Skip to main content
Hamburger Menu Close

Advertisement

Singapore

From Emergency Orders to e-tagging: Changes to Women's Charter to better protect family violence victims

New laws also make it easier to protect victims under the influence of perpetrators of family violence.

From Emergency Orders to e-tagging: Changes to Women's Charter to better protect family violence victims

Minister of State for Social and Family Development Sun Xueling speaks in Parliament on Jul 4, 2023.

SINGAPORE: Amendments to Singapore's Women’s Charter were passed on Tuesday (Jul 4) with the aims of better protecting victims of family violence and giving the government more powers to deal with such cases.

Presenting a Bill for a second reading in parliament, Minister of State for Social and Family Development Sun Xueling noted that the Women’s Charter - a legislative Act passed in 1961 - provides protection for all survivors of family violence, regardless of gender.

Last year, about 2,000 personal protection order (PPO) applications were made to the Family Justice Courts, of which 25 per cent were made by men, she said.

The latest changes will give the Women's Charter a more comprehensive framework against family violence, said Ms Sun.

Here are the key amendments to the Act:

UPDATED DEFINITIONS

The existing definition of “family violence” has been updated to make clear that it includes physical, sexual, emotional and psychological abuse.

One example is controlling or coercive behaviour - where perpetrators threaten to withhold monthly allowances from their spouses, constantly call to check on their whereabouts, and isolate them from friends or family, including by not allowing them to leave the house.

These “egregious” forms of controlling behaviour can cause distress or mental harm to a survivor, and would now be considered emotional or psychological abuse.

The case of Mrs B

The updated definition of family violence would protect people like Mrs B – a Long-Term Visit Pass Holder living in Singapore with her husband Mr B and their son.

Mr B would often exert power and control over his wife by threatening to chase her out of the house and to not renew her Long-Term Visit Pass, leaving her with no physical or financial resources.

Mrs B and her son had also suffered serious physical abuse from Mr B. Due to the immense fear of her husband's threats, Mrs B was afraid to apply for a PPO as it might result in her being chased out of the house and separated from her child.

The new amendments would provide greater assurance that such controlling behaviour by Mr B is a form of abuse, and that remedies are available, said Ms Sun.

Collapse

EASIER, FASTER APPLICATIONS

With a PPO, a Counselling Order or a Domestic Exclusion Order can be issued. But there have been cases where perpetrators continued to harass survivors outside their homes, or make threats via text messages.

With the legislative changes, courts can now issue a Stay Away Order or a No Contact Order to prevent these other forms of harassment.
 
A perpetrator issued a Stay Away Order cannot enter or remain in areas frequented by the survivor - such as a workplace or a childcare centre. A No Contact Order prohibits visits or communications with the survivor. 

MORE POWERS

Ms Sun said that in recent times, social service agencies and the government have encountered cases where adult survivors chose not to keep themselves safe from family violence.

The amendments will grant powers to “protectors” - people with suitable qualifications and experience, appointed by the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF) Director-General of Social Welfare - to intervene in certain circumstances.

Protectors will be able to issue Emergency Orders on site, in high-risk cases where there is a danger of the perpetrator committing family violence imminently against the survivor.

It takes effect immediately and is valid for 14 days, to give the survivor time to apply for a PPO. 

The case of Mr D

Emergency Orders will be useful for Mr D, a 20-year-old tertiary student repeatedly hit and punched by his stepfather.

Mr D’s mother was unable to protect him and the violence continued. With the help of social work professionals from a Protection Specialist Centre, he moved to a transitional shelter.

Though he was safe there, he had to live apart from his mother and step-siblings.

In such cases, an Emergency Order would be issued to Mr D’s stepfather immediately and at the scene, restraining him from committing further violence, said Ms Sun.

A Domestic Exclusion Order could also be issued to prohibit Mr D’s stepfather from being at home, thus ensuring Mr D’s safety while allowing him to continue living with his mother and step-siblings.

Collapse

Protectors will also be allowed to obtain information on whether someone has experienced or is at risk of experiencing family violence. For example, they will be conferred powers to enter a home to make an assessment where needed.

They can also help victims, who are unwilling to protect themselves, apply for PPOs and other orders.

Currently a family member, guardian, relative or appointed person can only step in to apply for PPOs on behalf of survivors below 21 years of age or who are incapacitated.

But not all survivors will choose to keep themselves safe, sometimes due to perpetrators exerting undue influence over them, said Ms Sun. 

In response to questions from Members of Parliament about the power of protectors, Ms Sun said they would be social service professionals trained in managing family violence and protection cases, and with expertise in trauma-informed care and support.

They understand that powers are to be exercised “appropriately and judiciously” with the safety and well-being of the survivor as the primary consideration, she added. 

“This is physically and emotionally demanding work," said Ms Sun.

"And we will ensure that our protectors continue to be provided with the necessary resources such as sufficient manpower, training and access to up-to-date research to exercise the new powers in this Bill and tackle family violence effectively.” 

Ms Sun also addressed concerns raised by Ms Sylvia Lim (Workers' Party-Aljunied) on whether perpetrators who commit arrestable offences will only be dealt with under the Women's Charter, "inadvertently downgrading the seriousness" of the incident.

