Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

1.07 pm

The Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Women's Charter was enacted in 1961 and is a key piece of legislation. Over the past six decades, it has institutionalised the rights and responsibilities of men and women in marriage and ensured the welfare and protection of women in Singapore.

The Women's Charter upholds our overarching principles towards marriage and divorce. These are, for marriage, that marriage is the cornerstone of family formation and, thus, the significance of the solemnisation and registration of marriages must be emphasised; the institution of marriage must be protected by ensuring that all marriages contracted here are genuine. And, for divorce, our first priority is to save marriages, but where divorce is inevitable, we must foster therapeutic justice to bring about healing so that the family can move on. We strive to reduce acrimony and ensure child-centricity in the proceedings, including parental responsibility and cooperative co-parenting post-divorce.

However, we recognise that we can do more to strengthen the institution of marriage and safeguard the welfare of children in the event of divorce. We have engaged citizens and stakeholders extensively on the divorce process, especially on the proposed divorce by mutual agreement of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. We started this since 2020, when we convened a Citizen Panel involving more than 150 divorcees over a four-month period, many of whom bravely shared their marriage and divorce experiences with us, so that we can understand what they went through and make the necessary changes in our law and policies. We also engaged social work practitioners, community and religious leaders, and law practitioners, academics and other stakeholders.

Furthermore, as part of the year-long, nationwide Conversations on Singapore's Women’s Development last year, as well as through the Alliance for Action to Strengthen Marriages and Family Relationships that I lead, our citizens and other stakeholders have given us feedback on strengthening marriages and supporting families undergoing divorce.

Having reviewed this feedback, we propose to: one, enhance the marriage process and strengthen safeguards to protect the institution of marriage; two, strengthen therapeutic justice in the divorce process and ensure those affected by divorce are supported; and three, ensure the Women's Charter remains up to date. Let me elaborate.

The first category of proposals aims to enhance the marriage process to provide convenience to couples looking to start on their marriage journey. These changes are in line with the digital transformation of Singapore. And we are also looking to update the necessary safeguards to ensure that the institution of marriage is not abused.

Currently, to marry under the Women's Charter, most steps, from pre-solemnisation to solemnisation, must be completed in-person. However, the recent COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that there are circumstances in which this may be difficult. Certain aspects of the process, such as the verification of documents, can also be digitalised.

The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will, therefore, introduce the new "Our Marriage Journey" portal this year, which will enable couples to conveniently complete all pre-solemnisation steps online. Changes to the current marriage process include, first, the repeal of the existing section 17 by clause 10. Under the existing section 17, parties who intend to marry must submit a statutory declaration of certain matters, for example, that the parties are not prevented by law from marrying. A statutory declaration must be made in person before a Commissioner for Oaths. With the repeal of section 17, instead of a statutory declaration, parties will only make a declaration in the prescribed form online. The contents of the declaration and the consequences of a false declaration will be similar to that for the statutory declaration required today.

Clause 19 repeals the current section 31, which requires signed and sealed copies of hard copy marriage certificates to be issued. The new section 30 will no longer require hard copy certificates, and digital certificates will be issued instead.

Clause 15 also introduces a new section 24 to empower the Registrar and licensed solemnisers to solemnise marriages via video-link in Singapore should couples choose to do so. This was first introduced during the circuit breaker in May 2020 as a temporary option under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) for Solemnisation and Registration of Marriages Act 2020. Clause 43 will repeal this Act and clause 15 will make this a permanent option under the Women's Charter. Nonetheless, couples may still hold their solemnisations in-person and, indeed, most couples prefer this option as the solemnisation is a significant and momentous occasion and couples often wish to celebrate with their loved ones in-person.

Lastly, clause 10 introduces a new section 15 to allow the Notice of Marriage to be cancelled where the Registrar is satisfied that there is good reason to do so.

As a safeguard, where there are concerns, such as an individual lacking mental capacity or marriages of convenience, the couple may not perform the declaration online or the Registrar of Marriages may decide not to permit any couple to solemnise their marriage via video-link. Such couples would have to appear in-person.

The marriage process is significant and should continue to reflect the solemnity of the marriage contract. Hence, we will continue to provide couples with a ceremonial marriage certificate for keepsake. The "Our Marriage Journey" portal will also: (a) provide information and resources on marriage preparation; (b) provide an online Marriage Questionnaire tool to help couples prepare for their next step; (c) recommend and facilitate sign-ups for suitable Marriage Preparation Programmes; and (d) provide push notifications of online marriage tips to couples in their first year of marriage.

We recognise the important roles solemnisers play in the marriage journey of couples. Many licensed solemnisers develop good relationships with the couples and have a wealth of helpful tips. We are therefore piloting the "Journey with You" initiative, referred to as JOY, in short, which will enable licensed solemnisers to mentor newlyweds in the first year of marriage. We launched the one-year pilot in December 2021 with 20 selected solemnisers. Through this, we aim to create a Community of Practice for licensed solemnisers to share best practices. Many couples also complete pre-marital counselling courses with their religious organisations. Through the Alliance for Action to Strengthen Marriages and Family Relationships, religious organisations are stepping forward to do more to prepare young couples for marriage and to mentor them.

Another set of marriage-related proposals involves updating safeguards to ensure that the institution of marriage is not abused. We want to ensure that the Registry of Marriages can continue to perform due diligence in all applications for marriage by satisfying itself that parties have the capacity to marry and are entering into a marriage willingly and in good faith.

Currently, non-residents who are not Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents, including those with no nexus to Singapore, can marry here, as long as at least one party has been present in Singapore for 15 days preceding the filing of the Notice of Marriage. Going forward, we will impose stricter requirements for such persons to marry here. We do not want to become a marriage hub for marriages where neither party has any nexus to Singapore, as it could compromise ROM's ability to carry out its due diligence and, inadvertently, undermine the significance of marriage.

Clause 10 of the amendment Bill introduces section 18, of which subsection (1)(c) provides that where any party is not a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident, the Minister may prescribe the length of stay required by at least one party in Singapore before they can be allowed to marry. We intend to prescribe that at least one party must have been physically present in Singapore for 31 continuous days. This would prevent couples, where both parties are on Short-Term Visit Passes which are valid for up to 30 days, from marrying here. Nonetheless, for exceptional cases, the Registrar will be empowered to waive this requirement should he or she be satisfied that there is good reason to do so.

We also want to restrict the persons who can obtain information from the State Marriage Register. Clauses 18 and 19 will amend the existing section 27 and existing section 180 of the Women's Charter, to allow the Minister to make rules on the provision of copies or extracts from the Register. Information from the Register contains personal particulars of the parties, including their NRIC numbers, and we wish to prevent the misuse of such information.

Separately, individuals will still retain two free online searches within a 12-month period, or may opt for a paid search, to enquire whether a person is married. These searches will show if there is a marriage record for the party in question and the date of marriage, with the name and NRIC of the spouse redacted. This search function will remain available to all and is not limited only to couples intending to marry.

Next, clause 15 will repeal the existing section 24 and replace it with a new section 23, to allow religious ceremonies to be conducted before, on or after solemnisation. Unlike when the Women's Charter was first enacted, the general public is now aware that parties must go through the solemnisation process to be married in the eyes of the law. The Registry of Marriages has also received appeals to allow the religious ceremony to take place before or during the solemnisation and, so, we wish to remove unnecessary restrictions.

Lastly, clause 40 repeals and re-enacts the existing section 180A to introduce new safeguards for licensed solemnisers by according them protection from personal liability if they had acted in good faith and with reasonable care.

I will now move on to the next category of proposals, which pertains to divorce. These proposals seek to amend the law on divorce in line with the aims of therapeutic justice in the divorce process and enhance support for those undergoing divorce.

In November 2017, MSF, MinLaw and FJC formed the Committee to Review and Enhance Reforms in the Family Justice System, or the RERF Committee, in short. The RERF Committee made its recommendations, aimed at further strengthening the family justice system and submitted its report in September 2019. The RERF's aspiration was the adoption of therapeutic justice in the family justice system. In the context of family justice and couples undergoing divorce, therapeutic justice is a "lens of care" that seeks to help distressed families move forward in a more positive way. It seeks not to position parties as adversaries in Court, but as problem-solvers, collaborating to seek solutions that will facilitate healing, restoration and the recasting of a move that is positive in the future. We are proposing to effect these recommendations through the Women's Charter amendments.

Today, under the Women's Charter, divorcing parties must prove the sole ground for divorce, which is the "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" before a divorce is granted. To do this, they may cite one or more of the existing five facts. There are three fault-based facts of adultery, desertion and unreasonable behaviour, and two non-fault facts of separation of three years with consent and of four years without.

To better understand how to incorporate therapeutic justice in the divorce process, we engaged more than 150 divorcees and other stakeholders closely involved and acquainted with the divorce process on their experiences.

I would like to tell you a story shared during one of our engagements. Jane, which is not her real name, shared the pain that she went through during her divorce three years ago. Initially, she and her ex-husband had wanted to settle their divorce amicably. However, they had to pinpoint each other's faults to prove that their marriage had broken down irretrievably and this led to many quarrels and worsened their relationship. While Jane admitted that there were faults on both sides, she wished there was an option to allow them to acknowledge they were jointly responsible rather than blame each other.

In fact, in our engagements with social service practitioners and several religious organisations, they had also shared that they had worked in earnest and as best as they could with couples, but there were instances where the couples were just unable to reconcile. In such cases, where there are children involved in the marriage, the marriage is no longer a matter just between the couple. Children are innocent parties involved in an unfortunate situation, and we must try as much as possible to minimise their exposure to the pain and conflict that often accompany divorce.

However, with the current divorce regime, we have found that where parties agree on the divorce, having to cite one of the existing facts may force parties to point fingers at each other as they cite reasons to prove one of the three fault-based facts or dredge up past hurts to prove the facts. This can cause the child to be caught in the middle as allegations of misdeeds are being made by either or both of their parents against the other.

If parties were to cite separation as a fact so as to avoid blaming each other, they have to put their lives on hold for three to four years, which can be harmful to the couple and their children as the relationship between the couple would likely be tense and unstable during the period of separation. Many divorcees we spoke to shared that until the divorce is final, they could not focus on their children, though they wanted to.

Hence, in line with the Family Justice Courts' approach of therapeutic justice, clause 29 repeals the current section 95 and enacts a new section 95A, to introduce divorce by mutual agreement of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a sixth fact that parties may cite to show that their marriage has irretrievably broken down. This aims to reduce acrimony in divorce and better allow the family to heal and move on. Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage will remain the sole ground for divorce.

Under the new section 95A(1)(f) and subsection (6)(a), parties may rely on this sixth fact if they mutually agree that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, but this is not a simple "handshake" of a mutual agreement to divorce. Instead, parties will submit to the Court: the reasons leading them to conclude that their marriage has irretrievably broken down; the efforts made to reconcile; and considerations given to the arrangements to be made in relation to their children and financial affairs.

Subsection (6)(b) also states that the Court must consider the stated matters in deciding whether to order further mediation, counselling or family support programmes. This may happen if the Court finds the required submission is insufficient or believes there is a possibility of reconciliation. Lastly, subsection (6)(c) states that the Court must reject any agreement if the Court considers that reconciliation is reasonably possible.

We, therefore, envisage that the key aspects of divorce by mutual agreement to be:

(a) joint responsibility, where unlike fault-based facts, parties may cite reasons where they take joint responsibility for the breakdown of their marriage. For example, they may cite deep-seated differences in values.

(b) reconciliation, as efforts to reconcile are explicitly required and the Court can order interventions and must reject any agreement if it concludes that reconciliation is reasonably possible.

(c) joint consideration of post-divorce arrangements to set parties into the right frame to jointly consider their children and financial affairs so as to reduce tension at the ancillary matters stage, where the issues of the children, division of matrimonial assets and maintenance are discussed and better ensure positive outcomes post-divorce.

I will now elaborate more on the test under divorce by mutual agreement.

First, parties must agree that their marriage has broken down irretrievably and explain the reasons leading them to conclude this. They must state attempts they have made at reconciliation and they must state considerations they have given to the arrangements to be made for their financial affairs and children post-divorce. A bare agreement without reasons is not enough. Also, as with agreements in other contexts, parties must be acting voluntarily, have the requisite knowledge of the terms and intend to enter into the agreement.

Second, beyond what generally constitutes an agreement in other contexts, the Court will reject the agreement if there remains a reasonable possibility that parties might reconcile. This is a parties-centric test, assessed based on the circumstances of each individual case. The reasons given by parties will inform the assessment. For instance, in cases where previous efforts at reconciliation were few and insufficient, where reasons provided on the breakdown of the marriage appear vague and arbitrary and where parties do not seem entirely certain of their decision, the Court may choose not to accept the agreement.

The sufficiency or otherwise of the parties' reasons will inform the Court's assessment as to whether there remains a reasonable possibility of reconciliation. Whether there is such a possibility is a factual question in each case. As a parties-centric test, the possibility of reconciliation does not require the Court to impose an external, objective test for whether the marriage has broken down. At the same time, it permits the Court to weed out sham or frivolous agreements or cases where the parties are seeking a divorce for collateral reasons. We leave it to the Court to apply the test in actual cases and to develop the case law in this area.

If the Court believes there is a reasonable possibility of reconciliation, it can send the parties for mediation, counselling and family support programmes. In some cases, this might salvage the marriage. In other cases, this would confirm there truly is no longer a reasonable possibility of reconciliation.

There may be concerns that parties who wish to rely on divorce by mutual agreement (DMA) may request their lawyers to frame the Court documents in a manner that suggests that they have tried their best to reconcile, although this may not be true.

