Kanwaljit Soin
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to give a response to an exclusion in clause 2 (b) which amends section 10 to deem any maintenance payment received by a parent or a child under a maintenance order not to be income subject to tax.”
“Clarification, Sir. I realise that. But I would like to know what is the policy, what is the thinking, that you can allow a parent who gets maintenance not to have to pay income tax. A parent is an adult. But you do not give the same privilege or right, I would say, to a wife who gets a maintenance ordered by the court.”
“My point is no income tax is charged for maintenance payments received by parents. That is what the Minister said about clause 2. But yet when wives receive maintenance from their husbands, those maintenance payments are subject to income tax. Why is there a discrepancy?”
“So I would like to ask what is the Minister's thinking. Why is it that the maintenance of a parent is not considered income, because it is for the subsistence of the parent, while the maintenance for a wife which is for her subsistence is considered as income?”
“If the letter of authority is not stampable, then this may become a recourse of getting around the stamp duty and income tax rules affecting sub-sales. Another issue to be considered is the timing of the payment of stamp duty. With the amendment, this has to be paid at the time of the signing of the sale and purchase agreement.”
“Would the Minister have, in hand, figures to show how many Singaporeans who go abroad to study medicine come back to do their housemanship in Singapore for the last three years? Dr Aline Wong: I do not have the figures on Singaporeans who come back to do housemanship for the last three years.”
The complete record
Every one of 549 lines we hold for Kanwaljit Soin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 11.
“In the concluding chapter of the Report of the CRC, it is mentioned no less than five times that there is little public understanding and awareness of existing measures and mechanisms to help the needy, the poor and the elderly. This is another lesson for us - in fact, it is a sad commentary on our communication strategies. Sir, are we so engrossed in formulating and fine-tuning policies that we have forgotten the art of communication? Or are our people so inundated with information on policies that they have switched off and stopped listening? We need to sit up and take note of this. But what we do not need is a campaign extolling the virtues of listening to details of policies that are announced. This will not work. Instead, we need to empathize and communicate in the real sense of the word. In concluding, Sir, I would like to state my support for the motion moved by the Member for Kampong Glam GRC. However, I would like to add that we should go all the way to ensure that the good intentions formulated at the macro level to help the elderly and the poor are realised to a greater extent at the micro level, because that is where it really matters. Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.55 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.30 pm until 2.55 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.55 pm [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Debate resumed.”
“They worked as hard as we do now but due to historical circumstances, many of them have little or no CPF, few savings and little Medisave. It is our moral duty to look after the elderly. We should not be afraid to subsidise them financially as it is only a short to medium-term measure that applies to the aged of today. The aged of tomorrow will be adequately provided for with their CPF, minimum balances, Medisave and MediShield. By subsidising the aged of today, we will not be institutionalizing an intergenerational burden as we have already laid the economic building blocks for the aged of tomorrow to look after themselves. Sir, we must also not forget the poor and the disabled. Most of them are disadvantaged not because they did not work hard but through sheer misfortune. With our meritocratic frame of mind, we sometimes tend to be patronising and dismissive of people who have not succeeded, especially in the economic arena. We often equate their misfortune with slothfulness and laziness. And our own success sometimes makes us smug and insensitive. These feelings of self-righteousness do not augur well for social cohesion. Therefore, the lesson that we should draw is that although most of us have benefited from the economic success of our system and can well afford the increase in the cost of living, we must be aware that this imposes an unbearable hardship on the less fortunate. We are duty bound to help them and should carry this out with humility and magnanimity. 5. Ignorance of public services Sir, this leads me to my final point. Although there are many mechanisms in place to help the less fortunate, there is general ignorance of this.”
“It is only natural that the cost of services has risen given our tight labour market and high productivity. Wages have been adjusted upwards to reflect this, as mentioned by Minister Yeo Cheow Tong. In this scenario, the lesson to be drawn is that increased spending is not necessarily a bad thing if it is accompanied by appropriate wage increases and a better standard of living. It is as a result of this process that we have reached the status of a most developed developing nation. 4. The lesson on the disadvantaged The fact that increased spending has allowed many of us to purchase better quality goods and services and improve our standard of living must not blind us to the reality that some of our brothers and sisters in Singapore may be economically less fortunate than us. These people are adversely affected by the general increase in the cost of living. They should remind us that we need to increase the redistribution of wealth in the form of subsidised services for the needy, the poor and the elderly. These groups need both our support and our resources to improve their standard of living. Those of us in the labour force have enjoyed a 7.1% annual increase in wages. In most cases, this has offset and may have even exceeded the increase in prices, but this happy state of affairs does not apply to all. The less privileged have to live off shrinking assets and expectations. Urban life is based on a cash economy which sharpens the effects of poverty by making households more vulnerable to price changes. Therefore, Sir, all of us - the Government and the working population - will have to ensure that these unfortunate people are not left out as we continue to improve our standard of living. Sir, the elderly deserve special mention.”
