Family Justice Reform Bill

Sir, I thank Members for their comments and expressions of support for the Bill. I will address the points raised in relation to the new Maintenance Enforcement Process (MEP) and the enhancement of Court proceedings and procedures in the FJC.

I will start with the Members’ questions on the scope of the new MEP.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim hopes that the MEP will apply to the enforcement of Syariah Court orders. The MEP will, indeed, apply to orders made by the Syariah Court which, under the Administration of Muslim Law Act, may be treated as maintenance orders made by the Family Court for the purposes of enforcement.

Mr Zhulkarnain also asked about past outstanding maintenance and limitation periods. The Bill does not change the existing position on limitation. Generally, an applicant needs to commence proceedings to enforce arrears within three years from the time that such arrears are due. The applicant will then be able to include those arrears in future enforcement applications if the arrears remain unpaid. If the applicant acts in a timely manner, the respondent cannot circumvent his or her obligations.

On past maintenance arrears, the MEP will, when fully implemented, apply to all maintenance enforcement applications.

Mr Murali Pillai has asked about MEOs being sited under the Executive. The new MEOs will gather evidence and carry out conciliation to help parties reach a sustainable solution. However, if parties do not settle, the Court will still make a final decision, possibly using information and evidence gathered by the MEO. It is, therefore, preferable for the MEOs’ evidence gathering and conciliation roles to be independent of the Court. We have discussed this with the Judiciary, which supported the proposal for the MEOs to be sited within the Executive. AGC’s advice was also sought on the matter.

Mr Louis Ng asked who we intend to prescribe as the third parties from whom MEOs may seek information. In Minister Shanmugam’s opening speech, he listed them: the CDP and Government agencies, such as CPF Board, HDB, IRAS, SLA and LTA.

Mr Melvin Yong asked about information on foreign assets. The Bill does not have extraterritorial effect. The MEOs and the Singapore Courts do not have powers to direct third parties in a foreign jurisdiction to provide information.

Mr Louis Ng also asked about the contemplated timelines to disclose information sought. We have been engaging the banks and third parties that we intend to prescribe and we will work with them to implement the MEP, which would include response timelines.

Mr Murali Pillai also raised the concern that assets may be held in the name of proxies. Mr Pillai also requested for clarification on the ambit of a “third party” under the Bill and whether a third party may be asked to disclose information relating to proxies. The third party may be any person who has relevant information. Thus, if an MEO, in the course of fact-finding, has reason to suspect that the respondent has assets that are held in the name of proxies, the MEO may seek a Court order for a third party to disclose information about the assets. It is for the Court to decide if such information is relevant to the enforcement application.

There are limits to the MEOs’ powers to uncover every fact. It is, ultimately, the primary responsibility of the parties to be forthright about their true financial positions. Furnishing false information, when asked by an MEO, or to the Court, is a criminal offence.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the number of conciliation sessions and the consequences for failing to attend or not participating in good faith. The Bill does not impose a limit on the number of conciliation sessions. We envisage that there will, typically, be two sessions, but the exact number will vary. It is the Court that directs the parties to attend conciliation. Failure to attend is, therefore, contempt of Court.

Further, if the respondent is absent from conciliation, the Court may direct the respondent to attend another conciliation session. The Court may also proceed with the hearing of the application. If the respondent is absent for the hearing of the application, the new Family Justice Rules will allow the Court to proceed to make the appropriate orders, if certain conditions are satisfied. This should also address Ms Ng Ling Ling’s question about her resident whose application got “stuck” because the ex-husband could not be found.

With respect to parties who do not participate in good faith, the parties’ conduct during conciliation will be set out in the MEO’s report to the Court. The Court may take the parties’ conduct into account in making the appropriate orders on the maintenance enforcement application.

Mr Louis Ng asked whether the matter will still proceed to hearing after the MEO refers parties for financial assistance. Financial assistance is not intended to replace the parties’ financial responsibilities to their families, but acts as a safety net for our fellow Singaporeans in need. The matter will, therefore, still proceed for conciliation and hearing after the MEO makes the referral for financial assistance. The MEO will take into account the financial assistance granted, if any, as part of the overall assessment of the financial circumstances of the parties. The Court will also take into consideration information on any financial assistance granted, in deciding on the appropriate orders to be made.

Mr Melvin Yong asked about whether it is an offence for a respondent to refuse financial assistance, despite an MEO's referral. The answer is no. It is open to a respondent to decide whether to accept financial assistance.

I will turn to Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan's queries on what the MEO’s report will set out and whether the reports will be provided to both parties.