Divorce lawyers must, therefore, continue to behave ethically, provide proper advice in line with the principles of therapeutic justice and continue to uphold their duties as officers of the Court and to assist in the administration of justice.

A fundamental mindset shift is necessary within the divorce process, where parties are not positioned as adversaries. They are part of a family unit and, while they have ended their marriage, they will always be family to their children. The focus should be on promoting healing and transitioning into the next phase with dignity. All involved in the divorce process must embrace this mindset shift, especially divorce lawyers, who are, often, closest to the parties in the process.

More must be done to foster healing in the relationship. Therefore, we are exploring amending terms, such as "defendant" and "plaintiff", to less adversarial terms. We are considering the feasibility of amending these terms under separate legislation.

I would like to emphasise that DMA will not lead to a quick and easy divorce. The sole ground of divorce remains, which is, the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. All safeguards of the divorce framework today will continue to apply, including the three-year time bar on filing for divorce and the three-month period before the divorce is finalised. The Court also retains the power to refuse to grant a divorce if it would not be just and reasonable.

Second, within the DMA framework itself, there are safeguards. Parties must explain the basis for their mutual agreement on the irretrievable breakdown of their marriage, what attempts they have made at reconciliation and what considerations they have in regard to their financial affairs and children.

The Court has the power to order parties to attend mediation, counselling and family support programmes. This will help filter out cases where reconciliation is still reasonably possible. The Court has the power to reject an agreement to divorce if there remains a reasonable possibility of reconciliation.

I should also point out that entering into a marriage of convenience is an offence. Thus, given the safeguards, parties to a sham marriage will find it difficult to obtain a divorce through DMA.

There may be concerns that a vulnerable spouse may be coerced into agreeing to divorce under DMA. This is not a new concern or one specific to DMA as a vulnerable spouse could, today, already be coerced into agreeing to the divorce. We rely, primarily, on family lawyers to prevent such cases. In addition, the Mandatory Parenting Programme, or MPP, which is a mandatory pre-filing programme for parents that I will elaborate on later, can act as a safeguard against this as the counsellor may identify and assist such spouses.

I would also like to point out that DMA does not absolve either party from their responsibilities in providing maintenance to their child or spouse if the Court makes such an order.

I would also like to highlight that DMA is different from the type of "no-fault" divorce in other jurisdictions where parties are not required to take responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage. Unlike in other jurisdictions, DMA will require parties to state the reasons that have led them to conclude that their marriage has irretrievably broken down. In doing so, parties would have to jointly take responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage. One party also cannot, unilaterally, divorce the other. Therefore, the DMA framework strikes a balance between two principles: one, that marriage is a public institution and divorce is a serious matter; and, two, when a marriage has truly broken down, the law should permit a divorce without creating unnecessary acrimony.

I will now move on to the other divorce-related proposals.

For parents in the process of a divorce, we want to support them in co-parenting effectively. Currently, where a party with minor children files for divorce on the standard track, that is, without having reached an agreement with his/her spouse on the reason for divorce or ancillary matters, he or she must attend MPP. The same applies to a party who has been served with divorce papers on the standard track and wishes to file a counterclaim. However, parties who agree on the divorce and all ancillary matters and, thus, file for divorce on the simplified divorce track, do not, currently, need to attend MPP.

However, MSF's 2020 Study on Co-Parenting Styles showed that regardless whether respondents reported an uncontested or contested divorce, the proportion of divorcees who reported practising cooperative co-parenting among uncontested and contested divorces are similar. Hence, we will amend the Women's Charter (Parenting Programme) Rules to extend MPP to all parents with minor children on the simplified divorce track.

MPP encourages parents to make informed decisions that prioritise the well-being of their children and helps parents understand the importance of co-parenting and the practical issues arising from a divorce. MPP will be enhanced to focus more on co-parenting and provide personalised information for parents. This would include self-assessments and information on where to seek timely support.

We recognise that there may be other caregivers involved in the child's life, such as grandparents, and clause 38 introduces a new section 139I to empower the Court to advise that such key related persons participate in necessary programmes as well.

MSF remains committed to saving marriages where possible. For couples who decide to work on their marriage while attending MPP, they could choose to attend marital counselling services provided by FAM@FSC. If couples are of the same faith and are open to marital counselling provided by religious organisations, they may opt for counselling provided by such organisations. We will work with interested religious organisations which wish to be involved.

I would like to mention Sarah, who is in her 20s and wishes to remain anonymous, who had reached out to MSF to share her experience as a child of divorce. She remembers standing outside a lawyer's office as her mother told her to tell her father that he will never see her again if he does not turn up. At the young age of eight, she was often made the middle person, passing messages between her parents. She felt distressed and unsafe, yet was afraid to reach out for help. She emphasised the need to better support children of divorced parents through counselling and check-ins to address these problems early.

Currently, MSF has the Children-in-Between Programme to support parents and children impacted by divorce. It is a group programme comprising parental and child components. For children, the programme educates them on positive ways to cope with their parents' divorce and skills to share their feelings. However, out of about 6,500 children affected by divorce annually between 2016 and 2020, fewer than 200 attend the Children-in-Between programme annually.

The divorce process should prioritise the best interest of the child and ensure that children are supported. Therefore, clause 36 introduces a new section 132A to allow the Court to advise parents to secure the child's attendance at the Programme for Children at any stage of the proceedings or after the final judgment has been granted if the Court thinks that this would be beneficial.

The Programme for Children emphasises and encompasses a range of possible support for children, including an assessment of the needs of the child and specific interventions, such as group programmes, counselling or psychological services. The assessment would be used to make recommendations to parents on suitable interventions. Interventions of varying intensity will be available to address the differing needs.

If the Court's advice is not complied with, the Court will have the discretion to make any order as it deems fit and, in relevant cases, may take the non-compliance of the parents into consideration in making custody, care and control and access orders, among other relevant factors, in determining the welfare of the child.

Next, I will share our proposals to enhance the child access order enforcement regime. Currently, where there is non-compliance with a child access order, the only recourse for the access parent is to commence committal proceedings or apply for care and control orders pertaining to the child to be varied. However, this can be a difficult and time-consuming process and it may be some time before the access parent is able to gain access.

Therefore, clause 35 enacts section 126B to provide a range of measures for the enforcement of child access orders. The Court may order: (a) the care and control parent to grant the access parent additional access to the child to make up for the access denied; (b) the care and control parent to compensate the access parent for expenses incurred as a result of the breach of order; (c) both parties and the child, or any of them, to attend counselling, mediation, therapeutic or educational programmes or family support programmes; (d) the care and control parent to enter into a bond to ensure future compliance with the order; and (e) as a last resort, imprisonment or a fine for the care and control parent.

We understand that there are divorced parents who struggle to gain access to their children. We sympathise with this and trust that these new measures will go somewhat to help address this. Nonetheless, we would like to reiterate that, in such issues, it is in the child's best interest for parents to resolve these issues through effective communication and mutual understanding and legal measures should be a last resort.

Lastly, for the divorce-related proposals, I will share our proposals to enhance the maintenance enforcement regime. We are considering the feasibility of taking these up under other legislation.

During our engagements with stakeholders, issues were raised regarding the current maintenance enforcement processes. We received feedback that (a) these processes are time- and resource-intensive for wives, ex-wives and mothers who tend to be on the receiving end of the payment of maintenance; (b) the current adversarial Court processes are challenging for applicants who are mostly litigants-in-person; and (c) there is a need to distinguish between respondents who cannot pay and those who will not pay, to provide different interventions to address the underlying issues for the two groups.

We recognise that maintenance enforcement processes can be further enhanced and MSF is working with MinLaw and the Family Justice Courts to study how to provide more efficient and effective enforcement of maintenance orders and minimise repeat enforcement. This includes adopting an inquisitorial approach in hearing enforcement applications, streamlining procedures and strengthening deterrence against non-payment.

Beyond legal and procedural reforms, we will also continue to link those that cannot pay to support.

I will now move on to the amendments to update the more archaic portions of the Women's Charter.

Part 6 of the Women's Charter, currently, sets out the specific rights of a married woman, such as the right to hold and dispose of property, and states that she is liable for her own debts, contracts and wrongs.

These specific rights reflect the historical development of married women's rights. Under the old common law, women ceased to have any independent legal personality upon marriage and, therefore, could not make contracts and hold property and so on.

In the UK, this began to change in the late 1800s, with law reforms that gave married women the same rights as married men. The provisions in Part 6 can be traced back to these law reforms, which were made incrementally over many years.

Things are different today. There is no doubt that a married woman is and should be the equal of a married man, not just in specific areas or for specific purposes, but as a general principle. This principle is enshrined in the new section 50(1), which provides that the rights, privileges, powers, capacities, duties and liabilities of a married woman are the same as those of a married man, unless otherwise provided for in any written law.

Separately, we are also taking the opportunity to completely abolish some archaic concepts in this area of the law.

The Government is committed to building an inclusive and fair society where every Singaporean, both men and women, have full and equal opportunities to contribute to our society. Singapore women have made tremendous progress since our Independence in 1965. Our women's standing in society has risen steadily, attaining higher education levels which are on par with men, and more women are participating in the workforce. This move to update the Women's Charter is also symbolic of how far we have come in terms of women's development.

Even as we recognise the significant progress made, we can continue do more.

Feedback from the Conversations on Singapore Women’s Development shows that deep-seated attitudes and mindsets about gender stereotypes persist and the belief and aspirations for marriage and families remain strong. The Government will continue to empower, protect and uplift our women in the workplace and in their caregiving roles and, especially, in protecting them from harm and violence. In particular, in line with the Taskforce on Family Violence's recommendations, we will enhance the protection against family violence in a separate Bill by the end of this year.

Let me now conclude. The amendments we have proposed attempt to: first, make the marriage process more couple-centric and update the safeguards; two, strengthen the divorce process by incorporating therapeutic justice into the process and ensuring those impacted by the divorce are supported; three, update the provisions and terminology in the Women’s Charter to abolish archaic concepts that no longer reflect the progress of women today.

Government efforts and legislative levers can only go so far. We must work together as a society to effect change. The Alliance for Action to Strengthen Marriages and Family Relationships will harness ground-up initiatives and galvanise a whole-of-society response to ensure that strong families remain as the basic building block of our society. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

1.46 pm

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, today’s debate follows your own moving of the Bill in 2016.

The amendments are, in the main, to allow both men and women to make decisions about marriage, divorce and family and then, for laws to make these decisions binding. That is to say, the amendments play little part in telling the parties what the decision should be; they merely make it easier for such decisions to have the force of law.

Overall, there are many commonsense elements in the Women’s Charter amendments, but I feel I ought to still lay them out simply here, so that it puts my additional requests to the Minister in perspective.

First, we feel that family and marriage in Singapore ought to be protected and strengthened. This has been the case for many years and is something that most of us support. So, we should make it easy for people to get married, whether the signifier is online or not. The key is the intent.

I am also strongly supportive of allowing religious ceremonies as part of the process. For many of us who believe in matters beyond the earthy, binding ourselves to a partner has a deeply spiritual dimension. Reminding ourselves of this, in a public, open and memorable manner is a strong commitment device.

Second, that no one goes into a marriage looking for divorce. But having decided to do so, one should be helped along, as much as possible, by the administration of the process. In this, the amendments provide a smoothening of the path, once decisions have been made.

I am not sure of the term “therapeutic justice” when referring to the amendments allowing for “divorce by mutual agreement”. To me, this is not about justice but about the freedoms to enter into a contract and the exit clauses which we can choose to exercise. Whatever the name, I support this move which, I think, accords respect and dignity to both parties.

Like marriage, divorce is seldom a bloodless, contractual, dry process. I am sure we all know of friends, colleagues, residents whose marriage did not work out and they decide to part ways – some on good terms, some rather acrimonious. Whatever the case, while we cannot take the emotions out of it entirely, we can and should reduce the bureaucratic pain as much as possible.

The third element, also commonsensical, is less often discussed. Having decided to part ways, we have decided, in terms of custody, to be “child-centric”. I fully agree with this. I wonder, however, if we ought to take a closer look at provisions for parents, especially mothers, in employment matters. That is to say, ensure that parents, who now have to take care of separate households, will be able to do so.

We must recognise that divorce is a major life stressor for the individuals involved, permanently affecting workplace livelihoods and family structures. Sir, you would know that I have, in this Chamber over the past 15 years, spoken on the issues and challenges facing single mothers. You have, too, many times.

Divorce proceedings should consider the livelihood concerns of single mothers and how they can be supported. I ask for us to consider how to better support such single mothers. For example, can we ask for Court-ordered interventions, such as mediation and counselling, to include employment advice and assistance for women who are unemployed at the point of divorce?

I also call for better flexible work support for employees at all life stages, especially mothers with caregiving duties, and career development for back-to-work women.

Both these points have, over the years, been made by NTUC and fellow labour Members. We should review the existing Tripartite Standard for Flexible Work Arrangements or consider other support systems or policies for employers to help their employees better manage their work-life needs through flexible work options.

Work and marriage may seem quite far apart in terms of legislation but, in reality, one impacts the other. Flexible work arrangements have suddenly come upon us in force, due to the pandemic. We have seen how such work arrangements benefit so many of us, especially for working mothers, so that they can fulfil all the roles which they desire, with minimal impact on their career development.

Wearing the hat of an employer, it would be remiss of me to assume no one takes advantage of work-from-home (WFH) arrangements. I think all of us have seen the very small minority who could be not working from home but skiving from home. It is important that we do not jettison such WFH arrangements for fear of abuse by this small minority. We could, for example, deter such behaviour by ensuring that they are sanctioned in the same way as all HR violations. After all, this is COVID-19 and we are already in 2022.

