But he has hitherto got himself involved in such debates, so I actually have to compliment him on the great sagacity which he has shown this afternoon in remaining silent. Mr Speaker, Sir, during this debate, we have heard from the Members opposite that this Bill, far from being the Charter that it claims to be, is just a fake and a sham, just a gimmick on our part - a carrot that we dangle before the women electorate of the State. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the Member for Mountbatten express great distress that there was no expression of our belief that women should get equal pay with men, that women should have the same social advantages as men. We can understand her distress, since everybody knows that she is the Chairman of the Pan-Pacific Women's League, which is an agency of the United Nations. But in that situation she has lost sight of the important thing that this Bill really does for the women of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that the greater majority of the population in Singapore are Chinese and that, by their personal law, they are able to contract polygamous marriages. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is making a very great change in the personal lives of the greater majority of our citizens. It marks a complete break from the past and it is a big step forward. And it is just for that reason that we have thought it important that we consider this piece of legislation as something outside the ordinary stream of legislation that we consider it to be, in the real sense of the word, a Charter for the women of our State. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have considered this to be a Charter for these reasons: One, that it makes a great change in the personal law of the greater majority of our citizens; the next thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that this Bill seeks to place on one common register all marriages which take place in our State. Hitherto, there have been marriages, which have been registered on a special register governing the registration of Christian marriages. There have also been other registers for monogamous marriages which have been contracted under the Civil Marriage Ordinance. We propose in this Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, to bring on to a common register all marriages in future. Mr Speaker, Sir, the laws affecting women and children are spread widely throughout our legislation, and it needs the training and experience of a lawyer to find one's way through that mass of legislation. We thought that this would be an excellent opportunity to collect all such legislations together, to improve on them as far as we can, and then put them in this one compendious and comprehensive piece of legislation which we have thought fit to call the Women's Charter. Mr Speaker, Sir, there have been a lot of criticisms on various clauses in this Bill. They arise not because there are faults in this Bill, but because the Members opposite have not given this Bill the attention that it really deserves. Let me deal with the criticisms that have been made of the various clauses of this Bill. Let me take what the Member for Mountbatten has said. She has expressed great surprise that although under clause 166 of this Bill all polygamous marriages which have taken place before 2nd of March are required to be registered why is it then that clause 32 provides that: "Nothing in this Ordinance or rules made thereunder shall be construed to render valid or invalid merely by reason of its having been or not having been registered any marriage which otherwise is invalid or valid." Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be quite impossible for any legislation to provide that when a marriage is registered, it must necessarily therefore be a valid marriage; and that if a marriage is not registered, then it follows from that that it is not a valid marriage. Mr Speaker, Sir, touching on this point, it looks as if the Member for Mountbatten has failed to understand clause 166 of this Bill. In that clause it is clearly stated that where there is a dispute as to a marriage, then that dispute can be referred to the Registrar for a decision; and if the party is still dissatisfied, then he or she can take the matter further to the High Court for a decision. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have written those provisions into the law to provide for a case like this, where, say, a husband brings a wife to be registered under the provisions of this clause. It may turn out that, in fact, he is not married to her. A case might also arise where a man might bring his second wife to be registered. The first wife might challenge the marriage of the second wife. Both these cases could be challenged under these provisions of the law, so that in either case, if there has been a challenge and if the matter in dispute has been decided by the Registrar in the first instance, or by the High Court Judge on appeal, then there would have been a decision made as to the validity of each marriage. This is provided for in clause 166. So that is the reason why we have found it necessary to provide that, unless the procedure that is open to the parties when there is a dispute under the provisions of clause 166 is followed, registration as such does not under clause 32 in any way affect the validity or invalidity of a marriage. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Mountbatten also mentioned the case of a man who is already married under Chinese customary law leaving this country and going abroad and marrying a young European girl. She asked, what would be the position of the principal wife in that case? Mr Speaker, Sir, if that should happen, this law itself would safeguard the position of the principal wife. All that she has to do is to get herself placed on the register and she will be recognised as that man's wife under the provisions of clause 166. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Mountbatten also referred to clause 35 of the Bill. She says, "Woe betide all mothers here in Singapore once this clause becomes law. They will lose possession of all their daughters and you can expect the worst once this clause is enacted into law." Let us look at this clause, Mr Speaker, Sir. What does it say? It says: "Any person who uses any force or threat-
