Women's Charter (Family Violence and Other Matters) (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

1.20 pm

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

With your permission, Madam, may I request the Clerks to distribute an infographic on the Bill. Members may also access the handout through the MP@SGPARL App.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Ms Sun Xueling: Strong and stable families are the foundation upon which we nurture and build resilient individuals. A family is where we should feel safe and supported. Unfortunately, some families are not a safe haven, as there is violence within the home. No one should experience violence, especially at the hands of a person whom they love and trust.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), globally, about one in three women worldwide have been subjected to either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence in their lifetime. In comparison, a 2019 review by the National Council of Social Service in Singapore estimated that about 3% of Singapore's population of men and women experienced some form of domestic violence based on administrative data, but this ranges from 3% to 20% based on self-reported data. While these numbers are lower than global rates, we must aspire as a society to see that no one suffers from family violence.

We saw in the past few years that the pandemic had cast a spotlight on family violence, given the added stress of balancing family responsibilities and work commitments amidst the heightened uncertainties. Since the launch of the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF)'s National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline, or NAVH, in 2021, the number of calls received has increased from 8,400 to 10,800 in 2022. Of all the enquiries received by NAVH, an average of about 3,000 enquiries per year were related to abuse or violence.

Family violence is a complex issue. Family violence can take various forms. Besides physical and sexual abuse, emotional and psychological abuse, such as exerting control over another's behaviour or victim blaming, is also a form of violence. While such abuse may be less visible or less understood, the harm that it causes to the survivor is no less significant.

Another reason why family violence is complex is because there is no single cause of family violence. The Intergenerational Transmission of Criminality and Other Social Disadvantages, otherwise known as INTRACS study, conducted by MSF and National Council of Social Service (NCSS), suggested that family violence tends to co-occur with negative life experiences and other factors, such as prior contact with child protection and welfare or criminal justice systems and early marriage and parenthood before the age of 21. Hence, the reasons for committing violence could be due to deep-seated issues, such as perpetrators themselves being abused or being a witness to violence in their own homes as a child or an inability to cope with stressors, such as unemployment, financial difficulties, parenting or other issues. Medical or mental health conditions, addiction issues or disabilities may also impact one's ability to manage emotions in a healthy way.

The third cause as to why family violence is complex is because it often happens behind closed doors which makes it harder to detect. Survivors may hesitate to seek help due to shame, stigma, fear of breaking up their family and the perception that family violence is a personal matter. Similarly, individuals who observe family violence may remain as passive bystanders because they also consider it a private family matter.

Last but not least, family violence can have a detrimental impact on the next generation. The INTRACS study which I mentioned earlier found that children whose parents had contact with the personal protection order (PPO) system were 7.63 times more likely to have contact with the child protective system.

Family violence goes against the fundamental values of our society. This is why we are strengthening legislation to better protect survivors and enhance the rehabilitation and accountability of perpetrators. Once the protection and safety objectives have been achieved, we need to help perpetrators rehabilitate and families to heal relationships and reconcile. This will help to break the cycle of violence.

In developing the strategies to tackle family violence, the Government consulted widely with experts and professionals from the healthcare, social services and legal sectors and members of the public to garner different perspectives and ideas to address this issue comprehensively. We did this through the multi-stakeholder Taskforce on Family Violence which I co-chaired with Minister of State for Home Affairs, Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, from 2019 to 2021. The Taskforce's work culminated in its 16 recommendations released in September 2021.

I would like to state my deepest appreciation to the members of the Taskforce. Your views, ideas and feedback helped us to better understand the gaps in the family violence landscape and to co-create solutions to address them. Beyond the Taskforce, many from all walks of life, including survivors, perpetrators, friends and relatives of survivors of family violence, lawyers and healthcare workers, also shared their feedback, which helped us shape the amendments in this Bill.

I would like to recognise the Protection Specialist Centres, TRANS Safe Centre, Care Corner Project StART and PAVE, for their tireless efforts in providing dedicated services and support for persons experiencing domestic violence over the years. In particular, during the COVID-19 pandemic, you stepped up to keep families safe from violence, handling more than 4,500 enquiries and 1,100 cases in 2020 when we had the Circuit Breaker period, a notable increase from about 3,200 enquiries and 960 cases in 2019.

I would also like to thank our crisis shelters, Anglican Family Centre, Casa Raudha Women Home, Good Shepherd Centre and Star Shelter, for providing a safe haven for about 500 clients last year to recover from their trauma and regain confidence in living a life free from violence. I also thank New Hope Community Services for providing temporary shelter to male survivors. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge Lutheran Community Care Services for their efforts in providing a safe space for male survivors of family violence to discuss their experiences and widen their support networks.

I am deeply touched by the dedication of all our social service professionals. You have invested much time and effort to support and keep survivors safe. Some of you also work with perpetrators in their rehabilitation journey. Sometimes, you yourself face risks because of the work that you do, especially when the family situation is volatile. Your unwavering commitment has helped to keep our families safe.

I am glad to share that the recommendations of the taskforce have been progressively implemented since the report was released in 2021.

To increase awareness and strengthen societal attitudes against violence, MSF refreshed our Break the Silence public education campaign in 2021 to increase the awareness of different types of abuse, including non-physical abuse and to encourage survivors and bystanders to seek help. As part of the refreshed campaign, we introduced the use of the "Signal for Help" hand sign that survivors can use to discreetly call for help. Through the Family and Domestic Violence Awareness Training, more than 5,000 people across the people, public and private sectors have been trained to spot and report signs of family violence and we will continue to extend our training and outreach.

To make it easier for survivors and the community to report violence and get immediate help, we now have an online channel as an additional mode of reporting to the 24-hour National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline. MSF launched a 24-hour Domestic Violence Emergency Response Team in April this year. The Victim Care Cadre Programme has been offered to those below 18 years of age, to provide them with greater support during Police investigations. The Home Team Community Assistance and Referral Scheme, otherwise known as HT CARES, which was piloted in Bedok Land Division in 2019, has been expanded to all Police Land Divisions since September 2021.

To strengthen protection and support for survivors, forensic-trained psychologists have been deployed to the Protection Specialist Centres since September 2022. Selected Police officers from the Community Policing Unit have been appointed across the Police Land Divisions since July 2022, to specialise in the management of family violence cases and escalate potential high-risk cases for social intervention.

The Police also set up the Sexual Crime and Family Violence Command in April this year for better oversight of the management of sexual crime and family violence cases. The Police Training Workgroup was set up by the Police and MSF in June 2021 to enhance training for frontline Police officers in engaging and managing family violence cases. The training curriculum was co-developed with members of the Taskforce with professional experience and practice wisdom such as Family Service Centres, The Singapore Council of Women's Organisations, crisis shelters and the Family Justice Courts.

Finally, the Bill before us today brings to fruition all the legislative amendments required to give effect to the proposed recommendations of the Taskforce.

The Women's Charter provides protection for all survivors of family violence, regardless of gender. Since its enactment in 1961, the Women's Charter sets out how family and family relationships should be managed in statute.

Hence, the amendments are parked under the Women's Charter for historical reasons. MSF is prepared to consider the possibility of enacting a standalone Domestic Violence Act in the future to enhance protection for persons in intimate non-familial relationships. We will need some time to consult the relevant stakeholders and will share more details when ready.

For now, the Bill with the proposed amendments will replace the family violence framework in the Women's Charter with a more comprehensive regime.

Under the Women's Charter, survivors may apply for a personal protection order, or PPO, to restrain their family members from committing further violence against them. Last year, about 2,000 PPO applications were made to the Family Justice Courts, of which 25% were made by men.

I will now elaborate on the key amendments made by the Bill, starting with the definition of family violence.

The new section 58B updates the existing definition of "family violence" by making clear that family violence includes physical, sexual, emotional and psychological abuse. The updated definition is aligned with how abuse is defined in other acts, such as the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 and the Vulnerable Adults Act 2018. The Bill makes clear that abuse may take the form of a single instance of conduct or behaviour, or a course of conduct or behaviour.

The definition of sexual abuse includes conduct or behaviour that coerces, or attempts to coerce, a person to engage in sexual activity. Illustrations on emotional or psychological abuse are given in the Bill, to raise understanding and aid discernment of these forms of abuse.

Stakeholders have shared situations where perpetrators threaten to withhold monthly allowance from their spouses, constantly call their spouses to check on their whereabouts and isolate them from their friends or family, including disallowing them to leave the house. If the spouses do not comply, they may be threatened by the perpetrator. These egregious forms of controlling behaviour – which falls within the definition of what some other jurisdictions call "coercive control" – can cause distress or mental harm to a survivor and would be considered emotional or psychological abuse under the new Bill.

