A charter for the family?

[iwishweallcouldwin]

A charter for the family? ; To keep the Women’s Charter relevant, it should evolve into an omnibus family legislation
Eugene K B Tan 

801 words
23 September 2010
TODAY (Singapore)
TDAYSG
APM
22
English
(c) 2010. MediaCorp Press Ltd.
Marriage, in essence, is a private matter between two persons. Nevertheless, the state of marriages has profound societal and public policy implications.

Aimed at raising the status of women in Singapore, the Women’s Charter was a pioneering legislation at its promulgation in 1961. It signalled the death-knell for polygamous marriages by providing only for monogamous marriages for non-Muslim Singaporeans. (Marriages between Muslims are generally governed by syariah law.)

Among other things, it deals with the rights and duties of married persons, the protection of the family, the maintenance of wives and children, and punishment for offences against women and girls.

Crucially, its raison d’etre is to mandate the equality of the wife and husband in a marriage. Of course, mindset changes relating to traditional gender roles take a while to evolve.

But the charter has certainly played a catalytic role in Singapore’s economic progress by encouraging fuller economic participation of women through providing for equal rights of the husband and wife in a marriage, and recognising that wives have a separate identity from their husbands.

Official discourse and public policy posits Singapore as a patriarchal society, declaring unabashedly the man as the head of the household.

However, Section 46 of the charter states that “the husband and the wife shall be mutually bound to co-operate with each other in safeguarding the interests of the union and in caring and providing for the children”. The same provision goes on to emphasise that “the husband and the wife shall have equal rights in the running of the matrimonial household”.

The Government has proposed to amend the charter in three broad areas; namely to facilitate marriages in Singapore involving Singapore citizens or permanent residents; measures to address divorce and its impact; and, most significantly, measures to strengthen the enforcement of maintenance orders.

Although the changes relate to mainly to operational issues, the proposed tweaks also reflect the changing realities of Singaporean society.

Given the large numbers of Singaporeans overseas, such absent citizens cannot be ignored in policy-making and execution. For absent citizens, the jurisdictional bounds of laws, often defined rigidly by territorial boundaries, are increasingly perceived as being unduly restrictive, inadequate and citizen-unfriendly.

Take, for instance, the proposed amendment to waive the 15-day residence requirement for the issuance of a marriage licence for a couple where both of whom are Singapore citizens and/or permanent residents.

With about 180,000 Singaporeans living overseas primarily for work or study, this change seeks to facilitate overseas Singaporeans wishing to marry in Singapore without the residence requirement being a hindrance. This move enables such couples to maintain their links with Singapore, connected to her through a significant life event.

With more Singaporeans in international marriages (that is marriage between two persons of different nationalities), the amendments also seek to empower our courts with expanded powers to make ancillary orders in connection with divorces obtained in foreign courts.

Another reality is the general upward trend in divorces over the last two decades. To help couples prepare for marriage and to stem the rising divorce rates, the proposed amendments will require “vulnerable” groups to attend marriage preparation courses.

This is likely to include couples where at least one party is below 21 years of age, and couples where at least one party is previously divorced and there are children entering the remarriage.

Another proposed amendment would require parties in a divorce to attend compulsory counselling and mediation if there are children below 21 years of age from the marriage.

This attempt to address post-divorce child-related issues, such as care and control of the child, reinforces a cardinal principle in family law — that of the “best interests of the child”.

Overall, the amendments do not amount to a revamp of the charter. Although we are some way off from true gender equality, the imperative to protect the family takes on added urgency at a time of rapid and bewildering socio-economic change.

Future reviews should explore removing the anachronistic partial legal immunity for marital rape in the Penal Code. More significantly, what about promulgating a Family Charter, incorporating the Women’s Charter and consolidating the various legislations pertaining to the family and children?

Official statistics suggest that the family is increasingly under threat. While laws cannot secure family cohesion and vitality, they can provide the normative framework to protect marriages and, when they fail, that children are protected as much as they can.

As the proposed changes suggest, the intended ultimate beneficiary is the family, in particular the children.

The writer is assistant professor of law at the School of Law, Singapore Management University.




Anyone responding to the government's call for public feedback about the charter mentioned above? What are your views on this amendment and its implications on society??

[Shaihulud]

I see no reason to rename the womens charter to change its nature, from one designed to protect womens right to one legislating families. It would in time dilute the specific function of the charter.