(a) to compel a person to marry against his will; or (b) to prevent a person who has attained the age of twenty-one years from contracting a valid marriage, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to [penalties]." What is wrong with that clause? Should it not be enacted as law that any person who forces or threatens any person to marry against his or her will should be subject to penalties? Surely that is a reasonable proposition. It does not deprive mothers of the custody of their daughters. It says: "Any person who uses any force or threat-
(b) to prevent a person who has attained the age of twenty-one years from contracting a valid marriage, shall be guilty of an offence...". If a daughter is 21 years old, she has got the right to decide her own future. This law provides for parental consent in the case of marriages of minors who are between the ages of 18 and 21. Clearly, the Member for Mountbatten has shown that she has not taken the trouble to read the provisions of this Bill. If she had done so, she would never have made that suggestion to this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, there have been suggestions that, as a result of clause 166, the position of principal wives is going to be depressed, and mistresses, concubines and prostitutes are going to reap the benefit from this legislation. Sir, surely that could not be submitted to be so by the Members opposite if they had really taken the trouble to read this Bill. I have explained to them just now that under clause 166, it is already provided that where the parties appear before the Registrar and if there is any dispute as to whether they were, in fact, married, that issue of fact can be tried by the Registrar. If they are still dissatisfied with the decision of the Registrar, it goes to the High Court on appeal. All that is provided for in this legislation. Then the Member for Mountbatten started talking about the fees, and soon. She said, in all sincerity, that she believed that the Government was going to charge a fee of $20. I do not know where she got that information from. We are still considering these matters. These are matters of detail, but I am very surprised to know that she has a fixation in her mind that the fee charged is going to be $20. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will go on to consider the objections of the Member for Farrer Park. He has taken exception to one clause of the Bill - clause 3 (2). He says that the exemption here only applies to Muslims who are married under the provisions of the Muslims Ordinance, 1957, implying that it would be possible under this Bill for Muslims, who are not married under the provisions of that Ordinance, to contract a marriage under this Bill. Mr Speaker,. Sir, if he had taken the trouble to look at clause 16 of this Bill, he will find that before any marriage can be solemnized, it will be necessary for the parties to produce a certificate of marriage. It is stated there what the conditions are before a certificate of marriage is issued. One of the conditions there is that they must swear a declaration to the effect: "that neither of the parties to the intended marriage is married under any law, religion, custom or usage to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is proposed to be contracted:". If a Muslim who was married not under the provisions of the Muslims Ordinance but under the provisions of the Muslim law in the Federation comes here and tries to contract a marriage, he would have to swear a declaration that he is not already married under any law, religion, custom or usage. If he makes a false declaration, then he is subject to penalties for doing so. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park has said that he has given this Bill very close scrutiny and he has decided now that there are only two new clauses in this Bill. He has mentioned that these two new clauses are clauses 45 and 166. Sir, we of the P.A.P. Government are not people who try to hide things from the public. With this Bill we have taken the trouble to publish a comparative table showing the sources from which we have obtained the various clauses of this Bill. If the Member for Farrer Park had taken the trouble to count the clauses here which we have acknowledged to be new, then he would have found that they all add up to 13 new clauses. Mr Speaker, Sir, he has dealt particularly with clause 45. He says that clause 45 is making a radical change in the law and is unknown in any legislation. I would advise him that clause 45 is taken from the Swiss Civil Code and it has been considered by eminent jurists before. And he says, "Look at clause 45 (1). Now everybody knows that the duty of a husband is to maintain his wife. And here it says that the duty for caring and providing for the children is now placed on the shoulders of both husband and wife." Mr Speaker, Sir, it is true, in our experience, that when a husband is unemployed or is unable to work, the