MSF had considered whether to include financial abuse in the definition of family violence. Financial abuse is a complex issue and subjected to different interpretations. As pointed out in the report by the Taskforce on Family Violence, financial abuse is an emerging issue and requires further study. We are working with relevant stakeholders and partners to study this issue further.

The updated definition of family violence would protect persons like Mrs B – a Long-Term Visit Pass Holder living in Singapore with her husband Mr B and their son. Mr B would often exert power and control over his wife by threatening to chase her out of their house and not to renew her Long-Term Visit Pass, leaving her with no other physical or financial resource. Mrs B and her son had also suffered serious physical abuse from Mr B. Due to the immense fear of Mr B's threats, Mrs B was afraid to apply for a PPO against her husband as it might result in her being chased out of the house and separated from her child. The new amendments would provide greater assurance to people like Mrs B that such controlling behaviours is a form of abuse and that remedies are available for her.

Next, I will elaborate on the key provisions in clause 2, and these fall under three focal areas: (a) Focal Area One: empowering family violence survivors to better protect themselves; (b) Focal Area Two: strengthening the Government's ability to intervene in family violence cases; and (c) Focal Area Three: empowering the Court to make additional rehabilitative orders and strengthening enforcement against breaches including raising penalties.

The first focal area is on empowering family violence survivors to better protect themselves. The new section 60 allows younger survivors to apply for a PPO on their own. Unmarried persons aged 18 to below 21 years old will no longer need to rely on guardians, relatives, persons responsible for their care or persons appointed by the Minister to apply for a PPO on their behalf. The new section 63 also removes the need for them to act through a litigation representative. These amendments ensure that survivors receive timely legal protection.

Today, the Court may issue a Counselling Order or a Domestic Exclusion Order together with a PPO. A Domestic Exclusion Order excludes a perpetrator from the entire or a part of the home. However, there have been cases where perpetrators continue to harass survivors outside their homes or make threats via text messages.

For better legal protection, the new section 60B allows survivors to apply for a Stay Away Order or a No Contact Order, or both to be imposed on the perpetrator. This is in addition to Counselling and Domestic Exclusion Orders, which are already available. The perpetrator who is subjected to a Stay Away Order cannot enter or remain in areas frequented by the survivor, such as a workplace, or a childcare centre where the survivor has enrolled their child. A No Contact Order prohibits visits or communications with the survivor. The Court will make these orders if it is satisfied that it is necessary for the safety and protection of the survivor. Breaches of these Court orders will be an arrestable offence punishable with an imprisonment and/or fine.

The new section 63B protects a survivor's identity. It prohibits any publication or broadcast – including on social media – that is likely to identify the survivor, unless the approval of the Director-General of Social Welfare and the consent of the survivor have been obtained. The Court will also be empowered to order the removal of any unauthorised publication or broadcast. Failure to comply with a takedown order will be an offence punishable with a fine.

The second focal area is on strengthening the Government's ability to intervene in family violence cases. MSF has statutory powers to protect children and vulnerable adults under the Children and Young Persons Act and Vulnerable Adults Act respectively. In cases where an adult, such as a spouse or a parent who is not vulnerable under the Vulnerable Adults Act, is subjected to violence from another family member, the approach under the existing law is different. The operative principle is to respect an adult survivor's right to self-determination. The law only comes in when the adult survivor chooses to seek help from his or her relatives, friends or the community.

This approach is no longer sufficient. In recent times, social service agencies and the Government have encountered cases where adult survivors with mental capacity chose not to keep themselves safe, often putting themselves at risk of harm. The Bill empowers the Government to step in to protect such survivors and to intervene judiciously for their personal safety.

For this, the Bill grants powers to persons referred to as "protectors". Protectors are persons with suitable qualifications and experience who are appointed by the Director-General of Social Welfare to carry out statutory duties and functions under the new Part 7. Under the new sections 62 to 62C, protectors will be able to issue Emergency Orders on site in high-risk cases. In line with the Taskforce's recommendation, this will better protect the survivors at the onset of violence while further action is taken to ensure their safety, such as applying for a PPO or an Expedited Order or putting in place a safety plan.

An Emergency Order will be issued if the protector is satisfied that there is a danger of the perpetrator committing family violence imminently against the survivor. It takes effect immediately and is valid for 14 days to give the survivor time to apply for a PPO. The Emergency Order may also include a Domestic Exclusion Order, a Stay Away Order, a No Contact Order, or a combination of these additional orders. A breach of any of these orders will be an arrestable offence.

Emergency Orders will be useful for persons such as Mr D, a 20-year-old tertiary student who was repeatedly hit and punched by his stepfather. Mr D's mother was unable to protect him and the violence continued. With the help of social work professionals from the Protection Specialist Centre, he moved to a transitional shelter. Though he was safe, he had to live apart from his mother and stepsiblings whom he wanted to continue living with. In such cases, an Emergency Order would be issued to Mr D's stepfather immediately at the scene, restraining him from committing further violence. A Domestic Exclusion Order could also be issued to prohibit Mr D's stepfather from being at home, thus, ensuring Mr D's safety while allowing him to continue living with his mother and stepsiblings.

The Emergency Order is meant to be a stop gap measure. PPOs and other related Court Orders will continue to offer the main and longer-term protection against family violence. As a safeguard, Protectors will be limited to making up to four Emergency Orders against a given perpetrator within three months. This period would give sufficient time for social service professionals to de-escalate the tension, put in place a safety plan for the survivor, provide the necessary intervention and allow the survivor to apply for a PPO.

The new sections 59 to 59E introduce provisions for MSF to obtain information about family violence. Protectors will be allowed to assess and obtain information on whether a person has experienced or is at risk of experiencing family violence. They will be conferred powers to enter the home to make an assessment where needed. A protector will also be empowered to direct an individual to disclose information or provide relevant records relating to the person who has experienced or is experiencing family violence.

Those who report suspected family violence cases to protectors, the Police or other authorised persons will be protected from criminal or civil liability if they have acted in good faith and with reasonable care. This is to encourage more people to step forward to report family violence.

The next group of amendments aim to protect survivors who are at risk of danger but are unwilling to take action to protect themselves. Members may recall a 2017 case of a 30-year-old master's degree student who physically abused his 68-year-old mother, Mdm Y. He starved her, did not allow her to shower or to make noise when he was stressed with his studies. He also hit her face and assaulted her private parts with a metal padlock and with his knee. Despite being hospitalised multiple times for serious injuries and being placed in a safe house, Mdm Y insisted on returning home. As she did not want to implicate her son, she did not attribute the injuries to his conduct. She also did not retaliate whenever he took out his frustrations on her. This Bill will better protect persons like Mdm Y.

The new section 60 allows Protectors to make applications for PPOs, Stay Away, No Contact, Domestic Exclusion or Counselling Orders on behalf of survivors, even if the survivor does not consent.

Currently, a family member, guardian or relative or appointed persons can only step in to apply for PPOs on behalf of survivors below 21 years of age or who are incapacitated. However, as seen in Mdm Y's case, not all survivors will choose to keep themselves safe, sometimes due to the perpetrator exerting undue influence over the survivor. Allowing protectors to apply for PPOs and other orders on behalf of a survivor will strengthen the protection for survivors whose safety is seriously threatened but who refuse to apply for a PPO.

The new section 60C allows protectors to apply to the Court for electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring, which could include e-tagging, will be used against high-risk perpetrators in exceptional cases, where there is reasonable suspicion that a PPO has been breached with harm inflicted on the survivor, and the survivor has not taken steps to protect himself or herself.

E-tagging is not new. It has been used by the Police for accused persons released on Court bail. MSF also uses e-tagging on probationers. Through e-tagging, the authorities can be alerted if, for example, a perpetrator with Domestic Exclusion Order made against him or her enters the survivor's home, so action can be taken quickly.

As electronic monitoring is intended for high-risk perpetrators, only protectors may apply for electronic monitoring, after an assessment is made on the circumstances of each case. Details of the electronic monitoring regime will be worked on further by MSF.

As a last resort and when all other interventions fail, the new section 60D allows protectors to apply to the Court to remove a survivor from his or her home. The Court must be satisfied that a Removal Order is necessary for the protection or personal safety of the survivor. When making a Removal Order, the Court must also make a Care Order, a Supervision Order, or both of these Orders.

