Mr Deputy Speaker, first of all, let me say I’m very heartened by your reasoned, logical and persuasive arguments. I’m heartened because it has shown that we are moving in the right direction, although I suspect many of you wish we’d move faster, and maybe the pace is not to your satisfaction. But we’re moving in the right direction. Let me get down now to the specifics. .
We have many queries on the marriage preparation programme.
Evidence from overseas research, as well as local experience, have suggested that these programmes are helpful in strengthening marriages. We conducted a survey in 2006 of 800 people, 97% of those who attended marriage preparation programmes found them useful. Also, the Muslim community has expanded marriage preparation courses for minors since 2007. They set up 2 INSPIRASI centres. This measure seems to have borne fruit, as divorces resulting from Muslim minor marriages had fallen by 15% from 2007 to 2009, and by one-third since 2003. The present proposal seeks to extend this practice to civil marriages that have a higher risk of divorce. As there is already a good system in place for Muslim couples, there is no need to amend the Administration of Muslim Law Act to require marriage preparation for Muslim marriages.
However, we have also been very careful and as Professor Straughan has said, before we even embark on the suggestion of mandatory marriage preparation for everyone, we have to be very clear first, who will benefit, and the quality of the providers. That is why I have moved very, very carefully and in a very slow way. We have only for a start confined ourselves to marriages involving minors because this is one area where we have clear evidence that this is a group that is more at risk and this is a group for whom intervention makes a difference. As evidence surfaces for other groups, we can then consider it in the future, but I’m not willing to rush into this. I will take Professor Straughan’s point that we must accumulate the data and the evidence before we make further moves in this area. Similarly, I do not intend the requirement of marriage preparation to marriages involving divorcees, or to foreign brides and foreign grooms, until we can better ascertain the risk profiles for these different categories of couples. It is also neither necessary nor feasible to mandate the programme for all couples or for us to track those who marry overseas for attendance for marriage courses. What we will do is we will certainly be prepared to exercise more flexibility and also work with both secular as well as religious organizations who are providing such marriage preparation courses.
There was also a suggestion that we needed to have a marriage centre to provide help on marriage-related issues. I’m very pleased to tell you that in fact the National Family Council set up Marriage Central 2 years ago. This is a one-stop resource point to promote strong, healthy and happy marriages. Marriage Central provides a whole slew of marriage-related programmes and resources through various platforms both in cyberspace and in real physical space located at the Woodlands and Jurong Regional Libraries. I would encourage couples who seek help on marriage-related issues to approach Marriage Central.
There was also concern expressed by Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Professor Straughan and Ms Wong about the timing and effectiveness of the requirement for divorcing couples with children to attend counseling or mediation at the court. Let me be very explicit here and clarify that the primary intent of this measure is to mitigate the impact of divorce on the children. It is not about reversing the couple’s decision to divorce or to help them resolve their personal problems or to restore their marriage. If that happens, that’s an additional bonus but that is not the main intent. Efforts to save the marriage are better pursued upstream through marriage preparation and enrichment programmes, and providing accessible touch points such as the Marriage Central for couples. Couples who have already filed for divorce are unlikely to benefit from any mandatory counseling if one or both parties are unwilling to undergo any counseling.
Hence, the proposed measure is to ensure that parents put their children’s interests ahead of the conflicts they have between themselves, and that they must work out issues of custody, maintenance and division of assets, particularly in the interest of the children. I agree with Mr Hri Kumar that parenting plans should not be a paper exercise. It’s not a form filling exercise but should reflect a commitment by both parties to put the interest of their children first. Currently, Court statistics indicate that a significant proportion of submitted Parenting Plans are proposed but have not been agreed upon. The aim, then, is to address this by ensuring that both parties come to an agreement on effective and workable and practical parenting and care arrangements for the children, under the guidance of trained mediators and counsellors familiar with both the legal, emotional and psychological dimensions of a custodial dispute. This measure will be implemented in stages to provide time for the recruitment of qualified counselors and mediators.
Nevertheless, we still felt it was important for the court will retain the discretion to waive the requirement for special cases where counseling or mediation may not be in the interests of all parties, such as those involving family violence or abuse. To address Mr Lim’s concern that an uncooperative party may try to stay the divorce proceedings by not attending the requisite mediation or counseling, the proposed provisions empower the Court to exercise appropriate discretion against non-compliant parties. For instance, the non-compliant party may be ordered to pay a reasonable amount in costs.
