Family Justice Reform Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister for Law.

2.04 pm

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”

Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a joint Bill by the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF).

Conceptually, it proposes changes in two areas: one, on the enforcement of maintenance orders; and two, on Court proceedings and procedure in the Family Justice Courts (FJC).

I will speak on the first area and my colleague, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu, will cover the second. Minister of State Sun Xueling will then touch on support for families undergoing divorce from the MSF perspective.

Sir, to better understand the changes proposed in this Bill, I think it is useful, first, to consider the approach to family justice that we take here.

Family disputes are not like other kinds of disputes. They often involve a lot of emotions, psychological wounds and vulnerable parties, particularly children. You contrast that with the usual litigation process which generally pits the parties as adversaries and looks to the past to determine who was right and wrong. If you apply that kind of approach to family disputes, I think the tendency will often be to deepen the rift between the parties and it could overlook the well-being of the children who are caught in the middle.

So, in Singapore, for some time now, we have taken a modified approach to family disputes, focusing on Therapeutic Justice. The approach tries to get the parties to reach a common ground and move on with their lives. The changes we have made over the years reflect this approach.

With your permission, Sir, may I ask that the Clerks of Parliament distribute a handout on some of these changes?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Please do. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: Members may also access the handout through the SG Parl MP mobile app.

Let me now turn to the Bill, specifically as it relates to the enforcement of maintenance orders. I will explain, one, the need for change; two, the key changes that we are proposing; and three, what we hope to achieve.

Over the years, we have progressively refined the maintenance enforcement framework. This includes introducing new sanctions against maintenance defaulters, such as mandatory financial counselling, community service orders and credit bureau reporting. Nevertheless, we still see a fairly high number of cases of non-compliance with maintenance orders.

Before COVID-19, from 2017 to 2019, there was an annual average of 2,700 applications to enforce maintenance orders. And 15% to 20% of these were repeat applications made within the same year. Some applicants made three to four applications to enforce the same maintenance order within a year.

When you see these numbers, you can understand that behind these numbers, there are also anxiety, frustration, other real-life consequences. Especially for the applicants – they are usually women, struggling with supporting the children, their jobs, while not getting any maintenance. Members have given voice to these concerns before. They include Ms Jessica Tan, Dr Tan Wu Meng and others who spoke about this. Single parents struggling with job stress, caregiving, other responsibilities and they need to take time off work to attend enforcement hearings. Some bring their children to the Court hearings because they do not have alternate care arrangements.

At this point, I think it is useful for me to share the facts relating to two cases, as illustrations.

The first, I will refer to one of the parties as Mdm A. Following her divorce, she had care and control of the parties’ two young children; her ex-husband was ordered to pay child maintenance at $1,500 a month. Two years after the divorce, Mdm A had not received any maintenance payments, though she had taken out enforcement proceedings. She was left to support her two children and elderly parents alone.

This is how she described her frustrations in an email that she sent to me, and I quote: “Monies have to be spent each [time] an individual seeks legal advice; monies that most ex-spouses can ill-afford. Perhaps this is why most give up the fight, because they can no longer afford to pay for another Court hearing and receive another ruling that will not be enforced.”

The second case, I will call the lady Mdm B. Like Mdm A, Mdm B also had care and control of the parties’ two young children, and her ex-husband was ordered to maintain her and the children at $1,500 per month. But for five years, from 2017 to 2022, Mdm B did not receive any payments from her ex-husband, save for a one-time payment of $50, even after she had filed multiple enforcement applications. For his breaches, the ex-husband was sentenced to prison, one to two days each time, but he still did not pay, despite having the means to pay. By 2022, the child maintenance arrears, accumulated over 61 months, was a total of $91,000. So, how did Mdm B cope? She coped single-handedly to support her children through primary school and borrowed from friends and neighbours.

What I have just described for Mdm A and Mdm B is the unfortunate reality for some. It arises because some husbands just refuse to pay and I am referring to those who can pay but would not pay. It is quite separate if they just cannot pay. I will come back to this later.

In the White Paper on Women’s Development, which was issued in 2021, the Government recognised maintenance enforcement as a key challenge for women in vulnerable situations, and the Government committed to simplify and strengthen the enforcement process and minimise the need for repeat applications for enforcement.

If you look at the issues, first, there are limited means of obtaining information on the parties’ assets and means. This makes it difficult to distinguish between respondents who cannot pay maintenance and those who simply refuse to pay because the information is not fully in. And this then often leads to a second problem, which is repeat non-compliance.

For respondents who refuse to pay, the Court may find it difficult to make more targeted enforcement orders because it does not have the full information on their assets and means. When the Court processes provide for applications and getting this information, actually getting it into Court can be a challenge at times.

And for respondents who cannot pay, they just do not have the money and the Courts keep making the orders, they will simply continue to miss maintenance payments, without some other form of intervention. Again, it does not help anyone.

Third, the process can be time-consuming, resource-intensive and difficult to navigate, especially for self-represented parties.

So, under this Bill, what are we trying to do? We are creating a new Maintenance Enforcement Process – I will call it MEP – to address these issues.

The MEP will seek to strengthen deterrence against respondents who refuse to pay; and it will try and facilitate more sustainable outcomes for respondents who genuinely cannot pay and it will try and increase access to justice for applicants, especially those who are self-represented.

A key part of the proposals is the establishment of a new unit of Maintenance Enforcement Officers (MEOs). MEOs will be appointed by the Law Minister and their functions will include the following: one, they can conduct fact-finding on the parties’ financial circumstances; two, they can refer suitable and needy parties to financial assistance and other forms of support; three, they can conduct conciliation sessions and facilitate settlements between the parties; four, they can submit the information gathered from the fact-finding and conciliation sessions to the Court.

With your permission, again, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute an infographic, which will set out the workflow of the new MEP?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: Members may also access the handout through the SG Parl MP mobile app.

Let me now take Members through some aspects of the MEP.

An application to enforce a maintenance order can be made online. At this stage, the applicant can also directly apply online for financial assistance, allowing such help to be given as early in the process as possible. After this, the parties must submit documents on their financial circumstances to the MEO. That could include payslips, bank statements.

If the information is insufficient, the MEO may seek information from the parties, banks, third parties, some of whom will be prescribed and these would include Central Provident Fund (CPF), Housing and Development Board (HDB), Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), Singapore Land Authority (SLA), Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Central Depository (Pte) Limited (CDP).

This is a major step and a game changer. This power will be subject to safeguards, including restrictions on the use of information obtained by MEOs and, in some cases, requiring MEOs to obtain a Court order when seeking information from third parties.

With the MEO’s fact-finding powers, the MEOs and the Court will be better able to distinguish between respondents who cannot pay and those who refuse to pay. For the former, the MEOs will be able to refer them to Social Service Offices for financial assistance and other support.

After the fact-finding is completed, the parties will have to attend conciliation sessions with the MEO, who can recommend solutions and facilitate settlement. The MEO will report to the Court on the parties' financial circumstances and the conciliation sessions.

This will relieve the party asking for maintenance – the wife – from having to take on the burden of getting the facts, spending a lot of money on legal fees and, hopefully, it will also reduce the amount of effort a wife has to put in to get maintenance.

The Court will take into account the MEO's report when deciding on the application. The Court can vary any maintenance order, taking into account the financial position of the parties.

Where the parties have not settled and the Court orders the respondent to pay maintenance, the Court must make what is known as a Show-Payment Order (SPO). The SPO will usually be for a period of six months and it will require the respondent to show to the Court, at specified future intervals, that he or she has made the requisite payments.

When making the SPO, the Court must generally also specify a term of imprisonment that the respondent may be liable for if the respondent breaches the SPO. This continued monitoring, coupled with strong deterrence, should reduce repeated defaults in at least a fair number of cases.

With the information provided by the MEO, the Court will also be better able to make more targeted and effective enforcement orders to recover arrears – for example, an order for attachment of a debt – and can do so without the applicant having to apply separately, or specifically, for such orders.

At the post-hearing stage, the MEP caters for several possible scenarios of default. I will not cover these scenarios and the consequences of default specifically. The details are in the infographic that has been handed out and, of course, in the Bill.

But Members will see that, in general, the consequences for failing to show proof of payment, in accordance with the SPO, are immediate and serious. If a respondent defaults on the SPO with no good cause shown, he may be sentenced to imprisonment.

The MEP also provides a more streamlined process for enforcing maintenance payments, where a respondent defaults on such payments shortly after an SPO expires.

There is one further area of change to the maintenance enforcement process, which is not shown in the infographic. Under the existing law, an applicant who suspects that a respondent intends to dissipate, or has dissipated assets to frustrate the maintenance claim, can apply for an injunction or a clawback order. However, the applicant will likely face evidential difficulties in proving the respondent's intent to dissipate property specifically to frustrate a maintenance order.

To address this, we will create a rebuttable presumption of the respondent's intent to dissipate. Under the proposed changes, this presumption will be raised if the applicant can show an impending or relevant dissipation, depending on whether an injunction or clawback order is sought and that the impending or relevant dissipation, as the case may be, will or did frustrate the enforcement of the maintenance order.

With these changes, the burden is on the respondent to prove that he did not intend to frustrate the maintenance claim. This will, hopefully, deter parties from circumventing maintenance orders through the wilful dissipation of assets.

What do we hope to achieve with these changes? Primarily, three things: one, stronger deterrence against non-compliance with maintenance orders; two, more sustainable maintenance outcomes for families with genuine financial difficulties; and three, easier process for enforcement of maintenance orders when they are not complied with.

Overall, these changes will improve access to justice, especially for self-represented parties, who, as I said earlier, are involved in the vast majority of maintenance enforcement cases.

As Members can empathise, it is difficult to expect parties to move on when maintenance obligations are breached, especially if the breaches occur repeatedly. Such breaches can also spur retaliatory action by the other side and pull both parties further apart.

For example, an applicant with care and control of the children may be tempted to withhold access to them, if the respondent does not make timely maintenance payments. These disputes that linger and spiral long after the divorce proceedings can worsen the anguish for the parties and their children and also take a toll on those around them.

With the MEP, we hope to change a bit of this and make the post-divorce journey slightly easier.

As I conclude, Sir, I would like to thank the FJC judges, Court staff, the Family Bar, academics, our social service partner agencies and other stakeholders for working with us on these reforms. We hope to continue to work with all of these partners to shape our family justice system to achieve more positive outcomes in protecting, restoring and healing families.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Rahayu Mahzam.

2.21 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): Mr Deputy Speaker, we have come a long way in bringing this vision of the family justice system informed by the principles of Therapeutic Justice to life, but the task of ensuring that our family justice system meets the needs of families is a continuing one.

This Bill represents another step forward in this journey.

Minister Shanmugam has touched upon one key area of reform in the Bill – the new Maintenance Enforcement Process. I will now turn to the other key area of reform this Bill seeks to effect – the enhancement of Court proceedings and procedure in the Family Justice Courts (FJC).

The changes we are making in this area support the ideals outlined earlier in Minister Shanmugam's speech. The amendments will: strengthen protection for children and other vulnerable parties, including victims of family violence; make family proceedings simpler and more efficient, thereby enhancing access to justice for all Court users of the FJC; strengthen Therapeutic Justice elements in FJC proceedings, by giving the Courts the power to manage proceedings in a manner which reduces acrimony and ensures a fair outcome without undue delay, complexity and cost.

Some of the reforms under this area arise out of the recommendations of the Committee to Review and Enhance Reforms in the Family Justice System, or the RERF Committee for short.

The RERF Committee, which consisted of representatives from MSF, MinLaw and FJC, was formed in 2017 and released its recommendations in September 2019. Its recommendations were aimed at, amongst others, further strengthening the Therapeutic Justice elements in the family justice system.

The Government then consulted the public and stakeholders on the RERF Committee's recommendations and has since then been working to implement the recommendations.

For example, MSF announced in 2022 that the Mandatory Co-Parenting Programme will be extended from only parents who disagree on divorce and ancillary matters, to all parents with minor children on the Simplified Track. This will help more parents to focus on making informed decisions that prioritise the well-being of their children in the divorce process.

The Women's Charter was amended in 2022 to empower the Court to make orders to grant the access parent additional access to the child to make up for the access denied; for the care and control parent to compensate the access parent for expenses incurred as a result of the breach of the child access order; and both parties and the child, or any of them, to attend counselling, mediation, therapeutic or educational programmes.

This Bill implements the remaining recommendations of the RERF Committee that require legislative changes.

I will now turn to the key reforms in this Bill which enhance proceedings and procedure in the FJC.

The amendments which I will be speaking about can be grouped into four buckets: one, promoting efficiency in Court proceedings; two, enhancing and clarifying the judge-led approach; three, simplifying Court terminology; and four, other miscellaneous and technical amendments to clarify, enhance and streamline FJC processes.

In its report, the RERF Committee observed that the filing of unnecessary applications in family proceedings prolongs proceedings, promotes acrimony and strains judicial resources. This is a particularly pertinent issue in family proceedings, which are emotionally charged. Such strong emotions can hinder rational thinking and cloud judgement.

There are cases where parties who are caught up in the heat of the litigation resort to taking out unnecessary and unmeritorious applications in Court to vex the other party or to paint the other party in a bad light. Such applications may also be made repeatedly.

For example, one party may make repeated applications against the other party for discovery of documents which have little relevance or evidential value to the issue at hand. Not only are such applications a waste of the parties' time and the Court's resources, but such conduct can harm the relationship of the parties and their family.

The RERF Committee acknowledged that not every case involving the filing of multiple applications is necessarily an abuse of process, and, in any event, the ability to strike out or dismiss an application on the ground of abuse of process should be exercised with caution.

To ensure that unmeritorious applications which detract from important issues are weeded out at an early stage, the Committee recommended that, in appropriate circumstances, the permission of the Court must be sought before a further application can be filed.

The new section 11A of the Family Justice Act will implement the Committee's recommendation. There are two parts to the new section 11A. The first part of section 11A deals with certain applications by a party in relation to an order already made in previous proceedings, for example, an application to vary, suspend or set aside a previous order. For ease of explaining the first part of section 11A, I shall call an application which falls into this category a "variation application".

Section 11A provides that where (a) the filing of any variation application or supporting document, or (b) any variation application or supporting document which has been filed by a party, will or is likely to be without merit, having regard to the applicant's past conduct in previous proceedings or has an adverse effect on the welfare of a child, FJC may make, among other things, the following orders: (a) an order prohibiting the filing of the variation application or other variation application, or any document in support of such applications, without the permission of the Court; and (b) an order that any variation application or any supporting document which has been filed be treated as dismissed or expunged on a specified date, unless the party complies with one or more conditions imposed by the Court by that date.

The second part of section 11A deals with applications in proceedings which are pending before FJC. I shall call an application which falls into this category an "interlocutory application".

Section 11A provides that where (a) the filing of any interlocutory application or supporting document, or (b) any interlocutory application or supporting document which has been filed, will, or is likely to: impede the just, expeditious or economical resolution or disposal of the matter; or have an adverse effect on the child's welfare, the FJC may make, among other things, the following orders: (a) an order prohibiting the filing of the interlocutory application or any other interlocutory application, or any document in support of such applications, without the permission of the Court; and (b) an order that any interlocutory application or any supporting document which has been filed be treated as dismissed or expunged on a specified date, unless the party complies with one or more conditions imposed by the Court by that date.