A Care Order commits the survivor to the care of a fit person. A Supervision Order places the survivor under the supervision of a protector or another suitable person appointed by the Court for a specified period. The Court may also make an order against the survivor, prohibiting the survivor from returning home, or visiting or communicating with the perpetrator. I would like to highlight that the intent of section 60D is to protect the survivor. Prohibiting the survivor from returning home is to protect the survivor from potential further harm.

If the survivor is removed from his or her home, the survivor may be admitted into a residential facility, such as a crisis shelter. It will not be an offence if the survivor contravenes these orders, but the contravention must be taken into account by the Court when deciding whether to vary, suspend or revoke a Care Order or Supervision Order.

MSF’s approach to family violence cases is that perpetrators, not survivors, should be held accountable for the violence. Hence, protectors will only apply for a removal order in exceptional, high-risk cases. Other alternatives such as electronic monitoring of the perpetrator will be considered before removing a survivor from his or her home. We will also ensure that adequate intervention is provided to the survivor prior to, during and after his or her removal, to mitigate any negative impact the removal might have on the survivor.

In the earlier case of Mdm Y who was severely abused by her 30-year-old son and who did not take steps to protect herself, with the new amendments, a protector would be able to apply for a PPO with a Domestic Exclusion Order against her son to prohibit him from returning home, even if Mdm Y does not consent. The protector may make a Police report if there is a breach of the PPO or the Domestic Exclusion Order. A breach of these orders is an arrestable offence. In addition, if there is reasonable suspicion that the PPO or Domestic Exclusion Order has been breached with harm inflicted on the survivor, the protector may also apply for Electronic Monitoring for her son. As a last resort, if all interventions fail, a protector can apply to the Court for Mdm Y to be removed from her home. If granted, she will be placed in a crisis shelter for a specified period until it is safe for her to return home.

It was not easy for MSF and the Taskforce to formulate this group of amendments. The Government would rather not have to introduce such powers. However, real-life cases show that complex dynamics exist between perpetrators and survivors. Giving due weight to the principle of protecting lives and preventing further harm, the Government, therefore, carefully calibrated the amendments under Focal Area Two. Necessary safeguards are put in place to strike a balance between pushing the legal frontiers of protection for survivors and avoiding statutory over-reach.

The third Focal Area is on empowering the Court to make additional rehabilitative orders, raise penalties and strengthen enforcement against breaches of family violence-related offences.

Not only do survivors need a supportive environment to heal from their trauma, perpetrators also need a safe environment where they can share their struggles openly, without being judged. This set of amendments aims to address the root causes of family violence perpetration and to provide the necessary support to perpetrators in their rehabilitation journey. With appropriate support and intervention, perpetrators can learn to better manage their emotions and behaviours and to break the cycle of violence.

During last year's National Family Violence Networking System Conference, I met a group of men from Thye Hua Kwan Family Service Centre's Brotherhood Programme. This programme supports males who had past histories of aggressive episodes towards their loved ones. These men were supported to examine the consequences of their aggression on their loved ones. With the support of fellow male participants, they experienced positive behavioural changes.

During the Conference, the participants of this programme sung a self-composed song titled, "A Better Man". I would like to quote a verse from the song: "Please hear my story, please don't deny me. A tiny seed of hope is crying to see. With a heart of gold and all the love in the world, give us one more chance to start again."

I applaud these individuals who took the bold step to try to become a better person for themselves, their families, friends and the community. MSF and our community partners are committed to supporting perpetrators, whether male or female, in their rehabilitation journey.

Currently, to rehabilitate perpetrators, the Court may make a Counselling Order when it issues a PPO. About 93% of PPOs issued from 2018 to 2022 were tagged with a Counselling Order. A person under a Counselling Order, and this may be the perpetrator, survivor, or a child is required to attend a counselling programme offered by social service agencies appointed by MSF.

With a greater focus on rehabilitation of perpetrators, the new section 60E expands the scope of the existing Counselling Order to include other programmes, treatments and interventions. These include parenting programmes, caregiver training, or family therapy and other programmes which cater better to the risk levels and unique needs of each perpetrator.

Counselling will help perpetrators such as Mr Y, caregiver of his wheelchair-bound mother. Mr Y threatened his mother with a knife and threw away her medication as he did not think the medication was effective. Through the Court-ordered mandatory counselling, Mr Y gained insight into his mother's care needs and the impact of his actions on her. He also completed a caregiver training to better care for his mother. Upon the completion of the mandatory counselling sessions, Mr Y voluntarily continued with additional counselling sessions and showed significant improvement in his behaviour. Mr Y and his mother now enjoy a better relationship with no further incidence of violence.

However, counselling may not be effective for all persons. The MSF study on the Intergenerational Transmission of Criminality and Other Social Disadvantages, which I referred to earlier, found that among those who had PPO applications made against them, approximately 14% had been diagnosed with mental health conditions prior to the first PPO application.

The new section 60F empowers the Court to make Mandatory Treatment Orders against perpetrators under a PPO whose psychiatric condition is likely to be a contributing factor to the occurrence of family violence. The Bill lists several conditions which must be fulfilled, before the Court can make a Mandatory Treatment Order. This takes reference from the Mandatory Treatment Order regime under the Protection from Harassment Act.

First, the Court may call for a specified psychiatrist to provide a preliminary assessment report for the Court to decide if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the perpetrator is likely to be suffering from a psychiatric condition and that the psychiatric condition is likely to be a contributing factor for that person committing family violence.

If the Court considers that reasonable grounds exist, the Court must call for a formal assessment report on the perpetrator by an appointed psychiatrist. The psychiatrist must assess and report on: firstly, whether the perpetrator is suffering from a psychiatric condition; secondly, that the condition is a contributing factor for the perpetrator's commission of family violence which was the basis of his or her PPO; thirdly, that the psychiatric condition must be susceptible to treatment; and lastly, whether the perpetrator is suitable for treatment.

The Bill also specifies other factors the psychiatrist must consider. A Mandatory Treatment Order can only be made if the psychiatrist's formal assessment report certifies that all these factors are met.

A perpetrator under a Mandatory Treatment Order may receive up to 36 months of treatment, which may include a requirement to reside in a psychiatric institution or a place providing psychiatric treatment.

Currently, when a PPO has been revoked or has expired, the Counselling Order will also cease to have effect and this will no longer be the case after we pass the amendments. Under the Bill, a Counselling Order and a Mandatory Treatment Order will survive the PPO, so that the necessary interventions can be completed to ensure that the root cause of family violence is addressed, to avoid recurrence of family violence against current or future family members.

The Bill also introduces factors that the Court must consider before revoking a PPO. Where a Counselling Order or a Mandatory Treatment Order was made, the Court must consider any report by the counselling agency or the appointed psychiatrist. The Court will also consider if there remains a risk of family violence and whether the survivor's consent to the revocation was made voluntarily.

To ensure perpetrators take their rehabilitation seriously, we will strengthen enforcement and penalties against breaches of Court orders.

First, the Bill increases the penalties for breaches of family violence-related Court orders. For a first conviction, the offender can be fined or imprisoned, or both. The fine will be raised to a maximum of $10,000, from $2,000 today, and the imprisonment term will be increased to a maximum of 12 months. On conviction, an offender can be fined or imprisoned, or both. The penalties will minimally be on par with the enhanced penalties for breaches of Protection orders under the Protection from Harassment Act where the victim is a vulnerable person or is or was in an intimate relationship with the offender.

Second, the Bill makes breaches of a Counselling Order or Mandatory Treatment Order an offence. This amendment arose in response to stakeholders' feedback that some perpetrators did not take Counselling Orders seriously, including not turning up for counselling sessions. Currently, the survivor may apply for an order of committal against the perpetrator, if the perpetrator does not attend counselling. However, as there are several court procedures involved, survivors may be deterred from doing so. To hold perpetrators accountable, breaches of Counselling Orders and Mandatory Treatment Orders will be an offence, with the perpetrator liable to a fine on conviction.

The new sections 64 to 64G introduce new powers to enable MSF's enforcement officers to detect and investigate offences under the new Part 7. These powers include powers to enter premises or seize documents for evidence of an offence. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As a society, we cannot tolerate family violence occurring in our communities, nor can we turn a blind eye to family violence just because it happens within individual families or in hidden corners.

The definition of family violence has been updated to make clear that it encompasses physical, sexual, psychological and emotional abuse.

Next, I will raise a few real-life cases to highlight how the new Bill protects survivors of family violence.