Mdm Phua, quite rightly, expressed her sympathy for children who are affected by their parents’ divorce through no fault of their own. However, I’m afraid I still cannot agree to your call for mandatory counseling for children because I believe it is better to retain the current arrangement where the courts have the discretion to refer the children for counselling on a case-by-case basis based on its assessment. Each family and each divorce is unique, and I think that we in this House, as we formulate legislation, need to be careful to retain enough flexibility and discretion in the hands of judges who are dealing with each family and each case, rather than for us to succumb to the temptation to hardwire all our prescriptions into the resolution of complicated family disputes. So I would still maintain the position that I would rather leave the discretion in the hands of the Family Court judges.
I shall now move on to address comments on the measures to enhance enforcement of maintenance orders. Mr Kumar, Mdm Phua, Mdm Ho and Ms Lee have suggested additional sanctions against maintenance defaulters, and indeed there were many other suggestions from the public as well, including confiscating travel documents, imposing curfews on them, imposing interests for late payments and a plethora of other uncomfortable sanctions. My Ministry has actually explored each suggestion carefully, including the idea of confiscating their handphones or revoking their driving licenses, but we decided not to embark on these. We felt that many of the suggestions were difficult to enforce fairly and the sanctions bore little nexus to the offence of not paying maintenance arrears. We have however introduced new sanctions, such as the community service orders, the requirement to declare maintenance debts for remarrying parties, the imposition of banker’s guarantee and the reporting to credit bureaus. These are incremental measures. Let’s see and wait to measure the impact of these measures before contemplating more onerous sanctions.
There was much discussion on community service orders. I want to emphasis that it is not a soft option. It is meant to give judges a wider menu of deterrent sentences that they can impose in order to encourage the appropriate behavior by the defaulters. The defaulters who are required to perform community service are still required to pay their maintenance arrears, it does not take them off the hook. Defaulters required to perform community services are still required to pay up their maintenance arrears. The merit of such orders is that, unlike jail terms, they will not affect the defaulter’s employment, thereby aggravating the financial situation of the defaulter.
On the measure to declare maintenance debts before a party remarries, I agree with Mdm Ho and Ms Wong that the remarrying party should also declare whether he is liable to pay maintenance, in addition to whether there are any outstanding arrears. This is actually the intent of the provision, because the party will first have to declare if there is any maintenance order before declaring if there are arrears owed. I also note Mdm Ho’s and Miss Audrey Wong’s point having a limited window for reporting arrears to the credit bureaus to prevent abuse, and also to make sure that the credit report are accurate and timely.
As for the provision of a banker’s guarantee, we actually went through this in detail and we crafted the legislation to make it as easy for the complainant as possible. Basically, the complainant can make a claim on the guarantee without going to court to prove that there was a default. If there is any excess from the banker’s guarantee, it will be offset against future maintenance payments. Limiting the amount guaranteed to 3 months is a practical move as defaulters may not have enough money on hand for larger sums of maintenance. Requiring a second guarantee to kick in automatically will pose judicial issues because it may be unfair to the defaulter, especially if there was no court hearing to determine that he had indeed defaulted again. So we had to arrive at an appropriate balance between convenience to the complainant and fairness to the potential defaulter.
In pursuing stronger enforcement, we are also mindful of giving defaulters a fair chance. Hence, credit reports will be updated when defaulters settle their arrears. For defaulters issued with attachments of earnings orders, their employment should not be jeopardized. In other words, I’m telling employers please don’t terminate someone simply because of an attachment of earnings orders against them. As is the case with any unjust dismissals, individuals should seek recourse through the Ministry of Manpower if they are fired as a result of such orders.
For court-ordered financial counseling for defaulters, as with court orders in general, non-compliance is liable to contempt of court, which carries a potential fine or imprisonment.
Mdm Phua has asked for the courts to extend their hours to 9pm, almost parliamentary time, so as to facilitate working women. As things stand, I think we should acknowledge the incredible hard work that has been committed on the part of the courts to already make significant changes to streamline the current enforcement process by reducing the steps and allowing for filing of complaints through video-link. With regard to operating at night, the Courts have informed us that this may not be practical, as Night Courts deal with essentially regulatory offences in which the offenders almost always plead guilty. If the offender decides not to plead guilty, his case will be heard in the day court. Such maintenance hearings, which often entail Respondents’ and Claimants’ presentations, could be lengthy and there may be insufficient time for such proceedings to be conducted at night.
