the Fatwa Committee. This has been so and will always be so. Where AMLA pronounces on religious matters, it serves only to codify the guidance of the ulama.

Religious guidance is reviewed regularly and evolves to address the contemporary challenges that Muslims face.

Similarly, the AMLA is reviewed regularly. This is to ensure that our laws reflect the prevailing and unique norms of our Singaporean Muslim community, the contemporary expression of our community's faith and address current socio-religious needs.

For example, in 2008, this House amended AMLA to raise the minimum age of marriage under AMLA to 18 years of age to match the Women's Charter. At that time, the Government observed that minor marriages were 2.5 times more likely to end in divorce, and consensus was growing that those under the age of 21 were, generally, less prepared for marriage. Then Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, consulted with the community leaders and the community agreed it was important to signal that minor marriages were discouraged. Many other Muslim communities today still allow minor marriages. But we were prepared to look at the evidence, consider contemporary circumstances and adopt norms that made sense for us so that we can stay true to our values of upholding the family.

MCCY has been working closely with MUIS, SYC, ROMM and other key Muslim stakeholders to review the AMLA. For this round of reviews, we seek to update the provisions governing the processes and operations of our statutory Muslim institutions, namely MUIS, SYC and ROMM.

Broadly, the amendments seek to enable these institutions to adopt new administrative processes, including digital ones, for greater efficiency and productivity, and keep pace with broader developments in family law, which Minister of State Sun Xueling spoke about on my behalf on 12 January when MSF moved the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill. About half of the amendments seek to improve service delivery of SYC and ROMM and provide greater support to Muslim couples and families. Some amendments allow the SYC and ROMM to adopt digital processes so that they can better serve the community. We have been testing out some of these processes as measures to comply with the safe distancing requirements during the pandemic and we have found that they worked well. There are also other amendments that streamline the administration of Muslim marriages and divorces.

The Bill also contains amendments to enable MUIS to better administer its functions and duties to support the Muslim community. These include amendments to update provisions that are no longer relevant and amendments to enable MUIS' exercise of powers to collect fees for services rendered pursuant to its statutory functions.

Finally, the Bill also seeks to extend to Muslim families support that is on par with what is provided to non-Muslim families under the recently amended Women's Charter, in line with the Islamic principles that undergird Muslim families.

A draft of this Bill was published for public consultation from 13 August to 10 September 2021. We appreciated the broad support from the community for this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, digitalisation is necessary if our institutions are to provide relevant and effective support to the community. This became all the more salient with COVID-19.

When the pandemic hit and safe distancing became imperative, the Office of the Mufti issued a religious opinion that the use of live video-link technology to facilitate marriage solemnisations was compatible with Muslim religious law and, thus, to keep everyone safe, ROMM adopted the video-link technology to allow marriage solemnisations to continue.

Similarly, the SYC adapted its Court processes to allow litigants and witnesses to give evidence through approved channels of live video or live telecommunication links, to minimise disruption to divorce proceedings.

The pandemic necessitated new norms and habits we did not consider prior to 2020. We have learnt the importance of leveraging technology for contingencies so that we can minimise disruptions to service delivery. Thus, this Bill contains amendments that will give SYC, an Appeal Board and ROMM permanent powers to conduct proceedings via remote communication technology in appropriate situations. The amendments do not replace the traditional mode of physical proceedings but enable SYC, an Appeal Board and ROMM to adopt digital alternative modes of conducting proceedings, if the situation calls for it. This is covered by clauses 3, 6, 14, 15, 22 and 23.

The Bill also seeks to improve the service experience of Court users. It will provide the legal framework to empower SYC to adopt new IT systems and digital processes, which will improve case management and communication with litigants and their lawyers.

Beyond digitalisation, this Bill also seeks to improve legal processes and address past provisions that have inadvertently caused hardship to litigants.

Clause 11 seeks to amend section 50 of AMLA, which governs divorce proceedings conducted by hakam.

The role of a set of hakam is to guide a Muslim couple towards reconciliation and, if it that is not possible, towards an amicable parting. Currently, the parties appoint a set of hakam to support them through this process and the hakam derive their authority from the parties. If one of the parties decides to hold up the process by not giving the hakam the authority to resolve the marital dispute, the SYC can step in to appoint a second set of hakam. This can prolong the grief of parties, as this requires parties to go through the entire process again with the SYC-appointed hakam.

We are thus proposing to amend the law so that the SYC can work directly with the first set of hakam to authorise the hakam to pronounce the divorce, even if the husband refuses to authorise the hakam if it is in the interest of both parties to do so.

Clauses 8, 9 and 10 work together to remove the payment of fees as a condition for the registration of a divorce to prevent abuse by parties who disagree with the SYC's decision. This is so that no party can delay registration of a divorce already recognised by the Court under Muslim law through the non-payment of fees.

AMLA confers MUIS with administrative powers to administer key functions of Muslim religious life in Singapore. These include the administration of mosques, halal certification and Muslim religious education.

The next set of amendments I would like to highlight seeks to update MUIS' administrative powers, so that they reflect current realities. For example, clause 17 updates archaic terms, such as "jawantankuasa daerah" and replace them with the more relevant term, "jawantankuasa masjid", while clauses 18 and 19 update AMLA to enable MUIS' exercise of powers to collect fees for the exercise of statutory functions relating to halal certification and the administration of the Asatizah Recognition Scheme.

The last group of amendments I would like to draw the House's attention to are clauses 4, 5 and 6.

These amendments allow Muslim families undergoing divorce to benefit from the evidence-based measures for therapeutic justice that this House agreed to last month with the Women's Charter (Amendment) Act.

