Understanding and Responding to Intimate Partner Violence in Singapore

Mr Speaker, I stand today to discuss a topic as old as history, a topic that touches the lives of people across the globe and from all walks of life, no matter their age, gender, background, beliefs, income or ability.

Mr Speaker, I am talking about domestic violence, sometimes also referred to as family violence, relationship violence or intimate partner violence.

Mr Speaker, I have never been overly comfortable with any of those terms as I find it incongruous to qualify the word "violence" with the words "domestic", "family", "relationship" or "intimate partner". They are contradictions in terms as the use of violence automatically negates the notion of family or intimacy or relationship. The two concepts cannot and should not coexist in the same space.

Families and intimate relationships are, by definition, places of love, safety and comfort, not places where any member lives in fear of being controlled, humiliated, hurt, raped or killed.

Despite my misgivings, throughout my speech, I will use the term "intimate partner violence" (IPV) as this term tends to emphasise the relational nature of the violence rather than where the violence occurs.

Mr Speaker, I should also declare that I am the head of the Public Safety and Security programme at the Singapore University of Social Sciences and in this role, I work with many different groups on projects related to gender equality, safety and well-being. I am also the president of Persatuan Pemudi Islam Singapura (PPIS), a non-profit organisation focused on women empowerment.

Mr Speaker, just like in other countries, it is difficult to get contemporary, population-wide data on the prevalence and nature of IPV in Singapore. What we do know, however, is that in a 2019 survey conducted in collaboration with United Women Singapore, 30% of participants reported that they or someone close to them have experienced domestic violence.

The Singapore Council of Women’s Organisations who run Star Shelter, a residential service for women who have experienced family violence, reports that it takes women living with violence an average of between four and seven years before they seek help.

According to data published by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2021, 2023 and 2024, and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) in 2024, there were 5,134 Police reports about family violence in 2020. Between 2021 and 2024, the number of new spousal violence cases increased by 23% over the three years. Between 2018 and 2020, the number of enquiries related to family violence received by Family Service Centres or Protection Specialist Centres increased by 57% over the two years. The number of new cases of family violence taken up by Family Service Centres or Protection Specialist Centres increased by 125% over the five years.

On a global level, in 2014, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described violence against women and girls as "A global pandemic that destroys lives, fractures communities and holds back development" and "the most extreme example of the political, financial, social and economic oppression of women and girls worldwide."

Mr Speaker, data published in 2022 by Lancet indicates that globally, about 27% of women aged between 15 and 49 years who have ever been in a relationship have experienced physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence, with 13% experiencing it in the year before they were surveyed. The same data shows that this violence starts early, with 24% of girls aged 15 to 19 years and 26% of young women aged 19 to 24 years who have ever been in a relationship having experienced physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence.

Mr Speaker, according to data published by the Singapore Department of Statistics, in 2024, there were very close to one million women residents aged between 15 and 49 years living in Singapore. Going on the conservative assumption that half of those women who have ever been in a relationship and using the Lancet figure of 27% I quoted above, up to 135,000 Singaporean women aged between 15 and 49 years could have experienced physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence. This figure is almost 30 times higher than the 5,000-plus reports on family violence made to Police in 2020.

Mr Speaker, considering the above, I think it is timely to commission comprehensive and population-wide research on the prevalence, reporting and nature of IPV across Singapore. In doing so, we should consider definitions and the scope of IPV, trends across age, ethnicity, faith and gender, as well as emerging trends such as online violence, coercive control and violence where children are the perpetrators. Importantly, we also need to have age and culturally sensitive discussions with women and girls as well as men and boys about gender roles and the causes and use of IPV.

Mr Speaker, before I progress, I need to note that my speech today is primarily about women and women who live with or have lived with IPV. This is in no way intended to discount or diminish the stories of the many men who live with or have lived with IPV, but to honour the countless girls and women I have met and known personally and professionally throughout my life whose lives have been altered profoundly because of violence used by men.

Mr Speaker, it is undeniable that men are victims of IPV, however, it is also undeniable that the overwhelming proportion of victims of IPV are women and that violence used by men tends to be more severe, more likely to result in injury or fear and more often part of a pattern of coercive control than that used by women. It is, however, important that men who are victims of IPV feel empowered to break their silence, are believed when they come forward and receive timely, effective and gender-sensitive support.