The MEO’s final report will be provided to both parties and submitted to the Court. It will contain all the information submitted to the MEO in relation to the maintenance enforcement application; matters relating to the conciliation sessions; and any other matters and information as may be prescribed.

In respect of interim reports, the clause which Mr Dennis Tan referred to allows the MEO to provide an interim report to the applicant only, first, to cater for a situation where the MEO needs to inform the applicant of an impending dissipation of assets so that appropriate action can be taken. The intent is for the interim report to eventually be available to both parties in accordance with the rules.

The intention is for the MEO to provide all relevant facts and evidence for the Court’s consideration. The Court may then, if it thinks fit, rely on the MEO’s report to make the appropriate orders against the respondent’s assets, without calling for further evidence. We may prescribe additional matters to be covered in the report, as we learn from the initial phases of implementation.

Mr Dennis Tan has also asked what information may be redacted from the MEO's report. The MEO has broad powers to gather information for the Court from third parties, including information that is ordinarily private and confidential. The MEO reports this to the Court. There may be information gathered by the MEO and in the report that is unnecessary or irrelevant. This power will allow for such information to be redacted to protect the party's interests.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Melvin Yong also asked whether there is a standard rubric for MEOs to assess the parties’ financial position. Mr Gan Thiam Poh referred to challenges with distinguishing between those who will not pay and cannot pay cases. Both Mr Gan and Mr Lim Biow Chuan cited examples of respondents who have the ability to earn an income or better income but chose not to do so.

There is no fixed formula to determine whether a respondent has the means to pay maintenance. Each case will be assessed on its facts, based on information on the parties’ assets and means.

That being said, the MEOs will be trained and given guidelines on making these assessments. We will work closely with Social Service Officers from MSF to develop these guidelines. Ultimately, it is for the Court to decide whether the respondent cannot pay or refuses to pay, and the appropriate orders to make. The Court will consider the MEO’s report in coming to its decision.

The FJC judges are trained to deal with a wide range of family situations and also have the powers to make orders to address the unique needs of each family. They will also be supported by counsellors and other professionals who will be able to provide therapeutic interventions.

For example, if a respondent is retrenched and has challenges paying maintenance due to the sudden loss of income, the Court may suspend the maintenance order or vary the maintenance amount downwards for a short period of time and make the appropriate directions for the respondent to report back to the Court on a specified date after he or she has had time to look for a new job. The Court may also make an order requiring the respondent to undergo financial counselling with a professional counsellor who will be able to help the respondent explore various options to manage his or her daily expenses and to pay maintenance.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh also suggested that the MEOs may also assist the Court at the stage of division of matrimonial assets. We thank Mr Gan for his suggestion, which we will study.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Melvin Yong, Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Hany Soh have asked about MEOs’ recruitment, training and resourcing. These are operational details that will be worked through in implementation. Suffice to say that we intend to hire and train a multidisciplinary team, with team members having or being trained and equipped with knowledge and skills in different areas. This will include the skills needed to effectively manage the parties in family proceedings.

We also thank Ms Hany Soh for her suggestion on taking a coordinated approach across the entire family justice ecosystem. We will certainly keep this in mind as we develop the training programmes in a way that strengthens therapeutic justice outcomes.

Mr Zhulkarnain has asked about legal protections for the MEOs. The Bill gives the MEOs protection against personal liability when they exercise their powers or perform their functions or duties, provided they do so in good faith and with reasonable care.

I will now address the questions and comments that Members have raised with respect to the powers of the Court hearing the maintenance enforcement application.

First, on the Court's powers to vary the maintenance orders. Mr Louis Ng expressed concern that the potential for variation may disincentivise some applicants from applying for enforcement. Mr Lim Biow Chuan also asked about variation where the respondent loses his or her job or if he or she has a new family.

The MEP does not change the substantive law in relation to variation of maintenance orders: the test that the respondent has to satisfy remains the same. What the MEP does is to reduce the procedural challenges that parties face in seeking variation. For example, the Court may vary a maintenance order made during matrimonial proceedings only when it is satisfied that: the order was based on any misrepresentation or mistake of fact; or where there has been any material change in circumstances.

The Court will consider all relevant facts and circumstances before deciding whether there has been any change in circumstances warranting a variation of the maintenance order. New financial commitments and loss of job could be relevant considerations. However, the Courts have held that remarriage per se does not affect pre-existing obligations owed to the family from an earlier marriage.