These are the provisions that allow the SYC to advise parents to secure the child's attendance at the Programme for Children during the divorce journey, if the SYC thinks that it would be beneficial, just as the Family Justice Courts now can. The aim of these provisions, as my colleague Minister of State Sun Xueling explained to the House last month, is to make sure that the best interests of the child are prioritised during the divorce process. This must be our objective for children of all marriages, whether civil or Muslim.

The amendments do not change the fact that Muslim law will continue to apply to Muslim marriages and divorces.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, this Bill seeks to ensure that AMLA continues to reflect the needs of the Muslim community and enable our Muslim institutions to better serve our Muslim community. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

3.55 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) is a special piece of legislation. It provides for particular facets of Muslim life in Singapore, including marriage and divorce – alongside other civil laws and rules applicable to non-Muslims – in our secular and plural nation.

The proposed amendments, which generally aim to keep the AMLA and its processes up-to-date, are timely and welcome. In particular, the digitalisation process utilising electronic communications instead of in-person appointments will greatly transform the Syariah Court and the Registry of Muslim Marriages. However, I would like to seek some clarifications from the Minister on certain aspects of the Bill.

First, the Bill proposes to introduce new provisions to allow marriages and divorces to take place through a live video or television link. This not only makes permanent the temporary measures contained in the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures for Solemnisation and Registration of Marriages) Act 2020, in fact, it goes further to allow divorces to take place remotely with the permission of the Syariah Court.

While the Office of the Mufti has issued an irsyad (guidance) that the use of video-conferencing for marriage proceedings is permissible under Islam, I have spoken to several young people who said that a wedding would only be meaningful if it is celebrated in the presence of family and friends. Hence, I would like to ask, what is the likely take-up rate of this virtual wedding option? Since this option was made available from May 2020, what is the number of couples who have applied for a virtual solemnisation with the Registry of Muslim Marriages, and how does this compare to the number of applications of an in-person solemnisation over the same period?

I also note that while couples are now allowed to solemnise their wedding virtually, whereby one condition is that both parties to the marriage, the witnesses and the wali (guardian) of the woman to be wedded must physically be in Singapore, does the Registrar of Muslim Marriages have the discretion to waive this requirement in extraordinary circumstances? For example, when the COVID-19 pandemic broke out globally, there were Singaporeans who were stuck overseas and could not return for a certain period of time. If we are harnessing technology to make the solemnisation process easier for Muslim couples who wish to get married, I think it would be helpful to extend this to Singaporeans or Singapore residents who may be abroad at a particular time.

However, one other concern that I have is whether doing away with the formal, physical attendance before a kadi (solemniser), a wali (guardian) and witnesses would diminish the degree of solemnness and the weight of responsibility that one would attribute to marriage. This is especially pertinent when it comes to teenage and youth marriages, which has long been recognised to be a source of various societal issues, such as high divorce rates, dysfunctional families, drug abuse and juvenile delinquency. In the context of civil marriages, it has been suggested that the Registry of Marriages will have the discretion to ask couples to go through the steps in-person where there may be suspicions of a marriage of convenience, for instance. What would be the circumstances where the Registrar of Muslim Marriages would withhold his/her approval for a virtual solemnisation? Would this include a situation where one or both parties have yet to reach 21 years of age?

(In English): In English, please. On to remote proceedings, as I mentioned earlier, this appears to be a new innovation which goes beyond what COVID-19 (Temporary Measures for Solemnization and Registration of Marriages) Act 2020 had provided. Can the Minister shed any light on the rationale for the introduction of this innovation at this time?

Is it anticipated to form the norm for divorce proceedings in the Syariah Court, or will it remain the exception? If it is to be an exception, under what circumstances would we see remote divorce proceedings being deployed? And what would be the impact on Court users, especially when many of them are not represented by lawyers?

In going about our constituency work, I think Members may be familiar with how certain issues can be easily ironed out once parties meet and speak face-to-face, whereas numerous earlier rounds and months of exchanging emails and letters may have done little to move things along. In moving towards an impersonal approach to divorce proceedings – through remote Court proceedings coupled with the dispensation from having to obtain physical signatures on documents anymore – are we not reducing the opportunities for a disaffected couple to work out their issues and making a final divorce an inevitable conclusion?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, exacerbating the concerns around divorce are the various other amendments in the Bill which appear to make it easier to obtain a final divorce.

One, the proposed amendment to section 50 removes the present need for the Syariah Court to appoint a second set of hakam, or arbitrators, to attempt reconciliation and pronounce divorce where reconciliation is not possible. Under the amended procedure, the first set of hakam would be empowered to pronounce a divorce if they are of the joint opinion that the parties should be divorced. What is the expected time saving from doing away with the second set of hakam? Are there any statistics on the number of marriages which have been saved from divorce by the second set of hakam?

Two, the Bill also proposes to remove the requirement for the payment of prescribed fees before the Syariah Court must cause a divorce to be registered. While I note the rationale that a party cannot be allowed to frustrate the divorce process by simply refusing to pay the fees, I would like to ask how the Syariah Court would go about enforcing the payment of such fees, especially if the divorce has already been registered.

At the same time, I very much welcome the amendments which enhance the Syariah Court's power to advise persons to attend counselling and family support programmes in the course of divorce proceedings.

There will now be a clear provision that the Syariah Court may advise one or both divorcing parties to secure the child's completion of a support programme for children. It cannot be gainsaid that, often, the biggest victims in a marriage that has broken down are the children of the family. Of no fault of their own, these children lose out on various aspects of family life going forward, at a time when they might not be intellectually mature enough to manage the loss. So, the ability to ensure that these children receive the necessary support is important. But what the Bill is silent on is: what consequences are there if parties fail to comply with the Court's advice to secure their children's completion of the support programme? Also, would there be further support or "check-ins" with the children beyond the completion of the divorce proceedings, say, one year or two years later?

