Sun Xueling
Singapore
“We are deploying electric vehicle (EV) chargers in tandem with growing demand, within the constraints of space and electricity. As EV technology is continuously improving, we are also mindful not to overbuild as chargers can become obsolete quickly.”
“I thank Member Dr Choo Pei Ling for raising feedback from her Tengah residents. Currently, two multi-storey car parks in Tengah have EV chargers, and LTA subsidiary, EV-Electric (EVe) Charging Pte Ltd, is in the process of deploying EV chargers in another eight multi-storey car parks in Tengah.”
“The Government targets to deploy 60,000 electric vehicle (EV) charging points by 2030, which comprise 40,000 in public car parks, and 20,000 in private premises. As of March 2026, there are 30,500 EV charging points deployed in Singapore. We are on track to achieving our 2030 target in tandem with the growing demand for EVs.”
“In 2025, about 30% of Build-To-Order (BTO) blocks were completed earlier than their estimated completion dates at the point of flat booking. On average, these blocks were completed about two months earlier.”
“Yes, thank you. We agree with Dr Neo that it is important to bring together the wider ecosystem and we will consult all stakeholders. The Ministry of Transport's immediate focus is to drive the usage of drones more extensively, especially by the public sector and this is because we already have many potential use cases.”
“I thank the Member for her question. Earlier, I mentioned in my reply that the HDB notifies buyers at three junctures. This is to give buyers adequate time to plan. And that is why it is at the one year before, six months before and three months before.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,352 lines we hold for Sun Xueling, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 28.
“I thank the Member for his clarifications. I would like to refer Members to the media release that was issued by ECDA on 31 August 2023. This is with regard to the mandatory installation of CCTV cameras in preschools. I have also shared in my main response earlier that ECDA has actually issued guidelines to preschools to be able to guide them as to where the appropriate places to install the CCTVs as well as what are the protocols in place for their engagements with parents should parents wish to view the CCTV footage.”
“I thank the Member for the questions. Regardless of whether it is a new graduate from one of our local schools joining the sector or a mid-career individual who has decided to join the early childhood sector, there is available pre-service training and there are also continuous professional development courses, in other words, in-job training. Our operators also have obligations to provide orientation programmes to induct and socialise new staff on the values, mission, expectations and attitudes that staff should have when they join the preschool sector. Operators are also required to conduct ongoing training and provide development opportunities for staff to maintain their knowledge of child-safe policies and also their expected standards of care and appropriate behaviours in relation to children. I had mentioned in my main response that as part of our regular review and the lessons that we will learn from these unfortunate incidents, that ECDA will be working closely with NIEC and other training providers to strengthen training for our educators, whether or not these are new joiners, recent graduates or these are staff who have converted, moved from another industry into the preschool sector.”
“I thank the Member for her questions. Please rest assured that ECDA will stand ready to assist parents of affected preschoolers if they so wish to transfer to another school. Right now, ECDA is already part of the discussions. And I understand that if Kinderland is not able to help parents transfer their children, these parents can write in to ECDA and ECDA will do its best to find placements for their children. On the second point, it will be an offence to tamper with CCTV footage. The intent to have the CCTV footage to ensure the security and safety of the children is very obvious. So, if any operator were to tamper with the footage because they want to obscure or cover up wrongdoing, please rest assured that the authorities will take firm action against such operators.”
“I thank the Member for her clarification question. As I have mentioned, we announced the deadline for the installation of CCTVs to be 1 July next year. Currently, already 60% of preschool operators have CCTVs and it is almost 100% for EI centres. What we want to do when we announced a policy and something that is mandatory is that we must ensure that operators on the ground are fully equipped to be able to do it appropriately and properly. As I have mentioned in my main response, operators will need time to procure their CCTVs. They will need time to identify where the appropriate places are to install the CCTVs. To this end, ECDA has actually issued a set of guidelines to guide the operators as to where it would be appropriate to install the CCTVs. Of course, if the operators have questions, ECDA will be on hand to be able to engage them to address any concerns that they have. Over and above that, operators must also have relevant protocols in place and also share that with parents so that parents know under what kind of situations it will be appropriate to ask for CCTV footages and what they can expect the response from the preschools to be. At the end of the day, while we have set a mandated timeline, we are encouraging operators who are able to do so earlier, to do so earlier, because we fully recognise the concerns of parents.”
“I thank the Member for his questions. ECDA has been engaging preschools on the issue of CCTV installation. I mentioned in my reply that they started engaging preschools last year. There was a one-off survey whereby the schools were asked to indicate whether they have CCTVs installed. But there is a difference between conducting a one-off survey to understand where the sector was at that point in time, as opposed to tracking and monitoring. As I have said in my main response, CCTV installation was not a mandated policy before. Therefore, it would be unfair for us to run after the centres to ask them whether they have installed. Then the follow-up question from that would seem to be, "If you have not installed, then does it mean that it is a bad thing?" So, we do not track and monitor the pace as well as which preschools have installed because this was not a mandated policy before. But now that we have announced that it will be mandatory, we will be working with the operators moving forward, after the installation deadline, to ensure that they comply.”
“I thank the Member for her question. I fully understand that where she is coming from is to make sure that we do what we can to ensure child safety. But, at the same time, I would like to caution against excessive use of digital devices to monitor the ongoings in schools. We are already taking a first step with CCTV installations, and we will be very careful in how we install, where we install the CCTVs. For instance, we will put them in places where the children regularly engage with their teachers – in classrooms, at very important access areas – and we will steer clear of private areas such as the toilets and rest areas, because we also have to ensure that the privacy of the children and staff are taken of. There are many parents who feel strongly about this as well. I would like to say that rather than for us to think whether it is better to have a CCTV camera or an audio recorder, so on and so forth, what is important is that we must inculcate from top to bottom – from the operator, centre leaders at the centres down to the educators – this entire concept around child safety, that they live and breathe child safety, that they know what practising child safety means and that they know how to recognise signs of abuse. So, I would rather that we spend time educating our teachers, be it pre-service or in-service, rather than overly rely on digital means to monitor actions. Some parents and teachers may feel that having audio recorders in the toilet may be an invasion of privacy. So, I would just like to share that this is the thinking. But we will monitor, with the installation of CCTVs, how the responses of educators and parents are and we will be fully committed to ensuring that we provide a safe and nurturing environment for our students as well as our teachers.”
“I thank the Member for her questions. As I have mentioned in my main response, we have a system of multi-layered safeguards. We are not singularly relying on the installation of CCTVs in order to ensure the safety of our children. I have mentioned in my main reply the obligations of operators, centres, centre leaders as well as educators. Our educators also undergo training, pre-service and in-service, to know what are prohibited actions and also what are appropriate child management strategies. I note the point that the Member has made with regards to the feedback loop with parents. Currently, different centres are employing different digital solutions in order to have an efficient and effective feedback loop with parents. Recently, I visited a preschool under Babilou and they showed me how they have used digital solutions such as a software to monitor their engagements with parents, that feedback with parents, so as to build trust in parents towards their preschool educators. On the point about no-contact time, I have mentioned in my main response that ECDA is reviewing this area so that we ensure that our preschool educators have sufficient rest, that they are able to make use of this no-contact time to achieve a better work-life balance and also for them to engage in other activities that will help them in their teaching requirements.”
