Singapore Women's Charter: Roles, Responsibilities and Rights in Marriage

by Theresa W. Devasahayam (Editor)

The chapters in this book are an assembly of commentaries by a distinguished team of specialists on the social impact of the Singapore Women’s Charter on women and men. The Women's Charter is the main legislation protecting women’s rights in the context of the family in Singapore. Highlights of this book include the reasons for the significance of legislation to protect women’s rights in marriage; how the legislation came about; case studies from Southeast Asia; how the Singapore Women’s Charter evolved and became established; how the Charter goes beyond protecting women’s rights by reinforcing men’s and women’s obligations and duties in a marital partnership; how the Charter has come to be perceived by men and women especially in its enforcement in the context of divorce; and the social repercussions of the Charter on the family in its application.There has been ongoing discussion on the implications of the Charter on the lives of Singaporean women and men for some years since its implementation. The purpose of this book is to enrich our understanding of this legislation further — its objectives, efficacy and shortfalls.

242 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 1, 2011

Reviews

[ash | songsforafuturepoet · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Read the stature and you will find that largely it is gender-neutral... The old common law rules that used to apply here as our basic law at one time negated the legal personality of a woman the moment she became married. It was to correct this anomaly that the Woman's Charter required to provide specifically for a married woman to retain all her legal capacities during marriage... Each is returned to his or her full legal status as an individual."

This came at the right time for me - it's a great way to learn about the Women's Charter through broken-down, easy chapters that you can digest. We hear from Theresa W. Devasahayam, Gender Studies Programme coordinator, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Ellen Lee, Family Law specialist and MP, Leong Wai Kun, profession of Faculty of Law, NUS, Sudha Nair, assistant prof at Department of Social Work, NUS, Kanwaljit Soin, social activist, and Ann Wee, associate professorial fellow, Department of Social Work, NUS - they each contribute a chapter to the book.

We learn about the history of and politics surrounding the birth of Women's Charter in Singapore, similar developments and gender issues around that time in SEA, family violence and the legal recourse, a breakdown of the Women's Charter, and the realistic impact it has on women.

Just some of my thoughts as I read the book:

"... the "right-wing" of the PAP was waging a desperate struggle to divert communist fervour into nationalist channels... In previous elections, only British citizens (predominantly Indian, Eurasian, and Straits-born Chinese ) had been eligible to vote. The creation of Singapore citizenship in 1958 enfranchised the mass of the Chinese population... and to this electorate policies must appeal."

The author of this short piece Ann Wee suggests something interesting - that the women's charter came about largely because of Chinese-educated activists and the Chinese immigrant population. During the handover of power from the British to LKY, hordes of Chinese immigrants now become eligible to vote. At the same time it was a strong sentiment that married women should be given legal rights. Strong language that some Chinese activists used against polygamy was indicative of the general sentiments about it - second wives were called 'concubines' and the activists rallied for the exclusion of second wives and their children in terms of maintenance and other benefits of a legal marriage.

I also find it enlightening to see that the trajectory of the development of the Women's Charter in Singapore was similar to our ASEAN neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia. In some aspects they were ahead, in some they were behind.

"Generations of Singaporeans remain indebted to the wise draftsman of the original Women's Charter in 1961 who chose to model this aspect of our law after the Swiss, thus incorporating a moral message in the legal regulation... a provision conveying a moral view of marriage may not even be common within codes in the civil law family of legal systems. Suffice it to say that no provision equivalent to our Section 46(1) exists in the core common law countries of England, the United States, Australia, or New Zealand, and the writer firmly believed that their family laws are the poorer for its absence."

To add context - the Women's Charter in its Section 46(1) provide that: Upon solemnisation of marriage, 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.

I find the chapter's brief explanation of the moral underpinnings behind Singapore's family law very helpful. However, I completely disagree with the writer (quote above) on section 46(1). We must understand that in a patriarchy, morality is influenced and put into place by the patriarchal power. If we base laws on a patriarchal set of morals, we must expect that the resulting laws will not be gender-equal! (And at this point I feel like shouting and shaking someone)

I've seen so many women struggle their way through a legal system that is bent on "family values" - what happens is abused women are told to "work it out" with their abusive husbands unless someone loses an eye, you can't get divorced at all until you're 3 years married - no exceptions for abuse unless you suffer "extreme hardship", the enforcement of maintenance for children after divorce is a huge joke, joint custody is given to so many abusive fathers... these laws are enacted based on the assumption that a man and woman are now equal in a marriage and in society, and that women can now live a life free from the constraints of men; a great step forward from the 1950's, no doubt, but that's not the case.

The writer of this paragraph is unfortunately seemingly unaware of her own perpetuation of the sexist system - while she acknowledges that the criminal act of rape should not exclude rape of married spouses, she says "reasonable people can and do disagree regarding what is the best form of the law of rape as it applies to the husband and wife", going on to question when exactly constitutes a rape between spouses. While I agree such a question is important, again, we should only ask such a question while acknowledging the inequality perpetuated upon women in the legal system, which she didn't.

I confess that this is the first time I'm reading about the morals vs law discourse, and while I feel strongly about this, I'm not well-read at all. I wonder if there are any family laws in the world that is informed by other philosophies or morals - the aforementioned common law that doesn't have the equivalent of 46(1)?

One last note - Subha Nair, in the context of family violence and the then lack of protection for non-married SOs experiencing family violence, said that "instead of being a moral code, the law should focus on projecting the life and rights of individuals, which is tantamount to protecting all women, irrespective of how they live their private lives." I found this humbling.