The Bill also provides that the Syariah Court may advise the "prescribed persons" to attend a family support programme or activity beyond the divorcing parties and their children. Who are these "prescribed persons" that are being contemplated? Again, what is the expected practical utility if it is not compulsory for such persons to comply with this advice, as the Explanatory Statement spells out?

Some final miscellaneous questions in brief, Mr Deputy Speaker.

One, I notice that clause 22 of the Bill purports to remove the requirement to use a prescribed form to apply for divorce or revocation of divorce. Is this part of a broader plan to overhaul the Syariah Court filing system, to create an electronic filing system like e-litigation? If so, are there plans to issue guidance to lawyers and litigants-in-person and will the Ministry consider some form of transition period where parties may be exempted from paying extra Court fees if they make inadvertent errors in filing their documents?

Two, clause 24 of the Bill proposes amending section 139(2) AMLA such that the Mufti's evidence that a doctrine, ceremony or act is contrary to the Muslim law shall be presumptively accepted by a criminal Court prosecuting an offence under section 139(1). More fundamentally, is such a provision necessary since section 32(7) of AMLA already provides that any Court may refer any question of Muslim law to the Legal Committee which the Mufti chairs? Would section 139(2) not usurp the power of the Legal Committee, who must exercise its power through a quorum of not only the Mufti but also two fit and proper Muslims who may also be learned Muslim religious leaders?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

4.05 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I deliver my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, I support this amendment Bill. In this short speech, I would like to offer my views, seek clarifications and relay my concerns on some issues contained in this amendment Bill.

In addition, I will briefly touch on section 139 of AMLA, relating to false doctrine, although it is not related to this amendment Bill. However, since this issue is an important one and, in the interest of Muslims in Singapore, I would like to highlight this matter in the hope that a change can be made to this section in future.

Sir, it is quite natural that whenever a challenging or pressing situation occurs, changes to the norm will be needed so that daily living activities can continue. We have seen at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many couples who had plans to hold their solemnisation ceremonies and wedding receptions were affected, due to the implementation of the COVID-19 regulations, which were implemented to safeguard the safety and well-being of our people. Despite the numerous obstacles faced by many couples in the last two years, they do acknowledge that these strict controls are necessary and they bravely and patiently overcame these obstacles so that they can proceed to build a home together. I would like to congratulate these couples for successfully overcoming these trials and tribulations and offer my best wishes to them. I hope and pray that their marriage will last until the end.

Sir, I support the efforts to digitise the Syariah Court process.

However, I would like to express my concern over the possible undesirable negative impact.

It is human nature that any convenience and ease when undergoing a process can influence one's assessment when making a decision. My concern is that the convenient access to the Syariah Court process through digitalisation can influence the assessment of parties wishing to divorce.

For example, based on my past experience in conducting counselling sessions for cases referred by the Court, the divorce process, which can take some time, could sometimes provide more time and space for the divorcing couple to make a deeper assessment before making the final decision to separate. This is because, some married couples make a hasty decision to divorce without much thought because they feel very distressed due to anger and frustration.

By simplifying the Syariah Court process through digitalisation, which is made easy with a click of a button, this "convenience" factor will erase any additional space and time that could have enabled the divorcing parties to make a much deeper assessment.

However, I acknowledge that simplifying the Court processes through digitalisation will be good for divorce cases that should be resolved quickly. These include cases of irrevocable divorce and also cases with elements of domestic violence, where divorce may be the best way out.

In light of these concerns that I have stated, I hope the Syariah Court, in implementing digitalisation processes, can monitor the situation closely to avoid or mitigate any negative consequences arising from these improvements.

Sir, concerns about the unintended negative consequences when implementing digitalisation processes, were also expressed during the public consultation exercise held by MCCY in August and September 2021. Among the feedback received are the use of digitalisation and absence of oral hearings, which can negatively impact the justice process. It is said that such a situation could cause uneasiness because the plaintiffs and the defendants could not witness the process that was carried out, or could not understand how the Court reached its decision.

Arising from this concern, the Ministry gave its assurance that the Syariah Court and the MUIS Appeal Board would conduct the process through digital channels only if all parties are agreeable. At the same time, it also emphasised that digital channels are not meant to replace existing methods. I believe what the Ministry stated. I just wish to reiterate that the Syariah Court, the MUIS Appeal Board and the Registry of Muslim Marriages should monitor and take appropriate steps so that there will not be any negative consequences, or at least ensure that any potential undesirable negative impact that may arise when implementing these digitalisation measures is kept as low as possible.

Sir, I would also like to express my support for the proposal to allow divorce registration, even in circumstances where the registered party cannot afford to pay the registration fee. This is stated in clause 8, 9 and 10 of this amendment Bill.

I was also approached by some residents who had difficulty paying the registration fee and asked me to appeal to the Syariah Court to set aside the registration fee. Often, such requests come from wives who do not have any income because they are fulfilling their responsibilities as full-time housewives. These changes can eliminate that feeling of utter helplessness that is felt by those facing financial issues.

Sir, next, clause 11 introduces an amendment to section 50, which enables the first set of appointed hakam to make a divorce pronouncement without requiring a new set of hakam. I would like to seek a clarification, if possible, with an example about the challenges or shortcomings in the existing hakam system that spurred the Syariah Court to take these improvement measures. However, I believe that the Minister had earlier provided some examples on this matter.

Sir, clause 18 makes amendments to section 87(9), to clarify that the Council (MUIS) can ask for payment of fees in the performance of functions related to the madrasah through the laws under this section. I would like to request information from the Ministry to provide some examples of MUIS' functions which require payment of fees by the madrasah. In this matter, I hope the amount of fees charged, if any and if necessary, will not burden the madrasah.