Section 11A will promote a more efficient resolution of family proceedings and also reduce the acrimony and stresses which may be inflicted on the parties' relationship through the filing of unnecessary applications and documents.

I would like to share the story of Ms C, who has written to us on her family's experiences. Ms C's father and mother are divorced. Ms C has a younger sibling.

As the mother exhibited physical and emotionally abusive behaviour, the Court granted protection orders against the mother after the divorce, in favour of the father and the two children. After the protection orders were granted, over a period of three years, the mother filed close to 15 applications in Court against Ms C, her father and her sibling. This includes more than five applications to revoke the protection orders granted in favour of Ms C, her father and her sibling. In the case of the protection order obtained by Ms C, the mother's applications to revoke the protection order were dismissed.

Ms C conveyed that each of the applications filed has taken a huge emotional toll on her family. With each application filed by her mother, they ended up having to take time off work to spend time on Court proceedings and be subject to the mental stress of facing the mother for an extended period of time.

Applying the new section 11A to Ms C's situation, the Court will be empowered to make an order prohibiting the mother from filing any further applications to revoke the protection orders in favour of Ms C, her father and her sibling without the Court's permission, if the Court is satisfied that the filing of any application to revoke the protection orders will be without merit, having regard to the mother's conduct in past proceedings, including the mother's series of unmeritorious applications to revoke the protection orders in the past.

With greater judicial control over the filing of unnecessary applications, we hope that circumstances where parties like Ms C and her family live in fear of having to be dragged back into proceedings by estranged family members involuntarily will be reduced. Instead, families will be given the space to heal and move on, without having to return to Court repeatedly.

The new powers in section 11A will also help to enhance the efficiency of family proceedings by giving FJC the powers to weed out unmeritorious applications which unnecessarily protract proceedings.

Minister Shanmugam had earlier explained that the judge-led approach was introduced in 2014 to allow FJC to proactively manage the manner in which cases are run in family proceedings. The RERF Committee had recommended that there be greater clarity and guidance to family judges on how the judge-led approach is to be applied.

This Bill will, therefore, clarify and strengthen the judge-led approach through three key provisions. First, providing that judges may make orders of a substantive nature on their own motion. Second, empowering judges to impose restrictions on cross-examination in circumstances prescribed in subsidiary legislation. Third, providing that the Family Justice Rules (FJR) may set out the modes by which a child's wishes may be determined by the Court and this may include judicial interviews. I will explain each provision in turn.

For the first key provision, the RERF Committee recommended that the Court be expressly empowered to make substantive orders on its own motion. The new section 11B of the Family Justice Act will implement the Committee's recommendation.

Family proceedings often involve litigants-in-person or self-represented parties. They may not be aware of the variety of orders or directions available, or which ones are needed to address their particular issues, or which may be made to safeguard the interests and well-being of their children.

In such situations, the new section 11B allows the Court to make the necessary orders to deal with the issues effectively, even if neither party has asked for the order specifically.

For instance, the Court may, in the course of conducting a case conference, make interim access orders to ensure that the child continues to have contact time with a parent until the matter can be resolved through mediation or determined in a formal hearing. The Court may do so even if none of the parties makes an application for an interim access order.

The rules of natural justice will be preserved. The Court's power to make an order of a substantive nature under section 11B may only be exercised if: every person likely to be affected by the order is first given an opportunity to be heard concerning the order; and the Court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to make the order.

The second key provision is the new section 11C of the Family Justice Act, which will empower FJC to, on its own motion, or upon the application of any party, make the following orders: an order that cross-examination of a witness be restricted in scope or duration and an order that cross-examination be conducted in any manner prescribed by the FJR.

At present, rule 101A of the FJR already allows the Court to limit the scope and duration of cross-examination, or to disallow direct cross-examination in two situations: (a) a family violence trial in proceedings under Part 7 of the Women's Charter; (b) an application under section 67(1) of the Women's Charter to vary, suspend or revoke a protection order or an expedited order.

The direct cross-examination of a victim of family violence by their alleged perpetrator can expose the victim to significant re-traumatisation. Subjecting the victims to the usual cross-examination may also affect their ability to give clear and cogent evidence in support of their case. After what has happened between them, victims may also find it challenging to effectively cross-examine their alleged perpetrator.

That being said, cross-examination is fundamental in testing and challenging the evidence of a witness and to accurately determine the facts on which the Court decides the matter. A balance, therefore, has to be struck.

The RERF Committee considered the approaches in England and Australia on prohibiting cross-examination in family violence cases and recommended that the Courts should be empowered to restrict cross-examination in specified circumstances. The new section 11C, therefore, provides that the Court may only make the orders restricting cross-examination in circumstances to be prescribed in the FJR, for example, in circumstances where the questioning of a vulnerable witness is or is likely to be unduly intimidating and oppressive.

The Court's powers under the new section 11C will complement its existing powers under the Evidence Act to, among others, forbid any question which appears to the Court to be intended to insult or annoy or appears to be needlessly offensive.

The third key provision in the Bill provides that the FJR may set out the modes by which the wishes of a child may be determined by the Court. The intention is for the prescribed modes to expressly include interviews conducted by a judge with a child, in addition to the variety of other methods which may be used to hear a child's voice, such as through the Child Representatives or an assessment by a mental health professional.

In the context of matrimonial proceedings under the Women's Charter, section 125 of the Women's Charter provides that in deciding in whose custody a child should be placed, the paramount consideration shall be the welfare of the child. Section 125 also specifically requires the Court to have regard to: (a) the wishes of the parents; and (b) the wishes of a child where he or she is of an age to express an independent opinion.

However, section 125 does not provide for the modes by which the child's wishes may be determined. The RERF Committee, in its report, discussed the benefits of judges conducting interviews with children and noted that, in Singapore, there have been cases where judges have conducted interviews with children to reach outcomes that serve the interests of the child.

An example of such a case is AZB v AZC [2016] SGHCF 1. In that case, the High Court Judge interviewed three children between the ages of 11 and 13 in a dispute between their parents on care and control and access arrangements. The Judge noted that there were indications that the children wished to speak with her. The children were mature enough to express their views on matters that impacted their lives. In deciding that it would be in the children's welfare to increase the access time with their mother, the Judge relied on, among other things, the Judge's conversations with the children which corroborated the finding that the children enjoyed access time with their mother.

The Committee mentioned that there has been research highlighting children's wishes to be more involved in the decisions that may affect their lives profoundly and their dissatisfaction with the indirect processes that are available to them. The Committee recommended, therefore, that it should be made clear that the judge-led approach allows for a judge to interview a child.

It should be noted that each case is unique, with different considerations applying to each family and each child. It is not in every case that a judicial interview of children is suitable. In some cases, the Court may assess that it would be more appropriate to appoint a Child Representative, who is a trained professional appointed by the Court to represent the voice of a child and present an objective assessment of care arrangements which are in the child's best interest, or other professional, to hear from the child.

Moving on to the next bucket of reforms, the Bill will amend various pieces of legislation to modernise and simplify nomenclature for family proceedings. For example, "Plaintiff" will be replaced by "Applicant", "Defendant" will be replaced by "Respondent" and "Writ for divorce" will be replaced by "originating application for divorce".

This will be in line with the amendments made to Court terminology in civil Court proceedings under the Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Act 2021 and the Rules of Court 2021. In the new Family Justice Rules to be introduced, the simplified terminology will also be adopted. These changes will make it easier for Court users and members of the public to understand family proceedings. This will amplify the existing efforts by the Government and Judiciary to enhance access to justice, especially for persons who cannot afford legal representation, by simplifying Court processes.

The last bucket of reforms relates to various miscellaneous and technical amendments to clarify, enhance and streamline processes in the FJC.

I will elaborate on two of these amendments. First, on mediation and other alternative dispute resolution processes or "ADR processes" for short. Currently, the Family Justice Act provides that a Family Court or Youth Court, respectively, may, on its own motion or upon the application of any party, order any party or any child who is the subject of proceedings, to undergo mediation or counselling, or to participate in any family support programme or activity.

The Court also has powers to order a party or child to undergo other ADR processes, or to attend professional clinical or therapeutic intervention sessions. The Bill will clarify in the Family Justice Act that a Family Court or Youth Court has such powers. The Bill will also clarify in legislation the existing powers of the Court to appoint Judicial officers, officers of the FJC or any other persons, such as volunteer lawyers, to conduct mediations or other ADR processes. Amendments will also be made to provide that a Family Court or Youth Court may make the appropriate and necessary orders where a person fails to comply with the Court's orders to attend mediation or other ADR process, such as an order staying proceedings until the orders are complied with.

Second, the Bill will adopt section 43 of the State Courts Act which applies to a District Court, by expressly providing that the Family Court may order that a judgment sum be paid in a lump sum or by instalments, and may order that a judgment be suspended or stayed if the judgment debtor is unable to pay the sum. The amendments will align the position under the Family Justice Act with that in section 43 of the State Courts Act. Depending on the circumstances of the case, in certain situations, instead of incurring time and costs in enforcement or bankruptcy proceedings, it may be more sensible and in the interests of both parties, for the Court to grant a short reprieve to the judgment debtor, or to allow the judgment debtor to pay the judgment creditor by way of instalments. This is especially important in family proceedings where further litigation would put an additional strain on the fractured relationship and adversely impact children involved in the proceedings.

I will not go into details on all the other amendments under the Bill, but Members are free to raise any questions that they may have on those amendments.

To conclude, I would like to express our gratitude to the members of the RERF Committee for their recommendations, and the stakeholders and members of the public who have taken the time to give us feedback on the family justice system. With your feedback and suggestions, we were better able to shape the reforms in this Bill to resolve the real issues faced by families and children in family proceedings and to better protect, restore and heal families and children.

Time will be required and work will need to be put in to operationalise some of the changes in this Bill, including the Maintenance Enforcement Process. We hope you will continue to give us support and feedback, to operationalise the reforms.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State, Sun Xueling.

2.41 pm

The Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Deputy Speaker, MSF has worked closely with MinLaw and FJC on the Family Justice Reform Bill, in particular, the new Maintenance Enforcement Process, or MEP in short. Minister Shanmugam and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu have explained the objective and details of the Bill in their speeches. Let me elaborate on MSF's perspective.

At MSF, our aim is to nurture strong families. That is why we had designated the year 2022 as the Year of Celebrating SG Families and launched "A Singapore Made for Families 2025", a national plan to strengthen and support families through all life stages.

The foundation for strong families is laid even before marriage. When a couple contemplates marrying and starting their own family, support is provided through the Marriage Preparation Programmes. As they embark on this new phase of life, they can seek mentoring support from Licensed Solemnisers and community volunteers.

This foundation is continually built on during their marriage, through access to marriage and parenting support programmes organised by Families for Life, or FFL in short. We will be stepping up outreach at the local level via FFL@Community which will be expanded to all towns by 2025.

When friction arises, families can seek help from the Strengthening Families Programme@Family Service Centres, or FAM@FSCs in short. The 10 FAM@FSC Centres island-wide provide counselling services, such as for marital strains or conflict among family members.

Our hope is for families to be able to successfully work through and come through adversity. However, we recognise that some families may come to the point where they begin to contemplate divorce. Our aim is to save the marriage and, apart from family counselling, the Family Assist Portal provides couples with the relevant resources to make an informed decision regarding their marriage. Where divorce is truly inevitable, we seek to foster Therapeutic Justice in the divorce process to bring about healing so that the family can move on.

I had led focus group discussions and engaged over 120 divorcees in 2020 and 2021 to understand the divorce process and the difficult decisions they had to make. Arising from those discussions and the intent to foster Therapeutic Justice, we have introduced several initiatives in recent years.

In January 2022, the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill was passed in this House. To encourage parents to make informed decisions regarding their divorce that prioritise the well-being of their children, we had made it mandatory for all divorcing parents with minor children to go through a Co-Parenting Programme, or CPP in short.

We had also sought to reduce acrimony in the divorce process and introduced the Divorce by Mutual Agreement (DMA) of the Irretrievable Breakdown of the Marriage as a sixth fact that parties may cite to show that their marriage has irretrievably broken down. The changes to CPP and the introduction of DMA will be brought into force in 2024.

To ensure that children impacted by divorce are supported in navigating this difficult period, we have empowered the Court to advise that minor children attend the Programme for Children. In addition, we have heard the pain of parents who were unable to obtain access to their children as ordered by the Court. We had amended the Women's Charter to introduce a new suite of measures for the enforcement of child access.

Our efforts do not stop there. We are working with FJC on further simplifying the enforcement process so that there is no need to seek leave of Court before an application is made for enforcement. It is within this wider landscape of support for the family that the proposed MEP will come in.

The MEP will facilitate more sustainable maintenance outcomes for parties, allowing parents to both do their part in co-parenting their children and move on from the divorce.

For respondents who genuinely cannot pay, as well as for applicants who face day-to-day difficulties due to non-payment of maintenance, MSF will now be able to provide financial assistance in a more timely manner, where appropriate. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The aim of the amendments is to enable divorcees to better make post-divorce arrangements for the family. This includes ensuring more sustainable maintenance outcomes.

We have seen an average of 2,700 maintenance enforcement applications annually across the years 2017 to 2019. The current maintenance enforcement process, from the perspective of the applicant, can be time- and resource-intensive. For the low-income, this can result in great inconvenience. For low-wage mothers, who already face the stress of caring for their children, having to return to Court to enforce their maintenance order could be the final straw that breaks them.

In addition, the assets of divorcees and their financial situation are often not transparent. This makes it difficult for the judge to determine if the respondent truly cannot afford to pay maintenance, or if the respondent can afford to pay maintenance but is unwilling to do so.

The amendments, therefore, introduce a new Maintenance Enforcement Process (MEP). The new process will simplify the process, reduce the number of trips the applicant has to make to Court and reduce the duration of the current maintenance enforcement process.

Under this new process, the Maintenance Enforcement Officer (MEO) will be empowered to ensure more sustainable maintenance outcomes: first, the MEO will be empowered to request for information on the respondent’s financial situation from Government agencies, banks and other agencies.

Second, after obtaining information on the respondent’s financial situation, the MEO will be empowered to make recommendations for parties to reach a reasonable out-of-Court settlement.

Third, the MEO has the power to report the information to the Court, which will support the Court to make maintenance enforcement orders.

For respondents who face difficulties in making their maintenance payments, under certain circumstances, the Court can vary the original maintenance order based on their actual financial situation, without requiring the respondent to submit a formal application.

In addition, previously, should the respondent have attempted to frustrate the maintenance order by dissipating their assets, although the applicant may suspect that the respondent had such an intention, it can be very difficult to prove. The Bill introduces a rebuttable presumption, that is to say, under certain circumstances, as long as the respondent has dissipated their assets, it will be presumed that the respondent has done so with the intention of frustrating the maintenance order.

