Sir, since this very important Bill requires the police to do so many things, I feel it is necessary for me to say something right at the outset. Sir, family violence of any degree, whether it is an intimidation or actual physical abuse, should not be taken lightly. The Ministry of Home Affairs and the Police do not condone such behaviour. As a society, we should prevent and deter such occurrences and protect the victims. It is not just a concern of breach of peace in a neighbourhood or of physical injuries being caused. More importantly, domestic violence, if left unchecked, can quickly lead to a breakdown of the family unit. It affects not just the two parties in disagreement, but also the children, as Dr Soin mentioned. If a child sees heated quarrels and physical abuse constantly, he or she may become predisposed to violent behaviour in adult life. We should not allow this to happen. We do not pretend that such a problem does not exist in our society. It is an age-old problem in all societies. No society today has eliminated this totally. There is also no evidence to suggest that those countries which resorted to legal responses are more successful in dealing with it. While we recognise that family violence does take place in some homes in Singapore, we should not exaggerate the scale and the extent of the problem. Nevertheless, I agree that more can be done to minimise it and to help families in distress. The question is what and how. In this light, let me laud Dr Soin's effort in drafting this Bill. She has done a good job at it. But whilst we must be firm in dealing with such cases of family violence, we should not be heavy-handed in dealing with a matter that involves emotions and family relationships. We should not hastily or mindlessly apply the full intrusive and coercive force of the law when this may not be the best course of action in the interest of the family. Some Singaporeans already complain that Singapore is overly regulated. Do we want another separate piece of legislation that calls on the Police to intrude into the family's living room, bedroom, or kitchen to deal with a family dispute whenever one is reported? Or to make a value judgment as to who is right or wrong in as complex a matter as a dispute between spouses? I will take it as a compliment that our Police Force has been asked to intervene in such private and personal matters as family disputes, as Dr Soin would have them do. The public's trust and confidence in the Police speaks well of the Police as an objective and impartial law enforcement agency. But are they the best people or in the best position to do this? Dr Soin thinks that the Police currently has insufficient powers to investigate and to deal with cases where only simple hurt is caused. This is simply not true. The Police does have powers to deal with these cases. It can investigate simple hurt cases. It can warn or even prosecute the offending party under the Penal Code for the offence of Voluntarily Causing Hurt. In practice, when called to the scene of the family violence, the Police officer will intervene and separate the parties, warn the abusing party for his or her behaviour and breach of peace, if necessary. If a complaint is made at the Neighbourhood Police Post (NPP), the NPP will interview the complainant, warn the abusing party, if necessary, and advise the victim of the options open to him or her to seek legal protection. Where grievous hurt is caused, the Police will prosecute. Where only simple hurt is caused, the Police will warn or even prosecute the abuser if the circumstances warrant it, for example, in repeat cases. In 1994, Police took prosecution action in 14 cases of voluntarily causing hurt out of the 3,625 cases of domestic violence reported. In seven of these 14 cases, the victims later decided not to proceed against the accused in court. The prosecution had to respect their wishes in order not to worsen the situation at home. But you can imagine that a great deal of resources was wasted in these cases when the complainants later decided not to go ahead in bringing the culprits to court. You can also imagine the frustration of the investigation officer. But the Police had to respect their decision because it is important to keep the family intact. In the remaining seven cases, the accused persons were given prison sentences ranging from one week to six months. Let me just quote a couple of these cases. In one case, the accused punched his mother, ie, the victim, on the shoulder. The victim's brother intervened to stop any further assault from taking place. Both parties refused to heed the Police advice at the scene to resolve the matter amicably. The victim appeared to be in imminent danger of further assault. The Police then intervened. The accused was charged in Court and sentenced to one week's imprisonment. In the second case, the accused assaulted his wife, ie, the victim, after an argument over an alleged extramarital affair of the victim. The accused, who smelt of alcohol on the arrival of the Police, was alleged to have kicked the victim on her stomach and her body. It was later determined that she did not sustain any serious injury. The victim appeared to be in imminent danger of further assault and the Police intervened. The accused was charged in Court and was given six months' imprisonment. So the Police does take action even on simple hurt cases when the situation justifies. But the Police does not warn or prosecute every case as a matter of routine because family disputes are by nature complex. They involve emotions and relationships among people in the same family. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for a Police officer to establish which party is right or wrong when he arrives at the scene. Indeed, in a family dispute situation, both parties may each have varying degrees of fault. The origin of the problem could have occurred a long time ago, or over a petty matter which either party could or would not take full responsibility for. It could also have been an accumulation of many incidents and neither party is completely right or wrong. Let me take this opportunity to quote from a note sent to me by the Society Against Family Violence about this complexity of family relationship. It says here: `In the literature reviewing the process before, during and after an abusive situation, the abused women are not always portrayed as vulnerable or in a state of trauma. They are often equally violent. Family violence must be examined interactively, both parties having to take responsibilities for contributing to the fight. Abusive relationship is like an onion with many layers of forces working in competition against each other and in many strands of meanings, memories and feelings. Once we look at abuse in relational terms, we begin to take some blame of the men and return some responsibility back to the women to reach a balanced therapeutic management in the recovery process of the family. Ignoring such understanding reflects a lack of understanding of the complex emotions in the twining victims of violence.' This part which I quoted is not in the article that was published in today's Straits Times written by Ms Claire Chiang but it is the same note that she sent to me. So under such circumstances, for a Police officer to intervene in every case, even if it is only to give a warning, would be inappropriate and heavy-handed, and may be accused of being biased. This is in fact what clause 13(1) requires the Police to do. It may be even counter-productive as Police involvement is likely to aggravate the distress in the family. There must be other ways to deal with the situation to address the root cause of the problem, eg, referring to a counselling body. Therefore the issue is not giving more powers to the Police since they already have these powers, but whether the heavy hand of the law or the Police ought to intervene in every case where flexibility and great sensitivity is required. In many developed countries, policies and strategies have been introduced which have emphasised legal and police intervention to address family violence. Yet the assessment generally is that the legal responses can be blunt instruments and counter-productive in a number of cases. The belief in most societies, including ours, is that the family is and should remain our basic social institution. Strengthening and supporting the family should therefore be the primary objective of community-based preventive programmes. Sir, Dr Soin also appears to think that the Government is not doing enough to address the problem. Is that really so? Since April last year, an inter-agency Work Group on Spousal Violence was formed by my Ministry to recommend measures to improve and coordinate the management of spousal violence cases and to find innovative ways in dealing with them. Here I would give credit to Dr Soin for the impetus in setting up this Work Group because after the last Committee of Supply debate when the subject was raised, I asked my Ministry to look into ways and means of dealing with this problem and I established this Work Group. Hence the Work Group was set up with representatives from MCD, Police, Ministry of Health and the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations (SCWO) to seriously study how we should cope with this problem. A year later in March 1995, the Work Group in its progress report to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Community Development recommended that: Firstly, conflict resolution be introduced into the Police management of domestic violence on the ground. The component of conflict resolution would involve the VWOs and would be coordinated by MCD. So we started a pilot project in the Ang Mo Kio Police Division in April this year. I will say more about this afterwards. Secondly, priority was given to the preparation of medical reports for court purposes and a revised medical form be used to enable the court to issue a Personal Protection Order (PPO) immediately on application by the victims; Thirdly, the training needs of all service providers be reviewed. The subject of domestic violence would be included in the training syllabus for Police Officers; Fourthly, a database on domestic violence cases be built up to facilitate policy formulation; and Fifthly, the current public education efforts be improved to increase public awareness of the problem and the assistance available to them. So these recommendations are very useful. As MCD was at that time reviewing also the Women's Charter, the Work Group recommended that MCD introduce provisions to strengthen the protection given to victims of spousal violence by attaching powers of arrest to all PPOs in the first instance, introducing compulsory counselling for abusers if the situation demands, and specifying the penalties for breach of PPOs. In short, the Work Group has addressed quite a number of the main provisions of this Family Violence Bill. I should also mention that at the operational level, the CID has a Women and Family Violence Committee to discuss operational issues concerning the investigation of rape, molest and domestic violence cases. This forum which includes representatives from the SCWO and