Here, Sir, I would like to declare that I have a child attending full-time madrasah.

The final thing I will be touching on is section 139 which is about false doctrine. As I mentioned earlier, I would like to raise this matter because it is important.

Sir, in reply to my Parliamentary Question in September 2021, on whether there is a need to review and increase the number of existing summonses, that is, the amount not exceeding $2,000 for offenders in connection with false doctrine, the Minister stated, "Offences under AMLA are reviewed periodically to ensure they are consistent with broader legal policies and are effective in deterring offenders. Any attempt to apply legislation to religious matters must be carefully considered. In the case of deviant teachings, I previously shared that MUIS seeks to address these problems at the root, by adopting a multi-pronged approach of counselling individuals and inoculating the public against harmful ideologies".

I agree with the approach of addressing issues related to deviant teachings through methods, such as counselling services and public education against the dangers of such ideologies. However, I feel that if the punishment for offenders can be further enhanced, it may be a preventive factor and thus strengthen the existing efforts to combat as well as prevent it. I hope this proposal can be considered again.

With this, Sir, I end my speech by expressing my support once again for this amendment Bill.

(In English): Sir, I support this amendment Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.

4.14 pm

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, COVID-19 has accelerated the digitalisation of processes for Singaporeans. Whether it is working from home, scanning QR codes or managing digital wallets, many of us have become more comfortable with the use of remote technologies and virtual conferencing. I am glad that we are now making amendments that will, hopefully, bring the same benefits of digitalisation to the Syariah Court or SYC.

I would like to ask for some clarifications mainly relating to the digitalisation and stakeholder preparedness for new processes to ensure that the quality of the proceedings does not erode in the transition online and consideration for areas and scenarios in which digital processes may not, for the time being, be sufficient.

The insertion of section 45A provides that the SYC or Appeal Board may conduct hearings through electronic means of communication. There are challenges and potential points of amelioration in the transition to digital proceedings from the perspectives of Court, counsel and witnesses. Safeguards need to be put in place to protect amongst other things, the propriety, solemnity, integrity and orderliness of proceedings. It is important to ensure that each party can express their case independently, fairly with all relevant details.

The complexity of this transition must be tackled head on. For SYC users and officers who may not find the digitalised processes intuitive, or those who want to use them but face difficulties, what training, resources and support will be available for individuals who need help – in particular, SYC staff or litigants-in-person? How long will the transition take and how will ongoing cases during this transition be impacted?

Currently, the choice of setting up a dedicated venue to provide a conducive setting for online hearings is left up to the discretion of counsel. Not everyone can afford representation and, even when they can, there may be other prohibitive factors that come into play. Will the Minister consider establishing a centralised dedicated venue to facilitate this?

There are also lessons which we can learn from incidents overseas. An online court hearing held in the US in March 2021 was halted when a prosecutor realised that the victim and her abuser were in the same room in her house. The abuser intended to intimidate his victim to coerce her into adjusting her testimony by being in a position where he could threaten her safety. He did this while pretending on screen that they were in two separate locations.

It was fortunate in this case that the prosecutor caught on, but, unlike a physical court setting where there are significant safeguards against intimidation, the possibility of a similar scenario in the example earlier is more likely online. What checks would be in place to prevent such actions from happening?

Many of us would have also experienced frustrating technology failures at some point, for example, due to an unstable Internet connection or an issue with the device. It would be important for parties to virtual Court proceedings to be permitted to change to an alternative device if a party encounters video malfunction in the midst of a remote hearing. However, in the event there is no alternative device, would parties be permitted to defer the proceedings?

I also understand that, in such an event with all parties' unanimous consent, SYC may proceed with the remainder of the hearing through live audio link only, without an accompanying live video stream. Without an actual video feed for corroboration, I would like to ask what safeguards will SYC put in place to ensure that proceedings conducted by electronic means are conducted in a way that is fair to all parties?

As we move forward with these changes, it will be useful for the public to also understand factors that are considered by SYC when deciding under what circumstances a matter will be decided without hearing oral arguments, as permitted with the insertion of section 35B. For such matters, the judge will be making decisions based on affidavits and submissions only. In such cases, could the Minister share some examples of proceedings where oral arguments will not be necessary? I ask this in hopes of getting clarity that there will be little risk for those who are not equipped to provide an affidavit with enough relevant context or details, in particular, any litigants-in-person. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment Bill will have a positive effect on the hearing process, particularly if we encounter complicated situations like a pandemic which prevent certain parties from meeting physically. However, as we strive to implement digital proceedings, it is very important for us to ensure that each party is able to submit statements and get fair and full representation that is free from any threat or intimidation. In my speech, I presented three main focus areas. These include how the Syariah Court can consider several situations where the hearing process may be unsuitable or is not yet suitable to be held online.

In essence, we should be concerned that there are still those within our community who may not be ready for this transition and our digitalisation efforts should facilitate the hearing process from the perspective of certain parties without affecting the safety, protection and rights of each party to seek equitable access to justice. I hope this amendment will not result in more pressure or difficulties for certain parties and I hope that adequate preparations, support and resources will be provided for everyone, including Court officials, in this transition.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a secondary area of clarification I have is with regard to the proposed section 43C, which has been raised in a previous Sitting, as mentioned earlier. I am heartened that support for children is becoming more explicit and expanded. This is important, as, even though it was mentioned then that the bulk of responsibility should fall on the parents, during these difficult times, especially, not all parents may be sufficiently equipped to also play the roles of counsellor, psychiatrist and other roles for a child's care that may require a professional to better protect their well-being. These complexities raise questions on who should be making the decisions for the programmes and how they are arriving at them. I would like to clarify what would be guiding the decision-making process the Courts will be using to reach a specific recommendation. What are perhaps some of the factors which will be considered in order to accomplish this?