“Well researched and represented facts and figures with or without an aggregate index will be adequate to give us a true picture of our cost of living. The Department of Statistics can continue to calculate the CPI according to international standards and keep it for that purpose. However, there is no need to constantly showcase an aggregate index that does not appear to square with the business of daily living. 3. Folly of jumping to conclusions The next lesson, Sir, I would like to highlight is the danger of jumping to conclusions. That may be the only exercise that some people in Singapore choose to take. However, most of us would agree on the need to be more circumspect in our judgment. We cannot necessarily conclude that prices have risen "phenomenally" just because household spending was reported to have risen by 76% during the period under consideration. We need to explore further and dig deeper to find out the real reasons for this rise in spending. Fortunately, the Report of the CRC has put matters into perspective. We understand better why there has been a 76% rise in spending. In fact, this increase attests to our phenomenal economic success as a nation. After all, we are the ninth richest country in the world with a standard of living which is second to Japan in this region. A small increase in household spending would suggest that we have yet to arrive in the "economic" sense. Also, Singapore's quick economic climb should have been accompanied by an even higher percentage of household spending but for the moderating influence of a strong Singapore dollar that curbed the price of many goods. However, Sir, the story is different when we consider the cost of services.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Cost Review Committee has produced a good report and made some useful recommendations. I am glad the Government has accepted the Report and urge that as many recommendations as possible be put into practice. Sir, the whole exercise of re-convening the CRC has provided us with some useful lessons and allow me now, Sir, to highlight some of these important lessons. 1. Institutionalization of CRC Issues like the cost of living are dear to our hearts and near to our pockets and therefore deserve our attention. I propose that the CRC be institutionalized and convened regularly. The Committee should not only be convened in response to ad hoc situations. Instead, it should function as a regular monitoring mechanism to assess the cost of living to inform the public and help the Government to take appropriate measures. The work of the Committee can complement CASE in its role as a consumer watchdog. 2. Is CPI so important? The work of the CRC has helped to bring to light important considerations on the usefulness of the CPI and just now Minister Yeo Cheow Tong has given us a further clear exposition. In essence, CPI is an aggregate index used for international comparisons. However, it may not be the best indicator to signify Singapore's cost of living since we are a country like no other in the world. We have three million urbanites living in an island with superb infrastructure. 90% of people own the homes in which they live. And 85% of homes are subsidised by the tax dollar. These are some exceptional features that make us truly different from both developing and developed nations. We need a Cost Review Report to give us relevant facts on the cost of living but we do not have to make the CPI a sacred cow.”
“Also, what will be the effect on the children of these families when mothers are seen to be able to get away without supporting the sick or disabled husbands and instead the children have to see their fathers turning to public agencies for help as their mothers are not being legislated to help these needy husbands? We should never let this happen, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the Minister's reply to this is that wives can be persuaded to support their husbands without appropriate legislation, then I would like to ask the Minister why do we need legislation for husbands to maintain their wives? Why do we not also rely on persuasion? It is precisely because persuasion alone without legislation is insufficient to do the job. Surely the Minister does not believe that women are morally more upright than men and therefore can be easily subject to persuasion and do not need legislation. I would really like an extensive reply from the Minister on this score because the women of Singapore want to know why this responsibility is being denied to them. Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah GRC): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to comment on the issue of maintenance for husbands which has been brought up by the Nominated MP, Dr Soin. As we all know, in Singapore, husbands are deemed to be the head of the family and are responsible for looking after the welfare of their wives and children. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 3.16 pm Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to take on our rightful responsibility towards our husbands and to consolidate the idea of marriage as a partnership, many individual Singaporean women, women's groups and I want husbands, especially those who are sick and disabled, to be able to claim maintenance from their wives. However, the Minister is not listening to us. And this situation puts us in a difficult and no-win position because as long as this discrimination exists in law, women will be accused of not shouldering their responsibilities. This is manifested in some of the letters which are written to the Straits Times complaining that since women do not have to maintain husbands, women should not be asking for equality of treatment in other fields. Through no fault of ours and because the Government does not want to listen to us, the women of Singapore have to put up with the barbed insults of some Singaporean men. I would therefore like to request the Minister to equalise the situation in the law by just changing the word "wife" to "spouse" and that is all the Minister will have to do. And if at this time there are very few husbands who would want to claim maintenance from their wives, so be it. Some of the male MPs have told me that they would never accept maintenance from a woman as this would hurt their male pride. To them, I would like to say that for the truly needy husbands much more than their male pride will be hurt if they get no maintenance from their wives when they desperately need it.”
“These women's groups represent the views of a wide cross section of women. Considering the changed socio-economic context of 1996 as compared to 1961, and considering that women's groups generally want the law to be changed, especially when husbands are disabled or sick, I fail to understand the reluctance and resistance of the Minister to take cognizance of this. Besides ignoring many women's views, there are wider implications of not allowing husbands to claim maintenance from their wives. If a woman is capable of supporting her husband or her former husband who needs maintenance, especially if he is sick or disabled, then why are we allowing the woman to get away without fulfilling her responsibility? If a woman earns a good income but does not voluntarily want to support an ill husband, why should this burden then fall on society and the taxpayers while the woman gets away scot-free? A comparison can be made with the Maintenance of Parents Act where unfilial children have to shoulder the responsibility of maintaining their parents and not leaving it to society in general. Let me give you one concrete example. A wife who is a stockbroker is earning a lot of money but she does not get along well with her husband who happens to be sick and has kidney disease and therefore is unable to work. The husband and wife, as I said, do not get along well and so the wife does not want to support him. Why should the sick husband not be able to claim maintenance from his wife but instead he has to turn to Medifund or some other publicly financed agency to help him in his health care costs and for his daily care and needs? Why should society have to maintain the husband when the wife or the ex-wife is shirking this responsibility but can afford it?”