The MEP complements earlier efforts by MSF to strengthen therapeutic justice in the divorce process, through the 2022 Women’s Charter (Amendment) Bill. The amendments to the Women’s Charter included the extension of the mandatory CPP to all divorcing parents with minor children to better support parents in making informed decisions regarding their divorce that prioritise the well-being of their children, the introduction of the Divorce by Mutual Agreement of the Irretrievable Breakdown of the Marriage to reduce acrimony in the divorce process, and the introduction of a new suite of measures for the enforcement of child access.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, in conceptualising the many enhancements to divorce support, including the MEP, MSF and MinLaw have met and spoken with many groups of stakeholders, including parents who have gone through divorces, law practitioners and social service agencies.

It is clear that we all share the same vision for our families, families that endeavour to put the needs of their family members, their children first, even as they navigate difficult circumstances. It is our hope that parents will prioritise the welfare of their children and work together to cooperatively co-parent their children.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

2.51 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the aims of the Bill. In my speech, I will touch on just two aspects of the Bill and I will deal with them in turn.

The first aspect is the desire for Family Court proceedings to be simpler and to produce fair outcomes without undue delay. One way of doing this is by providing Judges a greater ambit to decide on key matters that protect public interest, as well as the interests of vulnerable parties, such as children.

In this regard, I note that it is proposed in clause 4 of the Bill that the Court be given powers to make an order on its own motion, without application by the parties, so long as every person likely to be affected by the Court's order is given an opportunity to be heard beforehand; and impose restrictions during cross-examination, as it sees fit.

The hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary Ms Rahayu Mahzam took pains to outline the workings of this provision in her speech. As she mentioned, this proposal emanated from a recommendation of the Committee to Review and Enhance Reforms in the Family Justice System, or the RERF Committee, in 2019.

In the report, the RERF Committee explained that a judge-led approach will have, amongst others, the salutary effect of reducing acrimony between parties and avoiding protracted proceedings.

I agree with the rationale outlined by the REFF Committee. Apart from strengthening the Therapeutic Justice element in the family proceedings, reposing such a power with the Court, in my respectful view, may also serve to guard against situations where the husband and wife together agree to post-divorce arrangements that may not be suitable for the children of the marriage, particularly young children who are of school-going age.

Such situations, unfortunately, occur from time to time despite the common wisdom that they should be prioritising the needs of their children. I made this point during the Ministry of National Development (MND) Committee of Supply (COS) debate earlier this year when I spoke on the topic of inclusive public housing.

The hon Minister highlighted in his speech that family disputes are unique because, amongst others, they involve vulnerable children. The interests of vulnerable children may not necessarily be aligned with those of their parents. During the debate, I mentioned that I have come across cases where the husband and wife, for reasons of expediency, decided on arrangements, such as selling their HDB flat early, without having the prospect of securing proper housing arrangements or even considering schooling arrangements for the young children of the marriage.

In these cases, as there was agreement between the parties, the Court proceeded to endorse the parties' agreement on the assumption that the parents have catered for the needs of their young children. It is only after disposing the matrimonial property that the issue of the children's interest not being sufficiently safeguarded came to the fore. In such cases, the parent who has custody of the children may then make an appeal to HDB for urgent accommodation, presenting HDB with a fait accompli. As we all know, such requests are not easily acceded to. In the end, the children suffer from the decisions of their parents.

Even without the involvement of young children, I have seen situations where, post-divorce, one party to the proceedings would apply to HDB for urgent public housing on the basis that the Court had ordered the sale of the matrimonial property, leaving that person without a roof over his or her head.

It seems to me that part of the problem lies with the fact that there exists an information asymmetry between the parties to the divorce proceedings, HDB and the Court. HDB would be in the dark about what the parties represented to the Court about housing arrangements post-divorce. The Court may not know whether the parties' proposed housing arrangement is feasible as HDB's criteria are not cast in stone and it does exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis.

By providing the Court with the power to act on its own motion on substantive matters, it will be in a better position to make a just and equitable decision on the division of matrimonial property that affects the housing arrangements of the parties and their children post-divorce. We will, therefore, be better able to minimise the number of hardship cases involving parties and their children who run the risk of not having any place to stay or stay in less than conducive environments after they have sold their HDB flats pursuant to a Court order.

I would like to ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary how, with the proposed enhancements to Court proceedings and procedure in the FJC, will the problem that I have identified be addressed? Also, I wonder if a protocol among the Court, parties and HDB can be established to resolve the information asymmetry that I have highlighted here.

The second aspect of the Bill that I intend to speak on deals with proposals aimed at facilitating better maintenance outcomes. This is a welcome reform.

The hon Minister in his speech spoke about real life cases involving husbands who could pay but just obstinately refused to pay, forcing the single mothers to bear heavy responsibilities of bringing up their children. As a result, they simply did not have the bandwidth to pursue their ex-husbands to pay maintenance. And these defaulting spouses may even get away with their offending behaviour. And such instances are clearly wrong.

The hon Speaker of Parliament, in his capacity as the Minister for Social and Family Development in 2017, in a Family Justice Forum, said as follows: "…[M]aintenance issues continue to be an area of concern for some parties, even after the divorce has been finalised. For the parent who requires financial contributions from the other towards the child's upkeep, having to return to Court to enforce a maintenance order can be tedious and frustrating. This is especially so when the other parent has the means to pay but refuses to do so."

The hon Minister, in his speech, pointed out that in the 2022 White Paper on Singapore Women's Development, maintenance enforcement reform was advocated as a priority area.

This is precisely the problem that the introduction of the Maintenance Enforcement Officers (MEOs), who will have the powers to obtain more accurate information about the respondents' financial circumstances, is intended to address and I support this move.

MEOs will be able to get directly information from stipulated entities, such as banks, CDP, CPF Board, HDB, IRAS, LTA and SLA.

With this, the MEO will be able to ascertain whether the respondent does not have the capacity to pay or he has the capacity but refuses to pay. Through this, we can have quicker enforcement action against the recalcitrant respondents. This will, in turn, put similarly minded persons, who may think that they could get away with not complying with maintenance Court orders, on notice.

Sir, I support this proposal. The question I have is, why is it proposed that the MEO be an officer appointed by the Executive Branch of the Government instead of the Judiciary?

Currently, under Rule 114B of the Family Justice Rules 2014, the Court has the power to appoint a public officer as a Maintenance Record Officer, the MRO, who is considered as an officer of the Family Justice Court. The MRO has quasi-judicial powers similar to what is being proposed for the MEO. This includes the power to interview parties to the proceedings; and obtain documents and information on the financial circumstances of a party to proceedings from the party directly or from any other person, with the consent of the party. In addition, the MRO may be required to prepare for the Court a written report setting out his opinion on the financial circumstances of the party and whether he is able to pay maintenance. This report may be relied on by the Court as evidence of the matters stated in the report. This also mirrors what the MEO is supposed to do under the proposed maintenance regime.

Given that the MEO is supposed to take over the tasks of the MRO, may I ask why it is proposed that the MEO be an officer of the Executive arm of the Government instead of the Judiciary?

As we all know, our Constitution is based on the separation of powers doctrine. There are three pillars of Government; the judiciary is an independent pillar of the Government.

Here, it is proposed that the MEO act, “subject to the general or special directions of the Minister insofar as the directions are not inconsistent” with the clauses in the Bill under consideration. The Minister may make regulations prescribing fees payable to an MEO. At the same time, it is expressly proposed that the MEO ascertain the facts and circumstances of the case, assist the Court and issue a report that the Court can take cognisance of.

An MRO, on the other hand, is an officer of the Court. Hence, there is less of an issue for an officer of the Court assisting the Court on the same matters. How would public interest be better served by siting this responsibility with the Executive rather than the Judiciary?

I wish to clarify that I support the MEO proposal. I am merely pointing out that, as there is an important shift of responsibility from the Judiciary to the Executive that is being proposed, it is incumbent for the Executive arm of the Government to explain the reason for assuming this responsibility clearly.

I now turn to the ambit of the power to be reposed on MEO with respect to information gathering.

The hon Minister mentioned in his speech about the problem posed by respondents dissipating their assets to third parties and that would frustrate the applicant's endeavour to get paid under maintenance orders. This is one big area of concern and I am glad to note that there is a proposal to reverse the evidential burden so as to alleviate the problems on the part of the applying spouses.

Another area where there could be a significant challenge is where the respondent has assets and properties which are held in the names of proxies. To make headway on such matters, there will be a need to conduct investigations, too. These investigations will include the relationship between the respondent and an identified proxy; the personal and financial background of the proxy; and any financial transactions between the respondent and the proxy. It is, therefore, important to ensure that the MEO has sufficient powers to do all these so as to be able to lift the veil of secrecy between the respondent and his proxy, depending on the case.

Currently, I note that an MEO may avail himself of information from banks and prescribed third parties which I understand refers to specific Government agencies. These bodies may provide information as permitted under regulations which will be enacted sometime in the future. May I ask whether the scope of information that is contemplated to be provided to the MEO is wide enough to deal with inquiries on persons believed to be proxies of the respondents?

I also note that, apart from the “bank” and a “prescribed third party”, the MEO may request the Court for an order that a “third party” provide him with relevant information. May I ask what is the ambit of this “third party”? Does it refer to any other Government agency that is not prescribed? Or does it only refer to any private person, and this may include legal entities, who may have relevant information? May I also confirm that a “third party” may include a person who is believed to be a proxy or has information that may be relevant for investigation into any proxy relationship?

In summary, my first point on the leadership of judges in this process, as well as a whole-of-Government lens in information sharing, speaks to an important point on efficient implementation of justice. My second requires us to clarify a small but not unimportant matter. This clarity will help answer questions about the independence of such officers and to what extent their work requires an arms’ length from the Executive arm.

Sir, we strive to preserve families. This is a point that hon Minister of State Sun Xueling made at the outset of her speech when she said that MSF's aim is to nurture families. But we do not always succeed. It is important that the legislative process works to protect the interests of all parties when marriages dissolve. The ties that bind us, husband to wife, are ties that can be severed by divorce proceedings. But the tie that binds a citizen to his fellow men, and to his country, remains. Our laws must provide for this less intimate, but paradoxically, in this context, more enduring connection, in the pursuit of family justice.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

3.05 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Family Justice Reform Bill proposes to establish a new Maintenance Enforcement Process (MEP), which kicks in when applicants apply to enforce a maintenance order in the event of non-payment by their former spouse. The new MEP will apply to maintenance orders under the Women's Charter, Guardianship of Infants Act, Administration of Muslim Law Act, Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act and the Maintenance of Parents Act. I support the intent of this Bill to improve the enforcement process for maintenance payments. I would like to bring up a few brief points regarding the new process.

Mr Deputy Speaker, over the years, many divorced spouses have faced various difficulties in getting their former spouses to make their maintenance payments on time or even at all. Many spouses actually even gave up trying to get their payments.

Under the current system, a common and frustrating experience for many is that former spouses delay or refuse to pay their maintenance for their ex-partners or children and do not pay up until their former partners take up an application in Court to enforce maintenance payments. Frequently, for those who can afford to pay, the payment can even be at the doorstep of the Court room, just before the hearing. On such an occasion, I understand that the applicant does not even get its legal costs paid despite having to take out such application and engaging a lawyer in the process.

And for many who default on their maintenance payments, their former spouses often had to take multiple applications. Many applicants had to take leave from work each time and would even lose income from spending time instructing their lawyers and attending Court hearings. Many, I am told, just gave up after a few tries. They just could not afford the time and efforts. Many prefer to spend the time earning more income to make up for their former spouses’ maintenance payments instead of expending time and efforts in applying repeatedly for enforcement.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister, under the new MEP, how will the new process ensure that such phenomena will not happen or will be minimised. I note that under the new process, if a maintenance order has not been complied with, the applicant will have to make an application, albeit online, and if the Court were to make a Show-Payment Order requiring proof of payment, specifying an imprisonment term for the respondent’s breach of the Show-Payment Order, does that mean that the respondent can pay up after such an application is made for a Show-Payment Order or when he receives such an order?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the new requirement of the MEOs having to distinguish between respondents who cannot afford to pay for maintenance due to their financial situation and those who refuse to pay when they can afford to do so. This is important; it will help to deter and weed out those who game the system by refusing to pay until at least an application for enforcement is made.

Next, I note that under clause 89, once a maintenance enforcement application has been made, the MEOs have to prepare and submit a report to the Court. While the said clause allows the MEO to provide an interim report to any party whom the MEO thinks any information in the MEO’s report ought to be brought to the attention of such a party, the Bill does not seem to require the MEO to provide the full report to the applicant, the respondent or both.

This is somewhat unusual in our civil legal processes as documents or evidence to be considered in any proceedings are traditionally required to be disclosed to all parties in the same proceedings. Moreover, it would also be fair to both parties. For example, the applicant should know why the application fails and both parties should know its contents to decide whether it is fair and should be appealed against. If the respondent can afford his maintenance payments, disclosure of such report to the applicant may also deter the respondent from trying to hide his financial status.

I also note that clause 90 allows for redaction. I would like to ask the Minister what is the rationale, if any, for not allowing automatic and full disclosure of the MEO’s report to both parties in an application. I would also like to ask what type of information will likely be redacted from this report or excluded from the interim report if the judge decides that such report should be given to either party.

Mr Deputy Speaker, aside from the concerns I have raised, I support the Bill. I hope that the new MEP will significantly reduce incidents of deliberate and late or non-payment of maintenance.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

3.10 pm

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, no woman enters into marriage expecting it to end in divorce. While divorce is never easy, it can be especially challenging for women who often find themselves struggling to manage their livelihoods while ensuring the well-being of their charges, especially children in their custody or part custody.

When women, especially mothers, go through a divorce, they are often left to manage the household and take care of the children on their own. They need financial stability and independence to rebuild their lives after a divorce. However, for many women, this is easier said than done, especially if their spouses were the sole-breadwinners in their households.

According to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM)'s Labour Force Survey in 2022, there are approximately a quarter of a million women of economic age who are not participating in the workforce due to caregiving responsibilities. These women are often sandwiched, caring for their young children, elderly parents and households, and they find it challenging to balance their caregiving responsibilities with the need to provide for their families financially.

The situation becomes even more complicated for women who are going through a divorce. The circumstances in these women’s lives have not changed, the young are still young, the elderly, elderly, and the infirmed, infirmed. The only thing that has changed is the added complexity of livelihoods and financial stability that our women now have to take care of. It could be a classic case of out of the frying pan into the fire for many women caught in these double binds.

In my work in my constituency and in NTUC’s Women and Family Unit, I often meet women in such double binds, seeking help and support, sometimes with their young children, often in tears and at a loss of what to do, with no jobs, no CPF and no savings. Many a time, their ex-husbands have gone missing and with that, too, all hopes and promise of any maintenance orders due to these women through their divorce settlements.

I sometimes also meet women, who hide their shame of being stuck in an abusive marriage, unable to move on, as they are financially unable to care for themselves and their children and are afraid, if they do indeed get divorced, that their ex-husbands will not fulfil their maintenance orders.

I met Emily – not her real name – many times over the past two years. Initially, Emily’s issues pertained to financial assistance she needed for her four children, the oldest who is just 14 years old when I met them. As we got to know each other better over the months, Emily shared that she had a rocky and high tension marriage with her husband and had thought long and seriously about leaving the marriage. However, she continued being a dutiful wife, taking care of the household, their four children and her in-laws who are both staying with her. She has a part-time job, earning less than $2,000, and this is barely enough to cover her household of eight.