“Let us work together to strengthen it – ECDA, operators, preschools, educators and parents – to provide a safe and nurturing environment for our children to learn and thrive.”
“To help operators support their employees, ECDA has launched a Good Practices Guide to guide them in implementing best workplace and human resources practices to foster a supportive work environment and support the well-being of their staff. ECDA also works with the Health Promotion Board (HPB) and the Workplace Safety and Health Council to offer programmes to operators and educators to support their overall well-being. Mr Speaker, I have met many teachers who have devoted their time and energies to raising our children with love, while putting their well-being as a top priority. I fully understand that it is not easy to care for young children, but it is our teachers’ passion and commitment that spur them to stay the course. Our children’s well-being is at the heart of what they do every day. The recent spate of incidents of child mismanagement are not a reflection of the state of the preschool sector and educators. In our continuous efforts to ensure the safety of our children and support their growth and development in a positive and nurturing environment, we will learn from recent incidents to strengthen our system of preventing child mismanagement cases. First, ECDA will strengthen its investigation protocol to ensure better oversight of cases under investigation. Second, we will enhance our regulatory framework, which includes a review of the penalty provisions for errant operators. Third, we will work with NIEC and training providers to strengthen educator training in both prohibited and positive child management strategies so that educators are better equipped to ensure child safety. We have a system of multi-layered safeguards.”
“We do so because we recognise and take pride in the improvements in the training and professionalism of our 24,000-strong workforce over the years and we want to retain the good quality educators that we have and attract more to join. We have worked with Government-funded operators to implement the increases in salaries this year and will continue to do so in 2024. ECDA also provides resources for educators to take charge of their professional development, deepen their expertise and plan for career advancement. Some Members are concerned that the workload is heavy and contributes to stress on educators which can lead to adverse incidents. I thank Members for their concern. ECDA has been taking steps to improve working conditions. One major shift we announced in July this year was the removal of the requirement for childcare centres to operate on Saturdays. This is to enable educators to have better work-life balance and sufficient rest to recharge. This will take place from 1 January 2025. More moves are also being planned, such as ECDA’s review of preschools’ practices on non-contact time. This is to provide educators respite during working hours to refresh and complete non-teaching tasks. The outcome of the review will be shared with the sector soon. We will need the support of parents to operationalise these improvements in work conditions for the sector. Teachers who are cared for can better care for our children. At the same time, operators must also do their part and take the lead in supporting the well-being of their employees. We encourage educators who may feel overwhelmed to have open communication with their centre leaders or management on their work commitments and well-being.”
“With the experience gained in operationalising this regulatory framework, ECDA intends to strengthen the framework and review the provisions to see if penalties imposed on operators for child mismanagement should be enhanced, including whether financial penalties should be raised. As I have said at the beginning, the incidents at Kinderland should not have happened and are not representative of the vast majority of preschool educators. They have worked tirelessly to care for our children and provide them with a safe space to play, to learn, to grow. I am grateful that Members such as Mr Melvin Yong have acknowledged that most educators are exemplary and that we ought to boost their morale as they have been affected by the recent incidents. These are educators who, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, showed up every day for work at our preschools. They provided an essential service to our frontliners and essential workers, who in turn kept Singapore going because they knew their children were in the good hands of our educators. I am glad to see that parents share this sentiment as well over the past few weeks, both online and in forum letters. I agree with Ms Victoria Soen Minyi, a parent who wrote to The Straits Times which was published on 8 September 2023: "We should not forget about the rest of the teachers who have been doing their job well. There are many passionate, wonderful teachers in our midst.” We should not let the errant acts of a few tarnish the good work of the whole. ECDA is doing their part to improve the career proposition and working conditions of preschool educators. In October 2022, ECDA announced efforts to uplift salaries of educators to be market-competitive and commensurate with their growing competencies.”
“ECDA is reviewing its procedures to strengthen this protocol and ensure better oversight of cases under investigation. Ms Tin Pei Ling asked about the adequacy of the regulatory actions for the Kinderland cases. When determining the appropriate penalties, ECDA takes into account all the facts of the case and imposes a penalty that is proportionate to the circumstances. When considering what action to take against errant educators, ECDA can impose administrative actions like warnings or stern reminders, coupled with a requirement to undergo retraining. This is what it did for some of the educators in the recent Kinderland cases. If an educator commits a serious act of mismanagement, ECDA can bar the person from working in the preschool sector, as per one of the educators in the Kinderland @ Woodlands Mart case. This educator has also been charged in Court. For operators that fail to adopt reasonably practicable measures to ensure that their centres and staff comply with the applicable regulations, ECDA may impose financial penalties, shorten the centre’s licence tenure or revoke its licence. For Kinderland @ Woodlands Mart, the operator was fined $5,000 and this is the maximum permitted under current laws. It also had its licence tenure reduced to six months. The shortened licence will impact the centre’s operations, as it will influence parents’ decision to enrol their child at the centre in the coming year. ECDA has also withdrawn the centre’s Singapore Preschool Accreditation Framework (SPARK) certification. Mr Speaker, Sir, colleagues, the current regulatory framework came into effect only in 2019.”
“In our earlier engagements, ECDA conducted a one-off survey last year to seek centres’ views on the CCTV mandate, which included the question on whether they have CCTVs. Ultimately, operators need to foster a strong safety culture where all staff always feel empowered to report to their principal and HQ management team when they see inappropriate practices in their preschools. Ms Mariam Jaafar and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked about the frequency of child mismanagement incidents. There are about 10 substantiated cases per 100,000 enrolled children each year and this figure has remained low and stable over recent years. But, of course, every case is one too many and when an incident of child mismanagement happens, ECDA takes it seriously and will take appropriate action. ECDA has established protocols that ensure that every report received, regardless of whether there are visible injuries or not, is promptly followed up on. At the same time, there is a due process in any investigation and time will be needed to ensure the investigation is thorough, robust and objective. For the Kinderland @ Woodlands Mart case, investigations by ECDA commenced the day after the video footages were received. There was thus no delay in the commencement of investigations. Members can refer to ECDA’s 4 September 2023 media release on the investigation outcomes and subsequent follow-ups. While the Kinderland @ Woodlands Mart case was followed up promptly, ECDA has acknowledged and apologised for a lapse where the educator ought to have been removed from classroom duties sooner, given the clear evidence and severity of the educator’s actions. We will learn from this case.”
