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 4 of 11.
“In drafting this part of the Bill. I beg your pardon. I would like to tell him of the input of the Society Against Family Violence into this Bill. The last President of the Society Against Family Violence and their Consultant Counsellor had a long discussion with me where we went through the provisions of the Bill and they gave their input to it. Also, the Vice-President ---”
“If they understand what is the offence of family violence, then they are going to investigate it but after investigating, if they find that there is no offence they are not going to pursue the matter. But if there is an offence, then of course, they should pursue the matter if it is a specific offence. If, as I said earlier, the Minister thinks that this is too wide, I am sure we can find a way to address his concerns in not making clause 13(1) as intimidating as it appears. I think he also talks of the discretion of the police. No legislation can take away the discretion of the police. It is always there. They can always decide whether to pursue with a particular case, of course, with the Attorney-General's advice, or not to pursue it. So I do not think the Bill can possibly take away the discretion of the police. The other matter that the Minister said is that it makes simple hurt and grievous hurt a seizable offence. But I would like to remind the Minister that in the Children and Young Persons Act a precedent has already been set by making both simple hurt and grievous hurt as seizable offence. The other matter which is not very important, but I think it is good to clarify, is that the Minister said that the Society Against Family Violence was not consulted and had no part in this Bill.”
“The hon. Member, Mr Low Thia Khiang, was concerned with clauses 13 and 19. He felt that clause 13 gave too much powers to the police. This could be modified, if necessary, by necessitating that the police get a warrant of arrest from a Magistrate, as is done in the Children and Young Persons Act. Clause 19 which allows any person to give information to the police on commission of family violence is another area of concern. Even if this clause is not present, no one can stop a person from giving information to the police on any offence. However, if this clause causes some anxiety to Members, then it could be deleted. The hon. Member, Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon, recommended that legislation should be made according to our own social norms. This is precisely what has been attempted in the Family Violence Bill. Part III of this Bill is innovative legislation to suit our local conditions. If I may now address some of the concerns expressed today. I think I have answered some of them in my other remarks, but first of all I would like to say how happy I am that Mr Tarmugi had announced that the amendments to the Women's Charter would go to a Select Committee and there would be an opportunity to give in more inputs at that time. I think it is very commendable of him to do so. It involves the community and all of us to continue this debate. The other matter that he was quite unhappy about was clause 13(2) where he said that the interpretation obliges the police to investigate every case of violence. I am sure that he is right although my understanding was different. But at the same time what it requires of us is to make the police officers understand what is the offence of family violence and, as I said yesterday, it is not an isolated slap.”
“However, just for information, I have this pamphlet of the Ministry of Community Development passed out yesterday and their definition of "abuse" includes when you are threatened by force to engage involuntarily in sexual relations. So even the Ministry of Community Development recognises this as a form of abuse. Clause 3(1)(d) says, "wrongfully restraining or confining a family member against his will;". Correction towards a child below 21 years of age has been clearly excluded in the Bill and so there is no ambiguity where discipline towards young people is concerned. Clause 3(1)(e) says, "causing harassment with intent to cause ... anguish ...". Those of us who are familiar with domestic violence will know that stalking, ie, following the victim around after she moves into a shelter or alternative residence and making harassing phone calls at her place of work are two frequent forms of harassment. This form of harassment causes fear and intimidation in the victim. We should not trivialise the issue by talking of nagging as harassment. Trained police officers or enforcement officers should be able to make a distinction between actual harassment and mere nagging. The hon. Member, Mr Bernard Chen, said that the very act of going to court will break up the family. If he truly believes that, then how can he support the amendments to the Women's Charter which must involve the victim and the abuser to go to court to get a Protection Order?”
“However, the Family Violence Bill has the added advantage of offering one more option to the victims. The victims and those people who deal with this problem on the ground want this option to be available. Should we continue to deny to them? Of course, I understand and empathise that at this stage we do not have enough counsellors or trained police officers to attend to this very real problem. If the Family Violence Bill becomes legislation, it does not have to come into effect straightaway. We could plan to have the infrastructure ready in the next one or two years and only then put the legislation into effect. However, if we do not move the legislation now, we will not have the legislative framework and it will be difficult to get things going quickly and in a focused manner. The Bill could be the impetus to effecting changes to produce the necessary front-line professionals. This should solve the matter of logistics. Now, I want to address a few specific queries that were raised yesterday. One was on clause 3(1)(a) which refers to an attempt to cause family violence. This is no different from the present section 68(2) of the Women's Charter where threatening to use violence is justification for the granting of Protection Orders. So why are Members put off with this part of the definition of family violence? Clause 3(1)(c) says, "compelling a family member by force to engage in any sexual act or conduct;". Members have to remember that family members extend beyond spouses. We should not confine ourselves to spouses alone here and just talk of marital rape. In any event, marital rape is not an offence under the Penal Code and therefore the intention of this Bill is not to make an issue of marital rape.”
“(2) The other point that the Minister for Home Affairs mentioned was that the police personnel are either national servicemen or young men below 25 years of age and cannot handle family violence cases. This is not an insurmountable obstacle and the police can be trained for this. I was heartened to hear from the Minister that the police are already beginning to be trained. And I would also urge the Minister not to look at the role of the policemen only to solve crimes, not to look at them only in the form of cops and robbers, but to extend the role of the police into the community, which I understand is already being done, where the police and the community are one part of a whole, and not just to solve crimes, like as I said robberies, thefts, murders, which, fortunately, the numbers are going down very much in Singapore. Just like we have a rape squad dealing with rape victims, we could also have a family protection squad to deal with family violence cases. Here, the involved officers need not all come from the police. The Ministry of Community Development could also help to provide a group of specially trained family protection officers to work with the police. I would therefore like to urge the two Ministers to give some thought to this proposal. Another point I would like to highlight at this stage is that the Women's Charter amendments also involve a big police role. I have already outlined what happens when a Protection Order is breached and the police then have to come in to arrest the offender, because this is mandatory if there is a power of arrest attached to that order. I do not think that the role of the police can be eliminated or reduced whether you apply the Family Violence Bill approach or the Women's Charter amendments approach.”