Earlier this year, Emily reached out once again, distraught that her husband had gone missing in action (MIA) and his last known location was in Malaysia. He had abandoned the family, leaving her to take care of the family, the flat mortgage and even his business debts. Emily is seeking a divorce, but is worried that her husband would not pay maintenance and, should the divorce be granted, that she would be forced to sell her marital home, leaving her and her family with no roof over their heads.

Sadly, Emily’s case, or variations of her case, is not unique, and I support the changes of better enforcement of maintenance orders, and I call on the Government, in the execution of the enforcement, a cost-effective and simplified process. I am pleased to note from Minister Shanmugam that the process is now online in the new enforcement process.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that it is our duty as lawmakers to ensure that women who are going through a divorce have access to the support and resources they need to manage their caregiving responsibilities and become financially independent. We must work towards creating a family justice system that is not just fair but enabling for all.

The NTUC's Women and Family Unit is committed to supporting women, including single mothers and divorcees, to return to work. We believe that empowering and enabling women to be financially independent is a very important part of the support network needed, especially after a divorce. Indeed, we have launched with our unionised companies many creative programmes that support our women in transition, the most recent being the CUBack@Work, or CUB programme. This combines a six-week paid flexible training programme with a transition into a flexible work arrangement (FWA) with good salaries and clear career pathways. It is essential that, as a community, we create the right conditions for women to transit into the workforce smoothly and help to retain them in the workforce by recognising the need to balance livelihoods with caregiving responsibilities.

I would like to ask Minister of State Sun Xueling what programmes MSF has looked into to assist our women to rejoin the workforce and the MEO process and if the Labour Movement can be a key partner of these programmes.

In the larger context of family justice, I call upon our Singaporean community – social and business – to come together to enable our sisters to be financially independent, above and beyond the protections of the improvements to this reform Bill. Companies must redesign their jobs such that FWAs become a business and social norm. The Family Courts can consider, in addition to specifying clinical and therapeutic intervention sessions, also job and upskilling workshops to ensure that women have access to the resources and support they need to rebuild their lives. We must equip our women with the means to long-term financial stability, peace of mind in managing their caregiving responsibilities and the choice to return to the workforce. I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

3.17 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the aim of the Family Justice Reform Bill is to amend the Family Justice Act, Women's Charter and the Guardianship of Infants Act to, among others, simplify family proceedings and to provide sustainable maintenance outcomes.

I am supportive of this Bill and the efforts to strengthen family Therapeutic Justice. My speech today aims to seek clarifications on certain aspects of the Bill, particularly that relating to providing greater support for both the applicants and respondents to the maintenance enforcement process. At the same time, I will also be speaking on related issues to improve on the education and housing needs of children involved in a divorce.

The new section 85 of the Family Justice Reform Bill enables the MEO to refer and provide information regarding the parties involved to a social service officer. This step comes after the MEO has obtained relevant information from the involved parties and determines that one or more of the parties involved would require financial assistance.

I appreciate the inclusion of such a step in the Maintenance Enforcement Process. As what my hon friend Member of Parlliament Jamus Lim alluded to in his Committee of Supply (COS) speech this year, the dignity of the needy should be retained even while applying for financial assistance. I wonder if the parties referred to a social service officer (SSO) would still need to complete the relevant paperwork and go through a similar application process for financial assistance, had he or she made the application to the SSO separately?

After all, under section 86, the MEO will be empowered to obtain information about the parties' assets and means from stipulated entities, such as certain Government agencies, banks and the Central Depository. Moreover, if the MEO and the Courts already have access to such information, should we do away with the requirement for parties to the maintenance enforcement process to submit documents, such as bank statements, which is detailed in the MEP process workflow?

Such a move would greatly reduce the administrative burden of applicants especially, and reduce the emotional burden faced by the parties involved as they navigate through this patch of troubled waters in their lives.

While the MEP workflow allows for the smooth application of financial assistance, it does not guarantee that each application will yield a successful outcome. Section 81 allows for the Court to "vary, suspend, discharge, rescind, set aside or revoke the maintenance order." This could either be due to an application by either party or a settlement by both parties.

This step comes after the MEO has referred the relevant parties for financial assistance. What then happens if the application of financial assistance for the relevant parties is unsuccessful? Potentially, such a problem would especially impact those whose income exceeds the income threshold for financial assistance but are burdened with a multitude of financial commitments.

Maintenance payments are key for applicants to pay for their living expenses, foot medical bills and repay other arrears and mortgages that they have. Hence, with a reduction or variation in the maintenance order, divorcees would face an additional financial burden and a lower quality of life. This would especially hit the children involved and their caregivers hard.

I propose that the Ministry consider granting additional consideration for, or even guaranteeing a baseline level of financial assistance to parties referred by the MEO during cases pertaining to the enforcement of a maintenance order, especially if it involves a reduced maintenance amount. This would help to ensure that there would be minimal impact on the welfare of the parties involved, increase the efficiency of the MEP and produce sustainable maintenance outcomes.

Clause 12 of the Bill states that the Family Justice Rules can prescribe the mode through which the child's wishes may be determined if the Court wishes to consider it in its ruling. According to the media release, this may include judicial interviews with the child.

In the case of AZB vs AZC [2016], the Family Justice Courts laid out that judicial interviews of children are suitable in the Singaporean context. In the ruling, Justice Debbie Ong also highlighted the difficulties faced when conducting judicial interviews of children, such as there being insufficient time available to build rapport between the judge and child, communication difficulties between the child and the judge, and discomfort towards the Court process by the child.

One recommendation laid out by the Court is that judges should be equipped with the necessary skills to handle judicial interviews with the child, which could be achieved by training judicial staff. This is a move seen in other countries with the common law system, such as Australia, which called for the training of judicial staff back in 1995. Hence, Singapore could also consider adopting a similar approach.

We could consider implementing guidelines, such as to provide an environment that facilitates the process effectively, such as determining the parties present at the meeting, the tone of the meeting and the information briefed to the child. Risks, such as parental interference, could also be mitigated by instructing parents not to ask their children about the interview. These are some of the skills and knowledge that could be imparted to judges as part of a training programme to effectively conduct a judicial interview of a child. This would enable them to communicate with the child to gain a better understanding of their needs, wants and views regarding the matter, which could aid them in their judgment.

The introduction of the Bill provides us with the opportunity to implement these measures, which would ensure that the child's voice is heard loud and clear, especially pertaining to a matter that affects their lives substantially.

Before I conclude, I would also like to make some brief comments on issues outside the ambit of this Bill, relating to the education and housing needs of children involved in a divorce – two of the fundamental rights of a child.

Strengthening the maintenance regime is arguably a key step to ensuring that the basic living needs of children and their caregivers, such as good nutrition, are met. At the same time, administrative procedures and issues that divorcees face could also reopen wounds and cause further trauma. I, thus, believe there is room for us to improve on processes and policies relating to the child's education and housing needs.

On education, I understand that parents who have joint custody of their child need to come to a common agreement on their child's school transfer. The relevant Court order setting out the custody arrangements pertaining to the child will be required at the point of reporting to the current school. The parent who submits the application for the child will be required to produce a signed Letter of Consent from the other parent.

To what extent is this being operationalised and practised in our schools? The reason I am asking is also because in the MOE's step-by-step guide for primary school transfers, it is stated that, and I quote, "In making this application, I understand that should the other parents/legal guardian have any basis to contest this arrangement in the future, I will resolve this issue with him/her". It appears that the responsibility to resolve any disputes on transfers is delegated to the parent, with no mention of any Letters of Consent or undertaking required.

When it comes to preschools, are there also similar requirements by the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) for a Letter of Consent before any enrolment or transfer is made? Or could a parent with care and control of the child enrol him or her in a preschool, without the approval of the other parent with joint custody?

On housing, divorcees with shared care and control of their children have an equal right to list the children in their application to buy or rent an HDB flat. However, as an individual is only allowed to be listed in one HDB flat application, the HDB requires divorced parents to come to an agreement before either party lists their child in a flat application. Considering that we are looking at divorcees here, coming to an agreement is often easier said than done.

While one party can form a family nucleus with his or her children, the other party will not be able to. For a young divorcee under the age of 35, for example, he or she will not be able to apply for a flat by themselves under the Singles Scheme and not be able to form a family nucleus with his or her children. This could be especially problematic for some parents facing financial hardship or/and without family support, as it will not be practically possible for this parent to care for his or her child, without a stable place to call home.

Both divorcees and their children would need a roof over their heads. So, I hope our policies can recognise this and ensure that all Singaporeans can have access to housing and not have to worry about basic needs, such as access to shelter, in their divorce.

To conclude, I am supportive of this Bill and I hope the additional suggestions I have made can be considered to alleviate the anxiety and anguish inflicted upon the now broken families and enable those involved to better pick themselves up and restart their lives afresh.

After all, as the Chinese saying goes, "孩子是无辜的", the children are innocent. Children of divorced parents are already facing difficult circumstances and are at risk of psychological and other adjustment issues. Let us continue to do all we can to better improve on the welfare of the children involved and minimise potential points of conflict in their growing up years.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.

3.26 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. The Bill aims to bring about a much-needed transformation in our family justice system, focusing on the well-being of our children and families while addressing the challenges faced by parties involved in family disputes.

The pain and anguish faced by families embroiled in disputes are all too familiar to all of us. We may know of residents, friends, family members or even neighbours who have endured the emotional turmoil and financial strain that a lengthy and adversarial legal process can inflict upon families.

We may know of similar scenarios where a single mother had to wait for more than a year to receive maintenance from a former spouse. The delay in receiving maintenance payments places an immense financial burden on the single mother and her innocent children who had to suffer the consequences of this predicament.

One of the most significant features of this Bill is the stronger enforcement of maintenance orders. The Bill proposes measures, such as the automatic deduction of maintenance payments from the defaulting party's wages, bank accounts or CPF.

This bold step will ensure that vulnerable parties, such as children and former spouses, receive the financial support they need in a timely manner. Moreover, the Bill introduces the groundbreaking concept of family hearing, a major stride towards a more streamlined and effective Family Justice system. Family hearings will provide a platform for parties to discuss their disputes in a less adversarial setting and promote amicable resolutions. While the proposed Bill has many advantages, I seek clarification from the Ministry on certain aspects of the Bill.

First, the Bill's provisions for stronger enforcement of maintenance orders are commendable. However, I am concerned about the impact of the new maintenance enforcement process on low-income families. Under the new process, parents who fail to pay maintenance will be subjected to more stringent enforcement measures, including imprisonment. And I am concerned that these measures may be too harsh for the low-income families who are genuinely unable to pay maintenance.

Also, could the Ministry elaborate on the specific measures it plans to implement to ensure compliance and deter non-compliance effectively? Sir, my concern really lies in the children, the idea that a parent is imprisoned may have a profound impact on their development.

Secondly, the introduction of family hearings is a significant change in the way family disputes are being resolved. How does the Ministry plan to ensure that adequate resources, such as skilled mediators and support staff, are available for the efficient functioning of these hearings?

Sir, I have also known of instances where disputes impact the family so much that it triggers mental health issues and necessary intervention may be required. Thus, I am especially concerned for the more complex cases where a certified mental health practitioner may be required and, if so, would provisions be made and how would such arrangements be like? Additionally, what measures will be put in place to address any potential power imbalances between the parties involved in these hearings?

Sir, to conclude, the Family Justice Reform Bill is a testament to our unwavering commitment to the welfare of children and families in our nation. Notwithstanding my concerns earlier, I support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

3.29 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, one of the aims of the Family Justice Reform Bill is to facilitate more sustainable maintenance outcomes. I support the Bill.

Beyond amending the legislation to make it easier to enforce maintenance payments, going forward, I would like to call for the Government to consider providing for gender-neutral maintenance. That will be the thrust of my speech today.

How could gender-neutral maintenance payments be operationalised? This should be done by giving the Courts the discretion to order that, in appropriate cases, wives should pay maintenance to ex-husbands even if they are not incapacitated. Such cases could include where the husband earns much less than his ex-wife, or is a stay-home-husband, and has borne the bulk of domestic chores and caregiving.

This is in contrast to the current maintenance regime in the Women’s Charter, which provides that, in a divorce, the Court may order a man to pay maintenance to his ex-wife but may order a woman to pay maintenance to her ex-husband only if he is incapacitated.

I previously raised this issue in the Motion on Singapore Women’s Development in 2022. My hon friend, Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament Mr Gerald Giam, has also spoken on this in 2021.

Indeed, there is bipartisan support for awarding maintenance to stay-at-home dads. Hon Members Ms Carrie Tan and Mr Ang Wei Neng raised this issue in the 2022 Parliamentary debate on amendments to the Women’s Charter, and hon Members Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Louis Ng also raised this issue in the 2016 Parliamentary debate on amendments to Women’s Charter.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to elaborate, I call for the Government to consider providing for gender-neutral maintenance for the following reasons.

First, the number of stay-home husbands has been gradually increasing over the years. The Singapore Census Population 2020 showed that the percentage of married households where wives are the sole breadwinners – and I stress, married households – increased from 5.8% in 2010 to 7.4% in 2020. That is not an insignificant number at all. In fact, the Labour Force survey for Singapore in 2022 showed that 10.6% of caregivers outside the labour force are males, whether married or unmarried. Again, this is a not an insignificant minority.

Many stay-at-home husbands, just like stay-at-home wives, have sacrificed their careers and incurred significant opportunity costs to spend years looking after their households and doing unpaid care work, such as raising the children. As a result, stay-at-home husbands may have far less savings as compared to their working wives and may well be financially vulnerable in the event of a divorce. Allowing the Courts to have discretion to award maintenance to such husbands would serve to recognise their care work and unpaid contributions. It would also help to safeguard the financially vulnerable spouse, whether husband or wife, which is, surely, the fundamental purpose of maintenance payments.

Secondly, since the Women’s Charter was first enacted in 1961, women in Singapore have made significant progress. In 2020, 52.5% of married households were dual-income households, an increase from 47.1% in 2010. In 2022, the employment rate of females aged 15 and over was 60.9%, the fourth highest in comparison with OECD developed countries. With a larger proportion of women in the workforce, it could well be the case that women might out-earn men in some dual-income households and, thus, would make economic sense for the husband to take on the bulk of domestic work in a household, depending on the decisions that the husband and wife make in each particular case.

However, the current maintenance regime arguably reinforces traditional gendered household roles where men traditionally are regarded as “breadwinners” and women as “homemakers”, by providing that only incapacitated husbands qualify for maintenance. An Institute of Policy Studies survey of stay-at-home fathers in 2020 showed that many of the respondents, many of these stay-at-home dads, experienced “acute stigma” and family members often directed comments suggesting that they were “mooching” from their wives.

Sir, amending the law to provide for gender-neutral maintenance would help to send the correct message that the contributions of stay-at-home husbands are as valued as the care work done by stay-at-home wives.

Thirdly, many other developed countries allow for men to claim maintenance as well, such as the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA. And there could be others as well. Let us take a leaf from their books.

In the UK government’s Guide to Spousal Maintenance, it is stated that “Spousal maintenance is a payment that’s paid by a wife or husband to their former spouse as part of their divorce.” The language used in a similar Australian government public resource is similarly gender-neutral and states: “Under the Family Law Act 1975, a person has a responsibility to financially assist their spouse, or former de facto partner, if that person cannot meet their own reasonable expenses from their personal income or assets.”