“Thus, as far back as 1961, the Women's Charter clearly propounded the idea of marriage as an equal partnership between a man and a woman. Thirty-five years have rolled by and a whole new generation has grown up. New realities have emerged which are in keeping with the original enlightened section 45 of the Women's Charter but the sad fact is that the present repeal and re-enactment of section 61 is out of step with section 45 of the Women's Charter. The re-enacted section 61 allows a wife to claim maintenance from her husband but does not allow a husband to have the same right. This is not only at variance with section 45 but is also incongruous with today's reality of economically active wives. There is no rational distinction between a financially able husband and an equally financially able wife. 40% of married couples have both wives and husbands working for a living. 80% of new brides are working and among the younger couples, one-third of the brides are marrying grooms with lower educational qualifications and presumably these brides are therefore earning more than the grooms. In this changed socio-economic context, why are wives not being asked to shoulder the responsibility of supporting their husbands financially? If the Minister does not want to take such a bold but necessary step, then he may wish to consider a compromise, and politics is full of compromises, and follow the example of the Malaysian law which gives limited rights to the husband to claim maintenance from his wife when he is ill or incapacitated. During the Select Committee hearings, I think five representors representing women's groups expressed the view that maintenance to husbands, especially in appropriate cases, should be given.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like, first of all, to commend the Minister for his wide-ranging amendments to the Women's Charter and for committing these amendments to a Select Committee to get a wide representation of views. In the area of family violence, many of the amendments proposed are similar to those in the defeated Family Violence Bill and I am happy about this. In proposing the amendments of allowing marriages between transsexuals who have undergone a sex reassignment procedure, the Minister has exhibited a very progressive attitude of mind which is in reality with the existence of such marriages. However, I fail to understand the Minister's stand in the area of maintenance for husbands. I see contradictions in adopting the position of allowing wives to claim maintenance from their husbands but disallowing husbands to do the same. Sir, let me explain. The Women's Charter was first passed in September 1961 and at that time it was hailed as a very progressive piece of legislation. One of the main reasons for labelling it thus was section 45 which laid out the equal rights and duties of a husband and wife, and I stress, equal rights and duties of a husband and wife. I would like to read this section 45 to refresh the memories of some Members who seem to have forgotten it. (1) Upon the solemnization of marriage, the husband and wife shall be mutually bound to cooperate with each other in safeguarding the interests of the union and in caring and providing for the children. (2) The husband and wife shall have the right separately to engage in any trade or profession or in social activities. (3) The wife shall have the right to use her own surname and name separately. (4) The husband and wife shall have equal rights in the running of the matrimonial household.”
“So I would like to ask what is the Minister's thinking. Why is it that the maintenance of a parent is not considered income, because it is for the subsistence of the parent, while the maintenance for a wife which is for her subsistence is considered as income?”
“Clarification, Sir. I realise that. But I would like to know what is the policy, what is the thinking, that you can allow a parent who gets maintenance not to have to pay income tax. A parent is an adult. But you do not give the same privilege or right, I would say, to a wife who gets a maintenance ordered by the court.”
“So I want to know why is the same privilege not extended to maintenance payments which are made by the courts for wives.”
“My point is no income tax is charged for maintenance payments received by parents. That is what the Minister said about clause 2. But yet when wives receive maintenance from their husbands, those maintenance payments are subject to income tax. Why is there a discrepancy?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to give a response to an exclusion in clause 2 (b) which amends section 10 to deem any maintenance payment received by a parent or a child under a maintenance order not to be income subject to tax. I would like to ask the Minister what about a wife's maintenance payment received under a maintenance order. Why is this considered income subject to tax and not treated like maintenance for a parent?”
“Sir, does the Minister think that this is a good uptake rate? Is this not a low uptake rate? I know that the Minister has said that they are trying to do more. But to me, it seems to be a very low uptake rate of the Scheme.”
“Sir, would the Minister please give the percentage of the number of families that are on the Scheme? I think I heard the figure of 509. What percentage is this of the total families that are eligible for the Scheme?”
“Where the property is held in trust after 15th May option, who is liable for income tax?”
“As the main reason for the Income Tax and Stamp Duty amendments is to curb speculation and spiralling property prices, would the Government consider non-fiscal measures, as have been tried in Hong Kong? I will just give two examples: (1) private sales of uncompleted flats subject to a quota of 10%; (2) prohibit sales of uncompleted flats before assignment to make buyers hold on to their properties. I would like the Minister's response to this, please.”
“Sir, I would like to question the Minister on the principle behind the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill. Singapore has not, so far, subscribed to a capital gains tax. But this new amendment is introducing a selective capital gains tax. How do we reconcile this from a policy point of view? Sir, for most middle income families, the only property they own is the family home. If misfortune or other unforeseen circumstances should arise and force the family to sell their family home before the three-year period is up, then any gain derived from the sale of this property would be subject to income tax. This does not seem to be in line with the Bill's main objective of curbing property speculation. Does the Minister have power to grant waivers for deserving or hardship cases and also in forced mortgagee sales? Also, would the Minister consider exempting from tax disposals of real property held for a period of three years or less when the property comprises an individual's principal place of residence? Sir, a related issue to consider is the holding period of three years. Is this too long if the measures are meant solely to weed out speculators? The period could be shortened. Other issues, Sir, in cases of options granted after 15th May 1996 and where the property is held on trust, who is liable for income tax? For a developer's project and in cases with more than one purchaser, how will their respective shares be determined? At this stage, the documents will not state how the parties are holding the property, ie, the proportion of shares. The nature of shared holdings will be specified at the transfer stage. Therefore, in relation to withholding tax, how will the purchaser's solicitor know how much tax to withhold?”