“I wish to emphasise that any operator’s policy on use of personal mobile devices at work should not hinder their staff from reporting any wrongdoing in their centres. If so, this is a clear breach of the operator’s duty to implement an effective reporting mechanism and ECDA will take action against the operator. Some Members have asked about the installation of closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras in preschools. ECDA has announced that the installation of CCTV cameras will be made mandatory in all preschools from 1 July 2024. Members may wish to refer to ECDA’s 31 August 2023 media release for more information. ECDA did not come to this decision lightly or in reaction to the recent spate of incidents. Since 2022, ECDA has been engaging the sector and in February 2023, it shared with preschools its plan to mandate CCTV cameras. Ms Hazel Poa asked if the deadline to install CCTVs could be brought forward. We fully recognise that some parents may be worried and want the CCTV cameras in place earlier. I fully understand that. However, it is important that we give the preschools the time needed to procure and install the CCTVs correctly so that CCTVs are installed in appropriate venues and the necessary protocols are in place to ensure that privacy of children and staff, even as we leverage on CCTV footages to improve security. ECDA has provided the sector with a set of guidelines to facilitate implementation and we encourage centres who can achieve the CCTV mandate earlier to do so. So, please install CCTVs earlier, if you can. To Mr Louis Chua’s question on ECDA’s tracking of preschools with CCTVs, I wish to clarify that ECDA does not track this as CCTV cameras are currently not mandated and it would be unfair for us to track something which is not stipulated.”
“As several Members have pointed out, this includes reporting by educators who witness child mismanagement in their centres. The ECDC Act and Regulations impose a duty on all educators and preschool staff to report child mismanagement or abuse to ECDA. So, for example, if a child is abused at home and observed in the centre to be unusually withdrawn or displaying abrupt behavioural changes, the educator must report this to the authorities. Likewise, if a child is abused or mismanaged in the preschool, the educator is required to report it. Signs of child abuse and the obligation to report to ECDA are covered in the training curriculum for all educators. At the same time, ECDA’s Code of Practice requires operators to implement a policy for internal reporting of wrongdoing. When an incident affecting the health and safety of children or involving alleged child mismanagement by any staff occurs, the operator must notify ECDA within 24 hours. And educators can also report directly to ECDA. There are multiple reporting channels. Preschools are required to set up their own internal reporting mechanism, at both centre level and the operator level. There is also a direct reporting mechanism to ECDA via its hotline, email or website. Apart from reports from operators, ECDA also receives reports directly from educators. ECDA will continue to reinforce awareness of reporting obligations and channels among the educators. It will also get operators to improve and clarify with all their staff what they need to do if they witness any wrongdoing and how to use the various reporting channels. Some Members have asked about the use of personal mobile devices by staff, in relation to collecting evidence of wrongdoing.”
“The training also lays out what educators must not do, such as corporal punishment and inappropriate child management practices. They are taught that such actions are an offence under the ECDC Act and Regulations. They are also made aware that they can be liable under other laws such as the Children and Young Persons Act. Moving forward, ECDA will work with the National Institute of Early Childhood Development (NIEC) and other training providers to strengthen training programmes so that all educators are clear of their duty and obligations to ensure child safety. Apart from expanding coverage of positive child management strategies, training materials will be more explicit in what constitute inappropriate and prohibited methods. This will help our educators be better equipped to call out child mismanagement practices in their preschool. As part of its enforcement approach, ECDA conducts regular unannounced visits to preschools to check on their compliance with regulatory requirements. During such visits, officers observe the educators’ classroom management practices and their interactions with children, as well as assess whether the children appear well-adjusted and that the physical environment is safe. ECDA also checks that the centre has implemented policies and SOPs to ensure child safety and briefed their staff accordingly. Unannounced visits to preschools are conducted on average once a year. More frequent unannounced checks are conducted for preschools that require close monitoring, due to a higher incidence of feedback or incidents. Where non-compliance or breaches are identified, follow-on checks are conducted to ensure that these are rectified. As part of our system of multi-layered safeguards, there are clear rules on the requirement for incident reporting.”
“Centres are responsible for complying with the policies and SOPs their operator has put in place to ensure child safety. Centre leaders need to ensure that all staff are aware of these rules. This is done during orientation and induction training, with further emphasis at regular staff meetings. They are also expected to carry out regular observations of staff-child interactions and provide timely feedback to the educators on their management of children, as well as intervene when necessary. All educators must be certified by and registered with ECDA before they can be deployed in our preschools. ECDA verifies their professional qualifications and conducts background checks. If there are educators assessed to pose a risk to children’s safety, they will not be allowed to be deployed. This includes those with previous criminal offences involving children, as well as former educators whom ECDA has earlier barred from working in the preschool sector. ECDA also requires individuals seeking employment in the sector to declare if they have a history of mental illness, and if so declared, the individual must obtain a certification from a psychiatrist that he or she is suitable to work with young children. Like other jurisdictions and many other professions, we do not impose mandatory psychological screening. We also ensure that our educators are well-trained and equipped to work effectively with young children. The training curriculum for educators strongly emphasises the educators’ responsibility to ensure child safety and equips them with a range of classroom management strategies to work effectively with young children. They learn about children’s developmental milestones and how to interact positively with them to meet their needs and support their holistic development.”
“And this includes force feeding, corporal punishment – for example, striking a child or any other form of aggressive contact – neglecting the child and causing psychological trauma. These are prohibited actions. ECDA has also issued a Code of Practice to further detail what preschools have to do to meet these requirements, while stipulating that educators’ interactions with children must be respectful, responsive and reciprocal to support our children’s learning and development. Educators must also use positive and developmentally appropriate methods to manage and communicate with children. ECDA will take action against operators and educators found to have breached any of these requirements, whether in the Act, Regulations or Code of Practice. For educators, ECDA can issue warnings or bar them from working in the sector. For serious cases where there may be criminal wrongdoing, the case will be reported to the Police for investigation and the individual may be prosecuted in court. For operators, ECDA can impose financial penalties, shorten the preschool’s licence tenure, and in the worst case, revoke its licence. ECDA recognises that it cannot work alone to safeguard children's safety in preschools. Our system of multi-layered safeguards requires operators, centres and educators to also do their part. Our Regulations thus make clear the obligations of operators, centres and educators in discharging their duty of care for children. All operators are required by our Regulations to put in place standard operating procedures (SOPs) and appropriate policies within their centres to maintain a safe environment for our children. They must also ensure that these policies are implemented effectively and consistently by all their centres and staff.”
“Mr Speaker, my response will also cover related questions raised by Members which are scheduled for subsequent Sittings. I would invite Members to seek clarifications, if need be. If their questions have been addressed, it may not be necessary for them to proceed with these questions for future Sittings. Mr Speaker, when the Kinderland @ Woodlands Mart incident first surfaced on social media, like many members of the public, parents and preschool educators, I was shocked and alarmed. The videos were painful to watch. This incident and the others at the Kinderland centres should not have happened. Our children deserve to grow up, learn and play in a safe and nurturing environment and our 1,900 preschools and 24,000-strong team of preschool educators are committed to providing this safe and conducive environment, day in and day out. What we saw is not reflective of the wider preschool sector. Many preschool educators have expressed shock and dismay. They have been dedicating their time and energies in caring for and nurturing our children, putting the children’s well-being as their top priority. To prevent such incidents from happening, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) will work closely with the preschool sector to strengthen our system of multi-layered safeguards which has been built up over the years. As a sector regulator, ECDA sets out clear policies and requirements that establish the baseline for a safe and positive learning environment in our preschools. There are explicit provisions in the Early Childhood Development Centres (ECDC) Act and Regulations which make clear what actions educators cannot subject children to.”