In section 63 and 64 of New Zealand’s Family Proceedings Act 1980, gender-neutral language is used. For example, “each spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner is liable to maintain the other spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner to the extent that such maintenance is necessary to meet the reasonable needs of the other spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner, where the other spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner cannot practicably meet the whole or any part of those needs because of any one or more of the circumstances specified in subsection (2).” So, the language is gender neutral. To quote from a court verdict in Ontario, Canada, by Justice Wildman in Hamdy vs Hamdy, just to cite another example "…gender is, of course, irrelevant in determining spousal support. What is important are the roles assumed in the marriage."

In the 2022 debate on amendments to the Women’s Charter, the Minister of State for Social and Family Development responded to calls to provide maintenance to husbands by stating that the purpose of the current regime is to protect parties who tend to be more financially vulnerable post-divorce, that is, women and incapacitated men. I agree with such an aim.

However, this does not stop the Government from extending the safeguards provided by the maintenance regime to another potentially vulnerable group, namely, stay-at-home husbands. Even in a gender-neutral maintenance regime, any maintenance to spouses would be awarded at the Court’s discretion and such a regime should not disadvantage vulnerable women who can still be awarded maintenance.

In summary, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I urge the Government to reconsider making maintenance in cases of divorce gender-neutral.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

3.38 pm

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would, first, like to declare that I am a practising lawyer and the Chairperson of the Pro Bono SG’s Community Legal Clinics’ Committee as well as a member of the Law Society’s Family Law Practice Committee.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak in support of the Family Justice Reform Bill which aims to strengthen Family Therapeutic Justice.

As shared during my speech last year during the debate on the Women’s Charter (Amendment) Bill, divorce is one of the most stressful events in one’s life, according to the Holmes and Rahe Stress Scale, second only to the death of a loved one.

This result does not come as a surprise due to the fear of navigating through many uncertainties. As a result, matters relating to divorce and subsequent related enforcement or variation applications remain as one of the most common topics enquired by applicants for preliminary legal advice at various community legal clinics run across Singapore.

During the course of my legal practice, I have represented clients in matrimonial disputes with a view to resolving matters through what is now commonly known by many as the “Therapeutic Justice” or TJ approach. Many a time, clients and fellow members of the bar have asked, "What exactly is TJ?"

To me, in essence, TJ revolves around reducing acrimony in family proceedings, ensuring outcomes are deemed as practical and acceptable to parties involved without undue delays, complexity and unnecessary escalation of costs.

Over the years, there have been ongoing discussions about transitioning family law proceedings towards such less adversarial TJ approach, just as what the hon Presiding Judge of the Family Justice Courts, Justice Debbie Ong, had shared in the Family Justice Work Plan in 2020.

Since then, the Courts and the family practice community have been co-creating a renewed vision of family justice informed by the TJ principles. However, to date, my observation is that the relevant stakeholders still have different interpretations on how a TJ approach ought to be adopted during the Court proceedings. Moreover, some may still be resistant to buy in to this concept.

In order for this vision to come into fruition, it requires the whole ecosystem to embrace the concept, including the Courts, lawyers, counsellors and the parties involved. Together, we must work towards a common defined goal that the resolution of family disputes need not be adversarial but should rather be focused on solutions, such as determining what outcome would be the most reasonable and practical in the best interest of the children after their parents have separated.

To achieve this, both the "hardware" and "heartware" changes are necessary. Firstly, there should be an increase in manpower and resources at the Family Justice Courts. This will ensure that the Courts are adequately equipped to handle cases in a timely and efficient manner.

Take the incoming Maintenance Enforcement Officers (MEOs), for example. How many of these MEOs will the Courts be expecting for the Ministry to recruit in order to cope with the high volume of maintenance summons applications? Moreover, it seems to me that the workload and job scope of MEOs are expected to be heavy, having the need to deal with not just the parties involved but also third parties like the Government agencies and financial institutions to obtain information on parties’ financial situations and, thereafter, conducting conciliation sessions with parties and reporting these developments to the Court.

Secondly, there must be an emphasis on training and consistency in the management of cases across all judges, counsellors, lawyers and even the upcoming MEOs. Such training should not take place separately. Currently, the family judges undergo specialist curriculum training in multidisciplinary topics, whereas the family lawyers may opt to attend the Family Therapeutic Justice Certification Programme, and counsellors attend family counselling certification programmes respectively.

Training for all of these relevant family justice community personnel should be carried out together, where all can partake in various role-play scenarios and have a better understanding of one another’s positions by putting themselves in one another’s shoes and explore how they can better work together to resolve those supposed acrimonious issues. Hopefully, these changes will gradually help to create an environment where parties involved are more inclined to consider and accept the TJ outcomes.

One of the proposed changes under this Family Justice Reform Bill pertains to enhancing a judge-led approach. In this regard, I wish to seek clarification on whether this would mean a docket system where a specific judge is assigned to a case right from the beginning when a divorce is commenced under the ordinary route to oversee the case through to its conclusion.

To better promote efficiency in Court proceedings, being another objective which this Reform Bill aims to achieve, I would urge all parties involved, including the judge, lawyers and the parties in action to actively work towards reaching a global settlement. In cases involving children, it should be made mandatory under the Court’s Practice Direction for parties to exchange supporting documents at the outset, which would typically only be exchanged either during the mediation or at the ancillary stage.

Additionally, settlement proposals should thereafter be exchanged. If the matter still cannot be settled and has to proceed under the ordinary route, the docketed judge should promptly refer the matter for mediation, with the aim of converting parties to adopt a TJ mindset and work towards a global settlement. Additionally, MSF or the Court should arrange at the earliest opportunity for the children to undergo counselling to better understand and minimise the trauma caused to the young and innocent as a result of their parents’ divorce.

As Mahatma Gandhi once said, "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind."

The dissolution of a marriage and parting ways with your spouse need not and should not be acrimonious. It is my sincere hope that this approach can be achieved in all cases, particularly those involving children, once the Bill has been passed and implemented. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Family Justice Reform Bill, when it comes into effect, will give the presiding judge more control. Although it is difficult to judge people's family affairs, I am confident that MinLaw and MSF and the Family Justice Court will assure the public how these rights can further reduce unnecessary legal proceedings, alleviate the mental and financial stress faced by the parties in divorce proceedings, improve broken family relationships due to divorce, and minimise the intentional or unintentional psychological harm done to the children by either party during this period.

(In English): In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the clarifications and suggestions I have raised earlier, I stand in support of this Reform Bill. Strengthening Family Therapeutic Justice presents us with an opportunity to create a more compassionate and effective family law system. By embracing this approach, we can reduce the acrimony, ensure fairer outcomes and prioritise the best interests of our children. Let us all work together towards a future where families can navigate the challenges of separation with dignity, empathy and the welfare of our children at the forefront.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

3.46 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as a lawyer where part of my legal practice involves matrimonial law.

There are two parts of this Bill which I wish to speak on.

Clause 81 – Court Orders on Maintenance enforcement application. Currently, when a complainant applies to Court for enforcement of maintenance, the frustration is always with the possible delays in the receipt of the maintenance.

Delays happen when the respondent does not turn up; the case is then adjourned. The next time the respondent turns up, he applies for adjournment to engage a lawyer. The case is then adjourned again.

Sometimes, the Court sends parties for mediation and the case is adjourned again while parties try to find an amicable solution. If the respondent disputes the claim, the Court will direct parties to prepare their case and more time is taken up.

In the meantime, the complainant suffers because of the time required to attend Court again and again and the failure to receive the maintenance which had been ordered to be paid to the applicant.

Even if the respondent were to eventually make payment of the arrears of maintenance, there is this possibility that he may default in payment again, then the applicant has to start the process all over again.

Thus, there will be times when an applicant may eventually give up on the maintenance application and decide not to enforce the order. This is unfair to an applicant who has been granted the maintenance.

Hence, Sir, I support the amendments to the Women’s Charter to allow the appointment of the Maintenance Enforcement Officers (MEO) in order to have a more sustainable maintenance outcome. The MEOs would then be empowered to carry out investigations on the assets of the respondent and then report to the judge. Without the information given by the MEOs, the applicant who is trying to enforce the maintenance order will have a difficult time trying to check what are the respondent's assets.

In particular, the Courts should be given the powers to act expeditiously and to make interim orders, whenever necessary, to ensure that complainants or applicants who are financially stretched are able to receive the maintenance that they deserve and are entitled to receive; otherwise, the applicant would typically suffer and situations where there are children involved will result in hardship for the family.

Where the MEOs are able to ascertain that the respondent is deliberately refusing to make the maintenance payment, the Court should not hesitate to attach the salary of the respondent or attach his assets in order to enforce the maintenance order. In addition, the Court should consider making an order that the respondent's credit cards be cancelled until the arrears of maintenance are settled.

Where an MEO finds that a respondent’s conduct in refusing to pay the maintenance is contumacious, I would submit that the Court ought to punish the respondent for wasting the time of the applicant, the MEO and the Courts. The respondent should not be able to get away with delaying the maintenance payment just to frustrate the applicant; and then he walks away without consequence once he pays up the arrears.

Sir, I recognise that there may be occasions where a respondent may be unable to make payment of the maintenance because his family circumstances have changed. For example, if he loses his job or, sometimes, if the respondent remarries and has to support another family. In situations like these, I expect that the MEO would recommend a variation of the maintenance order.

May I then ask the Minister how would the Court make a reasonable variation order which can take into account the needs of an applicant who is reliant on the respondent’s maintenance for herself and the children versus the financial needs of the respondent who now has to support another wife and possibly his other children?

May I also ask whether the MEO is able to investigate and deal with cases where a respondent resigns from his job and has no more income as he simply wishes to deny maintenance payable to the applicant? The loss of income in this case is or would be self-induced with the intent of denying the applicant the maintenance which she ought to be entitled to.

How would the Court also deal with situations where a respondent refuses to pay child maintenance because he is denied access or visitation rights to the child? Will the Court be able to deal with such situations even though the application before the Court is an enforcement of maintenance application? Or would the Court require a separate application for enforcement of the access rights?

Sir, the next part of the Bill which I wish to speak on is the enhancement of judge-led approach in considering the wishes of the child.

Sir, in the media release by MinLaw, it was stated that the Bill will provide clarity that where the wishes of the child are to be considered by the Court, the judge may conduct interviews with the child.

The current legal position is that the Court in making decisions about the child may appoint a Child Representative to the Court or the Court can appoint a trained or professional assessor to make recommendations on the child’s custody or access orders. The appointed assessor would then prepare a Social Welfare Report, or a Custody Evaluation Report or an Access Evaluation Report.

The judge may also ascertain the wishes of the child by conducting an interview with the child and there has been case laws on the power of the judge to do so.

However, may I express some reservations about a judge carrying out interviews of the child because a judge is typically an authority in the law. He or she is not a trained child counsellor who can discern whether a child has been coached to express certain views or is under duress to say positive things about one parent just by one interview. Although some judges may have some degree of training in handling children, the reality is that a judge spends more time analysing the law and the facts applicable to the case.

Thus, unless a judge spends a much, much longer period of time talking with and interviewing the child, I do have some reservations whether a judge is able to make a better assessment of the wishes of a child by a simple interview, compared to trained social workers who will be spending more time talking and interacting with the child and observing the expressions of the child.

So, may I ask the Minister to clarify what is the intent of this amendment as the current case law does allow the process. Is it the position of the Government that they prefer that judges carry out the interviews more regularly, as compared to the judge appointing social workers or Child Representative to take care of the child’s interest? At the end of the day, what is important is how to ascertain what is in the best interest of the child. Subject to the above clarifications, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

3.54 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Family Justice Reform Bill that will help address the issues.

It is certainly helpful to have a new unit of Maintenance Enforcement Officers (MEOs) set up and given the power to obtain information about the parties' assets and means from entities, including banks and Government agencies, such as CPF Board and HDB, to ensure that those who refuse to pay are dealt with more decisively.

The officers are part of a new Maintenance Enforcement Process (MEP), which will simplify applications related to non-payment of maintenance orders.

While the MEOs could help distinguish between those who cannot afford to pay maintenance and those who have the financial means but refuse to pay, the officers may face challenges if the parties who could have the ability and capability to derive a better income have, indeed, tried his best to do so and chose not to do so to benefit the applicant.

In addition, the officers would still need to work on the acceptance of medical certification from medical practitioners to determine if the respondent's medical conditions are reasonable to justify lower maintenance payments or exclusion of possible imprisonment order for failure to show proof of payment. Will the officers require the respondent to seek confirmation from only selected medical officers?

In the case of a bankrupt respondent, will the award and repayment of maintenance payments be prioritised against other creditors?

How would the MEO or Court prioritise if the respondent who is the only sole breadwinner and also child who needs to support parents and his income is insufficient to support all, especially if the parents are sick?

I am supportive of the introduction of "rebuttable presumption" to address the issue of respondents dissipating assets, such as by spending money or moving it to another account.

With the presumption, the onus is then on the respondent to show that there was no intention to siphon the assets. The applicant must show that this happened less than three years before he or she applied for a clawback order, or that there is an impending move that would frustrate enforcement of the maintenance order. Evidence found by the MEO can be used.

In addition, I hope MEO could assist the Court in deciding on the percentage allocation and distribution of the sale proceeds of the existing flat or property to minimise the housing needs challenges faced by both parties after divorce. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As the saying goes, "Every family has got its own set of problems and it is very difficult for the judge to preside over family affairs".

I thank MinLaw and MSF as well the Family Justice Court for their effort to push through this Family Justice Reform Bill to focus more on therapeutic justice, so that adversity could be reduced and parties could go through this difficult time of their life and move on.

The presiding judge in divorce cases will have greater controls, including setting restrictions on the cross-examination process in Court to prevent family relations from further disintegrating. Because both parties would try to reveal each other’s faults, the judge would have the power to issue Court orders to protect the interest of the family as well as the children.

For example, if the judge believes that the cross-examination could bring undue stress upon a vulnerable witness, he can set out restrictions on the cross-examination process. The judge could also interview the children in person to understand their wishes and issue a judgment that serves the children’s interest.

This Bill will also improve the efficiency of the family justice process. Without the Court’s approval, parties cannot raise unnecessary requests which will frustrate or delay the justice process or affect the children negatively.

For couples considering divorce, I hope that they could mend their differences at the end of the day and there should not be any grievances overnight. The solution of their dispute still lies in them. I also hope that it will not be worse off.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.00 pm until 4.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

Family Justice Reform Bill

Debate resumed.

4.21 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will improve Family Court proceedings by reducing acrimony in divorce proceedings, enhancing the judge-led approach and facilitating enforcement of maintenance orders. I have three points to make.

My first point is on the enhanced Maintenance Enforcement Process (MEP), which simplifies the enforcement of maintenance orders.

First, the new section 86 allows the Maintenance Enforcement Officer (MEO) to seek Court orders for banks or prescribed third parties to provide information. Can the Minister share who these prescribed third parties may be?

