Family Justice Bill

Madam, this Bill builds upon the specialisation of the existing Family Court set up in 1995 to pull together more family-related matters such as youth-at-risks and probate cases to be handled by the new Family Justice Courts. An important aspect

Page: 50

of the new Family Justice Courts is that their approach should be different from other Courts, less adversarial, enabling the judge to probe beyond the symptoms to find the root cause of problems.

The Family Justice Courts should thus be judicial bodies with therapeutic and diagnostic orientation. To this end, I am glad to see some indication of this in the Bill. Clause 17 provides that the Family Justice Courts will have, attached to them, officers including counsellors, social workers and psychologists to support its work. Under clause 26(9), the Family Court can also order any person to undergo mediation or counselling or to attend family support programmes or activities.

I am in general support of the Bill, but I have two concerns. The first relates to clause 10 on hearings in camera and the second, touches on the Courts' use of assessors under clause 27.

First, hearings in camera and open justice. Clause 10(1) provides that sittings of the Family Justice Courts shall be heard in camera unless the Court orders otherwise. This will be a significant departure from the open justice concept applicable to the other Courts, maintaining the Courts as open and public and to which the public shall generally have access. Having a closed court is also a change from the current situation pertaining to family cases where many family-related proceedings are heard in open court such as divorces, contested maintenance applications and protection orders and contested inheritance cases. Even in the current Juvenile Court that handles cases of youths in trouble, the Children and Young Persons Act permits the presence of bona fide representatives of news agencies.

What is the rationale for this change? There is one paragraph in the report on the recommendations of the Committee for Family Justice, stating that family cases were private matters which should not be covered by the media, hence the provision for in camera hearings.

Personally, I used to support such as starting point and I still see the need for in camera hearings for some types of family cases, particularly those involving children and other vulnerable persons. However, the issue is not straightforward and there is a significant downside as seen from the experience of family courts elsewhere.

First, is it clear that the media should not report family cases at all? It should be remembered that there is a wide spectrum of media. While we may justifiably dislike media angles that are intrusive, sensationalist and inaccurate, there is a clearly a place for accurate, fact-based reporting of family-related Court disputes which serve an important public education purpose. An accurate media report can increase public awareness of family law,

Page: 51

rights and obligations. There will also be a greater understanding of family law principles, for example, what constitutes a valid will, the laws of inheritance and so on.

It is in public interest that the layman has some understanding of family law principles and how the Family Court works, since it is an area of law touching all our lives directly. While some Family Court judgments may continue to appear in the law reports such as Singapore Law Reports, such reports are not usually accessible to the man in the street, who would still rely on the mass media for information.

Secondly, one of the hallmarks of an open justice system is that the general public is able to observe and scrutinise how the Courts function. Clause 10 takes this away. There is a risk that the secrecy surrounding the Family Justice Courts may undermine public confidence in it. In the UK, for instance, the secrecy of family court hearings attracted controversy and suspicion of whether judges had been fair to parents or had simply accepted reports of social workers and hearsay evidence. In January this year, in an attempt to balance the situation, the President of the Family Division of the UK High Court and Court of Protection, Sir James Munby, instructed judges to permit media publication of their judgments as far as possible even if the identifying details are anonymised.

Madam, notwithstanding the good intention behind clause 10, I am concerned that having private hearings as a default position for family cases will lead to less public understanding of family law and potentially a mistrust of the Courts. I believe clause 10(1) is too wide in scope. The Government should monitor its effects very closely and review it for greater transparency. Even if clause 10 remains as it is, I call upon the Family Justice Courts to make additional efforts to release its papers and decisions in the public domain to promote greater public understanding of family law and instil confidence in the Family Justice Courts. To this end, the Courts could consider working with journalists who understand family law issues to put up accurate media reports on a regular basis.

Next, use of assessors by the Family Court. My second clarification concerns clause 27 which allows for judges to summon assessors of special skills and experience to assist them in decision making. This is a useful provision which recognises that even experienced family law judges will benefit from social work or healthcare professionals to make good decisions.

My clarification concerns clause 27(2) which states that if assessors are appointed, their remuneration will be "costs in the proceedings". I assume this means that the remuneration of these experts will have to be paid by the losing party. If so, this will increase the cost of family litigation, a highly undesirable outcome. In addition, this does not seem fair as the expert was summoned by the Court itself, having deemed it fit to do so. Should the

Page: 52

Government not be paying for these assessors instead of passing the costs to the parties?

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  Statistics released last week by the Department of Statistics (DOS) showed that divorce cases in Singapore rose 4% last year compared to two years ago. Divorce cases have continued to rise over the years from 1,721 in 1980 to last year's 7,525, a 4.5 times increase in 34 years. This is a very worrying trend.

The family is a country's foundation. A broken family is not just a personal problem, but also a country's problem. As the saying goes, "A peaceful family will prosper"; with a harmonious family, people can work and study with peace of mind and their business would be booming. As a result, the country would prosper as well.

To protect and strengthen the family ties, the Government has always been promoting pro-family lifestyles by formulating pro-family policies and measures, such as giving newly wed couples preferential treatment. The problem is, it is easy to fall in love but difficult to live together. American writer John Gray has used the euphemism of men being from Mars and women from Venus to describe the differences between men and women. These differences can cause misunderstanding and relationship issues. To overcome various issues arising from a marriage, even the most loving husband and wife must remain enlightened and understanding, care for and support each other to ride over times of difficulty.

I am pleased to see that most Singaporean families are able to withstand pressure. When I visit households, I often see touching scenes such as loving aged couples, devoted kiasu parents and multi-generation families living in the same block or area. Having seen so many people savouring the joy of family life, I can feel its value and importance strongly.

There are also a small number of dysfunctional families. Leo Tolstoy said in the very beginning of Anna Karenina that all the happy families are similar but unhappy families have their own unique problems. Our elders also say every family has some difficulties to deal with. Divorcees or people in the midst of divorce proceedings come to see me at the Meet-the-People Sessions, usually seeking help in accommodation, finance and children's education. Some bring their children along to see me. The confused, tired and helpless look on an innocent and young face makes my heart ache. As the saying goes, "Even an upright official can't settle a family quarrel", as the reasons behind a divorce can be complicated and it will not be easy for relatives, friends or even Members of Parliament to try to mediate. The Government can only provide more marriage and family counselling services and improve

Page: 53

legal processes to prevent the escalation of conflicts and reduce the anguish of family members.