The Women’s Charter was a document written in the 1960s at a time when the fight for equality was nascent and the problems more severe. Today, as what Minister of State Sun Xueling has said, Singaporean women stand shoulder to shoulder with Singaporean men on many issues. But today, as with yesterday, we still have some way to go in ensuring equal respect and eradicating violence and bias.

So, I would like to ask the Minister to consider that the support for work, with dignity and in a fulfilling job, as single parents, be written into the amendments so as to allow each one of us, women and men, to live fully whatever life choices we make. Sir, I support the amendments.

1.53 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a lawyer with a firm that practises family law; however, the contents of this speech reflect my own views on the Bill.

In this debate, I wish to make a few comments on the provisions relating to divorce, in particular, the introduction of a provision allowing divorce by mutual agreement or DMA.

Clause 29 of the Bill introduces a new fact that can be relied upon to file for a divorce: that the marriage has broken down due to the spouses' agreeing that there has been an irretrievable breakdown. The new section 95A will add this new fact to the existing facts for divorce which centre around adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion and separation. In order to rely on this new fact, the spouses must enter into an agreement in writing, stating their reasons for concluding that the marriage has broken down, what efforts they have made to reconcile and what considerations they have given to the arrangements concerning their financial affairs and any child of the marriage.

Sir, in principle, I am supportive of the inclusion of DMA. This will empower the parties to a marriage to decide for themselves whether their marriage has failed, as they are probably the best-placed parties to assess whether they can continue to maintain the marriage.

Currently, the potentially acrimonious nature of divorce proceedings can be traumatic. To illustrate, in my past professional work, I have seen how the children of the marriage can be pressured by one parent to give evidence against the other parent in a bid to prove that the other parent was an unreasonable or irresponsible person. The scars on the family from divorce are undeniable. If the amendment in this Bill can reduce the acrimony and emotional toll on the divorcing family, I support that rationale fully.

Earlier, the Minister of State explained in some detail how the DMA provisions will work. Nevertheless, I wish to seek two clarifications about this change.

First, to what extent can the parties override the traditional grounds for divorce? The new fact of mutual agreement broadens the possibility of divorce beyond the conventional grounds. For the conventional grounds, the law imposes time requirements which need to be satisfied. For instance, for adultery and unreasonable behaviour, the Women's Charter has always required that the offended spouse must not have continued to live with the offending spouse for more than six months after the last incident. This is to show that the offended spouse finds it unreasonable to continue living with such behaviour from the offending spouse. As for the fact of desertion, the offending spouse must have abandoned the other party for a continuous period of two years or more. As for using separation as a fact of divorce, the period required is that either of the spouses have lived apart for at least four years, or for at least three years where the other spouse consents to the divorce.

With the introduction of DMA, it seems to me that parties can agree to divorce where the situations could have come under the traditional grounds but the usual timeframes have not been met. For instance, if the spouses have been living apart, they can agree to divorce if they have been separated for much shorter periods than three years; say, for just six months. To this end, I wonder if retaining the provision for divorce on three years' separation with consent makes sense, as it may be redundant to insist on three years once the parties have agreed to divorce.

Since the purpose of allowing mutual agreement is to do away with onerous requirements of the traditional grounds, the parties can override what was required previously and set their own personal threshold for concluding that their marriage has failed. Some will have lower thresholds.

Is there a risk then that divorce would become too easy? On this question, I do note that there is no change to the requirement that one cannot, generally, file for divorce until after three years of marriage. I agree that this requirement should be preserved. Nevertheless, with the introduction of DMA, the requirements for divorce have arguably been relaxed. Should we then expect an increase in divorce rates?

My second clarification on DMA is how the rights of the spouses and children will be safeguarded. The proposed section 95(6) provides that the spouses must enter any agreement with certain requirements which include spelling out what considerations they have given to sorting out their financial affairs and any child of the marriage. I am concerned about the risk that the parties may enter into an agreement which is unfair to one spouse or not in the best interest of the children. This could well happen when the spouses have unequal bargaining power or when one spouse has legal representation and the other does not. In this regard, I do acknowledge the point made by the Minister of State earlier that this can also happen in other types of divorce, not just DMA.

But specifically, regarding DMA, I have this clarification: if the Court comes across an agreement that is clearly one-sided or detrimental to the children, am I right to assume that the Court may still endorse DMA, but rewrite the arrangements regarding finances and children? In my view, it is critical for the Court to play a watchdog role for any vulnerable parties.

Finally, before I end, I would like to speak briefly on the issue of enforcement of Court Orders for maintenance payments. As Members of Parliament, we do come across single parents who are frustrated and demoralised by having to file repeated applications to Court to get ex-spouses to pay up. These efforts incur legal costs and may require multiple Court attendances without any tangible outcome. I also understand that when there are arrears in maintenance payments, it is not uncommon that the defaulting parent will be allowed to pay the arrears in instalments, placing further hardship on the other parent to find ways to pay bills and feed the children. If the defaulting parent defaults again, the onus is on the innocent parent once again to take out further enforcement proceedings.

Although not covered in this Bill, I note that there are plans by the Government to provide a more efficient and effective means to enforce maintenance orders and to minimise the need for repeat enforcement. It was stated in the Ministry's press release of 1 November on this Bill that the Government is looking into making enhancements to the enforcement of maintenance orders under another law, the Family Justice Act, which will be tabled some time this year. And earlier, the Minister of State confirmed this as well.

This is a welcome announcement. It is absolutely necessary to reduce the burden on the parent who is simply seeking to obtain for themselves and their children what is due from an ex-spouse.

I look forward to studying the upcoming changes, which, hopefully, will strengthen support for single parents and secure children's rights.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.

2.00 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, the major change to the Women's Charter Bill would be the addition of a sixth fact as grounds for divorce – that both husband and wife mutually agree on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

I fully support this on the basis that this might be less damaging to the emotional well-being of any children involved and goes some way towards protecting the children.

Currently, when it comes to the paying of maintenance post-divorce, the onus is usually on the man to maintain his ex-wife and children. However, times have changed. Over the years, the issue of gender-neutral maintenance has been raised in this House many times.

There are more men who choose to stay at home to look after the children and the household these days. According to MOM's Labour Force in Singapore Report, there were about 1,500 stay-at-home fathers in 2017, an increase of 700 from a decade earlier. An in-depth study of some of these fathers found that most of them made the choice because their wives were earning more than them.

Indeed, in a double-income household, women may be earning more than their husbands. What happens in the case of a divorce? While men were previously not allowed to seek maintenance, amendments were earlier made to the Women's Charter in 2016 to allow ill, disabled or ex-husbands to seek maintenance from their ex-wives if they are incapacitated, unable to support themselves.

But it is now 2022 and perhaps we can make further progress in moving towards gender-neutral arrangements for maintenance. In many countries, including the United States, Australia, Canada and many European countries, men can claim maintenance from their wives. In Britain, spousal maintenance is paid by the man or woman with the higher income to the one with the lower income.

In 2014, The Straits Times reported an instance of a man who was ordered to pay $70,000 in maintenance to his former wife despite the fact that he was retired, she earned more than him and he paid the mortgage of their marital home. It may be timely for us to re-examine if we should further level the playing field to ensure that our maintenance laws reflect the changes in society and are fair to both parties. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the current amendment to the Women's Charter is mainly focused on the adjustment of the divorce proceedings by adding the sixth fact as grounds for divorce to the existing five, namely, both husband and wife can mutually agree that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, or "divorce by mutual agreement", (DMA) in short.

We also understand that the Family Justice Courts has been simplifying divorce proceedings since 2015 to allow couples who want to divorce to do so after they have reached an agreement on the divorce, together with all the ancillary matters. Currently, about 60% of the divorce cases have been filed through the simplified procedures.

Many people feel that once the Bill is passed, most of the divorcing couples will file for divorce on grounds of DMA. In other words, divorce will become easier. With the amendment, I hope that the divorce rate here in Singapore will not increase significantly, resulting in more single-parent families.

In China, when divorce laws were relaxed in 2003, couples can divorce without going to court. As a result, the divorce rate increased significantly. As a result, the Chinese government had to tighten the divorce laws in 2021.

Therefore, I urge that when examining the grounds for divorce filed by couples, judges do not grant a divorce easily just because both parties have agreed that their marriage has broken down irretrievably. We hope that the judges will lean towards requiring divorcing couples to undergo counselling.

On another note, when the Women's Charter was amended in 2016, Mr Speaker, who was then Minister for Social and Family Development, stressed that MSF would appoint maintenance officers to enforce maintenance orders more effectively.

However, during my Meet-the-People Sessions, many single parents still fret over claiming maintenance. Currently, single parents have to go to different agencies in person to verify their documents before they can apply to Court to enforce the maintenance order. Therefore, I hope that MSF can further simplify the procedures, especially in light of the COVID-19 situation, to make it easier for single parents to receive maintenance from their ex-spouse.

(In English): Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the above concerns, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.

2.06 pm

Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Like many Members of this House, I was brought up to believe that marriage is a beautiful thing – something to be protected. But like the Members who have spoken before me and most family law practitioners and women's groups, I support the proposal that providing a less adversarial, more amicable path for divorce and settlement of disputes, without the need to blame either party for adultery, desertion or unreasonable behaviour, will help to reduce conflict during a most difficult time, especially for those with less resources to lawyer up. This will help parties to move on with their lives and the lives of any children involved.

Where children are involved, understanding and acting in the best interests of the child are the most important things. I do not think that the requirement to allege fault does anything to protect the sanctity of the institution of marriage or improve the lot of the child.

Having said that, there are two aspects of the Bill that are crucial to providing important safeguards in light of the proposed amendments.

First, as described in Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill, the provisions related to pre-agreement on matters related to parenting and finances, counselling, mediation, programmes for children, family support programmes and reconciliation. These are all very important safeguards against the criticism that the Bill makes divorce too easy. More importantly, it is in the best interests of the family. In the US, studies have shown that in about 10% of divorces, both parties are often open to efforts to reconcile and, recently, in the UK, the same percentage, 10% of divorce proceedings started, are averted with counselling. Indeed, stronger processes for counselling and mediation pre-marriage as well as before and after a divorce must also go hand in hand with the current proposals in this Bill.

Second, as described in Part 5, are the broader enforcement powers granted to the Court over custody and child access orders. Of all the foundations upon which we build our lives, family is the most important and we are moved to recognise that kids need their moms and their dads to raise them. Society needs their moms and dads to raise them.

We have all heard of parents, men and women, who have shirked their responsibilities as parents after divorce. But we have also heard of parents, again men and women, though notably more men, who want nothing more than to remain a core part of their child's life but are prevented from doing so.

One of my residents did not see his son for eight years, during which he fought in Court for his access rights at great cost to his finances and his career. And he is the fortunate one. He now has access and a good relationship with his teenage son. But I have other residents who are still fighting, who are alienated from their kids, where once a loving relationship existed.

To that end, I have a few questions and suggestions for the Minister's consideration.

One, will the Government allocate more funding and resources to counselling and mediation services to provide trained help for couples, especially vulnerable couples, during the divorce process but also prior to marriage and at the point where they face marriage difficulties, where a marriage might yet be saved?

Two, should there not be a minimum time period for the proceedings to allow proper reflection, consideration and reconciliation? This should not prevent applications for interim support, injunctions or family violence orders, and voluntary counselling and mediation should continue as planned. Further, has the Minister considered making it a requirement for divorcing couples to take a parenting education course – perhaps this is the MPP referred to by the Minister of State – but including information on reconciliation or to take it even further, making counselling and mediation mandatory?

Three, regardless of the grounds for divorce, should there be a minimum period – say, six months to a year – after the final judgment and orders, during which counsellors and mediators check in on the parties to ensure both parents and children are coping well and that the orders are being adhered to?

Four, there is, in some quarters, a perception that the system is biased against men and there is a limited range of support services for men. At this point, I want to recognise the millennial men, who, I think, take on a much more equal role in parenting than their predecessors and are often very close to their children. When things do not work out between the couple, they want to keep that bond. I believe that, for the most part, all services are equally available to men and women. But what is the Government doing to address this perception?

Five, fighting for access to their children is a costly affair that spans years for affected parents. But as my resident told me, when it comes to your child, you will fight all the way, even if it drains your finances, even if you have to represent yourself, which is sub-optimal. Notwithstanding the provisions on enforcement of access orders, can more funds be allocated to legal aid and means tests relaxed so as to increase legal assistance to vulnerable parents?

Six, will the Government undertake a review of the definition of parental alienation, which is currently not tracked, to ensure it can be tracked and to facilitate reforms to protect the rights, interests and physical, mental and financial health of alienated parents and, by extension, their children?

Seven, finally, given that no area of law matters to more people than family law, will the Government consider the establishment of mandatory accreditation, standards and monitoring processes, including complaints mechanisms and ongoing professional development and training requirements for family consultants, counsellors and all family law professionals, including judges, also in the areas of family violence and child abuse, unconscious bias, parental alienation dynamics, engaging and communicating with children and disability awareness?

Notwithstanding the above, I would like to thank MSF for continuing to update the Women's Charter and continuing to advocate for women and children's issues. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

2.14 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer whose practice involves matrimonial law.

There are two parts of this Bill which I wish to speak on. First is clause 35, which talks about the enhancement of enforcement powers relating to access to a child.

Clause 35 of the Bill introduces new sections 126A and 126B to the Women's Charter. These two sections seek to enhance the enforcement powers of the Court relating to custody and child access orders.

