Debated in Parliament on 10 Jan 2022.
Debate resumed.
We also recognise that there may be those impacted by divorce that require even more support, given the challenges of caregiving.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Seah Kian Peng brought up the issue of support for mothers who may be unemployed during the divorce. With the proposed amendments, all parents with minor children must attend MPP before they file for divorce. MPP covers several areas, including co-parenting and the impact of divorce on parties' financial status and living arrangements. If employment support or financial support is needed, the MPP counsellor would refer the parties for employment or financial assistance.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Seah Kian Peng also asked about support for parents with caregiving responsibilities, including greater flexible work support and other policies for better work-life harmony. MOM introduced the Tripartite Advisory on Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) and Tripartite Standard on FWAs in 2017 and, subsequently, the Tripartite Standard on Work-Life Harmony in 2021, which guides employers on how to offer FWAs to their employees and provides recognition to employers who do so. MOM will continue to work with the tripartite partners to strengthen the provision of FWAs and other work-life practices.
In August 2021, MSF also set up an Alliance for Action to Strengthen Marriages and Family Relationships. One of the focal areas is on "Support for Single Parents", which aims to enable single parents to better care for their children and raise their families through strengthening the ecosystem of support around them. The Alliance for Action will work with community partners to strengthen support for single parents. And this includes childcare, employment and socioemotional support, facilitating support networks for single parents and developing a one-stop portal to help single parents access programmes and community resources more easily.
Mr Louis Ng brought up the issue of access to HDB flats for divorcees with shared care and control of their children and made several suggestions. I thank him for those suggestions.
Under current HDB policy, all individuals are only allowed to be listed in one HDB flat application. At the same time, divorcees with shared care and control of children have an equal right to list their children in their flat application. HDB is not in a position to determine which parent can exercise the right to do so, and thus requires divorced parents to try to come to an agreement, in the first instance, before listing their child in a flat application.
I agree with Mr Ang Wei Neng that we must support those who face difficulties. For those who are unable to reach an agreement with their ex-spouse or have low income and have no other housing options, HDB can exercise flexibility to waive the requirement on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that both parties have options to provide housing for themselves and their children.
For cases where the ex-spouse has bought a private property after the divorce, they may still wish to list the child in a future flat application. As such, HDB will review each case individually and will not be able to waive the mutual agreement requirement as a blanket policy.
HDB will also not require the Court order to state which parent is allowed to list the child as an "essential occupier" as orders pertaining to a child are made with the overarching principle of the child's best interest. When determining issues pertaining to a child's welfare, the Court order focuses on rebuilding relationships and for parents to focus on the future with their children, instead of specific orders laying down conditions, such as the one referred to.
As far as possible, we want to encourage divorced parents to work through issues cooperatively and harmoniously outside of the Court system. This is especially pertinent in cases where there is shared care and control as it is not ideal for parents with shared care and control to seek or rely on Court orders to lay down all matters and details pertaining to care of their children and arrangements after divorce. Instead, they should be working on co-parenting cooperatively in the child's best interest. Those awarded share and control must also, when they applied for it, truly be able to divide the care and control of the child equally and be able to cooperate to do so.
Nonetheless, we recognise that there may be cases where parents are unable to reach an agreement despite their best efforts. In such cases, they can approach HDB to discuss their options.
As Ms Mariam Jaafar has raised, the area of family law is an important one, one that often most impacts people and their families. It is for this reason that our proposed amendments seek to strengthen therapeutic justice in the family justice system, and we are working with FJC to include monitoring standards, processes and complaints.
Nonetheless, the various professions involved in the process are subject to their respective codes of practice.
If passed in Parliament, we expect all the marriage-related amendments and some of the divorce-related amendments to come into effect in the latter half of this year, while others, such as DMA, would come into effect in 2023, to allow time for the Courts, lawyers, social service agencies and other parties to be ready.
In conclusion, our families are the key building blocks of society, and we must do what we can to ensure that they are protected and strengthened. I believe that, viewed holistically, these proposed amendments to the Women's Charter relating to marriage and divorce, will strengthen the institution of marriage and support families should they have to pursue divorce as a last resort. I thank everyone who had provided feedback during our engagements and who made the proposals presented here today possible. Beyond legislation, it is truly the efforts of the community that will make a difference to those impacted by a divorce.