Similarly, when MEOs make recommendations to parties to facilitate an out-of-Court settlement, remarriage and loss of job are but two of the various factors that will be considered. Maintenance orders would not be varied in cases where the respondent has the means to pay the maintenance sum.

In cases where the respondent has genuinely experienced a change in circumstances affecting his or her ability to pay maintenance, the MEP will help the Court make a more accurate assessment of the nature of the change and accordingly make more accurate variation orders where needed. This can be a temporary variation to deal with a temporary change in circumstances, but it leads to a more sustainable outcome for all parties.

On the other hand, if we turn a blind eye to the changed circumstances, respondents will continue to miss maintenance payments time and time again, even if multiple enforcement applications are made and concluded against them. Applicants will spend time and costs on enforcement, only to end up being disappointed each time.

It would be far better for such applicants to receive the appropriate financial assistance and other forms of support, or enter into a more sustainable maintenance arrangement with the respondent. The new MEP facilitates this.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh also asked about the circumstances in which a respondent would not be imprisoned, or lower maintenance amounts ordered, because of his or her medical conditions. These are decisions that are, ultimately, for the Court to make, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

Where there are disputes of fact, for example, on the medical conditions of the respondent, the MEO may help to gather the relevant facts and evidence, including seeking information from third parties to verify the parties' positions. The Court may also direct the MEOs to conduct further fact-finding, if necessary.

On attachment of earnings orders, Mr Ng asked whether earnings from freelance or gig economy work are earnings that may be attached. "Earnings" for the purpose of attachment of earnings orders is defined in the new section 76 of the Women's Charter to refer to wages or salary payable under a contract of service.

Therefore, depending on the way the contractual relationship between the worker and the firm is structured, it may well be that, in some cases, such earnings may fall within the definition of "earnings". Attachment of earnings orders work effectively where there is a regular and stable stream of income that can be directed towards the fulfilment of periodical maintenance payments.

They do not work so well where the income is unpredictable, such as for freelancers and contract workers. Including such arrangements may lead to hardship for the parties and administrative challenges for the firms who engage these workers. Hence, attachment of earnings orders will, generally, not be made in respect of income from gig work, which is unstable.

Where incomes are not stable, the family's financial situation is naturally more complicated and it is not always easy to find simple solutions. The MEOs will help parties look at the overall picture and suggest arrangements that are sustainable. Ultimately, regardless of the type of work one does, the respondent must be responsible for fulfilling his or her obligations for maintenance. Even if the attachment of earnings order is not available, there are various other ways to hold them accountable.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Dennis Tan said that respondents who delay paying maintenance to frustrate the complainant should not be allowed to walk away without consequences. The Bill allows for consequences to be imposed on such respondents. For example, the Court may imprison a respondent who has no good reason for failing to pay maintenance on time, even if that respondent pays up after the applicant files the enforcement application.

Further, for a respondent who has not paid maintenance in a timely manner and the parties have not settled, the Court must make a Show-Payment Order for the Respondent to show proof of payment of any future maintenance payable. An imprisonment term may also be specified for the breach of the Show-Payment Order.

Mr Lim also asked about situations where the respondent refuses to pay because he or she is denied access to the child. Being denied access is not grounds for non-compliance with a maintenance order. A parent has a legal duty to maintain a child, whether the child is in his or her custody or not. If the respondent is denied access to the child, he or she may take up an application for the enforcement of the access order.

I will now address some of the other comments made or questions asked in relation to maintenance enforcement.

Mr Zhulkarnain suggested that all maintenance orders be placed on a searchable database registry and that a recalcitrant defaulter can be placed on a blacklist with an alert to the Credit Service Bureau. The Women's Charter already provides for an Applicant who has filed for maintenance enforcement to be able to lodge a report to a designated credit bureau regarding unpaid arrears stated on the order of Court. Applicants will continue to be able to lodge such reports under the new MEP.

Under the new MEP, the MEO may also assist to lodge the arrears report. This may be helpful for applicants who have challenges filing the arrears report on their own.

Mr Gan has also asked whether maintenance payments will be prioritised over other debts. Mr Zhulkarnain has asked for clarification on how the new MEP and the bankruptcy regime will interface with each other. As Mr Zhulkarnain has correctly mentioned, the reforms in this Bill do not change the order of priorities of an insolvent debtor. The reforms also do not change how enforcement proceedings or orders ordinarily interact with the bankruptcy regime.

Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr Gan have also asked what can be done when respondents are declared bankrupt or respondents are struggling financially. Dr Wan Rizal raised concerns of harshness on parties genuinely unable to pay. Mr Zhulkarnain mentioned that for bankrupt respondents, applicants are unlikely to be able to recover any arrears but yet are saddled with the expenses of the children.