“What I find surprising is that although Members of the House are resisting this, the situation is different when seen from the point of view of front-line professionals in family service centres and social work agencies who are dealing with family violence on the ground. They are convinced that there is a definite role for the police and at present, this is not being fulfilled. How do we resolve this divergent thinking, as put by the hon. Member, Dr Lee Tsao Yuan? I would like to suggest to the two Ministers involved that we ought to look more closely at this difference in approach and try to come to a common platform of action. The Minister for Home Affairs has also mentioned these difficulties which the police will face in addressing the problem of family violence. (1) There is a shortage of manpower to deal with all cases of family violence. There are 90-100 police posts in Singapore. Ten cases of family violence are reported daily. If only one in 10 police posts has to handle one case a day, this does not appear to be such a burden. However, if more manpower is required, then I am sure that the Minister for Finance, who is fortunately in the House this time, would agree to permitting more finances for this. He would agree if we convince him that the effects of family violence are going to cost society more in the long run, both in economic terms and social effects. To use an old proverb, "a stitch in time saves nine" is very appropriate here. And the Minister for Finance, being a very astute Minister for Finance, would see the advantage of spending money now so that we do not end up by spending it long term with the added social effects.”
“The police do not send the offender to jail in the first instance. They advise counselling. And after that, if another offence occurs, only does prosecution and jail come into the picture. So what is the difference? Eventually, on the second offence, it is exactly the same thing. But for the first time, if we look at it under the Women's Charter amendments, the onus is on the victim. She goes to court and gets the Protection Order. Under the Family Violence Bill, the onus is on the police who give the option to the offender of getting counselling and not hauling him to court. So I still feel that the approach is not as different as it has been made out to seem. Another fact that has to be highlighted is that in the Family Violence Bill, we are taking into account the wishes of the victim and the need to keep the family intact. But we are ensuring that the offender takes responsibility for his actions and is willing to go for counselling, so that there is a possibility of violence ending in the family. Another fact that has to be highlighted is that there is resistance in this House to empowering the police to help the victim. This is the main objection to the Bill. The rest of the Bill seems acceptable as the Women's Charter amendments and the Bill are pretty much similar. Many Members have accepted the amendments of the Women's Charter in principle, although we have not seen the actual amendments yet. Thus, the main thrust of the debate is the objection to this part of the Family Violence Bill that gives the police more powers.”
“This is borne out by what the Minister has told us of the frustrations of the police and the waste of resources. If the laws and powers for the police were formulated within the framework of the dynamics of abusive relationships, then there would be no frustrations and no waste of resources. If we are using the wrong instrument to do an operation, obviously the operation will fail. The main concern of the Family Violence Bill has been to take into consideration the complexities of family violence and this legislation is attempting to be responsive to the situation of family violence. Thus, although it makes family violence a specific offence, it does not prosecute the offender initially and very few people have highlighted this. All that has been highlighted is that if an offender commits violence after counselling or refuses to have counselling, then he is prosecuted. I think we need to compare another scenario. And this scenario is if we look at the Protection Orders which are given to the victims, and especially now that the Acting Minister for Community Development has suggested that powers of arrest be attached in the first instance. Sir, we have a victim who goes to court first and then gets a Protection Order with a power of arrest. The next time she is beaten up, the police are obliged to arrest the offender because the offender has breached the court order, which is a very serious offence. And this time, the police are obliged to prosecute the offender and this time the police do not even have the discretion of offering counselling. So after getting a Protection Order and if the Protection Order is breached, the police have to prosecute the offender and send him to jail. Under the Family Violence Bill, the victims go to the police.”
“It offers counselling instead of prosecution and jail. There is no heavy hand of the police but a family responsive approach. The Bill should not be characterised as antagonistic towards families and doing more harm than good. I cannot understand this interpretation of the Bill. If there are a few provisions in the Bill which appear to give this interpretation, I am sure that, with legal advice, we could change the interpretation of these provisions. The Minister for Home Affairs said that, under the present law, the police have enough powers to act in domestic violence and cited that the police took prosecution action in some simple hurt cases. I notice that this happened in 14 cases out of 3,625 cases in 1994. The Minister then said that in only seven out of these 14 cases were victims willing to proceed with prosecution. This is precisely the problem that the Family Violence Bill tries to address. The victims do not want the abusers to be jailed but they want the law to intervene in such a way that the beating stops without the abusers going to jail. This expectation of the victims should be anticipated and the police would not be frustrated if they are attuned to the dynamics of abusive relationships and thus alert to the issues of dependency, fear, general haplessness and responsibility for the children, which is what prevents victims from wanting the abusers to go to jail. Thus, this is another point that the Bill makes, ie, the present laws are not appropriate for family violence. Even if the police had enough powers and laws to prosecute offenders, these powers and laws are not suitable for family violence cases. And if they are abused, then they will end up in a situation of trying to fit a round plug into a square hole.”