Mr Speaker, I am talking today about IPV not only because it is an important issue that has far reaching personal, social, health and economic implications, but because a life-long and dear friend of mine encouraged me to do so.

I met my friend when we were both 12 years old and we grew up together. She was a sister to me and a daughter to my parents, and I watched with sadness as her life trajectory was hampered because of violence. The impact of IPV on my friend was not just cuts and bruises, but long-term emotional vulnerability, ongoing health issues, financial hardship, accommodation insecurity, difficulty in forming trusting relationships and children who grew up with a destructive male role model rather than a father.

Mr Speaker, my friend died suddenly last year, due in some part to long-standing stress, distress and illness caused by IPV and associated issues. Three weeks before her death, I was talking with her about a speech I was going to make in Parliament about gender inequality and my hope that my speech might make a difference.

The day of my speech, my friend sent me a text message which I will read, "You will be great. Just think of all the oppressed women out there and that they need a voice. That's you. Speak from the heart, and with the strength you have so bravely built in yourself over the years." So, this is for you, my beautiful friend, and for all the other women, like my friend, whose lives are now not how they should be.

Mr Speaker, IPV can have a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of women, and include: (a) injuries, such as cuts, burns, bruises, and fractures; (b) reproductive issues, such as unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and miscarriages; (c) long-term health problems, such as gastrointestinal, gynaecological, cardiovascular and neurological issues; (d) depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress symptoms, suicidal thoughts and behaviours, low self-esteem and feelings of helplessness; (e) isolation from friends and family, difficulty forming functional relationships, homelessness or accommodation insecurity, and stigma and victim-blaming; and (f) loss of income or employment, financial dependency on others, including an abuser, and difficulty accessing housing or legal services.

Mr Speaker, when listening to such a list, it is important to keep in mind that we are not just describing an inventory of clinical outcomes or abstract possibilities. We are talking about real women with real lives and with real pain, sorrow, disadvantage and trauma. IPV can so easily be dismissed as simply "he hit her", but, Mr Speaker, it is so much more. It is a betrayal of a women's trust, confidence, safety and a sense of self – and it can stay with her forever.

Mr Speaker, exposure to IPV can also have immediate and long-term impacts on children, including physical, emotional, psychological, behavioural, cognitive, developmental and social issues.

Mr Speaker, Dr Howard Bath, an Australian psychologist who specialises in trauma and who was keynote speaker at a PPIS forum on trauma informed care in November last year notes, "When children witness domestic violence, it is not just exposure – it is trauma."

Despite such an understanding about the impact of IPV on children, I remain alarmed at the number of times I have heard from women living with violence that they are somehow, magically, able to shield their children from knowing what is happening in the house. As also noted by Dr Bath, "Children see. Children hear. Children know. More than we think."

I am not raising this issue to criticise the choice made by some women with children to remain living with IPV, as many simply have no alternative, but to highlight that we as a system must do far more to protect children.

Where violence exists, children should never be a second thought. Children should be the primary client. The system needs to be far faster and better at removing the abuser and ensuring that women and their children are physically and emotionally safe, and have immediate access to dignified and secure accommodation, free legal advice, income support when needed and trauma informed care.

Mr Speaker, it is also important to consider childhood exposure to IPV through a gendered lens. Girls exposed to IPV are more likely to tolerate or even seek out such behaviour in their own future relationships. Boys exposed to IPV are more likely to see violence against women as the norm and to use violence in their own future relationships. By failing to protect children from exposure to IPV, we are not only harming children, we are also perpetuating the inter-generational cycle of accepting and using violence in relationships.

Mr Speaker, this is corroborated by the joint MSF and National Council of Social Service longitudinal study on Resilience and Empowerment amidst Adversities of Childhood, which found that maltreated children and young offenders who witnessed family violence tended to have a higher risk of developing emotional and behavioural problems than the general comparative population.

Mr Speaker, at the other end of the spectrum is elder abuse. While some may argue that elder abuse is not technically IPV, it is still a form of violence that occurs within a domestic environment and which usually involves family members or those living within the family home as perpetrators. For this reason, and because many elderly people are inherently vulnerable, I am including elder abuse in my comments today.

Like with other forms of in-home violence, information about elder abuse in Singapore is slim. What we do know, however, is that data published in 2018 in the Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect indicates that 8.3% of older adults in Singapore have experienced mistreatment and according to data published by MSF in 2024, between 2012 and 2023, the number of new cases of elder abuse taken up by Family Service Centres or Protection Specialist Centres increased by 5% over the two years.

