This was song to my ears as I have been swimming blindly around on this topic which I have been meaning to write on. It has gone on countless iterations made and un-made after wise counsels from a good cross section of my circle of more opinionated friends consisting of male/female as well as married/singles/divorced. After reading Sandra's article, I was infected with a rush of inspiration on a totally new angle to approach my article. By the way, all these writings are on a pro-bono basis that have no sponsor and I do it as a matter of hobby-craft. It is in that sense quite clear of conflict of interest normally except that I am a married male which could be a potential conflict of interest in this rare case.
A democratic society like Singapore that has equality as a cornerstone of our core value should never have a partisan act called Women's Charter without a suitable Men's Charter also in place. Perhaps there is cause for it to be deemed unconstitutional and struck off. To even think that it survived the passage of the legislative due process then to become law can be quite un-thinkable. Pardon my strong language and it is not to be taken literally but as a figure of speech as I am cognizant of the social climate of Singapore around 1961 when the act was passed into law warranted it.
These words sound very derogative and perhaps not respecting of the leaders then who were responsible for the legislative due process then but no dis-respect is intended. Or perhaps quite un-Singapore in a more colloquial sense but allow me to put things back in the balance. I am not an outright bigot that equality only exists in nirvana and all effort in achieving it on mother earth is useless. Or to borrow a favorite phraseology of my friend that “resistant is futile”. On the reverse, it is my firm believe that society as a whole should pursue equality in access fearlessly and not cave in on the reasoning that it is not attainable. Or perhaps delegate it to the 'invisible hands' of Adam Smith to get the job done not that free and sound economic basis is not tenable but we have to use the right tools for the right job.
There is always room for a partisan act like the Women's Charter and it can be something of permanence like the children or young people's act in many countries to protect children and young people which would never achieve equalization on its own as we live in a predominantly adult dominated world for lack of a more elegant and appropriate term.
On the other hand, there is room for partisan act as a type of affirmative action with a discernible time horizon for equilibrium equality or self maintaining equality to mushroom. On the same note, I am a skeptic of such partisan acts in the name of achieving equality over time through a serious of measures. Look around the countries that have such practices like the first nation act etc. to help the under class. These acts normally end up as permanent crutches that leaves the under class permanently dis-advantaged as they grow accustomed to these privileges that is enough to sustain them to a level of contentment and not further progress. You could say that the therapeutic treatment to get them well has somehow become an opium that they cannot do without. This normally excavate into generational spiral of being disadvantaged. In the longer term, it might also lead to the general populace to question the need to support their habit and can lead so societal upheaval if not handed properly. There is no easy answer to these issues but we need to tackle them very pragmatically and normally a broad brush legislative or policy have difficulties in being as effective due to the limited flexibility that can normally be built into legislatures and policies. There is a role that NGOs, humanitarian and charity could play a more effectively. Normally, there is an inverse relationship between the effective tax burden and populace participation in charity. Simply put, if the government tax more, they should do more socially. The comparison between Europe and USA in the 1980s is a case in point.
Along this line of reasoning, isn't it high time that the Women' Charter be re-looked at fundamentally or perhaps be renamed into a more gender-neutral name like what Sandra has listed in her article. Women, in their quest for equality cannot on the the same breadth argue that they need a stronger crutch because they are weaker now than before. I am very sure that the various measures of equality will speak to the contrary. I would support the continuation of the Women's Charter as man and woman are equal but are made differently and therefore have slightly different roles in society. This is not a clarion call for 'Me Tarzan, You Jane' sort of maxim but man and woman are functionally different on some planes that will not change in the foreseeable future like only woman can take on the gestation role in pro-creation.
On the point of marriage being a sort of special class of social contract with some vital differences like:
- Potential off springs from such union become an integral part of this contract not by choice as the contract pre-dates them in most circumstances.
- It is a template contract made by the law of the land. In Singapore, it is either the Syriah or civil court.
I would not open the can of worms on the validity of pre-nuptial agreements under Singapore law.
I use to joke with my friends in the legal fraternity that in nirvana, lawyers only need to perform priestly duties to bless that new contracts that they have a hand in making. However, more often than not, when things go south on the contract, settlement and litigation lawyers are there also to perform their priestly duties but more akin to last rites metamorpjically speaking.
Lawyers always draw out the pomp and circumstances leading to the breakdown from their client perspective as ethically as possible. The opposing lawyers would try to out do each other to occupy the higher moral ground for an advantage just like soldiers would do so physically to occupy a higher vantage position on the battle field. Such posturing is important as it is one of key factors in who is whiter than white and who is darker than Darth Vader in StarWars speak. In reality, it is not the opposite end of the axis but the different tone of grey that makes the case.
Under the current Women's Charter, this attainment of moral high ground seems like a due process that has little or no girth as grounds for divorce can be as flippant as incompatibility for god knows what is the real reason. I am glad that HDB and the courts have decided to open their eyes and reduce the number of divorces on grounds of non-consummation because the legal marriage was to be legible to apply for a HDB housing that takes time to realize and couples could have fallen out of love without going through a customary marriage rite. I believe that the law is very clear that a marriage registered under the law is binding whether or not it is followed by a customary marriage rite.
Divorce laws can be widely divided into jurisdiction that are 'No Fault' or otherwise. It is difficult to debate on the merits of each type but the execution is important as it affects the outcome. More often than not, when a divorce is in motion, the possibility of saving the marriage is next to nil and what matters most are the terms of separation.
The compounding factor that makes divorce in Singapore especially for man in general more painful is that the settlement is ruled by the Women's Charter and has little or no regard to the circumstances leading to the divorce especially if the party in default is the woman. This would make it look like double jeopardy of sort as the innocent party not only suffers an emotional and social set back but also financially to continue supporting the ex-wife and losing custody of their children
I believe that the groundswell in the number of non-conformance by husbands in discharging their court sanctioned maintenance to their ex-wife could be an indication to either the judiciary in their interpretation of the law and/or the legislative responsible for making the laws that 'justice' in how the common man sees it is not serve by the current framework and either of both would have to be tweak.
Safe Harbor
Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copy Rights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.