I also urge experienced couples to do their part to actively mentor and counsel younger couples in their social circles or religious organisations, bolstering the efforts of licensed solemnisers under the JOY initiative. I also encourage passionate individuals and ground-up groups to partner MSF's Alliance for Action to organise family activities, programmes to strengthen marriages and family relationships. I am also excited to be working with Families for Life, a ground-up movement to build strong and resilient families in Singapore.
However, we also recognise that more can be done to enhance protection against violence, and we will be proposing amendments in a separate Bill by the end of this year to implement the recommendations of the Taskforce on Family Violence. With that, I thank Members for the valuable input and support for this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
Are there any clarifications? Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to thank the Minister of State for her clarifications. It has given me much assurance of the Government's commitment to the institution of marriage. If I may clarify, if DMA is not accepted by the Court, the Minister of State had said that the Court can direct parties for counselling.
However, my understanding is that counselling requires parties to agree and, if the couple refuses to attend counselling, what does that mean for the Court's directions? Will it be mandatory? Will it be compulsory? Or does it mean that the parties would then have to file for divorce based on the other grounds under section 95A of the Bill?
My experience is that most couples, by the time they come to see a lawyer, are unwilling to consider counselling. And it gives them great pain to have to revisit that decision; what more if the Court has to redirect them to go for counselling.
I thank the Member for his clarification. If the Court had directed the parties to go for counselling, it would have meant that, in their application for DMA, they had not satisfied the requirements under DMA. As such, if the parties would still want to continue with their divorce applications, then they will have to cite a different fact.
Ms Hany Soh.
Mr Speaker, I have one quick clarification in relation to MPP. I understand from the Minister of State that it will be made compulsory for all divorcing parents with minor children. Can I check whether this plan is also intending to extend to those whose children have already attained the age of 21 but actually suffer from mental or physical disability? Because, currently, when you file a proposed parenting plan, it actually applies to those parents with this kind of family settings.
I thank the Member for her clarification. Indeed, for children who would benefit from having their parents go for MPP, and, if they have exceeded the age limit of 21, the parents can similarly do so.
Ms Mariam Jaafar.
I thank the Minister of State for her clarifications and many of them have addressed some of my concerns. I still have a lingering concern in the area of enforcement of access and parental alienation. Because the lived experience of my residents is that leaving it to FSC has not addressed the issues for them. And, of course, the legal recourse is very expensive and long drawn-out, which is why I had also raised the question on legal aid. So, I hope that, at some point, MSF will assess again a framework for parental alienation.
But I have one clarification on the use of enforcement of access. Will this apply to divorces that have already been approved, even if it is multiple years? Parents who feel that they have not been given due access to their children right now, will they be able to now go to Court and get their orders for access approved when their kids may say that they do not want to see them because they have been conditioned by the other spouse to actually break relationships with the previous spouse?
I thank the Member for her clarification. On the last point that the Member raised, the Court will have to consider what is in the best interest of the child. They will have to take into account the full facts of the case. I understand where the Member is coming from. But the starting point of the Court has to be that it is in the best interest of the child.
So, we hope, with the current updates to how access is provided, that this would ensure more expeditious redress for parents who face issues of access.
So, I would just like to confirm: the enforcement powers proposed will apply to divorces that have already been finalised in the past and not only to new divorces going forward.
Yes, that is correct.
Ms Carrie Tan.
Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her clarifications. I would just like to speak on the point in her response about allowing husbands to seek maintenance, that, currently, it is a very small number and not the norm.
In the interest of developing and uplifting women, I would like to seek the Ministry's consideration that in order to create a mainstreaming, we must start with the right signals. And perhaps to encourage more men to take on an equal role domestically, we may need this legislative safeguard to then nudge different behaviours. I think that this would aid the cause for women to be unburdened from an over-proportion of care responsibilities and to encourage men to take up more of a role in the home as a participating father and spouse.
So, would the Minister of State like to comment on whether we can expedite the consideration of this so that we can expedite the accelerating of a different future, in mainstreaming men's equal role domestically?
I thank the Member for her clarification. There are many ongoing efforts and non-legislative ones to encourage the mainstreaming of the roles of the father and the mother, like what the Member has suggested. For instance, MOE, in its Character Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum talks about the roles that different family members play and they encourage children and students not to have stereotyped views on what a father and mother's roles should be. So, I would encourage the Member to look at these efforts holistically.
Important lessons and initiatives also have to start very young when it comes to framing the views that society has towards what the roles of fathers and mothers should be. So, I would encourage the Member to look beyond legislative amendments.
*Question put, and agreed to.*
*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*
*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Sun Xueling].*
*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*
PAPERCUTS