The main recommendations proposed by the Committee for Family Justice led by Senior Minister of State Indranee include the following:

(a) establish the Family Justice Courts through the new Family Justice Bill. Family Courts and Youth Courts under the State Courts, as well as the Family Division of High Court, will all come under the Family Justice Courts to improve the efficiency of family justice administration;

(b) strengthen the case management process; empower the Courts to adjudicate and resolve family disputes more effectively;

(c) couples with under-aged children will have to go through compulsory counselling before proceeding starts, so that they understand the impact of divorce on their children;

(d) appoint children's representatives or social workers to attend the Court proceedings so as to better protect the children's interests in the divorce process;

(e) a judge-led approach to reduce acrimony and disputes;

(f) family justices cases will go through different tracks depending on their different nature to ensure trial efficiency;

(g) introduce a new accreditation framework so that trained lawyers can become qualified family justice practitioners;

(h) strengthen social services by setting up four branches specialised in divorce in addition to the current three branches specialised in family violence to provide dispute settlement and counselling services.

I support all the above recommendations. I think the Committee has taken into consideration a wide array of issues both within and outside the legal boundaries. I have one suggestion, however. Although it does not come under the ambit of the Family Justice Bill, it relates to marriage. I raise this issue at today's debate hoping that the Minister can give it his serious consideration.

Page: 54

To reduce the likelihood of a marriage ending up in divorce, we must improve our marriage counselling system. Currently, for Singaporeans and PRs, only a couple aged between 18 and 21, or if one of them is below 18, have to go through marriage counselling before they can get permission from the Registry of Marriages (ROM) to marry. I suggest all couples applying to get married must attend pre-marriage counselling courses. The courses will help them understand the importance of marriage and parenthood. Some people might feel that getting married itself is already complicated enough with the preparation of the wedding banquet, applying for a flat, selecting a honeymoon package and health check and so on. Having to attend the compulsory marriage counselling course would be too troublesome! I would say that attending the pre-marriage counselling course is as important as learning how to drive before you can drive safely on the road. The most basic consideration is to avoid accidents. The courses can prepare the couples psychologically so that they can cope with challenges in their married life.

Many couples spend a huge amount of energy planning a grand wedding. In recent years, this fad has become even more extravagant. The venue, menu, bride's car, wedding gown and suit, and jewellery have to be carefully selected. Some couples even borrow money to have a dream wedding, resulting in financial difficulties later. Actually, the most important is to affirm feelings for each other and know his or her personality, character, values, purpose of life and family background. They must reach mutual agreement in terms of how to handle money, raise children and live with other family members; otherwise, they would surely quarrel frequently after getting married. These should be the things that must be prepared carefully before marriage. As the saying goes, "It takes 10 lifetime's efforts to sit on the same boat and 100 to become a couple" – to meet and become a couple is, indeed, a destiny which we must cherish. I hope Singapore couples can all understand this and treat each other sincerely. I support this Bill.

Madam, I welcome the recommendations of the Committee of Family Justice in facilitating the resolution of family disputes in a timely and effective manner. As a former counsellor, I am glad to note the purpose towards developing a problem-solving family justice system where families are better assisted to resolve their own respective disputes and children better protected, after the follow-up of a broken marriage.

There were, on average, about 7,500 divorces in the three years between 2011 and 2013. The child is more often than not the party most affected in the event of a broken marriage. Thus, it is imperative that in any family justice system the laws concerned should bear in mind and protect the best interest of the child.

Page: 55

On this note, I welcome the direction of the Committee in placing greater emphasis in protecting the interest of the child in the event of a family dispute. During the course of my previous work as a family counsellor, I had often been stuck at the brutality of a broken marriage and how children often became victims of the emotional tussles between the spouses.

Many of these innocent children were often scarred and left confused by the irresponsible and conflicting behaviours of their respective parent. It troubles and saddens me greatly to see young lives at the receiving ends of arguing spouses and broken marriages. They certainly deserve more protection from the law and I am heartened at the recommendation made by the Committee towards protecting the best interest of the child and this, in the process, will strengthen the family justice framework.

Madam, as part of the Committee's recommendation on community support and solutions, the establishment of a specialised agency and the introduction of pre-filing consultation sessions were raised. The next part of my speech will touch and expand further on the above two recommendations.

I welcome the move of establishing Divorce Support Specialised Agencies to complement the work of existing family violence specialised agencies in the management of the family disputes.

At present, there are many voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), family professionals and community partners that are very passionate in their field of work and would be most willing to provide such services at short notices. However, their good work and best intentions are often hampered by issues pertaining to funding and the funding processes.

As a former counsellor, I have previously sat in many discussions pertaining to these issues and I hope that MSF and, in particular, the National Council of Social Services, can carry out a thorough review of the funding processes and provide more timely and adequate funding towards the running and operations of these specialised agencies. As a Member of this House, I am willing to work together with the relevant agencies and provide my inputs on this matter.

Madam, I am of the view that for many of the social challenges in this country, it is best to tackle them upstream rather than making ratification when the problem has occurred and requires immediate attention. On this, I am glad to see the introduction of pre-filing consultation sessions as part of the recommendations made by the Committee. While the pre-filing consultation sessions can help parents to understand the importance of co-

Page: 56

parenting and the practical issues arising in a divorce that may have an impact on their children, it is also important to provide divorcing spouses with adequate information on the processes and challenges involved in a divorce.

On this, the Ministry may want to consider providing options for divorcing spouses to undergo counselling sessions with family professionals with the view to making these sessions compulsory in some instances.