“Since a vulnerable member of society is being subjected to violence, I cannot accept the view that society does not have a role, in fact a duty to stop this violence. We will be guilty of an act of commission if we do not respond effectively to the pleas for help of the victims. The most effective existing mechanism which society has to curb violence is the justice system with its arm of law enforcement. By not using this available mechanism effectively and fully, we are in fact condoning family violence by expecting social service agencies and informal avenues to solve the problem, although I am not at all excluding the role of these agencies and avenues. But this should only be in addition to the most important role of legislation and the police. Unless we accept this, the issue of family violence cannot be addressed effectively and adequately. Now, I would like to turn to some major concerns expressed in this House. One, the fear of the heavy-handed approach of the law. The very purpose of the Family Violence Bill is to eliminate the heavy hand which is now present under the Penal Code and in place of this heavy hand, extend a family sensitive approach. This family-friendly role is the centre piece of the Family Violence Bill. However, unfortunately, this does not seem to have been appreciated enough by Members of this House. The Minister for Home Affairs has said that the Family Violence Bill makes family violence a specific offence in which even first-time abusers could be jailed for acts, such as harassing family members. This is not what the Family Violence Bill sets out to do. Yes, the Family Violence Bill does make family violence a specific offence but it does not jail first-time abusers. That is the whole point of the Bill.”
“More husbands abuse their wives than the other way round. It is mothers who abuse their younger children and not the other way round. It is grown-up children who abuse their elderly parents or grandparents and not the other way round. Of course, one could have a dispute between a grown-up child and his grandparent and most of us would be reluctant to intervene to settle who is wrong and who is right. Even the most astute judge will find it difficult. However, if he finds that whatever the apparent dispute, if he finds that the elderly parent or grandparent is being beaten up by the grown-up child, are we still going to insist that as it is only a family dispute, the law should be hesitant to intervene, and if the law does intervene, as it has been mentioned under the Penal Code, it is not suitable to intervene? Our main aim should be to stop the violence and it is less important whether or not we can settle the dispute. The two parties can continue with whatever disagreement or dispute as long as one does not use violence on the other party. Since family violence is caused by an abuse of power irrespective of other factors, like alcohol and drug dependency which are only aggravating factors, there is still an underlying abuse of power. There has to be a vulnerable member in the relationship who is the victim. It cannot be that, this week, the grandparent beats up the grown-up child and, next week, the grown-up child beats up the grandparent. Whatever the dispute or disagreement, what remains constant is that the grandparent is the one who gets beaten up and the grandparent is the victim. So the victim remains constant.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all the Members who have taken the time and trouble to contribute to this debate which is, I think, a very important social issue. I would also like to express my thanks to those who commended me for my efforts in coming out with this Bill. My special appreciation goes to the few lone voices supporting the Bill. However, as I was listening to the response of the Members to the Family Violence Bill, I had the feeling that some of us were not talking on the same wave-length. In spite of quoting official statistics, some of the Members still made the point that we should not overblow the problem. I find that difficult to accept. If there is a problem, there is a problem. By pretending that it is smaller, it is not going to go away. And, here, I would like to refer to the Acting Minister, Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, and his reference to statistics. I am afraid that Government has only been keeping statistics for family violence in the year 1994 so there is no way for me to show whether the problem is increasing or not and that was not what I was indicating. All I said is that we had a big problem on our hands and I think the statistics do bear me out on that. The next misunderstanding seems to be the very concept of family violence. Some Members referred to it interchangeably as a family dispute and, thus, talked of the problems of settling family disputes. Of course, all of us in this House know how notoriously unrewarding it is to intervene in family disputes. However, family violence is not just a family dispute. It is an abuse of power within a relationship of family trust or dependency. Because it is an abuse of power, nearly always it is the one with more power who inflicts violence on the less powerful. Let me illustrate this.”
“As for me, I would like the one which gives me more options - everything as Mr Abdullah proposed - plus this: The option to ask the police to investigate this case.' This seems to me like good advice. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 5.18 pm”
“If the victim and the family are not comfortable with police investigation, they do not have to go to the police. They have the other recourse of getting Protection Orders from the court. All this, of course, does not exclude help from extended family, friends, etc. What I think we should be most concerned about this afternoon is not whether to accept the Women's Charter amendments and reject the Family Violence Bill. What we should be considering is what is the best way of providing protection for family members and yet strive to keep the family intact in situations of family violence. I feel sure that the Acting Minister for Community Development and all of us are united in this objective. Thus, I would like to urge that the debate in this House be carried out with this intention in mind. Let us not concern ourselves for the present on what name the legislation will take eventually and where this legislation will be sited. That is a peripheral problem. The central issue today is what are the main legislative provisions that will address the issue of family violence sensitively and effectively. I feel sure that the Acting Minister for Community Development will take cognizance of the debate and will incorporate the suggestions of this House into whichever legislation is decided upon eventually. Before I sit down, Sir, I would like to remind ourselves that we must not forget the victim in this whole complex issue of family violence. The victim could be our child, our parent or our sibling. What are the recourses and options that we would want if the victim was someone near and dear to us? This question was put very succinctly by a columnist, Ms Irene Ng, in the New Paper yesterday and I quote her: `Which approach would you prefer if you are an abused victim?”
“Many victims are unable to take this initiative because the dynamics of continual family abuse leave them powerless and helpless. By relegating family violence to an affair of the family, we are not sending a strong enough message that violence in the family is deplorable and society will not condone it. The rhetoric of just saying it without any legislative backing is not going to convince the abusers of the seriousness of this type of anti-social behaviour. And one of the most significant roles of the law is to make a clear statement to society that a particular conduct on the part of the citizens is unacceptable and will be socially condemned. Singapore has a formidable reputation for making this sort of clear messages and for maintaining law and order and dispensing justice. 3. In formulating legislation for family violence, Protection Orders cannot be the centre piece. Of course, the amendments announced by the Minister have given more effectiveness to the Protection Orders. But Protection Orders can only be one option available in the legislative armamentarium. Finally, research and experience from other countries show that the most effective deterrent against recidivism in family violence is the threat of police investigation and arrest. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Family Violence Bill encompasses all the amendments to the Women's Charter as proposed by the Minister. Therefore, the provisions in the two pieces of legislation should not be seen as competing. The additional provision in the Family Violence Bill about police intervention should be seen as one more option available to the victim. Whether this additional option is used by the victim will depend on the circumstances of the victim and the family.”