Second, can the Minister share what are the contemplated timelines that the MEO will seek from the Court for banks and prescribed third parties? Family lawyers have shared with me that banks take time to respond to their requests for information. Can the Minister share if the banks have been consulted on their ability to respond within the contemplated timelines?

Third, the new section 88 allows an MEO to conduct conciliation sessions to help both parties agree on maintenance. Given that conciliation sessions could be used by a party to delay proceedings, can the Minister share whether there is a limit on the number of conciliation sessions that the MEO can conduct? Can the Minister share what are the consequences for a party if they fail to attend or are clearly not participating in good faith on the conciliation?

Fourth, MEOs will be empowered to obtain information from parties and to submit a report to the Court. Can the Minister share what training will be provided to the MEOs to make discovery of the relevant documents and assess the parties’ actual financial positions? Can the Minister elaborate on what the MEO’s report is supposed to set out and whether it will be provided to both parties? Can the Minister also share whether there will be a standard rubric for MEOs to assess parties’ financial positions in preparing the report?

Fifth, the Court may vary the original maintenance orders in the MEP. Applicants may think twice before applying under the MEP if their application may lead to their original maintenance orders being varied. Can the Minister clarify if it is only under exceptional circumstances that the Court will vary the original maintenance orders in the MEP? If so, can the Minister share what factors a Court should take into account before varying the original maintenance orders in the MEP?

My second point is on the attachment of earnings Court orders. These Court orders direct a party’s employer to deduct a portion of maintenance from their salary to make direct payment to the other party. The new section 91H allows the Court to determine what payments to a person are earnings that can be directed for the payment of maintenance. The relevant sections set out obligations relating to the respondent’s employer and employment when an attachment of earnings order is made. Can the Minister clarify whether earnings from freelance or gig economy work can be deemed earnings? If such earnings can be subject to an attachment of earnings order, can the Minister clarify how the obligations relating to traditional employers or employment apply where the respondent is engaged in gig work?

My third point is on financial counselling for couples undergoing divorce. In the public consultation for the RERF Committee’s recommendations, members of the public asked to build up capabilities in financial counselling to help divorcees better manage their new finances. The new section 91(b) makes progress in this area. It provides the Court with powers to order a party to undergo financial counselling as part of maintenance enforcement proceedings.

But counselling works best when it starts earlier, long before divorce applications are even filed. Indeed, the RERF Committee said in its 2019 report that sorting out finances early when a marriage has broken down is important to avoid disputes and distress later.

MSF may be able to identify families at high-risk of divorce through the various social service agencies and FSCs. Can the Minister share how MinLaw and MSF are working together at an upstream stage to help families access financial counselling even before the divorce application is filed?

Also, given that parents with children under 21 years old must undergo the Mandatory Co-Parenting Programme (CPP) before filing for divorce, can Minister of State Sun Xueling share if there are plans to incorporate mandatory financial counselling and planning as part of the CPP?

Can the Minister also clarify where an MEO refers parties for financial assistance after reviewing documents submitted by the parties, will the matter still proceed on to conciliation and hearing? Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: That would have made a very effective cut in the Committee of Supply Debate. You were under five minutes making all those points. The next speaker, Mr Melvin Yong.

4.26 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Sir. I will, therefore, take my own time.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to introduce reforms to make family proceedings simpler, more efficient and to facilitate more sustainable maintenance outcomes. However, I do have a few questions and suggestions.

Sir, I support the Bill’s proposal to enhance the judge-led approach in family proceedings. One of the key amendments to the Women’s Charter will cater to the scenario when the wishes of the child are to be considered by the Court. The Family Justice Rules can set out the mode by which the child’s wishes may be determined, including a judicial interview with the child.

A child’s view is important. However, depending on the age and maturity of the child, the child's views can be easily swayed by other family members or persons with vested interest. I would like to ask the Minister what would be the minimum age of the child that the Court will allow to be interviewed. Should we set clear safeguards in legislation to allow only children who are mature enough to convey their views independently?

Next, I support the proposed enhancements to the Maintenance Enforcement Process (MEP), which will help to differentiate between those who are unable to pay maintenance and those who refuse to pay. The two are clearly different and it is, therefore, important that we make a distinction between the two.

I would like to ask what would be the asset or income threshold for those deemed to be unable to pay. Would the threshold be specified in subsidiary legislation? How will the Government ensure that a spouse in an acrimonious divorce case is unable to game the MEP system?

Under the MEP, the existing mediation process will be replaced by a conciliation process undertaken by this newly established unit of Maintenance Enforcement Officers (MEOs). Compared to the current mediation process, MEOs will be accorded powers to actively seek information and recommend practical solutions to the parties involved. I find this useful, but I do have a few questions on the new MEP.

I would like to ask if MEOs will be able to obtain information about assets that are kept outside of Singapore. What kind of training will be provided to MEOs to ensure that they understand and are equipped to apply their new powers? Would it be an offence for a person to refuse to comply with an MEO’s direction to seek financial assistance, just to vex the ex-spouse and not provide any maintenance? I look forward to the Minister's clarifications.

Lastly, while I welcome the efforts to reform the system to facilitate more sustainable maintenance outcomes, we must also be mindful of indirectly creating the unintended consequence where divorce becomes too easy and becomes the first solution or the quick fix which couples in distress turn to.

Sir, where possible, we should strive to save marriages. We must redouble our efforts to strengthen the institution of marriage, so that we have stronger marriages and lower divorce rates. Only by doing so can our children grow up in a strong family nucleus and nurturing family environment.

I have raised in this House various ideas on various occasions on how we can do so, from improving the quality of our marriage preparation programmes, to having more campaigns to help couples reaffirm their marriages at key milestones. I hope that the Government will consider my proposals.

Sir, the reforms under this Bill will help to strengthen Therapeutic Justice elements in the family justice system and help families in distress to heal and move on with their lives. But even as we facilitate more sustainable maintenance outcomes, we must always remember that prevention is better than cure. Let us continue to work, as a whole of society, to strengthen marriages and family ties. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.

4.30 pm

Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, data published in 2021 by the Department of Statistics Singapore showed that the general trend of divorce rates is increasing in Singapore, with 7.2 male divorcees for every 1,000 married men, up from 6.3 in 2020; and 6.9 female divorcees up from 6.1 in 2020.

Although Singapore, as a society, is primarily anchored on family-centric values, with the Government and the community at large encouraging marriages and supportive of couples through their marriages, we acknowledge that some marriages may inevitably break down, due to multifaceted factors.

We do need to help couples deal with the fall-out from the break-up of their marriage and help both parties move on with their lives, especially if there are children involved. Therefore, I am very supportive of the introduction of the Family Justice Reform Bill. However, I would like to raise two considerations. One, with regard to the new Maintenance Enforcement Process (MEP) and two, on the non-payment of maintenance and how the process could be enhanced to support more applicants, especially the vulnerable ones.

Firstly, the enhanced MEP starts with applicants applying online for enforcement. Like my concerns shared in my previous speech on the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill relating to the process of applying for Lasting Power of Attorney, the process for the enforcement of maintenance assumes that all applicants are tech-savvy and will not have any difficulties applying online.

Nevertheless, we know that there will be cases where applicants are not tech-savvy and may be discouraged to submit an online enforcement application because they are unable to do so readily, even if they are facing financial hardship. I wonder if MSF and MinLaw could work together to identify vulnerable individuals, such as low-income single parents, or divorcees with special needs or disabilities, including those due to stroke, that would require more support in their application and enforcement for maintenance.

A suggestion is for MinLaw and MSF to consider empowering Social Service Office (SSO) or social workers with the role to act on behalf of such applicants, in their navigation of the online application and appropriate referral to the Family Justice Court if they are found to require additional attention to expedite enforcement of their maintenance, especially where the welfare of young children is at stake.

Secondly, I would like to raise another consideration with the enforcement of maintenance. In the Bill, amendments are proposed to the Women's Charter in section 71 to empower the Court to make attachment of earning order for maintenance to secure payment of any maintenance from the respondent. Additionally, the Bill added a new section 81 to the Women's Charter to provide directions to the Court on the orders that it may or must make on a maintenance enforcement application, which included a Show-Payment Order and, when breached, the respondent is liable for imprisonment.

Despite these safeguards, there may be instances where respondents continue to act irresponsibly and are defiant to these orders, failing to pay maintenance, especially after one year from the hearing. In such instances, I would like to ask what powers and directions the Courts are vested with to ensure that the maintenance order would be fully enforced within a reasonable stipulated time, for the respondents to be brought to task expediently to reduce hardship on the applicants needing the maintenance.

I would like to cite the example of my resident, Mdm Goh, as one such single mother who needs more help from MSF and MinLaw for enforcing the maintenance from her divorced husband. Mdm Goh came to my Meet-the-People Session some weeks back to seek help on financial assistance. She is a single mother in her early 30s with three young children, aged three to seven.

Following her divorce a couple of years ago, while the Court has ordered her former husband to pay about $1,200 monthly maintenance to her and their three children, he has not done so. Mdm Goh started applying for enforcement but has been stuck for a while as the Court informed her that her former husband has an outstanding warrant of arrest, which renders the enforcement of maintenance not possible until his arrest. He has not been contactable.

Meanwhile, Mdm Goh has been relying on ComCare support, which was reduced recently. While she understands that ComCare assistance is provided only for short to mid-term and she needs to get a job, she has only been able to convince employers to let her work on daily hour-rated jobs because of her need to rush home to care for her young children before and after school or childcare hours, alone. She also has to wrestle with her bankruptcy status due to her former husband using her name against her will for a loan on which he defaulted. Her own parents struggle with mental health challenges and are deemed unsuitable for caregiving of her young children by social workers assisting her.

Mdm Goh has been anxious and desperate. Thankful to SSO's help to my appeal, she is given some ComCare extension while I assist her in finding jobs nearer to her home. Given her unresolved maintenance payments from her former husband, which may never be paid, she may be a genuine single parent who will require ComCare assistance to be maintained at a level for a few more years until her two younger children also enter primary school and when she can hopefully find a full-time job with her ITE qualification.

Mdm Goh's case shows the necessity to emphasise Therapeutic Justice and assistance for vulnerable divorcees, with both MSF and MinLaw coordinating the processes to render needful assistance so that the divorcees and their children do not fall into hardship due to unintended policy gaps. Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to say some words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, in recent years, our divorce rate has been on the rise. Therefore, it is extremely important to simplify and strengthen our family justice process. I strongly support the Family Justice Reform Bill jointly drafted by MinLaw and MSF. This will allow marriages to end in a harmonious manner and safeguard the welfare of the children through a therapeutic justice system. I have two suggestions on the Bill which I hope MinLaw and MSF will consider.

First, the family justice process set out in the Bill requires divorcees to apply for maintenance online. I am worried that online applications will deter divorcees who are not tech-savvy and will indirectly affect them and their children's welfare. I hope MinLaw and MSF will work together to identify vulnerable groups who need help, such as low-income divorcees who are single parents, and provide more social assistance to help them claim maintenance effectively. I also hope that MinLaw and MSF can authorise social workers to apply to the Court for alimony on behalf of the divorcee when necessary, such as when the welfare of the children is seriously affected.

Second, I would like to relate the story of my resident, Mdm Goh. In the process of claiming maintenance, the Court issued a warrant of arrest but Mdm Goh's ex-husband was not contactable, hence, the alimony could not be claimed. Mdm Goh had to raise three children on her own and struggled financially because she could not get any maintenance. Her story illustrated the importance of therapeutic justice. I hope that MinLaw and MSF will provide more social assistance in cases, such as Mdm Goh's, and to help them claim maintenance.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, given that most divorces are likely to occur between five and nine years of marriage, the psychological impact towards separation and divorce can be substantial and long-lasting. This is even more so if the couples have young children. Hence, let me conclude my speech by affirming the efforts of MinLaw and MSF in their determination to reform and strengthen Therapeutic Justice elements in the family justice system.

Additionally, I also hope that this Bill will help vulnerable individuals, especially those that may have been through an abusive marriage, to regain themselves swiftly and rebuild their lives. Notwithstanding the considerations that I have raised, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

4.40 pm

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill will introduce the enhanced Maintenance Enforcement Process (MEP) to facilitate maintenance outcomes for parties and will put our Judiciary in a good position to strengthen and mete out Therapeutic Justice in the divorce process.

In my law practice, I handle some matrimonial cases on a pro bono basis. One such case was when I was assigned by the Legal Aid Bureau to represent a young mother of four in a divorce proceeding. That case shaped my thinking on how we can and should make it easier for estranged spouses to claim maintenance for their children when divorce occurs. Please allow me to share her story.

Mdm Wati, not her real name, was only 19 years old when she got married and, as such, she was not named as a joint owner of the HDB flat that she lived with her husband because she was not yet 21 years old. Unfortunately, she was in an abusive relationship, suffering under the hands of an abusive husband she once loved. She was a housewife with no other sources of income and was wholly dependent on the sole breadwinner. She endured the strain of the relationship and the pain of the abuse and held on because of her young children. She would have had a fifth child if not for a miscarriage that she suffered after a beating so bad that she was hospitalised for a week. The doctors had to perform a hysterectomy and she can never have another child ever again.

Finally, she mustered enough courage to seek divorce. However, she was faced back then with a system that was cumbersome and daunting for a single mother to navigate. The ex-spouse had sought to kick her and the children out of the matrimonial flat because she was not listed as an owner and refused to agree to any division of assets in her favour. She finally sought help from the Legal Aid Bureau.

She had to go to the Family Court, as it then was, to seek enforcement and variation of maintenance orders to feed her children and, at the same time, sort out her divorce proceedings before the Syariah Court, a Court case that was protracted by the ex-spouse all the way to the appellate stage.

I recalled the maintenance order which, I found, was out of the ordinary. Typically, such orders would set out the amount to be paid for each child or spouse and the bank account details for such sums to be deposited. However, this one had not only the usual quantum and such details, but it also specified exactly what items that this ex-spouse had to purchase for the children, things like baby formula milk, diapers and even to specify the type of necessities – basic stuff like food and educational expenses. What kind of parent must be told and compelled to purchase sustenance for his own children? The ex-spouse had not only protracted proceedings but also taken such acrimonious and unreasonable positions which necessitated such specific orders.

Eventually, the appellate Court held that she had a share and interest in the flat, notwithstanding that she was not listed as an owner. She also received settlement of the outstanding maintenance owed from the ex-spouse, but this was not before enduring a lengthy Court process.

Throughout her ordeal, she almost gave up. She told me that she was fortunate to receive legal aid. Others may not have such fortunate ending.

Mdm Wati's case highlighted to me the need for us to facilitate the maintenance enforcement process for any parent, whether man or woman, to seek what is rightfully their children's and to alleviate some of the burden that they carry after divorce.

It is in this spirit that I stand fully in support of the Bill.

I also welcome the protection of family violence survivors through limited cross-examination in certain circumstances. As raised in previous Parliamentary speeches, I hope that there can be default video conferencing facilities within the Family Justice Court (FJC) for young survivors to give evidence. This is to insulate them from further trauma on the stand. I understand that such infrastructure is already part of MinLaw's plans and I look forward to the implementation in this regard.

I have the following further clarifications and suggestions.