Ms Sun said the police would continue to address domestic violence cases as per usual, if there are arrestable offences. In high-risk family violence situations, the police will jointly respond with a domestic violence emergency response team.

The police will continue to handle cases with law and order issues, while officers from the emergency response team will address immediate safety concerns and refer families to protection specialist centres for follow-up interventions, she said.

ELECTRONIC MONITORING

Protectors can also apply to the court for electronic monitoring, which could include e-tagging.

This will be used against high-risk perpetrators in exceptional cases, where there is reasonable suspicion that a PPO has been breached with harm inflicted on the survivor; and the survivor has not taken steps to protect themselves, said Ms Sun.

E-tagging has been used for accused persons released on bail, and MSF also uses e-tagging on probationers.

“Through e-tagging, the authorities can be alerted if, for example, a perpetrator with a Domestic Exclusion Order made against him or her enters the survivor’s home, so action can be taken quickly,” Ms Sun said.

REMOVING SURVIVORS FROM HOMES

As a last resort and when all other interventions fail, the amendments allow protectors to apply to the court to remove survivors from their home. 

At the same time, the court must also make a Care Order, a Supervision Order, or both.

A Care Order commits the survivor to the care of a fit person. A Supervision Order places the survivor under the supervision of a protector or another suitable person appointed by the court, for a time. 

The case of Mdm Y

In a 2017 case, a 30-year-old master’s degree student physically abused his 68-year-old mother, Mdm Y.

He starved her and did not allow her to shower or to make noise when he was stressed with his studies. He also hit her face and assaulted her private parts with a metal padlock and with his knee.

Despite being hospitalised multiple times for serious injuries and being placed in a safe house, Mdm Y insisted on returning home. As she did not want to implicate her son, she did not attribute the injuries to him. She also did not retaliate whenever he took out his frustrations on her.

With the amendments, a protector would be able to apply for a PPO with a Domestic Exclusion Order against the son to prohibit him from returning home, even if Mdm Y does not consent.

The protector may make a police report if there is a breach of the PPO or the Domestic Exclusion Order - which would be an arrestable offence.

In addition, if there is reasonable suspicion that the PPO or Domestic Exclusion Order has been breached with harm inflicted on the survivor, the protector may also apply for electronic monitoring for the son.

As a last resort, if all interventions fail, a protector can apply to the court for Mdm Y to be removed from her home. If granted, she will be placed in a crisis shelter for a specified period until it is safe for her to return home.

Collapse

The court may also make an order against a survivor, prohibiting him or her from returning home; or visiting or communicating with the perpetrator. He or she may be admitted into a residential facility, such as a crisis shelter.

“MSF’s approach to family violence cases is that perpetrators, not survivors, should be held accountable for the violence. Hence, protectors will only apply for a removal order in exceptional, high-risk cases,” said Ms Sun.

Other alternatives such as electronic monitoring of the perpetrator will be considered before this.

Ms Sun also said the government would rather not have to introduce such powers, but real-life cases show that complex dynamics exist between perpetrators and survivors. 

The amendments were thus “carefully calibrated” to give due weight to the principle of protecting lives and preventing further harm, she said.

“Necessary safeguards are put in place to strike a balance between pushing the legal frontiers of protection for survivors and avoiding statutory overreach.”

HEAVIER PENALTIES

The amended Women's Charter also includes provisions to help rehabilitate perpetrators and address the root causes of family violence.

“With appropriate support and intervention, perpetrators can learn to better manage their emotions and behaviours, to break the cycle of violence,” said Ms Sun.

About 93 per cent of PPOs issued from 2018 to 2022 were tagged with a Counselling Order, which compels the perpetrator to attend a counselling programme offered by social service agencies appointed by MSF. 

Following professional assessment by a psychiatrist, the court can also make Mandatory Treatment Orders against perpetrators under a PPO whose psychiatric condition is likely to be a contributing factor to family violence.

The case of Mr Y

Counselling will help perpetrators such as Mr Y, caregiver to his wheelchair-bound mother. Mr Y threatened his mother with a knife and threw away her medication as he did not think it was effective.

Through court-ordered mandatory counselling, Mr Y gained insight into his mother’s care needs and the impact of his actions on her.

He also completed caregiver training to better care for his mother.

Upon the completion of the mandatory counselling sessions, Mr Y voluntarily continued with additional counselling sessions and showed significant improvement in his behaviour.

Mr Y and his mother now enjoy a better relationship with no further incidence of violence.

Collapse

Breaches of a Counselling Order or Mandatory Treatment Order are now considered offences. This was due to feedback that some perpetrators did not take Counselling Orders seriously and did not turn up for counselling sessions.

Penalties for breaches of court orders have also been strengthened.

For a first conviction, the fine will be raised to a maximum of S$10,000, from S$2,000, and the jail term increased to a maximum of 12 months. 

Ms Sun also said that while the current amendments are parked under the Women’s Charter for historical reasons, MSF is considering enacting a standalone Domestic Violence Act in future.

Source: CNA/hm(jo)

Advertisement

RECOMMENDED

Advertisement