For example, a Long-Term Visit Pass holder was constantly threatened by her husband to chase her out of the house and not to renew her Long-Term Visit Pass, leaving her with no financial resource. Due to the immense fear of being chased out of the house and being separated from her child, she was afraid to apply for a PPO against her husband. The new amendment will provide greater assurance to such vulnerable groups, as such controlling behaviours constitute a form of abuse under the updated definition of family violence.

In addition, to provide better protection, besides the existing Counselling Order and Domestic Exclusion Order, survivors can also apply for a Stay Away Order or a No Contact Order against the perpetrator. This is because in cases of family violence we have observed, the perpetrator may not only inflict harm within the home, but also go to the survivor's frequented places, such as their workplace, a childcare centre where their child is enrolled, or harass the survivor through electronic devices. The newly introduced Stay Away Order and No Contact Order will prohibit such behaviours.

In addition, adult survivors with mental capacity may also choose not to keep themselves safe and put themselves at risk of harm. To tackle such scenarios, the Bill empowers the Government to intervene judiciously to protect these survivors' personal safety.

Real-life cases show that complex dynamics do exist between perpetrators and survivors, and there will be some survivors who choose not to protect themselves from harm.

For example, in a family violence incident that occurred in 2017, a 30-year-old Master's degree student physically abused his 68-year-old mother. He starved her, did not allow her to shower, and even hit her face and assaulted her private parts with a metal padlock. Despite being hospitalised multiple times for serious injuries and being placed in a safe house, the mother insisted on returning home. As she did not want to implicate her son, she did not report these incidents to the Police. She also did not retaliate whenever he committed violence or took out his frustrations on her.

The new section 60 allows Protectors to make applications for PPOs, Stay Away, No Contact, Domestic Exclusion or Counselling Orders on behalf of survivors, even if the survivor does not consent. This is to strengthen the protection for survivors whose safety is seriously threatened, but refuse to apply for a PPO.

In addition to enhancing protection for survivors, we will also enhance the rehabilitation of perpetrators. Our ultimate goal is to help families affected by family violence heal from their trauma. The new section 60E expands the scope of the existing Counselling Order to include other programmes, treatments and interventions. These include parenting programmes, caregiver training, family therapy or other programmes which cater better to the risk levels and unique needs of perpetrators.

For example, in one case, the son was the caregiver of his wheelchair-bound mother. He threatened his mother with a knife and threw away her medication as he did not think the medication was effective. Through the Court-ordered mandatory counselling, the son gained insight into his mother's care needs and the impact of his actions on her. He completed a caregiver training to better care for his mother. Today, their relationship has improved with no further incidents of violence.

The Bill strengthens the protection of survivors of family violence and enhances the accountability and rehabilitation of perpetrators. It also supports families affected by family violence towards reconciliation and healing, to enable them to return to their normal lives.

(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the other amendments made by the Bill are sufficiently described by the explanatory statement and I will not go into them. Kindly let me conclude.

This Bill reflects the Government's strong stance against violence and our commitment to keeping families safe, in partnership with the community and the general public. We aim to address the risks and needs of both survivors and perpetrators and support them towards family reconciliation where possible. The Bill builds on past efforts by the Government and the social service sector to tackle family violence. This is a whole-of-society effort where everyone has a part to play to help families break the cycle of violence.

Question proposed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.

2.04 pm

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support this amendment Bill. I just have two points to make.

One of the areas which I support is the protection of the survivor's identity. As a general rule, for all matters relating to personal information, consent is key. If a person consents to have their stories published, then it should be allowed. Otherwise, we should respect their privacy.

This general rule is especially salient for persons who have experienced trauma. They should have greater control and say over the use of information. Therefore, I support the amendment's prohibition of the publication or broadcast of identifiable information, unless with the survivor's consent and the approval of the Director General of Social Welfare, or DGSW, in short.

There need not, however, be a symmetry about this. The privacy of the perpetrator does not qualify for the same level of protection automatically. For one, there should be some deterrent effect if such offenders knew that their names would be made public.

There is an argument that doing so may lead to the identification of the survivor and, hence, the perpetrator's name would also be protected unless with the survivor's consent and the DGSW's approval.

I agree with this in general, but I would ask that the re-offenders be considered more seriously for identification because of the element of public harm. The need to be protected from re-offenders must be weighted in our consideration.

A second point I want to deal with has to do with the power of the Director General of Social Welfare. Mdm Deputy Speaker, we have often said how important family is to our society. Yet, we often think of the family in abstract terms and, quite often, for the positive force it exerts. Yet, violence, domination, pain, harm and abuse also occur within the walls of a family. We need to be vigilant and sensitive in our approach. Hard rules and automatic application of these rules are a poor response to the challenges that we face today.

Our framework has evolved to a more nuanced and sophisticated one that requires more use of discretion. I agree with this approach. As a result, however, the DGSW's office today, and going forward, is now entrusted with a lot more heavier responsibilities and duties. So, we need to also ensure that this office of the DGSW is properly resourced and supported so that this important work can also be carried out properly. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

2.07 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill tabled by MSF makes significant and detailed changes to the way family violence cases are handled. Among the key changes brought about by the Bill is the setting up of a 24-hour Domestic Violence Emergency Response Team (DVERT). DVERT will be empowered to issue emergency orders at the scene to require suspected offenders to leave domestic premises immediately and stay away for up to 14 days, while the victim applies to Court for protection orders.

The Bill also gives the Court powers to issue a broader range of orders in domestic violence situations. In addition to the traditional orders, such as the personal protection order (PPO), expedited order (EO) and domestic exclusion order (DEO), the Court will additionally be able to issue "Stay Away Orders" to require offenders not to go to places where the victim will frequent, for example, workplaces. The value of this cannot be overstated if we recall a past incident in 2004 when an offender confronted his spouse at her workplace at Tuas and killed her there. Another new form of Court order is the "No Contact Order" that will protect the victim from being harassed by the offender, not just physically but through other means of communication.

Another aspect of the Bill is more effective monitoring of orders issued, for example, possibly requiring those subject to orders to wear electronic monitoring devices. I believe that such certainty of detection will deter breaches of Court orders.

Besides the contents of the provisions, MSF has also reviewed feedback from the public and consulted many stakeholders, including Family Service Centres, crisis shelters, healthcare workers and lawyers.

Having considered all these, the Workers' Party (WP) supports the Bill. That said, I have two concerns that I wish to raise.

First, the Bill makes it clear that MSF is the lead Ministry on domestic violence, with the Police and MHA playing a somewhat secondary role. For instance, my understanding of the 24-hour DVERT is that it will be staffed by MSF, with the Police coming along to attend cases. Furthermore, any emergency orders issued by DVERT will not be issued by the Police, but by MSF officers. This apparent secondary role for the Police leads me to worry that calls for Police assistance in domestic situations, however serious, may be passed on to MSF automatically or risk being no-crimed in the Police records. This would not be justifiable.

Let me illustrate my concern with scenarios. Suppose a report is received that a person has threatened to harm his or her spouse with a knife and, upon agencies arriving at the scene, the presence of the knife is confirmed. This scenario should properly be classified as criminal intimidation, which is an arrestable offence. Or take another example. Someone calls for assistance due to domestic violence and, upon arrival, the response team sees that the injury is serious and may be a case of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, another arrestable offence.

In these scenarios, would the Police handle the matter as it would normally do if the parties were unrelated to each other, that is, classify the cases accordingly as criminal intimidation and voluntarily causing grievous hurt, arrest the suspect and possibly charge the person in Court with the appropriate offence under the Penal Code? Or would DVERT see it as basically a case of family violence to be proceeded with under the Women's Charter, thereby inadvertently downgrading the seriousness of the incidents?

Madam, the fundamental clarification I am seeking is this: in domestic cases where arrestable crimes have likely been committed, can the Government assure the public that the Police will follow the usual criminal processes and not simply leave it to MSF to handle such cases under the Women's Charter?

The second clarification I have is on the tremendous demand on manpower that the provisions will entail. The explanatory statement to the Bill has confirmed that the Bill will involve the Government in extra financial expenditure, the exact amount of which cannot at present be ascertained. Has MSF projected how many more staff will be needed to implement the provisions of this Bill? Some of the provisions will entail round-the-clock teams, such as DVERT. They also need to be highly trained, as attending to such cases will involve tense situations and may expose officers to physical danger. As for the Police, they are expected to support DVERT's work. We are all aware of the longstanding manpower challenges at frontline policing. How does the Government intend to meet the significant manpower demands that the Bill entails?