various Heads of Investigations of Police Divisions discusses such matters as the use of more female police officers and the special training of investigators for handling such cases. It also discusses specific cases of child abuse, rape and family violence. This Committee was formed in 1992 when it was then called the Rape Management Committee. But in November 1994, it expanded its agenda to include also molest and family violence cases. Sir, let me now say a few words about this pilot project which introduces conflict resolution to the handling of spousal violence cases reported to the Police. The project is being carried out at Ang Mo Kio Police Division and involves five NPPs, namely, Cheng San, Chong Boon, Ang Mo Kio, Teck Ghee and Kebun Bahru and two Volunteer Welfare Organisations (VWOs), namely, Ang Mo Kio (Family) Service Centre and HELP Family Service Centre. The pilot project has been on-going since April this year. A preliminary report put up by Police HQ indicates that in the period 17th April 1995 to 16th October 1995, the five NPPs recorded a total of 68 cases of spousal violence. Of these, 18 (or 26%) were referred to the two family service centres for counselling. In the remaining 50 cases, three were undergoing counselling, six had reconciled and 41 turned down offers of counselling. Of the 41 victims who turned down counselling, 13 indicated that they were filing for divorce whilst the vast majority did not want any third party intervention because they made their report only for the purpose of record. Of the 18 cases referred to the VWOs for counselling, two are repeat cases and the victims are still undergoing counselling. But they have refused to have their spouses prosecuted. One of them was offered temporary shelter by the VWO but she declined. Of the 18 cases referred for counselling, the VWOs have reported good progress made on four cases, satisfactory progress on 10 and the other four cases were terminated by the victims. This pilot project shows promise as a constructive community-oriented approach to the issue of family violence. It has, however, revealed that in a large majority of cases, victims made police reports only for record purposes, some to buttress their case for a divorce. Some others simply did not want to involve a third party, ie, the counsellors, in their problems. The two family service centres involved in the pilot project are very supportive and I thank them for that. But in their feedback, they have expressed some concern that if the case load increases significantly, they would not have sufficient trained counsellors to sustain the programme. Indeed, I see this as a major constraint in implementing Dr Soin's proposal on compulsory counselling for the abuser and the abused if the abuser does not want to be prosecuted. Given the Bill's approach to make family violence a seizable offence, all this will demand a huge amount of counselling resources. Singapore today simply does not have enough qualified and experienced counsellors to cope with this demand as they are also needed to counsel other types of cases, for example, juvenile delinquents, drug abusers, and so on. And petitioners like these two family service centres and the association against family violence should know well enough. MCD and my Ministry support the recommendations of this Work Group. These, together with the pilot project, offer a conciliatory approach to family violence. The Family Violence Bill, on the other hand, seeks to involve Police at the very outset, leans towards an adversarial if not a combative approach. The Bill also has the effect of criminalising family violence. Dr Soin may say, no, not quite. But let me elaborate. Firstly, clause 9(1) of the Bill makes the commission of an act of family violence a specific offence. Such acts include even the "causing of harassment with intent to cause anguish to a family member". Offenders, even first timers, can be jailed (clause 9(1)). Is this what the people want? Can we imagine what will happen to the family if the offending party is jailed for abusing the victim even the first time round? Secondly, clause 13(1) empowers the Police to arrest an offender without an order from the Magistrate and without a warrant of arrest. This amounts to making family violence a seizable offence which is what the Bill is intended to do, and just like offences as theft, robbery, housebreaking and voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Is it necessary to go this far? Thirdly, clause 13(1) also obliges the Police to investigate every complaint whenever information is received or whenever the complaint is made. Currently in none of our present laws is the Police required to investigate every matter reported to the Police. The Police can exercise discretion and it does so wisely. When the Police carries out an investigation, it is to establish whether an offence has been committed and to take enforcement action accordingly. That is the meaning of "investigation". Do we really want the Police to investigate every report when it may be better to call a counsellor, or maybe even to leave the matter be if Police investigation would only aggravate the problem? Sir, I do not think we should criminalise family violence. We should leave that to the Penal Code. Perhaps it is not Dr Soin's intention to criminalise family disputes, but this is what the Bill amounts to. Nor should we require by law the Police to intervene and investigate every case and effect an arrest without a Court Order. A typical police constable on the ground is one in his twenties and many are not yet married. In