“If the letter of authority is not stampable, then this may become a recourse of getting around the stamp duty and income tax rules affecting sub-sales. Another issue to be considered is the timing of the payment of stamp duty. With the amendment, this has to be paid at the time of the signing of the sale and purchase agreement. This new imposition does not differentiate between genuine buyers and speculators and puts, as has been suggested by Dr Ow, a strain on the cash flow of genuine buyers. We should consider retaining the old practice of paying stamp duty only at the time of the legal completion of the project. Also, Sir, with the new amendments to the Stamp Duties Act, will the renewal of the lease of premises be subject to stamp duty? If this is so, then what is the position for voluntary welfare organisations which have to renew the lease of their premises? Will the new amendment add to their financial burden? Would the Minister please be good enough to respond to these queries?”
“Where the tax measures are concerned, there are some substantive issues that have to be raised and these are: (1) Where a real property is sold by way of a mortgagee sale within the 3-year period, is the owner of this property subject to vendor's stamp duty and income tax, considering the fact that this was a forced sale situation? (2) Does the Comptroller or the Commissioner, as the case may be, have power to grant waivers for deserving or hardship cases, eg, intra family transfers, a husband wants to include his wife's name in the house that was bought before marriage and intended to be used as a matrimonial home. Of course, I am referring to within the 3-year period. (3) The Bill only recognises two situations where stamp duty can be refunded: (a) vendor's lack of title; and (b) approval under the Residential Property Act not obtained. This provision is not generous enough. It is understandable that there should be no refund when the contract falls through because one party defaults and the contract is rescinded. However, when the contract is conditional on certain matters, eg, satisfactory requisitions, and these conditions are not fulfilled, stamp duty should be refundable. Why should the law appear to give higher recognition to the Residential Property Act approval condition than to other conditions to which the sale is subject as agreed by the parties? (4) A question arises about nominations by option holders of third parties to exercise their option. Is the letter of authority appointing a third party nominee to exercise the option stampable? What if some consideration is given for this nomination? What if the option period is for a long period of time?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, over the last three years, private residential property prices have more than doubled. According to a recent paper by a major stockbroking company, the reasons for the strong residential property market are sustained economic growth, the high prices of resale public housing which facilitate upgrading to the private residential ownership, the high returns of housing investment in Singapore which is made more attractive by political stability, the presence of a large speculative element in the market, the low interest rate environment and a significant foreign interest in the market. As prices looked increasingly to spiral out of control and as the implications of this are not only economic but also socio-political, the Government stepped in to cool the overheated market with a set of wide-ranging measures which include credit measures, supply measures, income tax measures and stamp duty measures. Sir, there are two views on the effect of these measures. Some experts think that the residential market was already on its way to an over supply situation and the Government's curbs will compound the situation. Rents will fall and so will the property prices in the region of 20%. Other experts think that the 15th May curbs are likely to cause only a knee-jerk correction over the short term. But by 1997, prices will return to their long-term growth rates. Whatever the scenario, we still have to deal with the new measures which are being proposed by the Government.”
“Sir, would the Minister consider encouraging the use of small cars for the sake of pollution control and therefore allocate more COEs in the small car category and fewer COEs for cars above 1600 cc?”
“Would the Minister have, in hand, figures to show how many Singaporeans who go abroad to study medicine come back to do their housemanship in Singapore for the last three years? Dr Aline Wong: I do not have the figures on Singaporeans who come back to do housemanship for the last three years. CERTIFICATE OF ENTITLEMENT (Quota allocations and pay-as-you-bid system) 13. Mr Imram bin Mohamed asked the Minister for Communications (a) how the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) quota allocations are made among the various categories of vehicles; (b) whether the COE system contributes to a steady increase in the population of bigger capacity cars in proportion to those of smaller engine capacities and, if so, whether this is a desirable trend; and (c) whether his Ministry intends to try out the-pay-as-you-bid system for COE which was proposed long ago.”
“Sir, is the Senior Minister of State aware that burns usually occur to children from the low-income families because of the lack of supervision? I would like to tell the Senior Minister of State that this is from my own personal knowledge and having worked in a Burns Unit for quite a few years.”
“Sir, would the Senior Minister of State agree that many of the patients who sustain burns, especially children, come from the poorer families? Medically, it is accepted that many of the children who sustain burns do come from the lower-income families. Would the Senior Minister of State agree that there is a need, where burns are concerned, for C class beds?”
“Sir, would the Senior Minister of State please tell the House whether there are C class beds available for the speciality of burns?”
“Sir, in reply to my Question earlier, would the Minister be good enough to say whether this figure of 100 people, who have been charged income tax for property trading, implies that the Income Tax Department has not been diligent in its pursuance of this tax in view of the great amount of property speculation that has been going on?”
“Sir, stamp duties have become payable with effect from 15th May for all vendors who enter into sale and purchase agreements within three years of acquiring their property and yet the Stamp Duties (Amendment) Bill has not been passed. Would the Minister consider this to be a regular practice in spite of the fact that the Amendment Bill has not been passed, but the stamp duties are already payable from 15th May?”