“Only when she heard that he was beating up the children, did she return home but the situation did not improve. She continued to be beaten. In this case, how do we ensure that Tim goes for counselling so that he stops beating up his wife and children? From the Ang Mo Kio domestic violence pilot project, we can see that abusers are reluctant to go for counselling because there is no legislative backing. However, under the provisions of the Family Violence Bill, Tim could be made to go for counselling without prosecution and this would give some hope to the family that he would stop beating them up and the family could remain intact. Today, although we are discussing the Family Violence Bill, what is very much in the minds of many of the Members is the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter disclosed recently by the Acting Minister for Community Development. In my opinion, these amendments are much needed and overdue. The Acting Minister for Community Development must be commended for coming up with more effective legislation in relation to family violence and this legislation is an improvement on the existing situation. However, the amendments may still not go far enough. This is not only my opinion, but the opinion of social workers and front-line professionals. And the reasons for saying this are: 1. We already have the Malaysian feedback on the shortcomings of the Domestic Violence Act of Malaysia which is very similar to the proposed amendments to the Women's Charter. 2. The Women's Charter and the amendments are based on the premise that family violence is an affair of the family and the onus is upon the victims to obtain protection from the courts.”
“So you can imagine how reluctant this old Chinese lady will be to go to court to get the Protection Order for herself. Case 2. Mdm B - 76-year old Indian woman - widowed - and has two sons and three daughters. Lives with her eldest son. She was punched by this son and the grandson in February 1995. This incident was not reported. Then some time later, Mdm B was pushed by her grand-daughter who is an undergraduate at a local university. This assault resulted in a fracture of her left ribs and contusion of her left hand for which she was seen at the Accident & Emergency Department of a hospital. Under the present provisions, if this case is reported to the police, the injury is considered as grievous hurt because of the fractured ribs and the penalty is jail. Obviously, the grandmother would not want her grand-daughter to go to jail but she wants the beating to stop. Under the Family Violence Bill, the grand-daughter could be sent for counselling instead of jail. The matter would remain within the family and the police, and the victim's son and grandson would also get the message and be deterred from beating up the old lady again. Case 3. Sally gave up her career when she married Tim, an academic. He exerted an obsessive amount of control over her. He expected her to write a daily agenda and he would call her at random from his office to check on her. If Sally was late preparing a meal or took down phone messages incorrectly, he would physically lash out at her. Sometimes, he would wake up in the morning and remember something she had done the day before and he would thrash her. Incredible as it may sound, Sally still loved him despite his ill-treatment of her. Finally, after a particularly bad bout, she left the house to seek shelter at a crisis centre.”
“At that time, mum persuaded daughter to move back with her. The daughter became unhappy and since then has been verbally abusive to the mother and also beats her up physically every now and then. Mdm A also has a son who graduated from the National University of Singapore. On one occasion when the son beat up his mother, it caused swelling on her head and the mother had to go to Tan Tock Seng Hospital to get treatment for her injuries. Here, I would like to quote Dr Wong Kwei Cheong, who is not in this House, when he spoke on the Maintenance of Parents Bill and this is what he said [Hansard Vol. 63, Col. 324]: `The highest level of filial piety is to bring glory to one's parents; then followed by caring for them in their daily life, to maintain them is in fact the lowest. For we even feed and keep our dogs and horses. What is the difference, if we show no respect to them [that is, to our parents]?' In fact, we even beat them as we see from these cases. In the case that I had just mentioned of Mdm A, the son and daughter contribute financially to the mother's expenses but they continue to be abusive physically and verbally. In this case, if friends and relatives are unable to help, what recourse has this 64-year old Chinese lady? Can we imagine her being able to go to the Family Court to apply for a Protection Order for herself against her son and daughter? Being Chinese, she probably believes in the Chinese saying which I am not able to pronounce but, with Mr Deputy Speaker's permission, I am going to hold up the Chinese characters and Members can see for themselves. I am told this is what it says, "Never go to court while you are alive and don't go to hell when you are dead".”
“What is surprising is that, although the Acting Minister for Community Development and some MPs are against an effective police role in family violence and giving them more powers to investigate, this is not the view of the victims and the social workers. In a report in the Straits Times on 30th October dealing with the effectiveness of the amendments to the Women's Charter, the view of social workers was summarised thus and I quote: `The seven social workers interviewed were concerned that the amendments [that is to the Women's Charter] still placed the burden of action on the victims, and did not give adequate powers to the police to send abusers for counselling or to investigate complaints.' I would now like to quote Sister Delphine Kang who is the Sister in charge of the Good Shepherd Centre running a shelter for victims of family violence: `I support the proposal to empower the police to investigate all cases of reports on violence [and she means family violence]'. With her experience and her Catholic background, she is very aware of the need to keep families together and yet she also supports police intervention. This should help to allay our fear that police intervention might lead to family breakdown. At this stage, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please permit me to narrate some real life cases of family violence so that we can better relate to the experiences of the victims and their family, and the complexities and difficulties involved in family violence. These are all real life stories. Case 1 concerns Mdm A who is a 64-year old Chinese woman - divorced - worked as a seamstress to bring up her daughter and son. Daughter moved out of mum's house and lived with her employer for four years and then their relationship broke down.”