On Mdm Phua’s suggestion to engage auxiliary police to execute warrants of arrests for defaulters, it may not be feasible to require the errant spouses to bear the costs, as this would inevitably impair their ability to pay maintenance and we don’t want this to result in a reduced amount that is available to the ex-spouse and children.We will continue to study how we can make life more uncomfortable for defaulters but without impacting their ability to pay.
Several members including Mr Kumar, Professor Lateef, Mdm Ho, Ms Lee and Ms Wong have called for the establishment of a dedicated agency on maintenance and they used the analogy of the Tribunal for Maintenance of Parents. But let me reiterate why we’re not prepared to do this yet. First, the family should be the first line of support for individuals. Where that fails, legislation provides for the appropriate sanctions, as decided by the court based on the relative merits of each case. Our preferred approach is to strengthen the existing legal framework, and that’s why we’ve worked on improving and streamlining the court processes, amending the Women’s Charter, so that family members can find it more easy to hold each other accountable. We should let the new measures run in first, measure the impact, before we decide on the next step.
Even the Tribunal for Maintenance of Parents does not enforce maintenance payments. They may decide on maintenance orders but doesn’t enforce maintenance orders. The Tribunal and Commissioner’s office provides the legal avenue and process for elderly parents to obtain a Maintenance Order. Thereafter, the Maintenance Orders are enforced through the Family Courts using the same procedure and same sanctions as accorded in the Women’s Charter.
Finally, we come to calls for greater parity in the treatment between men and women, in particular in 2 areas, access to children for men, and whether we should change the Women’s Charter into the Family Charter.
Access to children for men
Let me first agree totally with Mr Seah that men should be given fair access to their children by ex-wives. Ex-wives should not use access to children as a bargaining chip for the collection of maintenance. I think as adults we should all recognize that children have a right to both parents, and will almost always benefit from access to both parents. And no matter how ugly the dispute between the adults is, we should not make our children hostage or bargaining chips.
I would like to point out that breaches in access orders are punishable as a contempt of court, which may lead to a fine or imprisonment. Just as we expect the men to pay maintenance arrears, women should also comply fully with the access orders issued by the court.
There are also calls in the name of gender equality for men to be able to claim maintenance from women. Let me put it to you this way: 14 years ago, the Select Committee said we were not ready. I’m afraid at this point in time, the answer is still we’re not ready yet. I hope it won’t take another 14 years but be assured every time we review the Women’s Charter, this question will arise. Let me tell you why we’re not ready yet. In terms of both labour force participation rate and incomes today, there is still a gap. The labour force participation rate for women is 55%, compared to 75% for men. I don’t have the figures for income offhand but we all know there is a gap. Secondly, all of us who do the meet-the-people sessions will notice an asymmetry It is women with children, almost exclusively, who come to us for help because of problems post-divorce or the failure to pay maintenance. The brutal truth is, even today, although we have made much progress, women and children still need protection. Furthermore, we also have to ask ourselves whether we are ready as a society to accept that a woman has the responsibility to support a man, even after a divorce. I think an increasing number of people have come down to the view but I’m not sure outside this House, that the majority has come down to that view. My sense is we will hold the current position but flag this out as an issue to consider for review and certainly the next time round, hopefully as we make further progress we can get to that point.
Similarly, this may not be the time to rename the Women’s Charter as the Family Charter, because the Women’s Charter does not have an exclusive monopoly on family law. An example of another law is the Maintenance of Parents’ Act which is also clearly related to family but it stands alone. If and when we get to the point where we propose a Family Charter, the Ministry would have to amalgamate all these disparate pieces of law in order to do that. I don’t think we are ready to do that, and I don’t want to rush into it but I think the roadmap for the future is clear.
Conclusion
So let me end by saying that the many views expresses both within and outside this House shows that as Singaporeans we still attach great importance to the institution of marriage, to dealing with the tragedy of divorce and to mitigating the impact on the children. These issues are not things which can be easily resolved, and certainly not simply by passing laws. There is a need to balance many interests – the rights and protection of the ex-husband, ex-wife and their children; the rights of individuals in their marriage and divorce decisions versus making sure that the State’s intervention is appropriate and not excessive; and the need for efficiency in implementation of court order and with rules of natural justice. So I will conclude by saying that this piece of legislation, 50 years old, ground-breaking, continues to evolve. I think we have made important steps now but this is not the end of it, and there will be further changes in the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you.