“But I would like to give my personal views on the recommendations of the Select Committee on this Bill. I think a number of recommendations made by the Select Committee are all very good. However, there is one point where the original provision required two witnesses to be present for a person to revoke his Advance Medical Directive, but the Select Committee recommended that it be amended to only one witness being required. I think this amendment is not necessary because if a dispute arises as a result of the revocation of the Advance Medical Directive, the presence of two witnesses will make it easier and fairer to settle the dispute.”
“Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, life is a very remarkable phenomenon, a masterpiece by mother nature. So we must treasure our lives and try our very best to extend the existence of life. However, the Advance Medical Directive Bill contradicts this philosophy. But, in order to lighten the mental stress and financial burden of members of the patient's family, there are some merits in this Bill. Although careful consideration has been given to the various aspects covered by the provisions under this Bill, there is always a possibility of human error and the question of integrity of the decision-making specialists that may result in the patient concerned losing the chance of extending his life. Therefore, the Government should pay special attention to this. On the other hand, I hope that the Government will make a study on whether the passage of this Bill will provide the opportunity and make it more convenient for unscrupulous people and unethical medical officers to engage in illegal trafficking or sale of human organs. We have heard, from time to time, of incidents of dead people coming back to life again. With rapid advancement of medical sciences today, if life can be extended, there is always a possibility that there may be some kind of cure for the patient later on. Moreover, whether the patient has a chance of recovery or not is a decision that no one can be absolutely sure about. In the long run, the Advance Medical Directive Bill may give rise to some undesirable consequences. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because the various provisions in the Bill have been considered very carefully, I do not object to the Bill being passed in this House to become law.”
“The other limb of the definition says, and I quote, "the application of extraordinary life-sustaining treatment would only serve to postpone the moment of death of the patient" -- this contradicts the first limb which says that death is imminent even with the application of life-sustaining treatment. How can we reconcile limb (a) and limb (b) when they both have to be necessary conditions for defining terminal illness? Also, the definition in the second limb, that is, it only postpones the moment of death, makes the provision too broad, if taken literally -- most medical interventions serve only to postpone the moment of death, even in an otherwise healthy patient. The definitions in the Bill of "extraordinary life-sustaining treatment" and "terminal illness" are problematic in that they are tautological -- "terminal illness" is defined with respect to "extraordinary life-sustaining treatment" and vice versa. Hence, we can see that there are problems in drafting legislation of this sort in general terms. It requires interpretation to determine whether the patient's condition warrants its implementation. The interpretation has to be made by the doctors. Therefore, although in general terms, legislation for advance medical directives may seem appropriate, we must not forget that the devil is in the details. The legislation when enacted will have to be fleshed out in its many details and innumerable problems will arise. Therefore, I would like to request the Minister not to push this legislation too quickly and too far, but let us take our time, see what are the problems that arise in other countries, and then implement it slowly.”
“During this week or two, the futility of the process helps relatives to accept the impending death of the loved one. I know that we are going to have an increasingly aged population but we are not Australia or the USA where medico-legal problems abound and where doctors and hospitals have to protect themselves from being sued. We are Singapore and problems in this area have not arisen. Another factor to consider is that the concept of an informed consent is integral to the signing of a living will or an advance medical directive. In Singapore, this issue of informed consent has not been developed sufficiently. In the local context, patients often leave many medical and surgical decisions to their doctors who take this responsibility and make decisions for patients as best as they can. Are we going to allow this to happen also in the case of the signing of an advance medical directive, and leaving it more to the doctors' discretion? Because, in my opinion, Sir, the issue of informed consent is crucial in the signing of an advance medical directive. I think that in Singapore we have to develop this concept and culture of an informed consent much more before we push advance medical directives. Now, Sir, I would like to address some provisions in the Bill. (1) Definition of "terminal illness" -- according to the Bill, there are two limbs to the definition. One limb defines it thus, "death would within reasonable medical judgment be imminent regardless of the application of extraordinary life-sustaining treatment." If we take this definition, then there is little point in having a statute permitting withdrawal of such procedures if death is imminent even with the full application of extraordinary life-sustaining treatment.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, like most other medical practitioners, I have tussled with questions of life and death many times in my work. When the AMD legislation became an issue in Singapore, the question of life and death became more urgent and vexing for many of us. It is vexing because the field of medical science is inexact and rapidly changing with few fixed sign posts. This applies especially to the condition pertaining to the end of life. I therefore would like to outline some problems of putting a grey area of medicine into black and white legislation. There are different ways of meeting death with dignity. If we choose the AMD way, then we must be cognizant of the medical, legal and philosophical mines and pitfalls of this route. If we respect the human determination to live and the principle of fighting death to the last gasp, then we must be aware of the implications of this legislation and the message it sends to society. Sir, from my knowledge of the private health sector, the need for the Advance Medical Directive Bill to be pushed is not pressing as the artificial prolongation of the process of dying is not a big problem. There is good communication and trust between doctors and patient's relatives. If a doctor thinks that the case for a particular patient is hopeless, the relatives usually take the doctor's advice and discontinue heroic medical measures or do not even have these measures instituted in the first place. For those few relatives who want extraordinary life-sustaining treatment to continue, then nearly always, after a week or so, they ask the doctor for a re-evaluation of the patient's condition. If the prognosis remains grim, then the relatives will take the doctor's advice of discontinuing the treatment.”