Madam, that said, the Bill is a significant commitment towards improving the response of agencies to cases of family violence. I hope it will work well.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

2.12 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, this Bill aims to better protect survivors of family violence. It will strengthen our ability to intervene in family violence and allow for stronger enforcement against breaches of protective measures.

I have seen the consequences on lives when our measures fall short of protecting families. I hope these amendments will allow us to act quickly and more proactively to keep families safe.

I have five points for clarification.

My first set of clarifications are on the manpower needed for implementation and enforcement. The increased protection and enforcement powers under the Bill will require trained manpower. The Bill creates the position of a protector, who holds significant powers. A protector can make an emergency order before a Court order is obtained, can remove an individual from their residence and can apply for protection orders and other family violence orders. The protector must be sensitive to the needs of family violence survivors, be able to make decisions with limited information and make quick decisions that balance the interests of all parties involved.

The new section 65(2) provides that only the Director-General may appoint any person with suitable qualifications and experience as a protector. Can the Minister of State clarify the qualifications and experience required of a protector? Can the Minister of State share what training will be introduced for protectors?

Beyond creating the position of the protector, can the Minister of State share whether there is sufficient current manpower to implement the expanded powers under the Bill? If not, what is the shortfall and what are MSF's plans to make up for this shortfall?

My second clarification is on the individuals covered under the protection order. The new section 60A allows the Court to make a protection order if an aggressor has committed or is likely to commit family violence against an individual. When such a protected individual is the guardian or parent of minor children or otherwise vulnerable family members, it seems likely that those dependants are likely to be in the same household and face the same threats. It would be burdensome to require fresh applications for the individual's dependants.

Can the Minister of State clarify whether when a protection order is granted to protect a caregiver of vulnerable family members, should the Court also automatically consider issuing protection orders to protect those vulnerable family members?

My third clarification is on the use of electronic monitoring. Section 60C(2) allows the Court to make an electronic monitoring order if necessary for the protection or personal safety of an individual. Given the potential intrusiveness of electronic monitoring, can the Minister of State clarify when electronic monitoring will be deemed necessary?

Bilateral monitoring where both the perpetrator and the survivor are tracked has been used in countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia. NGOs have raised to me that this may jeopardise victims' privacy. If victims do not understand how the monitoring is carried out, it may cause unnecessary anxiety about their locations being revealed to perpetrators.

Can the Minister of State share about the types of electronic monitoring arrangements that will be introduced? Are there any plans to introduce bilateral electronic monitoring? Can the Minister of State share how electronic monitoring will be used to detect breaches of other types of orders under the Bill or other family violence offences? Can the Minister of State also share which agencies or individuals will have access to the data from electronic monitoring? How will this data be shared? And what safeguards will be in place to prevent the abuse the use of such data?

My fourth clarification is on the use of policing to complement protection and other family violence orders. Paper orders may not be sufficient to deter some offenders. Increased monitoring and risk of detection may serve as more practical deterrence. Can the Minister of State share if there are any plans to arrange appropriate levels of policing by the Police to complement protection and other types of family violence orders? For instance, is there a protocol for increased policing by the Police to be automatically arranged where protection or other types of orders are in place?

My fifth and final clarification is on the arrangements to ensure continued protection after an aggressor has served jail term for offences of family violence.

The punishment for a family violence may include imprisonment of 12 months or for aggravated offences,18 months. The imprisonment term serves as punishment for the aggressor. But for survivors of family violence, the imprisonment only protects them for as long as the aggressor is in prison. While the aggressor is in prison, there will be no instances that show the likelihood of the aggressor committing family violence since they are in jail. There may not be any factual basis for the survivor then to apply to Court for a Protection Order or other family violence orders, since there is no recent evidence of the aggressor being likely to commit family violence.

Can the Minister of State share how any imprisonment for offences of family violence will affect Protection Orders and other types of family violence orders? What arrangements will be made while this offender is in prison and after the offender's release for the survivor's continued protection? Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

2.17 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, as Members of Parliament, we are in a unique position to be not just the voice of our constituents, but to also provide assistance and advice to our fellow Singaporeans who are in need. I am sure this is something which all of us do on a weekly basis during our Meet-the-People Sessions.

In preparing for this speech, I am reminded of a number of victims of family violence and abuse who have sought our assistance and some of the imagery of bruises and injuries sustained from physical violence, the ridiculous verbal and psychological abuses that they have suffered and the trauma and fear that is in our residents' eyes and voice, even as they muster up enough courage to relate some of their experiences to me.

I am thankful to the various agencies including MSF who have done what they can to provide timely assistance to our residents who have sought our help. So, in this regard, I am supportive of this Bill to introduce a more comprehensive regime to protect against family violence.

To start with, of course, family violence and abuse can take many forms beyond physical hurt and harassment. And this has also evolved with the times and the use of technology, for example. Hence, for starters, I appreciate the updated definition of "family violence" under the new section 58B, to cover physical, sexual, emotional and psychological abuse. This would be a more comprehensive and practical definition rather than the narrow and prescriptive definition previously.

My speech today will be focused on the need for greater assurance and more timely support for families at risk or are in domestic violence situations.

I recognise the merits of protecting victims through better protections, while enhancing rehabilitation of perpetrators of family violence. The amendments to strengthen protections of victims include the ability for protectors to make personal protection orders (PPOs) on behalf of victims for their safety, to issue emergency orders, lowering the eligibility age to apply for a PPO and better-defined rehabilitative provisions to instruct and prohibit perpetrators from having contact with victims.

Having a second layer of protection through electronically monitoring arrangements also enable enforcement officers to be in a better position to ensure survivors feel and receive a level of personal safety and security. Moreover, the plans to strengthen rehabilitation of perpetrators through counselling and treatment orders are also commendable in allowing families to find and resolve the root cause of domestic violence and abuse.

On the amendments and new provisions introduced by the Bill, I have a number of queries I wish to clarify with the Minister of State.

Firstly, what are the considerations behind lowering the age of an individual who can apply for a PPO from 21 to 18 under the new section 60 and whether there needs to be an age limit?

Family violence will have far-reaching and traumatic consequences in every aspect of a person's life at any age, whether they are above or below the age of 18. While there is merit in bringing down the age of an individual who can apply for a PPO from 21 to 18, allowing for a larger number of young individuals to seek help, it discounts younger individuals below the age of 18 to take actions to cure a dire situation.

Trauma often force children to mature faster and beyond their years. A 17-year-old going through a similar abusive situation as an 18-year-old will have the same need and want to have that autonomy to decide to protect themselves from domestic violence. Moreover, children from the age of 13 can even take up employment in a non-industrialised setting and some may have had to juggle schoolwork with part-time employment just to supplement the family income.

In cases where someone is under the age of 18, is not married and does not have any other older family member who can file a PPO application on their behalf, to whom can they turn to for assistance? More broadly, how can we ensure that children do not fall through the cracks?

Second, in cases involving a domestic exclusion order, a stay away order or a no contact order under the new section 60B, how can we ensure that there is no financial strain or damage caused to survivors?

While we are moving towards a cashless society, there could be cases where women and children do not have access to the family's finances or do not have friends and extended family they can feel comfortable turning to, with the perpetrator either being unwilling to provide for financial support or simply unable to given that he may be remanded.

Thirdly, while I recognise the need to "break the cycle of violence" through rehabilitative and treatment provisions, could there be more room to consider the needs and wants of survivors, rather than via the Courts instead?

This is not to say we do not give offenders a second chance.

While there could be many cases where there is a strong desire on both the perpetrators and survivors to heal the relationship, some may not wish to confront the intimidating and traumatic prospects of repairing this broken relationship. At present, the Court may already require the survivor, perpetrator of family violence and/or their children to attend mandatory counselling.

I am appreciative of the enhanced powers to take timely interventions to safeguard the health and well-being of victims of family abuse. However, I believe that there needs to be a longer-term game plan to prevent family violence in the first place and provide greater lasting support to victims, especially those with psychological trauma and physical displacement.

In 2022, MSF investigated 2,254 new family violence-related cases, while the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline received 10,800 calls for assistance. For every case that is surfaced, there could be many more that are suffering in silence and more who do not know who they can trust or turn to for assistance, particularly when the ones they loved the most turned out to be the ones causing them such intolerable harm.

More can be done when it comes to public education in building awareness of what constitutes family violence and abuse and to encourage Singaporeans who witness family violence to reach out for assistance. Schools, in particular, should provide greater training and resources to help teachers and staff better identify signs of domestic violence in children.

For victims of family violence, we need to provide for more structural forms of assistance, longer-term assistance especially, as it relates to psychological trauma or physical displacement.