The Syariah Court, for instance, has been conducting the Marriage Counselling Programme (MCP) for divorcing spouses since 2004. While many divorcing spouses tend to dismiss such a procedure, given that they have more or less made up their minds, it is important that these sessions are not seen just as tools to salvage the marriage but more about helping divorcing spouses to better acquaint themselves with the challenges of life after a divorce, such as assuming the parenting role of a single parent and other ancillary matters, such as maintenance and housing complications. This would then prepare divorcing spouses with the necessary tools and information to cope physically, emotionally and psychologically for the Court processes and their respective lives after they divorce as a custodian parent or a non-custodian parent and the legal obligation that accompanies their respective new roles. It is hoped that this initiative would lessen the pain and turmoil of all the parties involved, in particular, protecting the welfare and interest of the young charges.

Madam, at the same time, the Government should consider encouraging marrying couples to attend marriage preparation or guidance courses. Through these courses, a couple would have a better understanding of what constitutes a marriage under the existing legal framework while at the same time be empowered with the relevant knowledge and skill sets to manage the challenges of a married life, especially under demanding life circumstances.

In a controlled environment, the assistance of a professional may also be useful in helping the couple to better understand and appreciate one another. Prior psychological and emotional preparation goes a long way in building a more resilient family unit and thereby reduces the potential harm inflicted on one another. For a start, a parent module can form part of the marriage registration process at the Registry of Marriages (ROM). Madam, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  Recently, when I conducted a Meet-the-People Session (MPS), a resident, Mr A, expressed his disappointment towards the family justice system. Mr A said that although he and his ex-wife were given joint custody for their child, the Care and Control rights were given to his ex-wife, while Mr A was given access rights. Mr A said that there have been situations where his ex-wife did not allow him to meet their child. Mr A then reported this to the Syariah Court but he was informed that the Syariah

Page: 57

Court has no power to take enforcement measures. When Mr A lodged a complaint to the Family Court, he was then informed that the Court Order for his divorce case was issued by the Syariah Court, and therefore, the Family Court could not take any action.

In such situations, after speaking to several lawyers, I understand that the Syariah Court does not undertake enforcement due to the lack of manpower. I was also made to understand that for such cases, in order to obtain justice, Mr A has to make a magistrate's report.

Madam, I think that such processes should be improved because it will bring about unnecessary pressure or additional pressure, whereby such additional pressure will further complicate matters between the parties involved, especially for the children.

Hence, it is my hope that this matter will be given the due attention in order to alleviate the pressure amongst the parties involved, especially the children.

(In English): The strength and the social resilience of Singapore depend on the well-being of the families that form the fabric of the society. On this front, Government policies play an integral role and at times, the crucial arbiter determining a stable or broken marriage. I would cite the example of Mrs A whom I counselled during the course of my previous work as a counsellor.

Mrs A and her husband tried to apply for a flat for their young family but they were unable to do so as her husband had outstanding housing arrears. Mrs A's husband had previously bought a flat before his marriage under the Single Singapore Citizen Scheme. As a result of losing his employment, he committed arrears and eventually had no choice but to let go of his house. When the time came for Mrs A and her husband to settle down with their six-year-old daughter, they were advised to file for a divorce by HDB. It was upon their divorce that Mrs A was eligible to purchase a house under the Single Scheme and thereafter, she married the same husband that she had divorced.

Despite my appeals to the relevant agencies in my capacity as a counsellor at that point in time, HDB did not allow Mrs A and her husband to apply for a flat without having to undergo a divorce. All these had the effect of leading both Mrs A and her husband to lose faith in the system and, subsequently, to my knowledge, they went through a divorce.

Madam, while undergoing the stringent and deliberate due processes, Government policies should, at the same time, take into consideration the humanistic aspect of its implementation. When it comes to issues surrounding families and all the complexities that accompany them, it is important to be flexible in its execution and lenient, whenever

Page: 58

possible. With that, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I support the Family Justice Bill. I welcome the aim of the Bill, as stated in the joint statement of MinLaw and MSF, to "provide better support to families to help them resolve disputes" by streamlining the process through the Family Justice Courts and providing various support channels through the community touch points and the setting up of the divorce support specialist agencies in due course.

More importantly, in my opinion, is the aim of making the process less adversarial, reducing the acrimony and the tussle which invariably hurts everyone concerned, especially the most vulnerable parties – the children.

As someone who has myself gone through the divorce process at a time when my own two daughters were very young, I can attest to a time of mental and emotional confusion. I can also attest to the amount of mental and emotional effort, energy and time it takes to get back on my feet and to feel "whole" again for my own sake as a single mother and for the sake of my children as we rebuild our lives as a threesome. So, I speak from personal experience.

Madam, I seek the following clarifications from the Minister.

Firstly, with regard to the proposed pre-filing consultations. This is a good way to ensure that from the very start, the parties know not only what the issues are, that they would have to work through with people who are in a position to provide the advice they need; for some, this can provide a reality check on the position they plan to take.

However, Madam, this is also a time of great confusion and it is probable that parties may not always be in a state of mind to fully understand many of the issues at this stage, even with the specialists present. Could the Minister clarify if such consultations are to be one-off and, if so, could these consultations continue to be provided both during and after the final judgment if it comes to pass? I would argue for the consultations to be made available throughout the divorce process so that all the parties concerned continue to get the support they need, and they and the Courts, understand fully the differentiated impact on different family members.

Further, in a report by the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) titled Singapore Social Health Project 2013, it is found that new personal protection orders filed

Page: 59

against family members range between 2,500 and 3,000 annually. PAVE, a family violence specialist centre recorded a total of 1,200 cases of domestic violence between April 2010 and March 2011. Such is the reality of domestic abuse in Singapore.

In such cases where there have been abuse and violence, I would urge the Minister to provide for such pre-filing consultations, and, indeed, any consultations, to take place safely in the interest of the abused parties, especially the children, by doing away with the need to have face-to-face contact, for instance, with the use of video uplinks.

Secondly, with regard to the aim of the Family Justice system for a "judge-led approach", I seek assurance from the Minister that this process will be less and not more inquisitorial. And if so, I seek clarification whether judges will be given training to equip them for what would necessarily have to be a less intimidating approach if legal training is not sufficient, because ultimately, the aim is the empowerment of the parties concerned.