Firstly, on Maintenance Enforcement Officers (MEO), I hope to hear more the plans on recruitment, resourcing and training of such MEOs, especially given the caseload on the Courts and enforcement of not just FJC Court orders but also Syariah Court orders as well. Further, as MEOs encounter members of the public and, to a certain degree, may face hostile respondents or uncooperative third parties, may I ask what are the protection and immunity that will be accorded to MEOs?

Secondly, can the Ministry consider having all such maintenance orders reflected on a searchable database registry that can be accessed on a "need-to-know" basis by financial institutions or public agencies? This is to allow would-be public service employers and banks to conduct due diligence for checks on background or credit worthiness.

Thirdly, on claiming for past outstanding maintenance, one clarification that I have received is whether there is a time limitation period to make such claims under the MEP. Typically, as in the story I shared earlier, the victim would have had to endure many years of unpaid maintenance through protracted proceedings. So, not everyone would make a claim immediately upon breach.

Fourthly, in some cases, there are other competing creditors. The usual refrain from the ex-spouse is that he or she had to pay off other loans or financial commitments first. The financial strain on the paying party is real. We need to balance their interests, too. This is especially in cases where the respondent has been declared bankrupt. In most cases, the applicant is unlikely to be able to recover any monies from an insolvent respondent. Hence, in this situation, what are the additional support that can be rendered to both parties?

I understand that the reforms do not change the order of the priorities of an insolvent debtor. In bankruptcy proceedings, if there had been unfair preference or transactions at undervalue, those assets can be clawed back. Hence, I look forward to understanding how the proposed MEP and the current bankruptcy regime will work together.

Lastly, what are the steps that MinLaw, together with MSF, will take to raise awareness of the MEP and render assistance to laypersons who do not know how to navigate the claims and applications? I also hope that the MEP will also apply equally for the enforcement of Syariah Court orders, especially on maintenance-like orders on payment of nafkah iddah and mutaah. In Malay, please, Sir.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This amendment Bill will help applicants, like ex-spouses, to receive any outstanding maintenance much faster and allow the Courts, through its officers and special office, such as the MEO, to obtain the latest information on the financial status and income of relevant parties. This is a welcome change.

In the past, as I had shared earlier in the case of Mdm Wati, not her real name, the process of receiving her child's maintenance not only took a long time, but it was also mentally exhausting and left her feeling dispirited. When a marriage ends, the couple should separate amicably, because even though they are no longer a family, the family ties and the love between the parents and their children should never cease to exist. I hope, with this new process, we can ensure that the child's maintenance can be provisioned as soon as possible and the responsibility of providing maintenance as a parent can be carried out.

(In English): Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions, I stand fully in support of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader.

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam.

4.50 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): Sir, I thank Members for their comments and expressions of support for the Bill. I will address the points raised in relation to the new Maintenance Enforcement Process (MEP) and the enhancement of Court proceedings and procedures in the FJC.

I will start with the Members’ questions on the scope of the new MEP.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim hopes that the MEP will apply to the enforcement of Syariah Court orders. The MEP will, indeed, apply to orders made by the Syariah Court which, under the Administration of Muslim Law Act, may be treated as maintenance orders made by the Family Court for the purposes of enforcement.

Mr Zhulkarnain also asked about past outstanding maintenance and limitation periods. The Bill does not change the existing position on limitation. Generally, an applicant needs to commence proceedings to enforce arrears within three years from the time that such arrears are due. The applicant will then be able to include those arrears in future enforcement applications if the arrears remain unpaid. If the applicant acts in a timely manner, the respondent cannot circumvent his or her obligations.

On past maintenance arrears, the MEP will, when fully implemented, apply to all maintenance enforcement applications.

Mr Murali Pillai has asked about MEOs being sited under the Executive. The new MEOs will gather evidence and carry out conciliation to help parties reach a sustainable solution. However, if parties do not settle, the Court will still make a final decision, possibly using information and evidence gathered by the MEO. It is, therefore, preferable for the MEOs’ evidence gathering and conciliation roles to be independent of the Court. We have discussed this with the Judiciary, which supported the proposal for the MEOs to be sited within the Executive. AGC’s advice was also sought on the matter.

Mr Louis Ng asked who we intend to prescribe as the third parties from whom MEOs may seek information. In Minister Shanmugam’s opening speech, he listed them: the CDP and Government agencies, such as CPF Board, HDB, IRAS, SLA and LTA.

Mr Melvin Yong asked about information on foreign assets. The Bill does not have extraterritorial effect. The MEOs and the Singapore Courts do not have powers to direct third parties in a foreign jurisdiction to provide information.

Mr Louis Ng also asked about the contemplated timelines to disclose information sought. We have been engaging the banks and third parties that we intend to prescribe and we will work with them to implement the MEP, which would include response timelines.

Mr Murali Pillai also raised the concern that assets may be held in the name of proxies. Mr Pillai also requested for clarification on the ambit of a “third party” under the Bill and whether a third party may be asked to disclose information relating to proxies. The third party may be any person who has relevant information. Thus, if an MEO, in the course of fact-finding, has reason to suspect that the respondent has assets that are held in the name of proxies, the MEO may seek a Court order for a third party to disclose information about the assets. It is for the Court to decide if such information is relevant to the enforcement application.

There are limits to the MEOs’ powers to uncover every fact. It is, ultimately, the primary responsibility of the parties to be forthright about their true financial positions. Furnishing false information, when asked by an MEO, or to the Court, is a criminal offence.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the number of conciliation sessions and the consequences for failing to attend or not participating in good faith. The Bill does not impose a limit on the number of conciliation sessions. We envisage that there will, typically, be two sessions, but the exact number will vary. It is the Court that directs the parties to attend conciliation. Failure to attend is, therefore, contempt of Court.

Further, if the respondent is absent from conciliation, the Court may direct the respondent to attend another conciliation session. The Court may also proceed with the hearing of the application. If the respondent is absent for the hearing of the application, the new Family Justice Rules will allow the Court to proceed to make the appropriate orders, if certain conditions are satisfied. This should also address Ms Ng Ling Ling’s question about her resident whose application got “stuck” because the ex-husband could not be found.

With respect to parties who do not participate in good faith, the parties’ conduct during conciliation will be set out in the MEO’s report to the Court. The Court may take the parties’ conduct into account in making the appropriate orders on the maintenance enforcement application.

Mr Louis Ng asked whether the matter will still proceed to hearing after the MEO refers parties for financial assistance. Financial assistance is not intended to replace the parties’ financial responsibilities to their families, but acts as a safety net for our fellow Singaporeans in need. The matter will, therefore, still proceed for conciliation and hearing after the MEO makes the referral for financial assistance. The MEO will take into account the financial assistance granted, if any, as part of the overall assessment of the financial circumstances of the parties. The Court will also take into consideration information on any financial assistance granted, in deciding on the appropriate orders to be made.

Mr Melvin Yong asked about whether it is an offence for a respondent to refuse financial assistance, despite an MEO's referral. The answer is no. It is open to a respondent to decide whether to accept financial assistance.

I will turn to Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan's queries on what the MEO’s report will set out and whether the reports will be provided to both parties.

The MEO’s final report will be provided to both parties and submitted to the Court. It will contain all the information submitted to the MEO in relation to the maintenance enforcement application; matters relating to the conciliation sessions; and any other matters and information as may be prescribed.

In respect of interim reports, the clause which Mr Dennis Tan referred to allows the MEO to provide an interim report to the applicant only, first, to cater for a situation where the MEO needs to inform the applicant of an impending dissipation of assets so that appropriate action can be taken. The intent is for the interim report to eventually be available to both parties in accordance with the rules.

The intention is for the MEO to provide all relevant facts and evidence for the Court’s consideration. The Court may then, if it thinks fit, rely on the MEO’s report to make the appropriate orders against the respondent’s assets, without calling for further evidence. We may prescribe additional matters to be covered in the report, as we learn from the initial phases of implementation.

Mr Dennis Tan has also asked what information may be redacted from the MEO's report. The MEO has broad powers to gather information for the Court from third parties, including information that is ordinarily private and confidential. The MEO reports this to the Court. There may be information gathered by the MEO and in the report that is unnecessary or irrelevant. This power will allow for such information to be redacted to protect the party's interests.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Melvin Yong also asked whether there is a standard rubric for MEOs to assess the parties’ financial position. Mr Gan Thiam Poh referred to challenges with distinguishing between those who will not pay and cannot pay cases. Both Mr Gan and Mr Lim Biow Chuan cited examples of respondents who have the ability to earn an income or better income but chose not to do so.

There is no fixed formula to determine whether a respondent has the means to pay maintenance. Each case will be assessed on its facts, based on information on the parties’ assets and means.

That being said, the MEOs will be trained and given guidelines on making these assessments. We will work closely with Social Service Officers from MSF to develop these guidelines. Ultimately, it is for the Court to decide whether the respondent cannot pay or refuses to pay, and the appropriate orders to make. The Court will consider the MEO’s report in coming to its decision.

The FJC judges are trained to deal with a wide range of family situations and also have the powers to make orders to address the unique needs of each family. They will also be supported by counsellors and other professionals who will be able to provide therapeutic interventions.

For example, if a respondent is retrenched and has challenges paying maintenance due to the sudden loss of income, the Court may suspend the maintenance order or vary the maintenance amount downwards for a short period of time and make the appropriate directions for the respondent to report back to the Court on a specified date after he or she has had time to look for a new job. The Court may also make an order requiring the respondent to undergo financial counselling with a professional counsellor who will be able to help the respondent explore various options to manage his or her daily expenses and to pay maintenance.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh also suggested that the MEOs may also assist the Court at the stage of division of matrimonial assets. We thank Mr Gan for his suggestion, which we will study.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Melvin Yong, Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Hany Soh have asked about MEOs’ recruitment, training and resourcing. These are operational details that will be worked through in implementation. Suffice to say that we intend to hire and train a multidisciplinary team, with team members having or being trained and equipped with knowledge and skills in different areas. This will include the skills needed to effectively manage the parties in family proceedings.

We also thank Ms Hany Soh for her suggestion on taking a coordinated approach across the entire family justice ecosystem. We will certainly keep this in mind as we develop the training programmes in a way that strengthens therapeutic justice outcomes.

Mr Zhulkarnain has asked about legal protections for the MEOs. The Bill gives the MEOs protection against personal liability when they exercise their powers or perform their functions or duties, provided they do so in good faith and with reasonable care.

I will now address the questions and comments that Members have raised with respect to the powers of the Court hearing the maintenance enforcement application.

First, on the Court's powers to vary the maintenance orders. Mr Louis Ng expressed concern that the potential for variation may disincentivise some applicants from applying for enforcement. Mr Lim Biow Chuan also asked about variation where the respondent loses his or her job or if he or she has a new family.

The MEP does not change the substantive law in relation to variation of maintenance orders: the test that the respondent has to satisfy remains the same. What the MEP does is to reduce the procedural challenges that parties face in seeking variation. For example, the Court may vary a maintenance order made during matrimonial proceedings only when it is satisfied that: the order was based on any misrepresentation or mistake of fact; or where there has been any material change in circumstances.

The Court will consider all relevant facts and circumstances before deciding whether there has been any change in circumstances warranting a variation of the maintenance order. New financial commitments and loss of job could be relevant considerations. However, the Courts have held that remarriage per se does not affect pre-existing obligations owed to the family from an earlier marriage.

Similarly, when MEOs make recommendations to parties to facilitate an out-of-Court settlement, remarriage and loss of job are but two of the various factors that will be considered. Maintenance orders would not be varied in cases where the respondent has the means to pay the maintenance sum.

In cases where the respondent has genuinely experienced a change in circumstances affecting his or her ability to pay maintenance, the MEP will help the Court make a more accurate assessment of the nature of the change and accordingly make more accurate variation orders where needed. This can be a temporary variation to deal with a temporary change in circumstances, but it leads to a more sustainable outcome for all parties.

On the other hand, if we turn a blind eye to the changed circumstances, respondents will continue to miss maintenance payments time and time again, even if multiple enforcement applications are made and concluded against them. Applicants will spend time and costs on enforcement, only to end up being disappointed each time.

It would be far better for such applicants to receive the appropriate financial assistance and other forms of support, or enter into a more sustainable maintenance arrangement with the respondent. The new MEP facilitates this.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh also asked about the circumstances in which a respondent would not be imprisoned, or lower maintenance amounts ordered, because of his or her medical conditions. These are decisions that are, ultimately, for the Court to make, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

Where there are disputes of fact, for example, on the medical conditions of the respondent, the MEO may help to gather the relevant facts and evidence, including seeking information from third parties to verify the parties' positions. The Court may also direct the MEOs to conduct further fact-finding, if necessary.

On attachment of earnings orders, Mr Ng asked whether earnings from freelance or gig economy work are earnings that may be attached. "Earnings" for the purpose of attachment of earnings orders is defined in the new section 76 of the Women's Charter to refer to wages or salary payable under a contract of service.

Therefore, depending on the way the contractual relationship between the worker and the firm is structured, it may well be that, in some cases, such earnings may fall within the definition of "earnings". Attachment of earnings orders work effectively where there is a regular and stable stream of income that can be directed towards the fulfilment of periodical maintenance payments.

They do not work so well where the income is unpredictable, such as for freelancers and contract workers. Including such arrangements may lead to hardship for the parties and administrative challenges for the firms who engage these workers. Hence, attachment of earnings orders will, generally, not be made in respect of income from gig work, which is unstable.

Where incomes are not stable, the family's financial situation is naturally more complicated and it is not always easy to find simple solutions. The MEOs will help parties look at the overall picture and suggest arrangements that are sustainable. Ultimately, regardless of the type of work one does, the respondent must be responsible for fulfilling his or her obligations for maintenance. Even if the attachment of earnings order is not available, there are various other ways to hold them accountable.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Dennis Tan said that respondents who delay paying maintenance to frustrate the complainant should not be allowed to walk away without consequences. The Bill allows for consequences to be imposed on such respondents. For example, the Court may imprison a respondent who has no good reason for failing to pay maintenance on time, even if that respondent pays up after the applicant files the enforcement application.

Further, for a respondent who has not paid maintenance in a timely manner and the parties have not settled, the Court must make a Show-Payment Order for the Respondent to show proof of payment of any future maintenance payable. An imprisonment term may also be specified for the breach of the Show-Payment Order.

Mr Lim also asked about situations where the respondent refuses to pay because he or she is denied access to the child. Being denied access is not grounds for non-compliance with a maintenance order. A parent has a legal duty to maintain a child, whether the child is in his or her custody or not. If the respondent is denied access to the child, he or she may take up an application for the enforcement of the access order.

I will now address some of the other comments made or questions asked in relation to maintenance enforcement.

Mr Zhulkarnain suggested that all maintenance orders be placed on a searchable database registry and that a recalcitrant defaulter can be placed on a blacklist with an alert to the Credit Service Bureau. The Women's Charter already provides for an Applicant who has filed for maintenance enforcement to be able to lodge a report to a designated credit bureau regarding unpaid arrears stated on the order of Court. Applicants will continue to be able to lodge such reports under the new MEP.

Under the new MEP, the MEO may also assist to lodge the arrears report. This may be helpful for applicants who have challenges filing the arrears report on their own.