As with the data on general rates of IPV, these figures may not capture the full extent of elder abuse in Singapore as it is likely that many incidents go unreported.

Mr Speaker, according to a 2023 paper published by the US National Bureau of Economic Research, approximately 82% of older adults in Singapore who are in need of assistance are cared for at home, either by family members, migrant domestic workers or a combination of both.

While the preference for home-based care is influenced by cultural values, and the unavailability and expense of professional residential care, home-based care carries with it significant risks, including: inadequate carer qualifications or training; social isolation and a lack of external oversight; inadequate or inaccessible home infrastructure; cramped or undignified living conditions and caregiver stress and fatigue.

Mr Speaker, given Singapore's continued reliance on home-based elder care, it may be timely to introduce a home visitation service to ensure proper oversight and support for older individuals receiving care at home. While this might be difficult, given the sheer number of older people being cared for at home and cultural barriers about accepting such a service, current practice remains inherently risky.

Mr Speaker, since 2021, when the findings of the Taskforce on Family Violence, chaired by Minister of State for Social and Family Development, Ms Sun Xueling, and Minister of State for Home Affairs, Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, were released, Singapore has introduced a suite of initiatives to combat IPV. This is on top of previously existing initiatives, some of which have been in place for decades.

Mr Speaker, time prohibits me from mentioning even a snapshot of these initiatives, however I would like to extend my personal thanks to the many hundreds of Singaporeans who work every day to prevent and respond to IPV. It can be tough work and can take its toll; particularly when it sometimes feels as if the broader system is unaware or indifferent to the issue.

I know what it is like to work in a sector that is specialised, frequently under-resourced and for the most part, invisible. To all of you out there in IPV land, you are not invisible to me, nor to many of my colleagues in Government, academia and the community sector; and, once again, I thank you for everything you do.

Mr Speaker, I will now conclude with 10 recommendations. Mr Speaker, my recommendations are drawn from several sources including direct feedback from the IPV sector and women with lived experience of IPV, emerging international best practice, and perspectives based on my professional experiences and expertise.

Mr Speaker, I should also note that my recommendations are intended to complement and enhance the 16 recommendations made in 2021 by the Taskforce on Family Violence that I referred to earlier.

Mr Speaker, I recommend, that we draft legislations that: allows women leaving an IPV situation to immediately purchase or rent a Housing and Development Board (HDB) property with no stamp-duty or, where this is not feasible, to provide equivalent rent-subsidised accommodation; allows the provision of immediate living-wage income support to women leaving an IPV situation; and allows Police to issue on-the-spot Personal Protection Orders for women and children, and to compel a perpetrator of IPV to immediately leave a home or building or to reside at either self-selected or emergency relief accommodations.

Mr Speaker, I also recommend that we trial artificial intelligence-assisted technologies, including wearable devices that use real-time physiological data to alert Police to the use of IPV; decision-making tools to assist women to create objective safety and action plans; online therapeutic support for women; data analysis systems to predict families at high risk of IPV; and virtual reality simulators to train Police, healthcare providers and social service sector staff.

To assist and improve governance, I recommend that we establish a National Commissioner to oversee and coordinate a Singapore-wide response to IPV; a National Partnership on IVP to engage all stakeholders and encourage coordinated service delivery; and a National Plan to End Violence against Children and Women that sets out a national framework and a whole-of-Government approach to IPV.

From a workplace perspective, I recommend that we enhance Employee Assistance Programmes to include specialised counselling and support for employees seeking help for IVP related behaviours. And, require organisations to provide Domestic Violence Awareness Training to all managers and staff, and have policies to guide organisational response to employees who may be affected by IPV.

To assist and improve our statutory and social sector response to IPV, I recommend that we integrate therapeutic and restorative justice into Syariah Court processes; provide safe access to faith, culturally and gender-aligned counsellors and support groups; and embed IPV screening into all routine healthcare assessments, including dental checks.

Mr Speaker, IPV has no place in Singapore, not now, not ever. Every one of us has a right and an inherent need to feel and be safe, always and everywhere, and not just by chance or life circumstances, but by assurance. Mr Speaker, let us stand united in our resolve to act, to do more and do better to ensure that safety, justice and dignity is guaranteed for all. [Applause.]