Abdullah Tarmugi:
Sir, I appreciate the Member's concern. Notwithstanding what I have said, I think we can still discuss this further in the Select Committee.
With regard to whether it is my personal view, whether I am old-fashioned or male chauvinist, I do realise that, Sir. In fact, Members must have known that my own stand on marriage between transsexuals, for example, is quite different from what I have said here. In other words, amendments could be made to allow this. So there is a difference between how I feel and how I feel the law should be applied to the community.
And so the bill was sent to a Select Committee, from where it re-emerged for its third reading, in August 1996.
The third reading
Soin's suggestion did not get through the Select Committee, and the amended Amendment bill that came for the third reading failed to reflect her point.
In introducing the third reading on 27 August 1996,
Abdullah Tarmugi, the Minister for Community Development, touched on this:
Dr Kanwaljit Soin had proposed during the Second Reading of the Bill that partial rights under special circumstances, if not full rights, be extended to husbands to claim maintenance from their wives. Sir, differing views were received from representors on this by the Select Committee. Those who supported this proposal argued that an increasing number of women are better educated and earning just as much if not more than their husbands. Those who supported partial rights suggested that such rights be extended to a man when he is disabled or has custody of the children and needs to take up a part-time job. Those who objected to the extension of maintenance to husbands argued that the reality of the situation is that the majority of women still earn lower salaries than their husbands. In most cases, the burden of caring for children, the house and the spouse still falls largely on women. These representors were of the view that as disparity still exists between men and women,
it would be untimely to consider such a proposal at this juncture.
The Committee notes that women have advanced over the years. However, the Committee also notes that there is still some disparity, though a decreasing one, between most men and women. As such, the Committee agrees that it may not be timely to introduce such a provision now.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Committee also notes that there are existing provisions in the Women's Charter under which a mother can be required by the court to maintain her child. A mother is therefore not absolved from maintaining her children if she is in a position to do so. The Committee thus recommends that the existing provision for only men to maintain their wives and children be retained.
It's a bit of a mush, as explained in the article Ego trumps equity
and was begging to be called so. Soin rose to the occasion.
Kanwaljit Soin:
.... I fail to understand the Minister's stand in the area of maintenance for husbands. I see contradictions in adopting the position of allowing wives to claim maintenance from their husbands but disallowing husbands to do the same. Sir, let me explain.
The Women's Charter was first passed in September 1961 and at that time it was hailed as a very progressive piece of legislation. One of the main reasons for labelling it thus was section 45 which laid out the equal rights and duties of a husband and wife, and I stress, equal rights and duties of a husband and wife.
I would like to read this section 45 to refresh the memories of some Members who seem to have forgotten it.
(1) Upon the solemnisation of marriage, the husband and wife shall be mutually bound to cooperate with each other in safeguarding the interests of the union and in caring and providing for the children.
(2) The husband and wife shall have the right separately to engage in any trade or profession or in social activities.
(3) The wife shall have the right to use her own surname and name separately.
(4) The husband and wife shall have equal rights in the running of the matrimonial household.
Thus, as far back as 1961, the Women's Charter clearly propounded the idea of marriage as an equal partnership between a man and a woman.
Thirty-five years have rolled by and a whole new generation has grown up. New realities have emerged which are in keeping with the original enlightened section 45 of the Women's Charter but the sad fact is that the present repeal and re-enactment of section 61 is out of step with section 45 of the Women's Charter.
The re-enacted section 61 allows a wife to claim maintenance from her husband but does not allow a husband to have the same right. This is not only at variance with section 45 but is also incongruous with today's reality of economically active wives. There is no rational distinction between a financially able husband and an equally financially able wife. 40% of married couples have both wives and husbands working for a living. 80% of new brides are working and among the younger couples, one-third of the brides are marrying grooms with lower educational qualifications and presumably these brides are therefore earning more than the grooms. In this changed socio-economic context, why are wives not being asked to shoulder the responsibility of supporting their husbands financially? If the Minister does not want to take such a bold but necessary step, then he may wish to consider a compromise, and politics is full of compromises, and follow the example of the Malaysian law which gives limited rights to the husband to claim maintenance from his wife when he is ill or incapacitated. During the Select Committee hearings, I think five representors representing women's groups expressed the view that maintenance to husbands, especially in appropriate cases, should be given. These women's groups represent the views of a wide cross section of women.
Considering the changed socio-economic context of 1996 as compared to 1961, and considering that women's groups generally want the law to be changed, especially when husbands are disabled or sick, I fail to understand the reluctance and resistance of the Minister to take cognizance of this. Besides ignoring many women's views, there are wider implications of not allowing husbands to claim maintenance from their wives.
If a woman is capable of supporting her husband or her former husband who needs maintenance, especially if he is sick or disabled, then why are we allowing the woman to get away without fulfilling her responsibility? If a woman earns a good income but does not voluntarily want to support an ill husband, why should this burden then fall on society and the taxpayers while the woman gets away scot-free? A comparison can be made
with the Maintenance of Parents Act where unfilial children have to shoulder the responsibility of maintaining their parents and not leaving ti to society in general.
Let me give you one concrete example. Wife who is is a stockbroker is earning a lot of money but she does not get along well with her husband who happens to be sick and has kidney disease and therefore is unable to work. The husband and wife, as I said, do not get along well and so the wife does not want to support him. Why should the sick husband not be able to claim maintenance from his wife but instead he has to turn to Medifund or some other publicly financed agency to help him in his health care costs and for his daily care and needs? Why should society have to maintain the husband when the wife or the ex-wife is shirking this responsibility but can afford it?
Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to take on our rightful responsibility towards our husbands and to consolidate the idea of marriage as a partnership, many individual Singaporean women, women's groups and I want husbands, especially those who are sick and disabled, to be able to claim maintenance from their wives. However, the Minister is not listening to us. And this situation puts us in a difficult and no-win position because as long as this discrimination exists in law, women will be accused of not shouldering their responsibilities. This is manifested in some of the letters which are written to the Straits Times complaining that since women do not have to maintain husbands, women should not be asking for equality of treatment in other fields. Through no fault of ours and because the Government does not want to listen to us, the women of Singapore have to put up with the barbed insults of some Singaporean men. I would therefore like to request the Minister to equalise the situation in the law by just changing the word "wife" to "spouse" and that is all the Minister will have to do. And if at this time there are very few husbands who would want to claim maintenance from their wives, so be it.
Some of the male MPs have told me that they would never accept maintenance from a woman as this would hurt their male pride. To them, I would like to say that for the truly needy husbands much more than their male pride will be hurt if they get no maintenance from their wives when they desperately need it. Also, what will be the effect on the children of these families when mothers are seen to be able to get away without supporting the sick or disabled husbands and instead the children have to see their fathers turning to public agencies for help as their mothers are not being legislated to help these needy husbands? We should never let this happen, Mr Deputy Speaker.
If the Minister's reply to this is that wives can be persuaded to support their husbands without appropriate legislation, then I would like to ask the Minister why do we need legislation for husbands to maintain their wives? Why do we not also rely on persuasion? It is precisely because persuasion alone without legislation is insufficient to do the job. Surely the Minister does not believe that women are morally more upright than men and therefore can be easily subject to persuasion and do not need legislation.
I would really like an extensive reply from the Minister on this score because the women of Singapore want to know why this responsibility is being denied to them.
Kenneth Chan Koon Lap (PAP MP Hong Kah GRC) was the next to speak.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to comment on the issue of maintenance
for husbands which has been brought up by the Nominated MP, Dr Soin.
As we all know, in Singapore, husbands are deemed to be the head of the family and are responsible for looking after the welfare for their wives and children.
Some MPs: Hear, hear!
Kenneth Chen:
It has nothing to do with gender equality nor subjecting the wife to be subservient to the husband. Marriage is a physical as well as a spiritual union between two persons. It is not a commercial contract and should never be viewed as such. Entrusting the husband the responsibility to look after the family is a social value which we have adopted for our society and I think it is a correct one.
The argument that women are now better educated and earning just as much if not more than the husband is only partially true, as the majority of our women are still dependent on the financial and moral support of their husbands. The present provision of the wife to claim maintenance from the husband therefore should be maintained. And I am sure that the majority of our women will have no problem with this concept.
It was argued that there may be cases where the husband may become terminally ill or handicapped and may not be able to be gainfully employed. In cases like that, in our Asian society I doubt very much that many of our women will abandon their husbands just because they contracted terminal illness or have become handicapped. To use financial means to absolve one's marital responsibilities is not in our Asian culture nor should it ever
be.
In an unlikely situation where such cases do happen, I am sure the immediate families will rally around them, failing which the
MCD [Ministry of Community development] - I am sure the Minister will agree - or other social organisations will provide sufficient schemes to look after these unfortunate cases, if there are any.
Finally, perhaps the most important fact for us to consider now is that the Women's Charter is essentially legislated for the protection of women. Although it has been extended to cover certain aspects for the protection of the aged and children, I feel strongly that the main focus should still be on protection of women and there is no compelling reason at this point of time to widen the scope of the Bill to the protection of men.
Some MPs: Hear, hear!
Then, Mohd Maidin spoke on some other aspects of the Bill, after whom,
Abdullah Tarmugi summed up.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Members of this House who spoke on the Bill, especially Dr Soin for her impassioned speech for women. I must say that I empathise with many of her feelings. And I must say too that many people, many males, indeed, empathise with what she said. But the fact of the matter is that there are also many people who feel otherwise, even women. To say that all women feel the same way is not true. Even during the representations, the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations (SCWO), which is the umbrella women's organisation, spoke against the maintenance for husbands, even in a limited way, because they thought it would impose further burdens on the wife who
is already burdened with the duties in the family and maybe perhaps also with duties as a worker.
I can understand her eagerness to extend maintenance payments to husbands, especially in the light of current debate on women being accused of not playing their part in society. I do not want to get involved in this male/female argument. I want to stay above all these.
She mentioned that there is some incongruity between section 16 and section 45 of the Women's Charter. Section 45 of the Women's Charter existed since 1961, as she mentioned. Maintenance for husbands was never in the Act and nobody made any squeak about it. It was only recently when a review of the Women's Charter was made that somehow along the way people say that section 61 is now contrary to section 45. I understand that things have changed and things are changing. But at this moment in time, I think the general view is that, as has been mentioned by Mr Kenneth Chen, the Member for Hong Kah GRC, it is the husband's duty to maintain his wife morally and legally. And I think this is shared by many men outside this House, and certainly after you have heard the "ayes" from this House, that it is the view of most of the Members of this House here.
Tarmugi then covered some other issues, but came back to this topic in his closing sentences:
....We did not arrive at the conclusions easily. There are indeed issues which we feel may be advisable in the long term but not at this moment in time at least; for example, maintenance for husbands. I am keeping my mind open about it. Perhaps, who knows, in the next century, the matter may be raised again and we may be better prepared to consider that. But for the moment, let the men maintain their wives.
The Amendment Bill was passed. 
|
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.