Mr Gan has also asked whether maintenance payments will be prioritised over other debts. Mr Zhulkarnain has asked for clarification on how the new MEP and the bankruptcy regime will interface with each other. As Mr Zhulkarnain has correctly mentioned, the reforms in this Bill do not change the order of priorities of an insolvent debtor. The reforms also do not change how enforcement proceedings or orders ordinarily interact with the bankruptcy regime.

Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr Gan have also asked what can be done when respondents are declared bankrupt or respondents are struggling financially. Dr Wan Rizal raised concerns of harshness on parties genuinely unable to pay. Mr Zhulkarnain mentioned that for bankrupt respondents, applicants are unlikely to be able to recover any arrears but yet are saddled with the expenses of the children.

This is where the reforms under the MEP may be helpful. The MEOs will be able to verify whether the respondent has genuine financial difficulties. This would include considering, like what Mr Gan said, whether the respondent has genuine responsibilities paying for their children and elderly parents' expenses.

Where the respondent has genuine financial difficulties, the MEOs, where appropriate, may refer the parties to Social Service Offices for financial assistance or other forms of support. Ms Ng Ling Ling and Mr Zhulkarnain asked if there can be more practical help for vulnerable individuals and laypersons applying to enforce their maintenance orders. The new process was designed specifically to reduce the burden on parties, especially Self-represented Persons (SRPs).

Nonetheless, certain litigants may still require more help than others. Today, there are various physical touchpoints where such SRPs can seek help in filing a maintenance enforcement application, such as: the ServiceSG Centres at Our Tampines Hub and One Punggol, the Divorce Support Specialist Centres (DSSAs) and the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations.

We will work with ServiceSG and MSF to ensure that such services continue to be offered even after the new Maintenance Enforcement Process is implemented. Ms Ng's suggestion to train social service officers and social workers to help their vulnerable clients navigate the online application process and make the appropriate referrals, is a good one, which MSF will explore.

We will work together with our partners and stakeholders in the legal and social service sectors to disseminate information on and raise awareness of the MEP.

Mr Zhulkarnain reiterated his support for empowering judges to impose restrictions on cross-examination in prescribed circumstances. He also mentioned video conferencing facilities for young survivors to give evidence. As Mr Zhulkarnain noted – and he would be glad to know – video conferencing facilities for victims of family violence are already available at the FJC today.

The Family Court may permit the giving of evidence through a live video or live television link, in family violence proceedings under the Women's Charter, where certain conditions are satisfied, including where the witness is below the age of 18.

The Court will assess the relevant facts and circumstances of each case to decide if such permission should be given. This includes the suitability of the witness to give evidence via live video or live television link and the nature of the evidence that the witness will be giving.

Apart from arranging for such witnesses to give evidence by video in a separate room in the FJC, the Court may also permit a vulnerable witness to be accompanied by a trained Court volunteer recruited by the Singapore Children's Society, under the Vulnerable Witness Support Programme. The trained volunteer will not only accompany the vulnerable witness during the Court proceedings, but will provide the witness with information about Court processes and procedures, and continue to provide the witness with emotional support after the hearing.

Mr Pillai spoke about ensuring that the housing needs of divorcing parties and children are addressed when the Court decides on the division of the matrimonial flat. The parties are required to provide key information on their HDB property as part of the divorce application.

In deciding the division of the matrimonial assets, the Court does consider the welfare and needs of the children. The Court may also direct parties to seek HDB's views and consider information provided by HDB on, for example, the retention of the matrimonial flat and post-divorce housing options for the divorcing parties and their children.

There are also various support schemes put in place by HDB and MSF to ensure a smooth housing transition for divorcees. To equip parties with the knowledge and skills to make informed decisions regarding the matrimonial property that prioritises the child’s well-being, MSF's Family Assist Portal will provide parties with information on post-divorce housing options.

The Mandatory Co-Parenting Programme, which all divorcing parents with minor children must go through before filing for divorce, will equip and encourage parents to make informed decisions, including on post-divorce housing arrangements, which prioritise the well-being of their children.

The Court can refer divorcing parties to HDB for housing counselling before the divorce is finalised, for them to better understand their post-divorce housing options.

In deciding the division of the matrimonial flat, even when the parties have reached an agreement, the Court does consider the welfare and needs of the children and direct parties to seek HDB's views. The Court may consider information provided by HDB on, for example, the retention of the matrimonial flat and post-divorce housing options for the divorcing parties and their children.

Nevertheless, we thank Mr Pillai for his suggestions and we will continue to study how the process relating to the division of the matrimonial flat may be strengthened to protect the interests of children.

Ms Hany Soh has asked about the docketing system for divorce proceedings on the ordinary track. She also made suggestions on how a global settlement could be facilitated. Whether a contested case is suitable for docketing to designated judges depends on the facts of the case. Generally, high conflict cases and cases involving highly contentious issues on the custody, care and control of children, are docketed. As far as possible, docketing is done in the earlier stages of proceedings to allow a single judge to take charge of the case.

Presently, almost all contested cases are referred to mediation in the early stages of proceedings. Nonetheless, we thank Ms Soh for her suggestions and will certainly continue to study how we can improve therapeutic justice outcomes in all aspects of the divorce process.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan has asked about allowing the FJR to prescribe that judges may conduct interviews with children. Mr Louis Chua has also made suggestions on training family judges to handle children in interviews with them. I mentioned in my opening speech the rationale behind this amendment, including the need for more clarity in the legislation.

I also briefly mentioned that judicial interviews are not the only – nor the preferred – method of ascertaining a child's wishes, but will complement the variety of methods that can be used to hear the child's voice. I would add that family judges do receive specialised training on whether, when and how to interview a child. This training sensitises family judges to the needs of a child, the safety concerns and the potential impact the Court proceedings may have on the child.

Judicial interviews of children may also be conducted in the joint presence of FJC's Court Family Specialists who are proficient in interviewing children. The Court Family Specialist is a trained professional and experienced counsellor, psychologist or social worker from the Counselling and Psychological Services (CAPS), which is the social science arm of the Family Justice Courts.

Mr Melvin Yong asked about the minimum age of children being interviewed. There is no minimum age in legislation. As the ability to communicate can differ across children of the same age, a different approach may be required for each child. The Courts have, however, held that judicial interviews would only be useful where the "children are mature enough to convey their views independently". The Women's Charter also provides that the child should be "of an age to express an independent opinion". Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Family proceedings are unique. They also often involve children, who will be worst affected by strained relationships and fractured family ties.

This is why “Therapeutic Justice” has been given much attention in implementing family proceedings. We want the Court process to nudge the family towards an outcome that is beneficial to all parties. We want to equip families involved with the necessary tools and resources so that they can move on and emerge from adversity. We do not wish to see families getting entangled in acrimonious litigation.

Therefore, this Bill aims to enhance the therapeutic justice elements in the family justice system.

The recommendations in this Bill include:

(a) Strengthening the power of judges to take a proactive approach to the cases before them. This includes allowing them to make certain orders at their own discretion to address any urgent need of the families involved;

(b) Authorising the judge to prohibit the parties involved from submitting additional applications which are unnecessary and have no strong justifications, without the leave of the Court; and

(c) Enabling judges to impose restrictions on cross-examination under certain circumstances, where the questioning of a vulnerable witness may be intimidating or oppressive.

These new reforms will complement some enhancements to the family justice system that have been implemented by MSF and MinLaw, together with the Family Justice Court (FJC), over the years to make family proceedings less acrimonious.

Today, in Parliament, the Family Justice Reform Bill will introduce major changes to the maintenance enforcement process. Over the years, we have progressively refined the maintenance enforcement framework. However, we still see a relatively high number of cases against those who refuse to comply with the maintenance order. We have received feedback on the anxiety, frustration and other real-life impact on the applicant. These changes are intended to address the needs from the feedback.

A new unit of Maintenance Enforcement Officers (MEO) will be set up. Parties no longer need to apply to Court and go through a formal legal process to gather evidence on the assets and means of the parties involved.

MEO will be authorised to obtain the information directly from the parties involved or from designated entities, such as banks, CPF Board, HDB, IRAS, SLA, LTA and CDP. MEO will submit this information to the Court, and the Court can use this information when making a judgment.

The Maintenance Enforcement Process (MEP) will apply to Court orders made by the Singapore Syariah Court which, under the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA), may be treated as maintenance orders made by the Family Court for the purposes of enforcement.

As a result, this will save time as there is no need to attend multiple Court hearings, save money because there is no need to pay legal fees, and reduce hardship as there is no need to prove the asset and the ability of the parties involved for the parties.

It is hoped that this latest reform will help to further strengthen the family justice system by reducing acrimony, pain and suffering of families and the children.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now conclude. The amendments in this Bill will simplify and make family proceedings more efficient. They will also reduce acrimony in family proceedings, strengthening Therapeutic Justice in the family justice system.

With the new MEP strengthening deterrence against respondents who refuse to pay, and facilitating more sustainable maintenance outcomes where respondents cannot pay, it is hoped that situations where children and vulnerable family members are left in financial neglect will be reduced.

We will also continue to work closely with our partners in the legal community and social services, such as the DSSAs, to provide more avenues of support to individuals who may nevertheless find the process challenging.

Where the financial needs of the families who have undergone a breakdown are met in a timely manner, this will go a long way towards helping families to heal and move on from the breakdown of the family unit, in a positive manner. Divorced parents will also be able to better focus on co-parenting in a manner which best protects their children’s interests.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.

5.19 pm

The Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Sir, I thank Members for the robust debate, the pertinent issues raised and the support for the Bill.

I would like to begin by reiterating MSF’s commitment to building strong families. Mr Melvin Yong brought up the importance of strengthening marriages and families, thereby reducing the number of families who have to go through the painful process of divorce.

Indeed, this is MSF’s belief, and efforts have been put across all life stages through various Government initiatives to support families through their life journey. Such efforts span supporting families in setting strong foundations in marriage and parenting, in the cost of raising their children, in navigating and overcoming difficulties and in ageing well. These are efforts that we continually build on, and proposals from Members on how we can make further strides in this regard are always welcome.

Members have expressed their concern regarding a family’s ability to move on financially post-divorce. Mr Louis Ng asked about support provided to families early to sort out their finances when a marriage has broken down.

In December 2021, MSF launched the Family Assist portal which supports couples contemplating divorce and provides them with information and services to make informed decisions in the best interest of their children. This includes information on the impact of divorce on finances and housing. A personalised tool will also be launched on the portal soon to help citizens better understand their post-divorce HDB housing options.

Mr Louis Ng also asked if financial counselling can be incorporated into the Co-Parenting Programme. Like I mentioned earlier in my opening speech, we have made it mandatory for all divorcing parents with minor children to go through the Co-Parenting Programme. Today, the Co-Parenting Programme covers practical issues arising from a divorce, including modules on making housing arrangements and managing finances. During the Co-Parenting Programme consultation sessions, counsellors may also refer parties to financial counselling services.

Mr Louis Chua asked about financial assistance for those referred to the SSOs under the maintenance enforcement process. Where possible, we will streamline the sharing of data between the Maintenance Enforcement Process and the SSOs. The details will need to be worked out with the set-up of the new unit of Maintenance Enforcement Officers (MEOs). I would like to assure Members that our SSO officers will assess the applicants' circumstances and needs holistically and assist them accordingly. This includes interim assistance for cases requiring urgent assistance, such as if maintenance is not being paid and has resulted in financial difficulties.

It was heartening to hear from Ms Yeo Wan Ling about the work that NTUC’s Women and Family Unit is doing to support single mothers and divorcees. MSF believes in the importance of caring for and supporting women in such vulnerable situations and had announced several efforts as part of the 2022 White Paper on Singapore Women’s Development. This includes partnerships between the Government and community partners under the Alliance for Action to Strengthen Marriages and Family Relationships.

As an example, MSF's community partner HCSA has updated their portal SPIN which stands for Single Parents Informed, Involved, Included to address questions divorcees may have towards housing and childcare arrangements. MSF is focused on ensuring that childcare arrangements do not exact a burden on single or divorced parents so that they are able to seek employment and provide for themselves and their family members. We welcome partnerships with NTUC's Women and Family Unit to further enable single or divorced parents.

Mr Louis Chua had raised the issue of divorced parents being unable to come to an agreement on their child's educational arrangements and their housing arrangements. We think it best for parents to work out suitable arrangements cooperatively and encourage them to do so outside of the Court system, bearing in mind what would be in their children's best interest.

It is for this reason that we have made it mandatory for all divorcing couples with minor children to go through the Co-Parenting Programme. It is not ideal for parents to seek to rely on Court orders to exhaustively list the decision rights for all matters pertaining to their children.

On the issue of school arrangements, in particular, something as important as a school transfer, parents who have joint custody of their child need to come to a common agreement on the child's school transfer. I hope Members can understand that schools have to be seen to be fair to both parents and it is not ideal for divorced spouses to bring their differences to the school to be the arbiter.

Our housing policies prioritise our limited housing supply for households with the greatest need, such as those that involve children. As such, divorcees with children are a family nucleus and can apply for public housing. For divorcees without children, they can retain their matrimonial flat alone if they are at least 35 years old. If they are below 35 years old, they can retain their flat if they include a family member, such as either of their parents, to form an eligible family nucleus. HDB does allow divorcees below age 35 without children to retain their matrimonial flat on a case-by-case basis.

Mr Leon Perera had asked whether we would consider providing for maintenance for ex-husbands and men. This has been raised on several occasions by various Members of Parliament, including Ms Carrie Tan and Mr Ang Wei Neng.

In 2016, we took a significant step to allow men to apply for maintenance if they were (a) incapacitated before or during the course of the marriage; (b) are unable to earn a livelihood; and (c) are unable to support themselves.

I would also add that the Courts have also refrained from granting higher 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 such that it will meet the financial needs of the wife until such time that she could secure for herself some form of employment and adjust to her post-divorce situation.

I would like to state unequivocally that we fully appreciate the sacrifice that men make when they step away from their careers to become stay-home husbands and acknowledge their efforts towards their families. MSF will continue to study the issue and review if husbands and ex-husbands can apply for maintenance payments.

Queries were also raised by Members regarding support for family violence survivors. I will be introducing the Family Violence (Amendment) Bill tomorrow in this House, which will effect the key recommendations from the Taskforce on Family Violence in tackling family violence.

I would like to close by reiterating that we are committed to ensuring good outcomes for families and their children, even as we support families in navigating their divorce and adjusting to life post-divorce.

The MEP is a big step towards ensuring that families are able to resolve issues surrounding maintenance that may arise post-divorce, in an effective and non-acrimonious way. It is a key piece that we are adding to our comprehensive landscape of marriage and divorce support, to give every family the best possible chance of achieving good outcomes despite the ups and downs in life.

The MEP will take some time to be implemented, as we want to ensure that the right persons are hired to play the key role of MEOs and that the process is set up well. We are confident that when the MEP takes effect, it will make a meaningful difference in terms of ensuring sustainable maintenance payment outcomes for all parties involved.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister for Law Mr K Shanmugam.

5.27 pm

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you. My colleagues Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam and Minister of State Sun Xueling have answered the points raised by Members. I would just end by reiterating my thanks to the various stakeholders in the family justice ecosystem. And with that, Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Deputy Speaker: And there are no clarifications? Alright.

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 K Shanmugam].

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