“Many Members have filed queries on the recent anti-money laundering operations conducted by the Police and Singapore’s anti-money laundering framework. The queries cover a wide range of issues across several Ministries. Several Members have also filed related queries for the Sittings on or after 19 September. Mr Speaker, with your permission, the Ministry of Home Affairs, together with various other Ministries, will respond to the queries comprehensively in a Ministerial Statement in October. [Please refer to "Singapore's Anti-Money Laundering Regime", Official Report, 3 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 113, Ministerial Statements section.]”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 32 together?”
“But where the preschools are already in a community, then we will have to work with the Town Councils as well as the RNs, to see what could be incorporated into existing infrastructure, to create those natural playgrounds for children.”
“I thank the Member for her two clarifications. Indeed, parents are very important stakeholders in this process. Our various preschools frequently update parents about the kind of activities that are happening in preschools. For many Members in Parliament today who have young children, you may have come across pictures that your preschool send you with the children having activities outdoors. So, that is one way in which the preschools actively engage parents to let their parents know what the children are doing outdoors and to also assure the parents that safety considerations and many other forms of protective measures are being undertaken to help and support their children. There are also regular meetings between teachers and parents, so that the parents know what is happening in the preschool and also to be updated on the curriculum and what is the developmental guidance that the teachers are providing and have been sharing with the parents, so that parents are kept up-to-date and can work with the teachers on this learning journey for their children. On the second part of your question, indeed, we are always happy to work with MND. I would just like to add that when it comes to incorporating natural gardens, community gardens, we will need to work with our Town Councils and we will need to work with Residents' Networks (RNs), especially when the estate is already built up and the preschools are already in the community. I have mentioned in my reply that when it comes to pre-built facilities, ECDA will work with MND to make sure that there is a safe access to play areas.”
“I thank the Member for her question. As I mentioned in my earlier speech, the amendment prohibits a perpetrator's identity from being published only where the publication of his or her identity would likely lead to the survivor's identification. But if the survivor consents to the publication or broadcast of such information that could identify him or her, then the Director-General of Social Welfare will regard his or her consent as highly relevant.”
“To address family violence at its root requires a multi-pronged, whole-of-society approach. We must continue to: (a) increase awareness and strengthen societal attitudes against violence; (b) make it easier for survivors and the community to report violence and get immediate help; (c) strengthen protection and support for survivors; and (d) enhance rehabilitation for perpetrators. To those enduring violence at home, you are not alone. We want to assure you that there are many resources and channels to support and help you. If you are unsure of what to do or if you need more information, call the 24-hour National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline at 1800-777-0000. Social service professionals stand ready to assist you. To those who are struggling with abusive behaviour, there is hope. With the right support and intervention, change is possible. By stepping forward to seek help from social service agencies, you give yourself a chance to break the cycle of violence, as well as pave the way for a brighter, happier future for yourself and your loved ones. I would like to reiterate my gratitude to the various stakeholders in the family violence ecosystem. Your work to stop the cycle of violence in families is well recognised, and this Bill would not have been possible without your contributions. Finally, I thank Members for your support of this Bill. I believe the amendments will go a long way in breaking the cycle of violence, to enable individuals and families experiencing family violence to heal, and ultimately, to help build stronger and more stable families in Singapore.”
“The Police will continue to handle cases with law-and-order issues. The DVET officers will address immediate safety concerns and refer the families to Protection Specialist Centres for follow-up intervention. Mr Louis Ng asked for more details on the Electronic Monitoring Order. As I shared in my opening speech, electronic monitoring will only be imposed on high-risk perpetrators in exceptional cases where there is reasonable suspicion that a PPO has been breached with harm inflicted on the survivor, and the survivor has not taken steps to protect himself or herself. Details of the electronic monitoring regime will be worked out further by MSF. Mr Louis Ng asked if there are plans to arrange for higher levels of policing as a deterrence measure to complement PPOs and the new Court Orders. If we refer to both the Member's earlier clarification on concerns about abuse of the Electronic Monitoring regime and his current suggestion to have more monitoring and policing as a practical deterrence, I think we need to ask ourselves what is the balance that we ought to strike. I would say that we need to put the survivor at the heart of what we do. We want to protect them while ensuring that their privacy is also safeguarded. Thus, our social service professionals will continue to work closely with the Police, including their Family Violence Community Policing Officers, to identify, respond to and monitor cases involving very high-risk family violence. MSF will also continue our public education efforts through the Break the Silence campaign to encourage the community to partner us in detecting, identifying and reporting family violence incidents. Mdm Deputy Speaker, having addressed the concerns and suggestions raised by the Members, I will now conclude.”
“This is physically and emotionally demanding work and we will ensure that our Protectors continue to be provided with the necessary resources, such as sufficient manpower, training and access to up-to-date research, to exercise the new powers in this Bill and tackle family violence effectively. Mr Zhulkarnain asked about safeguards against the abuse of the Protector's powers and whether there are any avenues to appeal against an Emergency Order. I would like to assure the House that Protectors are trained social service professionals who understand that powers are to be exercised appropriately and judiciously, with the safety and well-being of the survivor as the primary consideration. Emergency Orders issued by Protectors are intended to cover an existing gap. These Orders will be time-limited, to give the survivors time to apply for a PPO from the Court. There is also a limit to the number of times an Emergency Order can be made. Given that Emergency Orders are temporary measures intended to protect survivors facing imminent harm, no appeals will be allowed. I agree with Mr Zhulkarnain's suggestion that there should be greater public awareness that powers to remove survivors will only be exercised as a last resort. This will only be considered in high-risk circumstances, when all other social service interventions have failed, in order to ensure the protection and safety of the survivors. Ms Sylvia Lim asked if the Police would continue to process cases as per usual, if arrestable offences are disclosed. The answer is yes. The Police would continue to address cases as per usual, if arrestable offences are disclosed. In high-risk family violence situations, the Police will jointly respond with the Domestic Violence Emergency Team, or DVET.”
“Hence, in most cases, PPOs which are issued before the term of imprisonment will continue to remain in force after the perpetrator's imprisonment. Depending on the circumstances of each survivor, social service professionals may conduct safety planning and provide assistance and support if the survivors need legal advice, shelter or financial support. Ms Hany Soh and Mr Louis Chua asked whether MSF will provide assistance for perpetrators and survivors who are subject to Domestic Exclusion, No Contact or Stay Away Orders. Social service professionals at our Protection Specialist Centres and Family Service Centres will continue to work closely with families, survivors and perpetrators to provide any needed assistance, such as shelter and financial support. I would like to assure Mr Chua that MSF and our community partners are committed to supporting survivors. Their well-being is our priority. Mr Seah Kian Peng, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Sylvia Lim spoke on ensuring sufficient resourcing and support for the persons, such as Protectors, who assist the Director-General to ensure this important work is carried out properly. I agree with them. Protectors, who are authorised by the Director-General to exercise powers under this Bill, are social service professionals who are trained in managing family violence and protection cases and have expertise in trauma-informed care and support. They are committed to ensuring the well-being and safety of families affected by violence and have a keen awareness of the unique needs and challenges faced by the families they serve.”