“Sir, can I seek a point of clarification, please? I respect the Minister's view. He wants to be old-fashioned or male chauvinist. But I would like to clarify that when we are making a public policy stand we will have to leave aside our personal feelings and look at what the social context is. So I would like the Minister to clarify this point about maintenance in view of the statistics that I quoted that many women are marrying downwards now and earning as much as, if not more. In that type of a social milieu, Sir, would the Minister reconsider that husbands can be entitled to maintenance under appropriate circumstances because in the end it is the welfare of the family that may be compromised if in appropriate circumstance we do not award maintenance to the husband?”
“The other amendment which I consider to have great significance is in determining the division of matrimonial assets between the divorced parties. The following consideration is being included under clause 19 [new section 106(2)(d)], and I quote: "the extent of the contributions made by each party to the welfare of the family, including looking after the home or caring for the family or any aged or infirm relative or dependant of either party;" Sometimes, there is a preconceived notion that unless a wife pursues a successful career, her contribution to the family will not be considered as equal to the husband and, worse still, she is perceived as being subservient to the husband. I strongly disagree with such perception. To me, the contribution of a good mother and a good homemaker is equal, if not greater than the breadwinner. There is nothing more noble than the contribution made by a mother who has brought up her children with love and proper guidance and there is no job which is more important than to keep a peaceful and harmonious home for the family. I am glad that these amendments have recognised their contribution and put these misconceptions to rest. I have no problem in leaving it to the judge to determine the quantum of this contribution, as it differs from case to case and also different circumstances require different consideration. Finally, I would like to conclude by suggesting that since the provisions in the Bill are much more family-oriented than just covering women matters, the Minister can consider amending the name from Women's Charter to Family Charter. 4.18 pm”
“This friction can sometimes lead to family squabbles which can get out of hand and sometimes physical confrontation, such as couple fighting each other occasionally, is not uncommon. Hence, it is only right that we legislate provisions to prevent such incidents from getting out of hand and deteriorating into one party abusing the other. However, not all these squabbles lead to irreversible reconciliation and definitely not all these squabbles necessarily mean one party intentionally abusing the other viciously and constantly. Therefore, a more comprehensive and clearer definition provided in this section will enable the affected family members to apply for protection orders in order to have greater protection against possible abuse, but at the same time, more importantly, make it possible for efforts to be made to sort out their problems and hopefully keep the family and marriage intact. It is more positive than to treat every such case as a criminal case and bring in the police to institute criminal proceedings in which case, the chances of reconciliation would greatly diminish and we will have more and more broken marriages. Only when all avenues have been exhausted, including what has been provided in section 119(3) where the court may refer the parties for mediation or attend counselling fails, the accused party will be dealt with under the Penal Code. This is in line with our emphasis to promote family values, sparing no effort to maintain family cohesion and harmony. But in order to deal with this increasing number of such family conflicts, the MCD should have immediate plans to recruit more trained and more qualified counsellors and set up more Family Centres to cater for people who need these facilities.”
“The number of forms that were filled was 1,680, and the highlights of the survey were: 79% of the respondents think family violence is a social problem and not a private one; 77% of the respondents think family violence is never justifiable; and 90% of the respondents would like to see tougher laws on family violence. This survey and a previous one done by Dr Alfred Choi and Dr Jeffery Elderson should make some of us rethink our stand on the issue of family violence and the role of the law. Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments. With our rapid changing lifestyles and increased complexities in our social environment, it is timely that we introduce these amendments to update the present provisions in the Women's Charter. Committing this Bill to a Select Committee reflects the importance attached to these amendments and I fully support this. There are two major amendments which I feel will make the most impact on the Bill. The first is the introduction of Part VIA - Protection of Family. In our present day highly pressurised urban environment, individuals as well as families are under great pressure in coping with everyday problems. Relationships between family members become more complex and fragile due to the pressure of work and also exposure to different cultures and media influence. It would be naive to believe that all marriages, no matter how blissful they seem in the beginning, will be able to endure the long passage of time without at some point of time friction arising between husband and wife, or between in-laws, and even between parents and children.”
“Sir, my one concern is that the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter to do with family violence will not be effective in curbing and reducing the incidence of family violence and so in six or seven years' time, there may be a younger Member of Parliament standing exactly here and quoting the statistics to show that. At that time, some of us may not be here to be held accountable for not doing what was needed in the first place. I hope I will be proven wrong in this prediction. Just before I end, Sir, I would like your permission to distribute to the Members the results of a survey on family violence carried out by The Body Shop and AWARE during the period November 1995 to January 1996. Do I have your permission, Sir?”
“If the fund is accumulated during the marriage then it constitutes an asset acquired during the marriage.' Of course, this ruling should apply to the CPF sums of both the husband and the wife and here again no distinction should be made if the spouse is male or female. I suggest that the CPF monies of both spouses be pooled together and considered as part of matrimonial assets. Now I come to the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter that are concerned with violence in the family. I have said quite a lot on this matter in this House when the Family Violence Bill was being discussed. I will not repeat what I have said on this subject but there is one observation that I wish to make. Some Members of this House were against the Family Violence Bill because they felt that the intervention and involvement of outsiders would have a detrimental effect on maintaining family relationships. Yet some of these same Members did not have these reservations in supporting the Maintenance of Parents Bill. I find this stand incongruous and inconsistent. In the case of the Maintenance of Parents Bill, the problem of the number of parents needing maintenance from their children appears small and yet the House passed the Maintenance of Parents Bill which intrudes into the family home and into family relationships. However, in the case of the Family Violence Bill, the problem is much larger (as acknowledged by the police) and yet Members of this House expressed reluctance at the intrusion into the family home and family relationship. I believe a consistent stand would send the right signal to the people.”