In principle, I agree with the provisions of section 126A of the Bill. However, I would caution that before making any order to the bailiff to seize a child, the Court should consider taking action against the parent who is in breach of the custody order. Seizure of a child, especially if the child is of a tender age, must be done in a sensitive manner so as not to cause any emotional trauma to the child who is caught in the dispute between the parents.

I also support the provisions of section 126B. This new provision will allow an aggrieved parent legal powers to enforce his or her right of access to the child.

I believe that most matrimonial lawyers would have come across cases where one party who was granted access to his or her own child, referred to in the Bill as Party X, had faced difficulties trying to gain access to that child. Sometimes, this is because the other parent, referred to as Party Y, feels that depriving Party X to access is a way of getting back at Party X. And Party Y feels that by not allowing the ex-spouse to see the child, he or she is punishing Party X.

There are also cases where Party Y may threaten to prevent Party X from seeing the child unless Party X concedes to the demands of Party Y. In other words, the child is used as a negotiating tool to compel Party X to back down.

Sir, situations like these cannot be acceptable because it hurts the innocent child caught in a fight between parents. The child should not be used as a negotiating pawn in disputes between two warring spouses. Any parent who chooses to breach the child access order would have to face the consequences.

I also support granting powers to the Court to order Parties X, Y and the child to attend compulsory counselling so that all involved parties can understand that it is in the best interest of the child to grow up with both parents who love and care for the child. This is better than having a child grow up resenting and hating an absent parent who has been deprived of access.

Many matrimonial lawyers would have also come across cases where one parent tries to poison the mind of the child against the other parent by constantly saying negative things about that parent without care and control. In such cases, providing the Court with the power to order the parents to attend educational programmes and for the child to attend therapeutic programmes or family support programmes is an option that would mitigate the toxic effect of the poisoning of the child’s mind.

So, I have two queries about clause 35.

First, the new section 126B(3)(e) provides power to the Court to sentence a defaulting parent to a fine or imprisonment term. In my view, where a parent in default is recalcitrant, the Court’s power to impose a fine or sentence to incarceration will serve as a strong deterrent not to disobey a Court order. However, Sir, I am mindful that there may be occasions when an older child may refuse to see the other parent due to previous negative experiences of being physically or emotionally abused. Or that child may witness his Parent Y being abused by Parent X. Hence, if the child grew up filled with anger against that abusive parent, he may resist any order for access granted to the parent who was abusive.

In situations like this, I hope that a judge hearing such enforcement applications will exercise discretion to interview the child or appoint a counsellor for the child to hear the child’s point of view before making any order of fine or imprisonment. I hope that the Court will be able to discern the circumstances where an access order may not be practical due to an abusive parent. We should not allow an abusive or vindictive parent to abuse the legal process and commit the other parent to jail.

Second, on clause 35, may I ask the Minister of State whether we have enough counsellors to help divorcing parents deal with the issue of access? Counselling can be a long-drawn process and, with about 7,000 divorces every year, these counsellors will be stretched if there are not enough trained counsellors to share the workload. When the Family Courts introduced the compulsory Mandatory Parenting Programme (MPP), I thought that MPP would have counsellors who can help couples think through the process before applying for divorce. However, I was told that MPP is a short session to advise the applicant on the need to make provisions for the child of the marriage.

I am certainly glad to hear the Minister of State say that MPP would be enhanced to provide more support to couples thinking of divorce. Sir, I urge the Ministry to provide more resources to counsellors so that we can do more to assist couples who are contemplating divorce to review their options and also assess the potential impact on the child before proceeding.

Sir, next, I wish to express my concern about clause 29 of the Bill which introduces a new section 95A(1)(f). This new section provides a new ground for parties to apply for a divorce if Parties X and Y agree that the marriage has broken down irretrievably – what is described by MSF as divorce by mutual agreement, or DMA. In 2016, the then Minister for Social and Family Development summed up the Government's policy as follows: “Singapore is our home for family. Strong families are, and must remain, the basic building blocks of our society. In the coming years, my Ministry will continue to strengthen fundamental family relationships and support vulnerable families.”

Sir, if you find this familiar, this speech was made by you when you were then the Minister for Social and Family Development. My understanding of a family in Singapore is that it constitutes a married couple with children and they form the usual family structure in Singapore. Thus, if the Government's policy is to have strong families which are the building blocks of society, then I submit that the Government must do more to promote the institution of marriage so as to strengthen the parties’ commitment to marriage.

A marriage is a serious commitment by two parties to enter into a union with each other. In most marriage vows, each party will, minimally, undertake or pledge to the other that they will love, comfort, honour the other party in sickness and in health so long as they both shall live.

Any couple who has been married for several years will share that it requires much effort by both parties to make a marriage work. Even for happy marriages, there will always be the inevitable quarrels or disputes over finances, lifestyle, upbringing of children and even relationship issues involving the in-laws. And these will shake a marriage.

My concern is whether the new section 95A(1)(f) will make it easier for couples who cannot work out their disputes to take the easy way out and apply for divorce based on mutual agreement. In a written response by the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) in June last year, NCCS expressed concern that “some couples may see the amicable divorce option as providing an easy exit that will allow them to run away from their problems without having to assign blame. Thus, instead of trying to find solutions to their problems as a couple that have pledged their lifelong commitment to each other, that husband or wife may simply decide to end their marriage.” Sir, I share the same concern as NCCS.

I am not anti-divorce. I recognise that, sometimes, despite the best efforts, marriages do not work out for a variety of reasons. In such cases, the law should allow couples to exit from an unhappy marriage.

The current laws recognise that when marriages do not work, parties can file for divorce because the marriage has broken down irretrievably. Currently, there are five possible grounds which constitute irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Three of these grounds are what divorce lawyers commonly call “fault” divorces: adultery, unreasonable behaviour and desertion for a period of two years. These are factors causing the irretrievable breakdown in marriage: a party's adultery, a party's unreasonable behaviour or a party's desertion. The other two grounds are what we call “no fault” divorces which are based on separation for a period of three years with consent or separation for four years even without consent. It is the period of living separate and apart which causes the marriage to breakdown.

Some Members of this House may recall that in the 1970s, parties applying for divorce based on separation were required to live separate and apart for an even longer period of seven years. So, over these years, there have been changes to make divorce easier by shortening the separation period. Thus, in actual fact, parties can divorce without apportioning fault, except that they need to wait the statutory period of three years or four years.

In 2015, the Courts had introduced the Simplified Track for divorce where parties who are able to agree on the terms of divorce and the ancillary matters can have their divorce application dealt with expeditiously. Thus, for parties who wish to settle their divorce cases quickly, the Simplified Track divorce is already an option where parties have to be less acrimonious if they want their divorce to proceed smoothly. They still need to cite one of the five grounds when they file for the divorce. But most parties will come to a compromise on the grounds of divorce. The Straits Times reported on 8 November last year that Simplified Track divorce accounts for 60% of the divorce applications filed.

For cases where parties are unable to agree and wish to contest the divorce, the Courts would, usually, call both parties down for what we call a status conference where the judge would invite parties to review their position whether to have an acrimonious contested divorce. Frequently, both parties will, eventually, accept that if the marriage has broken down, then a contested divorce will not serve anyone’s interest.

This is because, within a divorce, it basically means that the parties remain married, even though they have undergone a contentious divorce hearing, and that does not make sense.

Sir, the current divorce rates in Singapore have remained fairly constant at about an average of 7,424 cases per year for the last five years. Last year, there were 6,959 divorces and 22,651 registered marriages. And the year before, there were 7,623 divorces, with 25,434 marriages.

Given the above facts and circumstances, may I ask Minister of State why is there a need to introduce this new clause to allow divorce by mutual agreement, or DMA? What is the change in circumstances that triggered the need for the introduction of this provision? Does the Government not acknowledge that a divorce may have serious consequences for the children? Some years back, MCCY, as it then was, used to produce pamphlets on divorce: "Before you Divorce", "Divorce" and "How to Survive Children and Divorce". And these pamphlets highlighted the real issues about divorce. One particular pamphlet stood out to me – this is it, for Members of the House who are interested – and this pamphlet says: “At some time in a marriage, problems will arise. Some of these problems seem intractable, others do not. For the problems that seem intractable, people often think that divorce is the answer." And it concluded with the words "Think Again".

"Think Again". So, this pamphlet is available to parties who wanted to file for divorce at the time and it really urged couples thinking of divorce to "Think Again". May I ask the Minister of State whether she would agree that allowing a divorce based on mutual agreement may, inadvertently, undermine the marriage vow and parties’ commitment to the institution of marriage? A vow to commit to a marriage can now simply be revoked by mutual agreement to divorce.

Has the Government made any study of the experience in other countries which allow divorce by mutual consent? NCCS cited a study that said that after the first “no-fault divorce” was adopted in California, there was a persistent decline in marriage rates, accompanied by more single parenthood and cohabitation. Would allowing DMA result in an increase in divorce rates? What if this amendment does, in actual fact, result in divorce applications going up by a large number in the next few years? Would there be more single parenthood? How would the Government then try to arrest the increase in divorce numbers because it may be impossible to turn back the change?

In the media release by MSF, the Government cited that there was strong feedback against having to cite fault against the other party and having to dredge up the past just to prove the facts. However, section 95A(6) still requires parties to state in writing the reasons leading X and Y to conclude that their marriage has irretrievably broken down and their efforts made to reconcile. When parties have to cite the reasons for concluding that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, it will be inevitable that there would be some accusations against the other. I also hope that the Government is cognisant that DMA does not mean that there will not be acrimonious litigation. Parties could still fight tooth and nail regarding custody, care and control over the children. They will still fight over the division of assets and maintenance.

Sadly, Sir, divorce is a very emotional process where parties frequently feel betrayed and the acrimony is always there. Sometimes, where parties acknowledge that no one is at fault but they nevertheless want a divorce due to incompatibility or for whatever reason, the advice that can be given to them is to live separate and apart and meet the legal criteria for divorce based on three years or four years separation. Sometimes, parties may want a divorce due to misunderstandings, failure to communicate, quarrels over issues which they feel emotional about. In situations like these, separation may allow parties time to cool down, to review their reasons for wanting a divorce.

That separation may not always lead to reconciliation between the parties. But a divorce does have a massive impact on the parties, especially when young children are involved. If parties are open to attending marital counselling during the separation to help them work out their differences, sometimes, the marriage may be salvaged.

The Government has to strike a balance between making it too difficult for parties in failed marriages to get a divorce versus making it too easy for couples to give up their commitment and call it quits when they encounter difficulties in their marriage. I seek the Government's assurance that we are not taking the latter approach. I would like to ask the Minister of State to assure Members of this House that the Government is committed to promoting and strengthening marriages between couples and that the Government has no intent to allow couples to give up on their marriage too easily. We can do more to build up the institution of marriage in Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Dr Shahira Abdullah.

2.32 pm

Dr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I would like to express my support of this Bill. I am happy that the amendments reflect the importance of the institution of marriage.

As someone who is newly married, of course, my hope is that it does not end in divorce. Before my marriage, I also attended a pre-marriage course in the hopes that it would prepare me better for the greater responsibilities that would come. At the same time, I do acknowledge that marriage may sometimes fail despite the best efforts from both parties. The new section inserted for marriages that have "irretrievably broken down" is a good step forward to make the divorce process less acrimonious for parties involved, particularly if there are children already in the marriage.

There are worries on whether it will make the divorce process easier. On the contrary, the current safeguards, such as having to be married for at least three years before filing for divorce, as well as a three-month period before the divorce is finalised, are there. In addition, couples will have to show that they have tried to reconcile and the efforts they have made to settle their children and financial affairs after their divorce. The Court is also able to reject the couple's application if it is deemed that reconciliation is possible. Such couples will have to go through further mediation and counselling.

What this section strives to achieve though is to avoid dragging out the divorce process for couples who are already trapped in an unhappy marriage and are aiming for a peaceful resolution but are just waiting for the legal processes to go through. In addition, this also aims to protect the children's interests. By not needing to state the fault of a divorce and to prove or disprove allegations and thereby causing further tensions, children may be spared the trauma of such experiences. This will help children of divorce to better adapt and cope with the divorce process.

I am, therefore, also happy that MSF has also decided to introduce programmes for the children of divorces and to expand the groups of people who have to attend family support programmes. Divorce may have a traumatising effect on all parties involved, especially children, and even then, not just those in the immediate family.

This step allows families to be better supported throughout the whole process, placing importance on their mental well-being and, hopefully, ensuring that the divorce process has a reduced impact on other aspects of their lives.

Community and religious organisations also have a part to play to assist in the mediation and counselling processes as faith-based teachings can also be tapped on to achieve the best outcomes for suitable couples. Therefore, I actually hope that these resources will also be tapped on to offer marital and divorce counselling support and that the positive changes here will also be extended to Muslim marriages, though they are not administered by the Women's Charter but by AMLA.

All in all, I do believe that the underlying intention is to strengthen marriages and to mitigate the negative effects of divorce and, for that, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

2.35 pm

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, in all that this life has to offer, finding love and getting married is often seen as a major milestone, if not the pinnacle, of one's adulthood. The institution of marriage is one of the oldest practices that has been established since the birth of human civilisation, yet the notion of romantic love as the motivating force for marriage only goes as far back as the Middle Ages and the American and French revolutions. But for much of human history prior, couples were brought together for practical reasons and not because they fell in love. Even in the 20th century and within our very own Pioneer Generation, arranged marriages were not an uncommon theme among Singaporeans. Perhaps, on reflection, it seems that our understanding and experience of romantic marriages are of a much lesser degree and, consequently, our principles and laws governing such marriages, likewise, see a need for finetuning and revision.

