Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the honourable members, Mdm Halimah Yacob, Associate Professor Fatimah Lateef and Associate Professor Paulin Straughan for their support and relevant comments on the International Child Abduction Bill. Let me address the points they have raised.
Considerations of Singapore’s accession to the Convention
Associate Professor Paulin Straughan asked why the Ministry took some time before deciding to accede to the Convention. Firstly we had to ensure that it is the right thing to do; and secondly, that we have the mechanisms in place to implement the Convention as we take our international commitments very seriously. We have also consulted stakeholders.
Singapore Central Authority
Madam Halimah Yacob has asked why the Bill provided for the Minister to be appointed as the Central Authority. I will like to clarify that it is the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports which will be appointed as the Singapore Central Authority. The Authority is a new department set up within my Ministry, which I will oversee. My role as Minister is to ensure that the implementation of the Convention is in accordance with the law passed by the Parliament.
Application for the return of the wrongfully removed/retained child
Associate Professor Fatimah Lateef asked how we will deal with applications from overseas parents for the return of their child abducted to Singapore. As I have mentioned earlier in my speech, under the Convention, the Central Authority of a Contracting State is obliged to assist these parents. These parents may apply to the SCA for its assistance to facilitate the discovery and voluntary return of the child, and where necessary, for the care and protection of the child. SCA will also advise the parents on the legal procedures to apply for the return of the child. Conversely, parents in Singapore can apply to the SCA and the SCA will advise and assist them in making an application to the Central Authority of the overseas Contracting State.
When Singapore signs on to the Convention, we will be the 83rd Contracting State. With 83 Contracting States, there will be 83 legal systems. Under the Convention, Contracting states have the flexibility in how they implement the intent of the Convention. The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law monitors the operations of the Convention in various contracting states via, for example, yearly questionnaires on Contracting States’ implementation of the Convention. Special Commissions meetings are organised by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law to review the operations of the Convention. The Permanent Bureau will also ensure that there is alignment to the key objectives of the Convention and that the spirit of the Convention has been fulfilled.
The Convention seeks to protect children under the age of 16 years old from the harmful effects of parental abduction and retention across international boundaries. For a successful application, children must be below the age of 16 years when the application is made to the Central Authority. The age cut-off is on the premise that children below 16 years are more vulnerable and in need of protection. For other exceptional cases, like the example given by Associate Professor Fatimah of a 17 year old mentally subnormal child, parents can still apply to the Courts under current domestic laws if there are custody or access issues to be determined. In other words, discretion still lies with the Family Court.
A person who is eligible to apply for the return of a wrongfully removed or retained child, will include the person whose rights of custody have been breached or any other person with sufficient interest in the matter. It is at the Court’s discretion as to whether the person making the application has sufficient interest.
Madam Halimah noted that the term “habitual residence” is not defined in the Bill. In line with the practice of the Convention and Contracting States, the term “habitual residence” is not defined to allow the Courts discretion to determine the child’s country of habitual residence based on evidence adduced. To correct a common misperception, the country of habitual residence does not refer to a child’s domicile or citizenship but factors in the child’s personal ties to a place. Relevant factors that the Courts may consider when determining the state of habitual residence of a child include: the age of the child (the Courts may consider the child’s views if he is old enough), the child’s cultural affiliations (for example, the language he speaks), or the place that he has the most links to (for example, in which country he had been in school the longest). Upon the child’s return to the country of habitual residence, the Courts in that country will thereafter use its domestic laws to determine custody rights.
Welfare of the Singaporean Parent and Child
Associate Professor Paulin enquired as to the number of reported cases where Singaporean wives had to flee from abusive foreign spouses. From 2007 to 2009, there was a yearly average of 17 personal protection orders made by Singaporean wives against their foreign husbands. Obviously this only refers to those living in Singapore. I do not have the statistics of Singaporean women applying for personal protection orders overseas.
Associate Professor Paulin also wanted to know how Singaporeans who are victims of abuse could be helped in the event that they face such a situation. Singaporeans who face spousal abuse can seek advice and counselling support from social workers in the Family Service Centres. If there is evidence of abuse, our child protection and family violence mechanisms within the ministry and other relevant ministries will be activated. Victims of abuse who need shelter while the Court proceedings are on-going can also be housed in a crisis shelter until their family crisis is over.
As I have mentioned in my earlier speech, the Convention recognises the need to protect children and take into account circumstances where the child should not be returned to his country of habitual residence. These circumstances include situations where there is a grave risk that the return would subject the child to physical or psychological harm. If there is a lack of evidence of grave risk of harm and the child has to be returned, the Singapore Central Authority will work with the overseas Central Authority to ensure that protective factors are in place. This will be a multi-agency and trans-border effort to secure the safety and protection of the child.
Under the Convention, one of the other exceptions where the child should not be returned is if the child has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take into account his or her views and objections to being returned. The Courts will certainly listen to the child’s views, taking into account his or her age and maturity.
There was another question on on-going trans-border custody disputes pending judiciary outcomes. For families who are currently undergoing Court proceedings, they will not be affected as Article 35 of the Convention states that there will be no retrospective effect.
Parity of assistance for Singaporeans and Foreigners
With regard to the issue of parity of assistance rendered between parties involved in domestic abductions and those in trans-border abductions, I will like to remind members that the objective of the Convention is not about returning the child to the parent whose custody rights have been breached; instead it is about returning the child to the country of habitual residence, so that the relevant Court can determine custody issues. In the case where the child has not been removed from Singapore, this issue does not arise as the child is still with his or her parents in Singapore.
Madam Halimah also asked if we were providing more rights to foreigners than Singaporeans as legal aid will be made available to an applicant from a contracting state who applies to the court for an order. I would like to assure members of the House that this will not be the case. Applicants applying for legal aid and advice under the Convention have to fulfill the means and merits test required by the Legal Aid Bureau, which is also required for local domestic cases. There is thus no difference in treatment between Singaporeans and foreigners who are involved in trans-border custodial disputes and who require legal aid.
Conclusion
Sir, in conclusion, I would like to emphasise that being a party to the Convention provides an avenue for expeditious and clear resolution of such trans-border custodial disputes which is in line with Singapore’s commitment to protecting the best interests of children. By acceding to the Convention, we hope that this will deter parents from taking matters into their own hand and making unilateral decisions relating to the welfare of their child.
Mr Speaker Sir, I beg to move.