Furthermore, even though parents want the best for their children, grief and other stressors might make it difficult for them to comply with the order. How will we make sure that there is also appropriate support and resources for parents? And if parents prove they are unable to comply with the order, what other steps can be taken? In the context of the amendments at hand, how will the programmes be tailor-made for our community and how can support be better coordinated in the best interest of the child?

While so much has been made possible and more convenient with digitalisation and broader access to support programmes, it is important that the interests and quality of justice remain the overriding priority in this case. Notwithstanding my clarifications, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

4.23 pm

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. I declare that I am a practising lawyer. Allow me to speak in the National Language.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I welcome the amendments to the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA). In particular, the amendment allows the Syariah Court and the Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM) to use digital processes for Court administration and solemnisations. The amendments update the administration of Muslim marriages and divorces. It also increases the support given to families who undergo the divorce process, especially children. This is in line with the broader development in family law under the Women's Charter which was recently updated.

Digital processes also allows the Syariah Court and ROMM to leverage on technology, coordinate services and facilitate access to the community. This is important to help us prepare for challenges ahead, including any new pandemic in the future.

For example, the Syariah Court previously did not have an electronic document filing system like the High Court or Family Court. For roughly a few weeks during the circuit breaker period, no hearings could be conducted because there was no provision for video or online hearings. Now, the Syariah Court is able to conduct Court hearings and proceedings via video.

Hence, these amendments actually reflect what is being practised in Court, which is the use of video links through WebEx and so on. These preparations will build greater resilience in the delivery of services by the Syariah Court and thus empower the Syariah Court to deal with new situations in the future.

In my speech on the recent Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill, I highlighted the Syariah Court's experience in successfully incorporating counselling and children-centric programmes to help the divorce process in Court. With these amendments to AMLA, what other alignments can be made between AMLA and the recently amended Women's Charter in order to better support families and children who are going through divorce?

Here, I will focus on four areas within the amendments to this Act.

First, hearings without oral arguments. Second, clarifications on the status of the hakam. Third, restriction of access to the Register of Muslim Marriages. Fourth, the Mufti's role in submitting evidence to Court.

First, the amendment to section 35B allows the Syariah Court or the Appeal Board to proceed without hearing oral arguments. This is consistent with other changes in civil jurisdiction which allow for determination using documents only in certain cases. This will not only save costs, but also reduce the time needed for a divorce case.

I would like to highlight section 35B(2) which does not allow the Court to proceed with the trial without oral arguments, if part of the proceedings already has oral evidence presented.

My question is, what about a situation where the plaintiff has already given oral evidence but the Defendant subsequently fails or refuses to participate in further proceedings? Typically, in that scenario, the Court hears the case in absentia of the Defendant and makes the necessary orders, but this means that the plaintiff has to be present, and has to spend time and money to go through an oral hearing.

I would like to suggest that the Courts be allowed to decide to proceed with the hearings without oral arguments as well.

These amendments also allow the MUIS Appeal Board to decide that oral arguments are not required even if written submissions have been filed. However, I am concerned that a party or parties may feel aggrieved as they did not see the "process" of the appeal or hearing and may not understand why their appeal was dismissed, if all the trial process was held without oral arguments and done through the exchange of documents.

While I am cognisant that in other forums or civil courts, there is a practice of not requiring the attendance of parties at a hearing, however, it is common for MUIS Appeal Board hearings at the moment for the parties to attend and observe the proceedings in full, even though the Court's final verdict will only be published or given a few weeks later. This is the process that lawyers, Courts and parties have been accustomed to when going through the divorce process in Singapore all this while.

Therefore, I am worried whether this will impact the perception of parties and society on the adage that it is not just for justice to be done but to be seen to be done because they are unable to observe the proceedings. We should not pursue efficiency and effectiveness in the administration of Court processes, at the expense of losing what we already have.

I suggest that the Syariah Court and the Appeal Board openly publish the reasons and grounds of decisions for every case on the MUIS or Syariah Court's website. This will help litigants to understand that although there are no oral hearings or arguments, their full cases have been canvassed carefully in the written form.

Second, the status of the hakam's appointment.

I agree with the replacement of the terms "arbitration" and "arbitrators" with "hakam" only. This is because arbitration bears a different technical meaning compared to hakam.

I also agree with the amendments to allow the Syariah Court to give authorisation to the first set of hakam to pronounce a divorce, should the husband refuse to authorise the hakam to pronounce the divorce.

This is because, in certain cases, some wilfully refuse to authorise the hakam or refuse to make payment of the hakam fees and this would further delay proceedings.

There appears to be divergent views by scholars on whether the husband must expressly agree to delegate his "powers" or right to divorce his wife, to the hakam during divorce proceedings. The MUIS Appeal Board case of Azman bin Abdul Rani v Rahmah bte Ramli (1998) 1 SSAR 93 seems to suggest that this delegation is critical.

I, therefore, welcome the proposed amendment which states that the hakam may pronounce a divorce in the absence of full authority from their respective principals. Hence, even if the husband refuses to sign the form or delegate his power, the hakam may pronounce a divorce in certain cases.

Nevertheless, I think that it would still be useful to clarify the scope of the hakam's role. I propose that the definition of "hakam" be included in the amendments, with a clear explanation of the hakam's scope and role – perhaps in the subsidiary legislation – so that the community can understand the hakam's role and accept the decision of the hakam later.

Moving on to the issue of payment to the hakam. In some cases, there are those who refuse to pay for the hakam's costs. In order to avoid further delays to divorce proceedings, can the Syariah Court order that payment be deducted from the relevant party's share of matrimonial assets or claims? This will allow the divorce proceedings to continue smoothly.

Third, restriction of access to the Register of Muslim Marriages.