Often, family violence survivors choose to endure the abuse, instead of reporting their abusers to the Police in fear of either further abuse or being left homeless and vulnerable.

After all, if one considers Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it is only after physiological needs of food, water, shelter, clothing and a place to sleep are met can one begin to consider safety and security in their family. Survivors of family violence face a very real dilemma when reporting their abusers, as this could also mean a loss of basic needs, especially if the abuser is the sole breadwinner of the family.

How can we provide a level of psychological safety and support to those suffering in silence, such that they are willing to step out of their fears and to bring attention to their situation? We must recognise that there is an acute need for safe accommodation and timely response once the domestic violence report has been reported to the Police or once the PPO has been filed. We need to ensure that survivors will not feel worse off when they finally break their silence and that adequate support are available and ready for them when they do find themselves in a situation needing them.

In this regard, there should also be a range of long-term support and resources made accessible for survivors, beyond short-term responses to the family crisis.

These include access to financial and non-financial forms of assistance, such as access to housing, when they have no relatives to turn to for help, timely employment assistance and immigration support. Mental health and psychological support in the form of counselling or therapeutic support is also essential during this trying period.

Particularly for women and children who are not locals and are on long-term visit passes, for example, their right to feel safe and have a safe place to live in is a precarious one without the support of their local spouse, not knowing when they might have to leave this place they call home. And yet, even as they can continue to reside here, their ability to access affordable housing through the Housing and Development Board (HDB) ownership or rentals is also not a given.

We must therefore recognise that holistic support is vital to enable survivors to complete their journey towards full recovery from family violence.

Finally, beyond the issue of family violence per se, I wonder, if the heart of the issue is that we are a more violent and abusive society today than before. Road rage cases are increasingly common, the latest high-profile case being that involving a car driving off with a cyclist who laid on the bonnet after a heated argument between the two women involved. Last month, two elderly men were arrested after a fight broke out over cigarette butts in a coffeeshop. And online, we have trolls masquerading behind a pseudonym, spreading hatred, anger, personal attacks and verbal abuse, often in a coordinated and organised manner. Are these behaviours now normalised in society?

It may be idealistic for me to say we need to heal the world and make it a better place. But as leaders of this country, I think there is much food for thought here and it is upon us to demonstrate what Singapore society should be. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

2.27 pm

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

Madam, I speak in support of this amendment Bill which aims to better protect against family violence. In my years volunteering in the community legal clinics and during weekly Meet-the-People Session prior to becoming a Member of Parliament, I have come across several such cases where spouses live in constant fear of their other half, while continuing to stay together with no way out of their predicament.

I remember vividly a case which I attended to almost a decade ago when I was a newly called junior lawyer, where a foreign spouse visited the community legal clinic, crying. She shared with me that she had been subjected to her husband's verbal and physical abuse for years. At first, she decided to tolerate the mistreating for the sake of their young children and due to her worry of her husband cancelling the sponsorship for her permanent residency (PR) status to remain in Singapore. However, her husband's treatment towards her continued to worsen, to the extent that he forbade her to step out of the house and would lock her and her children indoors whenever he headed out to work his night shifts. On that particular night when she came to see me, she managed to sneak out of the house and came to my legal clinic to seek advice on divorce, as her mother-in-law, who had a spare key, had come to the flat to visit the grandchildren.

In recent years, there have been increased efforts on the ground to raise awareness on the personal protection order (PPO). More community legal clinics have been set up at places, such as Community Centres across the heartlands and neighbourhoods. Since the COVID-19 period, Pro Bono SG has also begun to offer virtual legal consultations for the convenience of residents who may, due to family circumstances, be unable to attend the legal clinic session in person.

In our Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC, in conjunction with the Law Awareness Weeks@CDC last year, our M³ volunteers organised a physical law awareness talk at Woodgrove's Fuchun CC, where we invited lawyers and senior social workers from PAVE to share in both Malay and English languages, about what constitutes family violence, what are the types of assistance and support available to counter domestic violence.

At MSF's front, just as what Minister of State Sun shared earlier, we have also seen the establishment of the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline (NAVH) and online channels, as well as the setting up of more Family Service Centres and Protection Specialist Centres that encourage victims of family violence to not suffer in silence and to take action in putting things to an end.

We have also seen more collaborations between the Ministry and the community to raise more awareness in this aspect. One example is our Woodgrove Division's collaboration with the Family Justice Courts last August on the Family Justice @ Heartlands series where several expert panelists, including the Registrar of the Family Justice Courts, a representative from the Rehabilitation and Protection Group from MSF and esteemed lawyers, were invited to come together to share their insights on the holistic support available on protection related matters.

I am heartened by this ongoing collaborative effort to reach out to our community at large and applaud those additional measures which will be introduced through this amendment Bill. However, I would also like to take this opportunity to seek some clarifications.

Firstly, enhancing protections for those who are unable to apply for a personal protection order (PPO) on their own. Under the new amendment, for victims reluctant to report their assailants, the Bill allows the Director-General of Social Welfare to appoint protectors to apply for the necessary PPOs on their behalf as well as to seek the appropriate orders as the protector deems fit to best protect the victim from further harm.

In this regard, I wish to inquire whether such empowerment also applies to victims who are willing but unable to apply due to factors such as age – those that are below 18 – or mental incapacity.

Take, for example, a 16-year-old teenage girl who has been exposed to domestic violence alongside her mother. In an attempt to keep the family intact, the mother refuses to apply for a PPO for herself and her daughter against the father. For cases such as this, to whom can this 16-year-old seek help from if she has no other family members to rely on? Can a protector be activated in such an instance?

My second point, the workability of certain court orders imposed against the accused perpetrators. Under the new regime, the Court is given additional powers to issue orders such as domestic exclusion – a Stay Away or No Contact order. In typical situations, however, where a husband and wife with limited income are staying under the same roof, imposing such orders may seem either impractical or inconvenient to one party. For example, it forces the perpetrator to move out of the matrimonial home, with no alternate accommodations.

While I know that MSF provides shelters for victims of family violence, would assistance be also rendered to perpetrators in cases where the Court has imposed such restraining orders as well?

My third point, the prevention of the abuse of the system. While I am supportive of this new system, how can we ensure that it will not be abused by estranged spouses who are seeking to deprive the other of access to their children while they are in the midst of or in the aftermath of a bitter divorce proceeding?

It is not too far-fetched to assume that parties with acrimonious marriages may take the opportunity to cause difficulties or disrupt plans if given the ability to do so. In order to ensure that the system remains fair and partial, we will need to ensure that it cannot be manipulated in such a way that spouses can use it as a form of revenge.

In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, family violence of any form, be in physical, psychological or emotional, should not be condoned. To those victims out there who are still suffering in silence, hoping that their situation will eventually improve for the better, I urge you to come forward and seek help. To those who think that by obtaining a PPO, it will increase your chance to obtain sole custody, care and control rights of your children, I urge you to think twice. Avenues to seek help for family protection under the Women's Charter should be seen as a shield and not as a sword.

Let us all continue to work together towards preserving the spirit of therapeutic justice, to habilitate and restore broken relationships amongst family members, in the best interests and welfare of our children. Notwithstanding the clarifications and suggestions I have raised earlier, I stand in support of this reform Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

2.35 pm

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the amendment Bill. I would like to start by thanking MSF for taking this important step. In particular, I commend the work of MSF and the Taskforce on Family Violence led by Minister of State Sun Xueling and Minister of State Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim for the comprehensive recommendations in the task force's report of 2021. MSF has been in extensive consultations with various stakeholders, including crisis shelter homes like Casa Raudha, which provides interim protection for vulnerable women and children facing family violence.

Over the years, we have seen various legislative enhancements and steps to raise awareness on this important issue, one which lies close to my heart. I thank Minister of State Sun for stating in her Second Reading speech just now that MSF may consider, in the future, if it is necessary, for a standalone domestic violence bill to better protect survivors who are not in a familial relationship. This is something that I had raised before in this House. For now, this Bill is yet another step in the right direction.

This Bill allows protectors to apply for PPO on the survivors' behalf even if these survivors do not want to do so on their own accord. MSF's Domestic Violence Emergency Response Team can also issue an emergency order without the need to go Court. Currently, a survivor must apply in Court for a PPO and at the time of application, be granted an expedited order. Unfortunately, this presents a time gap between the initial incident of family violence and the issuance of the expedited order or a PPO.

With this Bill, a time limited emergency order can be issued where there is an imminent risk and danger that the perpetrator will commit family violence.