“Thus, Part III of the Family Violence Bill follows the same principle as the Children and Young Persons Act where violence to vulnerable persons is treated as an offence. However, the Family Violence Bill differs in that it does not punish the abusers in the first instance by prosecuting them in court as legislated in the Children and Young Persons Act. Thus, the Family Violence Bill is more family sensitive than the Children and Young Persons Act. In spite of the fears of some Members of Parliament, the Family Violence Bill is not criminalising family violence in the usual sense of the term. If that was the intention, then there would be no need for the Family Violence Bill as the Penal Code is presently available to carry out the function of criminalising violence in the home. Part III of the Family Violence Bill empowers the police to investigate a case of family violence but ensures that the police do not automatically prosecute the abuser even if there is sufficient evidence, as is done in other criminal offences. By offering counselling in place of prosecution, the whole tenor of the police investigation takes on a very healing and family-friendly approach and ensures that the family relationship is not strained. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I cannot think of any other course of action that is more family sensitive but at the same time effective in curbing family violence. What the Family Violence Bill is setting out to do is "conditional" criminalisation - the condition being that if suspected abusers go for counselling, then there is no further prosecution.”
“As I said earlier, grievous hurt includes fractures, dislocations, permanent loss of sight or hearing or some catastrophic event. If an injury is classified as a grievous hurt, then the police have powers to investigate and powers to arrest but if the injury is classified as simple hurt and this includes injuries like kicking, punching, choking, pushing or even hitting the head against the wall and if this results in bruises, black eyes, contusions, lacerations, haematomas - the police classify this as non-seizable, as simple hurt, and they are generally not empowered to investigate or arrest and therefore they cannot take up the case for the victims. This distinction of simple and grievous hurt is valid for violence between strangers because the violent episode is a one-off incident. It is not repeatable and the victim does not live in the same house as the offender. However, for family violence, this distinction of simple hurt and grievous hurt becomes artificial as the episodes of simple hurt are repeatable and yet the police cannot do much to prosecute on behalf of the victim. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this anomaly has been addressed in the Children and Young Persons Act where injuries and cruelty to children and young persons are considered as offences irrespective of whether it is a simple hurt or a grievous hurt. Child abuse is a specific crime punishable by specified penalties but is limited to children under the age of 16. Other victims of family violence, regardless of age, should get the same consideration from the justice system because they are also vulnerable members of society who equally need to be protected.”
“In nearly all cases of family violence, the abusers will give statements and allow police investigation after being asked to come to the station by the investigating officer by telephone or by letter. The powers of arrest need only come into play if the abusers refuse to cooperate and refuse to allow the Police to investigate the case. Powers of arrest are only latent and will not therefore sour up the relationship between the victim and the abuser. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.59 pm (5) Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to stress at this stage that the purpose of this Bill is not to include the isolated incident of abusive behaviour within the definition of family violence and therefore the Police will not be overburdened by minor complaints. Although distressing and regrettable, minor incidents of abuse probably occur within most intimate relationships. Thus, while all such behaviour is condemned, it is the persistence of such violence that establishes it as coming within the definition of family violence. The particular concern of this Bill is systematic and frequent violence in the family and not the isolated slap. The enhanced role of the police that the Bill seeks to legislate is in tune with the community's expectation of the role of the police in such situations and therefore the community will welcome this enhanced role of the police. In a survey conducted two years ago by Dr Alfred Choi and Dr Jeffery Elderson, 510 randomly selected Singaporeans were asked on their attitudes towards family violence. The data revealed unequivocal public support for police charging or arresting a spouse if he commits an assault that in the Penal Code only amounts to simple hurt. The Penal Code differentiates between "simple hurt" and "grievous hurt" cases.”
“In other countries (eg, Canada, USA and Australia) counselling can only be mandated for abusers after prosecution in court and not as in the Family Violence Bill where the abusers are not brought to court but the Police can offer them counselling in lieu of prosecution. Now I wish to stress the following points about police intervention because many people have expressed fears about Police intervening in family matters and the possible abuses that may arise from this. (1) By empowering the Police to carry out investigation of a case, we are not suggesting that in each and every case of family violence the Police have to take a pro-active approach and intrude into every home looking for violence as if they are looking for drugs or illegal immigrants. (2) When victims do go to the Police to report violence in the home, it is a cry and a plea for help and often indicates that other avenues like extended family, friends and religious leaders have not been able to help and that is why the victims now turn to the Police. (3) There may be some cases of reports made by victims of family violence where the Police feel that further investigation is not necessary, and in these cases the Police can use their discretion not to proceed further. Like any other offence reported to the Police, it is up to Police judgement to assess the situation. So you cannot have this scenario of a vindictive wife trying to fix her husband because the Police would be wise to that. (4) In giving the Police more powers to investigate which include powers of arrest, it does not - and I repeat - it does not at all mean that the Police will automatically arrest the abuser after the offence is reported. In most cases the Police do not have to physically arrest the abuser.”