Section 143 previously provides that any party may apply to the Registrar to inspect and obtain copies or extracts from ROMM and Register of Revocation of Divorces.

The current amendment aims to restrict access to the Register of Muslim Marriages only. The rationale stated by MCCY in the Bill Consultation Outcome dated 12 October 2021 is that such restriction of access is "consistent with the broader policies on the protection of personal information".

I agree with protecting personal data and limiting access to classes of persons as prescribed.

Here, I would like to ask: what are the "classes of persons" allowed access to the Register of Marriages? This is important because it involves an element of public interest for Muslim marriages here and overseas. For example, the bride-to-be or her family from overseas may need proof or access to the marital status of a groom who is Singaporean or who is domiciled in Singapore.

On the other hand, there are no restrictions to apply for a copy from the Register of Divorces. Would that entry in the Register of Divorces not also contain personal data? Why is access to the Register of Marriages limited to certain classes of party? Perhaps access to the Register of Divorces should also be similarly limited.

I propose that perhaps the Civil Court procedure for the Request and Order of Inspection of Court documents can be applied.

In the civil process, the requesting party has to file a request to inspect and obtain copies of Court documents. Before being allowed to do so, the party has to provide reasons and, in certain cases, be called before a Registrar to provide sufficient explanation before being given permission to inspect and obtain copies or documents from the Court.

Here, perhaps the ROMM Registrar can exercise the same standard for requests, whether it is for the Register of Marriages or the Register of Divorces.

Finally, the Mufti's role in giving evidence.

Section 139 of AMLA makes it a criminal offence to conduct deviant teachings or anything relating to Islam in a manner contrary to Muslim law. It also provides for the Court to presume that a doctrine, ceremony or any act is, indeed, contrary to Muslim law if the MUIS President submits evidence that it is so.

The current amendment, which replaces the MUIS President with the Mufti, so that the Mufti can provide evidence directly to Court on matters that are contrary to Muslim law, is a welcomed one. I support this because the Mufti is the highest Islamic religious authority in Singapore and chairs our Fatwa Committee. Therefore, the Mufti is better placed to give evidence in Court on Muslim law and the Court will follow the Mufti's evidence.

Here, I would like to ask why the same could not be applied to section 114 of AMLA in relation to questions of succession and inheritance in Muslim law. Presently, section 114 of AMLA makes reference to fixed list of religious books. I understand that this is being considered for the future. However, may I suggest that, just as how section 139 was amended, section 114 of AMLA can also refer to the Mufti if there are questions on Muslim law for inheritance and succession matters. This will help make Court rulings more conclusive and consistent. I would also like to repeat my previous suggestion my past speeches, that perhaps the issue of Muslim inheritance and succession, including inheritance certificates, should be dealt with by the Syariah Court instead of the Civil Courts, because it involves Muslim law evidence and public interest that is guided by Islamic teachings.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Masagos Zulkifli.

4.38 pm

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members who have risen to support the Bill.

The AMLA is an important piece of legislation for the Muslim community. Our reviews are intended to ensure that it remains robust and relevant, stays up-to-date with new programmes and processes, and above all, serves the needs of our Muslim community in Singapore.

I am heartened by the support from Members and their suggestions. I hope Members will understand if I focus my responses on the issues directly related to the specific Bill. For example, I will not deal with issues on deviant teaching – for which there is a specific case that is under Police investigation.

Let me now address the points and queries raised.

Allow me to summarise the details on the processes that will be digitalised under the SYC. First, SYC will replace its old case management system with a new IT system to improve case management and communication with Court users. The process of filing and issuing all Court documents will be digitalised.

This means that a Court user will be able to file, or submit, documents anytime and from any location using SingPass, or, if they are a lawyer acting on behalf of a party to proceedings, using CorpPass. Through a fully personalised dashboard upon log-in, a Court user, whether a litigant or a lawyer, will be able to view upcoming Court attendances, outstanding tasks given by the Court and access digital copies of filed documents.

This convenience is extended to the pre-Court process. For example, the registration process to attend the Marriage Counselling Programme will also be digitalised.

Second, this Bill will allow SYC and ROMM to conduct Court proceedings and marriage solemnisations via electronic means of communication in appropriate situations. SYC and ROMM trialled these video-link processes during the pandemic and the community benefited from them. Since May 2020, close to 100 couples or about 1% of total Muslim marriages, have conducted their marriage solemnisation through digital means during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, this digital option allowed some couples to proceed with the video-link solemnisation even when their witnesses had contracted COVID-19 and, therefore, could not attend in person. This saved the couples the trouble of postponing the solemnisation, which would incur additional costs and time.

During these video-link solemnisations, the Kadi would conduct the same tasks as he would during in-person solemnisations. This includes confirming the identities and consent of the couples to the marriage, giving a short sermon and supplication, and blessing the couples. The only difference is that the entire process takes place via live video-link.

I would like to assure Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Faisal Manap that the Kadi will continue to emphasise the sanctity of marriage and the responsibilities the spouses have to each other. For marriage applications involving minors, before a decision is made as to whether virtual solemnisation will be allowed, all parties and their parents must attend in-person sessions with the Kadi, who will assess the couples' readiness for marriage and the level of support from the parents.

To Mr Saktiandi Supaat's question, proceedings that are held virtually using electronic means of communication are neither the norm nor the default mode for hearings in the Court and before an Appeal Board. We have learned from the various episodes of the COVID-19 crisis in the last two years that disrupted necessary processes even when technological options existed because there were no provisions in law for them. We needed to pass the time-limited temporary provisions to enable these virtually. Therefore, the option to conduct proceedings virtually allows the Court and an Appeal Board to hear any matter expeditiously, even if there are disruptive events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Beyond national emergencies, where the circumstances of a particular case do not require the physical attendance of parties or their lawyers in the Court room, the presiding judge of the Court, or an Appeal Board, will assess the necessity and appropriateness of conducting the proceedings virtually on a case-by-case basis.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether the convenience of virtual solemnisations could be extended to marriages where at least one party is overseas. While we recognise the convenience that this proposal may bring, we will need to study this carefully.