“The intent is to encourage survivors to report family violence incidents without the fear of being publicly embarrassed and to spare survivors who do report such incidents from further trauma. Early this year, I received an email from Mrs N. She shared that her ex-husband was being prosecuted for breaching a PPO and her identity was publicly disclosed as it was an open hearing. As it took her great courage to report the family violence, she was worried that her child's psychological well-being would be negatively impacted since her and her ex-husband's names were made known publicly. This amendment would protect Mrs N and her child's identities as the publication of their identities will be prohibited by law, even in the absence of a gag order. Mrs N would also be able to apply to the Court to remove the publication. This will accord Mrs N and her child the space and privacy to recover and heal from the trauma. The amendment prohibits a perpetrator's identity from being published, only where publication of his/her identity would likely lead to the survivor's identification. However, if the survivor consents to the publication or broadcast of such information that could identify him or her, the Director-General of Social Welfare (DGSW) will regard his or her consent as a highly relevant factor and may decide to grant approval for such publication or broadcast. Mr Louis Ng asked about the validity of PPOs following the imprisonment of offenders, and arrangements to ensure the survivor's continued protection during and after the perpetrator's imprisonment. PPOs typically have effect indefinitely and remain in force until revoked.”
“While a PPO application must be made for each family member, and a PPO will be issued if the Court is satisfied that the perpetrator has committed or is likely to commit family violence against each family member and that the protection order is necessary for his or her protection, the Court may give direction for the applications to be heard together and this will help families save time and resources. Ms Hany Soh asked if there were measures to prevent estranged spouses from abusing the enhanced family violence regime during divorce proceedings. Access to justice is a fundamental right and all parties must have the avenues to apply for a PPO. But this is not to say that a person can abuse the Court process and make frivolous or vexatious applications. As I had mentioned earlier, a PPO is only issued when the Court is satisfied that the respondent has committed or is likely to commit family violence against the applicant or other family member(s) concerned and it is necessary for his or her protection or safety. Otherwise, the Court may dismiss the application. In addition, if the application is frivolous or vexatious, the Court may order costs to be paid for by the applicant. In extreme cases, the Court can make Civil Restraint Orders to restrain a person from bringing further applications without the Court's permission. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked that we consider if family violence re-offenders could be identified, to deter re-offending and to protect others from harm. He also acknowledged that doing so may lead to the identification of the survivor. The purpose of prohibiting publication or broadcast of information that is likely to identify family violence survivors is solely to protect survivors.”
“Hence, we have aligned the definitions of abuse in these two regimes. This will help promote a common understanding of abusive behaviour amongst the public, professionals in the social service sector, the Courts and lawyers, and facilitate better detection and identification of acts of abuse. Ms Hany Soh asked whether Protectors would be able to make applications for PPOs on behalf of survivors, such as those below 18, who are willing but unable to apply for them. Yes, this is already the case, as social service professionals are already empowered to apply for PPOs on behalf of survivors who are below 21 years of age or who are incapacitated. Mr Louis Chua sought clarification on our rationale for the minimum age of a PPO applicant. All survivors are entitled to receive timely legal protection. Survivors who are aged below 18 may seek assistance from other family members, social service professionals or Protectors, to apply for a PPO on his or her behalf. They can also be accorded the necessary protection and support under the Children and Young Persons Act. Mr Louis Ng suggested that the Court automatically grants PPOs for the survivor's vulnerable dependants when the survivor himself or herself is granted a PPO by the Court. Under the new section 60A, the Court will not automatically issue PPOs for an applicant's vulnerable dependants. This is aligned with the current practice and there is a good reason for this. For example, an individual may inflict violence only on the spouse and not on the children.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for the debate and support for the Family Violence (Amendment) Bill. Let me now respond to the Members' questions and suggestions raised on: (a) Protection for survivors of family violence; (b) Rehabilitation and accountability of perpetrators; and (c) Government's ability to intervene in family violence cases. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked how the updated definition of family violence should be interpreted. Family violence comprises the broad categories of abuse that our social service professionals typically encounter – specifically, physical, sexual and emotional or psychological abuse. The Bill makes clear the type of conduct or behaviour that amounts to each type of abuse. Mr Zhulkarnain is right that the definition of family violence looks to the harm caused by the perpetrator, rather than the intention of the perpetrator, and this is deliberate. Survivors should be able to obtain protection against harmful conduct without having to prove what the perpetrator knew or ought to have known. For example, a survivor should be able to obtain a personal protection order (PPO) against a perpetrator who turns violent under the influence of drugs or alcohol, even though he might not fully know the effect of his actions. Mr Zhulkarnain also asked why the updated definition is adapted from the definition of abuse in the Vulnerable Adults Act 2018 (VAA). Both this Act and the Women's Charter are regimes that aim to protect those experiencing abuse. The profiles of persons they protect are different. For example, the VAA protects those who are incapable of protecting themselves due to mental or physical infirmity, disability or incapacity and, therefore, the interventions are different. However, the abuse they target is the same.”
“The Bill builds on past efforts by the Government and the social service sector to tackle family violence. This is a whole-of-society effort where everyone has a part to play to help families break the cycle of violence. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“In addition to enhancing protection for survivors, we will also enhance the rehabilitation of perpetrators. Our ultimate goal is to help families affected by family violence heal from their trauma. The new section 60E expands the scope of the existing Counselling Order to include other programmes, treatments and interventions. These include parenting programmes, caregiver training, family therapy or other programmes which cater better to the risk levels and unique needs of perpetrators. For example, in one case, the son was the caregiver of his wheelchair-bound mother. He threatened his mother with a knife and threw away her medication as he did not think the medication was effective. Through the Court-ordered mandatory counselling, the son gained insight into his mother's care needs and the impact of his actions on her. He completed a caregiver training to better care for his mother. Today, their relationship has improved with no further incidents of violence. The Bill strengthens the protection of survivors of family violence and enhances the accountability and rehabilitation of perpetrators. It also supports families affected by family violence towards reconciliation and healing, to enable them to return to their normal lives. (In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the other amendments made by the Bill are sufficiently described by the explanatory statement and I will not go into them. Kindly let me conclude. This Bill reflects the Government's strong stance against violence and our commitment to keeping families safe, in partnership with the community and the general public. We aim to address the risks and needs of both survivors and perpetrators and support them towards family reconciliation where possible.”