“The Malaysian Domestic Violence Act provides Protection Orders as the only recourse for victims. Subsequent to the passing of this legislation in Malaysia, weaknesses in the Act have become apparent and there are second thoughts as to the adequacy of this type of legislation. Should we not be learning from the experiences of a neighbouring country which is culturally similar to us or should we be re-inventing the wheel? In formulating the Family Violence Bill we were very mindful of the weakness of any legislation that limits itself to Protection Orders. Therefore we knew that we had to go beyond Protection Orders and this is the rationale for Part III of the Family Violence Bill. Part III of the Family Violence Bill provides enabling legislation for the Police to investigate cases of family violence even though the offence is considered "non-seizable" under the Penal Code. If the Police feel that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute a person for the offence, the Family Violence Bill further empowers the Police to inform the abuser that he or she will not be prosecuted if he or she submits himself or herself to a programme of counselling. If the offender agrees to this and there is no further incidence of violence on his or her part, then this is the end of the matter with the Police. However, if the abuser refuses to go for counselling or commits another act of violence, then the Police will prosecute the offender in court. As far as we are aware, this is the only legislation that allows mandatory counselling to be used as a rehabilitative measure for the abuser without any prosecution in court. In this sense, this innovative legislation is one of the first family friendly legislative approaches to be used anywhere in dealing with the issue of family violence.”
“In fact, the process of obtaining a Protection Order may be difficult and demoralising for the victim although it may not appear as a hassle to you or me. And at this juncture, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to distribute the pamphlets of the Ministry of Community Development to Members. [Copies of pamphlets distributed to hon. Members.] In the meantime, let me tell Members what it entails to get a Protection Order. The victim has first to go to the Family Court in Paterson Road (has to find where Paterson Road is) and swear a complaint. A week later after the summons for the abuser is ready, the victim returns to court and accompanies the court process server to identify the abuser so that the summons can be served on the abuser. After that, the victim has to go to court at least one more time and also the abuser has to go to court, assuming service is effective, and sometimes another two to three times before the Protection Order is issued. If the victim is an elderly person or a spouse with young children and cannot afford a lawyer, then one can imagine what a big burden this is for the victim. And if you look at the Ministry of Community Development's pamphlets, you see the feelings of the victims - ashamed, isolated, confused, powerless - and yet we expect these victims to go and get the Protection Orders themselves. Also, the whole process of obtaining a Protection Order is a public process and has to involve third parties - so this route does not necessarily guarantee that relations are not soured up between the parties. Malaysia has recently passed a Domestic Violence Act - the provisions of which are very similar to the Women's Charter amendments proposed by the Acting Minister for Community Development.”
“The second part deals with Protection Orders, penalties for contravention of Protection Orders, referral by judges of abusers for counselling and powers of arrest to be attached to Protection Orders in some instances. Protection Orders are interim or long term orders in nature given by the Court to ensure the needs of the victim for personal safety. Legislation to deal with Protection Orders is formulated upon two beliefs: (1) that family violence is only a private matter and therefore the burden is upon the victims to get protection for themselves by appearing in court; and (2) that the Protection Order will be an adequate deterrent against further episodes of violence. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, does not occur in reality. Often victims end up with multiple Protection Orders. This shows that the effectiveness of Protection Orders depends on the extent of respect shown by the abusers to these orders. Thus, existing legislation is not only inadequate in providing protection to victims but also it fails to send a strong signal to the abuser to end his or her violent behaviour. Therefore the root cause of family violence is not addressed. Feedback from voluntary welfare organisations, shelters and from victims themselves list the ineffectiveness of Protection Orders as being a major drawback in curbing domestic violence. Although Protection Orders are a necessary part of family violence legislation, they should not be the only and sole recourse for victims. Protection Orders do not take into consideration the full dynamics of abusive relationships where the victim suffers feelings of helplessness and hopelessness and yet is expected to initiate the process of obtaining the Protection Order for himself or herself.”
“The Penal Code addresses the issue of violence between strangers and therefore is not suited for the sensitivity and complexities of abusive family relationships. (3) Inadequate protection provided by legislation in the form of the Women's Charter. Only three sections of the Women's Charter, out of 185 sections, deal with family violence and these three sections only legislate the issuing of Protection Orders. Protection Orders form only one aspect of family violence legislation. (4) Insufficient powers of the Police to help victims of family violence - this was the feedback from the victims of family violence who felt that the Police were not able to help them adequately. The reason for this is not that the Police were not trying their best but, to some extent, their hands were tied because of the categorisation of injuries into simple hurt and grievous hurt. 95% of family violence cases fall into the category of simple hurt and therefore in most of these cases, the Police are unable to proceed with investigation and further action. However, we must remember that simple hurt is not simple. It involves bruising, haematomas, lacerations, kicking, choking, and yet in legal parlance it is simple hurt; but it is not so simple for the victim. We therefore need legislation that addresses all these gaps and concerns, taking into consideration the special situation of violence occurring in relationships of family, trust and dependency. And thus the Family Violence Bill came into existence. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Family Violence Bill is divided into four parts and each part has a specific purpose. The first part deals with the definition of family violence and also defines who is a family member.”
“As leaders of Singapore, we have a reputation for tackling difficult problems and we should not flinch from our duty in this issue. Now that we have established that family violence is prevalent and a major social problem, how are we going to address this problem? The Acting Minister for Community Development is absolutely right when he said that family violence is a sensitive and intricate problem and legislation alone will not solve it. There has to be a multi-pronged approach involving public education, training of front-line professionals, cooperation between police and social service agencies, inter-ministerial coordination and many other strategies. Aside from all these, we also need holistic legislation as a basic framework that is responsive to the dynamics and intricacies of family violence. Essentially, this legislation must provide the possibility of the restoration of a safe family and above all, a source of hope for victims, families and society as a whole, and even for abusers. The Family Violence Bill is an attempt to produce this responsive and responsible legislation. I will now quickly summarise some of the reasons for coming out with a separate piece of legislation to address the "problem" of family violence. (1) Absence of any single legislative act that deals specifically with the issue of family violence - this absence called for a new separate all-encompassing and holistic legislation that would give focus to family violence as a key social problem but yet try to keep the family together. (2) Inappropriate legislation was being utilized - presently the Penal Code is applied in family violence cases where the injuries consist of broken bones and dislocations. In legal parlance, these are referred to as seizable cases.”