Under section 95(3) of AMLA, the Kadi must be satisfied that there is no lawful obstacle under Muslim law or AMLA to the intended marriage. Hence, if the Kadi is unable to ascertain whether the party outside Singapore has legal capacity to contract the marriage, the conditions under this section will not be met.

Similar to the requirements for the use of remote communication technology for the solemnisation of Muslim marriages under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures for Solemnisation and Registration of Marriages) Act 2020, currently, all parties to the intended marriage must be physically present in Singapore. This acts as a safeguard to ensure that all the conditions set out under Muslim law on the validity of the marriage and other legal requirements under section 95(3) of AMLA are fulfilled.

Digitalisation will not affect the fairness of the Court proceedings or the integrity of marriage solemnisations. This is our resolve and assurance to Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Faisal Manap. SYC and ROMM will ensure that religious and customary practices are still fulfilled, and justice is served. SYC and ROMM have adopted best practices and developed multiple safeguards to protect the propriety, solemnity, integrity and orderliness of digital proceedings.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim expressed concern that the proposed amendments may change the manner of appeal hearings and the delivery of verdict by the Appeal Board which lawyers and parties have been accustomed to. The concern is that allowing Court proceedings to proceed without oral hearings could affect the perception of justice being done, as parties could feel aggrieved as they are not able to witness in-person the "process" or how the Court arrives at an outcome.

Let me explain. The new section 35B is an enabling provision to allow the Court or Appeal Board to decide any matter without an oral hearing and asynchronously, in a suitable case.

The traditional mode of conducting proceedings synchronously by an oral hearing is still in place and will continue to be the default manner of proceedings.

I would like to assure the community that the new section 35B(4) prevents SYC and Appeal Board from hearing a matter in a manner that would be inconsistent with its duty to conduct proceedings fairly to all parties.

Ms Nadia Samdin asked what factors are considered when deciding that alternative modes of conducting proceedings are appropriate.

This Bill will make available to SYC and Appeal Board the option of using electronic means of communication in place of physical attendance and the option to conduct proceedings in an asynchronous manner in place of an oral hearing.

Asynchronous hearings, which are proceedings without an oral hearing, are typically allowed if the application is straightforward.

An example would be where both parties consent to the application, or the application is made by one party but may be dealt with in the absence of the other party. For such applications, an oral hearing is ordinarily not required because all relevant facts of the case have been submitted in affidavits, which is the primary mode of giving evidence to the Court. Legal submissions will also unlikely be required for such cases.

Conducting the proceedings in an asynchronous manner would ordinarily not be appropriate where oral arguments are required from counsel or the litigants-in-person. This is typically the case for divorce hearings or trials, including an appeal hearing before the Appeal Board. While an oral hearing is necessary in such cases, physical attendance of the counsel and the litigants-in-person may be dispensed with and the proceedings of the oral hearing may be conducted virtually where appropriate.

To Ms Nadia Samdin's query, the Court is not precluded from allowing the use of an alternative device in the midst of hearing should there be a technical difficulty as long as it is on an electronic communication platform approved by the Courts.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked about a situation where the Plaintiff has already given oral evidence but the Defendant fails or refuses to participate in further proceedings.

For such cases, where oral evidence has been given, there are safeguards to protect the rights of both parties in the litigation process. The Court will have to, first, assess whether the subsequent conduct of the hearing in an asynchronous manner will allow proceedings to be conducted fairly to both parties. The Court is required to obtain the consent of the Plaintiff to waive his or her right to continue with the oral hearing before the Court may proceed to conduct the remaining part of the proceedings in an asynchronous manner.

We agree with Ms Nadia Samdin that in setting up a dedicated venue to provide a centralised setting for online trials, we need to protect the vulnerable, such as those suffering domestic abuse cases, and ensure that they are able to make their cases fairly and free from intimidation.

I want to reiterate that SYC will adopt alternative modes of conducting proceedings only where appropriate and facilitative.

Since mid-2020, SYC has worked closely with members of the Bar on the implementation of electronic communication technology for Court proceedings. The common goal is to ensure that all SYC hearings that are conducted virtually are done in a just, secure and private manner, in accordance with the law and SYC's practice guidelines.

For any reason where a virtual hearing may impact the fairness of the proceedings, SYC will arrange for a physical hearing, where the Court house of SYC is the default location. Where there may be a serious risk of violence, separate courtrooms may be provided at SYC. This is an additional measure on top of existing security protocols taken for all Court cases, such as Police presence at each Court hearing.

The legal community welcomes this introduction of virtual proceedings. For example, Ms Shahirah Nassir, a lawyer at RW Law Practice, supports having proceedings held virtually. While there were expected teething problems during the transitional period, such as video lag or audio quality issues, she felt that sessions were conducted on time and there were minimal technical issues faced. More importantly, she found the platform to be a secure one that addresses security and privacy concerns in Court proceedings and the implementation of proceedings to be conducted remotely is in line with the numerous measures adopted by the Syariah Court to prioritise safety during COVID-19.

Ms Nadia Samdin asked how we will get the public on board on these changes, who may not find the changes intuitive. For its new digital system, SYC will establish a Helpdesk to provide users with technical support. SYC will also publish clear and complete user guidelines and videos on the SYC website.

The system is currently in the design stage and SYC will continue to work with partners and stakeholders to give litigants-in-person the necessary support and assistance they may need.