Thirdly, I welcome the proposal to train community touch points to identify those with family problems and the proposal to establish divorce support specialist agencies. With domestic violence being a reality in Singapore, I would urge that this training and support include the ability to be aware and sensitive, and to recognise and be cognisant of abuse in all its forms including psychological abuse, and to respond accordingly when giving advice and support.

Fourthly, I welcome the proposal for the accreditation of lawyers in non-legal aspects, for example, knowledge of social services. Since this is not meant to be mandatory, could the Minister clarify how lawyers would be encouraged to do so? Further, I would suggest that all professionals, not just lawyers, connected to the family justice system, be given similar access to knowledge of fields beyond their own, so that they are familiar with the various services. I also seek assurance that such support be available under the Syariah Court system to avoid a two-track system.

Finally, Madam, while streamlining the process, and providing access to the legal, financial and counselling support to the parties and the children as envisaged under the Bill are commendable and while the Government, the community and the family must do all they can to support families to ride through this challenging period of their lives, sometimes, the best thing to do is for the spouses to go their separate ways.

I would, therefore, urge that unless support agencies are specifically religious in nature and parties know what they can expect from such agencies, that other agencies, especially Government-linked ones, remain secular in their approach, advice and support. I would also urge that agencies adopt a non-judgemental stance for what is still perceived by the

Page: 60

community as a stigma. Divorce is still seen as a failure on the part of the parties and the recent controversies over what community norms of a family mean does not make it any easier for the parties concerned.

I would argue that beyond the Bill, there has to be greater education, awareness and acceptance of the different types of families, not just the so-called traditional one of "father, mother, two children".

Further, just as I applaud the change in name from Juvenile Court to Youth Court as it recognises the derogatory implications of the word "juvenile", I would also urge that we all be mindful of the words used to describe divorces like the phrase "broken families". I speak from experience when I say single parent families are not necessarily broken, just as so-called "traditional families" are not necessarily "whole".

Madam, I also speak from experience when I say that in such emotionally-fraught times, it is important for the parents to stay grounded and centred. While the parties navigate their way through the challenges, sometimes, all it takes is for one parent, one spouse, one adult to stay centred. Children take their cue from adults, and if at least one parent can learn to access their own inner resources, this is where the "less acrimonious, less ugly" aim of the Bill is truly realised.

So, beyond the practical legal, non-legal and counselling services that are envisaged under the Bill, I would strongly suggest parties be given access to proven life skill techniques to enhance self-empowerment and esteem to navigate the changes that are to come with the separation, the healing and forgiveness that need to happen for all parties so that they can continue with their lives with as little rancour as is humanly possible under the circumstances.

At this point, I declare my interest as a facilitator of self-empowerment workshops where participants, some of whom may well be going through divorce processes themselves, are taught life affirming skills and a mindset shift from a victim mentality and the blame game to one of self-determination. I have found that, invariably, people find strength in themselves that they do not know they have as a result of this painful period in their lives. More importantly, they also find it in themselves to look a little more kindly on those who may have hurt them, even as the healing continues. It is after all, a process. It is after all, also how one perceives and responds to a situation, not the situation itself that will ultimately lead to healing and wholeness.

Finally, Madam, the work should not start here. Relationships with others do not start with a marriage; it starts with a relationship with oneself. If you do not know how to have a

Page: 61

life-affirming relationship with yourself, you surely cannot have one with someone else. The fact that domestic abuse is such a reality in Singapore shows that many people are ill equipped to handle the anger, the resentment, the exhaustion from daily stresses. Many are unable to deal with themselves.

Madam, we have been very good at educating our citizens on the practicalities of life. We would do well as a society to also weave life skill lessons on self-reflection, self-esteem, self-empowerment, skills on anger and stress management in our homes, our schools, at our workplaces, our healthcare and family services and in our communities; skills that we so desperately need in this country if we are to keep the fabric of our society strong.

Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Statistics recently released by the Department of Statistics (DOS) showed that the number of divorce cases rose by 4% compared to two years ago at 7,525 in total. Since 2004, Singapore's divorce cases have been rising continuously, with only a slight dip in 2012. Overall, the rising trend is clear, which is worrying. Of the failed marriages, the average marriage span is 10.3 years. Couples married under the Women's Charter tend to divorce after five to nine years of marriage. Reasons for divorce commonly cited are unreasonable behaviours and separation over three years.

I support the reform of family justice. I think ordinary Singaporeans would agree too. The two core reforms are to save the marriage and family as much as possible. But when the family dispute has unavoidably come to the legal stage, what we should do is to reduce the suffering brought by the whole process. To reduce the acrimony commonly seen in family justice cases, the Family Justice Courts under the new family justice system will put the children's interests first and help people in divorce seek legal aid and counselling. If the children are still young, the counselling will be compulsory. Young children are the hapless

Page: 66

victims of their parents' divorce and are helpless in preventing it from happening. They do not know how to resolve the conflict, fear and helplessness in their hearts; they can be manipulated by their parents and used as a tool to achieve the parents' agenda. Hence, the law must be on the children's side, protect them and help them continue with their studies in a not-so-ideal environment so that they can still live a healthy and deserving life.

Reports online said that this reform would reduce Singapore's divorce rate because people pondering divorce would have to put in more resources and time to face counsellors, children's psychologists and legal professionals, and thus would hesitate to divorce. Personally, I do not agree. Every now and then, we see families, even with double income, who are unable to cope with the rising cost of living, including children's education expenses and parents' medical expenses. This leads to constant quarrels between couples who eventually choose to separate or divorce. As a family lawyer, I often think that for couples in the midst of separation, financial counselling should be the foremost solution. Providing this kind of resources to people who need it would be truly conducive for couples to give up the thoughts of separation.

The Bill reminded people of one issue that is not included and that is the disputes between adult children and their aged parents. Recently, we often hear this catchy song about the PGP played on TV. I thought, what about those pioneers who have dementia or reduced mental capacity? Who will safeguard their interests when they face family and monetary disputes? When aged parents have to face their children in Court because of monetary disputes, will the law protect them like it does for the children through counselling and mediation?