“This is because in cases of family violence we have observed, the perpetrator may not only inflict harm within the home, but also go to the survivor's frequented places, such as their workplace, a childcare centre where their child is enrolled, or harass the survivor through electronic devices. The newly introduced Stay Away Order and No Contact Order will prohibit such behaviours. In addition, adult survivors with mental capacity may also choose not to keep themselves safe and put themselves at risk of harm. To tackle such scenarios, the Bill empowers the Government to intervene judiciously to protect these survivors' personal safety. Real-life cases show that complex dynamics do exist between perpetrators and survivors, and there will be some survivors who choose not to protect themselves from harm. For example, in a family violence incident that occurred in 2017, a 30-year-old Master's degree student physically abused his 68-year-old mother. He starved her, did not allow her to shower, and even hit her face and assaulted her private parts with a metal padlock. Despite being hospitalised multiple times for serious injuries and being placed in a safe house, the mother insisted on returning home. As she did not want to implicate her son, she did not report these incidents to the Police. She also did not retaliate whenever he committed violence or took out his frustrations on her. The new section 60 allows Protectors to make applications for PPOs, Stay Away, No Contact, Domestic Exclusion or Counselling Orders on behalf of survivors, even if the survivor does not consent. This is to strengthen the protection for survivors whose safety is seriously threatened, but refuse to apply for a PPO.”
“To hold perpetrators accountable, breaches of Counselling Orders and Mandatory Treatment Orders will be an offence, with the perpetrator liable to a fine on conviction. The new sections 64 to 64G introduce new powers to enable MSF's enforcement officers to detect and investigate offences under the new Part 7. These powers include powers to enter premises or seize documents for evidence of an offence. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As a society, we cannot tolerate family violence occurring in our communities, nor can we turn a blind eye to family violence just because it happens within individual families or in hidden corners. The definition of family violence has been updated to make clear that it encompasses physical, sexual, psychological and emotional abuse. Next, I will raise a few real-life cases to highlight how the new Bill protects survivors of family violence. For example, a Long-Term Visit Pass holder was constantly threatened by her husband to chase her out of the house and not to renew her Long-Term Visit Pass, leaving her with no financial resource. Due to the immense fear of being chased out of the house and being separated from her child, she was afraid to apply for a PPO against her husband. The new amendment will provide greater assurance to such vulnerable groups, as such controlling behaviours constitute a form of abuse under the updated definition of family violence. In addition, to provide better protection, besides the existing Counselling Order and Domestic Exclusion Order, survivors can also apply for a Stay Away Order or a No Contact Order against the perpetrator.”
“The Bill also introduces factors that the Court must consider before revoking a PPO. Where a Counselling Order or a Mandatory Treatment Order was made, the Court must consider any report by the counselling agency or the appointed psychiatrist. The Court will also consider if there remains a risk of family violence and whether the survivor's consent to the revocation was made voluntarily. To ensure perpetrators take their rehabilitation seriously, we will strengthen enforcement and penalties against breaches of Court orders. First, the Bill increases the penalties for breaches of family violence-related Court orders. For a first conviction, the offender can be fined or imprisoned, or both. The fine will be raised to a maximum of $10,000, from $2,000 today, and the imprisonment term will be increased to a maximum of 12 months. On conviction, an offender can be fined or imprisoned, or both. The penalties will minimally be on par with the enhanced penalties for breaches of Protection orders under the Protection from Harassment Act where the victim is a vulnerable person or is or was in an intimate relationship with the offender. Second, the Bill makes breaches of a Counselling Order or Mandatory Treatment Order an offence. This amendment arose in response to stakeholders' feedback that some perpetrators did not take Counselling Orders seriously, including not turning up for counselling sessions. Currently, the survivor may apply for an order of committal against the perpetrator, if the perpetrator does not attend counselling. However, as there are several court procedures involved, survivors may be deterred from doing so.”
“First, the Court may call for a specified psychiatrist to provide a preliminary assessment report for the Court to decide if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the perpetrator is likely to be suffering from a psychiatric condition and that the psychiatric condition is likely to be a contributing factor for that person committing family violence. If the Court considers that reasonable grounds exist, the Court must call for a formal assessment report on the perpetrator by an appointed psychiatrist. The psychiatrist must assess and report on: firstly, whether the perpetrator is suffering from a psychiatric condition; secondly, that the condition is a contributing factor for the perpetrator's commission of family violence which was the basis of his or her PPO; thirdly, that the psychiatric condition must be susceptible to treatment; and lastly, whether the perpetrator is suitable for treatment. The Bill also specifies other factors the psychiatrist must consider. A Mandatory Treatment Order can only be made if the psychiatrist's formal assessment report certifies that all these factors are met. A perpetrator under a Mandatory Treatment Order may receive up to 36 months of treatment, which may include a requirement to reside in a psychiatric institution or a place providing psychiatric treatment. Currently, when a PPO has been revoked or has expired, the Counselling Order will also cease to have effect and this will no longer be the case after we pass the amendments. Under the Bill, a Counselling Order and a Mandatory Treatment Order will survive the PPO, so that the necessary interventions can be completed to ensure that the root cause of family violence is addressed, to avoid recurrence of family violence against current or future family members.”
“Counselling will help perpetrators such as Mr Y, caregiver of his wheelchair-bound mother. Mr Y threatened his mother with a knife and threw away her medication as he did not think the medication was effective. Through the Court-ordered mandatory counselling, Mr Y gained insight into his mother's care needs and the impact of his actions on her. He also completed a caregiver training to better care for his mother. Upon the completion of the mandatory counselling sessions, Mr Y voluntarily continued with additional counselling sessions and showed significant improvement in his behaviour. Mr Y and his mother now enjoy a better relationship with no further incidence of violence. However, counselling may not be effective for all persons. The MSF study on the Intergenerational Transmission of Criminality and Other Social Disadvantages, which I referred to earlier, found that among those who had PPO applications made against them, approximately 14% had been diagnosed with mental health conditions prior to the first PPO application. The new section 60F empowers the Court to make Mandatory Treatment Orders against perpetrators under a PPO whose psychiatric condition is likely to be a contributing factor to the occurrence of family violence. The Bill lists several conditions which must be fulfilled, before the Court can make a Mandatory Treatment Order. This takes reference from the Mandatory Treatment Order regime under the Protection from Harassment Act.”
“During last year's National Family Violence Networking System Conference, I met a group of men from Thye Hua Kwan Family Service Centre's Brotherhood Programme. This programme supports males who had past histories of aggressive episodes towards their loved ones. These men were supported to examine the consequences of their aggression on their loved ones. With the support of fellow male participants, they experienced positive behavioural changes. During the Conference, the participants of this programme sung a self-composed song titled, "A Better Man". I would like to quote a verse from the song: "Please hear my story, please don't deny me. A tiny seed of hope is crying to see. With a heart of gold and all the love in the world, give us one more chance to start again." I applaud these individuals who took the bold step to try to become a better person for themselves, their families, friends and the community. MSF and our community partners are committed to supporting perpetrators, whether male or female, in their rehabilitation journey. Currently, to rehabilitate perpetrators, the Court may make a Counselling Order when it issues a PPO. About 93% of PPOs issued from 2018 to 2022 were tagged with a Counselling Order. A person under a Counselling Order, and this may be the perpetrator, survivor, or a child is required to attend a counselling programme offered by social service agencies appointed by MSF. With a greater focus on rehabilitation of perpetrators, the new section 60E expands the scope of the existing Counselling Order to include other programmes, treatments and interventions. These include parenting programmes, caregiver training, or family therapy and other programmes which cater better to the risk levels and unique needs of each perpetrator.”