In a marriage founded on love, self-fulfilment and companionship, it becomes plausible that a marriage could cease when individuals fall out of love or if ones' needs and expectations are not met in a marriage – the former cannot exist without the latter. As a society, we strive to nurture and preserve the sacred union of a couple. Yet, as we recognise that the dissolution of marriage has become more common in today's day and age, this Parliament, as leaders of society, must look to invest time and effort to understand not only the struggles of divorce, but also to provide the requisite support individuals need in the aftermath of such a decision. It is for this reason that the Labour Movement welcomes the amendments to the Women's Charter as we look not only to enhancing marriage processes but, more importantly, providing greater support for couples through divorce programmes for parents and kin in the midst of the proceedings.

To make the decision to terminate an unsatisfying marriage signifies a major turning point in an individual's life. And I can only imagine the major turbulences and disorientations one might experience being thrust out of their comfort zones and being confronted with intense uncertainty and inconsistency.

Along with the heavy emotional distress and anxiety one faces during the different points of one's divorce journey, individuals going through a divorce are also faced with many tangible and financial issues, often expected to single-handedly formulate ways to deal with post-divorce adjustments in areas of housing and childcare.

These struggles were made real to me when I came across the personal stories of my constituents, some of whom had felt much loneliness and despair when it came to the dissolution of their marriages. One of my constituents came out of a troubled, abusive marriage and faced immense difficulty as she had to find the balance taking care of her two young children, who were traumatised by their parents' difficult relationship, and looking for a job as she sought to provide for her children and family.

Many other constituents have come to look for me for help with their housing after their marriages were dissolved, marital homes sold and they and their children unceremoniously faced with worries about having no roofs over their heads. Many a time, my divorced female constituents have no savings, have not been in formal employment for a while and are facing the complex conundrum of securing a job, finding the financials to purchase a new family home, securing the well-being of their children and also tending to their raw feelings of a dissolved marriage.

In the early stages of parenthood, the ability to financially support one's family is often of immediate and significant importance. The Labour Movement has recognised a need to provide support in this area. Our union leaders – both men and women – have frequently voiced the need to extend employment support for single mothers who require help securing jobs after a divorce.

Since 2009, when Mdm Halimah Yacob launched the "We Care for U" project to help single mothers find work, the NTUC has made a concerted effort to render aid to single mothers to find work through women-focused job fairs done with the e2i as well as our LearningHUB. The NTUC Women and Family (WAF) unit also works with the larger Labour Movement Family, such as NTUC's SME unit, to promote flexi-work arrangements and work-life harmony practices that support women in the workplace.

Earlier this year, the Women and Family unit also piloted the Women Supporting Women mentorship to unite women union and grassroot leaders to provide career guidance and advice to women in the community. Through this programme and the networks of our union leaders, many single mothers have been able to connect with job opportunities and build up their confidence of coming back to work.

Although these efforts have been made, our experience with newly-single mothers reflects the need to continue striving to provide support for single mothers as they navigate a new chapter in their lives. The current amendments to expand the legal remit of our Courts to prescribe programmes for children and family support during divorce proceedings are most welcomed. But I hope that such efforts would also be extended to newly-single mothers who could very well benefit from Court-ordered interventions to be provided with counselling for employment, financial and housing assistance.

Furthermore, this responsibility to provide support does not rest solely on the shoulders of our Courts, as employers play an important role in facilitating an environment that welcomes our newly-single mothers. I call on the Government to seek better flexible work support for employees at all life stages but, particularly mothers with dependants. An enhancement of our existing Tripartite Standard for Flexible Work Arrangements could be a great step in looking to provide special assistance for single mothers who bear the sole responsibility of providing for their children and dependants.

Many single mothers have also told me that they would love greater work flexibility to allow them time to send their children to and fro from school. If the school is near their workplaces or homes, it would be a much-welcomed relief as well. It, hence, becomes clear that specialised assistance goes beyond employment alone as the greater availability and accessibility of dependable and perhaps even prioritised support networks, such as childcare centres and after-school programmes for single mothers, become more important. Providing these networks allows for divorced mothers greater assurance that their family is taken care of and, in turn, granting them peace of mind to maximise what they do in the workplace. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Today, marriage is no longer a matter between two families, but a relationship built on the foundation of love between two persons. However, in the past, most marriages were arranged by parents. The Chinese used to say that marriage is by the order of parents and the words of the matchmaker, and that married women are like water poured away. Because of this thinking, many women are aggrieved in the process of divorce or suffer in life after divorce.

We must not turn a blind eye to these problems. Once again, we would like to call for more understanding and ways to provide social protection and support to divorced women. It is for this reason that we must provide better and more reasonable divorce laws for divorce cases through this amendment to the Women's Charter.

When a woman is dragged down by an unsuitable or even unsafe marriage and ends up in divorce, it is not difficult for us to imagine the physical and mental sufferings that decades of ups and downs can bring to her. However, they face not just these problems. Financial issues, social discrimination, bread-and-butter issues and children’s education will come in tandem.

We do not know if a marriage or divorce is a path apart or a rebirth, but our laws can support these women. I wish our women well.

(In English): If marriage is seen as one of life's major milestones, then a divorce and its proceedings should be accorded the same, if not greater understanding. Although divorce may bring about unfavourable repercussions, such a choice should not result in lifelong calamity but rather a fresh start and new beginnings. The provision of livelihood options and its surrounding support mechanisms, such as caregiving support to divorced women and parents, are an important key to this fresh start. Although more can be done, the current amendments to the Women's Charter are a step in the right direction. My concerns notwithstanding, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.

2.46 pm

Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, I would like to start my speech with a quote from the American author and journalist, Mignon McLaughlin: "A successful marriage requires falling in love many times, always with the same person".

Marriage is a lifelong commitment between two individuals who intend to be in a legally-binding union and share a life together. According to the latest Statistics on Marriages and Divorces in Singapore, the annual average number of marriages fell in the last five years from 27,635 to 26,255, compared to the period between 2011 and 2015. Similarly, there is a slight decrease in the annual average number of divorces from 7,439 to 7,424, compared to the previous five-year period. It is, however, heartening to know that the figure for divorce for 2020 was 6,959, the lowest since 2006.

In Singapore, the guiding principle has always been that family is the first line of care and support. Hence, policy and legislative amendments relating to marriages and marital dissolutions can have a deep impact on our social fabric. Therefore, I would like to focus my speech on raising three considerations on the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill to ensure: one, civil marriages will continue to be upheld and conducted with solemnity; and, two, women and children will be protected in the event of a divorce.

Firstly, I understand that section 24 of the Women's Charter is to be re-enacted to permit remote solemnisation in certain circumstances, providing video-link solemnisations as a permanent option. In addition, new provisions will be included in the amendment to allow for the pre-solemnisation process to be completed online.

I am supportive of MSF's wider effort to promote the digitalisation and enhancement of convenience of the marriage process. However, I am concerned that virtual solemnisation might dilute the significance of marriages.

In the lives of many newlyweds, solemnisation is an important ceremony for family members to witness and be part of the joy in celebrating their union together. An example of diluted significance of marriages for the purpose of convenience can be found in Nevada, United States. Las Vegas, in the city of Nevada, is known to have a booming wedding industry. Wedding-related tourism accounts for nearly US$2 billion of the city's annual US$58 billion tourism industry and generates about 18,000 jobs. One of the reasons for its booming industry is the convenience to get married, such as drive-through wedding services and 24-hour chapels to solemnise couples. Similarly, this has also impacted the divorce rate in Nevada, which has one of the highest divorce rates in the United States, with a rate of nearly 21 divorces per 1,000 married women in 2019.

I would like to seek clarification from MSF on how we can ensure that the digitalisation or solemnisation for convenience will not send the wrong signal to newlyweds that marriage can be conveniently entered into without considering the long-term commitment and devotion needed to create a happy and successful marriage.

Secondly, MSF intends to introduce a sixth fact of "divorce by mutual agreement (DMA) of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" in the amendment by repealing and re-enacting section 96 and inserting a new section 95A. In the amendment, the new section 95(3) stated that a Court "must dismiss an application if it is not satisfied that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and there remains a reasonable possibility that the parties might reconcile". There could, however, be situations where a spouse, who has higher financial control and power over the other, coerces the dependant spouse into mutual agreement to divorce but not out of that spouse's own will. In such situations, how will the Court be able to determine if the mutual agreement of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage may not be out of their own volition of one of the parties? Are there any safeguards that MSF will make to recommend to the Court that the marriage is still reconcilable?

Lastly, the Women Charter is also amended to mandate for all divorcing parents with minor children to attend the Mandatory Parenting Programme (MPP) before they can file for divorce. In my interactions with residents who are going through divorces, they often share the emotional difficulties that they faced during the proceedings and worry about the impact that their divorce has on their children, especially when the other party refuses to cooperate and allow for a smooth divorce process. I have a resident who once sought my help and shared with me how her ex-husband was missing through most part of the divorce proceedings and was only contactable before the final judgment for divorce is delivered by the Court. In such cases where the marriage has become acrimonious and one of the parties refuses to attend MPP to proceed with the divorce proceedings, will the other half be stuck in the marriage and unable to move on? I would also like to ask what happens if the couple is going through a family violence situation and the perpetrator is not willing to attend MPP? How can MSF ensure that the divorce proceedings will continue and the victim can receive closure to move on in life?

Mr Speaker, it is important to strengthen marriages in creating a cohesive family environment for the next generation to model after. As far as possible, conditions need to be created to allow couples to reconcile amid family disputes and marriage breakdowns. It is inevitable that divorces can occur and families possibly broken apart. It is my belief that there must then be therapeutic justice incorporated in divorce proceedings, in which acrimony and hostility during these proceedings would not be aggravated and the children's best interest is prioritised. Although couples can no longer be husbands and wives, they continue to be parents and role models for their children. Therefore, it is important that the amendments to the Women's Charter allow couples to have closure and move on with their separate lives, while continuing to be the pillar of support for the children that they would likely have to raise jointly. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my considerations raised, I support the amendment Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

2.53 pm

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim: Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I am a practising lawyer, though my practice is not primarily within the matrimonial arena. I do stand in support of this Bill and welcome the amendments to better support our children and families undergoing divorce proceedings in our family justice system.

My speech will be focused on two areas: first, on children and family support programmes; and second, on child access orders.

I welcome the changes which focus on the best interests of the child of the marriage and place importance on therapeutic justice and counselling as steps in the right direction to prevent acrimonious and protracted litigation which may cause greater divisions and rifts in relationships between parents and child.

The children and family support programmes, including counselling, that are envisaged in these amendments would assist with the emotional aspects of dealing with the outcome of orders, particularly in cases involving the relocation of a child. However, this is something that is not unfamiliar or new within the Family Justice System and I draw the experience and lessons from the Administration of Muslim Law Act amendments back in 2017 and the practice of the Syariah Court in this regard. In Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In early 2017, MCCY sought public feedback on the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) amendment Bill. Various community groups provided their views and recommendations, including AMP, which, through RIMA, conducted a focus group discussion (FGD) to collate feedback among various stakeholders and interested individuals. I was involved in the discussions.

The AMLA amendments at that time, among other things, firstly, enshrined a more “child-centric” approach during proceedings and allowed the Courts to refer parties for counselling or a family support programme. Secondly, it requires divorcing parties to attend counselling or any other specified activity before commencement of divorce proceedings.

In divorce proceedings before the Syariah Court, parties are required to attend the Marriage Counselling Programme before they can file an application for divorce. The Registration for the Marriage Counselling Programme must be submitted at the Syariah Court.

Pursuant to section 46A of AMLA, couples who are contemplating divorce are required to attend and complete the Marriage Counselling Programme. The objective of the Marriage Counselling Programme is to assist the couples to explore reconciliation and, if the marriage cannot be saved, the counsellors will facilitate an amicable divorce instead. The Marriage Counselling Programme will be conducted by an agency appointed by the Syariah Court.

In addition, if parties have a child below 21 years old, they must also complete a Parenting Programme during the Marriage Counselling Programme to discuss post-divorce co-parenting plans at the Marriage Counselling Programme. This is to make the divorce process less adversarial and help parties to consider the children’s interests and welfare when making decisions that will inevitably affect their children.

After the divorce, before parties are allowed to collect the Divorce Certificate, if they have at least one child below 21 years old, they must undergo a family support programme known as “Parenting PACT” to help them better understand the impact of parental divorce on children. It also equips them with healthy co-parenting and self-care strategies and provide information on available support resources. These are the mandatory programmes within the divorce process before the Syariah Court.

Additionally, if parties have a child aged between six and 14, they are encouraged to attend the Children-in-Between programme with their child. This programme is free and conducted by the Divorce Support Specialist Agencies which are appointed by MSF. It aims to equip parents with co-parenting skills to promote parental cooperation so as to reduce harmful parental conflicts that are likely to have adverse effects on their child. The programme is also aimed at helping their child to be equipped with self-coping skills to help him or her cope with any stress and deal with the impact of the divorce.

Although the Children-in-Between programme is voluntary, where necessary, the Syariah Court may order parties and their child to attend the programme during or after the divorce proceedings.

In summary, while the current amendments that we are debating today do not impact the divorce proceedings in the Syariah Court, from the Syariah Court's lessons and experience and from past amendments, it is a good step to make children-centric programmes and counselling part and parcel of our family justice process.

As such, I welcome the amendments to the Women’s Charter presently.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, with this, I have some clarifications

In relation to divorces under the Family Justice Courts (FJCs), what is the rationale for not making the child's completion of a programme for children mandatory? I ask this because it is already mandatory under section 50(3A) of the Women's Charter that divorcing parents with any child below 21 have to attend counselling or mediation sessions at the FJCs.