This is an important development because every survivor faces unique circumstances that may impact their willingness or ability to pursue legal remedies such as a PPO. Some survivors may feel that applying for a PPO may escalate the violence or place them in greater danger while others may not want to involve the legal system for fear of causing the perpetrator to be jailed, thus further complicating the issues with the perpetrator.

I hope a nuanced approach can be taken in exercising this power by the protector to apply for a PPO, especially in cases where survivors are reluctant to do so on their own accord. Legal remedies such as PPOs should be a measure of last resort and only issued when it is assessed that there is high risk that the survivor's safety being compromised.

However, it must be remembered that beyond legal redress and intervention, the Ministry and its affiliates, partners and agencies already provide holistic support and resources to meet survivors' needs such as counseling, advocacy and safety planning. I welcome the enhanced support in this regard through this Bill.

By providing a range of support services that address the unique needs and circumstances of survivors, we can help empower survivors to take control of their lives and make informed decisions about their safety and well-being.

Another change is that the Bill creates a new protection order that can include a number of provisions such as an order to stay away from the survivor and to have no contact with the survivor. I welcome these changes. Allow me to share a story about a family violence survivor in Casa Raudha called Mdm N.

She is a foreign bride who suffered spousal abuse and sought refuge with her five-year old son at the shelter through MSF's help. Typically, she will bring her son to work. However, one day, the child's paternal grandfather and paternal aunt came to Mdm N's workplace and took the child without her consent. Even after the matter was reported and the Police interviewed her son and her husband's family, the family refused to cooperate to return the son back to Mdm N. At that time, it was assessed that Mdm N's son was not in any immediate danger while in the company of her estranged husband's family and her husband, and that her husband has every right to have care and control of the son at that time. This separation from her five-year-old son caused a lot of anguish for Mdm N and inflicted on her more pain and hurt than any previous injuries that she had suffered at the hands of the perpetrator.

With the amendments in this Bill, had a Stay Away or No Contact order been made, such incidents and interventions by other third parties like extended relatives or family members would have been prevented. This would further strengthen the support for family violence survivors and their children.

I thus feel that the amendments in this Bill are timely. The changes may not have come in time for Mdm N, but it would be helpful for other mothers who stand in similar shoes in the future. I thus welcome the changes to this Bill to better protect all survivors of family violence.

I do have some clarifications.

Firstly, I note that the definition of "family violence" has been expanded and broadened. Under the current Women's Charter section 64, subsections (a) and (b), the definition of "family violence" refers to placing a family member in fear of hurt or causing hurt to the family member. "Hurt" in turn means bodily pain, disease or infirmity. There is also an element of intention on the part of the offender, in that the offender must wilfully or knowingly place the family member in fear of hurt or must have caused hurt by an act which is known to result in hurt.

Under the proposed Women's Charter section 58B(2)(a), it is sufficient to constitute family violence if there is a threat to cause personal injury or physical pain, whether or not there is actual hurt or fear of hurt. The element of intention also appears to have been removed as there will be family violence so long as the conduct causes injury or pain.

Next, I note that this definition of family violence is principally adapted from the definition of abuse in the Vulnerable Adults Act (VAA). The VAA is meant to protect vulnerable adults, that is, individuals incapable of protecting themselves, whereas family violence provisions may apply to all adults, including those who are capable of protecting themselves.

May I know what is the rationale for these changes? Further, would there be any guidance on how the new broadened family violence definition should be interpreted? There should be clarity to this, given that upon belief that there is family violence or risk of family violence, the protector has wide-ranging powers, including the powers to: (a) assess a victim; (b) enter premises; (c) apply to Court for PPO; and, in high-risk situations, (d) make emergency orders against persons they believe to have committed family violence.

I turn to the powers of the Domestic Violence Emergency Response Team and the protector. Are there any safeguards against the abuse of such powers?

Where a child is involved, it potentially involves removing a parent accused of being a perpetrator from the child's life. These are drastic orders that are capable of disrupting and impacting children's lives.

While an emergency order is stated to only have 14 days' validity, under section 62B(8), the protector has the power to issue fresh emergency orders, limited to four emergency orders in three months. Notwithstanding these extensive powers, there does not appear to be any avenue for review or appeal. Can an individual subject to an emergency order apply to Court to cancel or vary the emergency order?

Next, if all measures are insufficient to protect the family violence survivor, the protector can also apply to Court to remove the survivors for their safety. There is a concern that this would deter survivors from seeking help if they are not ready to move out.

Hence, I humbly suggest that there should be greater public awareness and counselling of families involved to assure them that these measures are of a last resort. This is consistent with the case law in relation to a care and protection order under the Children and Young Persons Act, where such measures are of last resort.

I also note that there would be the use of e-tagging in deterring family violence. I welcome this. This is something that I had raised in a Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on 1 March last year for the use of tagging technology to alert survivors in close range to high risk or violent ex-offending perpetrators. I hope that e-tagging and the use of other technology may act as a deterrence to perpetrators and assurance to survivors of their safety and protection.

Lastly, besides punitive measures and deterrence, we must not forget the potential for the rehabilitation of perpetrators. Together with Casa Raudha, Keat Hong Community Centre organises annual talks for men to tackle issues of patriarchal mindsets, toxic masculinity and equal parenting responsibilities in our efforts to end family violence.

In one session, I had the opportunity to speak to a panelist who was a former perpetrator himself. He shared how he was truly repentant and wanted to reconcile with his wife and family. He paid his dues. He sought professional help. He committed himself to a path of atonement and forgiveness from his family. Now, with every passing day, he tries to become a better husband, a better father, a better man. I hope he continues on this path and be an inspiration to others as well.

I welcome the changes to enhance powers for the Court to order counselling and mandatory treatments for perpetrators. I hope that besides working to protect survivors of family violence, we can also continue to consider greater rehabilitation and reconciliation efforts in the future to bring former perpetrators on the path of recovery and rehabilitation, so that one day they can be welcomed back in the lives of those whom they had loved, lost and hurt before.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, the amendments in this Bill will strengthen the Government's ability to intervene in family violence cases and empower survivors to better protect themselves. I stand in support of the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.

2.46 pm

Ms Sun Xueling: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for the debate and support for the Family Violence (Amendment) Bill. Let me now respond to the Members' questions and suggestions raised on: (a) Protection for survivors of family violence; (b) Rehabilitation and accountability of perpetrators; and (c) Government's ability to intervene in family violence cases.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked how the updated definition of family violence should be interpreted. Family violence comprises the broad categories of abuse that our social service professionals typically encounter – specifically, physical, sexual and emotional or psychological abuse. The Bill makes clear the type of conduct or behaviour that amounts to each type of abuse.

Mr Zhulkarnain is right that the definition of family violence looks to the harm caused by the perpetrator, rather than the intention of the perpetrator, and this is deliberate. Survivors should be able to obtain protection against harmful conduct without having to prove what the perpetrator knew or ought to have known. For example, a survivor should be able to obtain a personal protection order (PPO) against a perpetrator who turns violent under the influence of drugs or alcohol, even though he might not fully know the effect of his actions.

Mr Zhulkarnain also asked why the updated definition is adapted from the definition of abuse in the Vulnerable Adults Act 2018 (VAA). Both this Act and the Women's Charter are regimes that aim to protect those experiencing abuse. The profiles of persons they protect are different. For example, the VAA protects those who are incapable of protecting themselves due to mental or physical infirmity, disability or incapacity and, therefore, the interventions are different. However, the abuse they target is the same. Hence, we have aligned the definitions of abuse in these two regimes. This will help promote a common understanding of abusive behaviour amongst the public, professionals in the social service sector, the Courts and lawyers, and facilitate better detection and identification of acts of abuse.

Ms Hany Soh asked whether Protectors would be able to make applications for PPOs on behalf of survivors, such as those below 18, who are willing but unable to apply for them. Yes, this is already the case, as social service professionals are already empowered to apply for PPOs on behalf of survivors who are below 21 years of age or who are incapacitated.

Mr Louis Chua sought clarification on our rationale for the minimum age of a PPO applicant. All survivors are entitled to receive timely legal protection. Survivors who are aged below 18 may seek assistance from other family members, social service professionals or Protectors, to apply for a PPO on his or her behalf. They can also be accorded the necessary protection and support under the Children and Young Persons Act.