“Family violence can also be a sizeable factor in incurring economic costs to the state in the form of court expenses, hospital expenses, cost of running shelters and of social service agencies. 4. One less obvious but very important effect of family violence is lost productivity from work. A recent study in Queensland (Australia) which has a population of three to four million people found that the cost of domestic violence is A$500 million per year. We have not got any studies to assess our own economic loss in this area. It will be at our peril if in the face of this overwhelming evidence of the social problems resulting from family violence, we continue to regard family violence only as a private matter, only as a family dispute and only as an issue that ought to be settled by friends, relatives and community leaders. Let me illustrate the danger of relegating family violence to just a family matter. This real life story was reported in the Straits Times on 14th July 1994. I quote: "A 4 year old girl died when her father stuck her head into a pail of water, the final act of abuse, after more than one year of ill treatment. When her aunt who is an administrative assistant saw her niece being beaten up regularly by the child's father, she did not report it because she felt it was a family affair and therefore, none of her business." Some of us harbour the misconception that an admission of the existence of family violence will be an assault on the integrity of the family. Should we continue to hold on to this misconception and allow our families to erode from within by domestic violence? Or are we going to face up to the reality even though it is unpleasant? Are we willing to make tough decisions to curb this social problem?”
“Having established that, our next task as responsible Parliamentarians is to ask ourselves: How do we curb this problem of family violence and yet ensure that the integrity and the fabric of the family is maintained? Fortunately, some cases of family violence are resolved by the family itself and with help from relatives, friends and religious leaders. However, for the 10 cases that report to the police every day and the three cases that seek hospital treatment every day, it is likely that informal avenues have failed and that is why these people have ended up as official statistics. At this juncture, Sir, let me hasten to assure the House that family violence is a universal problem and Singapore is no worse off than any other country. In fact, we might be a little better off especially in cases of homicide resulting from family violence. Statistics alone tell us about numbers but there is a much bigger story behind these numbers. Let us look at the sad story. 1. The most important tragic result of family violence is the effect on children who grow up either witnessing it or being subjected to it. As family violence tends to be a hidden problem, we often forget that it may be the root cause of many of the social ills that afflict our young - dropping out of school, gang fights, juvenile delinquency, drug dependency, and poor performance in school. We spend so much time, effort, energy and money to address these social problems and yet we are so reluctant to address the likely root cause of these problems, ie, family violence. 2. These abused children grow up becoming abusers and victims and thus perpetuate the cycle of violence, ie, inter-generational violence. 3.”
“If we continue to sit here until 5.30 pm, we will have one more victim. From figures provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs, we know that in 1994, 3,625 family members made police reports that they had been physically hurt by other family members, ie, 3,625 cases of family violence in 1994 were reported to the police. This works out to 70 cases per week or 10 cases per day. Experts think that the actual number of family violence cases is three to four times the total number reported and this opinion was confirmed by the Director of CID when he revealed figures for the number of spouse abuse cases. He said the reported figures were the tip of the iceberg, an expression which was used earlier on in the House. If this is true, then we could be having 10,000 to 12,000 cases of family violence occurring per year. But today I will confine myself to official reported figures. In 1994, we had three elderly victims each week, four child victims each week and 13 spouse victims each week, who went to public sector hospitals for treatment sustained because of family violence. These figures are from the Ministry of Health. On top of this, we have two to three cases each week when family members are injured with dangerous weapons or end up with broken bones, dislocations, permanent loss of sight or hearing, or any of the other definition of grevious hurt. This is as a result of domestic violence. In short, Sir, we have 10 people every day making police reports of family violence and three people every day seeking hospital treatment from injuries resulting from domestic violence. Thus, can we have any doubt at all that family violence is a big problem?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and the Members of the House for giving me this opportunity to explain the rationale and provisions of the Family Violence Bill. Work on the Family Violence Bill was a collective effort and therefore I take no personal ownership for it. Drafting started about 1 1/2 years ago. The people involved included lawyers, social workers, a criminologist, front-line professionals and social work students. There were both males and females involved. Input from victims was integral to the drafting of the main provisions of the Bill. In May this year, the earlier draft of the Bill was given to the Police who forwarded it to the relevant Ministries. Subsequently, the relevant Ministries were given updated drafts. In July, draft copies of the Bill were sent to the relevant Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) after which in the same month, there was a meeting with many of them to discuss the rationale and provisions of the Bill. In late August, all Members of Parliament were sent copies of the draft Bill and input was invited. Feedback was incorporated into the final version of the Bill and thus this Bill is the result of much consultation, discussion and consensus. Some of us in this House may be wondering what is the scale of family violence. What are the statistics? Is the problem big enough to warrant all the attention? Let me present the facts to you and then you can decide for yourself. In the last 2 1/2 hours, while we have been discussing onerous Bills about employment and foreign workers, one Singaporean, and this could be a spouse, a child or an elderly person, has been hurt at home by another member of the family and has contacted the police for help.”
“Could the Minister please be good enough to give those criteria because there are some mothers who are in this predicament and they would like their children to become Singapore citizens?”
“Would the Minister tell us those routes because they are generally not well known.”
“Sir, would the Minister agree that it is a little anomalous that just because the mother takes the trouble to come to Singapore and have the baby, the situation changes? But if she has a premature birth and the baby is born in another country, the situation is again changed.”