This is where the reforms under the MEP may be helpful. The MEOs will be able to verify whether the respondent has genuine financial difficulties. This would include considering, like what Mr Gan said, whether the respondent has genuine responsibilities paying for their children and elderly parents' expenses.

Where the respondent has genuine financial difficulties, the MEOs, where appropriate, may refer the parties to Social Service Offices for financial assistance or other forms of support. Ms Ng Ling Ling and Mr Zhulkarnain asked if there can be more practical help for vulnerable individuals and laypersons applying to enforce their maintenance orders. The new process was designed specifically to reduce the burden on parties, especially Self-represented Persons (SRPs).

Nonetheless, certain litigants may still require more help than others. Today, there are various physical touchpoints where such SRPs can seek help in filing a maintenance enforcement application, such as: the ServiceSG Centres at Our Tampines Hub and One Punggol, the Divorce Support Specialist Centres (DSSAs) and the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations.

We will work with ServiceSG and MSF to ensure that such services continue to be offered even after the new Maintenance Enforcement Process is implemented. Ms Ng's suggestion to train social service officers and social workers to help their vulnerable clients navigate the online application process and make the appropriate referrals, is a good one, which MSF will explore.

We will work together with our partners and stakeholders in the legal and social service sectors to disseminate information on and raise awareness of the MEP.

Mr Zhulkarnain reiterated his support for empowering judges to impose restrictions on cross-examination in prescribed circumstances. He also mentioned video conferencing facilities for young survivors to give evidence. As Mr Zhulkarnain noted – and he would be glad to know – video conferencing facilities for victims of family violence are already available at the FJC today.

The Family Court may permit the giving of evidence through a live video or live television link, in family violence proceedings under the Women's Charter, where certain conditions are satisfied, including where the witness is below the age of 18.

The Court will assess the relevant facts and circumstances of each case to decide if such permission should be given. This includes the suitability of the witness to give evidence via live video or live television link and the nature of the evidence that the witness will be giving.

Apart from arranging for such witnesses to give evidence by video in a separate room in the FJC, the Court may also permit a vulnerable witness to be accompanied by a trained Court volunteer recruited by the Singapore Children's Society, under the Vulnerable Witness Support Programme. The trained volunteer will not only accompany the vulnerable witness during the Court proceedings, but will provide the witness with information about Court processes and procedures, and continue to provide the witness with emotional support after the hearing.

Mr Pillai spoke about ensuring that the housing needs of divorcing parties and children are addressed when the Court decides on the division of the matrimonial flat. The parties are required to provide key information on their HDB property as part of the divorce application.

In deciding the division of the matrimonial assets, the Court does consider the welfare and needs of the children. The Court may also direct parties to seek HDB's views and consider information provided by HDB on, for example, the retention of the matrimonial flat and post-divorce housing options for the divorcing parties and their children.

There are also various support schemes put in place by HDB and MSF to ensure a smooth housing transition for divorcees. To equip parties with the knowledge and skills to make informed decisions regarding the matrimonial property that prioritises the child’s well-being, MSF's Family Assist Portal will provide parties with information on post-divorce housing options.

The Mandatory Co-Parenting Programme, which all divorcing parents with minor children must go through before filing for divorce, will equip and encourage parents to make informed decisions, including on post-divorce housing arrangements, which prioritise the well-being of their children.

The Court can refer divorcing parties to HDB for housing counselling before the divorce is finalised, for them to better understand their post-divorce housing options.

In deciding the division of the matrimonial flat, even when the parties have reached an agreement, the Court does consider the welfare and needs of the children and direct parties to seek HDB's views. The Court may consider information provided by HDB on, for example, the retention of the matrimonial flat and post-divorce housing options for the divorcing parties and their children.

Nevertheless, we thank Mr Pillai for his suggestions and we will continue to study how the process relating to the division of the matrimonial flat may be strengthened to protect the interests of children.

Ms Hany Soh has asked about the docketing system for divorce proceedings on the ordinary track. She also made suggestions on how a global settlement could be facilitated. Whether a contested case is suitable for docketing to designated judges depends on the facts of the case. Generally, high conflict cases and cases involving highly contentious issues on the custody, care and control of children, are docketed. As far as possible, docketing is done in the earlier stages of proceedings to allow a single judge to take charge of the case.