fact, almost half (45%) of our 2,950 junior officers are below 25 years of age. Given the complexity of family violence cases, he will have to refer this case to his Sergeant who is more experienced and mature to consider the circumstances and make the crucial decision whether to arrest and prosecute. This will be the scenario if the Bill becomes law and all acts of family violence become seizable offences. Do we want to use our Police Sergeants to respond to every complaint of family violence at the expense of their attention to crimes on the streets? We should get our priorities right. Or does Dr Soin want to empower our young police constables to investigate and decide whether the abuser and the victim should be sent for counselling? He is under 25 years old. Of course, he knows and is trained to do his job. Indeed, the Police Commissioner has introduced the concept of empowerment to his officers. By this, police officers on the ground are encouraged to adopt a "take charge" attitude and exercise initiative and responsibility where appropriate. However, there are situations where judicious restraint is called for and family dispute is one of them. Sir, Dr Soin's Bill also covers other family members, for example, children and the elderly. Our society does not condone spousal violence; similarly, we also do not condone mistreatment or abuse of children and the elderly. Children deserve special protection; the elderly, our respect. In protecting children against family violence, we must, however, not unwittingly blur the difference between real abuse and disciplinary measures such as scolding or parental caning. Although clause 3(2) of the Bill excludes force used on a child "by way of correction", the Bill's wide definition of family violence coupled with making family violence a seizable offence, may in time bring about a situation where parents would think twice before applying disciplinary measures on their children for their own good. This is worsened by the fact that the Bill also encourages reporting of family disputes or violence by members of the public (clause 19). I think members are aware of a case in the USA reported last year in September in The New Paper that a mother slapped her child; somebody complained to the Police, the Police came, arrested the mother and wanted to charge her for abusing the child. But, fortunately, with wisdom, the Police decided eventually to drop the charge. As an Asian society which believes in the strict upbringing of children, we cannot afford to let this happen. Sir, while I understand Dr Soin's passion on the issue of family violence, I do not go along with the Bill's heavy-handed approach in dealing with family violence. Dr Soin quoted a Chinese couplet. It says " " (Sheng bu ru ya men, si bu ru di yu). I think we have to understand the historical and cultural context under which that couplet was framed. In the old days, in the Magistrate's Court in China, the Magistrate was both the judge, the prosecutor and the Police. And of course people at that time also preferred to settle matters on their own through the clansmen and the elders of the clan, rather than to involve a third party like the Magistrate's Court. So it is important to understand that. But today, in Singapore's context, it is different. I think Singaporeans are not afraid of going to the Police. We have our NPPs and community policing. It has been successful for the last 12-13 years. People are very willing to go to the Police whenever they have a complaint to make. And that is seen from the examples dealt with by our NPPs and from the many episodes I heard from my Police Officers. The people are now prepared to go to the Police. So we should not worry about that too much. In fact, to quote another Chinese saying, I think we are also fully aware that " " (Qing guan nan pan jia wu shi), which means that even the most honest judge cannot deal with family matters. There is also another Chinese saying: " " (Jia he wan shi xing), which means that when you have a peaceful and harmonious family, then everything will be peaceful and calm. " " (Jia shuai shi bu ping) means that when you always quarrel, you will never have a harmonious family. I think in our context, we will rather have Jia he wan shi xing to deal with this problem ourselves, rather than to go to the Police. Sir, family disputes occur in diverse situations and the needs of the family in each situation vary because of the relationships and emotions involved. For this reason, the parties involved should be handled with understanding and sensitivity, and not always with the cold and strong arm of the law. I prefer a more mediatory and conciliatory approach which gives the family in distress a better chance of resolving its problem, with the Police intervening only in the more serious situations, where there is a breach of court order or where the situation is assessed to likely lead to serious hurt. Amending the Women's Charter along the line recommended by the Work Group offers a better legal framework for addressing the problem in the best interest of the family and our future generation. At the same time, more should be done by community and social service organisations to understand and analyse the root causes of family violence, and to devise innovative and therapeutic intervention techniques in dealing with such situations. They need to build up their resources to cope with the increasing demand for their service. Finally, more also should be done to strengthen and support the family rather than introducing another wedge to divide it through a separate and new legislation.