SYC and its bench of Judges will also continue to engage members of the Bar to help prepare all Court users for the upcoming changes in the second half of this year. The detailed implementation of the new electronic filing system will be set out in the subsidiary legislation.

This Bill also seeks to improve the legal processes relating to marriage and divorce. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked who would be allowed access to the Register of Muslim Marriages and the Register of Revocation of Divorces.

Only parties to the marriage and family members of parties to the marriage may do so. This is in line with who can access the Register of Marriages kept by ROM.

For the Register of Muslim Divorces, the requesting party will be required to apply to SYC for a copy of an entry in the Register and must provide reasons to show sufficient interest in the matter. This is in line with the way similar information in the Family Justice Courts is protected.

I thank Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim for his support of the amendments to section 50 on improving the process of proceedings conducted by the hakam. The role of a hakam is described in section 50. He is a person appointed by the Court to act for either the husband or the wife in divorce proceedings and will endeavour to effect a reconciliation and, if that is not possible, to facilitate an amicable resolution to the marital dispute.

The number of cases in which hakam for the husband and hakam for the wife are jointly of the opinion that parties should be divorced because they are in a state of irreconcilable differences but the husband refuses to pronounce talak or authorise his hakam to do so, is less than 1% a year. Hence, the amendment seeks to reduce acrimony and emotional hardship in such cases.

To Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim's query, in situations where one party creates an impasse by refusing to pay the hakam fees, the aggrieved party may seek redress from the Court at the hearing on ancillary matters to be reimbursed the payment that has been made on behalf of the defaulting party.

On a quite unrelated note, to Mr Faisal Manap's query on the non-payment of divorce fees, the Court has discretion to waive fees for reasons they deem acceptable, like the unaffordability of the party.

To Mr Saktiandi Supaat's query, under current provisions, a divorce is registered upon payment of an administrative fee. This is a technicality that the amendment seeks to rectify by delinking payment of the divorce registration fee with the Court's power to order the registration of the divorce.

I fully agree with Mr Saktiandi Supaat that divorces are not to be taken lightly and the SYC strives to save marriages where it is possible to do so.

There are various opportunities for a disaffected couple to work out their issues. First, parties are required to attend SYC's Marriage Counselling Programme, which was made mandatory at the last round of amendments. Second, after the divorce application has been filed in Court, parties attend a mediation session where they can still explore reconciliation options as well as areas of agreement for an amicable resolution to their marital dispute. Third, parties may attend counselling or other family support activity or programme where they can receive support from professional counsellors and other social work professionals.

We will continue to help couples work towards amicable resolutions where possible. Our efforts are bearing fruit. More than half of the divorces registered in the past five years are settled amicably on all issues relating to the divorce application.

Next, let me address Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim's query on what more is being done beyond these amendments for Muslim families going through divorce and non-Muslim families governed under the Women's Charter.

SYC works very closely with FJC and MSF to support Muslim families going through divorce. For example, SYC partners MSF to refer acrimonious cases to MSF's Divorce Support Specialist Agencies (DSSA) to help these families with Supervised Exchange and Visitations. MSF provides these referred Muslim families the same level of funding support given to non-Muslim families undergoing divorce under the auspices of the Women's Charter.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked who the "prescribed class of persons" may be under section 43A, where SYC may advise them, in addition to any of the parties or their children, to attend a family support programme or activity. We recognise that there may be other significant caregivers involved in a child's life, such as grandparents. The availability of family support programmes and activities is expanded to allow participation by such persons so that they may in turn help the child to better cope with his or her parents' divorce.

To Ms Nadia Samdin's query, the Programme for Children encompasses a range of possible support for children, including an assessment of the needs of the child and specific interventions, such as group programmes, counselling or psychological services. The assessment process will be used to make recommendations to parents on suitable interventions based on the needs of the child. The overarching consideration is to work in the best interest of the child.

MSF and MCCY will continue to work closely with the relevant professionals to ensure that these evidence-based intervention programmes will benefit any child who needs help to cope with his or her parents' divorce.

Ultimately, parents are responsible for their child's well-being. If they do not comply with the Court's advice, the Court will have the discretion to make any order it deems fit and, in relevant cases, may take the non-compliance of the parents into consideration in making custody, care and control and access orders, among other relevant factors, in determining the welfare of the child.

Finally, this Bill seeks to update the provisions relating to MUIS. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether the existing section 32(7) can meet our intent to allow Mufti to testify where a case is made on false doctrine.

Sections 32(7) and 139(2) are significantly different in their scope and effect under the AMLA. I think this was also referred to by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Section 32(7) is very wide, as it covers the question of Muslim law and it does not invoke any presumption in favour of the opinion provided by the Legal Committee, also known as the Fatwa Committee. It is also not restricted to a request from a Court, as it can be made by any person.

On the other hand, section 139(2) of AMLA relates specifically to evidence required for an offence of false doctrine and currently invokes a presumption in favour of the evidence given by the President of MUIS. The amendment seeks to allow the Mufti, which is the highest Muslim religious authority in Singapore, to give evidence in lieu of the President of MUIS.

Hence, the two sections have their own specific purpose under AMLA and the powers of the Legal Committee are not affected by the operation of section 139(2). More broadly, if the Court requests for the opinion of the Majlis on any question on Muslim law, section 32(7) would apply.

I also thank Mr Zhulkarnain Aabdul Rahim for his suggestion on section 114 of AMLA to make Mufti the reference for Muslim law questions on inheritance and succession. MUIS will study this suggestion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to once again thank Members for their support of this Bill and their insightful comments. This Bill will help our Muslim institutions to better serve the community, improve legal processes, and strengthen the social support given to families and children. We will also continue to engage the community and religious fraternity to ensure that AMLA remains relevant for Muslims in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Deputy Speaker: No clarifications?

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.