“It seems a pity not to build upon the existing body of case law which appears to be just and equitable and in practice has inclined towards the principle of equality of division of matrimonial assets, whether acquired by sole or joint effort and thus recognising the home-making and family welfare component. I have therefore two suggestions for the Minister: (1) Not to repeal and re-enact section 106 on the division of matrimonial assets as the present practice of the Courts has been just and equitable and reflects the reality of married life in Singapore today; and (2) If the Minister wishes to repeal and re-enact section 106, then there should be a direction to incline towards equality of division. This House should assert the principle that "both spouses are equally valued whether he or she concentrates on the economic or home-making role as both roles must be performed equally well if the partnership is to flourish." -- also a quotation from Prof. Leong. If we do not assert this principle of inclination towards equality of division, then we are undermining the complementarity of roles in a marriage partnership. Turning to the definition of matrimonial assets, I would like the Minister to confirm that the definition includes club memberships and CPF monies. The Court of Appeal has decided that CPF monies should be part of the matrimonial assets. This was the case of an appeal in the Appeal Court and Justice Goh Joon Seng speaking for the Appeal Court said, and I quote: `In our view the fact that the fund in a member's CPF account is subjected to restrictions as to its use and disposal until he reaches the age of 55 and is inviolable except to the extent set out in the CPF Act does not make it any less of an asset.”
“In other words, there is power to divide 50-50 for jointly acquired assets and 49-51 for solely acquired assets. We have a substantial body of case law since 1990 which has interpreted section 106 on the principle of inclining towards equality. This interpretation reflects the present day reality of a partnership in marriage. Therefore, Sir, what is the need to repeal and re-enact section 106? Have there been any principles enunciated by the Courts that have been unsatisfactory or where justice appears not to have been done? What have been the shortcomings in interpreting this section so far? Should we not follow conventional wisdom -- if it is not broken, do not fix it. The new section (clause 19) proposed by the Minister abolishes the differentiation between assets acquired jointly or by sole effort. It might appear on the surface that this new section (clause 19) is made especially to take into consideration the contributions of the home maker but before we assume this, let us look at the likely consequences if the amendment becomes law: (1) The weight given to the other factors, including the home-making and welfare of the family, will depend upon each judge hearing the case. There is a subjective element here. (2) As legislators, it is our duty to clarify and fine-tune the legislation to help the courts in their decision. We cannot leave it entirely to the Courts to decide what is just and equitable -- we have to clearly lay down the principles on which the division of matrimonial assets should be based. (3) Also with the repeal of section 106, the old body of case law built up since 1990 may no longer be applicable and used as a precedent.”
“" Therefore, I think it is only fair and equitable to give the Courts the power to order maintenance of the husband by the wife if such a necessity arises. This change will also allay any perceptions that the Women's Charter discriminates against men. In this era, maintenance should be on the basis of need and not on gender. Two practical instances that come to mind are where a husband cannot find work due to illness or has care and custody of the children and can only do part-time work as he has to look after the children. In such situations, wives should be asked to maintain their husbands. Would the Minister therefore please consider amending section 61 (subsection 1), section 107 and section 108 (subsection 1) so that either spouse can apply for maintenance and appropriate assessment can be made of the amount of maintenance? Now, Sir, I would like to discuss the amendment that deals with the division of matrimonial assets, namely, section 106. Under the present section 106, matrimonial assets are categorised into two main types: those acquired by the joint effort of both parties; and those acquired by the sole effort of one party. In the case of matrimonial assets acquired jointly, there is a direction for the Court to incline towards equality of division. Sir, our Courts have taken a very enlightened approach towards the interpretation of section 106. From looking at the body of case law since 1990, it is obvious that the Courts have reduced the differentiation of joint and sole efforts to insignificance by observing that they may award "up to 49%" of the matrimonial assets acquired by the sole effort of the other. This was enunciated by Justice Chan Sek Keong as he was then.”
“It is not satisfactory if there is a gulf between people's expectation of family life and the provision in family law legislation. Prof. Leong Wai Kum, who is from the National University of Singapore and a legal expert in marriage and family law, put this sentiment very succinctly when she said, and I quote, 'We respect a family law more when it mirrors our lives and hopes." At this stage, I would like to point out some inconsistencies in the Women's Charter. On the one hand, the Charter treats the woman as a non-economic unit. Section 61 and section 107 empower the Court to order the husband to maintain his wife or ex-wife but not the other way round. However, on the other hand, when it comes to the maintenance of children, the wife is treated as an economic unit. This is spelt out in section 122(3) and section 61(2). The Court can order the women to maintain her legitimate or illegitimate child. Thus, either or both parents have a duty to maintain a child. I think it is time for us, Sir, to have consistency in the law. Furthermore, we must also reflect the reality of the wife as an economic unit as earlier figures that I quoted show very clearly. We therefore have to amend the Women's Charter to allow husbands to claim maintenance from their wives, in appropriate circumstances. Presently, only a husband owes a legal obligation to maintain a wife. And here I quote Prof. Leong again, "A wife does not owe a similar obligation and can ignore the subsistence needs of her husband even if she were fully capable of meeting them. This cannot be right. So while this obligation is not likely to be enforced often, it should be a part of the law.”