“A breach of these orders is an arrestable offence. In addition, if there is reasonable suspicion that the PPO or Domestic Exclusion Order has been breached with harm inflicted on the survivor, the protector may also apply for Electronic Monitoring for her son. As a last resort, if all interventions fail, a protector can apply to the Court for Mdm Y to be removed from her home. If granted, she will be placed in a crisis shelter for a specified period until it is safe for her to return home. It was not easy for MSF and the Taskforce to formulate this group of amendments. The Government would rather not have to introduce such powers. However, real-life cases show that complex dynamics exist between perpetrators and survivors. Giving due weight to the principle of protecting lives and preventing further harm, the Government, therefore, carefully calibrated the amendments under Focal Area Two. Necessary safeguards are put in place to strike a balance between pushing the legal frontiers of protection for survivors and avoiding statutory over-reach. The third Focal Area is on empowering the Court to make additional rehabilitative orders, raise penalties and strengthen enforcement against breaches of family violence-related offences. Not only do survivors need a supportive environment to heal from their trauma, perpetrators also need a safe environment where they can share their struggles openly, without being judged. This set of amendments aims to address the root causes of family violence perpetration and to provide the necessary support to perpetrators in their rehabilitation journey. With appropriate support and intervention, perpetrators can learn to better manage their emotions and behaviours and to break the cycle of violence.”
“A Supervision Order places the survivor under the supervision of a protector or another suitable person appointed by the Court for a specified period. The Court may also make an order against the survivor, prohibiting the survivor from returning home, or visiting or communicating with the perpetrator. I would like to highlight that the intent of section 60D is to protect the survivor. Prohibiting the survivor from returning home is to protect the survivor from potential further harm. If the survivor is removed from his or her home, the survivor may be admitted into a residential facility, such as a crisis shelter. It will not be an offence if the survivor contravenes these orders, but the contravention must be taken into account by the Court when deciding whether to vary, suspend or revoke a Care Order or Supervision Order. MSF’s approach to family violence cases is that perpetrators, not survivors, should be held accountable for the violence. Hence, protectors will only apply for a removal order in exceptional, high-risk cases. Other alternatives such as electronic monitoring of the perpetrator will be considered before removing a survivor from his or her home. We will also ensure that adequate intervention is provided to the survivor prior to, during and after his or her removal, to mitigate any negative impact the removal might have on the survivor. In the earlier case of Mdm Y who was severely abused by her 30-year-old son and who did not take steps to protect herself, with the new amendments, a protector would be able to apply for a PPO with a Domestic Exclusion Order against her son to prohibit him from returning home, even if Mdm Y does not consent. The protector may make a Police report if there is a breach of the PPO or the Domestic Exclusion Order.”
“However, as seen in Mdm Y's case, not all survivors will choose to keep themselves safe, sometimes due to the perpetrator exerting undue influence over the survivor. Allowing protectors to apply for PPOs and other orders on behalf of a survivor will strengthen the protection for survivors whose safety is seriously threatened but who refuse to apply for a PPO. The new section 60C allows protectors to apply to the Court for electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring, which could include e-tagging, will be used against high-risk perpetrators in exceptional cases, where there is reasonable suspicion that a PPO has been breached with harm inflicted on the survivor, and the survivor has not taken steps to protect himself or herself. E-tagging is not new. It has been used by the Police for accused persons released on Court bail. MSF also uses e-tagging on probationers. Through e-tagging, the authorities can be alerted if, for example, a perpetrator with Domestic Exclusion Order made against him or her enters the survivor's home, so action can be taken quickly. As electronic monitoring is intended for high-risk perpetrators, only protectors may apply for electronic monitoring, after an assessment is made on the circumstances of each case. Details of the electronic monitoring regime will be worked on further by MSF. As a last resort and when all other interventions fail, the new section 60D allows protectors to apply to the Court to remove a survivor from his or her home. The Court must be satisfied that a Removal Order is necessary for the protection or personal safety of the survivor. When making a Removal Order, the Court must also make a Care Order, a Supervision Order, or both of these Orders. A Care Order commits the survivor to the care of a fit person.”
“They will be conferred powers to enter the home to make an assessment where needed. A protector will also be empowered to direct an individual to disclose information or provide relevant records relating to the person who has experienced or is experiencing family violence. Those who report suspected family violence cases to protectors, the Police or other authorised persons will be protected from criminal or civil liability if they have acted in good faith and with reasonable care. This is to encourage more people to step forward to report family violence. The next group of amendments aim to protect survivors who are at risk of danger but are unwilling to take action to protect themselves. Members may recall a 2017 case of a 30-year-old master's degree student who physically abused his 68-year-old mother, Mdm Y. He starved her, did not allow her to shower or to make noise when he was stressed with his studies. He also hit her face and assaulted her private parts with a metal padlock and with his knee. Despite being hospitalised multiple times for serious injuries and being placed in a safe house, Mdm Y insisted on returning home. As she did not want to implicate her son, she did not attribute the injuries to his conduct. She also did not retaliate whenever he took out his frustrations on her. This Bill will better protect persons like Mdm Y. The new section 60 allows Protectors to make applications for PPOs, Stay Away, No Contact, Domestic Exclusion or Counselling Orders on behalf of survivors, even if the survivor does not consent. Currently, a family member, guardian or relative or appointed persons can only step in to apply for PPOs on behalf of survivors below 21 years of age or who are incapacitated.”
“The Emergency Order may also include a Domestic Exclusion Order, a Stay Away Order, a No Contact Order, or a combination of these additional orders. A breach of any of these orders will be an arrestable offence. Emergency Orders will be useful for persons such as Mr D, a 20-year-old tertiary student who was repeatedly hit and punched by his stepfather. Mr D's mother was unable to protect him and the violence continued. With the help of social work professionals from the Protection Specialist Centre, he moved to a transitional shelter. Though he was safe, he had to live apart from his mother and stepsiblings whom he wanted to continue living with. In such cases, an Emergency Order would be issued to Mr D's stepfather immediately at the scene, restraining him from committing further violence. A Domestic Exclusion Order could also be issued to prohibit Mr D's stepfather from being at home, thus, ensuring Mr D's safety while allowing him to continue living with his mother and stepsiblings. The Emergency Order is meant to be a stop gap measure. PPOs and other related Court Orders will continue to offer the main and longer-term protection against family violence. As a safeguard, Protectors will be limited to making up to four Emergency Orders against a given perpetrator within three months. This period would give sufficient time for social service professionals to de-escalate the tension, put in place a safety plan for the survivor, provide the necessary intervention and allow the survivor to apply for a PPO. The new sections 59 to 59E introduce provisions for MSF to obtain information about family violence. Protectors will be allowed to assess and obtain information on whether a person has experienced or is at risk of experiencing family violence.”