The 2020 data also shows that couples who were married for five to nine years accounted for the largest share, 29.4%, of all divorces. This is the same for both civil and Muslim divorces. There is, thus, a great likelihood that this segment of couples would have younger children as well. As such, these children may benefit from attending such programmes. I heard from the Minister of State just now at the Second Reading opening speech that around 200 children undergo such programmes. That is less than 5% of the 6,000 or so affected children whose parents are undergoing divorce proceedings.

I, thus, make two proposals in this regard which are akin to the Syariah Court experience that I have shared earlier.

First, perhaps counselling and attendance of programme for children should be made mandatory either before the commencement of FJC proceedings or before the final judgment or divorce certificate can be issued or collected. This may nip in the bud any acrimonious or protracted divorce litigation which may be detrimental to the children.

Second, for couples with at least one child aged between six and 14, perhaps counselling and such programmes should be made mandatory for the same reasons as earlier stated. In relation to the programmes for children, the proposed new section 132A defines "programmes for children" as any programme carried out to help a child handle the impact of a divorce or judicial separation. May I ask what are the types of programme for children are envisaged? Can the Minister perhaps provide examples, with reference to already existing programmes?

In this regard, I also make two separate proposals. Given the utility of such programmes and the need to develop human capital with the necessary expertise, perhaps a national professional body can be tasked to oversee training and provide such programmes across the board. This facilitates harmonisation and uniform standards of counselling and the building up of cross-training, sharing of expertise and experiences for cases between both FJC and SYC. This is useful, especially in cases of inter-faith or inter-ethnic marriages, where, apart from the parties, that is, the parents or the children, the prescribed persons like the grandparents or other caregivers may also come from different backgrounds, faiths or cultures.

A second proposal perhaps is for greater collaboration and cooperation within the law schools, Law Society of Singapore and lawyers to inculcate, within the Bar, the importance of therapeutic justice and a child-centric approach towards divorces in our family justice system.

In respect of access orders, I welcome the amendments to help expand the Court's enforcement powers in relation to custody orders and child access orders. The COVID-19 pandemic has, inevitably, impacted custodial rights over children. We have seen how the parent with care and control decided to unilaterally suspend, halt or restrict the other parent's visitation rights during this pandemic.

I have some concerns, however, on the amendments.

Under the new section 126A, the Court is empowered to direct the bailiff to restore a child to the physical custody of a parent or other person. Such order or direction, I think, should be used sparingly and reserved for the most egregious of cases. For example, where access orders have been breached on numerous occasions or where, despite the wishes of the child, the parent refused to give access to the other parent. For young children, the experience of being taken, whether forcibly or otherwise, from the physical custody of one person to another, can be very traumatic.

In this regard, I have a few questions. What are the guidelines and safeguards to ensure the safety and prevention of trauma on the child during the exercise of such powers? Would the relevant officers and agencies also be trained to be more trauma-informed and sensitive to such situations?

Next, under the new section 126B, the Court has powers to enforce a child access order, including ordering make-up access and imprisonment. If I may ask the Minister, in respect of make-up access orders, would this be determined with the best interest of the child in mind, before such orders are made? I ask this because there may be other limitations, such as the child's other commitments and her or his own rest periods. Would there be an objective assessment before determination, for example, that a social welfare report be commissioned?

And in respect of the punitive punishment aspect, as stated, the parent in breach can be fined up to $20,000 or jailed up to 12 months or both. In this regard, usually, such breaching parent is the one with the care and control of the child. Hence, would not a jail term be effectively disruptive to the care of the child? In such an instance, who would take care of the child and who would effectively have care and control then? Would it be better to empower the Courts to order a variation of the care and control order, that is, a reversal of the care and control, instead of a jail term?

Notwithstanding the clarifications and proposals, Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

3.07 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

3.15 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, societal views on relationships and marriages change over time. As such, marriage and divorce laws ought to be updated accordingly. With the new no-fault divorce policy, we follow in the footsteps of countries like Australia, Canada, China and Sweden. England and Wales will also adopt this no-fault approach this coming April.

This approach is increasingly advocated due to the widespread consensus that a contentious divorce has grave negative implications on children. In serious cases, it causes post-traumatic stress disorder. Subsequently, when no blame is ascribed, parties involved in the divorce can also move on with their lives.

Despite its growing prevalence, no-fault divorce remains controversial. This is largely attributed to the common belief among naysayers that it will erode the sanctity of marriage and lead to a breakdown of the family unit. Considering this, I wish to raise three issues.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government must ensure that the no-fault divorce policy will not be misconstrued as an easy way out of an unfulfilling marriage. Many Members today have spoken about this. The Ministry has also shared about the safeguards in place to prevent this from happening.

Marriage is a blissful time. When vows are exchanged, couples look forward to spending the rest of their lives with their partners. Couples in Singapore must commit to marriage for at least three years before any sort of divorce is allowed, barring exceptional circumstances. For at least one party in a marriage to consider divorce, especially when there are children in the picture, it may signify that there were irreconcilable differences. Whether this is factual, the Court's assessment of the relationship and further intervention would come in handy.

Thus, I urge the Government to share more details about the assessment process. Will it involve professionals in family affairs, such as marriage counsellors, therapists, mediators as well as social workers who work with family and children? How long would the process take from the time that divorce is filed until there is a conclusion? Can the couple appeal if the Court rejects their request for a no-fault divorce?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as with all problems, prevention is better than cure. If we can identify potential problems early, couples may be better prepared to deal with them and ameliorate any consequences. My suggestion is to normalise marriage counselling and make it more accessible to all. I am heartened that many religious leaders have expressed support to help strengthen marital ties and resolve marital disputes. MSF, likewise, provides free marital counselling. Last November, a new Strengthening Families Programme was launched, where 10 Family Service Centres will offer specialised services to address issues related to marriage, finances and parenting.

That said, there remains a stigma among some that seeking counselling is a sign of failure. I have a resident who wanted to get marital counselling. However, her husband was of the opinion that her concerns are too trivial and that seeing a counsellor was embarrassing and deemed as a waste of time. Unfortunately, marital problems may be analogous to cancer. If your signs are not detected and addressed early and when they snowball, the situation becomes implacable or terminal. We must do more to destigmatise the shame and trivialisation often associated with marriage problems so that more would take a proactive approach to seek professional help.

As we expand outreach and improve our family and marriage support services, the demand for resources will grow. Do we have sufficiently trained professionals to cater to a projected growing demand? What is the average waiting time to seek family counselling under MSF and to get follow-up appointments? Is there remedial action if the couple does not attend subsequent counselling sessions?

Mr Speaker, Sir, my last point is on ensuring continued and improved counselling support for parties in acrimonious marriages and contested divorces.

I wish to propose that the Government consider extending mandatory counselling to pre-divorce couples. Under existing policies, there is a mandatory parenting programme for couples with children under 21 years old. In Sweden, a couple filing for divorce may obtain family advice to resolve cohabitation conflicts and, conceivably, avoid divorce. Should divorce be inevitable, the family advice service would help to alleviate the conflict to make it possible for the parents to operate together in a parental role. This service is provided by the municipal and county councils, religious bodies and other private individuals.

I would like to propose for pre-divorce counselling sessions to apply even for couples without children.

The mandatory parenting programme, presently, only applies when there is a child from the marriage. It will be beneficial for every couple, with or without children, to go for mandatory pre-divorce counselling before they can file for a no-fault divorce. This is to establish that, indeed, the reasons leading to divorce were untenable but mutually agreed – that no one would be held accountable for the divorce.

Pre-divorce counselling sessions should involve professionals in relationship and marriage matters. The focus should be on the couple themselves, separate from assets and children. Interactions with the couple during the counselling session would enable professionals to develop a comprehensive assessment on both parties' attitudes and whether there is hope for reconciliation. If, indeed, there is not, they can proceed with counselling on how to move on with childcare, asset division and other implications related to divorce.

Couples in a hostile relationship could greatly benefit from professional counselling that is targeted at improving their mental and emotional well-being. With a healthy mindset, both parties can then work together to seek fairer outcomes from the dissolution of marriage and move on with their lives.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the implementation of a no-fault divorce must be accompanied by policies and processes to facilitate the amicable parting of ways. This is with the aim of reversing the breakdown or making the process less acrimonious for all, especially the children, if a dissolution is inevitable.

I know of a Mr A who was in an unhappy marriage with his wife. They had attended marriage counselling but to no avail. As such, they are looking forward to the passing of the new no-fault divorce law so that they can divorce civilly and move on, without waiting for another three years. They have children and hope to co-parent them but have some disagreements over shared custody as well as the allocation of assets and resources. They have no wish to take the matter to Court. They agreed that some form of pre-divorce counselling to help them navigate the financial and emotional implications of their decisions would be helpful. With appropriate guidance, the estranged couple would, hopefully, come to an agreement. Their children would enjoy a healthy childhood under their co-parenting.

While it is meaningless to trap people in unhappy marriages, we must continue to encourage the preservation of healthy and happy marriages. Pre-marital counselling is, currently, widely practised and accepted. The next step is to normalise marital counselling and encourage couples to seek professional help at the early onset of problems. This is all a part of improving communication and strengthening relationships. We must set aside the necessary resources to achieve this. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

3.23 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to start with the amendments to enhance the marriage processes.

First, on the digitalisation of marriage certificates. I would like to know if the digital versions apply to both civil and religious marriage ceremonies. For religious ceremonies, will the issuers of the certificates be the churches or temples? Not all religious organisations have the digital security resources of Government agencies. In addition, I am concerned about the vulnerability of the IT systems. Thus, I hope the Government can help the religious organisations not only secure digital resources but also ensure safeguards are in place to prevent online theft of these sensitive information.

Second, how will digitally-registered marriages be reflected in our Singpass? Presently, under the family tab in Singpass, one can see the marriage certificate number but no indication of the identity of the spouse, which may be important in proving family relationships in emergencies. I feel that including a partly-masked name or NRIC number is equally important.

Marriage is a very happy occasion. Solemnisers, in journeying with couples in the preparation of the ceremony, very often, become very close friends. It is important, therefore, that solemnisers be equipped with counselling skills to help the couples they are marrying. Courses are optional but I would suggest that they be made mandatory.

As a previous solemniser myself, some of the couples had turned to me after their weddings for advice when they encountered marital issues. However, I was not trained and could only share my own personal experience. I would, therefore, recommend that solemnisers undergo training and be updated on the assistance programmes available so that they can be a source of emotional support and point couples who seek their help to the appropriate agencies.

Next, on divorce processes.

I support the introduction of a sixth fact of "divorce by mutual agreement of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage", or DMA, for short.

All families want marriages to work but not all will be able to see them through. Under this fact, efforts to reconcile will have to be submitted to the Court. This is a well-intentioned clause but I am concerned that it could make things worse, especially in marriages where there are children. We should be careful about imposing this condition, which might add tension to an already unhappy and strained household.

In addition, the focus in such situations tends to be on helping the younger children. Children mature very quickly these days and young teens can sense what is going on in their parents' relationship. Unfortunately, they are usually not mature enough to handle all the negative impact and some may even blame themselves.

I, therefore, urge the Ministry to put more effort to support these children. Engage and counsel them, even the older ones. Their voices should be heard, and more can be done to ensure that they receive assistance for mental health during and after this very stressful transition period. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] When couples are processing their divorces, the agencies’ focus tends to be on helping the younger children tide over this difficult transition.

These days, children mature quite quickly, and young teens can sense what is going wrong in their parents’ relationship. Unfortunately, they are usually not mature enough to handle all the negative impact by themselves and some may even blame themselves.

I urge the Ministry to do its best to support these children, engage and counsel them, even the older ones. Their feelings and thoughts should also be heard. The Ministry can do more to ensure they receive assistance for mental health during and after this very stressful transition period.

(In English): Sir, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh. Ms Carrie Tan

3.29 pm

Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, the name "Women's Charter" has given many the impression that it only benefits women. In reality, the Charter protects some men, women and children from exploitation within the family. My colleague, Member of Parliament Louis Ng, spoke on this earlier and I would like to reiterate the same point. We can still do more to promote gender equality and also address the erroneous impression that the Women's Charter protects only women's rights when what it aims to do is to protect the rights of individuals, pertaining to families.

My speech will focus on the matters around divorce. And I speak as someone who had been married before, had an annulment and is currently dating a partner who was divorced with two lovely sons. And I speak because I believe that we can re-imagine life post-divorce and that second chances can be better. I support the current amendments to make divorce less acrimonious to protect the well-being of all parties involved and to enable better post-divorce emotional healing for all parties, especially for children.

Hence, my first request is the change in the name of the "Women’s Charter" to "Family Charter". In the spirit of enabling better healing from the pain and trauma of divorce, renaming the Charter would send an important signal to reduce the animosity seen too often in divorce proceedings.

Firstly, it would correct the prevailing impression that family law in Singapore favours women over men. This common misconception that there is a statute that protects women against men, gives divorce a "zero-sum" tone that induces a fear-based and defensive approach. Hence, the mindset that divorce cases must be "fought", and that someone must win and someone will lose.

In line with making divorces less acrimonious, renaming the Charter to Family Charter can reduce the acrimony and forge a more collaborative approach to negotiating divorce settlements. And I said the word "collaborative". The aim of divorce proceedings should and must be to ensure all parties’ well-being post-divorce and not of anyone winning or losing. For that, the spirit of collaboration should and can exist even when someone breaks up, when one seeks to ensure the well-being, especially that of the children’s.