Presently, almost all contested cases are referred to mediation in the early stages of proceedings. Nonetheless, we thank Ms Soh for her suggestions and will certainly continue to study how we can improve therapeutic justice outcomes in all aspects of the divorce process.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan has asked about allowing the FJR to prescribe that judges may conduct interviews with children. Mr Louis Chua has also made suggestions on training family judges to handle children in interviews with them. I mentioned in my opening speech the rationale behind this amendment, including the need for more clarity in the legislation.

I also briefly mentioned that judicial interviews are not the only – nor the preferred – method of ascertaining a child's wishes, but will complement the variety of methods that can be used to hear the child's voice. I would add that family judges do receive specialised training on whether, when and how to interview a child. This training sensitises family judges to the needs of a child, the safety concerns and the potential impact the Court proceedings may have on the child.

Judicial interviews of children may also be conducted in the joint presence of FJC's Court Family Specialists who are proficient in interviewing children. The Court Family Specialist is a trained professional and experienced counsellor, psychologist or social worker from the Counselling and Psychological Services (CAPS), which is the social science arm of the Family Justice Courts.

Mr Melvin Yong asked about the minimum age of children being interviewed. There is no minimum age in legislation. As the ability to communicate can differ across children of the same age, a different approach may be required for each child. The Courts have, however, held that judicial interviews would only be useful where the "children are mature enough to convey their views independently". The Women's Charter also provides that the child should be "of an age to express an independent opinion". Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Family proceedings are unique. They also often involve children, who will be worst affected by strained relationships and fractured family ties.

This is why “Therapeutic Justice” has been given much attention in implementing family proceedings. We want the Court process to nudge the family towards an outcome that is beneficial to all parties. We want to equip families involved with the necessary tools and resources so that they can move on and emerge from adversity. We do not wish to see families getting entangled in acrimonious litigation.

Therefore, this Bill aims to enhance the therapeutic justice elements in the family justice system.

The recommendations in this Bill include:

(a) Strengthening the power of judges to take a proactive approach to the cases before them. This includes allowing them to make certain orders at their own discretion to address any urgent need of the families involved;

(b) Authorising the judge to prohibit the parties involved from submitting additional applications which are unnecessary and have no strong justifications, without the leave of the Court; and

(c) Enabling judges to impose restrictions on cross-examination under certain circumstances, where the questioning of a vulnerable witness may be intimidating or oppressive.

These new reforms will complement some enhancements to the family justice system that have been implemented by MSF and MinLaw, together with the Family Justice Court (FJC), over the years to make family proceedings less acrimonious.

Today, in Parliament, the Family Justice Reform Bill will introduce major changes to the maintenance enforcement process. Over the years, we have progressively refined the maintenance enforcement framework. However, we still see a relatively high number of cases against those who refuse to comply with the maintenance order. We have received feedback on the anxiety, frustration and other real-life impact on the applicant. These changes are intended to address the needs from the feedback.

A new unit of Maintenance Enforcement Officers (MEO) will be set up. Parties no longer need to apply to Court and go through a formal legal process to gather evidence on the assets and means of the parties involved.

MEO will be authorised to obtain the information directly from the parties involved or from designated entities, such as banks, CPF Board, HDB, IRAS, SLA, LTA and CDP. MEO will submit this information to the Court, and the Court can use this information when making a judgment.

The Maintenance Enforcement Process (MEP) will apply to Court orders made by the Singapore Syariah Court which, under the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA), may be treated as maintenance orders made by the Family Court for the purposes of enforcement.

As a result, this will save time as there is no need to attend multiple Court hearings, save money because there is no need to pay legal fees, and reduce hardship as there is no need to prove the asset and the ability of the parties involved for the parties.

It is hoped that this latest reform will help to further strengthen the family justice system by reducing acrimony, pain and suffering of families and the children.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now conclude. The amendments in this Bill will simplify and make family proceedings more efficient. They will also reduce acrimony in family proceedings, strengthening Therapeutic Justice in the family justice system.

With the new MEP strengthening deterrence against respondents who refuse to pay, and facilitating more sustainable maintenance outcomes where respondents cannot pay, it is hoped that situations where children and vulnerable family members are left in financial neglect will be reduced.

We will also continue to work closely with our partners in the legal community and social services, such as the DSSAs, to provide more avenues of support to individuals who may nevertheless find the process challenging.

Where the financial needs of the families who have undergone a breakdown are met in a timely manner, this will go a long way towards helping families to heal and move on from the breakdown of the family unit, in a positive manner. Divorced parents will also be able to better focus on co-parenting in a manner which best protects their children’s interests.