“Similarly, 37% of brides with upper secondary and 28% with tertiary qualifications married downwards in 1994. In the same year, 98% of grooms and 82% of brides were working. The present day reality is that most wives work and some of them earn more than their husbands. We have to keep this picture in our mind as the context in which we should be amending our matrimonial legislation. If we do not do this, then our amendments will be outmoded and irrelevant. Thus, for the modern young couple, a marriage is an emotional union and an economic partnership. Fortunately, some parts of the present Women's Charter are very progressive and reflect this aspiration of marriage as a partnership. Sir, section 45 enunciates a vision of the equal partnership of the spouses, and I quote: "The husband and wife shall have equal rights in the running of the matrimonial households." Section 46 does away with the outmoded belief that the wife's domicile by virtue of marriage is determined by the husband's domicile. Furthermore, under section 61, not only a father but also a mother can be ordered by the court to maintain a legitimate or an illegitimate child financially. All these three sections affirm that marriage is a partnership inclining towards equality. Thus, Sir, we have to keep three facts in mind: (1) The general sense of equality expressed in the Women's Charter. (2) The idea of marriage as a partnership which is espoused as an ideal by the younger generation. (3) That most younger wives are in the workforce and a sizable number earn as much, if not more, than their husbands. It is these realities that must be reflected in the Women's Charter and the amendments if the legislation is to make sense.”
“Thus, the Family Charter will not only be the law to regulate family relationships and behaviour but it will also promote values and beliefs that our society holds dear. We would thus have a living and organic document that is of relevance to all of us. Of course, to enable this to happen, we must draft the legislation in ordinary understandable and readable English and translate it into all the official languages. The next step would be to have this document -- the Family Charter -- studied in schools, colleges and other educational institutes and also studied during national service. Every child, man and woman should become familiar with the ethos and principles of this legislation and try to live by its creed. Now, I would like to turn to some of the provisions in the present Women's Charter and the proposed amendments. Marriage, for some people, is not only a union of the bodies but also a union of the souls. However, in the present local context, this cosmic view of marriage is not what many young people believe in. Instead, most pragmatic young people think of marriage as a matrimonial partnership, both in the emotional and economic sense. When the Women's Charter first came into existence in 1961, only one in five women was in the workforce, but now women constitute 40% of the labour force. Half of the married women are working. But if you look at the younger women, Sir, the married female labour force participation rate is much higher, at 65%. Not only do we have more and more dual income families, but the husband and wife are both better educated. In 1994, 70% of both brides and grooms (non-Muslim) had at least secondary education. Also, in 1994, 28% of brides with secondary qualifications married grooms with below secondary qualifications.”
“Sir, the Women's Charter is the major statute governing marriage and family relationships of non-Muslim Singaporeans. Therefore, the move to make major amendments to the Women's Charter is a very momentous event as it will affect and shape the fabric of our society. This legislation deserves the attention of all of us -- both inside and outside the House. Therefore, I would like to thank the Minister for agreeing to send this Bill to a Select Committee for further consideration. I would like to suggest right at the outset that the Women's Charter is not an appropriate name for this legislation as it does not reflect the spirit of the legislation. The Women's Charter actually deals with family law. This becomes even more obvious when we look at some of the proposed amendments -- those dealing with family violence and the marriage of transsexuals. Do these concern only women? Of course, not. They concern the family. Therefore, what we should be doing is to incorporate the present Women's Charter and all other legislation dealing with the family, for example, the Maintenance of Parents Act, and make one big legislative effort and call it the Family Charter. However, in incorporating the Women's Charter into the Family Charter, we will first have to remove Part X from the Women's Charter because this section deals mainly with offences relating to prostitution and therefore Part X has no place in either the Women's Charter or the Family Charter. Part X of the present Women's Charter rightfully belongs to the Penal Code. Sir, the Family Charter that I am proposing should be meaningful to all of us. Therefore, the drafting of this Family Charter should include the expression of the five core family values as ideals that have been accepted by all of us in Singapore.”
“Sir, with the indulgence of the House, would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary agree that we do not take this into consideration when we designate the man as the head of the household? Would he agree that it could be the woman who is actually the de facto head of the household and yet it is the man who gets the medical privileges for the children? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: We should not mix the two issues. I think Dr Soin has got this binge about head of household which has been raised in this House many times, the last one being in March, when she had an exchange with the Deputy Prime Minister. We should leave that aside. In so far as the philosophy of the section is concerned, looking at the wording of the section, the question is one of defaulting parent. Because, as I said, both parents have a responsibility of bringing up the child. And that is separate from the legal responsibility of the husband or father to maintain the child financially. I think we should not mix up the two issues when considering how the court should exercise its discretion under section 39. PAPER COMMAND 4 OF 1996 (Omission of Appendices C and D) 8. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Finance why Appendix C (Political Appointments, Personnel Groups and Other Groups) and Appendix D (Key to Salary Codes) were omitted from Paper Command 4 of 1996.”
“Sir, would the Government therefore give some direction to the court, in the sense that if both parents are found to be guilty, then the practice should be that the father should be fined and not the mother, as the father does have the privilege of being the head of the household? We may have to consider changing legislation, if necessary. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I do not think it is the business of the Government to give direction to the court. In any case, the court is guided by the specific words of section 39 which, as I said, give it the power to look at the circumstances and determine which parent has been at fault. I think this fault principle is a good one. Otherwise, we may get a situation where the father is a model father but the child still goes wayward because the mother has neglected to exercise due care, then the father would be fined for what he has not done. In fact, he has been a good parent but he has been fined. Is that right?”