(In English): Mdm Speaker, in my speech earlier, I touched on my reasons for supporting the Bill. I am very happy that it puts children's interests first and that it upholds the family as the basic building block of our society. Feedback from my colleagues as well as community leaders is that this Bill makes them proud that they are Singaporeans.

One of them related it to The World Bank report entitled Judiciary-led Reforms in Singapore which begins with the remark that "Singapore is widely recognised as having one of the most efficient, effective judicial systems in Asia, perhaps in the world." It then asked the question as to how the judiciary changed so successfully and quickly. Listed among lessons from Singapore's reforms was the centrality of strategic thinking and business planning to institutional success. The report concluded, among other things, that we have created multi-disciplinary teams; enhanced user coverage and outreach; built administrative service capacity; increased access to justice and improved efficiency. Reforms also emphasised the need to direct targeted interventions in areas in urgent need of improvement. All these observations, I thought, explained why the recommendations

Page: 67

produced by the Committee for Justice made for a powerful and persuasive read.

There is no doubt that our judicial system has improved lives and increased public confidence in the rule of law. However, I have been approached by some colleagues, particularly family lawyers, who are concerned about the Family Court's power to appoint, in proceedings involving the custody or welfare of a child or involving a person, a registered medical practitioner, psychologist, counsellor, social worker or mental health professional to examine and assess the child or person for the purposes of preparing expert evidence.

A common question asked is whether these professionals would be required to have undergone a certain period of legal training before they are appointed by the Family Court. Another question relates to how younger family law practitioners who have yet to establish themselves could better equip themselves for their new role. I look forward to Minister's clarification for it is necessary that the family lawyers should themselves be convinced that their role remains relevant in the new Family Court system.

Mdm Speaker, if I may just put forth my view on the point put forward by the Member for Aljunied GRC, Ms Sylvia Lim's arguments just now, when she said that Family Court cases and Youth Court cases should be made more transparent for the public to know what went on through the decision-making process.

I declare my interest as a family law lawyer and I believe that amongst today's list of speakers, I could be the only one who is practising family law and, therefore, I speak from a position of authority. I have also been appointed as an advisor to the Panel of Advisors in the Juvenile Court and, therefore, I know that parties involved either in divorce proceedings or in a Juvenile Court processes usually do not want non-related parties, particularly people who have got no contributions to make to the decision-making processes, to be involved in the hearing of their cases. Most people do not want their cases to be known to the public, especially for parties who are undergoing acrimonious proceedings.

The fact that they have ended up in Court shows that they need the Court to solve the differences for them. They do not need other people to know why the marriage have failed, why certain things were done to each other and why certain decisions were made regarding their children. They do not need the public scrutiny as these are personal experiences that are best not shared in public and therefore, public criticism will only add to the wound of the divorcing parties and to the parents who have children charged in the Youth Courts.

A panel of advisers usually are made up of educators, counsellors, lawyers, psychologists and sociologists and these people are more than qualified to assist the judge in coming to a decision on what should best be done to help the youth in trouble. No parent

Page: 68

want the public to know that their children have run afoul of the law and that it is because they were unable to bring up their children properly – they had poor parenting skills – that had led to the children running afoul of the law. As such, I would like to urge the Minister not to consider opening up hearings in the Family Courts as well as the Youth Courts to members of the public.

Madam, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. With the establishment of the specialist Family Court, the Bill sets out to provide better support to families to help them as they resolve family disputes.

As we all know, there are really no winners in cases involving family disputes or divorce. Unlike commercial and other cases which seeks to get the most of the contesting party, taking the same adversarial approach with family disputes does not lead to the resolution of the dispute and conflict. What is important is that the family justice system reduces acrimony and help families resolve the disputes early.

I am glad to see that the Bill sets out measures to reform the family justice system and to protect the interest and welfare of the child if there are children involved. These include expanding the mandate of the existing counselling and psychological services of the State Courts; also appointing Child Representatives which could take the form of lawyers appointed to be the child's advocate or a social worker or medical expert as required; and enlisting the assistance of social and psychological service professionals to protect the best interests of the child.

As noted by many Members of this House, with the recent report of the 2013 trends of divorces in Singapore, this Bill together with the recommendations of the Committee for Family Justice is clearly required. While we should support the formation of the specialist Family Court and the objectives outlined in this Bill, I was glad to hear Minister reaffirm and reassure the House that the approach taken is to save families and marriages as far as possible and it is not to make it easier for couples to divorce.

While recognising that the Courts should not be the first point of dispute resolution, it is important that when the family dispute is brought to the Courts, the tone set on how the case would be handled, to enable the resolution of the dispute early and the protection of interest of the children where they are involved, is key.

The sad reality is that most divorce and family dispute cases are emotionally charged and as a result, positions taken are not always in the best interest of resolving the dispute. I have seen several cases at our Meet-the-People Sessions where couples involved in divorce proceedings dispute over asset division and contest custody and restrict access to children by the other parent. This may not take into account the impact that it may have on the child. Unless the safety and well-being of the child is compromised, it cannot be right to deny a child access or relationship with either of the parent.

Madam, from the perspective of the families that will have their cases handled by the new specialist Family Court, can the Minister elaborate to the lay person on what positive

Page: 72

differences it will make for families involved? How will this change result in efficient due process for the families involved?

The recommendations of the Committee for Family Justice recognise the importance that family lawyers play in family proceedings and calls for accreditation. In family dispute cases, clients often do turn to their lawyers for guidance and counsel, more than for just legal advice. There is recognition that the lawyer's advice could either escalate the conflict or in some cases, help resolve it faster. And often time, family lawyers do need specific skills outside of their mastery of law, for example, in counselling, mediation and emotional conflict resolution skills.

To enhance the family law practice, the recommendations of the Committee is to introduce a new Family Law accreditation scheme where lawyers will undergo specialist training for handling matrimonial cases in the new framework. Lawyers who undergo this training will receive the Family Law Practitioner (FLP) accreditation. I note that while accreditation is recommended, it will not be mandatory for lawyers practising family law.

While the role of family lawyers and their skills set are important, I guess the real question also is: will the family justice system be able to attract the right talents, that is, the right lawyers to practise family law, given that family law may not always be the most attractive specialisation for lawyers?