“Sir, would the Minister confirm that if the Singaporean mother came to Singapore and had the baby in Singapore, then the baby would become a Singapore citizen? But if she has the baby abroad, the situation is different. Mr Wong Kan Seng: If the baby is born in Singapore, under our Constitution, it says that if either parent is a citizen, the child can be a citizen.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to make provision for the protection of family members in situations of family violence and to make provisions for purposes connected therewith." Bill read the First time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with due respect, I think the two Bills are different. The Family Violence Bill extends beyond Protection Orders for women. The Family Violence Bill extends to other members of the family. Besides spouses and children in the family, it extends to the elderly. And from statistics that have been revealed, there were 132 elderly people who reported to public sector hospitals in 1994 after having been bashed up by family members. I find it difficult to see how violence towards the elderly male can be included under the Women's Charter. Furthermore, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Women's Charter only deals with Protection Orders, while the Family Violence Bill is going to empower the Police to investigate all cases of domestic or family violence and this provision is not available in the Women's Charter. With due respect, Sir, only three sections, ie, sections 68, 69 and 70, in the Women's Charter deal with violence towards women and children in the family. So I think it would be more sensible and tidier if sections 68, 69 and 70 were repealed in the Women's Charter, and we have a new Bill which serves a definite purpose. Family violence is a concrete offence and we need to send a definite message to society that we do not condone it. By just amending the Women's Charter, we will be achieving a very limited objective. I would like to entreat the House to at least allow the introduction of the Family Violence Bill so that Members can make up their mind at the Second Reading stage and recommendations can then be made at the Select Committee.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I move the motion, may I have your permission to correct a typographical error? The word "situation" in the motion should be in the plural. It was my error.”
“Sir, would the Minister tell the House whether the officials were able to find out whether there was any physical violence in the home or they were satisfied that the violence was contained? Or did they find no history and no evidence of physical violence towards the child?”
“Sir, would the Minister agree that it is not just the time but the quality of assessment? Without questioning the officers' competence, I would like to ask the Minister to consider whether more training could be given to the officials who monitored the child and the relationship between the parents, because the child was battered to death soon after the officials stopped monitoring and there was a history of repeated violence towards the child. How could we have missed this? And could we make sure that this does not happen again? In the light of that, would the Minister consider a Committee of Inquiry?”
“Sir, in view of the fact that Joel was bashed to death six months after being returned to his parents and the fact that the mother said that he had often been beaten by the father, at least from the newspapers, would the Minister be able to say how, in the assessment by the Ministry officials, this fact was overlooked? Could this be prevented in future if we had a Committee of Inquiry to look into the adjustment and not into the facts of the murder of Joel?”
“Sir, would the Minister consider installing some measures like closed-circuit TV in the rental blocks of older HDB estates to ensure security, if they are not due for immediate upgrading?”
“Question No. 9, Sir. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, tailgating, particularly on expressways, is a cause of many accidents. The police adopts a two-pronged approach of public education and enforcement in dealing with the problem. Not to tailgate is one of the key messages emphasised by Traffic Police in its annual campaign on road courtesy. The same message is also carried in the on-going public education effort on the proper use of expressways. With the help of the Public Works Department, Traffic Police has also put up road signs along the East Coast Parkway to remind drivers to keep a safe distance from vehicles in front. Similar road signs will be erected along other expressways. Sir, the Traffic Police will not hesitate to warn, fine or even prosecute motorists who tailgate and pose dangers to other road-users. LIFTS IN PUBLIC HOUSING (Security measures) The following Question stood in the name of Dr Lee Tsao Yuan- 10. To ask the Minister for National Development what measures have been and are being taken to enhance security in lifts in public housing.”
“Sir, would the Parliamentary Secretary explain his slight reluctance in being more tough with these offenders? Second, would he agree that taking stricter measures and making an example of a few cases would be a very good deterrent for other potential offenders? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, let me put things in perspective. I think it is wrong to say that I am reluctant to enhance the penalties. When we monitor the situation, it does not mean that we just sit on our backs. We are actively considering enhancing the penalties. I have mentioned to the Member for Cheng San GRC the penalties we will introduce if the situation warrants it. TAILGATING ON EXPRESSWAYS The following Question stood in the name of Dr Lee Tsao Yuan- 9. To ask the Minister for Home Affairs what measures are being taken to prevent tailgating, particularly on expressways.”
“Sir, would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that handphone driving is a very serious offence? And in view of that, would he agree that something more needs to be done than just monitoring the situation, because it could lead to some serious and fatal accidents? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I agree with the Member. I think all of us here agree that driving with one hand on the handphone and the other hand on the wheel is indeed serious. That is why, as I have mentioned, we have stepped up enforcement. We will continue with education to encourage drivers to install hands-free sets. And as I have mentioned in this House, the fact that we are considering enforcing other tougher measures underscores that we are serious in ensuring that this inconsiderate driving behaviour does not get out of hand. Also, if I may say, we have encouraged other drivers to report such offenders if they do see people using handphones while driving. I think this also calls for the support of fellow drivers to ensure that this dangerous behaviour, as the Member has mentioned, would be wiped out.”
“Sir, with due respect, could I ask the Minister to consider the feelings of the 3% GEP students of the minority groups who are not able to get to Tao Nan School?”
“Sir, could I request the Minister to reconsider his decision in line with the fact that we do want to have our brightest students in a multi-ethnic environment? Since we already have SAP schools to promote Chinese ethos and culture, would the Minister reconsider his decision because it could be setting a precedent which is a little worrying?”
“Sir, would the Minister assure the House that it is a wise move to sequester the GEP students in SAP schools? Would the Minister not agree that it would be more representative of multi-ethnic Singapore if our brightest GEP students, although 97% are Chinese, are located in non-SAP schools?”