My hon colleague Mr Lim Biow Chuan mentioned earlier a variety of ways children are caught between acts of vengefulness by parents against each other. With the change in name to Family Charter, no gender’s rights or interest is placed above another's. Husbands would have less reason to perceive that the system is against them. Defensive or retaliatory behaviours stemming from acrimony, mounted whichever way by husband or wife, can cause undue suffering and, most unfairly, to children who have to witness the ill-feelings between their parents. The emotional trauma and wounds on children from divorce can have long-lasting impact, as an MSF report has shown last year. Since the intention behind the Charter is to protect people, families and children, the intention must be seen through by taking into account the perceptions that can arise from its name.

My second point is on the maintenance of children and the ex-spouse, and I believe it should go both ways. Husbands should be entitled to apply for maintenance from their wives where the circumstances are necessary and appropriate, both during and after marriage. In 2016, the Women’s Charter was amended to allow husbands to apply for maintenance from their wives if they are sick or incapacitated. We can go beyond that, to allow for husbands to apply for maintenance from wives, if the distribution of labour between the spouses during marriage favoured the earning potential of the wife to be realised instead of the husband’s.

In the past, it may have been the predominant phenomenon that men were the primary breadwinners and that women were the primary caregivers. However, times are changing rapidly. In our current efforts to uplift women and help women fulfil their career aspirations, I have championed the ungendering of care as a key tenet to free up women’s bandwidth from an overburden of care responsibilities.

As a feminist, I believe there should be no double standards. If women expect men to pull their weight in domestic and caregiving chores in order to free us up to pursue our career aspirations, it follows logically that in cases where a woman earns much more than her husband and the husband has been taking on more of the domestic responsibilities, husbands should also be able to access maintenance after divorce. This will send a strong signal and provide actual reassurance to men that their well-being and rights, too, are protected should their roles at home be shifted vis-à-vis their wives.

In fact, for the clauses around “offences against women and girls”, we will do well to reword them to be gender neutral. After all, not only women and girls get hurt. Men can be victims of violence, too, whether in domestic settings or in wider contexts. I have come across cases during my Meet-the-People Sessions where husbands suffer physical abuse from violent wives, as well as mental abuse through emotional blackmail and threats. However, these are rarely reported due to the stigma around men showing their vulnerability.

I will share here a quote in Mandarin from one of my residents. He said: “政府只要保护女人，这个没有错。可是谁会聆听我们的心声。” or “The Government wants to protect the women; it is not wrong. But who is going to listen to the men's voices?"

To truly protect families, men deserve protection equally and clauses should provide for that, even if the number of occurrences of men being victims are significantly lower than women.

Finally, we should reduce unnecessary time and stress where possible on divorce proceedings. At the risk of sounding utilitarian – and my intention is not to undermine the sanctity of marriage but to take a pragmatic view – we must note that couples are getting married at older ages now, compared to 40 years ago. The average Singaporean man gets married three years later and the average Singaporean woman five years later. Much time is spent and wasted because the current Charter only allows couples to apply for divorce after three years of marriage. And this is precious time lost for those who find out after getting married and living together that they are not the right lifelong partners for each other.

I understand the perspective that marriages need to be worked at and differences need time to be worked through for marriages to work out, and I agree with Mr Lim Biow Chuan's views that we should not offer an easy cop-out. However, there are also cases where individuals may find out intolerable issues about their spouses only after marriage, such as chronic infidelity, a tendency towards violence that surfaces only after the honeymoon period, or a history of debilitating financial debt that renders a marriage unreasonably difficult.

While there currently is a clause that allows for "exceptional hardship" for divorce before three years is up, it is open to subjective interpretation. Those contemplating divorce while suffering in a marriage would be caught deliberating what would be considered or not considered "exceptional hardship". What would be helpful would be a non-exhaustive list of factors or considerations of what would constitute exceptional hardship or depravity to serve as a guide for the Courts and also for those experiencing suffering within their marriages within the first three years.

In cases where the individuals in the marriage have irreconcilable differences, a three-year window of futile attempts at reconciliation is precious time lost that holds individuals back from pursuing a more fulfilled life. I recognise that it is a difficult matter to choose and decide on, whether we should mandate time for the couples to work things out in order to "save marriages" or allow people to move on and to pursue the possibility of more workable marriages. Some data would be helpful, and we should look into data on how successful the deed of separation has been in achieving reconciliation. What numbers of marriages get successfully salvaged and turned around after the deed of separation period? If the data shows that most of them end in divorce anyway, I recommend the time bar for divorce be reduced to one year for all couples.

In conclusion, I summarise my three recommendations for the amendment Bill in addition to the current ones: one, to change the name of the Women’s Charter to Family Charter to see through its intention of protecting the rights of both women and men in the context of family matters; two, for maintenance applications to be allowed for both men and women without condition of incapacity or disability if the domestic role is undertaken more by the husband; and three, for the time bar of three years’ marriage for divorce to be reviewed and reduced to one year should the trend of futility in reconciliation be shown in relevant data.

Notwithstanding these, which I hope can be considered in future amendments, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.39 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

4.00 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the most significant changes to the Act is the introduction of the new section 95, divorce by mutual agreement of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, or DMA, in short.

I welcome this amendment which I feel will help reduce the agony and bitterness during the difficult process of divorce, since neither party will have to provide evidence of each other's faults. Hopefully, the couple can channel most of their energy and resources to moving forward or, in the case where there are children, making suitable new arrangements to care for them. I believe that this section may even be a lifesaver in preventing some couples' situations from escalating, which could, potentially, cause harm to themselves or their children. The process of separating and breaking up a family is so stressful and emotional. There had been cases in the past where one or both parties inflict physical harm on each other or their kids. This situation is to be avoided at all costs and the risk of confrontational exchanges must be minimised.

There is a provision for the Registrar to have the discretion to require any couple to perform any pre-solemnisation step in person where there may be concerns, such as suspected marriages of convenience. Unfortunately, there has been quite a number of foreigners who abuse the system and marry for convenience to stay or work, sometimes illegally, in Singapore. The Ministry must continue to review our measures to deter those who want to marry for convenience. The penalties must be suitably set at levels which will be effective deterrents.

Not only are such illegal partnerships undermining our institution of marriage, but they are also often linked to criminal and vice activities which damage the fabric of our society. I would like to ask how many of such cases of marriages of convenience have we had in the past 10 years and how many have been involved in illegal sex activities. With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

4.04 pm

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill. I would, first, like to declare that I am a practising lawyer and a member of the Law Society's Family Law Committee 2022.

According to the Holmes and Rahe Stress Scale, divorce is one of the most stressful events in one's life, second only to the death of a loved one. This finding is unsurprising as part of the divorce process involves parties coming before the Family Court to end their marriage and address how their most private family affairs will be restructured.

More often than not, the contentious divorce proceedings can prove to be emotionally-charged events for embroiled parties, overriding rational thinking and clouding judgements. Unfortunately, the children are usually not spared from the effects and stresses of their parents' divorce, even though they are the most innocent parties in these matters. There are ways to make the entire divorce process less strenuous and minimally impactful for our little ones if everyone is on the same page.

As what the Presiding Judge of the Family Justice Courts, Justice Debbie Ong, has shared in her workplan speech in 2020, the Family Justice Courts and the Family Justice Community will be co-creating a renewed vision of family justice, informed by the principles of therapeutic justice. It is the hope that our collective efforts would help to engender a mindset shift in the community. The resolution of family disputes need not be an adversarial one but should be focused on solutions.

I, therefore, speak in support of this amendment Bill as I am hopeful that several of the changes that will be brought about by the passing of this Bill would encourage parties to work out their marital differences, lessen the acrimony of Court proceedings and foster parties' cooperation towards co-parenting their children post-divorce.

This will be beneficial to the affected children as studies have shown that the level of acrimony during a divorce proceeding has a perceptible impact on a child's well-being. Children should not be expected to take sides and be caught in a conflict of loyalty. Instead, they should continue to be embraced by both parents with love and attention, regardless of their respective marital status.

John Bowlby's Attachment Theory asserts the notions that children need warm, consistent and responsive caregivers to form secure attachments. Interruptions and interferences in the attachment-formation years can have long-lasting impact resulting in insecure attachment styles.

We often hear of stories of parental alienation, where a parent would refuse the other party from having access to the child as a result of hatred, or as a retaliation to deprivation of maintenance by the other party. There are also situations where the child has rejected one parent's request for contact so as to appease the other parent whom they are residing with. The new section 126B, in relation to the enforcement of child access orders, empowers the Court to order, inter alia, the parties to attend therapeutic programmes or counselling in the hope that the hostilities between parents can be better managed and that the child is spared from choosing sides.

I believe that these sessions will take place at the Divorce Support Specialist Agencies (DSSAs). In this regard, I wish to seek clarifications on whether there are any fees applicable and payable by parties for participation in such sessions. Currently, the supervised exchange or supervised visitation programmes ordered by the Court to take place at DSSAs are free of charge for the first three Court orders.

From the fourth Court order onwards, however, the parties will have to pay for such services at DSSAs. Visitations which will be supervised by a counsellor on a Saturday at the DSSA will cost $240 per hour.

There are, presently, seven family service centres and DSSAs located across Singapore. By the end of FY2022, there will be 10 regional centres available to support families in need. In view of the increased support, would the Ministry consider increasing the number of complimentary sessions for parties to carry out supervised access at the DSSAs? Would the social service agencies also be able to provide more hand-holding services to closely monitor the education and welfare of the children during and after their parents' divorce so as to prevent the possibility of delinquency and other potential social complications?

As what Mr Lim Biow Chuan has shared earlier in his speech, in order to file for divorce in Singapore, one has to, first, persuade the Court that the marriage has irretrievably broken down by citing one of the facts, either fault-based or non-fault-based, as set out in section 95A of the Women's Charter.

Currently, parties who are unable to fulfil the requirements to file for divorce based on the non-fault-based facts are, nevertheless, required to cite facts blaming the other spouse as the cause of the breakdown of the marriage even when both are cordial about ending the marriage in the first place. The new amendment, which introduces the sixth fact, termed divorce by mutual agreement of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, may be a new solution to those parties who are in mutual agreement to dissolve the marriage.

Under the new fact, couples are to take joint responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage and will have to include, among other reasons, the reasons for the marital breakdown in their submissions to the Court. In this regard, I hope the Ministry can elaborate on what types of reasons are deemed as acceptable to substantiate that the marriage has irretrievably broken down under the new sixth fact.

I understand that the Minister of State has shared earlier that parties may cite examples of their deep-seated differences so as to substantiate this fact. In this regard, I hope that the particulars to be mentioned to support this fact need not require parties to set out each other's misdeeds as that will require them to rehash their marital disputes all over again. In my opinion, this does not assist in reducing the acrimony between the parties.

Moreover, I do hope that parties should avoid attributing the children as the reason for the breakdown of the marriage. Children should not be made to feel that they are the cause of their parents' divorce. As mentioned earlier, divorce does have long-term effects on children. Social science research has shown that feelings of guilt, abandonment and shame have adverse impact on a child's physical and mental health development.

Under the new sixth fact, the parties will also have to show efforts at marital reconciliation. I support the inclusion of this requirement, especially when children are involved.

During the Family Justice Practice Forum 2020, Miss Audrey Siew, then director of the Family Support Division of MSF, shared that an intergenerational study was conducted in 2020 to examine the long-term impact of divorce on children. Compared to children whose parents were not separated, children from divorced families are less likely to complete University, may earn comparatively lower salaries and are more inclined to remain single and are predisposed to divorce if they are married by the age of 35.

Apart from illustrating the reconciliation efforts, the parties will also need to set out the considerations that they have made for their children and the financial affairs in their submissions to the Court when filing under the sixth fact. In this regard, can the Ministry clarify if this means that this fact can be relied upon only when the divorce is filed under the Simplified Track where parties have agreed on all issues relating to the divorce and the ancillary matters?

There are situations where a divorce filed in an acrimonious manner, for example, on the basis of the defendant's unreasonable behaviour or adultery, has since seen both parties subsequently undergo mediation at the Family Justice Courts, during which marital reconciliation was explored, but failed. However, these parties have, in turn, reached an amicable global settlement on the divorce and ancillaries through mediation. In this case, could the Courts allow the divorce to be proceeded with on an uncontested basis on an amended claim under the sixth fact?

There is a Chinese saying: 家家有本难念的经 — every family has its own challenges. Families which are involved in litigation often come with complex needs and issues. Underlying many of these family disputes are non-legal-related concerns. As such, I echo the need for collaborative, holistic and multidisciplinary interventions to be used to address the families' underlying dysfunctions and emotional needs whenever possible. More importantly, we should prevent the children from feeling distressed while in the midst of their parents' divorce proceedings, bearing in mind that such an adverse experience can have a lasting negative impact on their lives, lasting far into adulthood.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my request for clarifications and suggestions, I stand in support of this amendment Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

4.14 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to improve marriage processes for couples and incorporate therapeutic justice elements into the divorce proceedings. However, I have some clarifications and suggestions.

Sir, MSF has proposed a major amendment to the divorce process, by introducing a sixth fact of divorce by mutual agreement of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, or DMA, for short.

Sir, DMA is, essentially, a "no-fault divorce", which enables couples to take joint responsibility for the breakdown of their marriage. The rationale for introducing such a concept, as explained by MSF, arose from feedback from divorcees that having to cite one of the current fault-based facts as the reason for divorce dredges up unhappy memories and can cause the divorce proceedings to turn acrimonious, thus making it detrimental to the emotional well-being of their children. In essence, however, it can be argued that DMA makes the divorce process easier.