Mr Louis Ng suggested that the Court automatically grants PPOs for the survivor's vulnerable dependants when the survivor himself or herself is granted a PPO by the Court. Under the new section 60A, the Court will not automatically issue PPOs for an applicant's vulnerable dependants. This is aligned with the current practice and there is a good reason for this. For example, an individual may inflict violence only on the spouse and not on the children. While a PPO application must be made for each family member, and a PPO will be issued if the Court is satisfied that the perpetrator has committed or is likely to commit family violence against each family member and that the protection order is necessary for his or her protection, the Court may give direction for the applications to be heard together and this will help families save time and resources.

Ms Hany Soh asked if there were measures to prevent estranged spouses from abusing the enhanced family violence regime during divorce proceedings. Access to justice is a fundamental right and all parties must have the avenues to apply for a PPO. But this is not to say that a person can abuse the Court process and make frivolous or vexatious applications.

As I had mentioned earlier, a PPO is only issued when the Court is satisfied that the respondent has committed or is likely to commit family violence against the applicant or other family member(s) concerned and it is necessary for his or her protection or safety. Otherwise, the Court may dismiss the application. In addition, if the application is frivolous or vexatious, the Court may order costs to be paid for by the applicant. In extreme cases, the Court can make Civil Restraint Orders to restrain a person from bringing further applications without the Court's permission.

Mr Seah Kian Peng asked that we consider if family violence re-offenders could be identified, to deter re-offending and to protect others from harm. He also acknowledged that doing so may lead to the identification of the survivor. The purpose of prohibiting publication or broadcast of information that is likely to identify family violence survivors is solely to protect survivors. The intent is to encourage survivors to report family violence incidents without the fear of being publicly embarrassed and to spare survivors who do report such incidents from further trauma.

Early this year, I received an email from Mrs N. She shared that her ex-husband was being prosecuted for breaching a PPO and her identity was publicly disclosed as it was an open hearing. As it took her great courage to report the family violence, she was worried that her child's psychological well-being would be negatively impacted since her and her ex-husband's names were made known publicly. This amendment would protect Mrs N and her child's identities as the publication of their identities will be prohibited by law, even in the absence of a gag order. Mrs N would also be able to apply to the Court to remove the publication. This will accord Mrs N and her child the space and privacy to recover and heal from the trauma.

The amendment prohibits a perpetrator's identity from being published, only where publication of his/her identity would likely lead to the survivor's identification. However, if the survivor consents to the publication or broadcast of such information that could identify him or her, the Director-General of Social Welfare (DGSW) will regard his or her consent as a highly relevant factor and may decide to grant approval for such publication or broadcast.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the validity of PPOs following the imprisonment of offenders, and arrangements to ensure the survivor's continued protection during and after the perpetrator's imprisonment. PPOs typically have effect indefinitely and remain in force until revoked. Hence, in most cases, PPOs which are issued before the term of imprisonment will continue to remain in force after the perpetrator's imprisonment. Depending on the circumstances of each survivor, social service professionals may conduct safety planning and provide assistance and support if the survivors need legal advice, shelter or financial support.

Ms Hany Soh and Mr Louis Chua asked whether MSF will provide assistance for perpetrators and survivors who are subject to Domestic Exclusion, No Contact or Stay Away Orders. Social service professionals at our Protection Specialist Centres and Family Service Centres will continue to work closely with families, survivors and perpetrators to provide any needed assistance, such as shelter and financial support. I would like to assure Mr Chua that MSF and our community partners are committed to supporting survivors. Their well-being is our priority.

Mr Seah Kian Peng, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Sylvia Lim spoke on ensuring sufficient resourcing and support for the persons, such as Protectors, who assist the Director-General to ensure this important work is carried out properly. I agree with them. Protectors, who are authorised by the Director-General to exercise powers under this Bill, are social service professionals who are trained in managing family violence and protection cases and have expertise in trauma-informed care and support. They are committed to ensuring the well-being and safety of families affected by violence and have a keen awareness of the unique needs and challenges faced by the families they serve.

This is physically and emotionally demanding work and we will ensure that our Protectors continue to be provided with the necessary resources, such as sufficient manpower, training and access to up-to-date research, to exercise the new powers in this Bill and tackle family violence effectively.

Mr Zhulkarnain asked about safeguards against the abuse of the Protector's powers and whether there are any avenues to appeal against an Emergency Order. I would like to assure the House that Protectors are trained social service professionals who understand that powers are to be exercised appropriately and judiciously, with the safety and well-being of the survivor as the primary consideration. Emergency Orders issued by Protectors are intended to cover an existing gap. These Orders will be time-limited, to give the survivors time to apply for a PPO from the Court. There is also a limit to the number of times an Emergency Order can be made. Given that Emergency Orders are temporary measures intended to protect survivors facing imminent harm, no appeals will be allowed.

I agree with Mr Zhulkarnain's suggestion that there should be greater public awareness that powers to remove survivors will only be exercised as a last resort. This will only be considered in high-risk circumstances, when all other social service interventions have failed, in order to ensure the protection and safety of the survivors.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked if the Police would continue to process cases as per usual, if arrestable offences are disclosed. The answer is yes. The Police would continue to address cases as per usual, if arrestable offences are disclosed. In high-risk family violence situations, the Police will jointly respond with the Domestic Violence Emergency Team, or DVET. The Police will continue to handle cases with law-and-order issues. The DVET officers will address immediate safety concerns and refer the families to Protection Specialist Centres for follow-up intervention.

Mr Louis Ng asked for more details on the Electronic Monitoring Order. As I shared in my opening speech, electronic monitoring will only be imposed on high-risk perpetrators in exceptional cases where there is reasonable suspicion that a PPO has been breached with harm inflicted on the survivor, and the survivor has not taken steps to protect himself or herself. Details of the electronic monitoring regime will be worked out further by MSF.

Mr Louis Ng asked if there are plans to arrange for higher levels of policing as a deterrence measure to complement PPOs and the new Court Orders. If we refer to both the Member's earlier clarification on concerns about abuse of the Electronic Monitoring regime and his current suggestion to have more monitoring and policing as a practical deterrence, I think we need to ask ourselves what is the balance that we ought to strike. I would say that we need to put the survivor at the heart of what we do. We want to protect them while ensuring that their privacy is also safeguarded. Thus, our social service professionals will continue to work closely with the Police, including their Family Violence Community Policing Officers, to identify, respond to and monitor cases involving very high-risk family violence. MSF will also continue our public education efforts through the Break the Silence campaign to encourage the community to partner us in detecting, identifying and reporting family violence incidents.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, having addressed the concerns and suggestions raised by the Members, I will now conclude.

To address family violence at its root requires a multi-pronged, whole-of-society approach. We must continue to: (a) increase awareness and strengthen societal attitudes against violence; (b) make it easier for survivors and the community to report violence and get immediate help; (c) strengthen protection and support for survivors; and (d) enhance rehabilitation for perpetrators.

To those enduring violence at home, you are not alone. We want to assure you that there are many resources and channels to support and help you. If you are unsure of what to do or if you need more information, call the 24-hour National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline at 1800-777-0000. Social service professionals stand ready to assist you.

To those who are struggling with abusive behaviour, there is hope. With the right support and intervention, change is possible. By stepping forward to seek help from social service agencies, you give yourself a chance to break the cycle of violence, as well as pave the way for a brighter, happier future for yourself and your loved ones.

I would like to reiterate my gratitude to the various stakeholders in the family violence ecosystem. Your work to stop the cycle of violence in families is well recognised, and this Bill would not have been possible without your contributions.

Finally, I thank Members for your support of this Bill. I believe the amendments will go a long way in breaking the cycle of violence, to enable individuals and families experiencing family violence to heal, and ultimately, to help build stronger and more stable families in Singapore.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

3.02 pm

Ms Hany Soh: I thank the Minister of State for her response. I just have one clarification in relation to section 63B of the new Bill which aims to protect the survivor's identity. So, I understand that this is purely in relation to protection of the identity of the survivors, but not the rest of the family members or the perpetrators.

Since one of the objectives of the Bill is to rehabilitate the perpetrators to restore broken relationships, can I clarify if actually the provisions can also extend to providing the protections to the perpetrators in certain circumstances? Take, for example, in situations where the matter was referred to Court by the protector without the survivor's consent and in those situations also where the perpetrators are actually suffering from psychiatric conditions that have caused the commissions of violence.

Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her question. As I mentioned in my earlier speech, the amendment prohibits a perpetrator's identity from being published only where the publication of his or her identity would likely lead to the survivor's identification. But if the survivor consents to the publication or broadcast of such information that could identify him or her, then the Director-General of Social Welfare will regard his or her consent as highly relevant.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Any further clarifications? Okay.

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.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.25 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.06 pm until 3.25 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.25 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]