duty of maintaining that home falls on the woman, particularly if she is able to work and she is, in fact, working. What is wrong with that? As far as the duty of the husband to maintain his wife is concerned, we have strengthened the law, so that if the hon. Member had only taken the trouble to look at clause 62 of the Bill, he would have seen the way in which we have strengthened that duty. We have said that if a husband has ill-treated his wife and his children and he has been convicted for doing so; if he has deserted his wife; if he has neglected to provide reasonable maintenance for her and his children; if he has treated her or any of his children with cruelty; if he is a habitual drunkard; or if he is living in adultery with another woman; he would then be liable to maintain his wife. Under the present law, as everybody knows, before a woman can get a maintenance order against her husband, she would have to prove her case; and if the husband says to the Court, "In spite of what has happened, I am prepared to take her back," the moment he does that, then she is deprived of an order of maintenance. Now we have changed the law here. We have given her an absolute right to maintenance in these circumstances. Surely we have not in any way changed the duties in matrimonial relationships. The hon. Member does not follow clause 45 (2) when he asks, "Why should it be that the husband and the wife shall have the right separately to engage in any trade or profession or in social activities?" Mr Speaker, Sir, he asks, "Well, what do "social activities" mean?" Now if a wife wants to play rnahjong, surely the playing of mahjong is a social activity. I suggest that is just a frivolous argument. Although the husband and wife are associated in a matrimonial home, they are individuals and therefore they can, as individuals, engage in trades and professions. They form a family unit and they are also associated as a family unit in society. All that this provision says is that it would not be right for a husband to place restrictions on the wife taking part in social activities. What is wrong with that? That would be a very sensible thing to introduce in a Bill like this, particularly in a Chapter, which deals with the rights and duties of husband and wife. The hon. Member says that, as clause 45 (3) reads: "The wife shall have the right to use her own surname and name separately." he has no quarrel with that. He goes on to clause 45 (4) and he says that that introduces a novel provision of law. The sub- clause reads: "The husband and the wife shall have equal rights in the running of the matrimonial household and in the ownership and management of the family properties." Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park obviously does not pay due regard to the provisions of clause 48 of the Bill. Clause 48 re-enacts what is the present law, that whatever a woman has which belongs to her before she marries continues to be her separate property on marriage, and that after marriage, if she engages in any trade or occupation or employment and acquires new property, that property which she has acquired after marriage shall continue to be her own separate property. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are situations where a husband and wife can acquire family property, and it would not be right for either of them to regard it as property which is their own and distinct from the family property. That is the sort of thing that this clause deals with. Mr Speaker. Sir, this is the sort of criticism that we have from the Front Bench opposite. The Member for Cairnhill has also not treated the provisions of this Bill in the way that they ought to have been treated. He has charged the Government with introducing legislation, which will enable prostitutes to be classed in the same category as married women. Surely, as a responsible member of the community, he could never have made such a charge if he had taken the trouble to read the provisions of this Bill. He has said that education, and not law, will achieve the purposes that we have in mind. Mr Speaker, Sir, why was it necessary then that we should have these provisions in clause 166? Are we trying to inflict hardship on our women? Are we going to make things more difficult for them? If we are going to introduce a law governing monogamy, the only way that we can introduce it and be sure that there is monogamy is to provide, at the same time, a system of registration for all existing marriages. We have heard the Member for Mountbatten say that the polygamous marriages which have taken place under local Chinese custom are of various kinds. She has referred to some as "joss-stick marriages" and she has called others more important marriages. Mr Speaker, Sir, if we legislate that from the 2nd of March any person who has previously been married cannot take unto himself a second wife, and merely legislate it in that way, what guarantee have we that there would be monogamy in our State? It is always a disputable question whether a person who has been married to four or five wives under the local Chinese custom would consider those marriages to be binding marriages. A rich man with four or five wives might, if he is not required to register, very well contract a marriage under this law. He may say, "Well, I do not regard those marriages as marriages at all. They were joss stick marriages." We cannot have that situation happen. I do agree, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it would be necessary for us to make provision for the registration of these marriages in such a way as not to cause any hardship to the community. That is a matter of detail, which the Government is looking into very seriously now. There is also the period of grace referred to by the Member for Cairnhill. We realise that the period of one year may be too short a period. That is why we have thought it necessary that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, so that provisions like this could be looked at with a view to improvement. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has also referred to clause 4, sub-clause (2) of the Bill. I really fail to understand what difficulty he has seen in this clause. All that the clause says is that on the 2nd of March, say, a man has been married under local Chinese custom to one or more spouses. Then after that date he suddenly ceases to be married to any such spouse or spouses. And if he contracts a marriage after that date, then that marriage will be a monogamous marriage. That is all that it says, and that is what it must say. It is as simple as all that. What is the difficulty? It is so reasonable and so logical and so sensible that I cannot see any difficulty in it myself. One cannot see any difficulty unless one wants to see the difficulty in this clause. On clause 23 (7). This is the form of the marriage ceremony. The Member for Cairnhill finds difficulty in understanding why it is necessary that if the parties do not understand the English language, it will be necessary for the English language to be interpreted to the parties. Is this a difficulty? If these declarations and these forms are to be used, it will be necessary to explain them fully to those who participate in this ceremony in the language they understand. That is all that it provides. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park asks me to explain to this House why it was that long before this Bill was introduced to the House (the words are "long before") he had read the main provisions of this Bill in the local newspapers. If he had only taken the trouble to look at clause 4 (1) he would have read the following: "Every person who on the 2nd day of March, 1960, is lawfully married under any law, religion, custom or usage to one or more spouses shall be incapable, during the continuance of such marriage or marriages of contracting a valid marriage under any law, religion, custom or usage with any person other than such spouse or spouses." Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill was introduced on the 2nd of March. Those newspaper reports appeared on the 1st of March. This Bill makes it an offence for any person who was already married under, say, Chinese customary law, to marry again after the 2nd of March. It was necessary that great publicity be given to this fact, because this Bill is making a very important change in our law. The operative date was the date on which this Bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly, and it was necessary, therefore, that advance notice of that be given. It is the practice in this Legislative Assembly not to publish details of Bills unless and until copies of the Bill are first circulated to hon. Members. But in this case, it was quite an important announcement and it was very necessary that the public should have had advance notice of the fact. And the advance notice was the day before - not "long before", as the Member for Farrer Park stated here. Mr Speaker, Sir, these are matters, which I would otherwise have dealt with in Select Committee, but I have been forced into the position where I have had to deal with these representations, when the principle of the Bill is debated. I would say again, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if they had considered this Bill to be a very important Bill, then they would not have adopted the attitude they had adopted when this Bill was under debate. In the past, we have introduced other Bills and have been accused of springing surprises on them - introducing amendments just before the Bill was to be debated. But in this case, the Bill has been in their possession since the 2nd of March, and they have had ample time to study it. And if they had really taken the trouble to read this Bill and understand it, I am sure they would not have dealt with it in as light-hearted a manner as they had done this afternoon. Mr Speaker, Sir, with due respect, I would say that the Government do not claim that they are perfect and that they are introducing a perfect Bill. But we are trying very hard to do something for the people of Singapore. We are castigated and are said to be dangling carrots before the electorate. But we have been in politics only very recently. The Members opposite, Mr Speaker, Sir, have been in politics for quite a long time. Now, if they had any regard for the rights of women, they would have done this on their own before. Because of their past neglect, they jumped upon us just now. We are interested in doing what they had failed to do. I do say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Bill is an important piece of legislation. It will do for the women in our community what no other piece of legislation can do. It is no use thinking in terms of high-sounding phrases in legislation if the most important thing is not done first, and that is, if a woman who is the mistress of her home and queen of her home is made to share that home with another woman. If that is so and if that situation is allowed to continue, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is meaningless and sheer nonsense to talk about the rights of women. And I do say that we are, in fact, asking the House today to approve a very important piece of legislation which we can, in all modesty, claim to be a charter for the women of Singapore.