More holistically, the issue is how the Family Court will be executed to bring together the different parts within the judicial process, and equally, if not more important, the pre-Court process and support provided to families for counselling and dispute resolution? While the Bill makes provision for the establishment of the specialised Family Court, to effectively support families in distress in a more proactive and pre-emptive ways, there needs to be synergies between the various agencies in providing community support, specialist agencies support as well as pre-filling consultation support. These were part of the recommendations of the Family Justice Committee.

The recommendations for strengthening the community touch-points, social services, legal assistance and pre-filing consultation sessions, need to work hand-in-hand to achieve the objectives of effectively supporting families in dispute. Can the Minister elaborate what measures would be taken to facilitate the synergies between these various agencies, requiring them to work together for the intended outcomes?

From the many cases that we see during our Meet-the-People Sessions as well as when constituents approach us for help, it is clear that families in disputes often do not know where to turn to for help. For many families handling disputes, the legal process can be

Page: 73

extremely daunting, especially for those who are not legally represented. There are many involved in family disputes that are not able to afford to engage a lawyer but at the same time, do not qualify for legal aid. These recommendations to enhance the Court management process with pre-filing consultation sessions, differentiated case management, and simplified forms and procedures as outlined with the introduction of the "Court Friend" to give practical support will help the unrepresented and will also help in making the Court process simpler and smoother and, most importantly, achieve the better outcomes for families in dispute.

Madam, I support the Bill as it is timely and will provide the appropriate support to families in dispute to resolve conflicts.

Mdm Speaker, I stand to speak in support of the Family Justice Bill. This Bill sets out to restructure the Court's divorce processes to better serve the needs of families in distress.

Divorces are unfortunate outcomes that some couples face in their marriages. The parties, especially with children involved, are often so aggrieved with hardship and mental anguish during such times that many also end up with depression. Children suffer the most when their parents are going through divorce and their interests must be taken care of during such trying periods of their lives. The recommendations in this Bill for simpler and better divorce proceedings are indeed welcome and will make the divorce processes less agonising for affected families.

The other thrust of the recommendations of this Bill is to save marriages where possible. This is timely when the trend of divorce has been climbing. Last year, divorces hit the second highest annual figure on record. May I suggest that there are avenues for prevention of breakdown of marriages at early stages? For instance, at pre-filing consultation sessions for couples, marriage counsellors should be provided to counsel and to solve acrimonious issues in the hope that couples can come to terms and resolve their differences. Related agencies such as Family Service Centres should always prioritise early detection of troubled marriages and refer such couples for early counselling with qualified marriage counsellors.

I would like to suggest that for the initial stages of divorce proceedings, when couples are made to attend compulsory mediation and counselling, as suggested by the Committee, a less intimidating venue like a Community Centre rather than the Family Justice Courts should be used. The environment for such processes should be more relaxed and less acrimonious, so that the parties can share thoughts and feelings with each other and with

Page: 74

the counsellor or mediator freely. To hold it in a Court of law would make parties feel very formal and rigid.

The interests of the child should be paramount in divorces. Children and young people should be given age appropriate information to explain what is happening. This should be offered to them as early as possible.

It is good that a child representative be appointed for the child's view to be represented in divorce proceedings. However, I would suggest that the trained representative should always visit the child in the home environment to better understand the needs of the child and also to evaluate which parent can take better care of the child after the divorce. There are situations where one dominating parent will overwhelm the child into taking a position against the other in a custody battle. A child may also be compelled by the dominating parent and appear so willing to follow that parent, that the other parent gives up the fight for the sake of not wanting to hurt the child. The dominating parent may be awarded custody to the detriment of the child.

In other words, the trained representative must be able to "see through" such situations and render a correct report about the family situations. The trained representatives must therefore be like a social worker looking into the child's actual situation and making the correct recommendations to the Courts.

I agree that the frontline personnel at hospitals and Family Service Centres should be trained to identify and refer divorce-headed families to the appropriate agencies. After identification by the frontline, there must be avenues for good follow-up by specialist agencies with personnel trained in the legal processes and procedures of the Family Justice Court. Particularly, they should know what the Court expects them to present and how to present it.

But training frontline personnel will take time and we may not have the critical number of them to be able to service the increasing number of cases. Perhaps, Madam, private doctors should be roped in to identity and to refer as well. At this juncture, I want to declare that I am a general practitioner (GP). There are about 2,000 GPs presently and their outreach can be extensive. GPs usually have good relationships with patients who are more willing to share personal difficulties they are facing. GPs are also able to pick up the tell-tale signs of mental anguish or depression and to probe more into the causes. This is particularly relevant in detecting psychological trauma showing withdrawal symptoms, abnormal or changed behaviours in young children who cannot express themselves verbally. Such cases can be referred early to related specialist agencies to get assistance, in order to protect the well-

Page: 75

being of the children.

On the reporting of cases of abuse, may I ask the Minister whether it can be made easier for doctors to report suspected cases of child abuse? Doctors sometimes tend to not report even when they are suspicious. This is because in the event of Court prosecution of the child abuser, doctors who lodged the complaints will be called as witnesses. The other reason is infringement of doctor and patient privilege and confidentiality. May I ask if this Bill will grant the doctor a waiver expressly to erase any doubt?

Will the Minister consider appointing a related specialist agency for doctors to refer all suspected abuse cases to trained social workers or medical personnel, preferably those trained in psychology? These personnel should have Court skills, including how to provide high quality assessments of clients, especially victims of physical abuses. This will relieve referring doctors from attending Court cases or having to provide full medical records on the patients for Court purposes.

Lastly, although there is a temptation to quicken the pace and expedite an end to broken marriages by simplifying process, it may also lead to undesired results. There is a saying, "Justice hurried is justice buried". There had been cases where after a lengthy process in the divorce proceedings, parties cool down and are prepared to compromise better. We should not try to over simplify matters just to settle the issues faster. We should treat each case based on its own merits and do justice to all parties concerned, especially when children are involved. Sometimes, it may be necessary to let the due process of law take its course and try to avert too much suffering by providing opportunities for parties to rationalise and allow extra judicial processes to work out the best solution for all. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I thank Members who have risen in support of the Bill and for their suggestions on how we can better protect troubled families. I will respond to some of the questions raised by Members in the course of their speeches.

Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about hearings in camera under clause 10 of the Bill. I think one approach or philosophy is that all proceedings should be open. The key question – and nobody will argue with that as a general statement – is whether there should be exceptions made in specific situations. There are other jurisdictions which have gone this way of holding it in camera. The Committee, after extensive consultations with stakeholders in this field of

Page: 76

law and family disputes, felt that the full entrails of family disputes should not be laid out in public, really, to protect children. So, you have, on one hand, the general approach that by reason of publishing in the media, people would get a slightly better understanding of the family law, and against that, specific direct negative impact on a large number of children – 7,000 divorces and a number of them will have children. So, it is a question of judgment and I think there is much to commend the Committee's approach, which we accept. It is a position which the Court can, otherwise, order. The Court can say this matter should be heard in public.

Second, Ms Lim also spoke about the Court's power to order costs in the proceedings for the remuneration of assessors. The parties can, first, object to the assessors being appointed and, second, the Courts only appoint assessors if necessary. The Bill gives the Court discretion as to how the costs are to be paid. The Courts, under this new approach, are taking on a more investigative and direct role to reduce the acrimony, shorten the proceedings and reduce a lot of the legal work that would otherwise take place and, in fact, do a fair bit of the work that the parties might otherwise engage lawyers to do. So, overall, the intention is that costs should go down, as can be seen from the Committee's approach.

Ms Jessica Tan asked what positive difference the new Family Justice Courts will make for families. As I had mentioned during my earlier speech, with the new Family Justice Courts, it is hoped that family disputes will be resolved more efficiently, with less delays, reduced legal costs and, in a way, lessens the trauma and acrimony involved.

Ms Ellen Lee was of the view that the Bill ought to have considered extending the conciliatory approach to disputes caused by sibling rivalry over inheritance and disputes between parents and children over assets.

The Bill's conciliatory approach represents a fairly significant change in how we view and resolve family disputes. Let us see how it plays out in the context of the family dispute that happens most often, before assessing whether it can be extended to cover other areas.

Ms Lee touched on family law practitioners and asked how the roles of social workers, psychologists and child experts are defined in the new Family Court system. Different players will work towards reducing acrimony between parties and where children are involved, putting the child at the forefront and protecting their best interests. To that end, the Bill allows the Court to order, where appropriate, expert assistance from social and psychological service professionals to be provided during its decision-making process to achieve these objectives. These professionals do not need to be trained in the law.

Page: 77

The Committee has also recommended that the Counselling and Psychological Services of the State Courts be expanded with enhanced resources to better represent the voice of the child in Court proceedings.

Ms Ellen Lee and Ms Jessica Tan spoke about the impact the Bill may have on lawyers practising family law. Ms Tan queried if, on the whole, we will be attracting the right talent to practise family law. Ms Lee asked what resources younger family law practitioners will have to equip themselves better for their new roles.

The family lawyer's role will remain central to the delivery of quality and timely justice. That said, it must evolve to effectively manage legal disputes which are in reality symptoms of a family's underlying emotional, financial and other practical problems. Family lawyers must understand how to use dispute resolution mechanisms, such as counselling and mediation, to deal with the underlying family conflict, in order to reduce acrimony between the parties. Litigation really should be the last resort.

Family lawyers also need to be trained on the new judge-led trial environment and less adversarial techniques. The Family Law Practitioners or FLP accreditation will, we hope, be a key to achieving this. Specialist training in both legal and non-legal aspects of family practice leading to the FLP accreditation will equip lawyers to practise family law more effectively and in a manner that is consistent with the ethos of the new family justice system.

While FLP accreditation would not be compulsory, we would encourage all who practise family law to be accredited. The details of the Family Law Practitioner accreditation are being worked out and announcements will be made in due course.

Some Members – Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Ms Faizah Jamal, Dr Lily Neo, Assoc Prof Eugene Tan – provided suggestions on how we may provide better support for families to resolve disputes generally, through for instance:

(a) strengthening community touchpoints;

(b) pre-filing consultation sessions, including end-to-end support for families;

(c) the judge-led approach to adjudicating family disputes;

(d) protecting the best interests of the child; and

Page: 78

(e) training and accreditation of the different players in the family justice system.

I thank Members for their suggestions. The general thinking underlying these suggestions – that of better protecting and supporting families – is aligned with the Government's and the Judiciary's commitment to transform the Family Justice system to achieve these objectives.

At the same time, I sound a note of caution that our Government's resources are not the solution to all problems. For example, Ms Faizah Jamal's suggestion that counsellors and support be provided end-to-end. The Court has a discretion on the matter, but have a care because the process should not start taking on a life of its own. It is open, for example, for the parents to engage counsellors and they should be encouraged to do so. The Courts' focus should be on the dispute. The state is not always best placed to do these things and the Courts should be mindful of that.

This Bill implements one aspect of the Committee's recommendations, namely, the establishment of the Family Justice Courts. It relates to the constitution, jurisdiction, powers and administration of these new Courts.

Accordingly, in response to Dr Lily Neo's question as to whether the Bill waives doctor-patient privilege and confidentiality, the Bill does not deal with that issue as it does not relate to the establishment of the Family Justice Courts. We will, however, look into Dr Neo's suggestion on making it easier for doctors to report suspected cases of child abuse while bearing in mind their professional ethical obligations. MOH and the medical professionals will have something to say about that.

Aside from setting up the new Family Justice Courts, the Government is currently reviewing, with a view towards implementation, other aspects of the Committee's recommendations which fall outside the scope of this Bill.

Some of these recommendations relate to areas which Members have spoken on and we will consider the suggestions put forth by Members today. Where appropriate, we will also refer suggestions, such as Assoc Prof Eugene Tan's suggestions on the reform of the Women's Charter; Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Faisal Manap's suggestions on marital and parenting counselling, to the respective agencies and Ministries.