Sir, as a Catholic, I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I was taught that marriages are meant to be sacred and lasting. The divorce process should not be made too easy as we want couples to work through their problems that will, inevitably, crop up in any marriage. Major challenges, such as struggling to care for their first-born who refuses to stop crying in the middle of the night or coping with the financial squeeze that couples with young children and elderly parents to care for, are par for the course. These are everyday marital problems, and we should provide couples with the tools to resolve communication issues, instead of making divorce a simple, straightforward, easy solution.

However, as a grassroots leader and former Police officer, I have also seen cases of how being trapped in an unhappy marriage can be damaging on a person's well-being – emotionally, mentally and, at times, even physically. That is why, despite my personal view on marriage, I can understand and appreciate the reason for the introduction of DMA.

But that being said, we should do more to intervene upstream to help strengthen marriages, so that we can prevent relationships from deteriorating to the point where couples have to contemplate divorce. For example, MSF could make marriage preparation courses more extensive and, I would even argue, mandatory. Before I got married, my wife-to-be and I had to attend the Marriage Preparation Course conducted by the Church. The course, which comprised six sessions, taught us the fundamentals of a healthy marriage and equipped us with tools to work out our differences in a constructive way.

While there are marriage preparation programmes on the market, most seem to emphasise on how couples can be equipped with the right tools in as little time as possible, with some courses taking just two weekends. I wonder if this is truly sufficient to prepare two distinct individuals to live together for the rest of their lives.

Currently, MSF only mandates marriage preparation courses if the marriage involves someone below the age of 21. I would suggest that a comprehensive marriage preparation programme be put together and for marrying couples of all ages to be strongly encouraged to participate.

Sir, another suggestion on how we can do more upstream to strengthen marriages is to have regular check-ups on the health of our marriages, particularly newer marriages. Many of us go for a regular health check-up, sometimes yearly, sometimes once every two years. Why not have a regular check-up for our marriages, too?

According to a report from MSF, which tracked 29 cohorts of marriages between 1987 and 2015, more divorces are happening during the earlier years of a couple's marriage, with the highest proportion of couples ending their marriages between years five and 10. Why is this so? Is it linked to certain key life moments that changed the dynamics of the relationship? I hope that MSF could make marriage therapy more affordable and accessible, so that we can help couples take stock of their relationships and strengthen their marriages. Perhaps, we could go a step further and subsidise marriage therapy for couples who are between their fifth to 10th year of marriage, since it seems to be the critical period where marriages are vulnerable, and divorce cases are at their highest.

Mr Speaker, in the unfortunate event that the marriage does genuinely break down and divorce becomes a real option on the table, we should still try our best to mend the relationship. And this could be done through mandatory pre-divorce counselling programmes. Currently, pre-divorce counselling is only mandatory for parents with minor children before they file for divorce and is designed to encourage divorcing couples to make informed decisions to prioritise the well-being of their children. Can MSF consider mandatory pre-divorce counselling for all couples who cite unreasonable behaviour as the reason for their divorce and, in future, the couples who cite DMA as a reason for the divorce?

Sir, we should also better support single mothers who may need help in securing jobs or finding jobs that will allow them to support themselves and their children. In cases where the wife was a homemaker, it can be difficult for them to re-enter the workforce easily as their skillsets may not be updated. In this regard, NTUC has been working with our affiliated unions, the Employment and Employability Institute and NTUC Learning Hub, to support single mothers by bringing employment and training opportunities to them. I encourage all single mums who need help returning to the workplace to turn to the Labour Movement for support.

Single mothers also have less familial support when it comes to caregiving and will require more support in helping them balance their careers and caregiving duties. In Radin Mas, we partnered Singapore Manufacturing Federation (SMF) to launch the Jobs Closer to Home Programme in 2021 to help mothers with caregiving responsibilities find jobs that are closer to home, so that they can balance work and their roles as a mother and caregiver. This has helped some single mothers in my constituency to gain meaningful employment and I hope this can be scaled up nationally.

I would also like to call on Action for Alliance on Work-Life Harmony to look at how companies can implement more flexible work arrangements specifically catered to single parents, so that we can help them to be the best parent that they can be to their children.

Finally, we also need to take steps to strengthen the institution of marriage against couples who seek a divorce merely in name, for monetary or other benefits. For example, when the most recent round of property cooling measures was introduced by MND, there emerged some online chatter advising and encouraging couples seeking to own multiple properties to decouple and divorce in name just to avoid the Additional Buyers' Stamp Duties!

The proposed additions to section 95 of the Women's Charter will allow for couples to divorce by mutual agreement and I worry that this will become a loophole for sham divorces. How would the Ministry identify such cases and are there penalties that will arise as a result of such fake divorces?

In conclusion, the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter are aimed at making divorce proceedings less acrimonious and help ex-couples co-parent better. But it has also made divorce easier, inadvertently eroding the sanctity of marriage. We should do more upstream to help strengthen marriages and prevent relationships from breaking down, through mandatory and extensive marriage preparation programmes and make marriage therapy, marriage counselling cheaper and more accessible. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.

4.24 pm

Ms Sun Xueling: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for the robust debate, the pertinent issues raised and their support for the Bill. Important issues have been raised by Members regarding the proposals and the very institutions of marriage and family in Singapore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Leader.

Debate resumed.

5.03 pm

Ms Sun Xueling: We also recognise that there may be those impacted by divorce that require even more support, given the challenges of caregiving.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Seah Kian Peng brought up the issue of support for mothers who may be unemployed during the divorce. With the proposed amendments, all parents with minor children must attend MPP before they file for divorce. MPP covers several areas, including co-parenting and the impact of divorce on parties' financial status and living arrangements. If employment support or financial support is needed, the MPP counsellor would refer the parties for employment or financial assistance.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Seah Kian Peng also asked about support for parents with caregiving responsibilities, including greater flexible work support and other policies for better work-life harmony. MOM introduced the Tripartite Advisory on Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) and Tripartite Standard on FWAs in 2017 and, subsequently, the Tripartite Standard on Work-Life Harmony in 2021, which guides employers on how to offer FWAs to their employees and provides recognition to employers who do so. MOM will continue to work with the tripartite partners to strengthen the provision of FWAs and other work-life practices.

In August 2021, MSF also set up an Alliance for Action to Strengthen Marriages and Family Relationships. One of the focal areas is on "Support for Single Parents", which aims to enable single parents to better care for their children and raise their families through strengthening the ecosystem of support around them. The Alliance for Action will work with community partners to strengthen support for single parents. And this includes childcare, employment and socioemotional support, facilitating support networks for single parents and developing a one-stop portal to help single parents access programmes and community resources more easily.

Mr Louis Ng brought up the issue of access to HDB flats for divorcees with shared care and control of their children and made several suggestions. I thank him for those suggestions.

Under current HDB policy, all individuals are only allowed to be listed in one HDB flat application. At the same time, divorcees with shared care and control of children have an equal right to list their children in their flat application. HDB is not in a position to determine which parent can exercise the right to do so, and thus requires divorced parents to try to come to an agreement, in the first instance, before listing their child in a flat application.

I agree with Mr Ang Wei Neng that we must support those who face difficulties. For those who are unable to reach an agreement with their ex-spouse or have low income and have no other housing options, HDB can exercise flexibility to waive the requirement on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that both parties have options to provide housing for themselves and their children.

For cases where the ex-spouse has bought a private property after the divorce, they may still wish to list the child in a future flat application. As such, HDB will review each case individually and will not be able to waive the mutual agreement requirement as a blanket policy.

HDB will also not require the Court order to state which parent is allowed to list the child as an "essential occupier" as orders pertaining to a child are made with the overarching principle of the child's best interest. When determining issues pertaining to a child's welfare, the Court order focuses on rebuilding relationships and for parents to focus on the future with their children, instead of specific orders laying down conditions, such as the one referred to.

As far as possible, we want to encourage divorced parents to work through issues cooperatively and harmoniously outside of the Court system. This is especially pertinent in cases where there is shared care and control as it is not ideal for parents with shared care and control to seek or rely on Court orders to lay down all matters and details pertaining to care of their children and arrangements after divorce. Instead, they should be working on co-parenting cooperatively in the child's best interest. Those awarded share and control must also, when they applied for it, truly be able to divide the care and control of the child equally and be able to cooperate to do so.

Nonetheless, we recognise that there may be cases where parents are unable to reach an agreement despite their best efforts. In such cases, they can approach HDB to discuss their options.

As Ms Mariam Jaafar has raised, the area of family law is an important one, one that often most impacts people and their families. It is for this reason that our proposed amendments seek to strengthen therapeutic justice in the family justice system, and we are working with FJC to include monitoring standards, processes and complaints.

Nonetheless, the various professions involved in the process are subject to their respective codes of practice.

If passed in Parliament, we expect all the marriage-related amendments and some of the divorce-related amendments to come into effect in the latter half of this year, while others, such as DMA, would come into effect in 2023, to allow time for the Courts, lawyers, social service agencies and other parties to be ready.

In conclusion, our families are the key building blocks of society, and we must do what we can to ensure that they are protected and strengthened. I believe that, viewed holistically, these proposed amendments to the Women's Charter relating to marriage and divorce, will strengthen the institution of marriage and support families should they have to pursue divorce as a last resort. I thank everyone who had provided feedback during our engagements and who made the proposals presented here today possible. Beyond legislation, it is truly the efforts of the community that will make a difference to those impacted by a divorce.

I also urge experienced couples to do their part to actively mentor and counsel younger couples in their social circles or religious organisations, bolstering the efforts of licensed solemnisers under the JOY initiative. I also encourage passionate individuals and ground-up groups to partner MSF's Alliance for Action to organise family activities, programmes to strengthen marriages and family relationships. I am also excited to be working with Families for Life, a ground-up movement to build strong and resilient families in Singapore.

However, we also recognise that more can be done to enhance protection against violence, and we will be proposing amendments in a separate Bill by the end of this year to implement the recommendations of the Taskforce on Family Violence. With that, I thank Members for the valuable input and support for this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications? Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

5.11 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to thank the Minister of State for her clarifications. It has given me much assurance of the Government's commitment to the institution of marriage. If I may clarify, if DMA is not accepted by the Court, the Minister of State had said that the Court can direct parties for counselling.

However, my understanding is that counselling requires parties to agree and, if the couple refuses to attend counselling, what does that mean for the Court's directions? Will it be mandatory? Will it be compulsory? Or does it mean that the parties would then have to file for divorce based on the other grounds under section 95A of the Bill?

My experience is that most couples, by the time they come to see a lawyer, are unwilling to consider counselling. And it gives them great pain to have to revisit that decision; what more if the Court has to redirect them to go for counselling.

Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his clarification. If the Court had directed the parties to go for counselling, it would have meant that, in their application for DMA, they had not satisfied the requirements under DMA. As such, if the parties would still want to continue with their divorce applications, then they will have to cite a different fact.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

Ms Hany Soh: Mr Speaker, I have one quick clarification in relation to MPP. I understand from the Minister of State that it will be made compulsory for all divorcing parents with minor children. Can I check whether this plan is also intending to extend to those whose children have already attained the age of 21 but actually suffer from mental or physical disability? Because, currently, when you file a proposed parenting plan, it actually applies to those parents with this kind of family settings.

Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her clarification. Indeed, for children who would benefit from having their parents go for MPP, and, if they have exceeded the age limit of 21, the parents can similarly do so.

Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.

Ms Mariam Jaafar: I thank the Minister of State for her clarifications and many of them have addressed some of my concerns. I still have a lingering concern in the area of enforcement of access and parental alienation. Because the lived experience of my residents is that leaving it to FSC has not addressed the issues for them. And, of course, the legal recourse is very expensive and long drawn-out, which is why I had also raised the question on legal aid. So, I hope that, at some point, MSF will assess again a framework for parental alienation.

But I have one clarification on the use of enforcement of access. Will this apply to divorces that have already been approved, even if it is multiple years? Parents who feel that they have not been given due access to their children right now, will they be able to now go to Court and get their orders for access approved when their kids may say that they do not want to see them because they have been conditioned by the other spouse to actually break relationships with the previous spouse?

Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her clarification. On the last point that the Member raised, the Court will have to consider what is in the best interest of the child. They will have to take into account the full facts of the case. I understand where the Member is coming from. But the starting point of the Court has to be that it is in the best interest of the child.

So, we hope, with the current updates to how access is provided, that this would ensure more expeditious redress for parents who face issues of access.

Ms Mariam Jaafar: So, I would just like to confirm: the enforcement powers proposed will apply to divorces that have already been finalised in the past and not only to new divorces going forward.

Ms Sun Xueling: Yes, that is correct.

Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.

Ms Carrie Tan: Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her clarifications. I would just like to speak on the point in her response about allowing husbands to seek maintenance, that, currently, it is a very small number and not the norm.

In the interest of developing and uplifting women, I would like to seek the Ministry's consideration that in order to create a mainstreaming, we must start with the right signals. And perhaps to encourage more men to take on an equal role domestically, we may need this legislative safeguard to then nudge different behaviours. I think that this would aid the cause for women to be unburdened from an over-proportion of care responsibilities and to encourage men to take up more of a role in the home as a participating father and spouse.

So, would the Minister of State like to comment on whether we can expedite the consideration of this so that we can expedite the accelerating of a different future, in mainstreaming men's equal role domestically?

Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her clarification. There are many ongoing efforts and non-legislative ones to encourage the mainstreaming of the roles of the father and the mother, like what the Member has suggested. For instance, MOE, in its Character Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum talks about the roles that different family members play and they encourage children and students not to have stereotyped views on what a father and mother's roles should be. So, I would encourage the Member to look at these efforts holistically.

Important lessons and initiatives also have to start very young when it comes to framing the views that society has towards what the roles of fathers and mothers should be. So, I would encourage the Member to look beyond legislative amendments.

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. – [Ms Sun Xueling].

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