“In cases where an adult, such as a spouse or a parent who is not vulnerable under the Vulnerable Adults Act, is subjected to violence from another family member, the approach under the existing law is different. The operative principle is to respect an adult survivor's right to self-determination. The law only comes in when the adult survivor chooses to seek help from his or her relatives, friends or the community. This approach is no longer sufficient. In recent times, social service agencies and the Government have encountered cases where adult survivors with mental capacity chose not to keep themselves safe, often putting themselves at risk of harm. The Bill empowers the Government to step in to protect such survivors and to intervene judiciously for their personal safety. For this, the Bill grants powers to persons referred to as "protectors". Protectors are persons with suitable qualifications and experience who are appointed by the Director-General of Social Welfare to carry out statutory duties and functions under the new Part 7. Under the new sections 62 to 62C, protectors will be able to issue Emergency Orders on site in high-risk cases. In line with the Taskforce's recommendation, this will better protect the survivors at the onset of violence while further action is taken to ensure their safety, such as applying for a PPO or an Expedited Order or putting in place a safety plan. An Emergency Order will be issued if the protector is satisfied that there is a danger of the perpetrator committing family violence imminently against the survivor. It takes effect immediately and is valid for 14 days to give the survivor time to apply for a PPO.”
“Today, the Court may issue a Counselling Order or a Domestic Exclusion Order together with a PPO. A Domestic Exclusion Order excludes a perpetrator from the entire or a part of the home. However, there have been cases where perpetrators continue to harass survivors outside their homes or make threats via text messages. For better legal protection, the new section 60B allows survivors to apply for a Stay Away Order or a No Contact Order, or both to be imposed on the perpetrator. This is in addition to Counselling and Domestic Exclusion Orders, which are already available. The perpetrator who is subjected to a Stay Away Order cannot enter or remain in areas frequented by the survivor, such as a workplace, or a childcare centre where the survivor has enrolled their child. A No Contact Order prohibits visits or communications with the survivor. The Court will make these orders if it is satisfied that it is necessary for the safety and protection of the survivor. Breaches of these Court orders will be an arrestable offence punishable with an imprisonment and/or fine. The new section 63B protects a survivor's identity. It prohibits any publication or broadcast – including on social media – that is likely to identify the survivor, unless the approval of the Director-General of Social Welfare and the consent of the survivor have been obtained. The Court will also be empowered to order the removal of any unauthorised publication or broadcast. Failure to comply with a takedown order will be an offence punishable with a fine. The second focal area is on strengthening the Government's ability to intervene in family violence cases. MSF has statutory powers to protect children and vulnerable adults under the Children and Young Persons Act and Vulnerable Adults Act respectively.”
“The updated definition of family violence would protect persons like Mrs B – a Long-Term Visit Pass Holder living in Singapore with her husband Mr B and their son. Mr B would often exert power and control over his wife by threatening to chase her out of their house and not to renew her Long-Term Visit Pass, leaving her with no other physical or financial resource. Mrs B and her son had also suffered serious physical abuse from Mr B. Due to the immense fear of Mr B's threats, Mrs B was afraid to apply for a PPO against her husband as it might result in her being chased out of the house and separated from her child. The new amendments would provide greater assurance to people like Mrs B that such controlling behaviours is a form of abuse and that remedies are available for her. Next, I will elaborate on the key provisions in clause 2, and these fall under three focal areas: (a) Focal Area One: empowering family violence survivors to better protect themselves; (b) Focal Area Two: strengthening the Government's ability to intervene in family violence cases; and (c) Focal Area Three: empowering the Court to make additional rehabilitative orders and strengthening enforcement against breaches including raising penalties. The first focal area is on empowering family violence survivors to better protect themselves. The new section 60 allows younger survivors to apply for a PPO on their own. Unmarried persons aged 18 to below 21 years old will no longer need to rely on guardians, relatives, persons responsible for their care or persons appointed by the Minister to apply for a PPO on their behalf. The new section 63 also removes the need for them to act through a litigation representative. These amendments ensure that survivors receive timely legal protection.”
“The new section 58B updates the existing definition of "family violence" by making clear that family violence includes physical, sexual, emotional and psychological abuse. The updated definition is aligned with how abuse is defined in other acts, such as the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 and the Vulnerable Adults Act 2018. The Bill makes clear that abuse may take the form of a single instance of conduct or behaviour, or a course of conduct or behaviour. The definition of sexual abuse includes conduct or behaviour that coerces, or attempts to coerce, a person to engage in sexual activity. Illustrations on emotional or psychological abuse are given in the Bill, to raise understanding and aid discernment of these forms of abuse. Stakeholders have shared situations where perpetrators threaten to withhold monthly allowance from their spouses, constantly call their spouses to check on their whereabouts and isolate them from their friends or family, including disallowing them to leave the house. If the spouses do not comply, they may be threatened by the perpetrator. These egregious forms of controlling behaviour – which falls within the definition of what some other jurisdictions call "coercive control" – can cause distress or mental harm to a survivor and would be considered emotional or psychological abuse under the new Bill. MSF had considered whether to include financial abuse in the definition of family violence. Financial abuse is a complex issue and subjected to different interpretations. As pointed out in the report by the Taskforce on Family Violence, financial abuse is an emerging issue and requires further study. We are working with relevant stakeholders and partners to study this issue further.”
“The Police Training Workgroup was set up by the Police and MSF in June 2021 to enhance training for frontline Police officers in engaging and managing family violence cases. The training curriculum was co-developed with members of the Taskforce with professional experience and practice wisdom such as Family Service Centres, The Singapore Council of Women's Organisations, crisis shelters and the Family Justice Courts. Finally, the Bill before us today brings to fruition all the legislative amendments required to give effect to the proposed recommendations of the Taskforce. The Women's Charter provides protection for all survivors of family violence, regardless of gender. Since its enactment in 1961, the Women's Charter sets out how family and family relationships should be managed in statute. Hence, the amendments are parked under the Women's Charter for historical reasons. MSF is prepared to consider the possibility of enacting a standalone Domestic Violence Act in the future to enhance protection for persons in intimate non-familial relationships. We will need some time to consult the relevant stakeholders and will share more details when ready. For now, the Bill with the proposed amendments will replace the family violence framework in the Women's Charter with a more comprehensive regime. Under the Women's Charter, survivors may apply for a personal protection order, or PPO, to restrain their family members from committing further violence against them. Last year, about 2,000 PPO applications were made to the Family Justice Courts, of which 25% were made by men. I will now elaborate on the key amendments made by the Bill, starting with the definition of family violence.”