On Mr Faisal Manap's anecdote of his constituent trying to enforce a Syariah Court Custody Order, I think either the constituent has given the wrong facts to Mr Faisal or he has misunderstood the facts because he said that the District Court said they cannot enforce a

Page: 79

Syariah Court Order. That is quite inaccurate. And most people will know that it is inaccurate.

Syariah Court Orders are treated as District Court Orders for the purpose of enforcement under section 53 of the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA). All that the constituent who approached Mr Faisal needed to have done is to have filed a Magistrate's complaint because the Syariah Court Order is treated as equivalent to the District Court Order for the purpose of enforcement and the District Courts would enforce it. So, the suggestion that there were no resources to do it, I am not sure that – perhaps, the constituent who spoke with Mr Faisal honestly believed it, but it is just not true.

What the constituent may have understood, perhaps wrongly, is that if he had gone to the Syariah Court and said, "I want to enforce this order", the Syariah Court would have said to the constituent, "Look, we do not have the resources for it", which is true because it is not within their jurisdiction to enforce. The enforcement has to be done through the District Courts. And all the lawyers who practise Syariah Law will know this and a lot of others will know it. So, to help the constituent, what Mr Faisal can do is refer him to the appropriate authorities; it is all in the law.

The other anecdote about HDB's advice to its constituent, I think Dr Maliki took that up. But again, I am not sure I understood the facts clearly. My understanding, the way Mr Faisal said it, was that the person who spoke with him had arrears owed to HDB. Now, if that is so, did he sell the flat and still have arrears owing, and then, still wanted a second subsidised flat from HDB? That happens sometimes – constituents come and see us. They have taken the subsidy, they have sold the flat, they have spent the money, they have not paid HDB and then they come back and they said, "Can you help me buy a second flat; I am married?" I can see the plea for discretion to be exercised but if those are the facts and discretion is exercised, then of course, a lot more people will sell their flats, take the money and not pay HDB. These subsidies are taxpayers' funds after all at the end. So, one has got to balance it.

The Family Justice system is not just about the law or the legal system. It is about the various interfaces – pre-Court, post-Court – that touches the family. How we bring together the different moving parts, as Ms Jessica Tan said, will be key. I would also like to assure Assoc Prof Tan that the relevant agencies will be assessing the effectiveness of the present round of reforms in due course to see how we can improve further.

We are committed to a comprehensive implementation of the Committee's recommendations and will release details of the same when we are ready. Thank you, Mdm Speaker.

Page: 80

Thank you, Madam. I have three clarifications for the Minister. The first is concerning the rationale for in camera hearings which he addressed in his reply. He mentioned that the primary justification was to protect children and in my earlier speech, I did agree that, that was a legitimate reason. But does he not agree that under the current Bill, the in camera hearings would apply to many more hearings than is currently the case including cases of probate, mental capacity and so on which do not involve children at all?

Second clarification is whether the Ministry is aware of some of the issues faced by Courts and other jurisdictions, Family Courts in particular, when they make their hearings private? What were some of the controversies that surrounded the confidence in the Courts and how could these be mitigated?

Third clarification is, I would like to ask the Minister whether he agrees that it is important for the public to have an understanding of the principles of family law and how the Courts work. And to this extent, I like him to comment on my suggestion that at the very least, the Family Justice Courts should readily make their judgments available for publication by the media, of course, with any necessary redaction of sensitive particulars so that the public can have a greater understanding of these principles which affect all our lives.

Let me take those three points. First, yes, under the current Bill, the in camera proceedings apply to more proceedings beyond those that simply involves children and the justification is similar. There is a difference between public interests and what the public may be interested in. There is public interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice. When you do that, you need to look at which cases should be handled in public and which cases should be handled in private.

The fact that a probate matter or some other family dispute is handled in private, I think, really does not impact on public confidence. As I have said it, it is a question of judgment. The Committee, after extensive consultations, including with family law practitioners, came to the view and we think that is the correct view. I am not saying that there cannot be another view but I have set out my view. The fact that other jurisdictions have done this, shows that it is a view that can be taken legitimately.

Second, am I aware of issues faced in other jurisdictions? Whenever you have a question of judgment and you take one view as opposed to another view, there will always be a group of people who would prefer a different approach. That is what has happened in

Page: 81

some of the jurisdictions. In our own view, our Courts have excellent standing. Our Courts deliver justice and we believe that the public will substantially support an approach where in family matters, the issues are dealt with in private. Unless there is public interest, which the Courts can decide, there is no reason for it to be in public.

Third, whether the public should have a better understanding of family law matters, I think it is a little tenuous, really, in support of Ms Sylvia Lim's argument that it should be public and it should be in the media so that the public could have a better understanding of family law processes. I do not think that logic quite works. I tend to take a different view. But certainly, the public should have better understanding, not just of family law areas, but of criminal law, other areas. And the Courts regularly have exhibitions and they set out in ways in which the public can easily understand the processes. And anyone who is interested in the processes would be able to go and check what the processes are.

Yes, Madam, one clarification for the Minister concerning the regular publication of judgments of the Family Justice Courts. I would like to ask him again, whether it is possible for the Family Justice Courts to work on some sort of regular collaboration with the media so that they can regularly report judgments touching on family law issues for greater public awareness. He mentioned that the public can check it up, but how many members of the public really know how to check these things up on their own? So, I think there is scope for the Courts to work with the media in a responsible way to ensure that there is dissemination of principles of importance on a regular basis.

Where there are principles of law involved which are important for the general development of the law, I am sure the Courts will bear that in mind. We have not quite decided how they can put it out but there are a variety of ways in which the Courts put out their cases. They can do Family Law Digests, they can do Criminal Law Digests, case law has precedence. We need to develop a body, or the corpus of law which has been developed, would need to continue to be developed at the Family Court level and the High Court level. Obviously, that must continue. Precisely what details, what cases are published, whether it is published in the media, those are things I would rather not do by dicta standing

Page: 82

here, because I do not know what kind of cases will come up. The person best placed is really the judge dealing with any individual case. And they must have the discretion to do what is right in their appropriate cases.

*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. – [Mr K Shanmugam].*

*Bill considered in Committee.*