In 1996, the Women's Charter underwent a number of amendments to include provisions on domestic violence, division of matrimonial assets, enforcement of maintenance orders and recognition of marriages of sex-changed persons.
This appendix archives the government's
explanation for why they had to amend the law to cater to sex-changed
persons. There was no debate from the floor of the House.
In contrast, there was a considerable
debate about why ex-husbands could not claim maintenance from
higher-income ex-wives, in the same sittings of parliament. For the speeches relating to
this matter, see Why no alimony for ex-husbands
In this appendix, the indented text are
directly from the Hansard. The non-indented text are remarks by Yawning
Bread to set context.
Second reading
Abdullah Tarmugi,
Minister for Community Development, moving the Amendment Bill to the
Women's Charter on 2 May 1996:
Clause 4 of the Bill proposes a new
section 11A to:
(1) clarify that a marriage solemnised
in Singapore of elsewhere between two persons of the same sex shall be
void;
(2) recognise the new sex of a person
who has undergone sex reassignment procedure and accept the reassigned
sex as stated in a person's identity card as conclusive evidence of his
or her sex; and
(3) allow persons who have undergone
sex reassignment procedure to marry and to declare past and future
marriages of such persons to be valid.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware that this
amendment has raised some concerns among some members of the public. The
issue is indeed a complex one and touches on moral, cultural and
religious values. Sir, permit me to explain the proposed amendments
which were made after much discussion and deliberation with several
parties.
Sex reassignment procedure has been
allowed in Singapore since 1971. A person who has successfully completed
a sex reassignment procedure has to change his or her identity card to
reflect the new sex and identity. A small group of individuals in
Singapore have indeed undergone the procedure and have had their
identity cards changed.
In June 1991, things changed for this
group of trans-sexuals who had married when the High Court ruled in the
case of Lim vs Hiok that the Women's Charter did not permit
marriages between two persons of the same biological sex. Until the
ruling, the Registry of Marriages had all along accepted the identity
card as documentary proof of the identity and sex of a person. Those who
had undergone sex reassignment procedure were able to marry using their
identity cards which reflected their new sex. Following the 1991 court
ruling, the Registry of Marriages stopped allowing the use of identity
cards and began to require applicants to bring their birth certificates
as evidence of their sex instead. For those who got married before the
ruling, the court's decision meant that their marriages were now void.
And if they have adopted children, the status of these children is now
uncertain.
Sir, I must emphasise that the proposed
amendments are not meant to institute a new practice. Rather they are to
reinstate what was the position before 1991. The Government's stand is
very clear: it is not a move to encourage or promote lesbianism,
homosexuality, transvestism or sex reassignment among our people. We do
not believe the amendments will result in our people reassigning their
sex in droves. The Bill basically seeks a practical and humane
approach to address the problems faced by this group of people and the
families they have set up. It is to allow these individuals to lead a
life according to their new status, as recorded in their identity cards,
as we have all along used the NRIC to verify identity. It is practical.
It is sensible.
Sex reassignment is a costly, painful
and long process. A person has to undergo extensive psychological and
physical assessment by psychologists and doctors to assess his or her
need for sex reassignment to function better and more comfortably. Only
when it is deemed necessary by the professionals is a person allowed to
proceed with the sex reassignment procedure.
I wish to reiterate that the amendment
will apply only to civil marriages and not to Muslim marriages which are
government by a different set of laws, ie, the Administration of Muslim
Law Act (AMLA). Islam prohibits sex reassignment and does not recognise
marriages between people who have undergone sex reassignment.
His last paragraph is at variance with
the decades-old fatwa from the late Shiite leader Ayatollah Khomeini who
ruled that transsexuality was a physical disorder which can be corrected
by medical and surgical means like any other physical disorder. But then,
Muslims in Singapore tend to follow the Sunni branch.
There were no significant comments by any
MPs on the proposed bill, which was then sent to a Select Committee after
the second reading.
Third reading
At the third reading, on 27 August 1996,
the minister Tarmugi announced one changed coming out of the Select
Committee. That was that
.... the provision to accept the
notation of sex in the identity card .... as "conclusive
evidence" of a person's sex would be too rigid and problematic. The
Committee agrees with this view and recommends that the words
"conclusive evidence" be replaced by "prima facie
evidence" to address this concern.
Again, like in the second reading, no MP
mentioned this amendment to the Women's Charter, except for Mohamad
Maidin B P M (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information
and the Arts), who had an anecdote to share:
I just like to recall an incident about
a month or so ago. One of my constituents came to my
Meet-the-People session. He came in full army uniform. He is
currently serving national service. He came together with his fiancee
and asked how come his marriage application was rejected. He said,
"I serve in the Army and that means I am a man. But when I applied
to register my marriage, my application was rejected (because he was
born a female)". So he felt very awkward to be accepted as a man,
and at the same time to be treated as a woman when it comes to marriage.
Sir, because I serve as one of the
Members in the Select Committee, that evening I was able to explain to
him that an amendment is currently being considered for the Women's
Charter and after we have passed the Bill, I am sure he would be happy
that his application for marriage would be accepted.
Sir, I mentioned this story because I
remember the glow in his face after I explained that we are doing
something about it. His fiancee was also very happy that they were given
a chance, despite the odd situation he was in, that he can now forma
family and try his best to live happily ever after.
Note that this story involves a
female-to-male sex change, which is not normally what we have in mind when
we think of sex-changed persons. And the poor guy had to serve national
service too! 
|
